MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

PS: Congrats to Simmons and his Player of the Week award. Still amazed how Zach Freeman did not get that award this season.

I'm amazed, too, ECdubb. April's our expert at correlating POTW awards to the MOP, so I'll leave the research to her, but it's worth noting that of the three players most frequently mentioned as MOP candidates on CCIW Chat, Kent Raymond has won four POTWs this season, Brent Ruch has won one, and Zach Freeman was shut out. And three of Raymond's four POTWs came during January and February, in the midst of the CCIW season itself. I'm not sure if it all means anything, but it's certainly worth noting.

I also echo your congrats to Anthony Simmons. Winning that POTW award is not only a testament to his willingness to play through pain, it's also a nice vindication for him in the face of all the criticism he's faced on CCIW Chat. He really stepped up his game when his team needed him the most. He did so again tonight in a must-win situation, contributing 20 and 9 to the Cardinals' effort against Illinois Wesleyan. Which reminds me ...

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned it yet in this room, but North Central clinched a CCIW tournament berth by beating Illinois Wesleyan this evening in the airplane hangar, 77-70.

http://www2.noctrl.edu/athlet/basketball_m/06-07/NCCM-IW2.HTM

If Carthage wins the big showdown in Kenosha tomorrow night, NCC is the third seed in the CCIW tourney and Carthage is the fourth seed. If it's Wheaton that walks off the Carthage PEC floor triumphant, then Wheaton will be the third seed and NCC will be the fourth seed. In other words, at this point Augustana and Elmhurst still have no idea whom their opponents will be on Friday.

[diehardfan]

April's our expert at correlating POTW awards to the MOP, so I'll leave the research to her, but it's worth noting that of the three players most frequently mentioned as MOP candidates on CCIW Chat, Kent Raymond has won four POTWs this season, Brent Ruch has won one, and Zach Freeman was shut out. And three of Raymond's four POTWs came during January and February, in the midst of the CCIW season itself. I'm not sure if it all means anything, but it's certainly worth noting.

All it means is that Zach's team didn't win very much? I've honestly been surprised that people don't understand what's going on. The person who gets the POW nod basically always is a part of a team that won twice that week. Zach is an awesome, AWESOME basketball player, but he can't get a player of the week nod by definition of what the award is intended to do, namely, reward the best performances of guys from the teams that won their games that week.

Since POW tends to lean toward teams higher in the standings due to the fact that it honors guys from teams that win, the vague correlation between the two is not surprising.

Incidentally, this is one of those reasons that irk me when an award like All American is handed out and all conference teams are taken into account in the decision without first hand knowledge of a player. Chris Martin may never have gotten MOP thanks to where Elmhurst finished, but he was definitely one of the most outstanding players this conference has seen in the five short years I've been following CCIW ball, and definitely one of the best DIII players I've ever seen. It's like taking scripture out of context (only to a lesser degree obviously!!!). It's a dangerous thing. I sorta feel that All American nods should go to the best players no matter what without regard to some of the things that come to play in how conferences pick their all conference nods. I sorta feel that even the CCIW nods should be without regard to where a team finishes. If the 5th place team has 4 awesome players, then they should get the recognition. Is that going to happen much, of course not, but if it does it shouldn't be discounted cause it seems strange. .The players on the team that is the best arguably gets all the recognition they need by being in the dance.

Over here in the SCIAC, I think more people of opposing teams are glad to see Redlands' Amir Mazarei graduate than Occidental's Sam Betty. (Though most are probably very glad that both are leaving! ) Betty will almost definitely get the POY award, however.  That's straight up because his team won the conference. Which one of them has better stats? I really don't know, but so many stats are dependent on the players you're surrounded by that I really just don't see why they help when comparing two players of their high caliber.

And now I'm tangenting again so I'll stop. I hope the Zach thing makes sense. It's sad to see him without the honor of POW, but it does make sense with a little bit of context and perspective.

