MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[iwumichigander]

My revised projection which has IWU out due to some rumblings I'm hearing about final Central Region rankings.  I'm hearing the Pool C order is UW-Whitewater, Augustana, UW-Eau Claire, UW-Oshkosh, Carthage.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1793761#msg1793761

Without wearing my green tinted glasses the order does not seem right.  If your source is correct, is it possible since these proposed rankings get reviewed by the national committee that it reorders things?

[Gregory Sager]

Dear Sager I think it goes without saying that you do not play a third game against a fellow CCIW opponent, unless you are playing in the conference tourney.

That's never stated in the cliché.

Basically, since you're confining the cliché to post-season play, you could simply excise all of the nonsense about beating a team for the third time and reduce it to "it's hard to play a team in the post-season," which is a truism.

I think Bosko is an idiot and the politics that got IWU moved down the regional rankings is a farce.

That's more than a little harsh, USee. Bosko Djurickovic is many things, but "idiot" is not one of them. Idiots don't win two national championships or reach the Final Four from two different schools. I think that he was doing precisely what kiko said he was doing -- politicking -- which is exactly what any coach in his position forced by circumstances of a loss to advocate for his team in traditional or social media would be doing. Yeah, the idea of a team that didn't make the conference tourney actually getting serious Pool C consideration probably didn't sit well with him on a visceral basis, but he's not alone in that. And he certainly knows how the process works; after all, he used to be the CCIW's rep to the committee for what was then called the Midwest Region, the spot now held by Grey Giovanine. He was simply looking out for his team and for the school that gives him his paycheck, that's all.

And, to be honest, I think that you're overestimating his powers of persuasion if you believe that what he said on Friday night will really sway anybody on the committee.

[AndOne]

Gentleman,

If IWU wanted to make the national tournament so badly, why could they not just simply have played well enough to make their own conference tournament, and then won it once they had secured that possibility?

Then, we wouldn't be arguing over a bunch of numbers, or promoting a position based on how it "feels" that a non qualifier for a conference tournament could possibly be selected for the national stage, or arguing over any other perspective, either objective or subjective in nature. 

North Central did it. Why couldn't IWU?
Valid question? Or not?

[Titan Q]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

[GoPerry]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

I do understand that making the conf tourney is not one of the 5 or 6 listed criteria. However, to dismiss the fact that IWU didn't make the conf tourney is just not credible in my mind.  How can that fact possibly escape the committee (especially when one member is GG)?  At the very least it will come up when they notice the Titans haven't played as many games as the other teams, CCIW or not.  I wouldn't be shocked if they are not even regionally ranked.

In other words, the subjectivity of the committee members is absolutely a factor meaning they can take into account if a team doesn't make their own conference post-season.  Otherwise, Mr Snyder could run the #s and the whole of Pool C would spit out the bottom.  Then Dave's question #1 on Hoopsville for the Committee Chairman would be "So how do you justify to Bosko and Tom Slyder that IWU got selected over their teams ?'.  In my opinion, an answer of "the criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers" would be tough to justify.

[kiko]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

I do understand that making the conf tourney is not one of the 5 or 6 listed criteria. However, to dismiss the fact that IWU didn't make the conf tourney is just not credible in my mind.  How can that fact possibly escape the committee (especially when one member is GG)?  At the very least it will come up when they notice the Titans haven't played as many games as the other teams, CCIW or not.  I wouldn't be shocked if they are not even regionally ranked.

In other words, the subjectivity of the committee members is absolutely a factor meaning they can take into account if a team doesn't make their own conference post-season.  Otherwise, Mr Snyder could run the #s and the whole of Pool C would spit out the bottom.  Then Dave's question #1 on Hoopsville for the Committee Chairman would be "So how do you justify to Bosko and Tom Slyder that IWU got selected over their teams ?'.  In my opinion, an answer of "the criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers" would be tough to justify.

Let's reframe this a bit...

The NESCAC has five tournament-worthy teams this year: Amherst, Williams, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Middlebury.  They invite eight of the league's eleven teams to make the conference tournament.

Would one of those teams somehow suddenly become less tournament-worthy if the NESCAC had a four-team conference tournament?  I would argue 'no'.  The same logic should apply to our friends in Bloomington, who face an arbitrary cut-off at a different point.

There are a fair number of folks questioning whether Amherst has strong enough credentials to receive a Pool C bid.  But these arguments are being made on the numbers reflected in the criteria.  Williams came into the NESCAC tournament as the sixth seed and finished second in the tournament.  Nobody is questioning how a six-seed in the conference tournament merits an at-large bid.  So why should Illinois Wesleyan receive extra scrutiny based on new criteria that is only applied to them when their circumstances were similar?

