MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Pat Coleman]

AndOne:

Sometimes your last sentence is true. Of course, sometimes new faces burn voters as well. But it does seem a traditional power gets more benefit of the doubt. But it's hard for anyone who starts 4-5 against unranked teams to really recover. They may need to stand on their heads, indeed.

[AndOne]

i always have an issue with IWU.

I agree that their lackluster performance against the top teams in the league - losing 4 out 5 was not taken into consideration by a bunch of post=season voters.

That's one of the reasons post-season polls are WORTHLESS.

And did Augustana not prove the same about pre-season polls?

Amen and Amen


The first baseball poll came out and Carthage was ranked without playing a game!

I think all too often the person or organization conducting the poll puts too much faith in the people that are asked to vote in the poll that they are actually going to do their homework.

This latest D3hoops poll is living proof - a bunch of guys/gals who just looked at the national tournament.  Indefensible.

The same people voted all year. They don't forget the regular season.

If North Central were denied a chance to reach the Final Four by virtue of being matched up against a team too early in the tournament, then our voters would have reacted, as they did in some of the previous situations Dave cited. And our voters have definitely done that in the past. Here's an extreme example:

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2001-02/final

That team ranked No. 8 didn't even make the tournament, thanks to the NCAA committee. But our voters recognized the wrong.

The layout of the tournament has been more balanced the past few years. Yes, perhaps Cabrini benefited by Middlebury losing in front of them, but they made the Final Four, then won their semifinal, then were incredibly competitive in the title game. If they hadn't been competitive in the title game, you might have seen a result like our 2005 final poll:

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2004-05/final

York, the fourth team in that Final Four, finished No. 13.

Dennis -- yes, third in the league. But the voters take all 31 games into account, not just 14 conference games. And how you finish is important. All three CCIW teams finished pretty well, but if North Central were to be ranked above Wittenberg or Wooster, it would have to beat one of them. IWU clearly played better at the end of the year.

Heck, I saw them in the CCIW semis against Wheaton and I thought they looked pretty unimpressive. But they put it all together, didn't they?

And how did North Central look in the CCIW conference tourney in beating Augie and Wheaton? And how did they look in beating higher ranked Wash U on WU's home floor in the regionals? And did they look horrendous in a 3 point loss to Witt @ Woo? Wooster couldn't even win the sectional semi on its own floor. If you go back and look at all my posts over the last few days, NOWHERE did I diminish IWU's tourney success. All I'm saying if that if IWU is the #3 team in the country, NCC is not 13 spots worse! Especially, when you consider NCC swept IWU this season by an average of 10 ppg.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Not saying other voters don't seem to mail it in... I don't know. But I also know that a blanket statement condemning voters isn't fair since all of the ones I know spend a ton of time putting together their ballots.

[AndOne]

AndOne:

Sometimes your last sentence is true. Of course, sometimes new faces burn voters as well. But it does seem a traditional power gets more benefit of the doubt. But it's hard for anyone who starts 4-5 against unranked teams to really recover. They may need to stand on their heads, indeed.

And is that right?
Perhaps the voters need to do a little more research as to exactly why many of a team's losses occurred, And perhaps they need to lend a little more credence to how a team that got off to a rough start responded to that start.
I know its a rough job, but they didn't turn down the appointment to the committee. Their acceptance of the position implies that they'll do due diligence to provide an accurate picture of a team's relative merit. JMHO   

[AndOne]

Not saying other voters don't seem to mail it in... I don't know. But I also know that a blanket statement condemning voters isn't fair since all of the ones I know spend a ton of time putting together their ballots.

As a Top 25 voter... it frustrates me that you think many of us don't take it seriously. I will agree I had frustrations with the poll... but many people's assumptions on the job of doing a poll are off-base.

If you could only imagine the work it takes to do a Top 25 each week - doing our homework, etc. - will astound you. Now, take that work and add it to your already busy schedule, in my case covering Division III basketball, doing a twice-weekly show, having a family, and working a 40+ hour a week job... and you will realize it isn't easy.

That doesn't mean I shy away at the work... heck, half of my trip home from Salem was debating my Top 25... and while I usually finish it up on Sunday nights, I brought it to work with me yesterday because of how much debate I had going on. I still could redo my Top 25 and be working on it now - but will never be satisfied with my final poll.

It is easy to take shots at polls from afar.

Dave--

I agree, its wrong to issue a blanket condemnation of ALL Top 25 voters. I am sure the majority take it seriously,

However, you need to remember YOUR own words and actions before offering a blanket defense of ALL voters. I listened to Hoopsville last night after your suggestion I do so. I must say you launched a credible major rant toward the end of the show during which you seemed to profess the opinion that some of your fellow voters had their heads screwed on backwards when they submitted their ballots on the final Top 25. 

