MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

I think at this point you need to put Augie ahead of Edgewood.  Edgewood has a better SOS but it's not off the charts.  I believe they will be right around 0.5 whereas Augie is probably around 0.47 or so.  The reason I say this is because they have some common opponents to look at:

UW-SP: Edgewood lost by 11 at home, Augie won at home by 5
North Park: Edgewood won by 1 at home, Augie 2-0 by average of 11.5 points
Wisc. Lutheran: Edgewood 2-0 by an average of 10.5 points, Augie won by 28 neutral
Aurora: Edgewood lost by 4 on the road, Augie won by 34 at home

I'd say Augie wins all 4 of those comparisons.

No, Augie wins three of them. Scoring margin is not part of the common-regional-opponents criterion, or at least it's never been mentioned in previous years as being part of the criterion. (The wording in the handbook is "In-region results versus common regional opponents" -- and I suppose that the word "results" could be interpreted as referring to the spread as well as to who won and who lost.)

The comparisons should read:

UWSP: Edgewood 0-1, Augustana 1-0 (Augie wins)
NPU: Edgewood 1-0, Augustana 2-0 (Augie wins, because 2-0 is better than 1-0)
WLC: Edgewood 2-0, Augustana 1-0 (Edgewood wins, for the same reason that Augie wins the NPU-as-common-opponent comparison)
AU: Edgewood 0-1, Augustana 1-0 (Augie wins)

[Gregory Sager]

So if Augie wins Tuesday...

1. North Central
2. Augustana
3. Wheaton
4. Illinois Wesleyan

If Wheaton wins...

1. North Central
2. Wheaton
3. Illinois Wesleyan
4. Augustana


Right?

I believe that to be correct Q.  Augie would come out of the three-way tie because of their sweep and Wheaton would be next due to the sweep of North Central.

This doesn't look right to me. In the event of an Augie win, there's a three-way tie for second between Wheaton, Augie, and IWU, all of whom would be 10-4. Head-to-head competition is the first tiebreaker, and in terms of head-to-head their results would be:

* Augie 2, Wheaton 0
* Augie 1, IWU 1
* Wheaton 1, IWU 1

Therefore, Augie would be the #2 seed (with a 3-1 head-to-head against the other two second-place teams), IWU would be the #3 seed (with a 2-2 head-to-head against the other two second-place teams), and Wheaton would be the #4 seed (with a 1-3 head-to-head against the other two second-place teams).

Wheaton's sweep over North Central shouldn't enter into the discussion, because that involves the second tiebreaker, which is "record against teams above the tie, beginning with the highest-ranked team." Since the first tiebreaker resolves the tie in the order Augie-IWU-Wheaton, there's no need to move on to the second tiebreaker.

Or am I forgetting something here?

They changed it a couple of years ago I believe to break one out first and then go head to head....This is from the CCIW website...

Tournament Seeding Tiebreakers (2/18/12)

North Central has won the outright regular season title and has earned the right to host the conference tournament.

If Augustana defeats Wheaton on Tuesday, there will be a three-way tie for second place at 10-4. Augustana would earn the No. 2 seed by virtue of a 3-1 composite record against Wheaton and Illinois Wesleyan. The next step would be to break the tie between Wheaton and Illinois Wesleyan. Both teams finished 1-1 against each other during the regular season, so the next tiebreaker would be record against the teams above the tie. Wheaton would earn the No. 3 seed and Illinois Wesleyan would be No. 4 because Wheaton was 2-0 against first place North Central while Illinois Wesleyan was 0-2.

Ah. I didn't realize that it had been changed. (I also didn't notice that the CCIW website has now posted the tourney info, which you copied here.)

Someone should point out to Chris Martin and/or Mike Krizman that the CCIW tiebreakers page has not been updated to reflect this change.

[Just Bill]

This doesn't look right to me. In the event of an Augie win, there's a three-way tie for second between Wheaton, Augie, and IWU, all of whom would be 10-4. Head-to-head competition is the first tiebreaker, and in terms of head-to-head their results would be:

* Augie 2, Wheaton 0
* Augie 1, IWU 1
* Wheaton 1, IWU 1

Therefore, Augie would be the #2 seed (with a 3-1 head-to-head against the other two second-place teams), IWU would be the #3 seed (with a 2-2 head-to-head against the other two second-place teams), and Wheaton would be the #4 seed (with a 1-3 head-to-head against the other two second-place teams).

