MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[sac]

Central Region Pool C selections since 2008


CCIW --13
HCAC  --4
UAA    --1
NACC  --1
WIAC  --1*   2015 first year in Central Region, 9 from West Region

[AO]

First thought... per wins/losses and SOS... if win/losses was the only thing, Southern Vermont and PSU-Behrend would have been in the tournament without any questions... but they weren't and they weren't close.

The key is you can't loss too many games even if you have a rocking SOS. If you can't win more than 2/3s of your games... you aren't going to be taken completely seriously only because while you may have had a great SOS and some nice wins, you still lost 1/3 of your games. Same goes the other way, if your SOS is weak you BETTER win - plain and simple. Southern Vermont and PSU-Behrend and very sub-par SOS numbers and did a lot of winning... but they needed to win their conference titles to guarantee a spot in the tournament. North Central certainly played a nice schedule, but they won 2/3s of their games... that isn't enough to get into the tournament as an at-large.

As for Salem:
- They jazzed up the team introductions with "smoke" which was lit in the team colors as the teams ran through the tunnels.
- They stepped up team introductions by first turning off most of the arena lights except those pointed on the court, then showed sizzle videos showcasing each team on the video boards as they then introduced the starters using spotlights and intelligent-lights above creating a showcase atmosphere.
- Those spotlights and intelligent-lights were also used to give the arena a more grand feel for the national anthem and when people were walking in. They also were used to pump up the crowd at different times.
- The video boards this year had crowd interaction while also showing the broadcast of the games and helping to celebrate the teams. They were also synced with the PA announcer and bands making for a polished production from start to finish.
- They had team pictures for each of the four teams on the wall leading to their locker rooms as a tribute to the teams.
- They dressed up the lobby and front area even more including a huge wall of pictures of former champions.
- And probably the best part: they moved the Championship Dinner onto the court (after it was prepapred properly), so everyone was sitting on the court for the entire event Thursday making it feel even more unique and special (including using the spotlights to introduce players and coaches and the intelligent-lights to light the stage where much of the ceremony took place).
- Finally, I THINK they had spotlights out front along with out festive items to welcome people to the Civic Center, but considering I got to the arena several hours before most people and left several hours after most nights... I missed some of these things.

Salem took things to a completely different level this year. There were three production trucks (one for WebStream/Turner, one for CBS Sports Network, one for the video board operations) which included video crews for all three entities. I knew some of the things were going to be added, but even I was impressed after seeing everything in action.

I had three time-lapses of Thursday, Friday, and Saturday that I have to put together that may give you a sense of what it was like... I will let you know when they are complete.

The PA guy posted this video of the tunnel entrace.  I still think it would be a lot of fun to move final 4 or championship to the D1 site when you have a midwest host like we do this year.  The timing would have worked out better with Stevens Point spring break and you could have had a really nice crowd.

[bopol]

bopol - the math usually leads to a double round-robin of .500 because for every win there is a loss and for ever loss there is a win. For every 1.25 road multiplier there is a .75 home multiplier. Thus why everyone works on the base that conference SOS will give you .500 - however, I indicated that because of out of conference scheduling for a lot of CCIW teams, that SOS would probably be higher. You example of Elmhurst having a .551 doesn't show their conference only SOS. Furthermore, while they had some weak opponents... they also had some strong opponents and tapped into the MIAA on several occasions along with the IIAC and the MIAC. While the direct games count for 2/3s... the OOWP got them a decent 1/3 with those three conferences.

I do know how the SOS works as best as anyone who has stared at it and discussed it almost non-stop with those who work with it can be. I know that the trick for the NESCAC is they don't play a double round-robin (except for a few schools) allows their SOS to not take a second round of games to even off... while also giving many of those teams the chance to play the top of any conference they want... giving them a very nice OWP while being able to absorb the OOWP of weak conferences. Thus the fact Bates had the best SOS in the country at .609 and Amherst had a .579 (despite teams like Goucher on their schedule) and Bowdoin had .571.

And there is the best example we can bring up with North Central... Bowdoin didn't make the tournament despite a .571 SOS (NC: .570) because their record was .692 (18-8) and 1-6 vRRO (last we knew). North Central had an equal SOS, a lower WL%, and a 3-6 vRRO (last we knew).

But to your point about the committee not caring about beating UWSP and Augustana... they do care about those, but they also care about the losses to Augustana which probably negates the one win, a loss to Dickinson (which may help or hurt - depending on how they read a loss to what ended up being a #1 regionally ranked team on a neutral floor), and losses to North Park (15-10), Millikin (8-17), the two losses to Elmhurst, and a loss to Illinois Wesleyan (despite a win).

