MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

There are some things that make me scratch my head, and I know someone can help me clear the cob-webs out of my head.

How can the boys at d3hoops have teams like St Norbert and Dennison ranked in their top 15 list, yet they aren't considered good enough to even be considered for the Tourney because they didn't win their Conference?

I understand the two systems are independent of each other.  But, it seems to me that if the goal is to get to NCAA dance, d3hoops should rank them according to the method the NCAA uses for selection.  Why not?

A subjective poll and the criteria for the NCAA Tournament are apples and oranges. The AP poll means nothing for the D-I NCAA Tournament; why does the D3Hoops poll have to be different?

Also, if you have either a .506 (St. Norbert) or worse, a .477 (Denison) SOS, you don't deserve a Pool C bid, Top 25 team or not.

That answer didn't help.  There are plenty of teams in the D-1 with better records than teams 20 to 25 in the AP poll;  for example, Vermont, Fla Golf Coast, UNC-Wilmington, Monmouth, Middle Tenn....and they aren't ranked because of SOS.  So, again,  if d3 teams have a poor SOS, why rank them?  What is the purpose of the d3 top 25?  One would assume that they are supposed to be the 25 best teams....but, apparently not.

I don't think the D3hoops.com voters are given SOS data

We can always look it up on Matt Snyder's site, but I consider my job as a voter to actually use my subjective judgment and the eye test - pretty much exactly the opposite of the way the committee has to do it.

[bbfan44]

There are some things that make me scratch my head, and I know someone can help me clear the cob-webs out of my head.

How can the boys at d3hoops have teams like St Norbert and Dennison ranked in their top 15 list, yet they aren't considered good enough to even be considered for the Tourney because they didn't win their Conference?

I understand the two systems are independent of each other.  But, it seems to me that if the goal is to get to NCAA dance, d3hoops should rank them according to the method the NCAA uses for selection.  Why not?

A subjective poll and the criteria for the NCAA Tournament are apples and oranges. The AP poll means nothing for the D-I NCAA Tournament; why does the D3Hoops poll have to be different?

Also, if you have either a .506 (St. Norbert) or worse, a .477 (Denison) SOS, you don't deserve a Pool C bid, Top 25 team or not.

That answer didn't help.  There are plenty of teams in the D-1 with better records than teams 20 to 25 in the AP poll;  for example, Vermont, Fla Golf Coast, UNC-Wilmington, Monmouth, Middle Tenn....and they aren't ranked because of SOS.  So, again,  if d3 teams have a poor SOS, why rank them?  What is the purpose of the d3 top 25?  One would assume that they are supposed to be the 25 best teams....but, apparently not.

I don't think the D3hoops.com voters are given SOS data

We can always look it up on Matt Snyder's site, but I consider my job as a voter to actually use my subjective judgment and the eye test - pretty much exactly the opposite of the way the committee has to do it.

Yes, Ryan, but you must know that St Norbert has gone 70-2 in conference over the past four years.  Why continue to rank them so high when they are building their W/L record by just beating up everyone in a weak SOS conference?  Oh well, let's enjoy the next couple of weeks.  Hope to see the CCIW win some games.

[iwu70]

Congrats to Augie on their bid.  I hope AC and NCC make some noise in the tournament, making the CCIW proud. 

Of course, I'm sorry IWU didn't get a bid, left on the table at the very last.  But, I never had high hopes that they would get a bid given their season and their numbers.  It was close, but no cigar this year.  There's always next year . . .  I am glad the CCIW is a two-bid league this year, again.

IWU women did get in -- making the CCIW a two-bid league on the women's side too.  IWU plays Trine in Ada, Ohio on Friday, and if fortunate enough to win, likely get a match up with undefeated Ohio Northern, now 27-0.  No easy outings at this stage. 

Thanks again to all the seniors in the CCIW for their hard work, dedication to their teams and programs, making the CCIW such a great league to follow, year in and year out.

IWU70

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

There are some things that make me scratch my head, and I know someone can help me clear the cob-webs out of my head.

How can the boys at d3hoops have teams like St Norbert and Dennison ranked in their top 15 list, yet they aren't considered good enough to even be considered for the Tourney because they didn't win their Conference?

I understand the two systems are independent of each other.  But, it seems to me that if the goal is to get to NCAA dance, d3hoops should rank them according to the method the NCAA uses for selection.  Why not?

A subjective poll and the criteria for the NCAA Tournament are apples and oranges. The AP poll means nothing for the D-I NCAA Tournament; why does the D3Hoops poll have to be different?

Also, if you have either a .506 (St. Norbert) or worse, a .477 (Denison) SOS, you don't deserve a Pool C bid, Top 25 team or not.