[izzy stradlin]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

I do understand that making the conf tourney is not one of the 5 or 6 listed criteria. However, to dismiss the fact that IWU didn't make the conf tourney is just not credible in my mind.  How can that fact possibly escape the committee (especially when one member is GG)?  At the very least it will come up when they notice the Titans haven't played as many games as the other teams, CCIW or not.  I wouldn't be shocked if they are not even regionally ranked.

In other words, the subjectivity of the committee members is absolutely a factor meaning they can take into account if a team doesn't make their own conference post-season.  Otherwise, Mr Snyder could run the #s and the whole of Pool C would spit out the bottom.  Then Dave's question #1 on Hoopsville for the Committee Chairman would be "So how do you justify to Bosko and Tom Slyder that IWU got selected over their teams ?'.  In my opinion, an answer of "the criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers" would be tough to justify.

Anything other than the criteria is infinitely more difficult to justify.   If people don't like it they need to have the criteria changed. 

I am no titan fan but am now pulling for them to make the tourney just because all these arguments against them are so silly. 

[AppletonRocks]

One thing to keep in mind with regard to altering the CCIW tourney format, Larry, is that there are equity issues here. The basketball coaches can't unilaterally decide to expand the format from four teams to six, or from four teams to eight. The rest of the CCIW sports that have postseason tourneys have four teams apiece, so we're talking about alterations that would have to be made in multiple sports ... because an expanded tournament in just one sport means that more conference money goes into that sport's budget.

At the very least, women's basketball would have to be given the same opportunity to expand. And I'm not sure that the baseball and softball people would be satisfied if they then weren't given at least an option to expand their tourneys as well, whether they actually want to expand them or not. And so on, and so forth.

Greg - I did not propose an expanded tournament.  You proffered it as potentially something I might be thinking which I was not.

OK, sorry, Larry. I was just trying to piece together what you meant in that original post.

I think Augie will get in, and IWU will be on the table for the final 2-3 picks.

I fully understand how the numbers work, and Bosko's comment about a bad precedent doesn't really make much sense on the face of it, but I understand his sentiment. Something feels wrong about a 17-8 team that only went 9-7 in league play and finished in a tie for fourth place getting to the table without even qualifying for the league's tournament while two tri-champions are cleaning out their lockers for the year and the third is on pins and needles waiting for a possible Pool C berth with their team very much on the bubble.

You and the other IWU fans can protest this all that you like -- and, again, I understand how the numbers work -- but it feels very cockeyed.

That's kind of like saying the non-conference doesn't count though.  Every game counts and the criteria is very clear - and IWU and Augie are the top two Pool C candidates.

North Park would be in great shape with wins over Manchester and Illinois Tech.

As I've already said, Bob, I understand how the numbers work. And I'm as fully aware as anybody that NPU, Carthage, and Augie have non-conference losses for which they'd love to have mulligans right now.

I'm simply saying that I can grasp what was bothering Bosko in his postgame comments last night. There's just something that feels off about a team not qualifying for the conference tournament and then getting to the table on Selection Monday.

Bosko feels the same way as I feel about Eau Claire.

[Titan Q]

Matt Snyder has IWU #21 (of 21) - http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/.

In my final projection I have IWU #20 - http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1793849#msg1793849.


Just depends on a) how the Central ranking was finalized, and b) if IWU gets to the table late if they get picked in one of those final 1-2 spots.

[Gregory Sager]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

I do understand that making the conf tourney is not one of the 5 or 6 listed criteria. However, to dismiss the fact that IWU didn't make the conf tourney is just not credible in my mind.  How can that fact possibly escape the committee (especially when one member is GG)?  At the very least it will come up when they notice the Titans haven't played as many games as the other teams, CCIW or not.  I wouldn't be shocked if they are not even regionally ranked.

In other words, the subjectivity of the committee members is absolutely a factor meaning they can take into account if a team doesn't make their own conference post-season.  Otherwise, Mr Snyder could run the #s and the whole of Pool C would spit out the bottom.  Then Dave's question #1 on Hoopsville for the Committee Chairman would be "So how do you justify to Bosko and Tom Slyder that IWU got selected over their teams ?'.  In my opinion, an answer of "the criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers" would be tough to justify.

Let's reframe this a bit...

