MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Pat Coleman]

And just to clarify -- I am not trying to spin my way out of it. Standing by what I stated.

[David Collinge]

Update on the question of what was the highest-ranked team to be left out of the national tournament:
On the men's side, as already noted, it was the 2003-04 Wheaton team, ranked #11 in the final pre-tournament poll.  But that's been topped twice on the women's side: #10 King's was left out of the 2005 tournament, and #8 Trinity (TX)--the defending national champ--was left out of the 2004 tournament.  These were pre-expansion: the 2004 men's tournament was a 48-team field and has since expanded to 59, and the 2004 and 2005 women's tournaments had 50 participants each (63 now.) 

We'll see if these unfortunate records are broken when the new polls come out later tonight or tomorrow.

[Titan Q]

Augie got seeded 7th, in essence, for the bracket.

What the committee did, was apparently seed the West teams higher than the Midwest teams in general.

SP, St Thomas and Whitworth would be the top three in the West.

That leaves Aurora, Chicago and WashU over Augie, which all had better QOWI numbers than Augie.

You really can't argue too much, especially with the stated criteria from the NCAA.


Besides, Hope got it worse anyway.

Here is the final ranking that was released, with the results since...

Midwest Region
1. (12) Chicago 20-5 19-5 (LOST to Washington U.)
2. (18) Augustana 22-5 22-4 (beat North Central, beat Elmhurst)
3. (9) Washington U. 12-4 18-4 (beat Chicago)
4. (14) Aurora 25-2 24-2 (Won NathCon Final)
5. (57) Elmhurst 21-6 17-6 (beat Wheaton, LOST to Augustana)
6. (73) Carthage 16-9 13-8 (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)


How did Augustana end up seeded behind Aurora, Wash U, and Chicago?  (Which they obviously did, since they would have to face the West's #2-seed in Round 2.)

[Gregory Sager]

I'm a UChicago fan who saw Elmhurst play this season, in addition to a handful of UAA games.  My opinion is that Elmhurst, had it been selected, would have had a better chance of advancing to the Final Four than any of the three UAA teams that received Pool C bids.

I'd put the Bluejays on the same level as Wash U, probably a touch above because of their superior depth.  In fact, Elmhurst vs. Wash U, with the inside matchup of Brent Ruch vs. Troy Ruths, would have been a terrific first-round NCAA game.

Hoops Dream -

Thanks for the kind words. To me it is posts like this that makes it even harder to swallow that Elmhurst is not in the Tournament. If it is so easy for so many people to see that Elmhurst was deserving, why is it so difficult for the NCAA selection committee?

I am not so sure this probelm is even that of the selection comittee as much as it is a problem of the selection criteria. as such that is determined by ? I don't know.

the committee is playing the hand it is dealt. it doesn't appear to me that much discretion is given in the criteria for any kind judgement. the committee may in fact "see it" but has no power to do anything about it. I may be wrong on this. interested to know thoughts from other more educated posters.

You totally nailed it with this post, Usee. Well said!

[Gregory Sager]

...and the MIAC has never impressed me so I wouldn't worry about the seedings.

Even when Gustavus Adolphus went to the Final Four? 

It was only the third time that the MIAC has ever sent a team to the Final Four. Three Final Four teams in 32 years is not a sparkling record. The WIAC has had 11 Final Four teams, most from schools that have been in D3 half as long as has most of the MIAC, and the CCIW has had 14 Final Four teams.

Think about that for a moment: The WIAC and CCIW have been n 25 of the 32 Final Fours in D3 history. They've won 14 of the 32 D3 national championships between them. And yet the two leagues have one team apiece in this year's tourney.

(By the way, I think St. Thomas is a very good team, and a terrible second-round road draw for Augie. MIAC history has no bearing upon the respect that I give to Ike Rosefelt, Bryan Schnettler, Mike Keating, & Co.)

[David Collinge]

Update on the question of what was the highest-ranked team to be left out of the national tournament:
On the men's side, as already noted, it was the 2003-04 Wheaton team, ranked #11 in the final pre-tournament poll.  But that's been topped twice on the women's side: #10 King's was left out of the 2005 tournament, and #8 Trinity (TX)--the defending national champ--was left out of the 2004 tournament.  These were pre-expansion: the 2004 men's tournament was a 48-team field and has since expanded to 59, and the 2004 and 2005 women's tournaments had 50 participants each (63 now.) 

We'll see if these unfortunate records are broken when the new polls come out later tonight or tomorrow.

The new poll is out, and #9 UW-Oshkosh is the new standard-bearer among the men.  Trinity's overall record survives another year; let's hope it is never broken.

