MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Brick]

Does anyone know how many home games Augie would potentially have if they make the tournement, and keep winning

[Gregory Sager]

Pat's bracket...

http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/06/projected.htm

He has IWU hosting Wash U Thursday, with winner to Lawrence.  And he has Augie vs Maryville (Mo) playing the winner of UW-Whitewater/Carleton (all at Augie).

He's also moved both North Central and Carroll across the lake, with the Cards facing the Pioneers in the first round of a Hope regional, where the winner would almost certainly face the host Dutch at brand-new DeVos Fieldhouse after they dispatch 14-14 Wisconsin Lutheran by thirty or forty points.

The 18 Pool C teams as I worked them out came out a bit differently than the ones Pat and Gordon deduced:

1. York PA
2. Cortland State
3. Gordon
4. Tufts
5. Trinity TX
6. Augustana
7. Wooster
8. Baruch
9. Carroll
10. UW-Stout
11. Widener
12. Calvin
13. Trinity CT
14. Illinois Wesleyan
15. Washington MO
16. Lakeland
17. Carleton
18. Bates

Aside from the order being different, they have Randolph-Macon and UW-LaCrosse making it in, whereas I have Lakeland and Bates instead. UWL beat Lakeland this year, but it wasn't a regional game (and thus doesn't fall under the primary criteria of an in-region head-to-head), and Lakeland grades out better than the Eagles in every other criteria.

Does anyone know how many home games Augie would potentially have if they make the tournement, and keep winning

They could potentially host as many as four: Two in the regionals, and two in the sectionals. But that's all up to the committee.

If this was a generation ago, when Carver Center used to host the D3 Final Four, Augustana could theoretically play every single tournament game at home if they kept winning. Not that it did them any good in 1981 (sorry, Dan  ).

[Titan Q]

"...I have Lakeland and Bates instead. UWL beat Lakeland this year, but it wasn't a regional game (and thus doesn't fall under the primary criteria of an in-region head-to-head), and Lakeland grades out better than the Eagles in every other criteria."

Greg, the "Secondary Criteria" includes "out-of-region head-to-head competition."  I refuse to believe they would not go to secondary criteria in a case where they know the two teams played a game.  If a Pool C bid had come down to IWU vs Puget Sound, for example, they would have to look at that game played in Santa Barbara.

"If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the SECONDARY CRITERIA will be used." (Handbook pg 15)

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2006/2006_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg,

I share your doubts on LAX (I'm guessing Bates), but Pat's 3-some only had them 18th.  They picked RMC as the 12th pick - I'm wondering what it is about RMC's credentials that have you picking them THAT most differently (I think they're in)?

[dansand]

Does anyone know how many home games Augie would potentially have if they make the tournement, and keep winning

They could potentially host as many as four: Two in the regionals, and two in the sectionals. But that's all up to the committee.

If this was a generation ago, when Carver Center used to host the D3 Final Four, Augustana could theoretically play every single tournament game at home if they kept winning. Not that it did them any good in 1981 (sorry, Dan  ).

No need to apologize Greg. I grew up a Cub and Bear fan so I've learned to deal with painful losses. However, in the 1981 tournament, Augie started out on the road in Beloit, where they opened with a win over 3-time defending national champion North Park and then knocked off #1-ranked Beloit on their home court. Then they came home and played Whittier in the quarterfinals, Otterbein in the semis and...gulp...Potsdam State in the title game.

[Gregory Sager]

Bob, the key phrase in that sentence from the handbook is, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision...". Here's how the two teams measure up against each other in the primaries:

QOWI
UW-LaCrosse -- 9.880
Lakeland -- 9.905

in-region W-L pct.
UW-LaCrosse -- .720 (18-7)
Lakeland -- .810 (.17-4)

in-region record vs. ranked teams
UW-LaCrosse -- 1-4 (0-3 vs. UW-Whitewater, 1-1 vs. UW-Stout)
Lakeland -- 0-0

in-region head-to-head
n/a

in-region record vs. common opponents
UW-LaCrosse -- 1-2 (1-0 vs. Edgewood, 0-2 vs. UWSP)
Lakeland -- 3-1 (2-1 vs. Edgewood, 1-0 vs. UWSP)

Lakeland grades out ahead of UWL in four of the five primary criteria, and the fifth is not applicable. It should never even reach secondary criteria.

[veterancciwfan]

Devildog: In response to your inquiry about why it took IWU 5 halves to come up with a defensive strategy to contain Simmons:

1) First, Simmons is flat out the best offensive player in the league IMHO. A lot of teams would like to stop players like Simmons or J.J. Reddick, but can't.

2) Simmons is one of the best, maybe the best, passing big man I have ever seen in the CCIW. If you double Simmons, he can deliver exactly the right kind of pass to hit the open man.

