MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Titan Q]

Wed's Wheaton/Augustana match-up is huge for the Pool C game.  Seven in-region losses with a strong SOS is still in the picture.  Figuring both pick-up a loss in the CCIW tournament to be a Pool C candidate puts the loser of this game on the edge.  Beyond Wed. both still have difficult games with Wheaton/North Central and Augustana/Carthage.

With the right results and no upsets the CCIW could very well have a viable 4th candidate for Pool C selection.

No question the Augustana @ Wheaton game is huge.  As closely bunched as the 8 Midwest teams are (and St. Norbert), literally every game these teams play the rest of the way is really big - when two square off, that becomes "huge."

Not only will the regional rankings determine Pool C order, but seedings as well.  The team that ends up #1 might get to a chance to get to Salem (for rounds 4/5) without leaving home.

I think the CCIW is in pretty good shape to get two Pool C teams in, and have a third on the table and being discussed towards the end of the bubble.  Actually getting the third Pool C in is probably a longshot though.

IWU is in very good shape in terms of Pool C as I see (with those 5 wins already against other potentially ranked teams).  If the Titans finish 12-2 in the CCIW, I think they're almost a lock...even with a loss on Friday night in the conference tournament.  This is a big change from the Pool C position IWU was sitting after picking up in-region loss #3 on Dec 30 @ Franklin.

[iwu70]

As in the past, I would very much trust Q's estimates and prognastications about regional rankings and Pool C prospects.  Glad to see that the CCIW might get three teams in this year.  Hoping for four is a stretch, I agree.  Let's hope so for three . . . then make some bigtime noise in March.

Delighted to see the Titans playing so well, coming together all 'round at the right time.  I agree with many of the posts earlier about balanced superb quality of the top six Titan players, Dylan Overstreet's breakout season, bench strength and depth, improved FT shooting, and some excellent coaching by Coach Rose.  Basically, this success comes substantially from IWU being an excellent defensive team. The team chemistry and the seeming enjoying of the game and each other was very much evident all season, if you watched this Titan team up close and during warmups and games.  Nice to see. 

From my perch now in far away Hong Kong, I'll be watching and following the Titans with great interest as we head toward the post-season, the new format at Salem and the delayed Finals games at the DI tournament.  It's all going to be very intersting to see how it all plays out.  I'll be pulling for two CCIW teams in the Final Four. 

My kudos to Pat and all those who run D3hoops.com as well.   I noticed it was down for a bit, but only thought it was the normal blocking of my requests from faraway "China," though I'm really in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, which has a bit of a different, more free and ordered jurisdiction and regulation when it comes to internet usage and access.  Glad to see the D3hoops site all up and active again.  Thanks to Pat and all those involved in this unique and wonderful sports site.  This site and the advent of video streaming has fundamentally changed the way we all enjoy our D3 hoops loyalties. 

IWU70

[markerickson]

I guess the only question is by how many points will IWU defeat NPU?

[markerickson]

I meant to write by how many points over 30.

[kiko]

[quote author=kiko link=topic=4592.msg1491831#msg1491831 date=1359924759]

  - Rose-Hulman - win @ Transylvania...loss @ Transylvania

I don't think this will impact your rankings at all, but Rose-Hulman's loss to Transylvania was at home.

(And I wasn't checking your work; just thought it odd that they would play two road games against a conference foe and decided to check their schedule.)

I still would not be surprised if someone else -- likely Rose-Hulman -- sits at #2 ahead of North Central.  Not because the Cards aren't the second-best team, per say, but because that's how the vote/consensus from the committee shakes out.

Kiko---

I'm confused. Could you please explain your thinking with regard to the portion of your post which I highlighted. Thanks much.
[/quote]

Very simply, I think that the Cardinals are not clearly superior across all published metrics relative to the other potential candidates for the #2 ranking.  (I share Q's belief that the Titans are a clear #1.)    They are directionally superior on some and directionally weaker or at parity on others.

In the absence of clear, factual data, I do not necessarily believe that the committee will rank CCIW teams 1-2.  In football, the region has tended to rank all of the conference leaders highest before getting into multiple teams from the same conference.  (Other regions have not had this issue.)  This has been less pervasive in basketball, and there are more data points (games) that can be used to separate teams.

There is an implicit 'our best team would be the third-best team in that conference' admission to a ranking that places the Cards second, and I think that may be a tough mental hurdle for the Cards to overcome.  (In the grand scheme of things, the initial rank order(*) is just a point-in-time look at the committee's thinking and will have very little bearing on the tournament.)

I am happy to be proven wrong about this given my loyalties but would not bet the mortgage on a #2 ranking when the first set comes out.

(*) - the order will have little impact, but the presence of teams in the ranking is potentially huge, particularly in that some teams will show up only in one iteration of the released rankings and not in others, but will count as part of the 'record against regionally ranked teams' metric.

[Titan Q]

In the absence of clear, factual data, I do not necessarily believe that the committee will rank CCIW teams 1-2.  In football, the region has tended to rank all of the conference leaders highest before getting into multiple teams from the same conference.  (Other regions have not had this issue.)  This has been less pervasive in basketball, and there are more data points (games) that can be used to separate teams.

