MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The problem NCC is going to face at the selection/ranking table is simple - while they have a lot of vRRO games, they have a vast majority being losses. That isn't going to help them as much as people think. Sure, it shows they played a tough schedule, but their SOS shows the same thing. What it shows is they couldn't necessarily win against that schedule and the committee has taken that into account almost every year with some team out there.

If you have a weak SOS, you better win. If you have a strong SOS, you can't just lose. 2-7 vRRO and I suspect probably a 2-8 in that category assuming a loss in the CCIW tournament... and North Central is in the same place it has been before... thin ice.

[79jaybird]

If you are Elmhurst you BETTER NOT be looking ahead at the CCIW tournament, rankings, big dance, etc.   Focus on North Park.   The Vikes had us beat and all but said and done,  earlier this year at RAF.   

I would not be surprised if the Vikings take this one.   They had Elmhurst on the ropes and now on their home court,  think its going to be real tough for the Jays to get a road W.

I am kind of surprised Augie is placed ahead of Benedictine but oh well.

[sac]

 If they make the CCIW Final NC will have picked up at least one RRO win, with the 1.25 multiplier affecting 3 or 4 of their remaining games their SOS is going to be well above .600

Remaining schedule:

@ North Park
@ Elmhurst
@ Carthage
CCIW tournament Semi, likely vs Elmhurst
CCIW tournament Final, likely vs  @Augustana

Winning at Elmhust Saturday would help them greatly.  Esp if they beat North Park next Saturday

[Rafi]

If they make the CCIW Final NC will have picked up at least one RRO win, with the 1.25 multiplier affecting 3 or 4 of their remaining games their SOS is going to be well above .600

Remaining schedule:

@ North Park
@ Elmhurst
@ Carthage
CCIW tournament Semi, likely vs Elmhurst
CCIW tournament Final, likely vs  @Augustana

Winning at Elmhust Saturday would help them greatly.  Esp if they beat North Park tomorrow.

If NCC wins out, I would think they're in regardless of what happens in the tournament.  Even if they lose game 1 of the tourney, they would be at .720 win % and SOS .600.  I wouldn't think a team with that resume would be left out.  A lot to be done yet, though.

NOTE:  NCC plays Carthage tomorrow and North Park after Elmhurst.

[Rafi]

The problem NCC is going to face at the selection/ranking table is simple - while they have a lot of vRRO games, they have a vast majority being losses. That isn't going to help them as much as people think. Sure, it shows they played a tough schedule, but their SOS shows the same thing. What it shows is they couldn't necessarily win against that schedule and the committee has taken that into account almost every year with some team out there.

If you have a weak SOS, you better win. If you have a strong SOS, you can't just lose. 2-7 vRRO and I suspect probably a 2-8 in that category assuming a loss in the CCIW tournament... and North Central is in the same place it has been before... thin ice.

NCC is an interesting case study this year with their SOS combined with the "lack of wins" with the teams that made their SOS what it is.

Let me ask you this, Dave.  Which of the following do you think is better for pool C?

18-8 record (.692 %)  3-8 vs. RRO and a SOS at .600    OR
22-4 record (.846 %)  3-4 vs. RRO and SOS at .500

The only difference between the two is switching 4 RRO's for 4 terrible teams (this difference may not lower the SOS that much)

Which is rewarded more in this scenario?  Winning against terrible teams or losing against very good teams.

I would say there isn't much difference between these two teams.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I've said it a number of times... if you are going to put together a tremendous schedule, you have to win some games against that schedule - maybe half or close to half. If you are going to put together a sub-par schedule, you have to win vast majority of those games, nearly all of them. If you want flexibility, try and schedule a hybrid. One that allows you to win, but also take a few losses while boosting your SOS. Going for an outrageous SOS and not winning games doesn't work. We are also going to see a very interesting case in the East of a team with a horrible SOS (thanks mainly to their conference) who currently is undefeated and the situation is setting up that they might be left home if they only lose one game.

The problem with your comparison and your example that I see is you are just changing numbers that aren't that realistic. For someone to play seven regionally ranked opponents and be around .500 with those seven, I'd be surprised if their SOS was that low. Yes it happens, but not that often. It would be probably .530 or higher especially considering a number of those vRRO games are probably in conference. Even if they aren't in conference, it would boost up a .500 record.

The questions I have that the committee would break down:
- is the .500 SOS with that many vRRO games because their conference is poor and their out-of-conference scheduling boosted the SOS? If so, that might be a good thing for that team.
- is the .600 SOS with that many vRRO games because their conference is that strong and thus they either went hog-wild with their out-of-conference scheduling or they are getting an inrealistic SOS based on their conference. We have seen this example in the Northeast and elsewhere before. Jeff Burns, last year's committee chair, called these fake SOS numbers. Large numbers that in reality don't explain a true strength of a team, just who they played.

