MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yeah - the first rankings sometimes have those facts omitted... and I think the regional ranking crews then are more aware for the next round.

[calvin_grad]

Almost every year one reads one or more Calvin posters lamenting about how lame Calvin student participation is at bball games.  "They don't come, they don't cheer, etc. etc. etc."  The cure is pretty obvious, put a winning team on the floor.

I disagree, and I'm one of the lamenting posters.  And this is a whole separate issue then the coaching.  The students at Calvin weren't showing up in 2006, 2009, or 2010 when Calvin was the regular season champion, either.  While putting a winning team on the court certainly helps, it's not like Calvin has been the dregs of the MIAA.  

[Pat Coleman]

Good point -- I don't know how the GL call would know what the MA call is talking about, though. That's something that would have to be handled on the national call level.

Very true, they may not get credit for that until next week whereas the GL committee could have given Wittenberg credit for the Wabash. Knowing what they know now, I wonder if it would look different without any additional games even being played.

Remember, too, it's "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. A loss could be better than no game at all.

[ziggy]

Good point -- I don't know how the GL call would know what the MA call is talking about, though. That's something that would have to be handled on the national call level.

Very true, they may not get credit for that until next week whereas the GL committee could have given Wittenberg credit for the Wabash. Knowing what they know now, I wonder if it would look different without any additional games even being played.

Remember, too, it's "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. A loss could be better than no game at all.

Absolutely, I tend to think about it as wins versus regionally ranked. I would consider 2-2 to be superior to 1-1.

[GoKnights68]

Almost every year one reads one or more Calvin posters lamenting about how lame Calvin student participation is at bball games.  "They don't come, they don't cheer, etc. etc. etc."  The cure is pretty obvious, put a winning team on the floor.

I disagree, and I'm one of the lamenting posters.  And this is a whole separate issue then the coaching.  The students at Calvin weren't showing up in 2006, 2009, or 2010 when Calvin was the regular season champion, either.  While putting a winning team on the court certainly helps, it's not like Calvin has been the dregs of the MIAA. 

There is a difference between student attendance and student participation.  Student attendance has been good (not great) over recent years in my opinion.  Student participation is a different story of course.

Last year it didn't  help that the majority of the conference home games were on Saturday.  It seems Wednesday games always get more attendance. 

[Pat Coleman]

Good point -- I don't know how the GL call would know what the MA call is talking about, though. That's something that would have to be handled on the national call level.

Very true, they may not get credit for that until next week whereas the GL committee could have given Wittenberg credit for the Wabash. Knowing what they know now, I wonder if it would look different without any additional games even being played.

Remember, too, it's "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. A loss could be better than no game at all.

Absolutely, I tend to think about it as wins versus regionally ranked. I would consider 2-2 to be superior to 1-1.

I think the committee may think that 0-2 is better than 0-0, so even wins vs. regionally ranked may not really get you there.

[ziggy]

Good point -- I don't know how the GL call would know what the MA call is talking about, though. That's something that would have to be handled on the national call level.

Very true, they may not get credit for that until next week whereas the GL committee could have given Wittenberg credit for the Wabash. Knowing what they know now, I wonder if it would look different without any additional games even being played.

Remember, too, it's "results" against regionally ranked opponents, not winning percentage. A loss could be better than no game at all.

Absolutely, I tend to think about it as wins versus regionally ranked. I would consider 2-2 to be superior to 1-1.

I think the committee may think that 0-2 is better than 0-0, so even wins vs. regionally ranked may not really get you there.

To me, this is a chicken and egg argument. Is 0-2 better than 0-0 based on the primary criteria of results vs. regionally ranked or is it better because it will be reflected in a better SOS?

[Pat Coleman]

Well, the criteria do tend to cross-pollinate like that. That also reflects in a team's record. Some games are more important than others and do get reflected in a couple different ways.

[KnightSlappy]

Well, the criteria do tend to cross-pollinate like that. That also reflects in a team's record. Some games are more important than others and do get reflected in a couple different ways.