Wheaton's sweep over North Central shouldn't enter into the discussion, because that involves the second tiebreaker, which is "record against teams above the tie, beginning with the highest-ranked team." Since the first tiebreaker resolves the tie in the order Augie-IWU-Wheaton, there's no need to move on to the second tiebreaker.

Or am I forgetting something here?

Doesn't the 3-way tie first get broken by looking at cumulative record of the teams involved in the tie?  So…

Augustana: 3-1
Illinois Wesleyan: 2-2
Wheaton: 1-3

Augie escapes the tie and gets called the #2 seed.

Then we go to usual tie-breaker protocol, with Wheaton getting the 3-seed nod over IWU due to a 1-1 record vs NCC (with IWU 0-2 vs NCC).

I've debated this many times before with other people. I've always understood and witnessed in practice, that if one, single step of the process clearly separates the three teams (3-1, 2-2, 1-3), then order them that way and you're done (as Sager detailed). I've always felt if the three-way can be separated by virtue of the SAME tiebreaker, then the job is done.

But I know others believe that if there's a three-way tie you only pull out ONE team, and then start over from the top of the tiebreakers (as Q lays out). I don't beleive it's correct, but I know many do.

I believe, the "revert to tiebreaker #1" clause should only apply when one or more teams have been separated, but two or more teams still remain tied. For instance if we had a four-way tie at the top, and the head-to-head records went 4-2, 3-3, 3-3, 2-4. I would declare the 4-2 team the #1 seed, the 2-4 team the #4 seed, and then revert to the top to solve the two 3-3 teams.

So it seems the CCIW uses the method Q laid out. I don't think it's the right way, but hey, who am I?

[augie_superfan]

I think at this point you need to put Augie ahead of Edgewood.  Edgewood has a better SOS but it's not off the charts.  I believe they will be right around 0.5 whereas Augie is probably around 0.47 or so.  The reason I say this is because they have some common opponents to look at:

UW-SP: Edgewood lost by 11 at home, Augie won at home by 5
North Park: Edgewood won by 1 at home, Augie 2-0 by average of 11.5 points
Wisc. Lutheran: Edgewood 2-0 by an average of 10.5 points, Augie won by 28 neutral
Aurora: Edgewood lost by 4 on the road, Augie won by 34 at home

I'd say Augie wins all 4 of those comparisons.

No, Augie wins three of them. Scoring margin is not part of the common-regional-opponents criterion, or at least it's never been mentioned in previous years as being part of the criterion. (The wording in the handbook is "In-region results versus common regional opponents" -- and I suppose that the word "results" could be interpreted as referring to the spread as well as to who won and who lost.)

The comparisons should read:

UWSP: Edgewood 0-1, Augustana 1-0 (Augie wins)
NPU: Edgewood 1-0, Augustana 2-0 (Augie wins, because 2-0 is better than 1-0)
WLC: Edgewood 2-0, Augustana 1-0 (Edgewood wins, for the same reason that Augie wins the NPU-as-common-opponent comparison)
AU: Edgewood 0-1, Augustana 1-0 (Augie wins)

Greg, I love how you say "No" right off the bat but then backtrack and leave yourself some wiggle room.  I don't think we exactly know how the word "results" is interpreted.  Same goes for "results" vs. regionally ranked teams.  If they truly wanted to hold it only to win/loss then they easily could've put "winning percentage vs. common regional opponents".  I think this criteria leaves room for the committee members to figure out which team is "better" and since the eye test isn't in the list of criteria, I hope they would see that teams that win by more are usually better than teams that don't.

As far as Augie getting into the regional rankings this week, it doesn't really matter to them but may affect some of the other CCIW teams more since that would effect their "results vs. regionally ranked opponents".  I think Augie's remaining schedule allows for their SOS to get to the 0.49-0.50 range which would be much more competitive nationally.  However, they really need to win @ Wheaton on Tuesday for any of this conversation to even matter.

[Gregory Sager]

Nobody's mentioned yet Wheaton's easy 75-59 win over North Park last night, which is probably a blessing that I am going to ruin by posting this. Let's just say that Wheaton played with the efficiency and energy of a team that is moving on to bigger and better things, whereas NPU just looked like a total mess of a team for whom the end of the season is an act of mercy. I won't say that the Vikings didn't play with vigor and passion, because they did, but they're so woefully outgunned by Wheaton that they were pretty much out of the game by jump street. Tim McCrary is a fantastic player, easily the best player in the league, but the Vikings made him look better last night than he should've looked against a CCIW defense.

