MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[AndOne]

Dave, thanks for the analysis.
Question for you please.

From what you're saying it still just seems to me that the bnumber of wins is really what counts most no matter who they are against. Let's say a team plays the most difficult schedule in the country and during the non conference portion of their schedule beats 4 teams in the top 20, beats 3 other teams, and loses to 4 teams in the top 20. Then in conference they go 11-3 with all three losses being to top 10 teams. They finish 18-7, then go to their conference tourney and finish 1-1, again with the loss to a top 10 team. Final record 19-8 with ALL loss to top 20 teams. Probably no tournament, right?

Now you have that same team. They play a non conference schedule against mostly poor teams and go 10-1. In conference they are the same 11-3, with all losses to top 10 teams, for a 21-4 final record. Even if they lose their first conference tourney game and finish 21-5, aren't they very likely going to the national tournament with those 21 wins despite playing a weak non-conference record?

[markerickson]

In my opinion, Coach Slyder had a strange reserve deployment.  Rubio and Woods (who saw his first action ever in an NPU uni I believe) played while NPU's two tallest players did not even dress.  Carthage totally sucked in the first half and NPU totally sucked in the second half.  Thus, the game went into OT.  Henry had so many points <10' of the basket.  He finished with a remarkable 47 points.  NPC former players at the game recollected that Bosko pulled Dan Hill when he had scored 46.  Did Barach score more than 46?  Greg/Dennis?

[iwumichigander]

We need a survey!  Does Sager work harder looking up historical data (like his comment about Barach , for example) for Markerickson or Mr Ypsi?

Insert quote and vote starting now!

[Red and black]

I read often but rarely post as I am a little more conservative with my comments than most.  Although after reading the past couple days I think it's safe to say anything on here! 

I was able to attend the Carthage @ North Park game and man was it exciting.  Both teams played well and fought hard all the way to the buzzer.  Not much more a fan can ask for. 

As we all know Henry was the difference in this game.  Only thing to question about his game tonight was his three he shot at the buzzer of overtime up 7!!!!   That didn't sit well with the Carthage bench nor should it.  To make things worse the NPU coaches didn't seem to be too concerned about it at all.  I couldn't believe a player showing up the opposing team like that and not having a coach yell at him or tell him not to shoot it to begin with!

Kind of put a sour note on a great game by him. 

Anyone else notice this or have an opinion on the matter?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Dave, thanks for the analysis.
Question for you please.

From what you're saying it still just seems to me that the bnumber of wins is really what counts most no matter who they are against. Let's say a team plays the most difficult schedule in the country and during the non conference portion of their schedule beats 4 teams in the top 20, beats 3 other teams, and loses to 4 teams in the top 20. Then in conference they go 11-3 with all three losses being to top 10 teams. They finish 18-7, then go to their conference tourney and finish 1-1, again with the loss to a top 10 team. Final record 19-8 with ALL loss to top 20 teams. Probably no tournament, right?

Now you have that same team. They play a non conference schedule against mostly poor teams and go 10-1. In conference they are the same 11-3, with all losses to top 10 teams, for a 21-4 final record. Even if they lose their first conference tourney game and finish 21-5, aren't they very likely going to the national tournament with those 21 wins despite playing a weak non-conference record?

Well nothing is perfect and you are taking slight extremes.

Let me try and make this quick without diving into too much because we can get into the weeds pretty quickly with this.

First off, in your first example... while the schedule is certainly tough, the team isn't proving they are one of the best in the country if they can't win against those top teams. It just proves they can play that schedule, right? So I don't see why they should get into the tournament.

In your second example, there are too many other factors I would need to give you a real answer, but they certainly on paper seem like they are in better shape.

However, what needs to be considered is all the other criteria. For example, with your first team the vRRO is going to show they played a lot of good teams, but didn't win. That's not good. The second team's vRRO is basically going to be non-existant... again, not good.

Common opponents, will either not be a factor because a team with a tougher schedule may not have the same schedule as one who is looking for a weak schedule, so that isn't going to help.

And then the SOS to WL% of .03=2 games is going to be a factor. That 21-4 is going to start looking more like a 19-6 or worse when that SOS starts to be evaluated versus other teams with better SOS numbers.

Remember, there has been extensive conversations in the last few years that a team like Albertus Magnus is going to be in trouble and miss the tournament with only two losses because they can't win the conference tournament in a VERY weak conference. And Southern Vermont DID miss out on the tournament last season despite only having three losses - the last being in the conference title game.