One thing I've observed about the polls is that reputation seems to play far too big of a roll, especially during the regular season. Once a team is highly ranked it often seems to take way to long for them to drop out of the Top 25 no matter how badly they play for how long. Conversely, teams who traditionally do not appear regularly, seem to almost have to stand on their heads to break into the Top 25 despite how well they're playing, and how long they've  been doing so.  

And I agreed with you 100%

[AndOne]

AndOne:

Sometimes your last sentence is true. Of course, sometimes new faces burn voters as well. But it does seem a traditional power gets more benefit of the doubt. But it's hard for anyone who starts 4-5 against unranked teams to really recover. They may need to stand on their heads, indeed.

Yikes! We finally agreed on something.
Oh, my heart! Quick, somebody call 911.         

[NCF]

AndOne:

Sometimes your last sentence is true. Of course, sometimes new faces burn voters as well. But it does seem a traditional power gets more benefit of the doubt. But it's hard for anyone who starts 4-5 against unranked teams to really recover. They may need to stand on their heads, indeed.

Yikes! We finally agreed on something.
Oh, my heart! Quick, somebody call 911.         

I'll bring the AED I've always wanted a chance to use it!

[Pat Coleman]

AndOne:

Sometimes your last sentence is true. Of course, sometimes new faces burn voters as well. But it does seem a traditional power gets more benefit of the doubt. But it's hard for anyone who starts 4-5 against unranked teams to really recover. They may need to stand on their heads, indeed.

And is that right?
Perhaps the voters need to do a little more research as to exactly why many of a team's losses occurred, And perhaps they need to lend a little more credence to how a team that got off to a rough start responded to that start.

Similarly, they give more credence to how a team finished. You want people to be able to discount certain games? Then you need to be prepared for the fact that they may discount games you don't want them to.

[izzy stradlin]

I'd like to inject a break into this pointless poll squabble to give Wheaton's Tim McCrary his due. Even though it's been easy to take his performance for granted, he had a remarkable 4 year run with one of the gaudiest career stat lines in the history of Division III. If he hadn't played in same time period as Raymond and Stevie D, he would be a 3-time CCIW POY instead of one-time. Just a super impressive PF with some of the most polished moves and passing you'll ever see from that position. I know IWU has been getting all the pub on this board in recent weeks, but it will be quite awhile until we see another Tim McCrary.

Tim McCrary will go down as one of the great players in the history of the CCIW.

True, true, and true. 

Wheaton fans have had a 6 year strech with either Raymond or McCrary on the floor, probably the two best players they have had in uniform in the 15 years I have been following.   I am not saying they can't win games, but it will be a major adjustment next year.  I expect Tyler Peters to really step up next year and be their leading scorer (possibly giving up his point guard role to Caleb DeMoss). 

Also, as of the conference tournament, Aaron Garriott was not planning on coming back.   It is possible this may have changed following a two weekend NCAA run, but I don't think he saw eye-to-eye with Schauer on the offensive side of things.   

[Pat Coleman]

And how did North Central look in the CCIW conference tourney in beating Augie and Wheaton? And how did they look in beating higher ranked Wash U on WU's home floor in the regionals?

They looked great in beating Augie. They looked good in beating Wheaton and going 1-2 against them. They looked good in beating Wash U. And they are ranked ahead of Wash U and in the neighborhood of Wheaton.

And did they look horrendous in a 3 point loss to Witt @ Woo?

Hi. This is still a loss on a neutral floor. Doesn't matter as much how they "looked." And by the way, I wouldn't want to remind people about Wittenberg's performance that weekend if I were trying to make an argument in favor of North Central.

[Titan Q]

Potentially a big addition for Wheaton as Aaron Garriott will return to the Thunder after over a year of rehab - it was thought his basketball career was over.  Garriott is a senior academically but a junior athletically.

Here is an article from May 2009 regarding his transfer from D1 SIU-E to Wheaton...

http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/article_cad7fefb-9ccc-5f47-9aec-f3d332786287.html


When Garriott transfered to Wheaton, I looked at him as a sure all-CCIW player.

From the same reliable source that gave me the scoop above, I can confirm that Aaron Garriott is not coming back to Wheaton for his senior year of eligibility. He has a pastoral internship at Coral Ridge Pres Church in Ft. Lauderdale and will also be attending Knox Seminary School at the same time.

