MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[pointlem]

Hope and Calvin need to ditch playing Cornerstone and Aquinas in favor of playing even mediocre D3's. 

Yes. A thousand times, yes. A lose/lose situation where a win is meaningless and a loss is damning. According to Massey, Cornerstone was Hope's best win this season. Even with a better record, I'm certain the selection committee would have counted the Aquinas game as a bad loss and the Cornerstone win as an insignificant win against a non NCAA team.

Why not invite John Carroll and Mount Union up for an MIAA/OAC challenge. Each team playing Hope and Calvin at their place? Or 2 NCAC teams? Or an MIAA/UAA challenge with Chicago and Case Western? For crying out load, two AMCC teams would be better!

Help me understand: Isn't what matters, for Pool C eligibility (not that this is the only reason to play, or not play, neighboring schools), one's record against DIII schools (adjusted by SOS), not how many games against DIII schools?  Wouldn't more losses hurt as much as more wins would help? 

And HOPEful . . . I like your idea (even with the CCIW challenge) of having the host region schools both play at their home court (with their opponents switching venues on the second night).  Over time, that would double the number of CCIW/MIAA challenge home court games for all four schools.  Ditto for any other foursome that might replace the CCIW/MIAA December matchups.

[wiz]

For some the main objective may be to find any way to get to the NCAA tournament.  Of course, there already is a way and that is to win the MIAA tournament.

For other institutions and their coaches, the goal is to take a group of student athletes and continually work to improve their team to be the best that they can be.  That may include taking a few losses along the way by playing a tougher schedule, supporting community wide programs, traveling to far away areas to support faithful alumni, and all the other things required to provide an educational and holistic program for the team members.  While doing this, they are building a team that can grow throughout the season and be at their best when tournament time arrives.  The four teams remaining (Alma, Calvin, Hope, Trine) have all done that and now they are in a position where they have a chance to move on.  Only one will advance and the others, quite frankly, will have gone far enough for this year.

Earning it on the floor is so much more fun and rewarding than just being selected based on the formulas of the day.  I, for one, think this is a much better approach.

[sac]

Hope and Calvin need to ditch playing Cornerstone and Aquinas in favor of playing even mediocre D3's. 

Yes. A thousand times, yes. A lose/lose situation where a win is meaningless and a loss is damning. According to Massey, Cornerstone was Hope's best win this season. Even with a better record, I'm certain the selection committee would have counted the Aquinas game as a bad loss and the Cornerstone win as an insignificant win against a non NCAA team.

Why not invite John Carroll and Mount Union up for an MIAA/OAC challenge. Each team playing Hope and Calvin at their place? Or 2 NCAC teams? Or an MIAA/UAA challenge with Chicago and Case Western? For crying out load, two AMCC teams would be better!

Help me understand: Isn't what matters, for Pool C eligibility (not that this is the only reason to play, or not play, neighboring schools), one's record against DIII schools (adjusted by SOS), not how many games against DIII schools?  Wouldn't more losses hurt as much as more wins would help? 

And HOPEful . . . I like your idea (even with the CCIW challenge) of having the host region schools both play at their home court (with their opponents switching venues on the second night).  Over time, that would double the number of CCIW/MIAA challenge home court games for all four schools.  Ditto for any other foursome that might replace the CCIW/MIAA December matchups.

Its a math and perception problem

If an NCAC school plays an all D3 schedule (28 games) with 6 losses their WP is .786 one more loss is .750
If Hope or Calvin plays a schedule with 2 NAIA's (25 games) with 6 losses their WP is  .760  one more loss drop it to .720

The gap in W% becomes wider if you play fewer countable games.

To make up for that kind of difference you have to play a much more difficult schedule than the NCAC school, or you'll always be behind in that comparison.

Hope and Calvin need to ditch playing Cornerstone and Aquinas in favor of playing even mediocre D3's. 

Yes. A thousand times, yes. A lose/lose situation where a win is meaningless and a loss is damning. According to Massey, Cornerstone was Hope's best win this season. Even with a better record, I'm certain the selection committee would have counted the Aquinas game as a bad loss and the Cornerstone win as an insignificant win against a non NCAA team.

Why not invite John Carroll and Mount Union up for an MIAA/OAC challenge. Each team playing Hope and Calvin at their place? Or 2 NCAC teams? Or an MIAA/UAA challenge with Chicago and Case Western? For crying out load, two AMCC teams would be better!

It doesn't even have to be that difficult.  Just playing a .480 team on the road will increase your SOS because of the multiplier for roads games of 1.25.


Also two AMCC teams wouldn't be better, they should be avoided.  Hope's least valuable non-conference game was Pitt-Greensburg solely because it was in Holland.  Play PSU-Behrend or Hilbert or if anyone else make sure you play them on the road.

Basically if you're going to play home games play great opponents or they aren't helping your SOS very much.

[sac]

For some the main objective may be to find any way to get to the NCAA tournament.  Of course, there already is a way and that is to win the MIAA tournament.

For other institutions and their coaches, the goal is to take a group of student athletes and continually work to improve their team to be the best that they can be.  That may include taking a few losses along the way by playing a tougher schedule, supporting community wide programs, traveling to far away areas to support faithful alumni, and all the other things required to provide an educational and holistic program for the team members.  While doing this, they are building a team that can grow throughout the season and be at their best when tournament time arrives.  The four teams remaining (Alma, Calvin, Hope, Trine) have all done that and now they are in a position where they have a chance to move on.  Only one will advance and the others, quite frankly, will have gone far enough for this year.

Earning it on the floor is so much more fun and rewarding than just being selected based on the formulas of the day.  I, for one, think this is a much better approach.

