MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

Oh, come on. Are you serious with this? You're going to combine two leagues in order to prove your point? That's just plain silly.

You're right -- combining two leagues together for an analysis like this would be silly.  That's precisely my point.  So is combining eight teams together to draw a conclusion when the answer lies with two of them.

... except for when it doesn't. See below.

And yes, the CCIW is a discreet unit, blah blah blah, but so is Millikin.  And so is North Park.   And therein lies your answer.

No, herein lies the answer:

Position	Twelve-year CCIW non-con	CCIW non-con	2011-12 season
in standings	win pct, 2000 thru 2011	win pct, 2011-12	deviation
First place	.777	.571	- .206
Second place	.779	.786	+ .007
Third place	.789	.813	+ .024
Fourth place	.766	.909	+ .143
Fifth place	.644	.545	- .099
Sixth place	.679	.545	- .134
Seventh place	.576	.364	- .212
Eighth place	.489	.091	- .398

A year-to-year reading of these numbers shows that one or two of the top four positions usually shows a dramatic uptick like the one that fourth place had this year, as those tend to be the teams from the first division that don't make the D3 tourney (which, far more often than not, drags down winning percentage for the team(s) that make it in; in this case, it was Augie and its 10-1 non-con record). The numbers posted by the second place (Wheaton) and third place (Illinois Wesleyan) teams are more the norm.

Notice the dramatic drop in the #1 spot (North Central). It's almost the same size as that of the #7 spot (North Park), belying your claim that NPU and MU are the sole culprits here. The drops at #5 (Carthage) and #6 (Elmhurst) are quite substantial as well, Elmhurst's deficit being about two-thirds the size of NCC's and NPU's. And Millikin is in a whole 'nother category all by itself, as it had a deviation almost twice as large as that of North Central and North Park. The CCIW's last-place team has averaged just a shade below the break-even mark in non-conference play since the turn of the millennium, and that's including MU's 1-9 non-con record in 2010-11; Millikin's plunge was right off the cliff yet again by the standards of last-place CCIW teams.

Your claim that the only reason why the CCIW had a low non-con winning percentage this season was because NPU and MU dragged it down all by themselves is without statistical merit.

(I'm reasonably certain that Mike Krizman lists details on these schools' individual performance on the conference website.  )

Yes, and I'd like to thank Mike for helping to supply the ammo to make my point.

Yes, I did identify that NCC's injuries contributed to the pre-conference woes of the Cardinals. But, as I and others have said on here a million times, you play with what you have. Those losses count just as much as the losses that the Cards suffered when they were at full strength. We're not talking about the why of the CCIW's being down (and, in this case, the micro aspect of that regarding the below-par non-con performance of the #1 team), we're simply talking about the statistical results. Extenuating circumstances or not, the Cards did finish well underneath CCIW norms in terms of non-con record.

You may not be talking about the why, but, with all due respect, there are blindingly obvious extenuating circumstances that explain the Cards' subpar start, and these circumstances suggest that the record alone is not the best indicator of this team's relative strength.  To ignore these other factors is willfully obtuse.  You are seriously suggesting that a sweet sixteen team is evidence that the conference is down because they lost a few game while at less than full strength?  Then I guess from your perspective .590 is the only acceptable metric of conference strength.  I prefer to live over here in multivariate-ville.

OK, fine. Let's talk about the "extenuating circumstances," then. For one thing, they're not extenuating. North Central had a depth problem. You know it, I know it, we all talked about it incessantly in this room for four months. Todd Raridon basically used a seven-man rotation in a league (and an era in general) in which eight- or nine-man rotations are the norm, and ten-man rotations are not uncommon, either. Kevin Gillespie and Derek Raridon were first and second in the league in minutes per game this year, and Aaron Tiknis was in the top ten as well. In fact, those three played so many minutes that they each saw more court time this season than did anyone who played for Illinois Wesleyan, a team that played two more games in 2011-12 than did the Cardinals. What makes this even more eye-opening is the fact that Raridon missed two games, and Gillespie and Tiknis a game apiece, to injuries.

Todd Raridon did a marvelous job of coaching this year. Ron Rose may have taken his team to the Final Four, and, as I said two weeks ago, he did a fantastic job in March. But I'd argue that Raridon did the best coaching job of anyone in the CCIW in 2011-12. He stole minutes by slipping in the sub-standard guys from the bench when he could, and he never left a timeout on the scoreboard whenever possible. That, added to the main point of it all -- North Central had the best starting five in the league this season -- resulted in a CCIW title and a CCIW tourney title to go with it. But it wore down the Cardinals. Those heavy kinds of minutes add up over the course of a long season. I watched the entire NCC vs. Wittenberg game online, and it was clear that the Cardinals were gassed by the end; just about every one of their missed shots in the second half was short-rimmed, even the bunnies (Wittenberg's size and physicality had a lot to do with that, too). In retrospect, it's no surprise that IWU got two rounds deeper than did NCC; in March the Titans had much, much fresher legs due to their depth than did the Cardinals.

But depth (or lack thereof) isn't an "extenuating circumstance." It's part of the overall equation of a basketball team's ability. NCC's lack of depth, which eventually caused the Cards to bow out of the tourney (Wittenberg fans may disagree with me, but I think that a fully-rested NCC team would've wiped the floor with the Tigers), also played a major role in those early-season defeats, as Mark asserted several times over the course of the season. (Mark would also be the first to admit that the Cardinals just plain performed badly at times in November and December, too.)

