MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[hope81]

I seem to remember that after the last time it was decide by a coin flip, the league (coaches or ADs) implemented a next tie breaker - either regional record or regional rankings.  I also heard this being discussed on Saturday at DeVos, by people who I would assume would know.  Perhaps OC_SID could help us out here and confim this.

Tom Renner was very clear Saturday at the scorer's table and to the media that the tiebreaker (if everything remains equal) is the higher regional ranking instead of the coin flip.  I suppose he could be wrong, but I think it likely that he knows the answer.

[northb]

It seems odd to me that the tiebreaker would involve something other than the performance in the MIAA.  There are many reasons why a team would have a higher ranking, including the coach picking a tougher or easier schedule (i.e., and thereby incurring more or less in-region wins).  Obviously, the coin toss does not include "performance in the MIAA" (to those hairsplitters out there  ), but the regional ranking has so many other variables in it that are not equal for some teams.  Don't get me wrong, please, if the ADs decided this option, then that is the way it is.  If I was in the opposite position, I would be pleased to accept the higher ranking (given that the two first place teams win out), but still...

[ChicagoHopeNut]

It seems odd to me that the tiebreaker would involve something other than the performance in the MIAA.  There are many reasons why a team would have a higher ranking, including the coach picking a tougher or easier schedule (i.e., and thereby incurring more or less in-region wins).  Obviously, the coin toss does not include "performance in the MIAA" (to those hairsplitters out there  ), but the regional ranking has so many other variables in it that are not equal for some teams.  Don't get me wrong, please, if the ADs decided this option, then that is the way it is.  If I was in the opposite position, I would be pleased to accept the higher ranking (given that the two first place teams win out), but still...

This is somewhat similar to the situation last year where the Big 12 South representative to the Big 12 title game was decided by the BCS rankings since the other tie breakers were even. It's unfortunate when you have to go to tie breakers that rely heavily on outside influences but I still think it is far preferable to rely on Regional Rankings or overall record than a coin flip.  Without thinking about it long  I think the MIAA already employs all the most reasonable MIAA tie-breakers short of going to point differential in MIAA games (a tie-breaker I would not be in favor of myself) so relying on regional rankings seems a better option than a coin flip.

Hypothetically though I wonder what would happen if there was ever a tie and no MIAA teams were in the regional rankings. Seems an unlikely occurrence but you never know.

[Mr. Ypsi]

CHN,

I agree with you - better than a coin flip.  And if there ever was a year with NO MIAA team in the regional rankings, may as well do a coin flip - the tourney rep would probably be one-and-done anyway!

[realist]

I am much more concernd with what Calvin does on Wed. night against a tough Albion team than about potential tie breakers.  The same goes about Sat's game against the Alma team that is on a hot streak after pulling out a double ot. game against Trine.  
My hope is that GVW is worrying more about the tie breakers than he is about playing Adrian in Adrian.  Yeah, like that is going to happen.
The last tie was in 2003 with Albion and Hope.    The only other tie in the tournament era was 99 when co-champs Calvin and Hope both managed to lose in the semi's.  

Assuming Mr. Renner is correct that Hope has the tie breaker, and gets number one seed.   What happens if seed number eight beats them in the first round?     Does Hope still host the semi's, and finals even though it has been eliminated?  I might be wrong, but hosting the finals goes to the highest remaining seed after the first round games.  Before Trine became NCAA eligible, 7 member MIAA, the number one seed had a draw, and therefore was automatically host of the finals.

Note.  I edited this.  After the initial post I realized I used 2005 instead of 2003.

[Erm Schmigget]

Maybe someone can correct me on this, but I seem to remember the host site for the 03 conference semis and finals being determined by a coin toss. 

Hope and Albion each finished the regular season that year tied for first with 2 losses apiece (splitting games between each other; Albion also losing at Kazoo; Hope at Calvin).  Albion won the toss, eventually hosting a third Rivalry game on their court, and it was another classic, going to overtime.  Hope came out on top, winning by 1, but not until after Veenstra missed his chance in the final second.  Hope went on to win the championship game, beating Albion by 13.  But, alas, they bowed out in the first round of the NCAAs, losing to UW-Oshkosh 84-77.

[Erm Schmigget]

I might be wrong, but hosting the finals goes to the highest remaining seed after the first round games.  Before Trine became NCAA eligible, 7 member MIAA, the number one seed had a draw, and therefore was automatically host of the finals.

I'm pretty sure you're right.

[KnightSlappy]

Assuming Mr. Renner is correct that Hope has the tie breaker, and gets number one seed.   What happens if seed number eight beats them in the first round?     Does Hope still host the semi's, and finals even though it has been eliminated?  I might be wrong, but hosting the finals goes to the highest remaining seed after the first round games.  Before Trine became NCAA eligible, 7 member MIAA, the number one seed had a draw, and therefore was automatically host of the finals.