[Titan Q]

Purely based on returners, my first preseason 2012-13 poll would look like this...

1. North Central
2. Illinois Wesleyan (assumes Brady Zimmer is 100% healthy and ready to start at the 2)
3. Carthage
4. Wheaton (assumes Aaron Garriott is returning)
5. Augustana
6. North Park
7. Elmhurst
8. Millikin


As it see it, there is a lot of separation right now between NCC and whoever is #2...and #2 through #5 is basically just a toss-up.  IWU, Carthage, Augustana, and Wheaton have a lot a really good parts returning, but also some significant questions to answer in the off-season. 

I'm confident the CCIW will have 5 solid teams next year when the ball is tipped in mid-November.  Whether the league gets back to a great cumulative non-conference mark will depend in large part on what happens at North Park, Elmhurst, and Millikin.  With studs Mark Holmes and Mike Gabriel returning, it would seem to me that NPU is positioned to improve quite a bit, and with the right additions, maybe even knock on the top 4 door.

Of course, it's March 2012...so none of this really means very much.  But oh well.

So for now, I'd have to flip Wheaton and Augie...

1. North Central
2. Illinois Wesleyan (assumes Brady Zimmer is 100% healthy and ready to start at the 2)
3. Carthage
4. Augustana
5. Wheaton
6. North Park
7. Elmhurst
8. Millikin

[bopol]

As a Top 25 voter... it frustrates me that you think many of us don't take it seriously. I will agree I had frustrations with the poll... but many people's assumptions on the job of doing a poll are off-base.

If you could only imagine the work it takes to do a Top 25 each week - doing our homework, etc. - will astound you. Now, take that work and add it to your already busy schedule, in my case covering Division III basketball, doing a twice-weekly show, having a family, and working a 40+ hour a week job... and you will realize it isn't easy.

That doesn't mean I shy away at the work... heck, half of my trip home from Salem was debating my Top 25... and while I usually finish it up on Sunday nights, I brought it to work with me yesterday because of how much debate I had going on. I still could redo my Top 25 and be working on it now - but will never be satisfied with my final poll.

It is easy to take shots at polls from afar.

In fairness, we're allowed to state our opinions.  Frankly, I think that polls are fun for discussion, which is what we are doing, but you really can't take them that seriously as I don't think anyone can reasonably say that IWU is better than MIT with certainty, given the total lack of overlap between the two team's opponents.  You can try your best; you can come up with certain internal consistancies, but you can't state with anything resembling certainty.  An individual person might rank NCC worse for their dogged play in November; another might reasonably say that they played great down the stretch.  Who's right?  It's an argument for philosophers.

And a lot of us work hard and have families, too.  You might see us as dogging on your professional work, but for me, it's a fun distraction.  Lord knows that my profession gets PLENTY of second guessing by people far outside of it, so I guess I could say that you should toughen up, explain your criteria and stand by it or rethink your view based on other's comments.

[Gregory Sager]

In other words, the City Viking freshman class was arguably the worst recruiting class in the league.

Agreed, but let's be fair to Chris Edquist here. He had to bring in that class by himself, with only the help of graduate assistant Steve Schweer, without benefit of a head coach for the crucial two-month window of March and April in which an awful lot of college decisions are made by prospects. Think it's easy to recruit players when there's no head coach in place? Think again.

Go after transfers like the Noreens.

Unless you've got some Twin Cities Covie connection that I don't, Mark, I don't think that either of the Noreen brothers are going to surrender their D1 scholies to transfer to NPU. Of course, Radford was slapped with NCAA sanctions four weeks ago, including two years of probation and two scholarships lost, so perhaps Kyle Noreen will give some thought to transferring. But, as I said, unless you have inside info it's just idle speculation to bring up his name here.

[Gregory Sager]

Also, as of the conference tournament, Aaron Garriott was not planning on coming back.   It is possible this may have changed following a two weekend NCAA run, but I don't think he saw eye-to-eye with Schauer on the offensive side of things.

I knew that he was mulling over returning as a grad student, but it struck me as strange that a married guy like Garriott would think about basically re-orienting his life just to play an extra year of basketball.

From the same reliable source that gave me the scoop above, I can confirm that Aaron Garriott is not coming back to Wheaton for his senior year of eligibility. He has a pastoral internship at Coral Ridge Pres Church in Ft. Lauderdale and will also be attending Knox Seminary School at the same time.

Perhaps he didn't see eye-to-eye with Schauer on the theological side of things, rather than the offensive side of things.

Mike Schauer: Motion offense. Man-to-man defense. Arminianism.