To sum up, what we had this year was a champion with an Achilles heel. That's no slam on the Cardinals; in fact, I think it makes their achievements more impressive, because it looked like they were performing a triathlon while everyone else merely had to run a marathon. But, nevertheless, their flaw shows up in their non-con record and gives an explanation as to why NCC contributed to the dramatic slide in the CCIW's non-con record in 2011-12.

And now, back to our regularly-scheduled twisted-testicle conversation.

[kiko]

Yes, I said I was done with this but this is the second time you've told me I said something that I plainly did not say, so let me draw your attention to a couple of things.

For one, let's start with your strawman:

Your claim that the only reason why the CCIW had a low non-con winning percentage this season was because NPU and MU dragged it down all by themselves is without statistical merit.

Here is my original comment on this topic:

</LURK>

While the CCIW's non-conference winning percentage was at a low ebb last year as well as this year, a look inside the numbers shows that this was driven by three factors:

1. Millikin has been historically bad.  I won't belabor the myriad of evidence to this, but it put a drag on the conference's overall performance.
2. In the past two years, North Central has turned in the two lowest out-of-conference winning percentages of any CCIW champion in recent memory.
3. The two seventh-place teams -- Elmhurst and North Park -- had winning percentages that were well below the typical norms for seventh place teams.

In short:  most of the conference performed at levels reasonably close to historical norms.  But the top and bottom drove the aggregate winning percentage into the sub-basement.

So I'm happy to see you looking at something more granular than .590! .590! as you consider this question, but I'm a little lost as to where you are reading that I am claiming NPU and Millikin were solely to blame for dragging the conference winning percentage down all by themselves.  Very clearly, from my first comments on this topic, I called out North Central as one of the culprits as well.

For two, let's look at the chart you created.  You suggest that Elmhurst and Carthage were below norms by a level that is "quite substantial".  But remember that teams in positions five through eight play 11 out-of-conference games.  So each game influences .091 of that team's winning percentage.

You said:

Position	Twelve-year CCIW non-con	CCIW non-con	2011-12 season
in standings	win pct, 2000 thru 2011	win pct, 2011-12	deviation
Fifth place	.644	.545	- .099
Sixth place	.679	.545	- .134

So one point of clarification on this: your numbers differ slightly from those I ran.  Initially I assumed this was because I included 2011-12 in the baseline set of numbers and you quarantined that year and compared it to the prior years.  (Either approach is fair game from an analytic standpoint.)  But when I took out the current year and QC'ed a few of the numbers, yours still don't match what the CCIW website shows if you simply take, for instance, the eight-place listed team on the website's conference standings and say "you are number eight!".   I assume this means you went to the trouble of figuring out the tiebreakers if, for instance, #7 and #8 were both 3-11.  If so, you're a more patient person than I am.  (I don't like to spend that much time hanging around Decatur.)  If not, I am curious as to why they are different.  In any event, regardless of whose numbers you want to proclaim as teh awesomeness, they are directionally very similar.

So pick your favorite set of numbers and let's circle back to that .091 number, and look at the degree to which fifth and sixth vary from the benchmark level.  For fifth, by your numbers, it is roughly one game.  For sixth, it is roughly a game and a half.  My numbers show both slots off by roughly one game.

There will inevitably be variance in how teams perform relative to historical norms, and the question becomes "what degree of variance is enough of an outlier to flag it as a significant contributor to causality?"  This is a qualitative judgment.  You suggest both #5 and #6 reach this threshold; I do not believe they do -- especially #5.  North Park's variance is (.212), or roughly 2.25 games.  I believe that is enough of a contributor to flag.

By the way, waaaay back in December, when you first asserted that the conference was down, you pinned some of the blame on the middle:

The CCIW is 51-36 (.586), which is really disappointing.

Barring a great postseason performance from the CCIW's representative(s) (it may not be plural this season), this will be the first time since 1997-98 that the CCIW finishes the season under the .600 mark in non-conference play.

Last season the league barely cleared .600 (56-37, .602), and the only reason it made it up and over that mark was because of Augie's Elite Eight run. After three straight years over .700, including the CCIW's best non-con performance ever (2008-09's .793 mark), the league has nosedived precipitously over the past three seasons, going further and further down each time. Last year and the year before I chalked it up to the bottom of the conference really collapsing, Millikin and Elmhurst in particular. This year, however, the entire middle tier of the league hovered around .500 outside the circuit. Only three teams posted the sort of 10-1 and 9-2 records that were typical of the league as a whole only a few short years ago.

The CCIW is really slipping. I haven't entirely figured out why yet.

I think the numbers you just ran suggest that those 10-1 and 9-2 records in the lower echelon of the conference were outliers and not typical performance.


On to three: North Central.

Let's start with where we agree.  One, the Cards had a tremendous season.  Two, they were woefully short-handed throughout the season, and it hurt them badly in the November/December timeframe.  If you're looking for someone to argue that the Merner Men didn't have depth problems, you'll have to look elsewhere -- I have not and will not argue that point.  And three, Todd Raridon did a fantastic job of making lemonade out of the limited depth he had.