It was good to see Ro Russell (13 pts, 4:0 a:to ratio) and Emanuel Crosby (12 pts, 6 rebs) go out with solid performances, at least at the offensive end of the floor. Mike Gabriel (12 pts) came off the bench and generally played well. Mark Holmes had his second straight off night, and he kinda looked worn down by the long season. Can't blame him, as he's been Atlas trying to hold the world on his shoulders since mid-November.

North Park needs no fewer than five CCIW-varsity-ready newbies next year. The Vikings need a starting center (or starting power forward; Gabriel's versatility allows the coaches to recruit in either direction), a starting shooting guard, and a starting point guard. They also need a bench big and a bench wing, both of whom can play heavy minutes and start if needed. Whether they will need a backup point guard or not really depends upon whether or not Josh McNaughton can develop the ability to be stronger on the ball and to at least shoot the ball minimally well enough from the perimeter to make his man guard him semi-honestly. If he can do that, then he's probably not going to hurt NPU for six to ten minutes per game off the bench at the point. If he can't ... well, then that means that the NPU coaching staff will need to bring in six CCIW-varsity-ready newbies next year, rather than five.

(I'm not discounting the idea that one or more returnees not named Holmes or Gabriel will dramatically improve his game to the point of being able to fill one of those needs, but IMHO it's not very likely to happen. At the very least, the coaching staff can't assume that it will happen.)

North Park has a very, very, very steep uphill climb ahead of it, and right now that climb is all about getting in guys for next year who can excel in this league.

[Gregory Sager]

I think at this point you need to put Augie ahead of Edgewood.  Edgewood has a better SOS but it's not off the charts.  I believe they will be right around 0.5 whereas Augie is probably around 0.47 or so.  The reason I say this is because they have some common opponents to look at:

UW-SP: Edgewood lost by 11 at home, Augie won at home by 5
North Park: Edgewood won by 1 at home, Augie 2-0 by average of 11.5 points
Wisc. Lutheran: Edgewood 2-0 by an average of 10.5 points, Augie won by 28 neutral
Aurora: Edgewood lost by 4 on the road, Augie won by 34 at home

I'd say Augie wins all 4 of those comparisons.

No, Augie wins three of them. Scoring margin is not part of the common-regional-opponents criterion, or at least it's never been mentioned in previous years as being part of the criterion. (The wording in the handbook is "In-region results versus common regional opponents" -- and I suppose that the word "results" could be interpreted as referring to the spread as well as to who won and who lost.)

The comparisons should read:

UWSP: Edgewood 0-1, Augustana 1-0 (Augie wins)
NPU: Edgewood 1-0, Augustana 2-0 (Augie wins, because 2-0 is better than 1-0)
WLC: Edgewood 2-0, Augustana 1-0 (Edgewood wins, for the same reason that Augie wins the NPU-as-common-opponent comparison)
AU: Edgewood 0-1, Augustana 1-0 (Augie wins)

Greg, I love how you say "No" right off the bat but then backtrack and leave yourself some wiggle room.

Well, the CCIW tiebreakers discussion has shaken a little bit of my confidence.

I don't think we exactly know how the word "results" is interpreted.  Same goes for "results" vs. regionally ranked teams.  If they truly wanted to hold it only to win/loss then they easily could've put "winning percentage vs. common regional opponents".  I think this criteria leaves room for the committee members to figure out which team is "better" and since the eye test isn't in the list of criteria, I hope they would see that teams that win by more are usually better than teams that don't.

Right, which is why I said that the letter of the law allows that looser interpretation that would allow scoring margin to enter into the discussion. What I was saying, though, is that, in the years that I've followed the Pool C and Pool B discussions here on d3boards.com, the issue of scoring margin has always been discounted. Doesn't mean that all the experts were right about it, but that's what's been the case on this site.

As far as Augie getting into the regional rankings this week, it doesn't really matter to them but may affect some of the other CCIW teams more since that would effect their "results vs. regionally ranked opponents".  I think Augie's remaining schedule allows for their SOS to get to the 0.49-0.50 range which would be much more competitive nationally.  However, they really need to win @ Wheaton on Tuesday for any of this conversation to even matter.

Agreed on both counts. North Central has a hugely vested interest in seeing Augustana win at King Arena on Tuesday, because that means two extra wins (and no extra losses) in the in-region results versus regionally-ranked teams criterion for the Cards. IWU probably benefits from it, too, just by picking up two more games in that category, although IWU's 1-1 record against Augie naturally means that it would benefit less than would NCC. And, of course, you're right that if Augie loses, the whole point becomes moot for all concerned.