[Gregory Sager]

All it means is that Zach's team didn't win very much? I've honestly been surprised that people don't understand what's going on. The person who gets the POW nod basically always is a part of a team that won twice that week. Zach is an awesome, AWESOME basketball player, but he can't get a player of the week nod by definition of what the award is intended to do, namely, reward the best performances of guys from the teams that won their games that week.

Since POW tends to lean toward teams higher in the standings due to the fact that it honors guys from teams that win, the vague correlation between the two is not surprising.

I think that we all get that, since several people have commented over the past two weeks that the fact that Freeman plays for a team near the bottom of the standings was going to hurt his chances for MOP. What I'd like to know, and what I'm sure others would like to know as well, is how much of a correlation there is between POTW awards and MOPs for teams that are winning, especially in relation to final standings. F'rinstance, if Elmhurst finishes better than does Wheaton, either by Wheaton losing in Kenosha on Wednesday night or by the 'jays beating Wheaton in the rubber match of the Union Pacific rivalry in the CCIW semis on Friday night, does that increase Ruch's chances of beating out Raymond for the award in spite of the fact that Raymond's won three more POTWs than has the Elmhurst sophomore?

[Gregory Sager]

After looking at the full national spread of Pool C candidates this morning with relation to their regional winning percentages and QOWIs, I'm a lot less sanguine about Elmhurst's chances for a bid should the Bluejays win tonight and Friday night and then lose in the CCIW tourney championship game.

Wins on Wednesday and Friday evening followed by a loss on Saturday would give the 'jays a .739 regional winning percentage, as I said earlier. As I pointed out, that's higher than last March's .714 baseline -- but poster PABegg over in the Pool C room, who has been crunching the numbers diligently, thinks that the Pool C baseline for RW% will be higher this year, and that it could go as high as .750. That's bad news for the 'jays.

The QOWI situation is even worse. I had no idea until I saw Pat's QOWI list this morning that Elmhurst's was as low as it is. The Bluejays' QOWI is currently 9.550, good for 54th in the nation. The lowest QOWI of any Pool C team last year was Utica's 9.692. PABegg thinks that this year's baseline will be closer to an even 10.

Should Elmhurst beat Millikin, win the CCIW semi against Wheaton or North Central on Friday, and then lose to Augustana or Carthage on Saturday, the 'jays would go into Selection Sunday with a QOWI of 9.565. Should Elmhurst beat Millikin, win the CCIW semi against Wheaton or North Central, and then lose to either Wheaton or North Central in the CCIW title game, the 'jays would go into Selection Sunday with a QOWI of 9.478. (That's because Augie and Carthage would finish as first-tier RW% teams, while Wheaton and NCC would finish as second-tier RW% teams.) Either way, that QOWI just won't cut it nationally.

At best, Elmhurst would be on the bubble -- and that's not taking into consideration the inevitable conference-tourney upsets that occur across the country, several of which would result in top teams snatching Pool C bids away from the teams on the bubble.

At this point, I have to reconsider my thinking that Elmhurst is still a viable Pool C candidate. I'm now in the camp of those who think that only Augie can garner a Pool C berth from our league, which means that the only way the CCIW gets two teams into the dance is if Augie loses this weekend.

I don't know if Mark Scherer scheduled Illinois Tech or Alma because he wanted to or because he had to due to cancellations or a lack of interest in playing the 'jays from other Midwest Region coaches, but it looks as though those two irrelevant wins could come back to bite the Bluejays on the butt on Sunday. Replace either the IIT game or the Alma game with a game against a modestly competent MWC, SLIAC, NAthC, or HCAC team (or against indie MSOE), or, even better, replace both games, and Elmhurst's curriculum vitae looks incrementally better coming into Selection Sunday.

If Elmhurst goes 2-1 over the next four days and gets shut out of the dance, it will serve as a warning to coaches around the league to schedule as carefully as possible in terms of tailoring the slate to D3's tournament specs.

