MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[DFLDWarriorsCCIW]

I promised I'd get back to recruiting...

Loved the discussion last week RE the related issues with recruitment to the various CCIW schools.  I thought Greg's explanation of NP's and Carthage's difficulties were very smart, insightful and quite frankly a reality.

Veterancciwfan's comparison between Schauer and Rose dovetails nicely into what I wanted to get everone's opinion on.  Veteran's claimed
  "Ron Rose recruits a minimum of 5 talented freshmen every year.  Last year IWU graduated 6 above average seniors and still has a lot of talent this year.  I think Schauer didn't recruit enough quantity and quality freshmen for the current team."
However upon closer scrutiny, the Greenies only have 1 rotation senior from the original class of 2015 (albeit a fantastic AA point guard).  The other 2 senior starters were transfers into the program from other NCAA tiers.  It's my assertion that there are numerous factors involved in a Division III basketball recruit's decision:

1.  Program Reputation and recent success rate
2.  School Tuition/costs/fanancial aid
3.  Atmosphere/Location (City/social life/weather)
4.  Head Coach
5.  Playing Time
6.  Style of System
7.  Graduation Job Placement

I'm sure there are others....
How would you rate these from most important to least important?  I think that for D3 basketball recruits (where there are only 5 spots on the floor at a time) "Playing Time' is the most important factor.  As exhibit A I harken back to veterancciwfan's mention of the 6 graduating Greenie seniors of the class of "14 and the fact that there is a virtual void in the class of "15.  It's my belief most D3 basketball recruits want to play rotational minutes by their Junior year and possibly start as Seniors.  If they perceive that teams are "loaded" at their position, (especially if their perspective school is starting "locked in" players as Freshmen and Sophomores) they "do the math" on their chances to reach their goals and either commit elsewhere or choose not to continue in their sport.  Therefore, I think that having "transcendent" players like Tyler Peters and Victor Davis who commanded extended minutes as underclassmen can have an adverse effect on luring recruits at those positions in the classes just below them.  Obviously, the Wheaton injuries have had an effect on their success post Peters and the transfers the two senior guards at IWU helped bridge the gap.
What says everyone else???

[Titan Q]

However upon closer scrutiny, the Greenies only have 1 rotation senior from the original class of 2015 (albeit a fantastic AA point guard).  The other 2 senior starters were transfers into the program from other NCAA tiers. 

This is correct.  IWU lost 4 potentially high impact members of the original class of 2015:

* David Molinari (PG) - he was supposed to be the stud PG in the class...now a walk-on at DePaul.

* Connor Wheeler (SG) - huge recruit coming in...JUCO, then a full ride to Central Missouri...now JUCO again.

* 6-8 Parker Musselman (F) - very talented big man...decided to stop playing basketball after soph year.

* 6-8 Drew Blumenshine (F) - big bodied 4-man with great upside...decided to stop playing basketball early Fr year.


Clearly Sodemann and Nelson's emergence - and obviously how good Dylan Overstreet ended up being - make up for the losses of the 2 guards, but those two big guys would have played big roles on this 2014-15 team had they developed as expected.

[iwumichigander]

Thanks Q, thanks Slappy.  Very interesting.  Two weeks to go now and every win an important one for many of those Pool C candidates.

Is it possible that Augie wasn't as good as we all thought -- all along?

IWU70

IMO Augie as good as most that follow this board thought coming into preseason even with the early departure from the team as I recall of two bigs (for personal reasons).  This is still a dangerous and experienced team.

Having written that, I not sure many of us would say Augie would have lost three CCIW games at this point?  I also think the early non-conference OT win over UWW (behind a 44 point Hunter Hill performance) likely influenced the D3 voters.  Expect a battle tomorrow night!

[DFLDWarriorsCCIW]

Q, lack of development due to lack of PT as "underclassmen" and the perception of outside looking in moving forward? or some other factor?

[Titan Q]

Q, lack of development due to lack of PT as "underclassmen" and the perception of outside looking in moving forward? or some other factor?

