MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[kenoshamark]

Greg, 

To follow up on your comments about Carthage losses, the expectations for next year will be way down in my estimation.  Certainly will bring back two quality starters in Johnson and Bulatovic, but from there, who knows. As far as perimeter players,  Best is a very strong defensive player, but not much on offense and Washburn can score, but his size is an issue.  Never really saw much of any other players this year due to heavy senior class.

Back to the season, this again goes down as another disaster.   This team came in with a lineup that can and did compete with the best teams in the league at times.  Beating Oshkosh, NCC and Elmhurst were key wins, but not getting over the hump in other close games with such a veteran team makes no sense to me.  Yes, there were multiple players that missed games, but good teams overcome that.  Bosko said after the Elmhurst game that good teams win the close games, well, what say ye for the four straight losses at the end of the year and the close loss at Augie and the inexplicable loss to NCC. 

I'm sure Bosko will come out with the standard line he has used for years....this is on him and he needs to recruit better, yada, yada yada.   Getting old...and the prospects aren't looking great for next year either.

What I am interested in is the comment in the recap of the game last night where he thanks the six seniors....there are seven listed on the roster.  Not sure if one might have eligibility left (Perry with a medical waiver ?).   

So, lets see what they can do from the recruiting standpoint or maybe it will be transfers to fill the gaps,  Best to all the teams left!!!

[Greek Tragedy]

So does everyone think that a UW Lacrosse team that is 0-5 against reg ranked teams in the Central (assuming they lose to Oshkosh) should still maintain a lead over an Augustana team (with 2 regional wins) that they beat earlier in the year?

Does Augie also lose their semifinal game?

[Titan Q]

I just don't think you can say "NCC clearly has a better resume than Benedictine" right now.  NCC is one game better in winning percentage, .03 in SOS.  Both of those go in NCC's favor, for sure.  Benedictine is 3-0 against regionally ranked competition, NCC is 2-2, with those two wins both being over Elmhurst; those wins compare similarly to BenU's wins over LeTourneau and SNC.  The difference there being the win over NCC.  So if you give head to head and vRRO to Benedictine, you have to move to the secondary criteria, where BenU's nonconference SOS is pretty spectacular, compared to NCC's sub .500 number.

To me it's a very even resume at the moment, given the criteria - and head to head results have always held strong weight with the committee.

I agree, if NCC wins the CCIW tourney and BenU loses in theirs, they have to switch places.  Right now, though, and if both win out, you can argue BenU stay ahead... clearly the committee thinks so.

I think we'd all pick NCC to win in a rematch, but that doesn't factor in.  NCC has to take care of business and hope BenU loses.  All of this may be moot, though - the only way it changes much of anything is if they need another host for geography.

I guess one of the problems with the current system is that these numbers can be interpreted in different ways.

For me, based on the history of the Pool C process (where the numbers get magnified/analyzed the most) there is a big difference in these two resumes.

* Benedictine: .800/.506/3-0
* North Central: .840/.538/2-2

[Titan Q]

What I am interested in is the comment in the recap of the game last night where he thanks the six seniors....there are seven listed on the roster.  Not sure if one might have eligibility left (Perry with a medical waiver ?).   

Hi, K-Mark!

Here are the 6 seniors celebrated by Carthage on Senior Night -- https://twitter.com/Carthage_MBB/status/1231250066406592514?s=20.

Poglase, Laketa, Radcliffe, Baltimore, Kedrowski, Perry.

Chrishawn Cook, listed as a SR on the roster, was not part of Senior Night.

[iwu70]

My son's alma, Swarthmore College, finished a perfect season, 25-0.  Maybe they can go all the way this year, after their second place run last season.  Swarthmore not exactly known as a D3 sports power.  Does give me another team to cheer for. 

Here we go very soon, D3 dancing. I hope the CCIW gets two bids.  If IWU or Augie wins the AQ, do we get three?

'70

[Titan Q]

If IWU or Augie wins the AQ, do we get three?

'70

90% yes.

[iwu70]

Thanks, Q, that would be grand.  I vote for IWU winning the AQ!   