[rknuppel]

QOWI, RW%, whatever the number may be.  I find it hard to believe and a little silly that Elmhurst would even be in question to make the National Tourney if they win their next two games.  Sitting with a 21-6 record and taking 2nd place (regular season and conference tourney) in arguably the toughest D3 conference in America.  Among the Top 25, heck, Top 15 all year long.  Beating 5 or 6 Top 25 ranked teams throughout the year.  Thats a heck of a resume.

Think about this in Division 1.  Would there be any way this type of resume would be a bubble team?  Not a chance.  Maybe the committe is putting to much emphasis on a computer number and not enough on common sense.  If Elmhurst can't get in with that resume in the CCIW, then I question our opinion that the CCIW is one of the top few conferences in that nation.  Sorry for the ranting but I just find it really hard to believe.

[petemcb]

Midwest Region
1. Augustana 19-4 19-3, 10.591
2. Washington U. 18-4 16-3, 10.556
3. Chicago 18-4 17-4, 10.350
4. Aurora 21-2 20-2, 10.476
5. Elmhurst 18-4 14-4, 9.889
6. Wheaton (Ill.) 15-7 11-6, 9.706
7. Carthage 14-8 11-7, 9.235
8. Grinnell 15-6 14-6, 9.350.

While their record is impressive, I'm not as impressed with Aurora's gaudy record, given the caliber of many of the opponents on their conference schedule.  I know this is an old, tired, and perhaps irrelevant argument, but I would be curious to see how they would fare against the rigors of a CCIW schedule.  I know there's strength of schedule, or QOWI-type considerations, taken, but I still can't help but believe that teams 5, 6, and 7 as listed above have demonstrated more by putting up the records they have against significantly stronger opponents.  I'll hang up and listen for my responses.

I've seen all eight of the ranked Midwest Region teams this season, three of them (Chicago, Elmhurst, and Wheaton) at least four times apiece. Believe me, Aurora's good enough to play with anyone on this list. If they were in the CCIW, I think that right now they'd be in the thick of the race for a conference tournament bid, alongside Wheaton, Carthage, and North Central. I wouldn't pick them as the top team in the region -- if Augie's healthy, I have to go with them -- but the Spartans shouldn't be dismissed simply because they play in an inferior league.

Greg, just so I'm clear, I didn't mean to dismiss Aurora.  What I'm saying is that it is unlikely that they would be in possession of such an impressive overall record if they were playing in a heavyweight conference like the CCIW.  If they still have Larry Welton carrying them, they would be a contender in any conference.  All I was saying was that, similar to Elmhurst, NCC, Wheaton, Carthage, NPU, etc., my guess is that the rigors of a CCIW schedule would have tacked a few more notches on the L side of their W-L record, likely affecting their regional ranking.  On the flip side, what would the above-mentioned schools' records look like playing in Aurora's conference?  There would be a lot more in-region wins in their favor.

[TheHerr]

QOWI, RW%, whatever the number may be.  I find it hard to believe and a little silly that Elmhurst would even be in question to make the National Tourney if they win their next two games.  Sitting with a 21-6 record and taking 2nd place (regular season and conference tourney) in arguably the toughest D3 conference in America.  Among the Top 25, heck, Top 15 all year long.  Beating 5 or 6 Top 25 ranked teams throughout the year.  Thats a heck of a resume.

Think about this in Division 1.  Would there be any way this type of resume would be a bubble team?  Not a chance.  Maybe the committe is putting to much emphasis on a computer number and not enough on common sense.  If Elmhurst can't get in with that resume in the CCIW, then I question our opinion that the CCIW is one of the top few conferences in that nation.  Sorry for the ranting but I just find it really hard to believe.

I find this hard to believe as well. It seems to me that it really depends not only on if Elmhurst goes 2-1, but that 1 loss will need to come against Augie in the Finals.  I would agree that the CCIW is arguably the toughest conference in D3, but with only 59 teams making the tournament it is hard to believe that three will come from one conference no matter how good it is.