I don't think so.  Each of those 4 kids had unique reasons for leaving that were not about lack of PT/feeling blocked by others as far as I know. 

Musselman got good varsity time as a FR and SO.  Molinari played as a freshman and quite frankly, was considered the logical IWU PG starter coming into his sophomore year.  These two had all kinds of PT directly in front of them. Wheeler would have played heavy minutes his soph year had he stayed and not wanted to play at a higher level.  Blumenshine played one JV game his freshman year and basically decided he didn't want to play basketball anymore.

[GoPerry]

1.  Program Reputation and recent success rate
2.  School Tuition/costs/fanancial aid
3.  Atmosphere/Location (City/social life/weather)
4.  Head Coach
5.  Playing Time
6.  Style of System
7.  Graduation Job Placement

I'm sure there are others....
How would you rate these from most important to least important?

Head Coach #1.  If you don't have that one, the others hardly matter.

It's my belief most D3 basketball recruits want to play rotational minutes by their Junior year and possibly start as Seniors.  If they perceive that teams are "loaded" at their position, (especially if their perspective school is starting "locked in" players as Freshmen and Sophomores) they "do the math" on their chances to reach their goals and either commit elsewhere or choose not to continue in their sport. 

Like always, there are a myriad of qualifiers, exceptions and 'it depends' situations for each school/recruit.    Of course, everyone wants to play early and often, but I think the decision tree you describe pertains more to the solid role players and less so for the truly "premium" talents who will see some minutes as a freshman and then significant or starter minutes as a soph and beyond. 

Therefore, I think that having "transcendent" players like Tyler Peters and Victor Davis who commanded extended minutes as underclassmen can have an adverse effect on luring recruits at those positions in the classes just below them. 

I don't think I entirely agree with this as a general statement.  I think that good players look forward to competing and playing with other good/better players in a competitive program.  Or at the very least, they don't run from it.  Brayden Teuscher is actually a good example of this.  15+ mins/game as a freshman at Wash U but transferred to Wheaton as a sophomore behind Tyler Peters(jr).  On the other hand, if there does happen to be a roster void, then that would no doubt be a plus.

The best advice for all D3s is to make sure they like the school and can see themselves there as a student exclusively and not just as an athlete.  What if they were to get injured?  Lose interest?  Furthermore, they might think they can map out their 4 year playing time.  But certain schools, Wash U comes to mind, will almost always have good freshmen coming in year after year.  It's not at all like high school where one sort of moves up the playing time chain on the freshman team, sophomore team and then varsity.

[iwumichigander]

RE ELMHURST-NCC:

While EC has a better overall record by one game, I think more than simply a won-lost record needs to be taken into consideration with regard to rankings. It seems that with teams like Dickinson, Stevens Point, and even Aurora, NCC certainly played a stronger non-conference schedule than did EC. Additionally, NCC matched EC with a win over IWU. And, while by a slim margin, NCC does have a W over Augie. Something EC wasn't able to do. Things worth considering??

I think those factors are worth consideration.  Without crunching numbers, I think NCC will pick up more vRRO than Elmhurst based on the NCC non-conference opponents as the three you cited above which will likely be regionally ranked unless they stub their toes. 
Conversely, neither EC nor NCC  appears to have room for any more than 1 or 2 losses. The regional committee probably will take the strength of the CCIW and the central in consideration. Whether it can "sell" those strengths to the national committee is another issue.
EC and NCC might need to be ranked above WUSTL and UChgo to be better positioned.  Winning the CCIW tourney, of course, makes the above a moot point for one of you.

[kiko]

RE ELMHURST-NCC:

While EC has a better overall record by one game, I think more than simply a won-lost record needs to be taken into consideration with regard to rankings. It seems that with teams like Dickinson, Stevens Point, and even Aurora, NCC certainly played a stronger non-conference schedule than did EC. Additionally, NCC matched EC with a win over IWU. And, while by a slim margin, NCC does have a W over Augie. Something EC wasn't able to do. Things worth considering??

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say my comment was based solely on won-loss record, but I'll play along.

