MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

What I want to know is this: Which CCIW head coach did not vote for Juwan Henry for the first team? Hill and Overstreet were the only unanimous first-team selections.

This is exactly what jumped out at me when scanning the list.  It's a far bigger head-scratcher than whether so-and-so made which team IMO.

I'm going to make some inquiries, and see if there's any speculation that sounds plausible.

I think you are moving the goalposts a bit.  IF MVP means 'contributing to winning', I suggest that Henry was MVP (and probably Teuscher was second, but despite his heroics he just could get them across the line).  Augie and IWU were so deep and talented that I believe they would have won nearly as much if Hill and/or Overstreet had gone elsewhere (or decided to major in beer pong ).  NPU IMO won more games above a non-Henry level than any other team won above whoever their best player was.  But you seem to be reluctantly buying in to the coaches' (apparent) definition of MVP (or MOP) as having a floor.  I agree that that IS how the coaches seem to see it, which (along with being a sophomore) is why I predicted Henry would not win.

I don't see how that is "moving the goalposts," Chuck. The evidence was there all along that the coaches make a strong link between the award and a team finish at or near the top of the league. I was simply hoping that this time around the coaches would stop and re-examine what the meaning of "outstanding" really is. Chide me for my misplaced optimism if you like. But I've never denied that the coaches have a floor when it comes to defining the winning-team aspect of their MOP voting. I simply don't agree with that informal policy of theirs.

But MOP is even more subjective than MVP.  Players generally play according to the dictates of their coach and the needs of the team.

Not really. They may attempt to play according to the dictates of their coach and the needs of the team, but they might not necessarily get the desired results according to the dictates of their coach and the needs of the team. As a coach you can tell Jimmy Roleplayer to guard Johnny Superstar for thirty minutes in a game, because the team really needs Jimmy to step up defensively in order for them to win, but that doesn't mean that Jimmy's gonna be up to the challenge. Or, if you need twenty points from Jimmy Roleplayer in order to win a particular game, don't bet all the corn in Manito that he'll get it for you just because coach said so.

IF Augie or IWU had needed Henry-type stats from Hill or Overstreet, my hunch (we will never know, of course) is that they could and would have done it.

I don't agree with that at all.

Don't insult my intelligence with the reductio ad absurdum argument: Henry played over 36 minutes a game because the Vikings desperately needed every blessed minute he could still move. Hill and Overstreet were simply not needed that desperately. That doesn't make them either less valuable or less outstanding; it means they had more high-quality teammates to take up playing time without hurting performance.

Come on, Chuck. The judge-'em-by-minutes-per-game thesis brought up by your PM correspondent is in and of itself the genesis of that reductio ad absurdum argument.

I'm aware that to a large extent the comparison of Henry to Hill and Overstreet is one of apples to oranges; Hill and Overstreet are a better comparison to each other, just as Henry is better compared to Brayden Teuscher and T.J. Sims. But the league doesn't give anyone the luxury of sorting out awards that way.

As a number of non-NPU/non-IWU/non-Augie fans here have already demonstrated, a lot of people besides me think that Juwan Henry was the most outstanding player in the league this year. Heck, you even said that you would've voted for him. I think that Hill and Overstreet were served well by a tradition and mentality of voting among CCIW head coaches that doesn't really reflect the difference between an MVP and an MOP. That's no slight upon them, as they had nothing to do with the voting. And, as I said, if you agree with the coaches that: a) it may say "MOP" on the trophy, but it's really an MVP award; and b) there's a floor to the amount of value that comes with winning, and that floor is whether or not your team is in the top two or three in the standings; then a very good case can then be made for Hill and/or Overstreet.

Sure would be great to see Fritz Larsen in Rock Island Friday. Just kidding Greg!

No skin off my nose, Lanny. Naperick and the other 'jays fans might object, though.

[iwu70]

Thanks for all the give and take, guys.

For what it's worth, I would have voted for Brandon Heyen, opps , I mean Juwan Henry.

Congrats to all the awardees -- seems pretty OK to me.  Special congrats to my Greenies -- Overstreet on Co-MVP, opps, I mean MOP, and Jordan Nelson, for the all CCIW accolades.

I'd be willing to bet that we are the only board in D3 sports with reductio ad absurdum.

Off we go to Carver and Rock Island by the muddy Mississippi. 

IWU70

[GoPerry]

Greg, I got a PM earlier this evening suggesting I look at the minutes per game of Henry, Hill, and Overstreet.  Juwan played 5 minutes more per game than Hill, and TEN more minutes than Overstreet.  If you recalculate the stats on a per minute basis, the gap is far less pronounced than it otherwise is.  Why?  Because Augie and IWU are both very good, deep teams who simply didn't NEED the numbers from Hill and Overstreet (except occasionally).  They could be rested with only a small decline in performance by their replacements.

