MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

Mr. Ypsi · February 25, 2007, 05:35:02 PM

Hi, Martie!

The NCAA seems to award byes at least as much on geography (minimizing plane trips) as on 'merit', so who knows. Since there are plenty of teams within 500 miles that could be sent to RI, I'd be mildly surprised if they get a bye, but we'll know on Monday.

See, OS, I 'answer' questions even when I do NOT know the answer!

armywife · February 25, 2007, 05:37:37 PM

Thanks Old School, that's helpful. After checking the MHB site more carefully, I see that they have made it to the post season 7 out of the last 8 seasons. I'm not sure if they mean their conference tournament or if they've made it to the NCAA tournament lately.

armywife · February 25, 2007, 05:40:08 PM

Thanks to you too Mr. Yipsi. I wish I could stay up tonight and see what happens, but it's time for bed here in Heidelberg. Hope all of you have a great rest of your Sunday. Mine has been amazing.

79jaybird · February 25, 2007, 05:52:05 PM

Looking at the front page it appears there will be 3 WIAC's 4-5 UAA's, 2 MIAA, and only 1 CCIW, wow just doesn't seem like this right. We (Elmhurst) can still hope, but it just doesn't seem like the Bluejays have enough mojo on their side to sneak in. Hard to believe that last year this conference had 3 teams in, 1 made it to 3rd Nationally, and now this year we might have 1 lone bid.

Greek Tragedy · February 25, 2007, 06:24:18 PM

To Elmhurst's advantage, they'll be at the Pool C table pretty quickly. Chicago will be picked pretty early and Augie and Wash. U. have Pool A bids, while Aurora has a Pool B bid. No one in the Midwest Region did anything to jump Elmhurst.

But, Elmhurst has a really poor QOWI. They'll get to the Pool C table early, but they'll be sitting there waiting for "dinner" for awhile.

Midwest Region
1. (12) Chicago 20-5 19-5 (LOST to Washington U., needs Pool C bid)
2. (18) Augustana 22-5 22-4 (Won CCIW AQ)
3. (9) Washington U. 12-4 18-4 (defeats Chicago in UAA, gets UAA AQ)
4. (14) Aurora 25-2 24-2 (Won NathCon Final: POOL B
5. (57) Elmhurst 21-6 17-6 (LOST to Augustana in CCIW Final)
6. (73) Carthage 16-9 13-8 ([Reg. season complete, did not make CCIW tourney)
7. (64) Grinnell 17-7 16-7 (LOST to Lake Forest in MWC Semis)
8. (70) Wheaton (Ill.) 17-9 13-8 (LOST to Elmhurst in CCIW Semis)

If you compare Elmhurst to the West Region, St. John's will be taken pretty early and then Ohskosh and La Crosse are next in line. As you see, their QOWIs are higher.

West Region
1. (1) UW-Stevens Point 25-2 24-1 (Won WIAC AQ)
2. (5) St. Thomas 24-3 24-3 (Won MIAC AQ)
3. (23) St. John's 20-7 20-4 (LOST to St. Thomas in MIAC Final)
4. (34) UW-Oshkosh 21-6 18-6 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
5. (16) Occidental 19-5 14-3 (Won SCIAC AQ)
6. (28) Whitworth 23-3 20-3 (Won NWC AQ)
7. (29) Loras 21-6 19-4 (Won IIAC AQ)
8. (41) UW-La Crosse 19-8 17-7 (LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final)

The reason the UAA may get THREE Pool C bids this year is because the advantage of having teams in different regions!

Midwest Region
1. (12) Chicago 20-5 19-5 (LOST to Washington U., needs Pool C bid)
2. (18) Augustana 22-5 22-4 (Won CCIW AQ)
3. (9) Washington U. 12-4 18-4 (defeats Chicago in UAA, gets UAA AQ

East Region
1. (19) Brockport State 23-5 22-5 (LOST to Plattsburgh State in SUNYAC Final)
2. (15) St. John Fisher 22-5 21-5 (Won Empire 8 AQ)
3. (11) St. Lawrence 22-5 21-5 (Won Liberty League AQ)
4. (46) New York U. 19-6 18-6 (lost to Brandeis, needs a Pool C)
5. (20) Rochester 18-7 18-6 (beat Carnegie Mellon, still needs a Pool C)

Northeast Region
1. (2) Amherst 25-2 24-2 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Final)
2. (8 ) Salem State 24-2 24-2 (Won MASCAC AQ)
3. (7) Trinity (Conn.) 21-4 17-4 (LOST to Williams in NESCAC Semis)
4. (3) WPI 22-3 20-3 (LOST to Coast Guard in NEWMAC Final)
5. (6) Rhode Island 24-3 24-3 (Won LEC AQ)
6. (26) Keene State 23-5 20-5 (LOST to Rhode Island in LEC Final)
7. (17) Brandeis 19-6 19-6 (defeated NYU, still needs a Pool C)

I see Rochester jumping NYU.

BRLHSFAN · February 25, 2007, 06:33:59 PM

Ok, I'll admit it, I'm totally lost on this stuff. Someone just tell me when the decision is made!!!!

Greek Tragedy · February 25, 2007, 06:54:40 PM

tonight at 9 pm-ish are the teams. tomorrow, 8 am-ish is the bracket.