The question on the table that started this conversation revolved around whether the conference was down.  It wasn't "is the conference's winning percentage down"?  The latter is an easy question to answer with a bunch of numbers.  The first, though, is a qualitative question.  In most seasons the non-conference winning percentages are a reasonable proxy to answer the question.  This year, I would submit, they are not.  And your soliloquy on the Wittenberg loss suggests that you agree with this:

I watched the entire NCC vs. Wittenberg game online, and it was clear that the Cardinals were gassed by the end; just about every one of their missed shots in the second half was short-rimmed, even the bunnies (Wittenberg's size and physicality had a lot to do with that, too). In retrospect, it's no surprise that IWU got two rounds deeper than did NCC; in March the Titans had much, much fresher legs due to their depth than did the Cardinals.

But depth (or lack thereof) isn't an "extenuating circumstance." It's part of the overall equation of a basketball team's ability. NCC's lack of depth, which eventually caused the Cards to bow out of the tourney (Wittenberg fans may disagree with me, but I think that a fully-rested NCC team would've wiped the floor with the Tigers), also played a major role in those early-season defeats, as Mark asserted several times over the course of the season. (Mark would also be the first to admit that the Cardinals just plain performed badly at times in November and December, too.)

Remember, we're talking about how the multidirectionals fared in a third-round tournament game against a team that reached the elite eight.  North Central had a chance to tie the game at the buzzer.  Is that evidence that the conference is down?  Then give me a down season any year.

You want to argue that North Central contributed to the CCIW's lower-than-normal non-conference winning percentage?  I'm right there with you and have not argued otherwise.  But if you want to argue that the Sons of Bill Warden are evidence of -- or a contributor to -- the conference being down this year?  I don't find that to be a credible argument.  What I do find credible is that North Park's two-plus game gap versus historical benchmarks and Millikin's 20,000 leagues below the historical norm performance were signs that those teams were down.  Two through six, as I laid out earlier, tracked consistent with expectations.  And North Central turned in the mother of all outlier seasons because its final position in the national picture is miles removed from its 10-6 out-of-conference record.

Lastly, here is a bonus for those who waded through this without reaching for the Excedrin. 

[NCF]

One definitely needs a bonus anytime they get through a Sageristic post without reaching for the Alleve.

[oldnuthin]

Yes, I said I was done with this but this is the second time you've told me I said something that I plainly did not say, so let me draw your attention to a couple of things.

For one, let's start with your strawman:

Your claim that the only reason why the CCIW had a low non-con winning percentage this season was because NPU and MU dragged it down all by themselves is without statistical merit.

Here is my original comment on this topic:

</LURK>

While the CCIW's non-conference winning percentage was at a low ebb last year as well as this year, a look inside the numbers shows that this was driven by three factors:

1. Millikin has been historically bad.  I won't belabor the myriad of evidence to this, but it put a drag on the conference's overall performance.
2. In the past two years, North Central has turned in the two lowest out-of-conference winning percentages of any CCIW champion in recent memory.
3. The two seventh-place teams -- Elmhurst and North Park -- had winning percentages that were well below the typical norms for seventh place teams.

In short:  most of the conference performed at levels reasonably close to historical norms.  But the top and bottom drove the aggregate winning percentage into the sub-basement.

So I'm happy to see you looking at something more granular than .590! .590! as you consider this question, but I'm a little lost as to where you are reading that I am claiming NPU and Millikin were solely to blame for dragging the conference winning percentage down all by themselves.  Very clearly, from my first comments on this topic, I called out North Central as one of the culprits as well.

For two, let's look at the chart you created.  You suggest that Elmhurst and Carthage were below norms by a level that is "quite substantial".  But remember that teams in positions five through eight play 11 out-of-conference games.  So each game influences .091 of that team's winning percentage.

You said:

Position	Twelve-year CCIW non-con	CCIW non-con	2011-12 season
in standings	win pct, 2000 thru 2011	win pct, 2011-12	deviation
Fifth place	.644	.545	- .099
Sixth place	.679	.545	- .134

So one point of clarification on this: your numbers differ slightly from those I ran.  Initially I assumed this was because I included 2011-12 in the baseline set of numbers and you quarantined that year and compared it to the prior years.  (Either approach is fair game from an analytic standpoint.)  But when I took out the current year and QC'ed a few of the numbers, yours still don't match what the CCIW website shows if you simply take, for instance, the eight-place listed team on the website's conference standings and say "you are number eight!".   I assume this means you went to the trouble of figuring out the tiebreakers if, for instance, #7 and #8 were both 3-11.  If so, you're a more patient person than I am.  (I don't like to spend that much time hanging around Decatur.)  If not, I am curious as to why they are different.  In any event, regardless of whose numbers you want to proclaim as teh awesomeness, they are directionally very similar.

So pick your favorite set of numbers and let's circle back to that .091 number, and look at the degree to which fifth and sixth vary from the benchmark level.  For fifth, by your numbers, it is roughly one game.  For sixth, it is roughly a game and a half.  My numbers show both slots off by roughly one game.

There will inevitably be variance in how teams perform relative to historical norms, and the question becomes "what degree of variance is enough of an outlier to flag it as a significant contributor to causality?"  This is a qualitative judgment.  You suggest both #5 and #6 reach this threshold; I do not believe they do -- especially #5.  North Park's variance is (.212), or roughly 2.25 games.  I believe that is enough of a contributor to flag.