And how, exactly, does that redound to the advantage of Hill and Overstreet in the matter of most outstanding player? First of all, recalculating stats based upon a per-minute basis is misleading and pointless. A big part of the game of basketball is physical attrition -- it's essentially what enabled North Central to pull away from North Park at the end of Saturday's game -- and per-minute recalculations disregard that. A player's performance needs to be considered in toto over the course of a game rather than on a per-minute basis, just as his performance needs to be considered in toto over the course of a season rather than over some selective portion of it. Second, your PM correspondent's thesis lends itself to a reductio ad absurdum argument. If you can find a 30 mpg player whose stats compare more favorably to a 35 mpg player when taken on a per-minute basis, then you can no doubt also find a 25 mpg player whose stats do even better on a per-minute basis ... and a 15 mpg player whose stats do even better than that when considered minute-by-minute ... and so on.

Given 2 players of comparable scoring ability, significantly more FG attempts by one of them will lead to a higher scoring average.  To me that is just straight math and I implied as much in an earlier post regarding only Juwan Henry's scoring.  On the other hand, I would be reluctant to claim a straight line relationship of minutes played to rebounds, assists, steals per game as if those stats are scalable up and down.  Those differences tend to be fractions anyhow and in my mind less significant.

As a number of non-NPU/non-IWU/non-Augie fans here have already demonstrated, a lot of people besides me think that Juwan Henry was the most outstanding player in the league this year. Heck, you even said that you would've voted for him. I think that Hill and Overstreet were served well by a tradition and mentality of voting among CCIW head coaches that doesn't really reflect the difference between an MVP and an MOP. That's no slight upon them, as they had nothing to do with the voting. And, as I said, if you agree with the coaches that: a) it may say "MOP" on the trophy, but it's really an MVP award; and b) there's a floor to the amount of value that comes with winning, and that floor is whether or not your team is in the top two or three in the standings; then a very good case can then be made for Hill and/or Overstreet.

I would doubt that the 8 coaches have thought much about the nuances of Most "Outstanding" vs Most "Valuable".  I suspect the coaches discuss their all conf votes with their assistants but is it much more than a quick sharing of thoughts over the water cooler?  The deliberation process varies with each coach probably.

I would further doubt that the CCIW gave much thought to the same in deciding to use Outstanding instead of Valuable(in most of the other conference sports they call it POY).  With how much intentionality did the D3Hoops crew name their award Player of the Year( as opposed to the "Pat Coleman Award for Valuability and Much Outstandery")? 

In any case, as Greg stated, the CCIW's top season end accolade for an individual player's season long performance goes similarly to MVP awards in most all the Pro sports where overall team success is a significant factor or even a requirement except in rare circumstances.  Unless the conference starts issuing voting guidelines, that's probably the way it will be.

[toooldtohoop]

http://athletics.wheaton.edu/news/2015/2/23/MBB_0223150432.aspx


Congratulations to Brayden Teuscher on being named an Academic All American.

[USee]

I think the path of least resistance is to award the MOP/MVP award to the player(s) on the winning team(s). Its a default position taken by the coaches in my opinion and one that takes an extraordinary effort to displace. Hill and Overstreet are obvious choices as the best players on the top 2 teams. For Juwan "Oh" Henry to have won, he would have had to carry his team a little further. I suspect he was in the discussion. But if some coach out there doesn't even think he is first team, then he never had a chance at MOP. That said, if NPU had closed the deal Saturday at the Hangar and Obi-wan Henry had led his team to the conference tourney, my bet is he would be holding that trophy today.

And Greg, I am going on record here today as saying Wheaton will absolutely beat NPU 2x during the conference season next year. Book it! 

[Pat Coleman]

I'd be willing to bet that we are the only board in D3 sports with reductio ad absurdum.

Definitely not. But probably the only board that actually used the term.

[Greek Tragedy]

I'd be willing to bet that we are the only board in D3 sports with reductio ad absurdum.

Definitely not. But probably the only board that actually used the term.

Yeah, but the MWC board talks in Haiku. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Final public men's basketball regional rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/25/final-public-ncaa-regional-rankings-released/

[Naperick]

It's time to restart an old debate.  Would the CCIW be better off without a conference tourney this year?
If Augustana wins the tourney, NCC, IWU, & EC will all get one more loss and that extra loss could
be a 'killer' this year.  In the latest central region rankings, IWU is 6th, EC 7th, & NCC 8th.  Not
much breathing room for those 3 squads.