The factors you cite are certainly worth considering.  North Central played a much more difficult non-conference schedule, they have more quality wins, and they have beaten both Augustana and Illinois Wesleyan, while the Jays have not beaten both of the current pace-setters.  All of these work in the Cards' favor.

But if we're considering these, we should also consider:
Elmhurst's conference losses are:
- at Augie by 2
- home vs Carthage by 2
- home vs Augie by 4
- at Wheaton by 8

North Central's conference losses are:
- home vs Augie by 11
- home vs Elmhurst by 9
- at North Park by 28
- home vs Millikin by 3
- at Illinois Wesleyan by 32

For Elmhurst, that's a home loss to one of the worst teams in the conference, a reasonable home loss to Augie, a reasonable road loss to Augie, and a road loss at second-division Wheaton.  One or maybe two of these goes in the 'bad' column from my perspective.

For the Redbirds, that's a head-to-head loss versus the Jays, two absolute blowouts, a home loss to one of the worst teams in the conference, and a reasonable home loss to Augie.

The head to head makes it tough to slot the Cards ahead of the Jays IMO, much as I'd love to given my avian leanings.  But I don't see anything in the remaining body of work from conference games that suggests this was an outlier or that the Sons of Warden belong above our Smurf-hued friends.

[Naperick]

Too many games left-4 or 5-including Conf. Tourn. Interesting fact on the Pool C board: A road win is worth more in the NCAA rankings which will appear Wednesday. So IWU's road win at Augustana is very important. And NCC's win in Rock Island is also, although I think NCC is on very thin ice regarding a Pool C bid.
Regarding IWU/Augustana game Wed.: Since the Ron Rose era began with the 06/07 season, IWU has won 5 of the 9 games played at Shirk. But since Ron began the 06/07 season with questionable talent (with the exception of Zach Freeman), the fact that 3 of Augustana's 4 wins were in the first 3 years (07, 08, 09) was perhaps not a big surprise. IWU has won 5 of the last 6 with Augie's only win in the CCIW Conf. Tournament semifinals in 2013 (one of the ugliest Shirk games of recent memory-Augie 53  IWU 47).

NCC is 9-3 in its last 12 games with Augie, including the last 4 in a row AT Augie.
Some serious coat tossin' goin' on! 

Very impressive!

[AndOne]

RE ELMHURST-NCC:

While EC has a better overall record by one game, I think more than simply a won-lost record needs to be taken into consideration with regard to rankings. It seems that with teams like Dickinson, Stevens Point, and even Aurora, NCC certainly played a stronger non-conference schedule than did EC. Additionally, NCC matched EC with a win over IWU. And, while by a slim margin, NCC does have a W over Augie. Something EC wasn't able to do. Things worth considering??

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say my comment was based solely on won-loss record, but I'll play along.

The factors you cite are certainly worth considering.  North Central played a much more difficult non-conference schedule, they have more quality wins, and they have beaten both Augustana and Illinois Wesleyan, while the Jays have not beaten both of the current pace-setters.  All of these work in the Cards' favor.

But if we're considering these, we should also consider:
Elmhurst's conference losses are:
- at Augie by 2
- home vs Carthage by 2
- home vs Augie by 4
- at Wheaton by 8

North Central's conference losses are:
- home vs Augie by 11
- home vs Elmhurst by 9
- at North Park by 28
- home vs Millikin by 3
- at Illinois Wesleyan by 32

For Elmhurst, that's a home loss to one of the worst teams in the conference, a reasonable home loss to Augie, a reasonable road loss to Augie, and a road loss at second-division Wheaton.  One or maybe two of these goes in the 'bad' column from my perspective.

For the Redbirds, that's a head-to-head loss versus the Jays, two absolute blowouts, a home loss to one of the worst teams in the conference, and a reasonable home loss to Augie.

The head to head makes it tough to slot the Cards ahead of the Jays IMO, much as I'd love to given my avian leanings.  But I don't see anything in the remaining body of work from conference games that suggests this was an outlier or that the Sons of Warden belong above our Smurf-hued friends.

kiko--

I haven't been referred to as disingenuous in quite some time, so thank you. 

