MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[79jaybird]

titanrailer--where is North Central doing this comparison chart?  And, does the NCAA take into account whether or not a loss was to a team that was ranked in the top 25 at the time?  i.e. Platteville was ranked when EC lost by 1 to them?

[iwumichigander]

There are currently 87 teams with better in-region records than Elmhurst (10 of which are in the Midwest) and 75 teams with better QOWI's.  If we assume all 41 Pool A and Pool B teams who get bids are above Elmhurst right now, that leaves Elmhurst, at best, with the 47th best regional record and 35th best QOWI of the 18 Pool C bids left.  Considering these are the top 2 criteria for tournament selection, 2 wins the last weekend of February is the only hope.

As a hypothetical excercise, the challenge for either Elmhurst or North Central, to a lesser extent, goes deeper.  On the assumption(s) that 1) Augustana or IWU (not saying either will) wins the CCIW tournament and 2)Lawrence, Augustana or Illinois Wesleyan, Transylvania, Carroll and Washington U do not win their respective conference AQs.  While playing out these two assumptions is not likely, EC and NCC would have under these assumptions 5 teams with better QOWI and In Region W/L records through games Feb 6 in front of them.  This scenario, as ugly as it is, leaves no room for a "surprise" NCAA ranking which is likely.

[bluemom]

Elmhurst has lost 7 games, six who were ranked when E-HUrst played them.  Today five of those losses are from teams in the top ten  then there is Millikin (ouch) and UW Platteville no longer even considered for the top 25........Granted the poll means nothing in the decision of the teams for the tourney, but it does reflect general consideration from the literate which should have some affect on the committee, if the committee wants a true, solid, attractive and credible tournament.  E-hurst has also beat a team in the top 10, a team ranked *I think 11th  (Hanover) and beat a team in 17th on their home court.  But again I say...Millikin "ouch", but every team would like to have one game back...the problem exists when a team wants two, three, or  four games back.

They lost to Hope in the first game by double digits, Platteville by 1, Albion by 8, Augustana twice by 3 (now Augie is 3rd), beating iWU by 8 and then losing to them by 1 in overtime in a most dramatic finish.

If Augustrana is 3rd, and IWU is 7th, and Albion is 10th=---and that is four of our losses, how can they ignore a team with those credentials (millikin or no Millikin)!

We saw last year that no real thought went into the selection, lettig the chips fall where they lay on the Quality of Wins or the QQW..whatever.  If I recall Bill Harris withdrew from the Midwest committee for some reason.  If it was a conflict of interest I understand fully.  I would have hoped that it was just a statement that he, likw some other coaches who have chosen not to serve in that role, to be a puppet and a show for the QQWI, etc. (and I really don't know or want to presume that to be the same in Coach Harris' withdrawal), I applaud those who stand for quality over against some so-called objective and mathematical system that in part arbitrarily assigns numbers for this and numbers for that.  It attempts to quantify in mathematical terms that which is in great measure incapable of being defined strictly by mathematics.   (Mr. Ypsi may wish to contest that notion more or less!)  

Lets use both, the mathematics as one indicator, and a knowledgable base of coaching knowhow, as free as we possibly as we can of the subjectivity that often creeps in  (....What a pipe dream that is!)....to arrive at some responsible degree of quality in the competition we seek in the NCAA tourney!

Can we say yet that the system is broken or that it just needs a tune-up?

[augie22]

If Augustrana is 3rd, and IWU is 7th, and Albion is 10th=---and that is four of our losses, how can they ignore a team with those credentials (millikin or no Millikin)!

I think you said it right there...the Milikin game was huge!

[iwumichigander]

Elmhurst has lost 7 games, six who were ranked when E-HUrst played them.

With understanding for your feelings, the NCAA Championship Handbook considers teams to be "ranked" when:
• Ranked opponents are defined as those teams ranked at the time of the ranking/
selection process only.