'70

[kiko]

I am surprised Benedictine is ahead of NCC at this point. https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/mens-third-regional-ranking

As I see it, the teams have to be lined up regionally in the right order so that the region's Pool C candidates hit the board in the right order -- and so the region maximizes its Pool C chances.  I would think every RAC and the national committee would want this.  It's how the process is meant to play out.  What you don't want to happen is a team hitting the board during Pool C and blocking teams behind them - either blocking entirely, or for several rounds - with better resumes.

Couple of thoughts on this:

1. I think what you have described is only part of what the RAC should be trying to do.  I agree with the broader point that the RAC should be mindful of inadvertently blocking teams by ranking them below someone who will linger at the table, but the RAC's broader goal should be to position all of the region's teams as favorably as possible for the tournament, and not just those in the Pool C pot.  While the committee should aim to increase the chances of other Central Region schools being selected, they might choose not to put their thumb on the scale in this way if doing so negatively impacts the potential tournament position (i.e. -- strength of opponent or potential hosting opportunity) of another region school, and they believed that other school deserved the higher ranking on the merits.  I certainly don't think Benedictine is in line to host anything, but their regional ranking may impact whether they are bracketed against a higher-seeded host for their pod, or if they wind up in the neutral court matchup.  And they shouldn't necessarily be penalized just because someone else in the region needs protecting.

2. There is a longer game to consider in this.  Benedictine is above North Central and Elmhurst at the moment, but (a) they are there as a Pool A team, and so aren't blocking anyone at this point, and (b) the national committee is not using this week's pecking order to determine the tournament field.  In other words, Benedictine is ranked higher today, but this is not the Central RAC's final answer, and the regional committee surely knows that.  If the Eagles lose and enter the Pool C kettle, the RAC could choose to have a CCIW Pool C hopeful (who also would have picked up an additional loss) jump the Eagles on the grounds that they now have one or more additional regionally ranked results, which the Bennies will not accrue.  In this case, the RRO result provides the air cover to do exactly what you are arguing should happen.  However, if the Eagles win and the current ranking order remains consistent, Benedictine is better positioned to receive a more favorable first-round matchup.  (This is true even if the CCIW Pool A team jumps the Eagles because of the incremental RRO result they will accumulate.)

3. It is plausible that the RAC is not viewing Benedictine's .506 SOS as harshly as some may want them to because 80% of this number is outside of their control (their 20 conference games).  As someone pointed out above, the OWP from the five games in which Benedictine had discretion over the opponents was a fair bit higher than North Central's OWP from the nine games the Cardinals scheduled out of conference.  As you know, it is not as simple as saying 'Team A wins on more criteria than Team B does, so they get the nod,' because the RAC can choose to weigh the primary criteria unequally if they believe this is the correct approach.  You can weave an argument that says 'I will weigh Benedictine's SOS less because it is largely driven by factors outside of their control, and where the Eagles do have control, they played a bunch of RROs and beat them all, including the school being immediately compared in the rankings.'

[kenoshamark]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the info.  If Cook were to return, that would be a big plus from the perimeter. 

[Smitty Oom]

Concerning the BU and NCC debate.. Why do we not look at the losses for teams as we do the wins? NCC has had 2 of their 4 losses against teams good enough to be ranked. BU has had 5 losses against teams that are not ranked. This should speak to the teams resume just as much as their 3 very good wins do.

I know this is not part of the criteria as it is now, but I've wondered if anyone thinks this as well. So please entertain my thoughts without it being considered irrelevant lol.

[Greek Tragedy]

Ranked by whom? D3hoops poll? Regional Rankings? If it's the latter, you obviously know they do take that into consideration.

[Titan Q]

Concerning the BU and NCC debate.. Why do we not look at the losses for teams as we do the wins? NCC has had 2 of their 4 losses against teams good enough to be ranked. BU has had 5 losses against teams that are not ranked. This should speak to the teams resume just as much as their 3 very good wins do.

I know this is not part of the criteria as it is now, but I've wondered if anyone thinks this as well. So please entertain my thoughts without it being considered irrelevant lol.