By the way, waaaay back in December, when you first asserted that the conference was down, you pinned some of the blame on the middle:

The CCIW is 51-36 (.586), which is really disappointing.

Barring a great postseason performance from the CCIW's representative(s) (it may not be plural this season), this will be the first time since 1997-98 that the CCIW finishes the season under the .600 mark in non-conference play.

Last season the league barely cleared .600 (56-37, .602), and the only reason it made it up and over that mark was because of Augie's Elite Eight run. After three straight years over .700, including the CCIW's best non-con performance ever (2008-09's .793 mark), the league has nosedived precipitously over the past three seasons, going further and further down each time. Last year and the year before I chalked it up to the bottom of the conference really collapsing, Millikin and Elmhurst in particular. This year, however, the entire middle tier of the league hovered around .500 outside the circuit. Only three teams posted the sort of 10-1 and 9-2 records that were typical of the league as a whole only a few short years ago.

The CCIW is really slipping. I haven't entirely figured out why yet.

I think the numbers you just ran suggest that those 10-1 and 9-2 records in the lower echelon of the conference were outliers and not typical performance.


On to three: North Central.

Let's start with where we agree.  One, the Cards had a tremendous season.  Two, they were woefully short-handed throughout the season, and it hurt them badly in the November/December timeframe.  If you're looking for someone to argue that the Merner Men didn't have depth problems, you'll have to look elsewhere -- I have not and will not argue that point.  And three, Todd Raridon did a fantastic job of making lemonade out of the limited depth he had.

The question on the table that started this conversation revolved around whether the conference was down.  It wasn't "is the conference's winning percentage down"?  The latter is an easy question to answer with a bunch of numbers.  The first, though, is a qualitative question.  In most seasons the non-conference winning percentages are a reasonable proxy to answer the question.  This year, I would submit, they are not.  And your soliloquy on the Wittenberg loss suggests that you agree with this:

I watched the entire NCC vs. Wittenberg game online, and it was clear that the Cardinals were gassed by the end; just about every one of their missed shots in the second half was short-rimmed, even the bunnies (Wittenberg's size and physicality had a lot to do with that, too). In retrospect, it's no surprise that IWU got two rounds deeper than did NCC; in March the Titans had much, much fresher legs due to their depth than did the Cardinals.

But depth (or lack thereof) isn't an "extenuating circumstance." It's part of the overall equation of a basketball team's ability. NCC's lack of depth, which eventually caused the Cards to bow out of the tourney (Wittenberg fans may disagree with me, but I think that a fully-rested NCC team would've wiped the floor with the Tigers), also played a major role in those early-season defeats, as Mark asserted several times over the course of the season. (Mark would also be the first to admit that the Cardinals just plain performed badly at times in November and December, too.)

Remember, we're talking about how the multidirectionals fared in a third-round tournament game against a team that reached the elite eight.  North Central had a chance to tie the game at the buzzer.  Is that evidence that the conference is down?  Then give me a down season any year.

You want to argue that North Central contributed to the CCIW's lower-than-normal non-conference winning percentage?  I'm right there with you and have not argued otherwise.  But if you want to argue that the Sons of Bill Warden are evidence of -- or a contributor to -- the conference being down this year?  I don't find that to be a credible argument.  What I do find credible is that North Park's two-plus game gap versus historical benchmarks and Millikin's 20,000 leagues below the historical norm performance were signs that those teams were down.  Two through six, as I laid out earlier, tracked consistent with expectations.  And North Central turned in the mother of all outlier seasons because its final position in the national picture is miles removed from its 10-6 out-of-conference record.

Lastly, here is a bonus for those who waded through this without reaching for the Excedrin. 

I just lurk here, as I am a football guy, and just popped over to see if anyone knew who the 2 signings Coach Nadelhoffer was so excited about. If anyone knows, like Titan Q who seems eternally plugged into everything Basketball, I would appreciate any information. But after reading this post it would appear that a padawan sp? learner,Kiko, has become the master.

[NCF]

Titan Celebration Night @The Shirk, tonight 7 p.m.

Smile everyone . . . the Green Weenies are partying!  

Soon a national championship banner at the other end of the Shirk Arena to match the men's one from '97.

Good stuff.

IWU70

So how was the celebration?

[Dennis_Prikkel]

what did GS say?   

Wow - I am impressed at how much one can put on paper (computer) during the wee hours of the morning when the rest of us are snoozing. 

Very impressive - even though I have to admit, other than the numbers (very well done by the way) - the arguments are so repetitive I did not read all the verbage.

I have to admit ypsi that I love a good story - while serious, of course, at the moment of venting - I rate this story as a classic. 

I told my son, who lurks here, that it was a classic - twisted testicles, indeed. 