With regard to point differential, it really doesn't matter. An over simplification for sure, but a loss is a loss, and a win is a win. When it comes time for regional rankings, what is going to be looked at first is wins vs losses, not wins or losses by what margin. That and things like strength of schedule, and common opponents. A team that beats 3 or 4 ranked teams is going to garner just as much support as a team that wins a few more games but plays a weaker schedule. The H2H definitely matters and if a team can go 2-0 against a close competitor in the rankings game, that team will earn a definite upper hand.   

[Gregory Sager]

Thanks Q, thanks Slappy.  Very interesting.  Two weeks to go now and every win an important one for many of those Pool C candidates.

Is it possible that Augie wasn't as good as we all thought -- all along?

IWU70

IMO Augie as good as most that follow this board thought coming into preseason even with the early departure from the team as I recall of two bigs (for personal reasons).

Kevin Schlitter and ... ? Who's the other one? Perhaps I'm just blanking on the name.

This is still a dangerous and experienced team.

Having written that, I not sure many of us would say Augie would have lost three CCIW games at this point?  I also think the early non-conference OT win over UWW (behind a 44 point Hunter Hill performance) likely influenced the D3 voters.  Expect a battle tomorrow night!

Augie's a very good team. I don't think it's a great team. But, as I've been saying ad nauseam for a couple of months now, I'm not so sure that there are any great teams in D3 this year ... just a handful of very good ones, and several dozen just-below-very-good ones. And I'm not alone in that thinking, as this seems to be the consensus on the national boards.

I had Augie pegged as a two-loss team in the CCIW this season, FWIW. I was off on that, but there's not a tremendous gap between a two-loss season and a three-loss season, especially when you consider that Augie's defense-first style lends itself to more close games than you'd normally see from a top-notch outfit.

Regarding IWU/Augustana game Wed.: Since the Ron Rose era began with the 06/07 season, IWU has won 5 of the 9 games played at Shirk. But since Ron began the 06/07 season with questionable talent (with the exception of Zach Freeman), the fact that 3 of Augustana's 4 wins were in the first 3 years (07, 08, 09) was perhaps not a big surprise. IWU has won 5 of the last 6 with Augie's only win in the CCIW Conf. Tournament semifinals in 2013 (one of the ugliest Shirk games of recent memory-Augie 53  IWU 47).

So could this be summarized as "When Illinois Wesleyan has really good teams with talent, when they play Augustana at home in Shirk, they usually win"?

NCC is 9-3 in its last 12 games with Augie, including the last 4 in a row AT Augie.
Some serious coat tossin' goin' on! 

That is quite a surprising fact (the 4 road wins in a row . . . not the coat tossing).

Is it possible that Augie wasn't as good as we all thought -- all along?

IWU70

I've been sort of thinking this myself- certainly the case lately.  They were good last year, made the CCIW tourney, Pool C, everybody returning, so I think high pre-season ranking and expectations were justified.  Then impressive home W over UWW (although the rest of their non-con schedule not strong at all) and things seemed to be cruising.  An 18-4 record is still pretty solid, but besides a good win @ EC, their conference play has been rather uneven.  They're 1-2 in their last 3 and it'd be no stretch for them to finish that way(@ IWU, vs MU, @ WC(Sr night).

I'm coming to the conclusion that that win over UWW might've been an outlier. Think about it: A home contest against the defending national champion; a full house of screaming Augieheads; the game goes to double OT and is thus about as dead-even as a basketball game can get; one Augie player goes on an absolute tear that dwarfs any other game he's played in his entire life -- the whole scenario practically screams "outlier." Now, I'm not saying that I'll go with the "bet all the corn in Manito" line on UWW should the Warhawks and the Doggies meet on a neutral court next month (UWW's had to eke out several very narrow wins in WIAC play this season, so it's not as though Pat Miller's purple cagers are all a bunch of supermen), but I definitely like the Warhawks in that situation.