To me, the results versus regionally ranked teams criterion measures the degree to which a team matches up with their peers.

I can see how 2-2 would be better than 1-1 (you're more confident that they fit in well as a ranked team), but I don't see how losses are better than no game. At the very best a loss has to be even, right? Otherwise you're just talking about SOS.

[Pat Coleman]

No, I don't think so -- I think then a team gets rewarded for playing nobody who's regionally ranked.

Committee members have flat out told us that this is part of the thought process and while the thought process always undergoes some mutation each year as the makeup of the group changes, I think this is a reasonable interpretation.

"Results against regionally ranked opponents" -- one team has results, another doesn't.

[ziggy]

No, I don't think so -- I think then a team gets rewarded for playing nobody who's regionally ranked.

Committee members have flat out told us that this is part of the thought process and while the thought process always undergoes some mutation each year as the makeup of the group changes, I think this is a reasonable interpretation.

"Results against regionally ranked opponents" -- one team has results, another doesn't.

It appears this could be the motivation behind the "once ranked, always ranked" policy in regards to results versus regionally ranked.

[wiz]

Rather than comparing Calvin to Div 1 teams like MSU (talk about apples and oranges) why don't you take the time to compare us to teams like Wash. U

I'm waiting for your counterpart to show up on the UAA board. If he's too lazy, I can write the script for him. No need for attribution.

The Bears are 10-8 (4-3 in conference) and have needed a 4 game win streak to get above .500 to do that well. That's Calvin College misery. Unlike the highly successful volleyball program, things at WashU have certainly hit a plateau in men's hoops; the school always settles for mediocrity in men's basketball. They set expectations too low and don't seem to want to place the best, most competitive team on the court, unlike volleyball which has well coached, well disciplined athletes that play every serve and never give up in the face of daunting odds. It's possible to repeat year after year and ME needs to realize it.

Now, this post is what I call "excellence".

[KnightSlappy]

No, I don't think so -- I think then a team gets rewarded for playing nobody who's regionally ranked.

Committee members have flat out told us that this is part of the thought process and while the thought process always undergoes some mutation each year as the makeup of the group changes, I think this is a reasonable interpretation.

"Results against regionally ranked opponents" -- one team has results, another doesn't.

OK, so you're saying the committee probably view's Witt's 1-1 slightly higher than Thiel's 1-0.

I was thinking it would either be considered even or slightly worse.

I would love to know more about how they actually weigh the different criteria. My (probably unjustified) feeling is that they arbitrarily use the criteria so that the rankings "look right" instead of using a mathematical based system to apply the criteria the same way for every team.

[BogeyMan]

I am not very knowledgeable on how Regional Rankings are calculated.  If I understand what I am reading the 14-2 regional record of Marietta should be better that the 10-1 Hope regional record.  If that is the case why is Hope ahead of Marietta?

I also see the  NCAC is getting a lot of attention with three teams in the top six of the regional rankings.  The MIAA and OAC are lagging behind.  Especially the OAC with their top team at the #5 spot.

Am I safe to say that Marietta and Wooster will probably make the NCAA's without winning their conference tournament?  No losses and two losses at this point in the season is impressive!

[KnightSlappy]

I am not very knowledgeable on how Regional Rankings are calculated.  If I understand what I am reading the 14-2 regional record of Marietta should be better that the 10-1 Hope regional record.  If that is the case why is Hope ahead of Marietta?

I also see the  NCAC is getting a lot of attention with three teams in the top six of the regional rankings.  The MIAA and OAC are lagging behind.  Especially the OAC with their top team at the #5 spot.

Am I safe to say that Marietta and Wooster will probably make the NCAA's without winning their conference tournament?  No losses and two losses at this point in the season is impressive!

Regional record is a separate category from results versus regionally ranked teams.

The d3hoops FAQ section has a rundown of the criteria: http://d3hoops.com/interactive/faq/ncaaTournament#seed

Hope has better in-region winning percentage and a tougher schedule.