[iwu70]

Celebration was very nice, enjoyable all 'round.  Perhaps 700-800 there, mostly family members, townies and loyal fans who could not travel, some families with small kids, fans of the teams.  Good comments, speeches by Dennie Bridges, President Wilson, both coaches, and short thank yous and comments by the key seniors on both squads.  Appreciation flowing to parents, coaching staffs, fans and back again with love to the players.  Very pleasant evening.  IWU Pep band, best in the nation, IMHO, there at first, so good music and several renditions of the Titan Fight Song, of course, then the band members running off early for recitals at the IWU Evelyn Chapel of Piano Professor Kent Cook, who is, by the way, a keyboard genius!  I heard the last half of his concert as well, after getting the elders back home to "assisted living."  My 93 year old Mother especially enjoyed Mia Smith's speech, reflections on her team and her tough year facing down cancer . . .  and the comments of the four senior women.  We lived in Pana for a time, as my Dad served the United Methodist Church there, so we have a special affinity for Olivia Lett, who has put Pana on the map here at IWU, to say the least.  Karen Solari and Amy Burton did their awarding winning rap, performed at the Final Four banquet, about "balling on the weekend," with several good references to all the teams vanquished along the way, including Carthage four times!  Olivia Lett, in her remarks, said she was proud, in talking with Jordan Zimmer, to say that this group of seniors was the only group of seniors who will be hanging three banners in the Shirk rafters during their tenure!  (two for the women, one for the men).

It was a fun evening . . . and more well-deserved thanks and recognition to these student-athletes and the coaching staffs.  The IWU crowd was especially proud and appreciative of Lexi Baltes and Nick Anderson winning the special Final Four awards for the student-athlete participating in the Final Fours with the highest GPA.  These fine IWU students won on both sides -- men and women, -- illiciting the comment from AD Bridges that "outstanding students come in all sizes!" (from about 5'7" to 6'9" in this case!).   Amen to that.

A good time was had by all.

Banners, yes, two banners, will be hung in the Shirk rafters during a game this coming late Fall, likely December TBD, and we will celebrate further as the Titan basketball tradition moves forward.  You gotta be optimistic with all the strong sophomore class on the men's side coming back as juniors with all this tourney experience.  And, on the women's side, it's clearly a new mix for sixth, but to me still a reloading, not a rebuilding.  This year was supposed to be the rebuilding year, remember?  Loved the women's Final Four T-Shirts --- with a big printed and loud "We're Back!" on the front, and "And this was supposed to be our rebuilding year" on the back.  Will need to find scoring and some strong bigs, but the pieces and defensive skills are all there for the women to make a good run at six -- CCIW and CCIW tournament championships -- in a row.  Gardner's team now . . . with so many good, skilled and dedicated players back, especially strong on defense -- 5 out of the top 8 rotation from this years championship team coming back.  Newbies and current pine-sitters will no doubt enter the mix.  Again, gotta be optimistic.

On to baseball, softball, golf and track/field.
 
IWU70

[NCF]

Celebration was very nice, enjoyable all 'round.  Perhaps 700-800 there, mostly family members, townies and loyal fans who could not travel, some families with small kids, fans of the teams.  Good comments, speeches by Dennie Bridges, President Wilson, both coaches, and short thank yous and comments by the key seniors on both squads.  Appreciation flowing to parents, coaching staffs, fans and back again with love to the players.  Very pleasant evening.  IWU Pep band, best in the nation, IMHO, there at first, so good music and several renditions of the Titan Fight Song, of course, then the band members running off early for recitals at the IWU Evelyn Chapel of Piano Professor Kent Cook, who is, by the way, a keyboard genius!  I heard the last half of his concert as well, after getting the elders back home to "assisted living."  My 93 year old Mother especially enjoyed Mia Smith's speech, reflections on her team and her tough year facing down cancer . . .  and the comments of the four senior women.  We lived in Pana for a time, as my Dad served the United Methodist Church there, so we have a special affinity for Olivia Lett, who has put Pana on the map here at IWU, to say the least.  Karen Solari and Amy Burton did their awarding winning rap, performed at the Final Four banquet, about "balling on the weekend," with several good references to all the teams vanquished along the way, including Carthage four times!  Olivia Lett, in her remarks, said she was proud, in talking with Jordan Zimmer, to say that this group of seniors was the only group of seniors who will be hanging three banners in the Shirk rafters during their tenure!  (two for the women, one for the men).

It was a fun evening . . . and more well-deserved thanks and recognition to these student-athletes and the coaching staffs.  The IWU crowd was especially proud and appreciative of Lexi Baltes and Nick Anderson winning the special Final Four awards for the student-athlete participating in the Final Fours with the highest GPA.  These fine IWU students won on both sides -- men and women, -- illiciting the comment from AD Bridges that "outstanding students come in all sizes!" (from about 5'7" to 6'9" in this case!).   Amen to that.

A good time was had by all.

Banners, yes, two banners, will be hung in the Shirk rafters during a game this coming late Fall, likely December TBD, and we will celebrate further as the Titan basketball tradition moves forward.  You gotta be optimistic with all the strong sophomore class on the men's side coming back as juniors with all this tourney experience.  And, on the women's side, it's clearly a new mix for sixth, but to me still a reloading, not a rebuilding.  This year was supposed to be the rebuilding year, remember?  Loved the women's Final Four T-Shirts --- with a big printed and loud "We're Back!" on the front, and "And this was supposed to be our rebuilding year" on the back.  Will need to find scoring and some strong bigs, but the pieces and defensive skills are all there for the women to make a good run at six -- CCIW and CCIW tournament championships -- in a row.  Gardner's team now . . . with so many good, skilled and dedicated players back, especially strong on defense -- 5 out of the top 8 rotation from this years championship team coming back.  Newbies and current pine-sitters will no doubt enter the mix.  Again, gotta be optimistic.

On to baseball, softball, golf and track/field.
 
IWU70

Very impressive! Sounds like it was a very emotional night for everyone.