The NESCAC has five tournament-worthy teams this year: Amherst, Williams, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Middlebury.  They invite eight of the league's eleven teams to make the conference tournament.

Would one of those teams somehow suddenly become less tournament-worthy if the NESCAC had a four-team conference tournament?  I would argue 'no'.  The same logic should apply to our friends in Bloomington, who face an arbitrary cut-off at a different point.

There are a fair number of folks questioning whether Amherst has strong enough credentials to receive a Pool C bid.  But these arguments are being made on the numbers reflected in the criteria.  Williams came into the NESCAC tournament as the sixth seed and finished second in the tournament.  Nobody is questioning how a six-seed in the conference tournament merits an at-large bid.  So why should Illinois Wesleyan receive extra scrutiny based on new criteria that is only applied to them when their circumstances were similar?

I understand what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to a degree, but I'm not sure that the analogy is valid. With only a single round-robin and a postseason tourney to show for itself, the NESCAC is barely a league in the conventional sense. They play 40% of their regular-season games within the NESCAC. Even if you count the non-conference games that the Wesleyan-Amherst-Williams triad and the Colby-Bates-Bowdoin triad play within those groupings -- and, again, they're not NESCAC games but non-conference games voluntarily entered into on an annual basis -- the percentage of regular-season games against NESCAC opponents only goes up to 48% for those six schools. It stays at the same 40% rate for the other five NESCAC schools. CCIW teams, on the other hand, play 64% of their regular-season games against each other. In other words, how the fifth-place or fifth-seeded team fares in CCIW play is vastly different than how the fifth-place or fifth-seeded team in the NESCAC fared in terms of schedule composition.

[Mr. Ypsi]

It's gonna be a nervous Sunday night and Monday morning in B'town.  The Titan women are also on the bubble: nine losses would probably be unprecedented for at-large in the women's tourney, but they DO have the 5th highest SoS in all of D3.

[Smitty Oom]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

I do understand that making the conf tourney is not one of the 5 or 6 listed criteria. However, to dismiss the fact that IWU didn't make the conf tourney is just not credible in my mind.  How can that fact possibly escape the committee (especially when one member is GG)?  At the very least it will come up when they notice the Titans haven't played as many games as the other teams, CCIW or not.  I wouldn't be shocked if they are not even regionally ranked.

In other words, the subjectivity of the committee members is absolutely a factor meaning they can take into account if a team doesn't make their own conference post-season.  Otherwise, Mr Snyder could run the #s and the whole of Pool C would spit out the bottom.  Then Dave's question #1 on Hoopsville for the Committee Chairman would be "So how do you justify to Bosko and Tom Slyder that IWU got selected over their teams ?'.  In my opinion, an answer of "the criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers" would be tough to justify.

Let's reframe this a bit...

The NESCAC has five tournament-worthy teams this year: Amherst, Williams, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Middlebury.  They invite eight of the league's eleven teams to make the conference tournament.

Would one of those teams somehow suddenly become less tournament-worthy if the NESCAC had a four-team conference tournament?  I would argue 'no'.  The same logic should apply to our friends in Bloomington, who face an arbitrary cut-off at a different point.

There are a fair number of folks questioning whether Amherst has strong enough credentials to receive a Pool C bid.  But these arguments are being made on the numbers reflected in the criteria.  Williams came into the NESCAC tournament as the sixth seed and finished second in the tournament.  Nobody is questioning how a six-seed in the conference tournament merits an at-large bid.  So why should Illinois Wesleyan receive extra scrutiny based on new criteria that is only applied to them when their circumstances were similar?

I understand what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to a degree, but I'm not sure that the analogy is valid. With only a single round-robin and a postseason tourney to show for itself, the NESCAC is barely a league in the conventional sense. They play 40% of their regular-season games within the NESCAC. Even if you count the non-conference games that the Wesleyan-Amherst-Williams triad and the Colby-Bates-Bowdoin triad play within those groupings -- and, again, they're not NESCAC games but non-conference games voluntarily entered into on an annual basis -- the percentage of regular-season games against NESCAC opponents only goes up to 48% for those six schools. It stays at the same 40% rate for the other five NESCAC schools. CCIW teams, on the other hand, play 64% of their regular-season games against each other. In other words, how the fifth-place or fifth-seeded team fares in CCIW play is vastly different than how the fifth-place or fifth-seeded team in the NESCAC fared in terms of schedule composition.