That answer didn't help.  There are plenty of teams in the D-1 with better records than teams 20 to 25 in the AP poll;  for example, Vermont, Fla Golf Coast, UNC-Wilmington, Monmouth, Middle Tenn....and they aren't ranked because of SOS.  So, again,  if d3 teams have a poor SOS, why rank them?  What is the purpose of the d3 top 25?  One would assume that they are supposed to be the 25 best teams....but, apparently not.

I don't think the D3hoops.com voters are given SOS data

We can always look it up on Matt Snyder's site, but I consider my job as a voter to actually use my subjective judgment and the eye test - pretty much exactly the opposite of the way the committee has to do it.

Yes, Ryan, but you must know that St Norbert has gone 70-2 in conference over the past four years.  Why continue to rank them so high when they are building their W/L record by just beating up everyone in a weak SOS conference?  Oh well, let's enjoy the next couple of weeks.  Hope to see the CCIW win some games.

Because until this season they have been a pretty proven commodity... and one would argue the conference, especially Ripon, was a little more competitive.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Since IWU was the next team at the table after Oshkosh, I can't help wondering if MIT knocking Babson into the C ranks cost us a spot in the tourney.  One of those little mysteries for which we will never know the answer.

I don't believe MIT stole a bid. They finished 10th in the final rankings ahead of Endicott who was picked and those rankings were done before they even tipped off with Babson... I am quite confident the rankings were done based on the assumption Babson would win (they were 2-0 v MIT heading in). I don't think at all that MIT stole a bid since Endicott got in.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Since IWU was the next team at the table after Oshkosh, I can't help wondering if MIT knocking Babson into the C ranks cost us a spot in the tourney.  One of those little mysteries for which we will never know the answer.

I don't believe MIT stole a bid. They finished 10th in the final rankings ahead of Endicott who was picked and those rankings were done before they even tipped off with Babson... I am quite confident the rankings were done based on the assumption Babson would win (they were 2-0 v MIT heading in). I don't think at all that MIT stole a bid since Endicott got in.

d-mac, stats of four teams, 3 in the tourney:
                WL%  SoS  vRRO
Team A:  .786,  .559,  0-5
Team B    .680   .556   4-2
Team C    .679   .575  3-4
Team D    .786   .521  1-1

Which team did not get selected?

Despite the lowest WL%, I have no squabble with Keene St (Team C) - high SoS, respectable vRRO.

Team D (Endicott) has a good WL% (not great), but a weak SoS, and barely played anyone ranked.  A disgrace (IMO) that they got an at large bid.

Team A is MIT if they had lost to Babson.  Respectable WL% and SoS, but if they can't beat a single RR opponent, what the heck are they doing in the national tourney?  I do NOT think they would have made the field if not the AQ (except the national committee seems to have had a distinct tilt to the northeast this season).

And, of course, Team B was IWU.  CLEARLY not the last of the four.

[AndOne]

North Central vs. Wooster will be Friday at 5:30 Eastern Time.

[Gregory Sager]

There was plenty of reason to be worried, CP. Augustana was not a shoo-in. But as Bob pointed out on Saturday night, there was a lot less havoc wreaked in conference tournament semifinals and championships than usual that day, and that relative absence of bid-thieving left enough room for some teams whose numbers would've been too low in past seasons for serious Pool C consideration.

Following up on this thought, I highly recommend that everybody read Pat Coleman's article on the unprecedented selection of UW-Oshkosh for a Pool C berth, which is posted on d3hoops.com. It includes a very helpful graph concocted by a d3boards.com poster named Drew Pasteur, who is a math prof at Wooster and was one of the people in the Pool C room analyzing the data prior to Selection Monday and estimating probabilities for who would get a bid and who wouldn't. His graph plots out the teams that have had Pool C aspirations from the 2013 thru 2016 seasons, inclusive, on a Cartesian plane along an x axis that measures SOS and a y axis that measures winning %.

The graph includes three lines that cut across the plane -- a solid line, that I will now take to calling the Pasteur Line, along which 50% of all teams with Pool C aspirations in those four seasons received a bid and 50% didn't, and a dotted line above it that represented a 90% chance at a bid and a dotted line below it that represented a 10% chance at a bid. The Pasteur Line thus represents the midpoint of the bubble (not taking into consideration the other criteria that weren't plotted, such as vRRO) for those previous four seasons.

There were nine teams that fell below the Pasteur Line that nevertheless got bids in those four seasons, an average of 2.3 teams per year. This year, six teams that fell below the Pasteur Line received bids: Augustana, Keene State, St. Lawrence, St. Thomas, Skidmore, and UW-Oshkosh. Even leaving UWO and its wretched winning percentage aside, it was a bonanza year for teams with normally subpar credentials nevertheless getting into the field of 64.

Incidentally, the other three CCIW Pool C aspirants -- Illinois Wesleyan, Carthage, and North Park -- all fell below the 10% dotted line. Augustana was right on the 10% line. Keene State and (of course) UWO were below it.