I would have to have KnightSlappy run numbers to see, but my argument to you is that North Central wouldn't plummet to a .500 SOS based on switching out a few out-of-conference games they could win. Basically to drop that number that far with out-of-conference games, they are NOT playing regionally ranked opponents. That just doesn't seem possible. As a result, I don't think this comparison works for a "what if" scenario.

[Rafi]

I've said it a number of times... if you are going to put together a tremendous schedule, you have to win some games against that schedule - maybe half or close to half. If you are going to put together a sub-par schedule, you have to win vast majority of those games, nearly all of them. If you want flexibility, try and schedule a hybrid. One that allows you to win, but also take a few losses while boosting your SOS. Going for an outrageous SOS and not winning games doesn't work. We are also going to see a very interesting case in the East of a team with a horrible SOS (thanks mainly to their conference) who currently is undefeated and the situation is setting up that they might be left home if they only lose one game.

The problem with your comparison and your example that I see is you are just changing numbers that aren't that realistic. For someone to play seven regionally ranked opponents and be around .500 with those seven, I'd be surprised if their SOS was that low. Yes it happens, but not that often. It would be probably .530 or higher especially considering a number of those vRRO games are probably in conference. Even if they aren't in conference, it would boost up a .500 record.

The questions I have that the committee would break down:
- is the .500 SOS with that many vRRO games because their conference is poor and their out-of-conference scheduling boosted the SOS? If so, that might be a good thing for that team.
- is the .600 SOS with that many vRRO games because their conference is that strong and thus they either went hog-wild with their out-of-conference scheduling or they are getting an inrealistic SOS based on their conference. We have seen this example in the Northeast and elsewhere before. Jeff Burns, last year's committee chair, called these fake SOS numbers. Large numbers that in reality don't explain a true strength of a team, just who they played.

I would have to have KnightSlappy run numbers to see, but my argument to you is that North Central wouldn't plummet to a .500 SOS based on switching out a few out-of-conference games they could win. Basically to drop that number that far with out-of-conference games, they are NOT playing regionally ranked opponents. That just doesn't seem possible. As a result, I don't think this comparison works for a "what if" scenario.

Use the .530 SOS then.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Funny thing when I get to .530 SOS - the two teams are equal using the .03 SOS to 2 games model.

18-8 record with .600 SOS and 22-4 with a .530 is a difference of .07. To make it easy, stick with just a move of four games... so 18-8 becomes 22-4... 22-4 becomes 18-8. I think the committee would wash these two out and call them equal.

That's the other side of the equation. I know the committee is using the .03 to 2 games model - maybe too much - and in theory that would make these teams relatively equal. And no, they don't go .015 to 1 game - you have to hit the .03 margin before they make another change.

[AndOne]

The problem NCC is going to face at the selection/ranking table is simple - while they have a lot of vRRO games, they have a vast majority being losses. That isn't going to help them as much as people think. Sure, it shows they played a tough schedule, but their SOS shows the same thing. What it shows is they couldn't necessarily win against that schedule and the committee has taken that into account almost every year with some team out there.

What it truly shows is that the best ways of getting in the national tournament are to either be a regularly good or better team in a weak (the bigger the better) conference and beat up on your conference foes thus raking up a lot of wins, or, if you are in a better conference, make sure you schedule as many bad NCAA D3 teams as possible and rack up wins that way. Because it appears that what the NCAA values most of all is "just win baby." Is is utterly ridiculous that, Benedictine, a very good team for certain, is a lock to be in the national tourney, but NCC, also a good team, who lost to undefeated BU by 2 points, is teetering on the edge. I know it isn't as simple as this, but if you know the difference between a basketball and a hole in the wall, you know NCC is one of the best 62 teams in the country. If the NCAA isn't going to take a team with 8 losses despite playing the toughest schedule in the country, including playing in what is probably the best conference in the country with the current #1and #9 teams, then schedule as many Knox type teams as possible, beat the crap out of all of them, and pile up a great winning percentage that even a blind man would see. Grrrrrrrrr

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

But AndOne.. your mistake is stated... the NCAA tournament is not a tournament of the best 62 teams in the country. No NCAA tournament in any division is designed to be filled with the best teams in the country. In fact, I would argue no tournament in the world is set-up that way. Not when there are systems in place that allow automatic bids.

I get the frustration that NCC and their fans have. It sucks to be that good a team and possibly be on the outs for an at-large bid. But the system is set-up to allow a certain number of teams to automatically qualify and that isn't going to change. Then it comes down to selecting the best teams remaining to fill in the holes.