There is an implicit 'our best team would be the third-best team in that conference' admission to a ranking that places the Cards second, and I think that may be a tough mental hurdle for the Cards to overcome. 

I don't think this is a big factor, kiko.  The first West rankings last year looked like this...

1   UW-River Falls   16-3   16-5
2   UW-Stevens Point   16-4   18-4
3   UW-Whitewater   19-2   19-2

And the first Northeast rankings like this...

1   Amherst   18-2   20-2
2   Middlebury   18-1   20-1

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/page/4/


I think it's more about your first point:

Very simply, I think that the Cardinals are not clearly superior across all published metrics relative to the other potential candidates for the #2 ranking.  (I share Q's belief that the Titans are a clear #1.)    They are directionally superior on some and directionally weaker or at parity on others.

The bottom line is that the regional advisory committees evaluate and weigh objective data in a subjective fashion.  We don't really know how the Midwest committee will balance winning %, SOS, head-to-head, common opponents, etc.  It can be unpredictable.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

FYI - I know Bob knows about this on another board, but the games for regional rankings are evaluated through Sunday's results. The RACs then have a conference call on Tuesday to discuss the rankings and then they immediately vote online individually on the regional rankings. Then on Wednesday morning, the national committee has a conference call where they discuss the rankings and make any adjustments they feel necessary (something that last year they were not allowed to do for the first time until the final rankings - we are back to the original way now). Then the regional rankings are made public Wednesday afternoon.

[kiko]

In the absence of clear, factual data, I do not necessarily believe that the committee will rank CCIW teams 1-2.  In football, the region has tended to rank all of the conference leaders highest before getting into multiple teams from the same conference.  (Other regions have not had this issue.)  This has been less pervasive in basketball, and there are more data points (games) that can be used to separate teams.

There is an implicit 'our best team would be the third-best team in that conference' admission to a ranking that places the Cards second, and I think that may be a tough mental hurdle for the Cards to overcome. 

I don't think this is a big factor, kiko.  The first West rankings last year looked like this...

1   UW-River Falls   16-3   16-5
2   UW-Stevens Point   16-4   18-4
3   UW-Whitewater   19-2   19-2

And the first Northeast rankings like this...

1   Amherst   18-2   20-2
2   Middlebury   18-1   20-1

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/page/4/


I think it's more about your first point:

Very simply, I think that the Cardinals are not clearly superior across all published metrics relative to the other potential candidates for the #2 ranking.  (I share Q's belief that the Titans are a clear #1.)    They are directionally superior on some and directionally weaker or at parity on others.

The bottom line is that the regional advisory committees evaluate and weigh objective data in a subjective fashion.  We don't really know how the Midwest committee will balance winning %, SOS, head-to-head, common opponents, etc.  It can be unpredictable.

Well, that would be the part in red below:

In the absence of clear, factual data, I do not necessarily believe that the committee will rank CCIW teams 1-2.  In football, the region has tended to rank all of the conference leaders highest before getting into multiple teams from the same conference.  (Other regions have not had this issue.)  This has been less pervasive in basketball, and there are more data points (games) that can be used to separate teams.

The Midwest has a track record on this particular topic.  Committee members change, and the specific merits of individual teams differ from year to year, so I certainly could be wrong.  And this really is a minor issue in grand scheme of things.  The Cards (and other CCIW hopefuls) will certainly be ranked somewhere, and their performance down the stretch and in the conference tournament will really be what determines whether, in the final ranking, they are slotted at #2, or #3, or #4.....

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

If we have learned anything in the process of regional rankings... what one sport or even gender of a sport does... does not translate into another. So while you point out what you saw in football, don't assume that means they will do the same in basketball. I have seen two teams from the same conference ranked #1 and #2 in the past... doesn't mean it can't happen again.

[Titan Q]

FYI - I know Bob knows about this on another board, but the games for regional rankings are evaluated through Sunday's results. The RACs then have a conference call on Tuesday to discuss the rankings and then they immediately vote online individually on the regional rankings. Then on Wednesday morning, the national committee has a conference call where they discuss the rankings and make any adjustments they feel necessary (something that last year they were not allowed to do for the first time until the final rankings - we are back to the original way now). Then the regional rankings are made public Wednesday afternoon.

Yes, thanks...had my days wrong...for the first ranking, results are evaluated through yesterday's games (Sunday).

[D-3 watcher]

And One, its been a few days since you wrote about the IWU-Wheaton game, I've been busy and didn't get a chance to question your comments, but I didn't want to let it pass, seeing how you were wrong again.
When IWU played and beat Wheaton the first time, you said it was because Wheaton didn't have its full team. N. Haynes didn't play. That's fair, he is a vey good player.
Then when NCC beat Wheaton, you made it very clear that NCC beat Wheaton's FULL team. Note the capital letters. You like doing that, I guess that's your way of getting your point across.
Then when IWU beat NCC, it was only because NCC had its big three hurting, to the point that they only all played about 35 out of 40 possible min. That's fair, they are all very good players.
Then when Wheaton beat NCC, you once again, mentioned your players still being hurt, while still playing a whole lot of min. That's fair, they are all good players.
Then before the IWU-Wheaton game this Saturday, you once again told us how lucky IWU was the first time, and that with N. Haynes playing it will be a different game, we won't get all the rebounds, the game will be very close, maybe even a Wheaton win. Wrong again, same result, not a close game much of the time.
I'm trying to remember, and if I'm wrong I apologize, (wont go back to read your post, kinda boring) , but didn't you tell us you were an investigator? Well if indeed you were, who did you work for? The NATIONAL INQUIRIER

[Dennis_Prikkel]

I would suspect that "Augie Doggies" does not precede the cartoon character of that name.  It may well have even been an invention right here on CCIW Chat.