By the way, Augustana is #1 in the central region.  They will make the D3 tourney.  It would be nice if
they would just lie down to help the other 3 get into the D3 tourney.   

[iwu70]

Pat, I take your point.

Greek, I'd love to see Greg and Ypsi have an exchange here on our board in Haiku.  That would surely be a first -- for both. 

Sure looks to me like another loss by IWU, EC or NCC could be trouble indeed, comes selection Sunday.  The Doggies will not lie down this time of year.  They way they have been playing of late, surely, they are the favorite this weekend @Carver. 

'70

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat, I take your point.

Greek, I'd love to see Greg and Ypsi have an exchange here on our board in Haiku.  That would surely be a first -- for both. 

Sure looks to me like another loss by IWU, EC or NCC could be trouble indeed, comes selection Sunday.  The Doggies will not lie down this time of year.  They way they have been playing of late, surely, they are the favorite this weekend @Carver. 

'70

Unlike the MWC board, if Greg and I duel with Haiku, we'll do it in Japanese!

IF IWU makes the final, they're in regardless of whether by A or C.  But if they lose to Elmhurst, they're very much bubble, and not necessarily on the top side of it.

[Hardwood]

It's time to restart an old debate.  Would the CCIW be better off without a conference tourney this year?
If Augustana wins the tourney, NCC, IWU, & EC will all get one more loss and that extra loss could
be a 'killer' this year.  In the latest central region rankings, IWU is 6th, EC 7th, & NCC 8th.  Not
much breathing room for those 3 squads.

By the way, Augustana is #1 in the central region.  They will make the D3 tourney.  It would be nice if
they would just lie down to help the other 3 get into the D3 tourney.   

I've said before that the conference should give the regular season winner "the choice" of whether they want to compete in the conference tournament or not. It would then be the schools decision to decide where they think they stand for a pool "C" bid - and act accordingly.  This year would be an good example as Augustana is sitting atop the final regional rankings and could opt out with more to lose than gain by playing in the conference tourney.  This would allow North Park to fill the 4th spot and guarantee that at least 2 CCIW schools would get in the tournament.  I'm sure there are pros/cons each way but it certainly could add some intrique after the regular season ends. 

[iwumichigander]

It's time to restart an old debate.  Would the CCIW be better off without a conference tourney this year?
If Augustana wins the tourney, NCC, IWU, & EC will all get one more loss and that extra loss could
be a 'killer' this year.  In the latest central region rankings, IWU is 6th, EC 7th, & NCC 8th.  Not
much breathing room for those 3 squads.

By the way, Augustana is #1 in the central region.  They will make the D3 tourney.  It would be nice if
they would just lie down to help the other 3 get into the D3 tourney.   

I've said before that the conference should give the regular season winner "the choice" of whether they want to compete in the conference tournament or not. It would then be the schools decision to decide where they think they stand for a pool "C" bid - and act accordingly.  This year would be an good example as Augustana is sitting atop the final regional rankings and could opt out with more to lose than gain by playing in the conference tourney.  This would allow North Park to fill the 4th spot and guarantee that at least 2 CCIW schools would get in the tournament.  I'm sure there are pros/cons each way but it certainly could add some intrique after the regular season ends.

Do you give a team "the choice" to not play the 8th team on the last game of the regular season?  An opt out would not necessarily work in a team's favor - you give up the potential of two games, two vRRO (this season), improving your SOS and potentially Win% improvement.  Winning the tournament not only gives your team an AQ but also the improvement in your criteria could be the difference in pod/bracket placement and hosting opportunities (usually an advantage).

[iwu70]

Ypsi, I'd love to see that -- but somehow I don't think this board, this site has Japanese or Chinese script functions.  I'll defer to Pat on that.

Yes, I'm hoping IWU wins the tourney or goes 1-1 this weekend, giving them a pretty good chance for a Pool C bid.  It's going to be dicey for a number of teams along the bubble fault line.

GO TITANS!

IWU70

[AppletonRocks]

It's time to restart an old debate.  Would the CCIW be better off without a conference tourney this year?
If Augustana wins the tourney, NCC, IWU, & EC will all get one more loss and that extra loss could
be a 'killer' this year.  In the latest central region rankings, IWU is 6th, EC 7th, & NCC 8th.  Not
much breathing room for those 3 squads.

By the way, Augustana is #1 in the central region.  They will make the D3 tourney.  It would be nice if
they would just lie down to help the other 3 get into the D3 tourney.   

More room for another deserving Nathcon team.