MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[cardinalpride]

I would have given the nod to Tiknis on 1st team instead of Rairdon.  He was the most consistent and didn't disappear in big games like his heralded teammate.  His conf. scoring and rebounding were both higher than the coach's son.
Andone,
Schultze made more than layups,  He was pretty effective from outside as well and had the green light to shoot.  I would see no problem with Schultze on 2nd and  the NCC son of the coach on on 3rd team.  If we are just looking at conf. stats.

Wheels, sometimes stats do not tell the complete story.  I can recall months ago TQ writing about how deep the small forward and/or wing position being in the conference this year.  Of the 3 all conference teams, I counted a total of 5 players who played the majority of their minutes at the wing and/or small forward position (Raridon, Voiles, Boyd, Garriott, and Holmes).  It's a pretty safe bet that Raridon matched up with the other four players most of the time.
Here are the stats sheets from those games:

Voiles 2 game totals 5/22fg, 13pts(6.5ppg), and 9 fouls
http://www.northcentralcardinals.com/custompages/MBK/mbk1112/Mbk13.htm
http://www.northcentralcardinals.com/custompages/MBK/mbk1112/Mbk21.htm

Boyd  2 game totals 6/14fg, 21pts(10.5ppg), and 6/6ft
http://www.northcentralcardinals.com/custompages/MBK/mbk1112/Mbk14.htm
http://www.northcentralcardinals.com/custompages/MBK/mbk1112/Mbk20.htm

Garriott 2game totals 10/20fg, 29pts(14.5ppg), and 6/7ft...*box score indicates garriott didn't start in game 1*
http://www.northcentralcardinals.com/custompages/MBK/mbk1112/Mbk15.htm
http://www.northcentralcardinals.com/custompages/MBK/mbk1112/Mbk23.htm

Holmes 2 game totals 7/15fg, 20pts(10.5ppg), and 5/7ft
http://www.northcentralcardinals.com/custompages/MBK/mbk1112/Mbk18.htm
http://www.northcentralcardinals.com/custompages/MBK/mbk1112/Mbk24.htm

In each of those possible matchups it appears Raridon did a pretty good job defensively!  Especially the 2nd time around.  The coaches must put an emphasis on the defensive end as well...

[Hardwood]

I noticed Augie rec'd a bench tech in each of its last two games.
I assume these were somehow called against Mr. Giovanine.
However, just wondering if anyone can provide any details.
Were they earned for the coat toss, the stomp, the wave off, or some new maneuver?
Hoping for an encore Friday night! 

You're all wrong on this one.  The "T" was on Augie assistant coach Tom Jesse not coach G.

[Gregory Sager]

The problem is that for this week's rankings, Augie was not previouly ranked so NCC doesn't yet get those 2 games.  They are still 2-2 vs. regionally ranked opponents.

That makes no sense at all. Why should the committee put North Central's wins over Augie on hold for a week when it has already decided to put Augie into the Midwest Region ranking this week? That's just a cockeyed way of doing things.

Their SOS droppd down to 0.501 which is a decent drop from the 0.525 (I think) that they had last week.  In the common opponents, Concrdia (wis.) went 3-1 while NCC went 1-2.  That was probably the tiebreaker beteen those two teams.

Both good points. What is Concordia (WI)'s SOS right now?

Gregory - you can't count a team's results against a team if they aren't ranked already. Now they are ranked... now you can count them... it is like the first regionally rankings... there are no regionally ranked opponents to have results against for Week 1... so if Augie was never regionally ranked until now, technically those games only count as head-to-head match-ups... and clearly that wasn't enough for NCC to go in above Augie this week.

Oh, believe me, D-Mac, I understand the "reasoning". But it's still illogical. They should simply employ the regionally-ranked opponents criterion during Week One, using it to move teams up and down the ranking once the teams themselves have been established that first week, and then go from there.

The seven-day lag time between that criterion's data and the data used in the other four criteria means that the rankings don't give an accurate snapshot of the region in question in terms of how they're supposed to work. In other words, it's a design flaw.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

You want them to first do a regional ranking in Week 1... then go BACK and REORDER that regional ranking based on now have results based on regionally ranked teams? That is even more illogical! Every region would have to do this because it effects every region... and they would have to spend twice as much time doing one regional ranking... plus the fact, they aren't going to release two regional rankings in the first week so we aren't going to understand the "results vs. regionally ranked opponents" because we won't know who was actually ranked before the re-ranked everyone.

And do you want them to do that every week just to see how the results work? It sounds like loading the deck to see how the results will be affected and going back and adjusting accordingly.

And seven day lag time? The results are through Sunday's games... the vote comes on Tuesday... and the rankings are released Wednesday.