So to recap: wins over UWSP and Augustana are being considered along with losses to Augustana (2), Elmhurst (2), Dickinson, Illinois Wesleyan, North Park, and Millikin. You might want to only focus on the wins... but the committee both regionally (where this starts) and nationally are going to also focus on the losses and of the wins in North Central's vRRO... one was to the top of the region (along with two losses)... another was to a mid-level (UWSP a 3 at best - they were technically a three-seed in the tournament)... and the other was a bottom level (6 to Illinois Wesleyan). The six losses: three to number one teams (Dickinson became a #1 in the final rankings and Augustana stayed there as well) and three to low ranked teams (IWU and Elmhurst). That's a mixed bag at best and honestly not something the committee will probably be impressed with.

And by the way... losing seven games in any conference is going to put a team in a world of trouble when it comes to an at-large selection. You need to have a better SOS to help that... not a low one to put a team further in the hole. Because losing games is still losing games. It's not adding to the win column for a team. North Central needed to not lose to North Park and Millikin so they could have been 20-6 with a .571-ish SOS and THAT could have put them in the conversation for an at-large bid.

So many things wrong...

Clearly I'm wasting my time as you seem to lack the ability to do simple math or critically analyze a situation.

Your entire first paragraph doesn't make sense.  In fact, every single sentence doesn't make sense and it certainly doesn't lead to a coherent argument.  Do you want to try again or do you wish to stand on that drivel?

I doubt that you know SOS 'as best as anyone' because your first paragraph is drivel.  You might be in the room when people talk about SOS, but you clearly don't know what they are talking about.  You are repeating talking points like a parrot without understanding them.

You're comparing NCC to Bowdoin?  The only thing they have in common is that they both lost 8 games.  Bowdoin spent the year getting their butt kicked by good teams (Bates was their only good win, they were 1-6 against RRO) and had a worse SOS.   That's your comparison?  Geez.

I'm not focusing only on the wins - I just pointed out that the committee doesn't care about who you beat - they just care about the record against RRO.   Springfield was 3-5 but their RROs were a notch below North Central's (well, unless you get into the ridiculous 'mid-level' stuff that I mention below).  North Central certainly had better wins.   The committee doesn't care who they beat, they just care about the record.

Now, calling UWSP a 'mid-level' regional ranked team again speaks to incredible ignorance.  I don't know if that's your particular insight (wouldn't surprise me at this point) or the committee's but any sober analysis has UWSP as a Top 10 team entering the tournament.  Because they are #3 in the most loaded region does not mean they are 'mid level' and anyone that thinks so is a fool.  Similarly, calling IWU 'bottom level' is also foolish. 

Losing seven games includes the tournament. 

Your summary doesn't take into account that the committee might not be overly impressed with it, but they are comparing North Central to other teams.  Springfield made it.  By your standards, they aren't all that impressive either.  No one here is arguing that North Central should have gotten in before Bates or Amherst, they are saying that they should have been one of the last few picks.  My conclusion, which is incredibly reasonable based on the evidence that you can't understand, is that the committee doesn't care who you beat, they just care about the record.

Back to drawing board. 

[AO]

bopol - the math usually leads to a double round-robin of .500 because for every win there is a loss and for ever loss there is a win. For every 1.25 road multiplier there is a .75 home multiplier. Thus why everyone works on the base that conference SOS will give you .500 - however, I indicated that because of out of conference scheduling for a lot of CCIW teams, that SOS would probably be higher. You example of Elmhurst having a .551 doesn't show their conference only SOS. Furthermore, while they had some weak opponents... they also had some strong opponents and tapped into the MIAA on several occasions along with the IIAC and the MIAC. While the direct games count for 2/3s... the OOWP got them a decent 1/3 with those three conferences.

I do know how the SOS works as best as anyone who has stared at it and discussed it almost non-stop with those who work with it can be. I know that the trick for the NESCAC is they don't play a double round-robin (except for a few schools) allows their SOS to not take a second round of games to even off... while also giving many of those teams the chance to play the top of any conference they want... giving them a very nice OWP while being able to absorb the OOWP of weak conferences. Thus the fact Bates had the best SOS in the country at .609 and Amherst had a .579 (despite teams like Goucher on their schedule) and Bowdoin had .571.