[Gregory Sager]

Yes, I said I was done with this but this is the second time you've told me I said something that I plainly did not say, so let me draw your attention to a couple of things.

For one, let's start with your strawman:

Your claim that the only reason why the CCIW had a low non-con winning percentage this season was because NPU and MU dragged it down all by themselves is without statistical merit.

Here is my original comment on this topic:

</LURK>

While the CCIW's non-conference winning percentage was at a low ebb last year as well as this year, a look inside the numbers shows that this was driven by three factors:

1. Millikin has been historically bad.  I won't belabor the myriad of evidence to this, but it put a drag on the conference's overall performance.
2. In the past two years, North Central has turned in the two lowest out-of-conference winning percentages of any CCIW champion in recent memory.
3. The two seventh-place teams -- Elmhurst and North Park -- had winning percentages that were well below the typical norms for seventh place teams.

In short:  most of the conference performed at levels reasonably close to historical norms.  But the top and bottom drove the aggregate winning percentage into the sub-basement.

So I'm happy to see you looking at something more granular than .590! .590! as you consider this question, but I'm a little lost as to where you are reading that I am claiming NPU and Millikin were solely to blame for dragging the conference winning percentage down all by themselves.  Very clearly, from my first comments on this topic, I called out North Central as one of the culprits as well.

First of all, it's not ".590! .590!" As I've stated before, the CCIW's non-con winning percentage this season was .596.

Second, the comment that you quoted of mine is my bad. What I should've said was: "Your claim that the only reason why the CCIW was down this season was because NPU and MU dragged it down all by themselves is without statistical merit." This is what I originally meant to say, as the use of "down" in the second clause was intended to echo that of the first -- but what I meant to say doesn't count, of course. Since I was making a statistical argument to debunk your claim, I jumped the gun on the statistical aspect when reiterating your claim, and for that I apologize.

For two, let's look at the chart you created.  You suggest that Elmhurst and Carthage were below norms by a level that is "quite substantial".  But remember that teams in positions five through eight play 11 out-of-conference games.  So each game influences .091 of that team's winning percentage.

Correct.

You said:

Position	Twelve-year CCIW non-con	CCIW non-con	2011-12 season
in standings	win pct, 2000 thru 2011	win pct, 2011-12	deviation
Fifth place	.644	.545	- .099
Sixth place	.679	.545	- .134

So one point of clarification on this: your numbers differ slightly from those I ran.  Initially I assumed this was because I included 2011-12 in the baseline set of numbers and you quarantined that year and compared it to the prior years.  (Either approach is fair game from an analytic standpoint.)  But when I took out the current year and QC'ed a few of the numbers, yours still don't match what the CCIW website shows if you simply take, for instance, the eight-place listed team on the website's conference standings and say "you are number eight!".   I assume this means you went to the trouble of figuring out the tiebreakers if, for instance, #7 and #8 were both 3-11.  If so, you're a more patient person than I am.  (I don't like to spend that much time hanging around Decatur.)  If not, I am curious as to why they are different.  In any event, regardless of whose numbers you want to proclaim as teh awesomeness, they are directionally very similar.

Similar, but not the same. There are interesting differences there. For the most part (with a few random exceptions) the CCIW website's men's basketball history page lists tied teams in alphabetical order in the past-season standings section. Not that I questioned your methodology when it came to those initial numbers that you presented, but I figured that if I was going to take this argument through yet another round I should perform due diligence and check them myself.

So, yes, I went to the trouble of figuring out all of those tiebreakers. In for a penny, in for a pound.

So pick your favorite set of numbers

"Favorite"? Let's stick with the numbers that reflect the actual system of CCIW slotting via tiebreakers, rather than the numbers that reflect the alphabet.

and let's circle back to that .091 number, and look at the degree to which fifth and sixth vary from the benchmark level.  For fifth, by your numbers, it is roughly one game.  For sixth, it is roughly a game and a half.  My numbers show both slots off by roughly one game.

There will inevitably be variance in how teams perform relative to historical norms, and the question becomes "what degree of variance is enough of an outlier to flag it as a significant contributor to causality?"  This is a qualitative judgment.  You suggest both #5 and #6 reach this threshold; I do not believe they do -- especially #5.  North Park's variance is (.212), or roughly 2.25 games.  I believe that is enough of a contributor to flag.

As you say, this is a qualitative judgment, but I disagree with your conclusion. Yes, NPU's variance is wide enough to identify as a substantial cause. But, again, you're making the mistake of not viewing the league as a discrete unit. Teams function for comparison purposes not only in terms of how they measure historically against how that standings slot has performed, but by how the context of the entire league worked itself out. I can't emphasize that enough.

Let's look again at the entire chart, rather than simply cherry-picking a couple of pieces of it:

Position	Twelve-year CCIW non-con	CCIW non-con	2011-12 season
in standings	win pct, 2000 thru 2011	win pct, 2011-12	deviation
First place	.777	.571	- .206
Second place	.779	.786	+ .007
Third place	.789	.813	+ .024
Fourth place	.766	.909	+ .143
Fifth place	.644	.545	- .099
Sixth place	.679	.545	- .134
Seventh place	.576	.364	- .212
Eighth place	.489	.091	- .398

Using that .091 single-game baseline, we can see that second place (Wheaton) was almost completely static, while third place (Illinois Wesleyan) contributed about one-quarter of an extra win. As you said before, they more or less hit their marks for what was expected of those slots. Augie (third place) exceeded it by finishing about a game and a half above norm.