RE ELMHURST-NCC:

While EC has a better overall record by one game, I think more than simply a won-lost record needs to be taken into consideration with regard to rankings. It seems that with teams like Dickinson, Stevens Point, and even Aurora, NCC certainly played a stronger non-conference schedule than did EC. Additionally, NCC matched EC with a win over IWU. And, while by a slim margin, NCC does have a W over Augie. Something EC wasn't able to do. Things worth considering??

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say my comment was based solely on won-loss record, but I'll play along.

The factors you cite are certainly worth considering.  North Central played a much more difficult non-conference schedule, they have more quality wins, and they have beaten both Augustana and Illinois Wesleyan, while the Jays have not beaten both of the current pace-setters.  All of these work in the Cards' favor.

But if we're considering these, we should also consider:
Elmhurst's conference losses are:
- at Augie by 2
- home vs Carthage by 2
- home vs Augie by 4
- at Wheaton by 8

North Central's conference losses are:
- home vs Augie by 11
- home vs Elmhurst by 9
- at North Park by 28
- home vs Millikin by 3
- at Illinois Wesleyan by 32

For Elmhurst, that's a home loss to one of the worst teams in the conference, a reasonable home loss to Augie, a reasonable road loss to Augie, and a road loss at second-division Wheaton.  One or maybe two of these goes in the 'bad' column from my perspective.

For the Redbirds, that's a head-to-head loss versus the Jays, two absolute blowouts, a home loss to one of the worst teams in the conference, and a reasonable home loss to Augie.

The head to head makes it tough to slot the Cards ahead of the Jays IMO, much as I'd love to given my avian leanings.  But I don't see anything in the remaining body of work from conference games that suggests this was an outlier or that the Sons of Warden belong above our Smurf-hued friends.

kiko--

I haven't been referred to as disingenuous in quite some time, so thank you. 

With regard to point differential, it really doesn't matter. An over simplification for sure, but a loss is a loss, and a win is a win. When it comes time for regional rankings, what is going to be looked at first is wins vs losses, not wins or losses by what margin. That and things like strength of schedule, and common opponents. A team that beats 3 or 4 ranked teams is going to garner just as much support as a team that wins a few more games but plays a weaker schedule. The H2H definitely matters and if a team can go 2-0 against a close competitor in the rankings game, that team will earn a definite upper hand.   

One thing I'll add to the EC-NCC situation is that, while North Central does have a somewhat better non-con resume than Elmhurst's, it's not as though everyone that the 'jays played in November and December was a pile of cow plop. Elmhurst has a win over Trine on the home floor of the Thunder (Trine is 15-6 and currently tied for the MIAA lead, which I thought was against league rules this late in the season for anyone that isn't Calvin or Hope). Elmhurst has a win over Dubuque, which is 17-4 and a game out of the IIAC lead. And Elmhurst has a win over St. John's, which, although 11-9 overall, is tied for third in the MIAC and is definitely a team to watch in that league's tournament.

[kiko]

kiko--

I haven't been referred to as disingenuous in quite some time, so thank you. 

With regard to point differential, it really doesn't matter. An over simplification for sure, but a loss is a loss, and a win is a win. When it comes time for regional rankings, what is going to be looked at first is wins vs losses, not wins or losses by what margin. That and things like strength of schedule, and common opponents. A team that beats 3 or 4 ranked teams is going to garner just as much support as a team that wins a few more games but plays a weaker schedule. The H2H definitely matters and if a team can go 2-0 against a close competitor in the rankings game, that team will earn a definite upper hand.

While a binomial win/loss will likely get the first look, the criteria is explicitly called out as results versus common opponents and results versus ranked opponents.  I am fairly certain that margin of victory will factor into this equation, especially when considering common opponents.

Look, I'd love for the Cardinals' nest sitting above the branch the Jays' is built on just as much as anyone else who spent substantial time in Student Village and other fine musty-smelling environs.  I just don't think that's what we're going to get based on what we've seen to date.

[AndOne]

I promised I'd get back to recruiting...