I.E., when ranked by the NCAA in Feb.; and, we will not see the final rankings this year from what I understand. 

UW-Plattville will probably not make the NCAA rankings but still an in region loss.  Albion could be on the outside looking in.  Its likely the losses to Augie (2) and IWU (1) hurt more as both likely to be ranked.

[Mr. Ypsi]

bluemom,

Being a stat prof, I fully AGREE with you - I know better than most how stats can be incomplete and/or downright deceptive!  QOWI has two main flaws: it counts ONLY in-region games, yet is used to select for a national tourney (obviously, a mis-use!), and it takes no account of an opponent's opponents' records.  Since Elmhurst is (at the moment) below .667 in-region, a team would score more points by beating a >.667 team who continually beat up on nobodies than by beating Elmhurst - ridiculous.

[Titan Q]

titanrailer--where is North Central doing this comparison chart?  And, does the NCAA take into account whether or not a loss was to a team that was ranked in the top 25 at the time?  i.e. Platteville was ranked when EC lost by 1 to them?

The NCAA Division III Tournament Committee does not look at the D3hoops.com Top 25 poll at all.  D3hoops.com is a private website run with no tie to the NCAA.  The complete criteria for tournament selection and seeding is spelled out in the 2006 Championship Handbook:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/basketball/2006/2006_d3_m_basketball_handbook.pdf

See "Primary Criteria", starting on page 15 and continuing and page 16...

* Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
* Quality of Wins Index
* In-region head-to-head competition
* In-region results vs common opponents
* In-region results vs regionally ranked teams (only teams ranked at the time of the ranking/selection process count as "ranked")

I don't think anyone has any idea how the committee weighs these 5 primary criteria, but it seems like in-region win-loss % and QOWI are the big two.

The one criteria that might might help Elmhurst vs North Central in a Pool C situation is "in-region head-to-head", if the 'jays can sweep North Central.  Again, without knowing how they weigh the criteria, who really knows what it would mean...afterall, NCC will most likey have a better in-region winning % and QOWI, so if those are weighed significantly more maybe even a sweep doesn't help EC.  But Elmhurst defintely needs that sweep over NCC in its back pocket to improve its Pool C situation.

The Midwest Advisory Committee for 2006 (Appendix D) is:

Steve Larson, Edgewood College (chair)
George Barber, Greenville College
Keith Bunkenberg, Benedictine
Larry Cox, Mount St. Joseph
Tim Littrell, Millikin
Skip Noon, Wisconsin Lutheran
Cecil Youngblood, Beloit

When the regional ranking system was a subjective process (and the committee would actually discuss what, say, an Illinois Wesleyan win over St. Xavier meant vs an Augustana win over St. Ambrose), the regional advisory committee members had a big role.  Now that is almost 100% black and white, I'm not sure what the heck they really do.  After Bill Harris resigned from the Midwest Committee in 2004, he said, "All they need is a computer to do that."

[sac]

....... if the committee wants a true, solid, attractive and credible tournament.

Did anyone else chuckle when they got to this part.  It hasn't been real credible since they had 64 teams in 98.  Since then its been pretty much stupid.

.......and just when you think they make progress and add teams, they take away 1/2 of the opportunities to play a home game in the tournament in front of your own fans.

Can't wait to see a first round game decided between two neutral teams in front of 100 friends and family.

Stupid, stupid stupid

[John Gleich]

Good post Q, I was hoping someone would dive into the Handbook and post the actual criteria... I tried to find it (the Handbook) this weekend, and I just couldn't find it...

You're exactly right, the NCAA selection process has really become an objective selection.  This is all well and good for teams from top-heavy conferences with inflated records... but it doesn't do much for some of the more competitive conferences where ALL the teams play at a high level.  I know the WIAC teams would prefer if the committee would take into account something along the lines of the conference's win % against non-conference, or the WIAC's historical success in the NCAA tournament... but it isn't to be.