There is a gamble when you put a schedule together every single year. There are so many factors out of your hands that it can be nerve-racking. But it also come down to this: win your conference and get the AQ... if not, do the very best to position yourself to get in anyway. I don't mean to be blunt or mean, but NCC has put themselves in this situation before. Put together a kick-ass schedule but then can't win against it. Yes, the committee will see they lost by two to Elmhurst, but they will also see they lost a majority, maybe a vast majority, of teams that were damn good. What does that actually say for North Central? We can schedule like the best of them, we just can't beat them.

Maybe cutting out one or two of those more challenging opponents to get a few extra wins isn't a bad idea... or go out and beat two more of the opponents on your schedule. Unfortunately, you have to play your schedule and it looks more and more like NCC puts themselves in this boat and doesn't help themselves.

I am not trying to be mean and I am certainly understanding of the circumstances... but we are once again talking about an NCC team with a great SOS and not enough wins.

Trust me - there is a team in the East region in the exact opposite boat. I could foresee a situation (completely hypothetical) that Lancaster Bible losses only one game - their conference title game - and is left home despite a single loss. Their SOS is that bad thanks mainly to their conference (they have a dominating win over F&M on their resume). You could make the argument that Lancaster Bible absolutely is one of the best teams in the country (many coaches have made that claim to me), but their schedule may leave them home despite it.

[AndOne]

The problem NCC is going to face at the selection/ranking table is simple - while they have a lot of vRRO games, they have a vast majority being losses.
If you have a weak SOS, you better win. If you have a strong SOS, you just can't lose.
2-7 vRRO and I suspect probably a 2-8 in that category assuming a loss in the CCIW tournament... and North Central is in the same place it has been before... thin ice.

Dave, 

Correct me if I am mistaken, but while you may not have intended to do so, isn't your above statement saying the same thing twice? Aren't you saying if you have a weak SOS, you need to win, and if you have a strong SOS, you also better win (just can't lose)?

Again, it seems this just once again points out the Committee Doesn't give a hoot if you challenge yourself by facing the best competition that you can. They would rather have a 22-3 team with most of its wins against teams like School For The Blind, than a 18-7 team with losses to teams like Augie, Benedictine, Alma, Chicago, and Aurora.
I'm done. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The problem NCC is going to face at the selection/ranking table is simple - while they have a lot of vRRO games, they have a vast majority being losses.
If you have a weak SOS, you better win. If you have a strong SOS, you just can't lose.
2-7 vRRO and I suspect probably a 2-8 in that category assuming a loss in the CCIW tournament... and North Central is in the same place it has been before... thin ice.

Dave, 

Correct me if I am mistaken, but while you may not have intended to do so, isn't your above statement saying the same thing twice? Aren't you saying if you have a weak SOS, you need to win, and if you have a strong SOS, you also better win (just can't lose)?

Again, it seems this just once again points out the Committee Doesn't give a hoot if you challenge yourself by facing the best competition that you can. They would rather have a 22-3 team with most of its wins against teams like School For The Blind, than a 18-7 team with losses to teams like Augie, Benedictine, Alma, Chicago, and Aurora.
I'm done. 

Maybe I was too generic: If you have a weak SOS, you better wins all or nearly all of your games (winning the AQ would help). If you have a strong SOS, you have to win a number of those games - you can't lose too many of those games. The strong the SOS, the more leeway you grant yourself. However, there is a breaking point to how much rope you can use before you hang yourself. NCC is once again using too much rope.

As for your last comment, from your point of view you may think that is true - but it is factually inaccurate. PSU-Behrend (22-3) and Southern Vermont (23-4) were both left out of last year's tournament with pretty good records. There was also plenty of talk that Albertus Magnus (1-loss) might put themselves in a situation of being left home if they didn't win out. Heck, AMC was given a pretty tough road in the NCAA tournament - Dickinson second round. This year, PSU-Behrend and Southern Vermont are back in the exact same situation. Lancaster Bible is also in a horrible spot of being undefeated but I promise you they won't be regionally ranked come tomorrow potentially setting up a scenario where LBC doens't make the NCAA tournament should they pick up their first loss in their conference title game.

You think SOS is being ignored... my argument is that SOS at some point is overweighing WL% (if LBC scenario plays itself out, that would be my argument). What I don't think you are seeing is there is a tipping point between when the SOS is finally outweighed by the WL%, vRRO, common opponents, etc. The problem with NCC losing as many games as they are... is they also start losing out in those other categories to other teams.

[GoPerry]

The problem NCC is going to face at the selection/ranking table is simple - while they have a lot of vRRO games, they have a vast majority being losses.
If you have a weak SOS, you better win. If you have a strong SOS, you just can't lose.
2-7 vRRO and I suspect probably a 2-8 in that category assuming a loss in the CCIW tournament... and North Central is in the same place it has been before... thin ice.

Dave, 

Correct me if I am mistaken, but while you may not have intended to do so, isn't your above statement saying the same thing twice? Aren't you saying if you have a weak SOS, you need to win, and if you have a strong SOS, you also better win (just can't lose)?