But Carthage (fifth place) is a game under, while Elmhurst (sixth place) is a game and a half under. In other words, they more than cancel out Wheaton, IWU, and Augie. Two subpar teams canceled out three par or above-par teams, and still the five teams in the middle of the pack ended up a collective half-game under the benchmark. In other words, Carthage and Elmhurst had a more deleterious effect upon the league's overall performance than you have been willing to admit.

By the way, waaaay back in December, when you first asserted that the conference was down, you pinned some of the blame on the middle:

The CCIW is 51-36 (.586), which is really disappointing.

Barring a great postseason performance from the CCIW's representative(s) (it may not be plural this season), this will be the first time since 1997-98 that the CCIW finishes the season under the .600 mark in non-conference play.

Last season the league barely cleared .600 (56-37, .602), and the only reason it made it up and over that mark was because of Augie's Elite Eight run. After three straight years over .700, including the CCIW's best non-con performance ever (2008-09's .793 mark), the league has nosedived precipitously over the past three seasons, going further and further down each time. Last year and the year before I chalked it up to the bottom of the conference really collapsing, Millikin and Elmhurst in particular. This year, however, the entire middle tier of the league hovered around .500 outside the circuit. Only three teams posted the sort of 10-1 and 9-2 records that were typical of the league as a whole only a few short years ago.

The CCIW is really slipping. I haven't entirely figured out why yet.

I think the numbers you just ran suggest that those 10-1 and 9-2 records in the lower echelon of the conference were outliers and not typical performance.

Actually, there are more than enough seasons like that to dispel the idea that they're outliers. Only the eighth-place team rarely achieves those kinds of seasons. The missing element here is that there also tends to be enough mediocre (or worse) seasons on the part of the fifth- to seventh-place teams to balance them out. Remember, the fifth-place CCIW slot was performing at a .644 clip outside the league in the dozen years prior to this one, and the sixth-place CCIW slot was at an even better .679. Those are decent numbers, with plenty of room in them for 10-1 or 9-2 seasons here and there. Even the seventh-place slot's .576 leaves room for the occasional 10-1 or 9-2.

That, in a nutshell, explains the CCIW's impressive run since Y2K: Not only have the teams at the top dominated outsiders in non-conference play, but the also-rans in the second division have done so as well. Those .644, .679, and .576 numbers are very impressive for those slots. Even the .489 of the bottom feeders (which, again, includes Millikin's 1-9 record from 2010-11) is comparatively impressive. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I shudder to think what the cumulative non-con records of the NAthCon's, MWC's, and SLIAC's last-place teams have done over that same period.

(con't)

[Gregory Sager]

On to three: North Central.

Let's start with where we agree.  One, the Cards had a tremendous season.  Two, they were woefully short-handed throughout the season, and it hurt them badly in the November/December timeframe.  If you're looking for someone to argue that the Merner Men didn't have depth problems, you'll have to look elsewhere -- I have not and will not argue that point.  And three, Todd Raridon did a fantastic job of making lemonade out of the limited depth he had.

The question on the table that started this conversation revolved around whether the conference was down.  It wasn't "is the conference's winning percentage down"?  The latter is an easy question to answer with a bunch of numbers.  The first, though, is a qualitative question.  In most seasons the non-conference winning percentages are a reasonable proxy to answer the question.  This year, I would submit, they are not.  And your soliloquy on the Wittenberg loss suggests that you agree with this:

I watched the entire NCC vs. Wittenberg game online, and it was clear that the Cardinals were gassed by the end; just about every one of their missed shots in the second half was short-rimmed, even the bunnies (Wittenberg's size and physicality had a lot to do with that, too). In retrospect, it's no surprise that IWU got two rounds deeper than did NCC; in March the Titans had much, much fresher legs due to their depth than did the Cardinals.

But depth (or lack thereof) isn't an "extenuating circumstance." It's part of the overall equation of a basketball team's ability. NCC's lack of depth, which eventually caused the Cards to bow out of the tourney (Wittenberg fans may disagree with me, but I think that a fully-rested NCC team would've wiped the floor with the Tigers), also played a major role in those early-season defeats, as Mark asserted several times over the course of the season. (Mark would also be the first to admit that the Cardinals just plain performed badly at times in November and December, too.)

Remember, we're talking about how the multidirectionals fared in a third-round tournament game against a team that reached the elite eight.  North Central had a chance to tie the game at the buzzer.  Is that evidence that the conference is down?  Then give me a down season any year.

I don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was exonerating NCC and by extension admitting that this meant that the league really wasn't down. North Central was a very good team, on that we both agree. But NCC was also flawed, and that flaw (lack of depth) was a significant one. It contributed significantly to our champion losing games in November and December that an eventual CCIW champion should never lose -- one upset is understandable, three of them is a head-scratcher -- and I believe that it also took its toll on NCC at season's end, to the point where the Cards just seemed to hit a wall against Wittenberg.

Keep in mind that, since we're comparing apples to apples here in terms of various slots in the standings, we have to compare the 2011-12 edition of the Cardinals to those other first-place teams since the turn of the millennium. And, while this makes two years in a row that NCC has had an egregiously bad non-con performance and still won that first-place slot, the Sweet Sixteen achievement thereby falls into place as well. Eight of the twelve first-place teams in the dozen years that make up the millennial benchmark made it to the Sweet Sixteen. So it's not as though NCC made any sort of noteworthy breakthrough. Yes, it was a nice showing by the Cards, but it was a run-of-the-mill showing for a CCIW champion, nevertheless.