3) NCC is the 2nd or 3rd best FG shooting team in the nation. If you double Simmons, any of the other 4 NCC players can burn you. The result of doubling Simmons is often a wide open layup for Walton or Krumtinger.

4) And most importantly, NCC was playing not to lose rather than to win in the 2nd half. And that was a coaching desision by Raridon I assume. It was obvious that NCC wanted to milk the shot clock in the 2nd half and try to hold on to the lead. And that is not the way NCC has been successful with their very efficient offense. After all, NCC was averaging about 80 point a game in league play. It seemed that NCC was perfectly content to throw the ball around the perimiter for 28 seconds and then begin to initiate their offense. Trying to hold on to a lead almost never works. IWU went on a 21-1 run that could have been 35-1 if IWU's offense was clicking like it did the night before vs. Augie.

[Gregory Sager]

I share your doubts on LAX (I'm guessing Bates), but Pat's 3-some only had them 18th.  They picked RMC as the 12th pick - I'm wondering what it is about RMC's credentials that have you picking them THAT most differently (I think they're in)?

They have an atrocious record vs. in-region ranked opponents, Chuck. The Jackets went 0-3 against Virginia Wesleyan, 1-1 against Lincoln (did that distance ever get measured by Pat on the Streets & Trips software? 'cause it grades out as 199.3 miles campus-to-campus on Mapquest), and if Fisk somehow manages to hang around and make the secret South Region ranking today, then that's another loss for RMC. Their regional W-L percentage of .760 ranked only 16th among the schools Pat and his two cohorts were evaluating, and their QOWI of 9.840 was 18th. I honestly think that they're borderline at best, and I can't quite figure out why Pat & Co. had them as high as twelfth.

However, in the 1981 tournament, Augie started out on the road in Beloit, where they opened with a win over 3-time defending national champion North Park and then knocked off #1-ranked Beloit on their home court. Then they came home and played Whittier in the quarterfinals, Otterbein in the semis and...gulp...Potsdam State in the title game.

I know that, 'cause I was at that Beloit regional, too. I got to see one of the all-time great duels in the conso between William Penn's Gerald Reece, who scored 49 points, and North Park's Michael Thomas, who scored 38. I was just saying that if Augie still hosted the Final Four they could theoretically host their entire trip through the tourney, that's all.

[79jaybird]

I think it would be a travesty if the CCIW doesn't get 3 teams in.  Looking at the predictions, I think the CCIW should fare well in post season.  Of course, they still have to play well, but I think things are looking pretty promising.

[Titan Q]

Bob, the key phrase in that sentence from the handbook is, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision...". Here's how the two teams measure up against each other in the primaries:

QOWI
UW-LaCrosse -- 9.880
Lakeland -- 9.905

in-region W-L pct.
UW-LaCrosse -- .720 (18-7)
Lakeland -- .810 (.17-4)

in-region record vs. ranked teams
UW-LaCrosse -- 1-4 (0-3 vs. UW-Whitewater, 1-1 vs. UW-Stout)
Lakeland -- 0-0

in-region head-to-head
n/a

in-region record vs. common opponents
UW-LaCrosse -- 1-2 (1-0 vs. Edgewood, 0-2 vs. UWSP)
Lakeland -- 3-1 (2-1 vs. Edgewood, 1-0 vs. UWSP)

Lakeland grades out ahead of UWL in four of the five primary criteria, and the fifth is not applicable. It should never even reach secondary criteria.

Greg, you've actually misstated one of the criteria.  It is not "in-region record vs ranked teams"...it is "in-region results vs ranked teams."  A committee member told me that this is stated pretty vaguely on purpose.  For example, they may say, "LaCrosse has a win over a ranked team...Lakeland does not."  Or "IWU has 3 wins vs ranked teams...Team X has 1."  Nowhere in the Handbook does it say they use a composite record vs ranked teams.

[Mr. Ypsi]

in-region record vs. ranked teams
UW-LaCrosse -- 1-4 (0-3 vs. UW-Whitewater, 1-1 vs. UW-Stout)
Lakeland -- 0-0

Greg,

This is primarily by way of Devil's Advocate (since I personally don't think either Lakeland OR LAX will make it), but you say Lakeland has the advantage on 4 of 5 primary criteria (which would include the above). 

Rather than the regional committee mechanically applying the criteria, could we hold out ANY hope that this particular comparison might make them think: wait a sec, at least LAX PLAYED 5 ranked opponents - maybe the REAL 'quality of wins' favors LAX even if QOWI doesn't?!

Probably not.

On the other hand, .200 IS better than .000, if they choose to look at it TRULY mechanically!

[Gregory Sager]

3) NCC is the 2nd or 3rd best FG shooting team in the nation. If you double Simmons, any of the other 4 NCC players can burn you. The result of doubling Simmons is often a wide open layup for Walton or Krumtinger.