Loved the discussion last week RE the related issues with recruitment to the various CCIW schools.  I thought Greg's explanation of NP's and Carthage's difficulties were very smart, insightful and quite frankly a reality.

Veterancciwfan's comparison between Schauer and Rose dovetails nicely into what I wanted to get everone's opinion on.  Veteran's claimed
  "Ron Rose recruits a minimum of 5 talented freshmen every year.  Last year IWU graduated 6 above average seniors and still has a lot of talent this year.  I think Schauer didn't recruit enough quantity and quality freshmen for the current team."
However upon closer scrutiny, the Greenies only have 1 rotation senior from the original class of 2015 (albeit a fantastic AA point guard).  The other 2 senior starters were transfers into the program from other NCAA tiers.  It's my assertion that there are numerous factors involved in a Division III basketball recruit's decision:

1.  Program Reputation and recent success rate
2.  School Tuition/costs/fanancial aid
3.  Atmosphere/Location (City/social life/weather)
4.  Head Coach
5.  Playing Time
6.  Style of System
7.  Graduation Job Placement

I'm sure there are others....
How would you rate these from most important to least important?  I think that for D3 basketball recruits (where there are only 5 spots on the floor at a time) "Playing Time' is the most important factor.  As exhibit A I harken back to veterancciwfan's mention of the 6 graduating Greenie seniors of the class of "14 and the fact that there is a virtual void in the class of "15.  It's my belief most D3 basketball recruits want to play rotational minutes by their Junior year and possibly start as Seniors.  If they perceive that teams are "loaded" at their position, (especially if their perspective school is starting "locked in" players as Freshmen and Sophomores) they "do the math" on their chances to reach their goals and either commit elsewhere or choose not to continue in their sport.  Therefore, I think that having "transcendent" players like Tyler Peters and Victor Davis who commanded extended minutes as underclassmen can have an adverse effect on luring recruits at those positions in the classes just below them.  Obviously, the Wheaton injuries have had an effect on their success post Peters and the transfers the two senior guards at IWU helped bridge the gap.
What says everyone else???

At least three important factors are missing here.

1. The role played by the parents on 3 levels--financial, social, and athletic. Junior might want to go to Expensive U, but family finances might well veto his desire. Also, mom might not want her little darling to go to Party U, and may influence her spousal unit to withhold funds that she feels would contribute to the debauchery of her little darling. Lastly, fathers often live vicariously through their children. Accordingly, they may be telling their young heroes that he is too good for that "lowly" D3 school. Happens constantly.

2. Many kids don't do the research. They get excited that a good academic school with a history of success is "interested" in them. Never mind that that starters at guard are both only sophs this season, and the two backups who play pretty good minutes are two more sophs, or maybe even a soph and a freshman, and #5 in the guard corps is only another freshman. This kid has ZERO chance of playing until his junior year at the earliest. He likely has only a 50/50 shot, at best, of playing as a senior. There is a good chance he will never start, and furthermore, that he will never play at all. Also, how does a recruit's personality mesh with that of the head coach?--his substitute dad for the next 4 years.

3. Most college players, even at the D3 level, were the best player on their HS team. They have not only always started, but they have also always been the big star. Many disregard the fact that all the other incoming players were also the captains of their ships. Many simply cannot comprehend that the possibility exists that they won't continue starting, at least by their soph year.

There has been much discussion on here in the past about the fact that a kid should pick a school based on academics first. I fully agree. However, lots of kids who pick a top academically AND athletically rated school get a great education, but watch a lot of basketball, football, or some other sport they may be involved with.

It IS possible to go to a good school and PLAY basketball rather than to go to a good school and WATCH basketball. But a recruit needs to do his homework, and to keep his options open.

[Gregory Sager]

I promised I'd get back to recruiting...

Loved the discussion last week RE the related issues with recruitment to the various CCIW schools.  I thought Greg's explanation of NP's and Carthage's difficulties were very smart, insightful and quite frankly a reality.