No, "Doggies" goes back generations. I can't speak for any school other than NPU, but when I came to North Park I met alumni who were referring to Augustana athletes as "the Doggies," which means that it dates back to at least the '70s. I would guess it goes back much further than that. (Dennis Prikkel, paging Dennis Prikkel, please pick up the white courtesy phone.) After all, it's a rhyme, which makes it a natural and obvious nickname.

(The Hanna-Barbera animated dachsund of that name was first aired on TV in 1959, incidentally. So "Augie Doggie" has been in the cultural consciousness for a very, very long time.)

never heard of it ever in reference to the school in Rock Island, and I go back to 1965.

there was a famous hot dog stand in Rosemont called Augie's Doggies - that's the only mention of that name I've ever heard.  Perhaps in reference to the school in Rock Island its a figment of someone's active imagination.

[thunder38]

Unfortunately there's very little to analyze from Saturday night at the Shirk because the truth of the matter is that after the opening five minutes Wheaton just got punked and never responded to IWU's intensity and GanGreen played a terrific game. However, I found myself walking away scratching my head at the extremely low level of class showed by several IWU students during the game.

Kids will inevitably be kids and are trying to have a good time but several students standing on the floor opposite the Wheaton bench (one in a blue blazer, the other dressed as the banana) crossed the line in singling out one Thunder player at the end of the bench. Every program has kids who will play four years and rarely see the floor but they love the team, the game and the program and every program needs those kids. The fact that these kids singled out and then incessantly went after him for a majority of the second half including repeatedly calling him 'Radio' shows an incredible amount of ignorance and is a terrible reflection on the Titans and the institution.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ron Rose and his program and its a shame that their outstanding performance had to be marred by such a classless act. Even what was one of the most emotionally charged CCIW games of the season a few weeks ago at King Arena, the NCC and Wheaton fans showed respect toward the opposing players. Just a nagging thought that had stuck with me throughout the weekend. Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

[74impala]

Unfortunately there's very little to analyze from Saturday night at the Shirk because the truth of the matter is that after the opening five minutes Wheaton just got punked and never responded to IWU's intensity and GanGreen played a terrific game. However, I found myself walking away scratching my head at the extremely low level of class showed by several IWU students during the game.

Kids will inevitably be kids and are trying to have a good time but several students standing on the floor opposite the Wheaton bench (one in a blue blazer, the other dressed as the banana) crossed the line in singling out one Thunder player at the end of the bench. Every program has kids who will play four years and rarely see the floor but they love the team, the game and the program and every program needs those kids. The fact that these kids singled out and then incessantly went after him for a majority of the second half including repeatedly calling him 'Radio' shows an incredible amount of ignorance and is a terrible reflection on the Titans and the institution.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ron Rose and his program and its a shame that their outstanding performance had to be marred by such a classless act. Even what was one of the most emotionally charged CCIW games of the season a few weeks ago at King Arena, the NCC and Wheaton fans showed respect toward the opposing players. Just a nagging thought that had stuck with me throughout the weekend. Now back to your regularly scheduled broadcast.

That banana costume was obscene.

[USee]

And One, its been a few days since you wrote about the IWU-Wheaton game, I've been busy and didn't get a chance to question your comments, but I didn't want to let it pass, seeing how you were wrong again.
When IWU played and beat Wheaton the first time, you said it was because Wheaton didn't have its full team. N. Haynes didn't play. That's fair, he is a vey good player.
Then when NCC beat Wheaton, you made it very clear that NCC beat Wheaton's FULL team. Note the capital letters. You like doing that, I guess that's your way of getting your point across.
Then when IWU beat NCC, it was only because NCC had its big three hurting, to the point that they only all played about 35 out of 40 possible min. That's fair, they are all very good players.
Then when Wheaton beat NCC, you once again, mentioned your players still being hurt, while still playing a whole lot of min. That's fair, they are all good players.
Then before the IWU-Wheaton game this Saturday, you once again told us how lucky IWU was the first time, and that with N. Haynes playing it will be a different game, we won't get all the rebounds, the game will be very close, maybe even a Wheaton win. Wrong again, same result, not a close game much of the time.
I'm trying to remember, and if I'm wrong I apologize, (wont go back to read your post, kinda boring) , but didn't you tell us you were an investigator? Well if indeed you were, who did you work for? The NATIONAL INQUIRIER

I think I recall some banter between you and AndOne a few weeks back.  This is pretty much a jerk post, whether its tongue in cheek or not.  Show some class.