Agree with Greg. Williams is going to be in and was the 6 seed, but had 4 teams ahead of them that are all pretty sure worthy Pool C candidates. IWU finished 5th in a conference with 3 teams ahead of them that are very much bubble teams, and all could very well be on the wrong side of the bubble. Apples and Oranges.

[iwumichigander]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

I do understand that making the conf tourney is not one of the 5 or 6 listed criteria. However, to dismiss the fact that IWU didn't make the conf tourney is just not credible in my mind.  How can that fact possibly escape the committee (especially when one member is GG)?  At the very least it will come up when they notice the Titans haven't played as many games as the other teams, CCIW or not.  I wouldn't be shocked if they are not even regionally ranked.

In other words, the subjectivity of the committee members is absolutely a factor meaning they can take into account if a team doesn't make their own conference post-season.  Otherwise, Mr Snyder could run the #s and the whole of Pool C would spit out the bottom.  Then Dave's question #1 on Hoopsville for the Committee Chairman would be "So how do you justify to Bosko and Tom Slyder that IWU got selected over their teams ?'.  In my opinion, an answer of "the criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers" would be tough to justify.

Let's reframe this a bit...

The NESCAC has five tournament-worthy teams this year: Amherst, Williams, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Middlebury.  They invite eight of the league's eleven teams to make the conference tournament.

Would one of those teams somehow suddenly become less tournament-worthy if the NESCAC had a four-team conference tournament?  I would argue 'no'.  The same logic should apply to our friends in Bloomington, who face an arbitrary cut-off at a different point.

There are a fair number of folks questioning whether Amherst has strong enough credentials to receive a Pool C bid.  But these arguments are being made on the numbers reflected in the criteria.  Williams came into the NESCAC tournament as the sixth seed and finished second in the tournament.  Nobody is questioning how a six-seed in the conference tournament merits an at-large bid.  So why should Illinois Wesleyan receive extra scrutiny based on new criteria that is only applied to them when their circumstances were similar?

You and Izzy have fair points.  I will offer another hypothetical - If IWU made the CCIW tournament, lost the first game, had the same #s as today other than vs D3 (because let say they played an NAIA team rather than a D3) - what would be the concern.

What do posters think Coach G, Bosko, Slyder or Raridon would say if in the same position as Ron Rose?
There is no criteria versus conference tournament qualifiers.  The criteria is versus D3 - period.

[kiko]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

I do understand that making the conf tourney is not one of the 5 or 6 listed criteria. However, to dismiss the fact that IWU didn't make the conf tourney is just not credible in my mind.  How can that fact possibly escape the committee (especially when one member is GG)?  At the very least it will come up when they notice the Titans haven't played as many games as the other teams, CCIW or not.  I wouldn't be shocked if they are not even regionally ranked.

In other words, the subjectivity of the committee members is absolutely a factor meaning they can take into account if a team doesn't make their own conference post-season.  Otherwise, Mr Snyder could run the #s and the whole of Pool C would spit out the bottom.  Then Dave's question #1 on Hoopsville for the Committee Chairman would be "So how do you justify to Bosko and Tom Slyder that IWU got selected over their teams ?'.  In my opinion, an answer of "the criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers" would be tough to justify.

Let's reframe this a bit...

The NESCAC has five tournament-worthy teams this year: Amherst, Williams, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Middlebury.  They invite eight of the league's eleven teams to make the conference tournament.

Would one of those teams somehow suddenly become less tournament-worthy if the NESCAC had a four-team conference tournament?  I would argue 'no'.  The same logic should apply to our friends in Bloomington, who face an arbitrary cut-off at a different point.

There are a fair number of folks questioning whether Amherst has strong enough credentials to receive a Pool C bid.  But these arguments are being made on the numbers reflected in the criteria.  Williams came into the NESCAC tournament as the sixth seed and finished second in the tournament.  Nobody is questioning how a six-seed in the conference tournament merits an at-large bid.  So why should Illinois Wesleyan receive extra scrutiny based on new criteria that is only applied to them when their circumstances were similar?

I understand what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to a degree, but I'm not sure that the analogy is valid. With only a single round-robin and a postseason tourney to show for itself, the NESCAC is barely a league in the conventional sense. They play 40% of their regular-season games within the NESCAC. Even if you count the non-conference games that the Wesleyan-Amherst-Williams triad and the Colby-Bates-Bowdoin triad play within those groupings -- and, again, they're not NESCAC games but non-conference games voluntarily entered into on an annual basis -- the percentage of regular-season games against NESCAC opponents only goes up to 48% for those six schools. It stays at the same 40% rate for the other five NESCAC schools. CCIW teams, on the other hand, play 64% of their regular-season games against each other. In other words, how the fifth-place or fifth-seeded team fares in CCIW play is vastly different than how the fifth-place or fifth-seeded team in the NESCAC fared in terms of schedule composition.