Veterancciwfan's comparison between Schauer and Rose dovetails nicely into what I wanted to get everone's opinion on.  Veteran's claimed
  "Ron Rose recruits a minimum of 5 talented freshmen every year.  Last year IWU graduated 6 above average seniors and still has a lot of talent this year.  I think Schauer didn't recruit enough quantity and quality freshmen for the current team."
However upon closer scrutiny, the Greenies only have 1 rotation senior from the original class of 2015 (albeit a fantastic AA point guard).  The other 2 senior starters were transfers into the program from other NCAA tiers.  It's my assertion that there are numerous factors involved in a Division III basketball recruit's decision:

1.  Program Reputation and recent success rate
2.  School Tuition/costs/fanancial aid
3.  Atmosphere/Location (City/social life/weather)
4.  Head Coach
5.  Playing Time
6.  Style of System
7.  Graduation Job Placement

I'm sure there are others....
How would you rate these from most important to least important?  I think that for D3 basketball recruits (where there are only 5 spots on the floor at a time) "Playing Time' is the most important factor.  As exhibit A I harken back to veterancciwfan's mention of the 6 graduating Greenie seniors of the class of "14 and the fact that there is a virtual void in the class of "15.  It's my belief most D3 basketball recruits want to play rotational minutes by their Junior year and possibly start as Seniors.  If they perceive that teams are "loaded" at their position, (especially if their perspective school is starting "locked in" players as Freshmen and Sophomores) they "do the math" on their chances to reach their goals and either commit elsewhere or choose not to continue in their sport.  Therefore, I think that having "transcendent" players like Tyler Peters and Victor Davis who commanded extended minutes as underclassmen can have an adverse effect on luring recruits at those positions in the classes just below them.  Obviously, the Wheaton injuries have had an effect on their success post Peters and the transfers the two senior guards at IWU helped bridge the gap.
What says everyone else???

Given the example that you used (Wesleyan's current senior class), this discussion you've raised strikes me as possibly being more about retention than about recruitment.

* David Molinari (PG) - he was supposed to be the stud PG in the class...now a walk-on at DePaul.

I sure hope that he's savored those nine minutes of playing time that he's had this season.

Now, granted, there's a lot more involved in a college education than playing time. Perhaps DePaul was a more congenial fit for Molinari than was Wesleyan for academic, financial, and/or social reasons. Or perhaps he's just one of those kids who thinks it's more fun to sit at the end of a bench in a huge arena than it is to be The Man in a small gym. This isn't about right or wrong answers, after all; it's about what a kid wants out of his college experience.

It just seems to me that, if you're a basketball player at heart, then that's what you want to do in college: Play basketball. Not just watch it, even from the best seat in the house.

NPU's been lucky enough to get two really good DePaul transfers over the years, Chuck Murphy and Sneed Deaderick, who wanted more out of their college experience than to ride the deep pine in Allstate Arena. I don't think either one ever regretted his decision to transfer from DePaul to NPU.

[AndOne]

kiko--

I haven't been referred to as disingenuous in quite some time, so thank you. 

With regard to point differential, it really doesn't matter. An over simplification for sure, but a loss is a loss, and a win is a win. When it comes time for regional rankings, what is going to be looked at first is wins vs losses, not wins or losses by what margin. That and things like strength of schedule, and common opponents. A team that beats 3 or 4 ranked teams is going to garner just as much support as a team that wins a few more games but plays a weaker schedule. The H2H definitely matters and if a team can go 2-0 against a close competitor in the rankings game, that team will earn a definite upper hand.

While a binomial win/loss will likely get the first look, the criteria is explicitly called out as results versus common opponents and results versus ranked opponents.  I am fairly certain that margin of victory will factor into this equation, especially when considering common opponents.

Look, I'd love for the Cardinals' nest sitting above the branch the Jays' is built on just as much as anyone else who spent substantial time in Student Village and other fine musty-smelling environs.  I just don't think that's what we're going to get based on what we've seen to date.

It seems that you may be confusing the results of which you speak with point differential. 

Anyway, as far as NCC-EC what matters most is who wins Sat. If its EC, the point is likely moot. If its NCC, more lively discussion/dissention can ensue.