[Gregory Sager]

Four of the eight CCIW teams finished the season with losing overall records this year. That's the first time that that's happened since 2001-02, and only the second time in the past fifteen seasons.

Not a good year for the league.

[diehardfan]

If you're talking about an elite shooter, Bob, then attempts (and, thus, shooting percentage) have to figure into the discussion. I have never seen a discussion of shooters that didn't involve shooting percentage.

Being ranked eighteenth in the NCAA in makes says a lot for Zimmer's endurance and for his capability of getting off his shot at this level. But it doesn't make him an elite shooter.

Zimmer is one of eleven players in all of NCAA D1, D2, and D3 who have made 80+ 3's and made 42% or more...

1. Jaime Smith, Ala-Huntsville (D2), 83-159 (.522)
2. Nick Barbour, High Point (D1), 98-201 (.488)
3. Reggie Chamberlain, UMKC (D1), 91-188 (.484)
4. Jon Van Hoose, Northern Ky (D2), 84-185 (.454)
5. John Jenkins, Vanderbilt (D1), 96-214 (.449)
6. Jordan Miller, Pitt-Johnstown (D2),  80-179 (.447)
7. Jamie Karraker, MIT (D3), 92-211 (.436)
8. Kenny Boynton, Florida (D1), 86-198 (.434)
9. Nick Haynes, Concordia, TX (D3), 94-218 (.431)
10. Felix Llanos, Clarkson (D2), 97-227 (.427)
11. Jordan Zimmer, Ill. Wesleyan (D3), 85-201 (.423)



I'm still comfortable calling him "elite."

And I'm not. A .423 percentage is very good. It's not elite.

Is he a scary shooter, as Mark put it? Sure. Is he an excellent shooter? Absolutely. Is he, as you put it, one of the elite shooters in college basketball? No. He makes a boatload of treys, but for as many as he attempts he doesn't make enough to deserve that sort of superlative.

Out of curiosity, how do you think this guy who I have no vested interest proving anything about either way compares at treys to say, Nate Collard? (79-159 for .497 his senior year).

Yes, yes I did just make one of your twos reoccurring arguments about Wheaton. And that is why you missed me. Hah. Come on, Dennis seem sooooooooo laid back in comparison right now.

[Gregory Sager]

Out of curiosity, how do you think this guy who I have no vested interest proving anything about either way compares at treys to say, Nate Collard? (79-159 for .497 his senior year).

I haven't given Nate Collord a second thought ever since he and Samwise Gamgee entered Mordor to try to destroy the ring.

[Titan Q]

Four of the eight CCIW teams finished the season with losing overall records this year. That's the first time that that's happened since 2001-02, and only the second time in the past fifteen seasons.

Not a good year for the league.

The programs at North Central, Wheaton, IWU, and Augustana are in great shape.  Hopefully the bottom of the league - especially North Park and Millikin - can get its stuff together. 

[bopol]

Four of the eight CCIW teams finished the season with losing overall records this year. That's the first time that that's happened since 2001-02, and only the second time in the past fifteen seasons.

Not a good year for the league.

The programs at North Central, Wheaton, IWU, and Augustana are in great shape.  Hopefully the bottom of the league - especially North Park and Millikin - can get its stuff together.

Send a rebounder to Carthage and they'll be fine next year.  Just one. 

[Gregory Sager]

Four of the eight CCIW teams finished the season with losing overall records this year. That's the first time that that's happened since 2001-02, and only the second time in the past fifteen seasons.

Not a good year for the league.

The programs at North Central, Wheaton, IWU, and Augustana are in great shape.  Hopefully the bottom of the league - especially North Park and Millikin - can get its stuff together.

No doubt. But there's more to it than that. The first-division teams, while all representing healthy programs, aren't Salem caliber this year. In fact, I think it'll be a struggle for any one of them to make the sectionals, although it's really hard to predict that sort of thing (particularly before the bracket is released). I'm not sold on Elmhurst being back from the doldrums in which it found itself after the Ruch-Strzemp-Burks class left town. And Carthage, although loaded with young talent, seems to be an aggregation of disparate parts that don't fit well together; plus, the Red Men have had attrition issues in recent years. Bosko, however, seems more optimistic about the Red Men than I am. Here's what he said last night following the OT loss to Augie: "If our people stay the course, we have a chance to be especially good, and I would expect us to be a top-two or top-three team in the league next year."

[Titan Q]

No doubt. But there's more to it than that. The first-division teams, while all representing healthy programs, aren't Salem caliber this year.