[NCF]

Also, there was a cheer from the students last night that is sure to entertain or irk some in this room. "Worse than North Park" went on for a while.

That's lazy cheer section research.  A quick look at the CCIW webpage could have led to better chants like, "We want Millikin (clap, clap, clap clap clap)"  or "We beat Elmhurst twice."

Hahahahahahahahaha!

I'm not the least bit irked by it. I think that some of you have missed the intent of the cheer. On Saturday night Wheaton dumped NPU by 16 points. Last night, Wheaton had a lead that was well into the 20s when that cheer started. The cheer thus meant (or at least this was how I interpreted it when I heard it), "Wheaton's beating your team by more than it beat the seventh-place team three nights ago," not, "Your team is worse than the seventh-place team." I'm sure that I'll get accused of having royal-blue-and-gold ears for interpreting it that way, but, given the close proximity between Saturday night's game and Tuesday night's game, that seems to me to be the logical interpretation.

It still doesn't make North Park look good. But, then again, why should I or any other NPU fan protest that? Our team was bad, bad, bad this season, and it certainly reached an epic level of baditude at King Arena last Saturday.

It was just funny-that's all-just funny.

[Pat Coleman]

And seven day lag time? The results are through Sunday's games... the vote comes on Tuesday... and the rankings are released Wednesday.

But the results against regionally ranked opponents are a week older, as Greg pointed out.

[WheatonFanChris]

So IF Augie drops out of the top 8 next week, does Wheaton's win still count as a "win vs regionally ranked team" because they were ranked this week?

[Pat Coleman]

Yes -- once a team is ranked, they are always considered ranked for that purpose.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Personally, there should be four or five regional reports... but I am sure I am preaching to the choir on that one.

[Gregory Sager]

You want them to first do a regional ranking in Week 1... then go BACK and REORDER that regional ranking based on now have results based on regionally ranked teams?

Yes.

That is even more illogical!

How could anything be more illogical than building a regional ranking using four current criteria mixed with a fifth criterion that's a week out of date?

Every region would have to do this because it effects every region.

Yep. That hardly matters, though, since each committee is only responsible for its own region.

.. and they would have to spend twice as much time doing one regional ranking

Oh, boo hoo. They should spend the amount of time necessary to do it right.

... plus the fact, they aren't going to release two regional rankings in the first week

Who's asking them to do so? Not moi.

so we aren't going to understand the "results vs. regionally ranked opponents" because we won't know who was actually ranked before the re-ranked everyone.

That doesn't follow at all. We would understand the "in-region results versus regionally-ranked teams" criterion to mean exactly what it says it means -- the team's record versus other regionally-ranked teams as of that particular date.

And do you want them to do that every week just to see how the results work?

You make it sound as though they're being asked to climb Mt. Everest in scuba gear, D-Mac. There's no added work involved once the first week is done. I compiled the up-to-date vRRO numbers for the CCIW's four contenders today, and it took me all of about thirty seconds.

It sounds like loading the deck to see how the results will be affected and going back and adjusting accordingly.

Not at all. You tabulate the data for the four other criteria that first week, rank the teams, and then add in the vRRO data, weighing it however the committee chooses to weigh that particular criterion. If it moves teams up or down, in or out, then you adjust the ranking accordingly. If not, then fine. Once that's done, you release the result.

And from that point onward, you have an accurate ranking each week, in which all five of the criteria are up-to-date, relevant, and in concord with each other.

And seven day lag time? The results are through Sunday's games... the vote comes on Tuesday... and the rankings are released Wednesday.

See Pat's post.

[Gregory Sager]

Personally, there should be four or five regional reports... but I am sure I am preaching to the choir on that one.

And yet you think that I'm the one who is trying to make the committee members do more work?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Personally, there should be four or five regional reports... but I am sure I am preaching to the choir on that one.

And yet you think that I'm the one who is trying to make the committee members do more work?

Not extra work... they are already doing these rankings for a few weeks as practice... and they used to release six in the past... not changing the time frame.

You want them to first do a regional ranking in Week 1... then go BACK and REORDER that regional ranking based on now have results based on regionally ranked teams?

Yes.

That is even more illogical!

How could anything be more illogical than building a regional ranking using four current criteria mixed with a fifth criterion that's a week out of date?

Every region would have to do this because it effects every region.

Yep. That hardly matters, though, since each committee is only responsible for its own region.

.. and they would have to spend twice as much time doing one regional ranking

Oh, boo hoo. They should spend the amount of time necessary to do it right.

... plus the fact, they aren't going to release two regional rankings in the first week

Who's asking them to do so? Not moi.

so we aren't going to understand the "results vs. regionally ranked opponents" because we won't know who was actually ranked before the re-ranked everyone.

