MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Gregory Sager]

The last two years Calvin seems to have met or exceeded expectations for the conference season--by winning regular season crowns--only to be left out of the NCAA's by losing the conference tournament.

I would say Calvin lost out on the automatic bid by losing the MIAA tourney, but were ultimately left out of the NCAA's because of horrible games at Kalamazoo in '09 and at Olivet in '10.  Win those two games and we'd have had two at-large bids.

Actually it was the loss to Wheaton at Hope last December that hurt the most. If Calvin could have followed up on their win over Carthage the night before by completing a sweep of the CCIW, the Knights would have finished the regular season with 20 wins and I suspect that they, not the Thunder, would have been in Texas for the NCAA's this past March.

I tend to agree more with HCG, but I think you're both right. A win in the Olivet game or either of the two non-MIAA-tourney Hope games would have given them an at-large bid. Lead pipe lock. A head to head win over Wheaton may have gotten them in as well, but there may have been another team or two that could have won that secondary criteria coin flip.

We have to remember that Wheaton vs. Calvin is not an in-region game (as if the semi-annual hullabaloo about the software used by the NCAA to determine the distance between two campuses that are essentially 200 miles apart could ever let us forget). Unless the final Pool C slot came down to a choice between either Wheaton or Calvin, it's not likely that the secondary criteria (i.e., the head-to-head result of an out-of-region game) would've come into play ... if the selection committee was being scrupulous about observing a strict delineation between primary and secondary criteria, of course.

[KnightSlappy]

The last two years Calvin seems to have met or exceeded expectations for the conference season--by winning regular season crowns--only to be left out of the NCAA's by losing the conference tournament.

I would say Calvin lost out on the automatic bid by losing the MIAA tourney, but were ultimately left out of the NCAA's because of horrible games at Kalamazoo in '09 and at Olivet in '10.  Win those two games and we'd have had two at-large bids.

Actually it was the loss to Wheaton at Hope last December that hurt the most. If Calvin could have followed up on their win over Carthage the night before by completing a sweep of the CCIW, the Knights would have finished the regular season with 20 wins and I suspect that they, not the Thunder, would have been in Texas for the NCAA's this past March.

I tend to agree more with HCG, but I think you're both right. A win in the Olivet game or either of the two non-MIAA-tourney Hope games would have given them an at-large bid. Lead pipe lock. A head to head win over Wheaton may have gotten them in as well, but there may have been another team or two that could have won that secondary criteria coin flip.

We have to remember that Wheaton vs. Calvin is not an in-region game (as if the semi-annual hullabaloo about the software used by the NCAA to determine the distance between two campuses that are essentially 200 miles apart could ever let us forget). Unless the final Pool C slot came down to a choice between either Wheaton or Calvin, it's not likely that the secondary criteria (i.e., the head-to-head result of an out-of-region game) would've come into play ... if the selection committee was being scrupulous about observing a strict delineation between primary and secondary criteria, of course.

I messaged with Pat a bit after the pairings were announced, and he was of the opinion that secondary criteria was in play for much of the bottom of Pool C.

To OK's point, I think the committee would look at that game very closely when doling out the last couple bids.

From what I can recall from my personal data Wheaton, Wesley, Messiah, Calvin (among others?) were vying for the final two spots.

[Gregory Sager]

I don't have any objection to the secondary criteria coming into play. They are legitimate criteria for selecting at-large teams, after all. It's the secondary part that I hope the committee isn't disregarding. The criteria are divided into primary and secondary for a reason, and that reason is to promote the D3 emphasis upon regional play.

Those of us who follow the selection process every year have often complained about the inherent problems with applying regionally-based criteria to a nationally-based selection process. If it turns out that the committee doesn't practice what it preaches -- in other words, if it observes the principle of giving priority to regionally-based criteria in one area while disregarding that principle in others -- then people have a right to complain about inconsistency and hypocrisy. I would very much hope, then, that the committee only turns to secondary criteria after the primary criteria have been exhausted.