The added bids should help the "power conferences" but there still will be some rather questionables...

[Mr. Ypsi]

iwum,

Elmhurst-Albion is not in-region - it doesn't exist in the NCAA's eyes.

Q,

Unless I'm misremembering, in the last two years one year the Midwest rankings followed in-region percentage EXACTLY, the other year they followed QOWI (then SOSI) EXACTLY.  Those certainly appear to be, de facto, the ONLY two primary criteria, though which predominates is unclear.

sac,

And that WILL happen, somewhere or other!  But at least there is SOME progress (he says, crossing his fingers) - with the C expansion I'm hopeful that no team who could make a LEGITIMATE case for going to Salem will not even get the chance to try.  (Once the teams are selected, I reserve the right to ignore this post and squeal like a stuck pig if some team I've been ranking high is left out! )

[Mr. Ypsi]

BTW, even continuing to talk about Elmhurst's pool C chances is spitting in the wind.  Their ONLY chance is the AQ (and I certainly would not count them out of that).

Barring a HUGE rash of conference tourney upsets they will certainly be among the 18 'best' pool C candidates, but by the NCAA criteria their chances of gaining a pool C bid are essentially nil.

[iwufan32]

LETS GO TITANS LETS ADD ANOTHER "W" TO THE W LIST GOOD LUCK BOYS... GO KEELAN!!!   

[bluemom]

Sac, I am sorry if my perspective is somewhat stupid or my complaints are somewhat elementary.  I am one who generally says what they think about basketball----out in left field (oops! wrong sport...see...)  but I don't understand to use your terms  "stupid" decisions made by the NCAA, and over the years (so close to the game of basketball as a basketball widow, I decided I could mourn the loss of my husband and kids for six to seven months out of the year or join them) and after joining them I have seen a lot of stupid...I kinda like that word.....decisions by the NCAA!

As for E-HUrst's chances, I have said their destiny is in their hands, totally.  I have no illusions.  But quite frankly, at the end of the game, I tend to like the ball in my hands rather than having to watch (and wait) while a beautiful shot like Dauckas made Saturday nite suspend itself in mid-air for an eternity before dropping perfectly into the bucket!

Thanks for allowing me to put my two cents in.......I am enjoying the board

[veterancciwfan]

Sac: Stupid X 3 = Mickey Mouse. That's what the D3 tournament selection process is and always will be. The driving force behind the politically correct process is that fans from the super conferences like the CCIW and the Wisconsin league cannot be allowed the smugness to think that their teams are somehow better from teams from the have-not and top heavy conferences. Case in point: Lawrence, who is a lock for a C bid even it loses in the Midwest conf. tourney. Why? Because the play in the inferior (this year which may be an exception to the general shape of the league) Midwest league instead of in the CCIW or the WI league. What would Lawrence's record be if they played IWU's schedule? Or WI-Stout's schedule? Does anyone think that they would be undefeated if they did? Of course not. But to the D3 tournament committee, that's irrelevant because the committee doesn't want to favor the super conferences at the expense of the other "we're just as good as you" conferences. At one time, the tournament committee tried to get the "best" teams in the tourney. But not any more. And never again
as the have-nots (and there are a lot more of them) have the power in D3. Imagine how the D1 tournament would be the laughing stock of the sports writers if its tournament selection process operated like the D3 tourney process. Please reread the first sentence of this post and keep it in mind as you try to reason why CCIW fans will probaably be sorely disappointed on selection Sunday (or is it Monday this year)?

[Pat Coleman]

But to the D3 tournament committee, that's irrelevant because the committee doesn't want to favor the super conferences at the expense of the other "we're just as good as you" conferences.

I agree that it's stupid but let's not go barking up the wrong tree. This current emphasis was made at much higher levels than the Division III men's basketball committee. The so-called "super conferences" had to vote in favor of extending automatic bids to the rest in putting the Pools system into place, and they did so.