Is this "Salem caliber" in terms of what you traditionally perceive a Final Four team to look like, or based on actual 2011-12 observations?  Because here are the top 2 teams in each region (from the current regional rankings)...

Atlantic - 1) William Paterson, 2) Staten Island
East - 1) Hartwick, 2) Oswego State
Great Lakes - 1) Hope, 2) Wittenberg
Mid-Atlantic - 1) Cabrini, 2) Keystone
Midwest - 1) Wash U, 2) Lake Forest
Northeast - 1) Amherst, 2) Middlebury
South - 1) Mary Hardin-Baylor, 2) Va Wesleyan
West - 1) UW-River Falls, 2) UW-Stevens Point


Is the grouping of North Central/Wheaton/Illinois Wesleyan/Augustana really inferior to these teams?  Consider...

* IWU won @ Staten Island
* Wheaton lost by 1 @ Hope
* IWU beat Wash U by a bunch
* Augie beat UW-Stevens Point


Or do we just have a ton of parity in Division III this year, and the top 4 CCIW teams could basically play with anyone in the country on any given night?

Who exactly are the definite "Salem caliber" teams in 2011-12?

[Gregory Sager]

No doubt. But there's more to it than that. The first-division teams, while all representing healthy programs, aren't Salem caliber this year.

Is this "Salem caliber" in terms of what you traditionally perceive a Final Four team to look like, or based on actual 2011-12 observations?

The former, admittedly. None of the top four CCIW teams passes the eyeball test of what a deep-tourney-run team looks like. But I fully realize that everything is relative, and that if there aren't a lot of strong teams outside the circuit -- particularly in the Midwest and West regions, where the CCIW is likely to find its teams playing the first weekend in March -- then the odds increase for even a CCIW team that doesn't meet the eyeball test to have significant tourney success.

Because here are the top 2 teams in each region (from the current regional rankings)...

Atlantic - 1) William Paterson, 2) Staten Island
East - 1) Hartwick, 2) Oswego State
Great Lakes - 1) Hope, 2) Wittenberg
Mid-Atlantic - 1) Cabrini, 2) Keystone
Midwest - 1) Wash U, 2) Lake Forest
Northeast - 1) Amherst, 2) Middlebury
South - 1) Mary Hardin-Baylor, 2) Va Wesleyan
West - 1) UW-River Falls, 2) UW-Stevens Point


Is the grouping of North Central/Wheaton/Illinois Wesleyan/Augustana really inferior to these teams?  Consider...

* IWU won @ Staten Island
* Wheaton lost by 1 @ Hope
* IWU beat Wash U by a bunch
* Augie beat UW-Stevens Point

You and I both know that the Atlantic Region is super-weak, inasmuch as the NJAC has declined in recent seasons. No way in the world that a CUNYAC team ever deserves serious respect with regard to the tourney. Wheaton looked very strong against Hope, but I think that in the long run Hope is a decidedly better team that wins that matchup against Wheaton by a bigger score than that more often than not. (Hope's on my short list of Salem contenders.) I don't have a good read on Wash U, in large part because the UAA is a confusing jumble this year. And you can throw UWSP out of the discussion right now, because it appears that Tyler Tillema is done for the year -- and if Tyler Tillema is done, then UWSP is not going to go far.

Or do we just have a ton of parity in Division III this year, and the top 4 CCIW teams could basically play with anyone in the country on any given night?

I'll admit that that's a possibility -- a sort of coast-to-coast epidemic of eyeball-test failures. But, even so, it wouldn't mean that the top half of the CCIW is really exceptional, though; it would mean, instead, that the national context in which those CCIW teams will operate in March is exceptional (exceptionally down).

(We really need people who see a lot of ball in other regions, such as D-Mac, in on this discussion.)

This is a very similar argument to the one that's been going on in the Top 25 and Posters' Poll rooms. The CCIW doesn't have anybody emerging from the pack, and nobody in our league really seems to be demonstrating that they belong any higher than the lower third of the Top 25, at best, but at the same time the people from the other parts of the country keep saying, "Well, we have to have CCIW teams in there, not necessarily because the CCIW automatically deserves them on merit, but because somebody's gotta fill those spaces in the Top 25."

Who exactly are the definite "Salem caliber" teams in 2011-12?

Right now, I'd say:

Hope
Amherst
Middlebury
Virginia Wesleyan

... and, after that, you're probably throwing darts at the dartboard.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg, for 'Salem caliber' teams, I'd add UWW and MIT (imagine that - the NE may be the toughest region, for once!), and, probably, UMHB.