Again, it seems this just once again points out the Committee Doesn't give a hoot if you challenge yourself by facing the best competition that you can. They would rather have a 22-3 team with most of its wins against teams like School For The Blind, than a 18-7 team with losses to teams like Augie, Benedictine, Alma, Chicago, and Aurora.
I'm done. 

Maybe I was too generic: If you have a weak SOS, you better wins all or nearly all of your games (winning the AQ would help). If you have a strong SOS, you have to win a number of those games - you can't lose too many of those games. The strong the SOS, the more leeway you grant yourself. However, there is a breaking point to how much rope you can use before you hang yourself. NCC is once again using too much rope.

As for your last comment, from your point of view you may think that is true - but it is factually inaccurate. PSU-Behrend (22-3) and Southern Vermont (23-4) were both left out of last year's tournament with pretty good records. There was also plenty of talk that Albertus Magnus (1-loss) might put themselves in a situation of being left home if they didn't win out. Heck, AMC was given a pretty tough road in the NCAA tournament - Dickinson second round. This year, PSU-Behrend and Southern Vermont are back in the exact same situation. Lancaster Bible is also in a horrible spot of being undefeated but I promise you they won't be regionally ranked come tomorrow potentially setting up a scenario where LBC doens't make the NCAA tournament should they pick up their first loss in their conference title game.

You think SOS is being ignored... my argument is that SOS at some point is overweighing WL% (if LBC scenario plays itself out, that would be my argument). What I don't think you are seeing is there is a tipping point between when the SOS is finally outweighed by the WL%, vRRO, common opponents, etc. The problem with NCC losing as many games as they are... is they also start losing out in those other categories to other teams.

Yep.  WL% , SOS and  vRRO are all primary criteria with no priority indicated.

[GoPerry]

If they make the CCIW Final NC will have picked up at least one RRO win, with the 1.25 multiplier affecting 3 or 4 of their remaining games their SOS is going to be well above .600

Remaining schedule:

@ North Park
@ Elmhurst
@ Carthage
CCIW tournament Semi, likely vs Elmhurst
CCIW tournament Final, likely vs  @Augustana

Winning at Elmhust Saturday would help them greatly.  Esp if they beat North Park tomorrow.

If NCC wins out, I would think they're in regardless of what happens in the tournament.  Even if they lose game 1 of the tourney, they would be at .720 win % and SOS .600.  I wouldn't think a team with that resume would be left out.  A lot to be done yet, though.

Agree.  If NCC wins their next 3 and goes 12-2 in conference, no question they'd get in.  They'd probably start the Pool C process at the top, maybe right behind Elmhurst.

On the other hand, if North Park (or IWU) were to not only get in the conf tourney, but win the AQ, then ruh-roh for NCC or Elmhurst  . . .  slim chance that happens but one never knows.

The problem NCC is going to face at the selection/ranking table is simple - while they have a lot of vRRO games, they have a vast majority being losses. That isn't going to help them as much as people think. Sure, it shows they played a tough schedule, but their SOS shows the same thing. What it shows is they couldn't necessarily win against that schedule and the committee has taken that into account almost every year with some team out there.

What it truly shows is that the best ways of getting in the national tournament are to either be a regularly good or better team in a weak (the bigger the better) conference and beat up on your conference foes thus raking up a lot of wins, or, if you are in a better conference, make sure you schedule as many bad NCAA D3 teams as possible and rack up wins that way. Because it appears that what the NCAA values most of all is "just win baby." Is is utterly ridiculous that, Benedictine, a very good team for certain, is a lock to be in the national tourney, but NCC, also a good team, who lost to undefeated BU by 2 points, is teetering on the edge. I know it isn't as simple as this, but if you know the difference between a basketball and a hole in the wall, you know NCC is one of the best 62 teams in the country. If the NCAA isn't going to take a team with 8 losses despite playing the toughest schedule in the country, including playing in what is probably the best conference in the country with the current #1and #9 teams, then schedule as many Knox type teams as possible, beat the crap out of all of them, and pile up a great winning percentage that even a blind man would see. Grrrrrrrrr

Last year: Not Selected: (C) North Central (.667/.587/3-6)[/b]

The math is better but is setting up similarly.

Part of what makes this difficult I think is that NCC is playing significantly better than that same team in November and December.  Not just better in the sense that all teams improve through the season.  But the somewhat shaky team that lost to Chicago at home and Aurora after being up pretty big really is not the same team we're seeing now.    The problem is that the math (and committee) can't take that into account. The Nov games count the same as the Feb ones in W/L %.

[cardinalpride]

Gentlemen,
The NCAA tournament for NCC starts tomorrow in Kenosha, Wisconsin! This is the most important game on the schedule for the cardinals at this point. The "what if scenario's" are pointless because we will watch how it unfolds soon enough.