[Gregory Sager]

Current Massey:

20. St. Thomas
21. Augustana
26. Wooster
36. North Central

Massey sez:

Augustana 72, St. Thomas 71 (AC 51%, UST 49%)
Wooster 78, North Central 75 (CW 58%, NCC 42%)

[GoPerry]

There was plenty of reason to be worried, CP. Augustana was not a shoo-in. But as Bob pointed out on Saturday night, there was a lot less havoc wreaked in conference tournament semifinals and championships than usual that day, and that relative absence of bid-thieving left enough room for some teams whose numbers would've been too low in past seasons for serious Pool C consideration.

Following up on this thought, I highly recommend that everybody read Pat Coleman's article on the unprecedented selection of UW-Oshkosh for a Pool C berth, which is posted on d3hoops.com. It includes a very helpful graph concocted by a d3boards.com poster named Drew Pasteur, who is a math prof at Wooster and was one of the people in the Pool C room analyzing the data prior to Selection Monday and estimating probabilities for who would get a bid and who wouldn't. His graph plots out the teams that have had Pool C aspirations from the 2013 thru 2016 seasons, inclusive, on a Cartesian plane along an x axis that measures SOS and a y axis that measures winning %.

The graph includes three lines that cut across the plane -- a solid line, that I will now take to calling the Pasteur Line, along which 50% of all teams with Pool C aspirations in those four seasons received a bid and 50% didn't, and a dotted line above it that represented a 90% chance at a bid and a dotted line below it that represented a 10% chance at a bid. The Pasteur Line thus represents the midpoint of the bubble (not taking into consideration the other criteria that weren't plotted, such as vRRO) for those previous four seasons.

There were nine teams that fell below the Pasteur Line that nevertheless got bids in those four seasons, an average of 2.3 teams per year. This year, six teams that fell below the Pasteur Line received bids: Augustana, Keene State, St. Lawrence, St. Thomas, Skidmore, and UW-Oshkosh. Even leaving UWO and its wretched winning percentage aside, it was a bonanza year for teams with normally subpar credentials nevertheless getting into the field of 64.

Incidentally, the other three CCIW Pool C aspirants -- Illinois Wesleyan, Carthage, and North Park -- all fell below the 10% dotted line. Augustana was right on the 10% line. Keene State and (of course) UWO were below it.

Yes, that was an interesting read.  Dave did a great job in his interview trying to unpack the SOS vs W/L% balance out of Coach Vande Streek yesterday, but I'm not sure what more he could've said.  It was an outlier pick, no question.

[AppletonRocks]

Massey doesn't think the Titans are so "wretched". 

http://www.masseyratings.com/game.php?s0=292154&t0=Hope&h=0&s1=292154&t1=Wisconsin-Oshkosh

[AndOne]

Current Massey:

20. St. Thomas
21. Augustana
26. Wooster
36. North Central

Massey sez:

Augustana 72, St. Thomas 71 (AC 51%, UST 49%)
Wooster 78, North Central 75 (CW 58%, NCC 42%)

North Central also wasn't supposed to win any of its last 3 games against Wesleyan, Carthage, or Augie and even get to this spot. But, they've been pretty good lately at defying the odds, so maybe being viewed as the underdog once again is a good thing. 

Three points is just another Jager bomb. 

[Gregory Sager]

I hope that people aren't interpreting my biweekly posting of Massey ratings and predictions as an endorsement of everything contained therein, Mark. That's not what I'm doing. It's a useful tool for analysis. It doesn't mean that, if I had to make a prediction of what was going to happen on a particular CCIW game night, Massey would be my go-to source. On the contrary, I'd base my guesses upon my own knowledge of this league's teams, which (if I can be immodest for a moment ) I consider to be pretty thorough. In fact, I've pointed out before when Massey's been way off after the games have been played.

[AndOne]

Don't know about "people," but I, for one, do not take your posting as an endorsement, but rather as a point of information. I am not the strongest proponent of Massey myself.

Yes, your knowledge is "pretty" thorough. 

When I said NCC wasn't supposed to win any of its last three games, I wasn't so much going by Massey as by my own knowledge of the teams, and even more so by the prevailing opinion of other knowledgeable league posters and non-posters alike which I either read or detected by auditory observation, sometimes referred to as listening. 

[iwumichigander]

I hope that people aren't interpreting my biweekly posting of Massey ratings and predictions as an endorsement of everything contained therein, Mark. That's not what I'm doing. It's a useful tool for analysis. It doesn't mean that, if I had to make a prediction of what was going to happen on a particular CCIW game night, Massey would be my go-to source. On the contrary, I'd base my guesses upon my own knowledge of this league's teams, which (if I can be immodest for a moment ) I consider to be pretty thorough. In fact, I've pointed out before when Massey's been way off after the games have been played.

As I have not consulted Massey in several years, for all Imknow you were making up the numbers!