To put it another way: Did the committee prematurely give a prominent role to the Wheaton vs. Calvin outcome in a four-cornered discussion over the last two Pool C slots, and did Messiah get victimized as a result? I'm asking that rhetorically, since I don't know whether or not Messiah had better primary-criteria qualifications than Wheaton.

[Happy Calvin Guy]

The last two years Calvin seems to have met or exceeded expectations for the conference season--by winning regular season crowns--only to be left out of the NCAA's by losing the conference tournament.

I would say Calvin lost out on the automatic bid by losing the MIAA tourney, but were ultimately left out of the NCAA's because of horrible games at Kalamazoo in '09 and at Olivet in '10.  Win those two games and we'd have had two at-large bids.

Actually it was the loss to Wheaton at Hope last December that hurt the most. If Calvin could have followed up on their win over Carthage the night before by completing a sweep of the CCIW, the Knights would have finished the regular season with 20 wins and I suspect that they, not the Thunder, would have been in Texas for the NCAA's this past March.

I tend to agree more with HCG, but I think you're both right. A win in the Olivet game or either of the two non-MIAA-tourney Hope games would have given them an at-large bid. Lead pipe lock. A head to head win over Wheaton may have gotten them in as well, but there may have been another team or two that could have won that secondary criteria coin flip.

The win vs. Olivet or Hope would have also likely kept the Knights from having to go to Texas.

Actually, looking at last year's data, Hope would have very much liked the Knights to beat the Comets as well. Hope probably would have ended up as the region's #1 team, and could very well have hosted the first two rounds (so we all know which pod the very uncreative selection committee would have put Calvin in).

Wins over Wheaton or Hope would have been great and likely gotten Calvin into the tourney, but those are tough games, and not necessarily expected that we should win all of those.  The Kalamazoo loss in '09 was inexcusable, and while losing to Olivet on the road is a little more understandable, losing in the fashion that we did (blown out) was not.  No disrespect to Kzoo or Olivet, but simply winning these "more winnable" games was an easier road to the postseason, so that's why I tend to focus on those games as having "lost" us the pool C bid.  While all players are responsible, keeping the focus in all games regardless of opponent comes down to leadership and coaching and it's my hope that we can learn from these very costly lessons and come to play every game this year.

[KnightSlappy]

Wins over Wheaton or Hope would have been great and likely gotten Calvin into the tourney, but those are tough games, and not necessarily expected that we should win all of those.  The Kalamazoo loss in '09 was inexcusable, and while losing to Olivet on the road is a little more understandable, losing in the fashion that we did (blown out) was not.  No disrespect to Kzoo or Olivet, but simply winning these "more winnable" games was an easier road to the postseason, so that's why I tend to focus on those games as having "lost" us the pool C bid.  While all players are responsible, keeping the focus in all games regardless of opponent comes down to leadership and coaching and it's my hope that we can learn from these very costly lessons and come to play every game this year.

I don't know. Olivet was a very good team last year, and I don't think you could have expected Calvin to go 3-0 against them. Getting blown out sucks, but from a tournament standpoint it doesn't really matter.

They played Hope 4 times, so their chances of winning at least twice was nearly 69% (assuming 50-50 win probability).

Their chances of beating Olivet three out of three times was half that (34.3% assuming a 70% chance of a Calvin win). Even if you assume an 85% Calvin win probability, they should only win all three game 61% of the time.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

They played Hope 4 times, so their chances of winning at least twice was nearly 69% (assuming 50-50 win probability).

Wouldn't that make their chance of winning twice 50%?

[KnightSlappy]

They played Hope 4 times, so their chances of winning at least twice was nearly 69% (assuming 50-50 win probability).

Wouldn't that make their chance of winning twice 50%?

The chance of winning any one game would be 50%, but given four contests the chance of winning exactly twice would be 37.5%. The chance of winning three times would be 25%, and four times would be 6.25%. The chance of winning at least twice would be the sum of those probabilities.