They're second in the nation as of February 19th's games, at 53.3% for the season.

This brings up something that's been weighing on my mind for several days now. The conventional wisdom in here has been that Todd Raridon plays too short a rotation, that it would wear the team down and that they wouldn't be able to withstand the pressure of the tournament. Well, am I the only one who noticed that North Central won the tourney in spite of the fact that Todd Raridon didn't alter his six-man-plus rotation? Aside from his usual six, only Mitchell Raridon's five minutes on Friday and eleven minutes on Saturday interrupted the rotation.

Lots of people commented in the past upon how tight a rotation Bill Harris tends to play at Wheaton (me, especially  ). But aside from the one year in which injuries held him to basically using only one guy off of the bench for extended minutes (Nick Otten), Harris has never played a rotation as tight as North Central's this year. And not only have the Cardinals not worn down, they beat two very good teams that go much, much deeper (Elmhurst and Illinois Wesleyan) on back-to-back nights.

If your players are good enough and conditioned enough, why break stride and go deeper into the bench than you normally would unless you have to? Todd Raridon apparently feels that there's too steep a drop-off after his first six, as only Mitchell Raridon and Jeff Larson have really seen any semi-significant time at all as the seventh man. This is in stark contrast to his predecessor, since Benjy Taylor tended to play everyone except for the kid popping the popcorn in the northeast corner of the airplane hangar.

It's hard to argue with what works.

[Titan Q]

in-region record vs. ranked teams
UW-LaCrosse -- 1-4 (0-3 vs. UW-Whitewater, 1-1 vs. UW-Stout)
Lakeland -- 0-0

Rather than the regional committee mechanically applying the criteria, could we hold out ANY hope that this particular comparison might make them think: wait a sec, at least LAX PLAYED 5 ranked opponents...

Yes.  As I understand it, the way that criteria is worded allows the committee to say, "Illinois Wesleyan played 7 games vs ranked teams...Team X played 1."

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, you've actually misstated one of the criteria.  It is not "in-region record vs ranked teams"...it is "in-region results vs ranked teams."  A committee member told me that this is stated pretty vaguely on purpose.  For example, they may say, "LaCrosse has a win over a ranked team...Lakeland does not."  Or "IWU has 3 wins vs ranked teams...Team X has 1."  Nowhere in the Handbook does it say they use a composite record vs ranked teams.

I understand that, and I apologize for inadvertently using the wrong word. But it would be a travesty if they actually interpreted the rule the way that you stated. It would be as if they said, "Well, UWL got five cracks at beating a regionally-ranked team, and they managed to win one of them. Lakeland didn't get any such chances, but that's their tough luck. We'll just pretend that the Blue Devils never played those three games against the Warhawks." It's not an honest way to look at the criteria.

What's more, it doesn't really seem in keeping with the unspoken D3 philosophy of not rewarding power conferences. Teams from power conferences will play more regionally-ranked teams as a matter of course, this being a prime example.

But even if they did choose to read it that way, Lakeland's still ahead on three primary criteria to UWL's one.

[cardinalpride]

Devildog: In response to your inquiry about why it took IWU 5 halves to come up with a defensive strategy to contain Simmons:

1) First, Simmons is flat out the best offensive player in the league IMHO. A lot of teams would like to stop players like Simmons or J.J. Reddick, but can't.

2) Simmons is one of the best, maybe the best, passing big man I have ever seen in the CCIW. If you double Simmons, he can deliver exactly the right kind of pass to hit the open man.

3) NCC is the 2nd or 3rd best FG shooting team in the nation. If you double Simmons, any of the other 4 NCC players can burn you. The result of doubling Simmons is often a wide open layup for Walton or Krumtinger.

4) And most importantly, NCC was playing not to lose rather than to win in the 2nd half. And that was a coaching desision by Raridon I assume. It was obvious that NCC wanted to milk the shot clock in the 2nd half and try to hold on to the lead. And that is not the way NCC has been successful with their very efficient offense. After all, NCC was averaging about 80 point a game in league play. It seemed that NCC was perfectly content to throw the ball around the perimiter for 28 seconds and then begin to initiate their offense. Trying to hold on to a lead almost never works. IWU went on a 21-1 run that could have been 35-1 if IWU's offense was clicking like it did the night before vs. Augie.

IWU defensive intensity deserves a lot of credit also.  In the second half, they picked up full court man to man and that caused NCC some problems.  Paticularly because Adam Teising suffered an ankle injury during the game and so did Walton.  It looked as if Teising was limping around quite a bit during the second half.  Teising's inability to push the basketball at the titans during 2nd half forced NCC to be more of a half court team and that allowed the titans pressure to effect the cardinals.  After talking to some of the other fans after the game, I give Teising and Walton all the credit in the world because they played the second half on pure guts.  I just hope they'll be ok for the 1st game of the tourney.