And there is the best example we can bring up with North Central... Bowdoin didn't make the tournament despite a .571 SOS (NC: .570) because their record was .692 (18-8) and 1-6 vRRO (last we knew). North Central had an equal SOS, a lower WL%, and a 3-6 vRRO (last we knew).

But to your point about the committee not caring about beating UWSP and Augustana... they do care about those, but they also care about the losses to Augustana which probably negates the one win, a loss to Dickinson (which may help or hurt - depending on how they read a loss to what ended up being a #1 regionally ranked team on a neutral floor), and losses to North Park (15-10), Millikin (8-17), the two losses to Elmhurst, and a loss to Illinois Wesleyan (despite a win).

So to recap: wins over UWSP and Augustana are being considered along with losses to Augustana (2), Elmhurst (2), Dickinson, Illinois Wesleyan, North Park, and Millikin. You might want to only focus on the wins... but the committee both regionally (where this starts) and nationally are going to also focus on the losses and of the wins in North Central's vRRO... one was to the top of the region (along with two losses)... another was to a mid-level (UWSP a 3 at best - they were technically a three-seed in the tournament)... and the other was a bottom level (6 to Illinois Wesleyan). The six losses: three to number one teams (Dickinson became a #1 in the final rankings and Augustana stayed there as well) and three to low ranked teams (IWU and Elmhurst). That's a mixed bag at best and honestly not something the committee will probably be impressed with.

And by the way... losing seven games in any conference is going to put a team in a world of trouble when it comes to an at-large selection. You need to have a better SOS to help that... not a low one to put a team further in the hole. Because losing games is still losing games. It's not adding to the win column for a team. North Central needed to not lose to North Park and Millikin so they could have been 20-6 with a .571-ish SOS and THAT could have put them in the conversation for an at-large bid.

So many things wrong...

Clearly I'm wasting my time as you seem to lack the ability to do simple math or critically analyze a situation.

Your entire first paragraph doesn't make sense.  In fact, every single sentence doesn't make sense and it certainly doesn't lead to a coherent argument.  Do you want to try again or do you wish to stand on that drivel?

I doubt that you know SOS 'as best as anyone' because your first paragraph is drivel.  You might be in the room when people talk about SOS, but you clearly don't know what they are talking about.  You are repeating talking points like a parrot without understanding them.

You're comparing NCC to Bowdoin?  The only thing they have in common is that they both lost 8 games.  Bowdoin spent the year getting their butt kicked by good teams (Bates was their only good win, they were 1-6 against RRO) and had a worse SOS.   That's your comparison?  Geez.

I'm not focusing only on the wins - I just pointed out that the committee doesn't care about who you beat - they just care about the record against RRO.   Springfield was 3-5 but their RROs were a notch below North Central's (well, unless you get into the ridiculous 'mid-level' stuff that I mention below).  North Central certainly had better wins.   The committee doesn't care who they beat, they just care about the record.

Now, calling UWSP a 'mid-level' regional ranked team again speaks to incredible ignorance.  I don't know if that's your particular insight (wouldn't surprise me at this point) or the committee's but any sober analysis has UWSP as a Top 10 team entering the tournament.  Because they are #3 in the most loaded region does not mean they are 'mid level' and anyone that thinks so is a fool.  Similarly, calling IWU 'bottom level' is also foolish. 

Losing seven games includes the tournament. 

Your summary doesn't take into account that the committee might not be overly impressed with it, but they are comparing North Central to other teams.  Springfield made it.  By your standards, they aren't all that impressive either.  No one here is arguing that North Central should have gotten in before Bates or Amherst, they are saying that they should have been one of the last few picks.  My conclusion, which is incredibly reasonable based on the evidence that you can't understand, is that the committee doesn't care who you beat, they just care about the record.

Back to drawing board.

One of the problems with the criteria is it doesn't matter if UWSP is top ten nationally.  There is no national RPI.  If a NESCAC team beats Baruch or Hobart it is equivalent to beating Stevens Point if they're all 3rd in the regional rankings. 

[Greek Tragedy]

Regionally ranked is regionally ranked. Right? I don't ever remember reading anything about the #3 regionally ranked team beating the #6 regionally ranked team. Is there actually a difference? Its vRROs. Not "we beat 3 #2 regionally ranked opponents and you only beat 2 #4s".

[sac]

The criteria as its stated and analyzed makes no differentiation between a team that is 20-5 in the Midwest and 20-5 from the East.  That's where SOS comes in (or should) and if both are even .550 vs .550.  Then in the eyes of the committee's who are hamstrung by the 'numbers'.  They are equal.