That doesn't follow at all. We would understand the "in-region results versus regionally-ranked teams" criterion to mean exactly what it says it means -- the team's record versus other regionally-ranked teams as of that particular date.

It sounds like loading the deck to see how the results will be affected and going back and adjusting accordingly.

Not at all. You tabulate the data for the four other criteria that first week, rank the teams, and then add in the vRRO data, weighing it however the committee chooses to weigh that particular criterion. If it moves teams up or down, in or out, then you adjust the ranking accordingly. If not, then fine. Once that's done, you release the result.

And from that point onward, you have an accurate ranking each week, in which all five of the criteria are up-to-date, relevant, and in concord with each other.

Here is my point... if they rank the teams... then go back and look at the results vs. regionally ranked teams... that is most likely going to produce a different regional ranking then what was first proposed. As a result, you may have a team get say a 1-0 or 2-0 record against regionally ranked opponents. But imagine then looking at that team's schedule and can't find an opponent that is on the first week's regional rankings. Aren't you going to wonder what that record is based on? Who did they play that was actually ranked? We won't technically know unless they have released both sets of regional rankings... that seems even stranger.

Also, would the regionally ranking they used just to work on the regional results be allowed for the "once ranked, always ranked?" In theory they would have to... but then again, it is an extra set of regional rankings... at some point you have to start at the beginning and at some point those regional rankings will be based on standings not considering results vs. regionally ranked opponents... where do you start?

[AndOne]

I noticed Augie rec'd a bench tech in each of its last two games.
I assume these were somehow called against Mr. Giovanine.
However, just wondering if anyone can provide any details.
Were they earned for the coat toss, the stomp, the wave off, or some new maneuver?
Hoping for an encore Friday night! 

You're all wrong on this one.  The "T" was on Augie assistant coach Tom Jesse not coach G.

Last night's T on Giovanine was for a loud BS directed at the refs. He was actually pretty subdued for most of the game based on the scoreline however.

Looks like you guys have your signals crossed.
If Tom Jesse got one of the last 2 techs, all I can think is that he was likely suddenly awakened from his usual slumbering posture by Giovanine's ranting and, in shock, shouted an obscenity at Giovanine that the refs thought was directed at them! 

[Gregory Sager]

Here is my point... if they rank the teams... then go back and look at the results vs. regionally ranked teams... that is most likely going to produce a different regional ranking then what was first proposed. As a result, you may have a team get say a 1-0 or 2-0 record against regionally ranked opponents. But imagine then looking at that team's schedule and can't find an opponent that is on the first week's regional rankings. Aren't you going to wonder what that record is based on? Who did they play that was actually ranked? We won't technically know unless they have released both sets of regional rankings... that seems even stranger.

No, I think that you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am not proposing that the committee do two rankings the first week, one without the vRRO criterion and then one with it. I'm saying that the committee should continue to have one released ranking -- and that that ranking should be constructed using the other four criteria first, and then adding in the vRRO criterion based upon what's developed from the first four criteria.

Also, would the regionally ranking they used just to work on the regional results be allowed for the "once ranked, always ranked?" In theory they would have to... but then again, it is an extra set of regional rankings... at some point you have to start at the beginning and at some point those regional rankings will be based on standings not considering results vs. regionally ranked opponents... where do you start?

No. As I said, there's no extra set of rankings. I'm simply saying that the first set of rankings should be tabulated in a specific way so that the vRRO criterion gets added on at the end of the process.

[Gregory Sager]

I noticed Augie rec'd a bench tech in each of its last two games.
I assume these were somehow called against Mr. Giovanine.
However, just wondering if anyone can provide any details.
Were they earned for the coat toss, the stomp, the wave off, or some new maneuver?
Hoping for an encore Friday night! 

You're all wrong on this one.  The "T" was on Augie assistant coach Tom Jesse not coach G.

Last night's T on Giovanine was for a loud BS directed at the refs. He was actually pretty subdued for most of the game based on the scoreline however.

Looks like you guys have your signals crossed.
If Tom Jesse got one of the last 2 techs, all I can think is that he was likely suddenly awakened from his usual slumbering posture by Giovanine's ranting and, in shock, shouted an obscenity at Giovanine that the refs thought was directed at them! 

I couldn't tell from the WETN broadcast who yelled the barnyard epithet -- I couldn't even hear the epithet itself clearly -- but I'd be absolutely stunned if it was Tom Jessee (note the spelling, folks) who yelled it. It's completely out of character for him to do something like that in a game. OTOH, we're all aware that it's a rather prominent word in his boss's vocabulary.

But, again, I wasn't there.