[Titan Q]

Regarding where Elmhurst stacks up as a "Final Four" caliber team...

Comparing Elmhurst to teams I've seen in Salem in recent years, the Bluejays are not quite as good...but this year seems much different to me.  I don't see one single powerhouse team.  Augustana, the CCIW's champ, went to Stevens Point and lost by just 3...how much separation is there between the two teams really? And I know from seeing both teams play multiple games that Elmhurst is dead even with Augustana.  I also know that Elmhurst is better than Chicago and as good as Wash U.

If put in the field, I don't see any reason to believe that Elmhurst couldn't have made it to Salem.  They're probably bigger in the post than anyone in the nation...they have a great senior point-guard...a terrific sophomore wing...and a nice bench.  They're balanced and they're good.

I've struggled with how the CCIW teams stack up nationally all season long, but in looking at the big picture this year, I think Elmhurst was as good as anyone.

[ustbumkneez]

...and the MIAC has never impressed me so I wouldn't worry about the seedings.

Even when Gustavus Adolphus went to the Final Four? 

I was not exposed to the D3Hoops.com universe when GA went to the Final Four. Since then the conference as ridden on their laurels I think. The only MIAC team I've ever seen was Hamline in 1977. They made the Final Four that year and the field was 28 teams. 7 four team regionals and the midwest winner got a bye as there was no west region at the time.
Augie goes to MN and wins easily.

Interesting assertation that Augustana will win easily, Roop, considering you admit to not having seen a MIAC team play since the 70s. I have no problem with someone predicting a victory, as LU_nut implied would happen for Augie over UST, but it seems audacious considering your complete lack of familiarity with the conference and the team in question. Especially considering Augustana would be on the road, at a Top 5 team that has only lost one game in their building all year (minus the services of their All American center that game, against Tourney snub UW-LaCrosse). Like I said, I think it will be a great game, and I know that Augustana is a very good ballclub, but I think its arrogant to suppose a blowout type victory over a team you admittedly have no knowledge of (with a resume like UST has). Looking forward to the matchup.

[John Gleich]

None. But the league has an outstanding track record that extends back to the very beginning of D3. It's having a down decade by its usual tourney standards -- only one second-place finish and two Elite Eights in the oughts -- but it's certainly beating up on its neighbors at the usual clip. The NJAC went 81-38 (.681) in non-con play this season.

Yeah -- those neighbors are stellar, too. A down decade? Thanks -- that's precisely what I'm getting at.

Huh? Last year Illinois Wesleyan lost to an 11-14 Wheaton team.

Not at home.

So it doesn't count, then?

C'mon, Pat. You're grasping at straws in an effort to put down Elmhurst. Do I need to point out to you (no pun intended) that UWSP lost both games of their home-and-home with a 12-14 UW-Superior team back in 2004 when the Pointers went on to win their first national title? Sure, UW-Superior had Vince Thomas, but they lost to freakin' Finlandia, for crying out loud. And they beat the Pointers ... twice.

What part of "a Millikin-type loss" did you not understand? Trying to compare apples to apples, that is, home games to home games.

I can tell you're upset but you start by lashing out at me for reporting how many teams are in a region? Come on, where's the sense in that?

You directed that post at my reply to 79jaybird, Pat, not to 79jaybird himself.

Yeah, sorry I couldn't get that post to the board sooner. I kinda had other stuff going on today. I was just following up on yours.

I'm sorry if this is insulting to Elmhurst. I feel they are not a national title team, merely a Sweet 16 team. Obviously that means I have no respect whatsoever. [/sarcasm]

It's a down decade by NJAC standards, Pat. That doesn't mean that they've ceased to be a power conference. The locals upon whom they beat up aren't very good ... but the locals that every power conference beats up aren't very good. That's what makes power conferences become power conferences in the first place.

A .681 mark is still the sign of a power conference.

What part of a UW-Superior sweep of UWSP do you not understand? A home-and-home sweep means that the Pointers lost a game on their home floor to the last-place team in the WIAC. How do you like those apples?

You said before that you could see Elmhurst as an Elite Eight team but not a Final Four team. Leaving aside the minute hair-splitting necessary to envision teams in "Elite Eight but not Final Four" terms, the fact of the matter is that any team coming out of the Great Lakes, Midwest, and West that can make it to the Elite Eight is by any sane de facto standards a Final Four caliber team. This isn't the NESCAC/Rochester Speed Bump Festival out here. If you're playing on the second weekend of the dance hereabouts -- especially if you make it to the Saturday night of the second weekend -- you're a national contender. End of story.

You sold Elmhurst short, Pat. You can't spin your way out of it.