This is one of the criteria's biggest flaws.

Now I think everyone here knows through experience and I've certainly observed this myself that the Midwest(west of the Alleghenies) is much deeper in its quality of teams.  However the committee's can't do this because they have nothing to tell them beating Stevens Point is any different than beating WPI.

[Pat Coleman]

Regionally ranked is regionally ranked. Right? I don't ever remember reading anything about the #3 regionally ranked team beating the #6 regionally ranked team. Is there actually a difference? Its vRROs. Not "we beat 3 #2 regionally ranked opponents and you only beat 2 #4s".

It actually does work this way, yeah. One of the things we learned in the past three or four years.

Bopol,

In the end it doesn't matter how you compare RRO for North Central vs. Springfield or anyone else -- at .667 winning percentage vs. D-III schools, they simply were not getting in without an automatic bid. So one more win (Millikin, perhaps), or scheduling someone else to open the season, might well have gotten them in the tournament. You've spent a lot of time breaking down something that I suspect the committee probably didn't even talk about because they didn't make this particular committee's basic baseline.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Well to be blunt, again, I was lead to believe that North Central wasn't even at the table in the end... so they never became part of the conversation. Though, that doesn't sound right... I thought I gathered someone else from the Central Region was at the table... I just can't remember who it was.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Your entire first paragraph doesn't make sense.  In fact, every single sentence doesn't make sense and it certainly doesn't lead to a coherent argument.  Do you want to try again or do you wish to stand on that drivel?

I doubt that you know SOS 'as best as anyone' because your first paragraph is drivel.  You might be in the room when people talk about SOS, but you clearly don't know what they are talking about.  You are repeating talking points like a parrot without understanding them.

I'm not sure it's me who doesn't understand... you are trying to twist the criteria and the SOS into your argument and not understanding how it works. Then you seem to be just picking parts of the criteria you like or adding elements that are not part of the criteria just to base your argument.

You're comparing NCC to Bowdoin?  The only thing they have in common is that they both lost 8 games.  Bowdoin spent the year getting their butt kicked by good teams (Bates was their only good win, they were 1-6 against RRO) and had a worse SOS.   That's your comparison?  Geez.

Yes... because if either team got to the table to be selected as an at-large... they would have been compared against each other to be selected. You don't seem to understand that. There is just one team per region at the table for at-large selections at a time. So comparing Bowdoin and it's numbers to North Central and their's is EXACTLY what is being done.

I do apologize that I looked at someone else's SOS when looking at North Central's... they had a .587 not a .570 as I had indicated at clearly far too late a time to still be up. However... that get's into some tricky areas as usually it is for every .030 difference in the SOS you are talking about a two win difference. Since I know they don't say "well, it's close to that number" and decide to use it and ONLY use it when they get to the actual .030 difference... you can't adjust the WL numbers as a result. If you could... Bowdoin would be 16-10 per NC's SOS and NC would be 18-6 using Bowdoin's SOS... THAT would have given NC a slightly better chance of making the tournament when compared to Bowdoin only - though, there is other criteria to dive into.

I'm not focusing only on the wins - I just pointed out that the committee doesn't care about who you beat - they just care about the record against RRO.   Springfield was 3-5 but their RROs were a notch below North Central's (well, unless you get into the ridiculous 'mid-level' stuff that I mention below).  North Central certainly had better wins.   The committee doesn't care who they beat, they just care about the record.

Actually no... as Pat pointed out... it is "results" versus regionally ranked opponents... not WL%. They are looking at every detail they can about the "results" and thus understand who a team beat or lost to accordingly.

And how in the world can you say "the committee doesn't care who they beat, they just care about the record." Have you listened to a single interview we have done over the years with any basketball committee chair? Believe it or not, they are very transparent in recent years and want people to understand how the process works. In fact, Jeff Burns' interview in January this year was incredibly insightful.

Now, calling UWSP a 'mid-level' regional ranked team again speaks to incredible ignorance.  I don't know if that's your particular insight (wouldn't surprise me at this point) or the committee's but any sober analysis has UWSP as a Top 10 team entering the tournament.  Because they are #3 in the most loaded region does not mean they are 'mid level' and anyone that thinks so is a fool.  Similarly, calling IWU 'bottom level' is also foolish.

But that is how the committee breaks things down. They usually consider the top two regionally ranked teams at the top tier (since they end up hosting the first weekend)... they then go 3-5 or so (depending on the size of the region) and the mid-tier... and 6 and below as the bottom tier - or at least they would in the Central Region. It isn't an insult to anyone, but they have to start differeciating the numbers and the data in some capacity. This is also not the be-all and end-all of breaking down the numbers. They look at the records of the team's in those regionally rankings and such as well to compare who a team won and lost to.