[Mugsy]

QOWI, RW%, whatever the number may be.  I find it hard to believe and a little silly that Elmhurst would even be in question to make the National Tourney if they win their next two games.  Sitting with a 21-6 record and taking 2nd place (regular season and conference tourney) in arguably the toughest D3 conference in America.  Among the Top 25, heck, Top 15 all year long.  Beating 5 or 6 Top 25 ranked teams throughout the year.  Thats a heck of a resume.

Think about this in Division 1.  Would there be any way this type of resume would be a bubble team?  Not a chance.  Maybe the committe is putting to much emphasis on a computer number and not enough on common sense.  If Elmhurst can't get in with that resume in the CCIW, then I question our opinion that the CCIW is one of the top few conferences in that nation.  Sorry for the ranting but I just find it really hard to believe.

I find this hard to believe as well. It seems to me that it really depends not only on if Elmhurst goes 2-1, but that 1 loss will need to come against Augie in the Finals.  I would agree that the CCIW is arguably the toughest conference in D3, but with only 59 teams making the tournament it is hard to believe that three will come from one conference no matter how good it is.

Hard to believe or not... that's the way it is.   Most here remember that Wheaton went 21-4 in 2003-04 and did NOT make the playoffs.  Wheaton was ranked in the top 25 as well.  Record and Top 25 ranking mean little as to whether or not you make the playoffs.

Win your conference tourney, QOWI, regional winning percentage and regional rankings are the primary criteria.  Like it or not... that is the way it is.

[mr_b]

...rediculous [sic]...

That about says it all...

Some of the most common spelling mistakes on Posting Up are so rediculous and so ludacris that they're going to make me loose my mind!

At times it's even abyssmal.

[petemcb]

...rediculous [sic]...

That about says it all...

Some of the most common spelling mistakes on Posting Up are so rediculous and so ludacris that they're going to make me loose my mind!

At times it's even abyssmal.

I'd go so far as to say whorendous.

[79jaybird]

Of course, all the talk about Elmhurst pool C and what they need to get etc.  is heresay if Elmhurst doesn't take care of business against Millikin tonight.
In the first meeting Elmhurst was 5-2 off a loss to Augie that put the Vikings atop the CCIW with Elmhurst in the back seat.  Elmhurst did not play well in Rock Island.  They opened up the Millikin game slowly, and built up a small lead in the second.  Then Gensler got heated up, took control, and beat the Jays. 

I think Elmhurst has a very difficult game here tonight.  You have a team that is not in the playoff picture playing for pride's sake.  As a former player, I can tell you there is no better motivator then to know that you can play spoiler, and knock a team out of (something).
I think the major key for Elmhurst is the play of their big guys, specifically Michael.  Ruch is more consistent and will get his points down low.  Michael has been playing well, but has been a little inconsistent.  Hopefully Nick will have one of his better games.  Overall, I think EC has to tighten their screws and put together some momentum heading into the CCIW Tourney.  Of the 4 teams, I would say the Jays are the only ones with the momentum rather stagnant.

[Titan Q]

QOWI, RW%, whatever the number may be.  I find it hard to believe and a little silly that Elmhurst would even be in question to make the National Tourney if they win their next two games.  Sitting with a 21-6 record and taking 2nd place (regular season and conference tourney) in arguably the toughest D3 conference in America.  Among the Top 25, heck, Top 15 all year long.  Beating 5 or 6 Top 25 ranked teams throughout the year.  Thats a heck of a resume.

Think about this in Division 1.  Would there be any way this type of resume would be a bubble team?  Not a chance.  Maybe the committe is putting to much emphasis on a computer number and not enough on common sense.  If Elmhurst can't get in with that resume in the CCIW, then I question our opinion that the CCIW is one of the top few conferences in that nation.  Sorry for the ranting but I just find it really hard to believe.