The short of it is though, Greg, that UWSP turned around and beat Superior that year (BTW, Vince Thomas had graduated 2 years before.  Cody Kastern was Sup's big Senior gun that season) in the conference tournament.  In fact, Point won the conference tournament that season, and if they hadn't, then they would not have made the conference tournament.  River Falls won the conference that year and actually was upset by Platteville in the conference tournament.  Point got the AQ and made a great run led by tremendous shooting.

You can compare Elmhurst to SP, but if you look at the preview of the tournament that year found HERE, it doesn't speak of Point being a National Contender at all.  The only thing that is mentioned is the possible showdown against GAC, pitting the only WIAC team against the only MIAC team for this particular year.  Point got in, like I said before, by winning the conference tournament.  They WERE, in some regards, a lot like Elmhurst... Point lost 2 out of their last 6 regular season games, and this kept them from their 5th straight conference title.  Elmhurst lost 4 of the last 10, and kept EC from a chance at the conference title.  

But when it gets down to it, Point's losses against Superior really didn't effect the selection.  EC's losses to Simpson and Millikin are VERY ironically much like La Crosse's losses to Eau Claire, River Falls, and Carleton.  Conference losses to teams that "should" have been beaten, and losses to lesser non-con foes that were simply early-season stumbles, but are head-scratchers when the entire body of work is examined.

Trust me, I completely agree that the second place teams from the WIAC and CCIW would whitewash 2/3 of the Pool C bids selected.  When it gets right down to it, I would rather Point play pretty much ANY team in the country than Oshkosh.  But while we have the current system, we're stuck with the results that the current system gives us.  Is it a perfect system?  By no means.  But the NCAA admits this plainly in the handbook.

[ecdubb420]

Does the league use tournament games when deciding statistical leaders?  Single season/career leaders?

[Greek Tragedy]

What part of a UW-Superior sweep of UWSP do you not understand? A home-and-home sweep means that the Pointers lost a game on their home floor to the last-place team in the WIAC. How do you like those apples?.

Not that I care, but Superior wasn't the last place team that year.  Superior was actually an impressive 7th (6-10), ahead of Eau Claire (5-11) and La Crosse (4-12).    of course, that was Superior's only road conference win and it prevented Point from sharing the conference crown with River Falls. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

If you haven't checked out the RPI rankings on the front page, do so - fascinating!  As far I as could tell it still only dealt with regional games (rather than all d3 games) so could probably still be improved, BUT

While there are still 4 other criteria, if there had been RPI rather than QOWI this year, Elmhurst would have been a lock.  Duh!  But look further - both NCC and Wheaton certainly would have been probable, and even Carthage (who didn't make the CCIW tourney) would have been a bubble team!  (Both 'skosh and LaX would also have been locks.)

GOOD RIDDANCE to QOWI

[BeastMaster]

News out of Decatur that Coach Tim Littrell has been fired.  Coach Littrell has been at Millikin as an assistant and Head Coach for the past 25 years.  Sad day for me as well as many Big Blue faithful as Coach Littrell is one of the best men I have ever known.  This will probably be my last post of the very few I have posted on here.  I have grown up around Millikin basketball and do not know if I can continue to post and watch.  I love D3 basketball and I will probably not feel the same with Coach Lit's departure. 

[Stout survivor]

for fun here are some matchups for our fake CCIW/WIAC challange

Stevens Point vs Elmhurst  (1vs2)
La Crosse vs Augustana   (2vs1)
Oshgosh vs North Central    (3vs4)
Whitewater vs Wheaton   (4vs3)
Platteville vs North Park   (5vs6)
River Falls vs Carthage  (6vs5)
Stout Vs Milikin  (7vs8)
Eau Claire vs Ill Wesleyan   (8vs7)sd

I thought that by offseting the seeds it would give each conference an even chance at winning the whole deal...... still would need a tie breaker....

of course this is not taking the seniors that will not be able to play next year which might hurt some teams.

[Pat Coleman]

If you haven't checked out the RPI rankings on the front page, do so - fascinating!  As far I as could tell it still only dealt with regional games (rather than all d3 games) so could probably still be improved, BUT

While there are still 4 other criteria, if there had been RPI rather than QOWI this year, Elmhurst would have been a lock.  Duh!  But look further - both NCC and Wheaton certainly would have been probable, and even Carthage (who didn't make the CCIW tourney) would have been a bubble team!  (Both 'skosh and LaX would also have been locks.)

GOOD RIDDANCE to QOWI

It is indeed just regional games. Probably should mention that somewhere. D-III isn't likely to move off that any times soon.