79jaybird · February 25, 2007, 07:14:52 PM

OldSchool-- That is good news and I am praying for the Elmhurst Seniors!!
"The candle is still flickering" ala an Elton John hit "Candle in the Wind".
Brlhsfan-- hang in there. This is why they call it March Madness because there are so many fluctuating emotions.

I would love to talk to Coach Giovanine and hear his thoughts on whether or not EC should make it? I am guessing he would feel that EC is worthy enough to get in and would like to see us make it based upon reflection of the CCIW.

Mr. Ypsi · February 25, 2007, 07:52:20 PM

79j,

I would bet dollars to donuts that ANY CCIW coach would contend that not only is Elmhurst desrving, so are NCC, Wheaton, and Carthage (and if the tourney really was the top 59 teams, they'd be right - maybe even add NPU and IWU)!

But the tourney is what it is. I have no bone to pick with Pool A (except that 37 AQs for a 59-team tourney doesn't leave much wiggle room - d1 only has 20-something AQs for a 65-team tourney). They won their conference, they deserve a shot. Sure, many of them are nothing but annual 'speed bumps' for some first round team, but the occasional big upset is a key part of 'March Madness'. Pool B I'm more ambivalent about - I see no compelling reason they shouldn't just fight it out with everyone in pool C (this year it might have made no difference, though Westminster, at least, would have bee bubble material).

It's the selection criteria for pool C (and pool B) that grind me. Using regional results to select a national tourney just makes no sense. True, they get compared across regions in the actual selection process, but on criteria where the damage has already been done. A QOWI or a regional winning % (or, for that matter, record against regionally-ranked opponents) is comparable ONLY if the untenable assumption is made that all regions are equal. A QOWI of 9.5 or winning % of .7 in a strong region may well reflect a better team than a QOWI of 10.5 or winning % of .8 in a weaker region. But the 10.5, .8 team will get in, the 9.5, .7 team will go home.

With 18 pool C teams rather than the previous 5, it is less likely that a realistic title contender will sit home, but, I would suggest, not highly improbable. Just last year IWU may have been the last team in (they had the lowest regional winning % of any C) and came within 3 points of playing for the Walnut-and-Bronze. This year, though they have zero chance of getting the opportunity to show it, I would not bet heavily against an Elmhurst or a Witt getting hot and going to Salem. The 18 pool C teams should not be confused necessarily with the next 18 best teams - the selection criteria are too screwy.

cciw watcher · February 25, 2007, 09:35:28 PM

I notice D3 hoops has 3 teams from the WIAC in the big dance. I will be extremely upset if U.W. Oshkosh and U.W. LaCrosse get in over Elmhurst.
What do u posters think?

Late nite · February 25, 2007, 09:38:46 PM

Totally agree---EC beat them head up and Osh didn't even make the finals of their own conference tourney

Quote from: cciw watcher on February 25, 2007, 09:35:28 PM
I notice D3 hoops has 3 teams from the WIAC in the big dance. I will be extremely upset if U.W. Oshkosh and U.W. LaCrosse get in over Elmhurst.
What do u posters think?

buf · February 25, 2007, 09:45:05 PM

I think all 3 are about the same as far as quality. If your rooting for Elmhurst, you hope to see Oshkosh up on the Pool C comparison board across from you since UWO lost to Elmhurst. As far as UWL, I would put them ahead of Elmhurst because of they have a higher QOWI and they themselves defeated UWO 3 times. In the end, it is all up to the commitee. Who knows exactly what is going through each individual mind of the commitee??

Ralph Turner · February 25, 2007, 09:46:34 PM

Mr Ypsi, the alternative opinion from the "no-respect" Southwest is that the CCIW doesn't even begin to comprehend the inequities that we face. That being said, the CCIW reputation should buoy the conference's in-region non-conference QOWI above the usual conference carnage when they defeat non-CCIW teams.

Why should the system "reward" some leagues and not others?

I do thank Titan Q for his candor about Elmhurst and their non-in-region scheduling.

However, I do appreciate that the CCIW should get a boost to its QOWI by the in-region winning. Let's look at how many QOWI points the CCIW earned from their in-region non-conference games.

Greek Tragedy · February 25, 2007, 10:23:07 PM

Quote from: buf on February 25, 2007, 09:45:05 PM
I think all 3 are about the same as far as quality. If your rooting for Elmhurst, you hope to see Oshkosh up on the Pool C comparison board across from you since UWO lost to Elmhurst. As far as UWL, I would put them ahead of Elmhurst because of they have a higher QOWI and they themselves defeated UWO 3 times. In the end, it is all up to the commitee. Who knows exactly what is going through each individual mind of the commitee??

Yet Oshkosh has a higher QOWI than La Crosse, go figure.

Midwest Region
5. (57) Elmhurst 21-6 17-6 (LOST to Augustana in CCIW Final)

West Region
4. (34) UW-Oshkosh 21-6 18-6 (LOST to La Crosse in WIAC Semis)
8. (41) UW-La Crosse 19-8 17-7 (LOST to Stevens Point in WIAC Final)

rknuppel · February 25, 2007, 10:23:37 PM

Elmhurst out... UNBELIEVABLE. I'd like to argue this is the top team ever to be left out! What is the highest ranked D3Hoops.com top 25 team to NOT make a tourney?