This is not Division 1 and any discussion of "resumes" ala Jay Bilas or Doug Gotlieb and the D1 bubble situation is really just a waste of time.  Remember,

1) With a win tonight and a loss in the CCIW tourney title game, Elmhurst will not be not 21-6 in the eyes of the selection committee...they'll be 17-6 (in-region games are all that counts). 

2) Strength of conference is not part of the criteria.

3) Positioning in the D3hoops.com Top 25 poll is not part of the criteria.

4) Wins over teams in the D3hoops.com Top 25 poll is not part of the criteria.


In the Division III selection process, there are only five things that matter:

* Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
* Quality of wins index (regional games only)
* In-region head-to-head competition
* In-region results vs common regional opponents
* In-region results vs regionally ranked teams

2007 Division III Men's Basketball Championship Hanbook (pages 16-17)

[Titan Q]

Some great work on the Pool C board by David Collinge.  With 19 Pool C bids available, Elmhurst right now is very much on the bubble...

Here's the top 66 teams with conference and presumptive pool added.  I am not predicting A's, I am not attempting to identify who is leading a conference for the A, I'm merely picking the first-listed team in each conference and awarding the A on that basis (disclaimers required because of endless confused misunderstanding on this subject last year.)  The B's and C's are bolded and numbered (C1-C30 and B1-B4.)  There will be 3 B and 19 C bids awarded.