Now, the difference between those examples and the assumption I am making with yours: the team you are referring to is probably in a conference like the CCIW that will provide a far better SOS than the other two. That would certainly give your example a better chance to be in the tournament, but they won't be set-up well to host or get a "break" of any kind in the tournament. The reason to have a tough SOS is to position yourself to not only get into the tournament but also position yourself in the tournament including the chance to host games.

But what I think might have happened with NCC is maybe they have pushed their out of conference too far. Sometimes it is great to have a wonderful SOS, but if you can't win with it... you are no longer helping yourself. I can understand a team who wants to prove themselves having an insane SOS. But that has less to do with making the NCAA tournament and more about improving the team and raising their expectations. If a team is going out there and going for a really tough SOS, but then can't win under it when the idea was to better position themselves for the post-season... they screwed themselves.

There is a balancing act here. It can't be all one way or all the other way. You have to find a balance... or just win the AQ.

[AndOne]

IWU 75
Wheaton 65

http://www.iwusports.com/boxscore.aspx?id=3491&path=mbball

* Andy Stempel: 14 pts, 5 reb
* Trevor Seibring: 13 pts, 4 reb
* Bryce Dolan: 12 pts, 4 assists
* Ryan Coyle: 9 pts, 10 reb

* Jonathan Berntsen: 19 pts, 8 assists
* Michael Berg: 15 pts, 15 reb
* Murad Dillard: 13 pts, 7 reb, 4 assists


IWU trailed 40-31 at the half but played well in the 2nd.

Nice 2nd half comeback!

Anyone know why Dolan didn't start?
Or why Falotico did?

[AndOne]

Dave-
Above & beyond. Thanks, +1
Still seems like the best way to at least get in the door is by raking up as many Ws as possible against whoever in non-conference to build up a "cushion." That way you can absorb 3-5 losses in your very tough conference and still be OK. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Dave-
Above & beyond. Thanks, +1
Still seems like the best way to at least get in the door is by raking up as many Ws as possible against whoever in non-conference to build up a "cushion." That way you can absorb 3-5 losses in your very tough conference and still be OK. 

Again... it is a balance. You don't want to have too low an SOS out of conference that it hurts you and your wins get exposed. It also depends on where a team is located, what their conference schedule (set-up) is like, region, etc. There are so many different dynamics including motivation. Do you want to make the tournament or do you want to host games? And it is constantly changing. I talk to coaches I think would have this down who are trying to readjust. I also talk to some who have no idea how it all works. I average a conversation with a coach a week in the off season... maybe all year.

[USee]

Augie beats Elmhurst 97-84.  Game was tied at halftime, 47-47.  Augie pulls away late to get the win.

The battle for 2nd team status goes to Augie.   

Maybe we'll even be able to get a couple guys on the 2nd team now that we beat Elmhurst

Easy there big boy, it was only Elmhurst. They don't have any all conference players either. 

[veterancciwfan]

Just analyze the regional rankings. The #1 ranked team almost always has the lowest number of losses. And #2 usually has one more loss than #1 and that theory, for the most part, follows all the way down the rankings. That's why I think the D3 tournament has a lot of flaws, including the home court advantage for the first 4 (3 for Augustana last year) games before heading to Salem. I wish D3 would follow the D2 format. Get the elite 8 teams after 3 rounds and send them to a nuetral court (Salem is fine as it has done a fantastic job in hosting the Final 4) and play the final 3 rounds on Friday, Saturday and Monday night. That would get the D3 athletes back to campus for their real priority, academics. Only the Final 2 teams would miss some extra classroom time because they would have to travel home on Tuesday.

[AndOne]

Just analyze the regional rankings. The #1 ranked team almost always has the lowest number of losses. And #2 usually has one more loss than #1 and that theory, for the most part, follows all the way down the rankings. That's why I think the D3 tournament has a lot of flaws, including the home court advantage for the first 4 (3 for Augustana last year) games before heading to Salem. I wish D3 would follow the D2 format. Get the elite 8 teams after 3 rounds and send them to a nuetral court (Salem is fine as it has done a fantastic job in hosting the Final 4) and play the final 3 rounds on Friday, Saturday and Monday night. That would get the D3 athletes back to campus for their real priority, academics. Only the Final 2 teams would miss some extra classroom time because they would have to travel home on Tuesday.

I second your idea, veteran. (And that will get us both exactly nowhere).

I have always thought that a team having 4 home games to begin what is supposedly a national tournament is inherently unfair.
If it's my team that has that advantage, I'm happy as heck. But if I'm honest, I have to say it's unfair and not what a competition for a national championship should be.
But as we know, D3 doesn't enrich the NCAA's coffers much, if at all, so they're not going to spend a penny more on a D3 tournament than they have too. Too bad.