You are correct that the host is the highest remaining seed after the opening round. 1-5 all have a chance to host the semis and finals.

Before going to regional rankings you could determine based on home record. Maybe the team that gets to host is the team that defended their home court the best. Or maybe you could do the reverse and pick the team that was the best 'road warrior'. Either way would be better than regional ranking, in my opinion, because it's still based on conference play.

[GoKnights68]

I am much more concernd with what Calvin does on Wed. night against a tough Albion team than about potential tie breakers.  The same goes about Sat's game against the Alma team that is on a hot streak after pulling out a double ot. game against Trine.  
My hope is that GVW is worrying more about the tie breakers than he is about playing Adrian in Adrian.  Yeah, like that is going to happen.
The last tie was in 2005 with Albion and Hope.   Hope loses to Calvin in the semi's, and Albion loses to Calvin in the finals.  The only other tie in the tournament era was 99 when co-champs Calvin and Hope both managed to lose in the semi's.  

Assuming Mr. Renner is correct that Hope has the tie breaker, and gets number one seed.   What happens if seed number eight beats them in the first round?     Does Hope still host the semi's, and finals even though it has been eliminated?  I might be wrong, but hosting the finals goes to the highest remaining seed after the first round games.  Before Trine became NCAA eligible, 7 member MIAA, the number one seed had a draw, and therefore was automatically host of the finals.

No, Albion won the regular season title outright in 2005. Hope actually had somewhat of a down-year that season. You got how the league tourney played out right, though.

The last time teams tied for the league title was between Albion and Hope in 2003.

[KnightSlappy]

The thing I don't like about the regional rankings (other than the fact that Calvin is behind!) is that regional games differ from team to team. Hope and Calvin both played Wheaton, but they both aren't taken into account in the regional rankings. (I know this is to Calvin's advantage this year, but other years it may not be.)

I would prefer:
1. Conference home record
2. Out-of-conference head to head record
3. Total record vs. out-of-conference common opponents
4. Coin flip
5. Regional ranking

[Happy Calvin Guy]

The thing I don't like about the regional rankings (other than the fact that Calvin is behind!) is that regional games differ from team to team. Hope and Calvin both played Wheaton, but they both aren't taken into account in the regional rankings. (I know this is to Calvin's advantage this year, but other years it may not be.)

I would prefer:
1. Conference home record
2. Out-of-conference head to head record
3. Total record vs. out-of-conference common opponents
4. Coin flip
5. Regional ranking

so if the coin lands on its edge, we look at regional ranking?  maybe that's your point....

[KnightSlappy]

The thing I don't like about the regional rankings (other than the fact that Calvin is behind!) is that regional games differ from team to team. Hope and Calvin both played Wheaton, but they both aren't taken into account in the regional rankings. (I know this is to Calvin's advantage this year, but other years it may not be.)

I would prefer:
1. Conference home record
2. Out-of-conference head to head record
3. Total record vs. out-of-conference common opponents
4. Coin flip
5. Regional ranking

so if the coin lands on its edge, we look at regional ranking?  maybe that's your point....

exactly 

[almcguirejr]

BREAKING NEWS          BREAKING NEWS          BREAKING NEWS

Michael McClary named MIAA Player of the Week

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Sorry to say it, but the fact that Calvin is behind Hope in the regional rankings has to be somewhat clouding the Knight fan's perspective on this - IMHO.  And I'll also admit that it's very easy to accept this as a Hope fan, given the current rankings.

I guess the most amazing part of this all is that the real difference in regional rankings boils down to one game:

November 28, 2009

Hope 79
Calvin 76

[KnightSlappy]

Sorry to say it, but the fact that Calvin is behind Hope in the regional rankings has to be somewhat clouding the Knight fan's perspective on this - IMHO.  And I'll also admit that it's very easy to accept this as a Hope fan, given the current rankings.
I guess the most amazing part of this all is that the real difference in regional rankings boils down to one game:

November 28, 2009

Hope 79
Calvin 76

Calvin's spot in the rankings may be giving me perspective.

Can you honestly say that regional ranking position is the next best tiebreaker?

I think it's the lazy man's way out.

Even if you don't want to break the tie with in-conference home (or road) record, there are still better out-of-conference tie breakers if you insist on using one.

As you point out, the non-con matchup is what is deciding the rankings at this point. Why not make that a tiebreaker? I know it doesn't happen much, but it does happen so put it in.

And what if there was no third head to head game to go off of? We would be weighing the merits of a Hope victory over Wheaton against a Calvin victory over Ohio Northern mixed in with regional SOS formulas. This is all well and good for an NCAA commitee that can't directly compare two teams, but we can do better than that.

Why not instead look at all common opponents? Let's count Aquinas, Wheaton, Trinity, and Carthage, or Cornerstone, Spring Arbor, Davenport, and Grace in years they play both teams.