I think this is a good point.  There is nothing in the criteria that gets at "bad losses" so to speak.

Last year after the selection process, I remember talk of some kind of "Top 50."  I remember Sam Atkinson referred to "wins against the Top 50."  I still don't know what that is.  But, it would be good to be able to identify wins vs some kind of Top 50...and losses below the Top 50.  Something like that.

Just using Massey, NCC's losses are to:
#15 UW-Oshkosh
#39 Illinois Wesleyan
#67 Benedictine
#69 Carthage.

Benedictine losses are to:
#109 Wisconsin Lutheran
#135 Concordia (WI)
#158 Hope
#218 MSOE
#313 Concordia-Chicago


Shouldn't "bad losses" be a thing too?

[Gregory Sager]

What I am interested in is the comment in the recap of the game last night where he thanks the six seniors....there are seven listed on the roster.  Not sure if one might have eligibility left (Perry with a medical waiver ?).   

Hi, K-Mark!

Here are the 6 seniors celebrated by Carthage on Senior Night -- https://twitter.com/Carthage_MBB/status/1231250066406592514?s=20.

Poglase, Laketa, Radcliffe, Baltimore, Kedrowski, Perry.

Chrishawn Cook, listed as a SR on the roster, was not part of Senior Night.

Cook played for two years at a Texas juco, Ranger College. In 2018-19 he only played in five contests for the Red Men, well under the maximum allowed for someone seeking to get a hardship waiver. His last contest for Carthage was a mid-December game against PSU-Harrisburg, which barely left him qualified for the med waiver; the waiver rules state that a player cannot play in a game past the season's halfway point, and the PSUH game was Carthage's twelfth. So he is eligible to get a med waiver for the 2018-19 season, presuming he's got the documentation from his physician to prove his medical incapacity for the second half of that season, which would allow him to come back to play in 2020-21. He's obviously planning to do that; hence, his not being honored on Senior Night.

Brad Perry has an even better case to return. He missed the 2018-19 season entirely, so he doesn't even need to apply for a med waiver in order to come back in 2020-21. The only thing that might hold him back, and this seems far-fetched, is that his Carthage bio says that he saw no varsity action due to injury. Did he play in any JV games as part of an abortive rehab process, and, if so, did he play in more than eight of them or in any JV games subsequent to January 2? If so, he used up a year of eligibility last season.

Like I said, though, that seems improbable. The more likely explanation is that Perry has told Bosko that this was it for him, that he's going to graduate with his class this May and move on with his life.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Concerning the BU and NCC debate.. Why do we not look at the losses for teams as we do the wins? NCC has had 2 of their 4 losses against teams good enough to be ranked. BU has had 5 losses against teams that are not ranked. This should speak to the teams resume just as much as their 3 very good wins do.

I know this is not part of the criteria as it is now, but I've wondered if anyone thinks this as well. So please entertain my thoughts without it being considered irrelevant lol.

I think this is a good point.  There is nothing in the criteria that gets at "bad losses" so to speak.

Last year after the selection process, I remember talk of some kind of "Top 50."  I remember Sam Atkinson referred to "wins against the Top 50."  I still don't know what that is.  But, it would be good to be able to identify wins vs some kind of Top 50...and losses below the Top 50.  Something like that.

Just using Massey, NCC's losses are to:
#15 UW-Oshkosh
#39 Illinois Wesleyan
#67 Benedictine
#69 Carthage.

Benedictine losses are to:
#109 Wisconsin Lutheran
#135 Concordia (WI)
#158 Hope
#218 MSOE
#313 Concordia-Chicago


Shouldn't "bad losses" be a thing too?

This is the big hole in the criteria, right?  The only individual games the criteria allows to consider are common opponents and regionally ranked teams.  Benedictine's clear deficiency is the losses.  However, I'm not sure the criteria allows them to be considered in the same way NCC's RRO losses are.

[Greek Tragedy]

Aren't the vRRO losses more valuable than just plain losses because they are results vRROs? I do agree there's got to be a better way to distinguish "good" losses with "bad" losses...also, though they may not be considered losses/wins, the SOS shows the weakness of their opponents too.