[cardinalpride]

Just analyze the regional rankings. The #1 ranked team almost always has the lowest number of losses. And #2 usually has one more loss than #1 and that theory, for the most part, follows all the way down the rankings. That's why I think the D3 tournament has a lot of flaws, including the home court advantage for the first 4 (3 for Augustana last year) games before heading to Salem. I wish D3 would follow the D2 format. Get the elite 8 teams after 3 rounds and send them to a nuetral court (Salem is fine as it has done a fantastic job in hosting the Final 4) and play the final 3 rounds on Friday, Saturday and Monday night. That would get the D3 athletes back to campus for their real priority, academics. Only the Final 2 teams would miss some extra classroom time because they would have to travel home on Tuesday.

Veteran,
Not sure that idea would fly with the landscape of d3 athletics. That would require the athletes in the title game to play 29-30 games over 5 months but the last 3 over 4 days! Also how many fans could or would stick around to watch the Monday night game?

[sac]

This may have been discussed in years past, but why did the CCIW start a conference tournament?  It's great for the fans, and gives a bubble team a chance to get the AQ.  But, it's really hard on the pool C candidates if they don't win it.  If a team doesn't win the tournament, their W% will always go down (going 0-1 or 1-1 in the tourney).

This year it looks like it might impact NCC unless they go 12-2.  Without the conference tournament, they would look better for Pool C at 11-3.

I'm sure it's impacted others in past years.

The CCIW has had 3 in the tournament (ie 2 Pool C's) every year since the 2009 tournament except 2011.  That year NCC tied for the league title but were just 15-11 overall.   Wheaton went 18-8 and were probably on the final table on selection day.  Augustana and IWU earned bids.

By having a tournament you are only losing ground on those conferences that don't have a tournament like the UAA.  You are actually gaining ground by using the 4 team format on most conferences that go 6 or 8 or larger like the ODAC because your top teams SOS components are not as impacted by having to play one of the bottom teams of your conference.

Valid points.  I guess I'm just not a fan of conference tournaments having such an impact on the prospects of getting into the national tournament (both positive and negative), after the teams having already played a full conference schedule.

It just seems to have a greater impact than at the D1 level because of fewer games being played at D3.

I actually think most people, in most leagues would be happy without a post-season league tournament.  Its just the way college basketball turned a couple decades ago.   But the fan side of me has enjoyed our tournament in the MIAA for 24 years, its a nice week/weekend of basketball with one or two teams playing desperate basketball, it can be a lot of fun and really has not impacted our leagues NCAA prospects much over those 24 years except maybe 2 or 3 times.

[Titan Q]

Just analyze the regional rankings. The #1 ranked team almost always has the lowest number of losses. And #2 usually has one more loss than #1 and that theory, for the most part, follows all the way down the rankings.

This just isn't true at all.

For example, last year's final regional rankings in the Central region - http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/basketball-men/d3.
1. Augustana: 21-4
2. UW-Whitewater: 21-2
3. UW-Stevens Point: 21-4
4. Washington U: 19-5
5. St. Norbert: 22-1
6. Illinois Wesleyan: 18-7
7. Elmhurst: 19-6
8. North Central: 16-7

(St. Norbert's SOS was .494, relative to Augie's .577, UWW's .549, UW-SP's .575, and Wash U's .563.)

Or the Northeast region:
1. Babson: 23-2
2. Trinity (CT): 19-4
3. Amherst: 19-6
4. Bates: 19-6
5. Eastern Conn St: 21-4
6. WPI: 21-4
7. Albertus Magnus: 24-1
8. Bowdoin: 18-7
9. Springfield: 18-7
10. Southern VT: 21-2
11. Wesleyan: 17-8

(SOS numbers - Albertus Magnus = .473, Southern VT = .478.)

You can go region by region, week by week (when the rankings start coming out), and see evidence of how significant strength of schedule is in the regional ranking process.  Same goes for the Pool C selection process...SOS is a huge factor.

[Titan Q]

I am pretty confident North Central, with 11-3 in the CCIW and 1-1 in the conference tournament, would get in -- as long as they have a win over Augustana in their back pocket.  Wins over Augie and Elmhurst (who will be in the top 3 in the region), combined with NCC's volume of games vs regionally ranked opponents and great SOS, would probably be enough.  I think NCC has to win at home on Feb 3 vs Augie.

It is important to note here that if NCC does not get in at 11-3/1-1 it's because they scheduled NAIA Robert Morris (Chicago) instead of another D3 team. They played a game that didn't count, and lost out on a chance to add a 1-0 to their winning %.  The Cardinals had the same schedule-related (NAIA) problem last year.