Top 200 in QOWI through Tuesday:
Overall rk   Points   In-reg   Team   Region Win%   Overall
1   11.625   1   Amherst   0.958 (23-1)   24-1 NESCAC A
2   11.391   1   UW-Stevens Point   0.957 (22-1)   23-2 WIAC A
3   10.950   2   Trinity (Conn.)   0.850 (17-3)   21-3 NESCAC C1
4   10.810   3   Worcester Polytech   0.905 (19-2)   21-2 NEWMAC A
5   10.708   4   Salem State   0.920 (23-2)   23-2 MASCAC A
6   10.696   1   Chicago   0.818 (18-4)   20-4 UAA A
7   10.640   2   St. Thomas   0.880 (22-3)   22-3 MIAC A
8   10.520   5   Rhode Island College   0.880 (22-3)   22-3 LEC A
9   10.400   1   Lake Erie   0.950 (19-1)   23-2 AMCC A
10   10.400   1   Brockport State   0.840 (21-4)   22-4 SUNYAC A
11   10.381   2   Washington U.   0.810 (17-4)   19-4 UAA C2
12   10.381   1   Mississippi College   0.952 (20-1)   22-2 ASC A
13   10.375   2   Virginia Wesleyan   0.875 (21-3)   22-3 ODAC A
14   10.318   3   St. John's   0.864 (19-3)   19-6 MIAC C3
15   10.292   2   St. Lawrence   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 LL A
16   10.261   1   Ramapo   0.783 (18-5)   19-7 NJAC A
17   10.250   4   Occidental   0.813 (13-3)   18-5 SCIAC A
18   10.238   3   DePauw   0.900 (18-2)   21-4 SCAC A
19   10.217   3   Rochester   0.739 (17-6)   17-7 UAA C4
20   10.217   6   Keene State   0.826 (19-4)   22-4 LEC C5
21   10.208   4   St. John Fisher   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 E8 A
22   10.182   1   Johns Hopkins   0.864 (19-3)   21-4 Centennial A
23   10.136   2   John Carroll   0.727 (16-6)   17-8 OAC A
24   10.130   3   Aurora   0.913 (21-2)   23-2 NathCon B1
25   10.125   7   Brandeis   0.750 (18-6)   18-6 UAA C6
26   10.105   2   Messiah   0.842 (16-3)   19-5 MACC A
27   10.038   2   Stevens   0.808 (21-5)   21-5 SKY A
28   10.000   5   UW-Oshkosh   0.783 (18-5)   21-5 WIAC C7
29   10.000   4   Augustana   0.833 (20-4)   20-5 CCIW A
30   10.000   4   Guilford   0.870 (20-3)   21-3 ODAC C8
31   10.000   3   Wooster   0.900 (18-2)   23-3 NCAC A
32   10.000   3   Catholic   0.792 (19-5)   20-5 CAC A
33   10.000   4   Lincoln   0.786 (11-3)   17-7 IND B2
34   9.909   6   Whitworth   0.864 (19-3)   22-3 NWC A
35   9.900   4   Ohio Northern   0.700 (14-6)   19-6 OAC C9
36   9.875   5   Hood   0.792 (19-5)   20-6 CAC C10
37   9.870   6   Scranton   0.739 (17-6)   19-6 MACF A
38   9.870   5   New York University   0.783 (18-5)   19-5 UAA C11
39   9.810   7   Loras   0.810 (17-4)   19-6 IIAC A
40   9.800   5   Averett   0.800 (16-4)   18-6 USASAC A
41   9.800   3   Manhattanville   0.800 (20-5)   21-5 SKY C12
42   9.792   8   Bates   0.708 (17-7)   18-7 NESCAC C13
43   9.778   6   Centre   0.778 (14-4)   20-4 SCAC C14
44   9.773   7   Maryville (Tenn.)   0.864 (19-3)   19-6 GSAC B3
45   9.765   5   Hope   0.824 (14-3)   21-3 MIAA A
46   9.762   6   Hamilton   0.714 (15-6)   18-6 LL C15
47   9.739   7   Alvernia   0.913 (21-2)   22-4 Penna AC A
48   9.720   8   Mary Hardin-Baylor   0.840 (21-4)   21-4 ASC C16
49   9.708   9   Husson   0.875 (21-3)   21-5 NAC A
50   9.682   8   UW-La Crosse   0.727 (16-6)   18-7 WIAC C17
51   9.652   4   New Jersey City   0.696 (16-7)   17-8 NJAC C18
52   9.632   6   Westminster (Pa.)   0.842 (16-3)   18-7 PresAC B4
53   9.625   8   King's   0.708 (17-7)   17-8 MACF C19
54   9.550   5   Elmhurst   0.750 (15-5)   19-5 CCIW C20
55   9.529   9   Lewis and Clark   0.765 (13-4)   18-6 NWC C21
56   9.500   7   Capital   0.667 (16-8)   16-8 OAC C22
57   9.476   8   Wittenberg   0.810 (17-4)   22-4 NCAC C23
58   9.409   6   Grinnell   0.727 (16-6)   17-6 MWC A
59   9.364   9   McMurry   0.818 (18-4)   19-6 ASC C24
60   9.364   9   FDU-Florham   0.636 (14-8)   17-8 MACF C25
61   9.360   10   Tufts   0.600 (15-10)   15-10 NESCAC C26
62   9.348   7   Utica   0.739 (17-6)   18-6 E8 C27
63   9.346   11   Western New England   0.731 (19-7)   19-7 GNAC A
64   9.318   10   DeSales   0.727 (16-6)   18-7 MACF C28
65   9.300   7   Carthage   0.650 (13-7)   16-8 CCIW C29
66   9.300   5   Rowan   0.750 (15-5)   20-5 NJAC C30

[rknuppel]

QOWI, RW%, whatever the number may be.  I find it hard to believe and a little silly that Elmhurst would even be in question to make the National Tourney if they win their next two games.  Sitting with a 21-6 record and taking 2nd place (regular season and conference tourney) in arguably the toughest D3 conference in America.  Among the Top 25, heck, Top 15 all year long.  Beating 5 or 6 Top 25 ranked teams throughout the year.  Thats a heck of a resume.

Think about this in Division 1.  Would there be any way this type of resume would be a bubble team?  Not a chance.  Maybe the committe is putting to much emphasis on a computer number and not enough on common sense.  If Elmhurst can't get in with that resume in the CCIW, then I question our opinion that the CCIW is one of the top few conferences in that nation.  Sorry for the ranting but I just find it really hard to believe.