[Dark Knight]

They played Hope 4 times, so their chances of winning at least twice was nearly 69% (assuming 50-50 win probability).

Wouldn't that make their chance of winning twice 50%?

38% of the time Calvin would win 2, 25% 3, and 6% 4.

---

Given that Olivet was only about 1.3 points behind Calvin in strength according to Massey last year, Massey gave Calvin a 64% likelihood of winning at home and 46% away.

That would imply a 19% chance of 3 wins, 44% chance of 2 wins, 31% of 1 win, and 7% chance of no wins.

[Happy Calvin Guy]

They played Hope 4 times, so their chances of winning at least twice was nearly 69% (assuming 50-50 win probability).

Wouldn't that make their chance of winning twice 50%?

16 possible outcomes:

CCCC
CCCH
CCHC
CCHH
CHCC
CHCH
CHHC
CHHH
HHHH
HHHC
HHCC
HHCH
HCHH
HCHC
HCCH
HCCC

Distribution:

Calvin 4-0 one occurrence (6.25%)
Calvin 3-1 three occurrences (25%)
Calvin 2-2 six occurrences (37.5%)
Hope 3-1 three occurrences (25%
Hope 4-0 one occurrence (6.25%)

Calvin (or Hope) winning at least 2:  68.75%

I think I learned how to do this in week one of my 100-level statistics class at Calvin!   It's good to see another couple of Knights on top of this too. 

[calvin_grad]

They played Hope 4 times, so their chances of winning at least twice was nearly 69% (assuming 50-50 win probability).

Wouldn't that make their chance of winning twice 50%?

38% of the time Calvin would win 2, 25% 3, and 6% 4.

---

Given that Olivet was only about 1.3 points behind Calvin in strength according to Massey last year, Massey gave Calvin a 64% likelihood of winning at home and 46% away.

That would imply a 19% chance of 3 wins, 44% chance of 2 wins, 31% of 1 win, and 7% chance of no wins.

I was told there would be no math.   

[Pat Coleman]

Given that Olivet was only about 1.3 points behind Calvin in strength according to Massey last year, Massey gave Calvin a 64% likelihood of winning at home and 46% away.

That would imply a 19% chance of 3 wins, 44% chance of 2 wins, 31% of 1 win, and 7% chance of no wins.

64+46=110

[Flying Dutch Fan]

"After all, facts are facts, and although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman,

'Lies - damn lies - and statistics'

still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand, and the astutest cannot wriggle out of"

-- Leonard Henry Courtney (1895)

[sac]

Given that Olivet was only about 1.3 points behind Calvin in strength according to Massey last year, Massey gave Calvin a 64% likelihood of winning at home and 46% away.

That would imply a 19% chance of 3 wins, 44% chance of 2 wins, 31% of 1 win, and 7% chance of no wins.

64+46=110

Dark Knight was giving us 110% effort.

[KnightSlappy]

Given that Olivet was only about 1.3 points behind Calvin in strength according to Massey last year, Massey gave Calvin a 64% likelihood of winning at home and 46% away.

That would imply a 19% chance of 3 wins, 44% chance of 2 wins, 31% of 1 win, and 7% chance of no wins.

64+46=110

I don't quite understand. Are the probabilities of winning at home and on the road supposed to add up to a specific number?

[ziggy]

Given that Olivet was only about 1.3 points behind Calvin in strength according to Massey last year, Massey gave Calvin a 64% likelihood of winning at home and 46% away.

That would imply a 19% chance of 3 wins, 44% chance of 2 wins, 31% of 1 win, and 7% chance of no wins.

64+46=110

Dark Knight was giving us 110% effort.

The 64% and 46% aren't parts of the same outcome. The percentages are mutually exclusive.
-Calvin's 64% of a chance at winning at home gives Olivet a 36% chance of winning on the road
-Calvin's 46% chance of winning on the road gives Olivet a 54% chance of winning at home.