I am not being "foolish" ... it is just how the system works and it isn't just on a national scale... the regional committees do much of the same work to just regionally rank teams in the first place.

Also as was pointed out... the Top 25 means nothing. It actually means nothing in every ... single ... NCAA sport in every single division (though, I keep thinking there is a D2 sport it may have a factor). It is not part of the criteria for any of them... INCLUDING Division I basketball. So, using it as a reference isn't worth the argument to be honest... it only makes understanding the process more muddy.

Losing seven games includes the tournament. 

Doesn't change my point.

Your summary doesn't take into account that the committee might not be overly impressed with it, but they are comparing North Central to other teams.  Springfield made it.  By your standards, they aren't all that impressive either.  No one here is arguing that North Central should have gotten in before Bates or Amherst, they are saying that they should have been one of the last few picks.  My conclusion, which is incredibly reasonable based on the evidence that you can't understand, is that the committee doesn't care who you beat, they just care about the record.

Back to drawing board.

Springfield had a .584 SOS (nearly identical to North Central) and a 19-8 record (.704) to go along with a 3-5 vRRO. The record alone makes them more worthy than North Central.

Your conclusion isn't based on evidence... your conclusion is based on ignoring what the committee is actually doing and trying to make it work for yourself. You really need to listen to what they say because there is no way Pat and I can go 19 for 19 on at-large teams this year if aren't paying attention to what the committee is saying very clearly about the process.

As for "back to the drawing board" ... the committee is always looking to adjust things to get the best teams possible in the tournament. There may be some more adjustments to the SOS (which has happened over the years)... but trying to be "witty" towards me while also being a smart aleck clearly isn't helping to understand how it works.

You indicate I am just repeating phrases... and while I might be pointing them out, I also understand them and how it works. You may not want to believe it or me and there is nothing anyone can do about that, but I would suggest getting a better understanding of how the system is actually put together. If you want a link to the January interview and then the follow-up on Bracket Monday... I will be happy to help.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Here are the time lapse videos I promised you guys: http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2015/salem-civic-center-timelapse

[Greek Tragedy]

Thanks Pat,

I didn't realize they took into account on where the regionally ranked opponent was actually ranked. In that situation,  I do think it's a little unfair for the #3 ranked Central region team to be viewed the same as the #3 ranked team in the obviously weaker East region.

[John Gleich]

Thanks Pat,

I didn't realize they took into account on where the regionally ranked opponent was actually ranked. In that situation,  I do think it's a little unfair for the #3 ranked Central region team to be viewed the same as the #3 ranked team in the obviously weaker East region.

But "obvious" is subjective, not objective. And this is is trying to be avoided by the criteria.

[Pat Coleman]

Thanks Pat,

I didn't realize they took into account on where the regionally ranked opponent was actually ranked. In that situation,  I do think it's a little unfair for the #3 ranked Central region team to be viewed the same as the #3 ranked team in the obviously weaker East region.

Well, and in fairness, I don't know that they do that. They could correct for a team being ranked third in a region which ranks six or seven teams as opposed to one that ranks nine or 11.

[Greek Tragedy]

Thanks Pat,

I didn't realize they took into account on where the regionally ranked opponent was actually ranked. In that situation,  I do think it's a little unfair for the #3 ranked Central region team to be viewed the same as the #3 ranked team in the obviously weaker East region.

But "obvious" is subjective, not objective. And this is is trying to be avoided by the criteria.

Don't you think it's obvious when the #6 and #7 ranked teams  in the Central get Pool C bids and the #2 ranked team in the East doesn't? 

[AO]

Thanks Pat,

I didn't realize they took into account on where the regionally ranked opponent was actually ranked. In that situation,  I do think it's a little unfair for the #3 ranked Central region team to be viewed the same as the #3 ranked team in the obviously weaker East region.

Well, and in fairness, I don't know that they do that. They could correct for a team being ranked third in a region which ranks six or seven teams as opposed to one that ranks nine or 11.

I don't remember this ever being brought up in an interview with any of the chairs.  Seems like it could be another advantage for the NESCAC considering their large region.  Another reason to just have the regional committees rank all the teams.  I know Jeff said he was looking at how many wins against teams with 15+ wins but there are still probably some good wins just outside of the regional rankings being ignored.