This is not Division 1 and any discussion of "resumes" ala Jay Bilas or Doug Gotlieb and the D1 bubble situation is really just a waste of time.  Remember,

1) With a win tonight and a loss in the CCIW tourney title game, Elmhurst will not be not 21-6 in the eyes of the selection committee...they'll be 17-6 (in-region games are all that counts). 

2) Strength of conference is not part of the criteria.

3) Positioning in the D3hoops.com Top 25 poll is not part of the criteria.

4) Wins over teams in the D3hoops.com Top 25 poll is not part of the criteria.


In the Division III selection process, there are only five things that matter:

* Win-loss percentage against regional opponents
* Quality of wins index (regional games only)
* In-region head-to-head competition
* In-region results vs common regional opponents
* In-region results vs regionally ranked teams

2007 Division III Men's Basketball Championship Hanbook (pages 16-17)

Q - I understand exactly how it works.  I just find it strange that we're always touting the CCIW as the best conference in D3 basketball yet our 21-6 2nd place team can't make the National Tourney.

79Jaybird - You are correct.  Elmhurst needs to just take care of business and make all of this a non-issue.

[Titan Q]

QOWI, RW%, whatever the number may be.  I find it hard to believe and a little silly that Elmhurst would even be in question to make the National Tourney if they win their next two games.  Sitting with a 21-6 record and taking 2nd place (regular season and conference tourney) in arguably the toughest D3 conference in America.  Among the Top 25, heck, Top 15 all year long.  Beating 5 or 6 Top 25 ranked teams throughout the year.  Thats a heck of a resume.

Think about this in Division 1.  Would there be any way this type of resume would be a bubble team?  Not a chance.  Maybe the committe is putting to much emphasis on a computer number and not enough on common sense.  If Elmhurst can't get in with that resume in the CCIW, then I question our opinion that the CCIW is one of the top few conferences in that nation.  Sorry for the ranting but I just find it really hard to believe.

I find this hard to believe as well. It seems to me that it really depends not only on if Elmhurst goes 2-1, but that 1 loss will need to come against Augie in the Finals.  I would agree that the CCIW is arguably the toughest conference in D3, but with only 59 teams making the tournament it is hard to believe that three will come from one conference no matter how good it is.

Last year there were 17 at-large bids...the CCIW and WIAC each got two of them (3 teams in the field total)...

(2005-06 Pool C teams)
Tufts    11.000    20-5 No. 3 NE
Gordon    10.560    22-3 No. 4 NE
Augustana    10.478    19-4 No. 2 MW
Cortland State    10.440    22-3 No. 2 E
York (Pa.)    10.400    22-3 No. 1 MA
Trinity (Texas)    10.316    16-3 No. 2 S
Carroll    10.087    19-4 No. 4 MW
Wooster    10.042    21-3 No. 1 GL
Carleton    10.000    18-5 No. 3 NE
Baruch    9.958    21-3 No. 1 NE
Illinois Wesleyan    9.952    15-6 No. 5 MW
Widener    9.920    20-5 No. 4 MA
UW-La Crosse    9.880    18-7 No. 6 W
UW-Stout    9.870    18-5 No. 1 W
Randolph-Macon    9.840    19-6 No. 4 S
Occidental    9.750    12-4 No. 4 W
Calvin    9.733    13-2 No. 2 GL
Utica    9.692    20-6 No. 4 E


This year there are two more Pool C bids (19).  One conference getting 3 teams in is very possible.  As illustrated in my post above, the UAA has a legitimate shot at getting 5 teams in the field (Chicago or Wash U as the Pool A, and then Chicago/Wash U, Rochester, Brandeis, and NYU and Pool C's.

Again, just depends on how the candidates stack up vs the established criteria.  There is no cap by conference.