So, if the CCIW played a single round-robin to determine the four conference tournament qualifiers, it would be okay for fifth-place Illinois Wesleyan to get tournament consideration?  Sorry, that's a really weak argument.  The few arguments against Williams have been of the "if you doubled their number of conference losses, they'd have weak credentials" or "their SOS is artificially high because of scheduling" variety.  None have to do with "they are a sixth place team".

With Illinois Wesleyan, the argument against is exactly that "they are a fifth place team in a conference that advances four to its tournament".  I'm all for arguing whether or not they belong in the field of 64 based on how well their criteria stack up against others.  But that's not the argument against them at present.

Let me ask you this -- would it be acceptable to consider the Titans for a Pool C bid if their primary and secondary criteria nums were exactly what they are today but the CCIW advanced eight to the conference tournament?

[iwumichigander]

Rumblings that the national committee might have made some revisions.  Getting interesting.

I do understand that making the conf tourney is not one of the 5 or 6 listed criteria. However, to dismiss the fact that IWU didn't make the conf tourney is just not credible in my mind.  How can that fact possibly escape the committee (especially when one member is GG)?  At the very least it will come up when they notice the Titans haven't played as many games as the other teams, CCIW or not.  I wouldn't be shocked if they are not even regionally ranked.

In other words, the subjectivity of the committee members is absolutely a factor meaning they can take into account if a team doesn't make their own conference post-season.  Otherwise, Mr Snyder could run the #s and the whole of Pool C would spit out the bottom.  Then Dave's question #1 on Hoopsville for the Committee Chairman would be "So how do you justify to Bosko and Tom Slyder that IWU got selected over their teams ?'.  In my opinion, an answer of "the criteria is the criteria and the numbers are the numbers" would be tough to justify.

Let's reframe this a bit...

The NESCAC has five tournament-worthy teams this year: Amherst, Williams, Tufts, Wesleyan, and Middlebury.  They invite eight of the league's eleven teams to make the conference tournament.

Would one of those teams somehow suddenly become less tournament-worthy if the NESCAC had a four-team conference tournament?  I would argue 'no'.  The same logic should apply to our friends in Bloomington, who face an arbitrary cut-off at a different point.

There are a fair number of folks questioning whether Amherst has strong enough credentials to receive a Pool C bid.  But these arguments are being made on the numbers reflected in the criteria.  Williams came into the NESCAC tournament as the sixth seed and finished second in the tournament.  Nobody is questioning how a six-seed in the conference tournament merits an at-large bid.  So why should Illinois Wesleyan receive extra scrutiny based on new criteria that is only applied to them when their circumstances were similar?

I understand what you're saying, and I'm sympathetic to a degree, but I'm not sure that the analogy is valid. With only a single round-robin and a postseason tourney to show for itself, the NESCAC is barely a league in the conventional sense. They play 40% of their regular-season games within the NESCAC. Even if you count the non-conference games that the Wesleyan-Amherst-Williams triad and the Colby-Bates-Bowdoin triad play within those groupings -- and, again, they're not NESCAC games but non-conference games voluntarily entered into on an annual basis -- the percentage of regular-season games against NESCAC opponents only goes up to 48% for those six schools. It stays at the same 40% rate for the other five NESCAC schools. CCIW teams, on the other hand, play 64% of their regular-season games against each other. In other words, how the fifth-place or fifth-seeded team fares in CCIW play is vastly different than how the fifth-place or fifth-seeded team in the NESCAC fared in terms of schedule composition.

Agree with Greg. Williams is going to be in and was the 6 seed, but had 4 teams ahead of them that are all pretty sure worthy Pool C candidates. IWU finished 5th in a conference with 3 teams ahead of them that are very much bubble teams, and all could very well be on the wrong side of the bubble. Apples and Oranges.

Not correct - IWU finished in a tie for 4th behind three teams in a tie for 1st.  Those five team gained or lost conference tournament positioning based in conference tournament qualifying criteria.  So, some posters (and, allegedly some coaches)  want to honor conference tournament criteria but not the NCAA tournament criteria? 
Maybe the CCIW and NCAA tournament qualification criteria should be the same?  And, on basis of NCAA criteria,  North Park would not have been in the CCIW tournament.