You want to argue that North Central contributed to the CCIW's lower-than-normal non-conference winning percentage?  I'm right there with you and have not argued otherwise.  But if you want to argue that the Sons of Bill Warden are evidence of -- or a contributor to -- the conference being down this year?  I don't find that to be a credible argument.  What I do find credible is that North Park's two-plus game gap versus historical benchmarks and Millikin's 20,000 leagues below the historical norm performance were signs that those teams were down.  Two through six, as I laid out earlier, tracked consistent with expectations.  And North Central turned in the mother of all outlier seasons because its final position in the national picture is miles removed from its 10-6 out-of-conference record.

And, as I said, NCC's lack of depth itself is symptomatic of the league's being down. Our champion -- a deserving champion, as the Cards had the best starting lineup in the league and great coaching -- wound up with what, for CCIW first-place teams, was an ordinary March performance. And the five teams in the two thru six slots that you claim "tracked consistent with expectations" actually performed collectively below par, because the two of those five teams that performed poorly outweighed the three that didn't -- an indicator that those two teams need to be flagged as well as contributors to the CCIW's down year.

[Gregory Sager]

One definitely needs a bonus anytime they get through a Sageristic post without reaching for the Alleve.

I realize that you're just kidding, but, seriously ... if you don't like them, don't read them. That's what the scrollbar is for. Nobody's forcing anybody to read all of the content here. And, yeah, for those who have short attention spans or are easily fatigued by a lot of numbers being thrown around (especially now, during tax season), it can be a good thing to skip long posts -- particularly if the subject matter doesn't interest you.

[NCF]

One definitely needs a bonus anytime they get through a Sageristic post without reaching for the Alleve.

I realize that you're just kidding, but, seriously ... if you don't like them, don't read them. That's what the scrollbar is for. Nobody's forcing anybody to read all of the content here. And, yeah, for those who have short attention spans or are easily fatigued by a lot of numbers being thrown around (especially now, during tax season), it can be a good thing to skip long posts -- particularly if the subject matter doesn't interest you.

I'm glad you know I'm kidding, so please lighten up and laugh once in awhile-it's good for your health! I usually enjoy your posts, however, the two of you need to let it go already or better yet pm each other and continue the arguement....please?  On to recruiting news-is there any from anyone or is it  too early?

[Dennis_Prikkel]

One definitely needs a bonus anytime they get through a Sageristic post without reaching for the Alleve.

I realize that you're just kidding, but, seriously ... if you don't like them, don't read them. That's what the scrollbar is for. Nobody's forcing anybody to read all of the content here. And, yeah, for those who have short attention spans or are easily fatigued by a lot of numbers being thrown around (especially now, during tax season), it can be a good thing to skip long posts -- particularly if the subject matter doesn't interest you.

I'm glad you know I'm kidding, so please lighten up and laugh once in awhile-it's good for your health! I usually enjoy your posts, however, the two of you need to let it go already or better yet pm each other and continue the arguement....please?  On to recruiting news-is there any from anyone or is it  too early?

Amen and Amen +K

[diehardfan]

Wow, I am not sure if I've ever seen anyone reply to an epic Greg post with an even longer epic length post. Not gonna lie, while they look kinda interesting, I only skimmed both (but I have an excuse, hah)

I remember kiko from way back, and if I remember correctly he's a Carthage fan?

Also...

Yesterday was a VERY stressful day.  I needed to vent, but this was not the appropriate place to do so.  Now that things have calmed down, I realize that my post was totally inappropriate.  I have deleted the post, and appeal to the good folks on here to delete any quotations of it.

Thank you, and, again, my apologies.

Hey most of us are not prudes and it is OK to vent. Your post came out of nowhere  and took me (and others) completely by surprise. It did,however, provide some relief from the CCIW was down this year banter.

I was a prude... but then I moved to Southern California. 

Actually in some ways I am still a prude, and in some ways I never was. Mostly your post just made me glad to be a girl.

AndOne, cool post.... but it made me sad. 

[NCF]

Wow, I am not sure if I've ever seen anyone reply to an epic Greg post with an even longer epic length post. Not gonna lie, while they look kinda interesting, I only skimmed both (but I have an excuse, hah)

I remember kiko from way back, and if I remember correctly he's a Carthage fan?

Also...

Yesterday was a VERY stressful day.  I needed to vent, but this was not the appropriate place to do so.  Now that things have calmed down, I realize that my post was totally inappropriate.  I have deleted the post, and appeal to the good folks on here to delete any quotations of it.

Thank you, and, again, my apologies.

Hey most of us are not prudes and it is OK to vent. Your post came out of nowhere  and took me (and others) completely by surprise. It did,however, provide some relief from the CCIW was down this year banter.

I was a prude... but then I moved to Southern California. 

Actually in some ways I am still a prude, and in some ways I never was. Mostly your post just made me glad to be a girl.

AndOne, cool post.... but it made me sad. 

Diehard:1-you are somewhat Sageristic(not a bad thing),2- prude or prune(being in the california sun and all , 3-girls have other issues  4- nice link