Its also nice to see kids rewarded for their hard work, especially when they are deserving.   And very frustrating to see that team stay home because they didn't put a ballerina costume on their pig like other schools.  Calvin had 3 really good teams fairly recently that didn't make the NCAA's because of that.  Surely you would like to have seen those players in the tournament.

[KnightSlappy]

Hope and Calvin need to ditch playing Cornerstone and Aquinas in favor of playing even mediocre D3's. 

Yes. A thousand times, yes. A lose/lose situation where a win is meaningless and a loss is damning. According to Massey, Cornerstone was Hope's best win this season. Even with a better record, I'm certain the selection committee would have counted the Aquinas game as a bad loss and the Cornerstone win as an insignificant win against a non NCAA team.

Why not invite John Carroll and Mount Union up for an MIAA/OAC challenge. Each team playing Hope and Calvin at their place? Or 2 NCAC teams? Or an MIAA/UAA challenge with Chicago and Case Western? For crying out load, two AMCC teams would be better!

It doesn't even have to be that difficult.  Just playing a .480 team on the road will increase your SOS because of the multiplier for roads games of 1.25.


Also two AMCC teams wouldn't be better, they should be avoided.  Hope's least valuable non-conference game was Pitt-Greensburg solely because it was in Holland.  Play PSU-Behrend or Hilbert or if anyone else make sure you play them on the road.

Basically if you're going to play home games play great opponents or they aren't helping your SOS very much.

This is actually still in doubt. Dave McHugh and I have been furiously trying to figure out how exactly the NCAA is computing SOS numbers since August/September. How you state it above is what it should be -- and what the NCAA has said they're doing -- but it's not lining up with the numbers they've posted these last two weeks. Which is sort of problematic.

[pointlem]

Its a math and perception problem

If an NCAC school plays an all D3 schedule (28 games) with 6 losses their WP is .786 one more loss is .750
If Hope or Calvin plays a schedule with 2 NAIA's (25 games) with 6 losses their WP is  .760  one more loss drop it to .720

The gap in W% becomes wider if you play fewer countable games.

Yes, Sac, but doesn't the math work both ways?  One less loss raises a .760 to .800.  Ergo, playing more DIII opponents could hurt or it could help (though, yes, the greater the number of games the less one win or loss matters).

[ziggy]

Its a math and perception problem

If an NCAC school plays an all D3 schedule (28 games) with 6 losses their WP is .786 one more loss is .750
If Hope or Calvin plays a schedule with 2 NAIA's (25 games) with 6 losses their WP is  .760  one more loss drop it to .720

The gap in W% becomes wider if you play fewer countable games.

Yes, Sac, but doesn't the math work both ways?  One less loss raises a .760 to .800.  Ergo, playing more DIII opponents could hurt or it could help (though, yes, the greater the number of games the less one win or loss matters).

It does. Go through that exercise with wins instead of losses and playing fewer DIII games is an advantage. sac is right that fewer games leads to a thinner margin for error, but we've seen in recent years how running through an MIAA schedule can help make up ground in the WP department.

[sac]

Its a math and perception problem

If an NCAC school plays an all D3 schedule (28 games) with 6 losses their WP is .786 one more loss is .750
If Hope or Calvin plays a schedule with 2 NAIA's (25 games) with 6 losses their WP is  .760  one more loss drop it to .720

The gap in W% becomes wider if you play fewer countable games.

Yes, Sac, but doesn't the math work both ways?  One less loss raises a .760 to .800.  Ergo, playing more DIII opponents could hurt or it could help (though, yes, the greater the number of games the less one win or loss matters).

Lets use this example

NCAC team:  22-6    .786
MIAA team:  19-6     .760

In order for the MIAA team to overcome that gap they have to play a much more difficult schedule

NCAC team 22-6     .786
MIAA team  20-5     .800

In order for the the NCAC team to overcome that gap they have to play a more difficult schedule, but not as much as the MIAA team above.

Hope and Calvin need to ditch playing Cornerstone and Aquinas in favor of playing even mediocre D3's. 

Yes. A thousand times, yes. A lose/lose situation where a win is meaningless and a loss is damning. According to Massey, Cornerstone was Hope's best win this season. Even with a better record, I'm certain the selection committee would have counted the Aquinas game as a bad loss and the Cornerstone win as an insignificant win against a non NCAA team.

Why not invite John Carroll and Mount Union up for an MIAA/OAC challenge. Each team playing Hope and Calvin at their place? Or 2 NCAC teams? Or an MIAA/UAA challenge with Chicago and Case Western? For crying out load, two AMCC teams would be better!

It doesn't even have to be that difficult.  Just playing a .480 team on the road will increase your SOS because of the multiplier for roads games of 1.25.


Also two AMCC teams wouldn't be better, they should be avoided.  Hope's least valuable non-conference game was Pitt-Greensburg solely because it was in Holland.  Play PSU-Behrend or Hilbert or if anyone else make sure you play them on the road.

Basically if you're going to play home games play great opponents or they aren't helping your SOS very much.

This is actually still in doubt. Dave McHugh and I have been furiously trying to figure out how exactly the NCAA is computing SOS numbers since August/September. How you state it above is what it should be -- and what the NCAA has said they're doing -- but it's not lining up with the numbers they've posted these last two weeks. Which is sort of problematic.

Splendid

[ziggy]

Its a math and perception problem

If an NCAC school plays an all D3 schedule (28 games) with 6 losses their WP is .786 one more loss is .750
If Hope or Calvin plays a schedule with 2 NAIA's (25 games) with 6 losses their WP is  .760  one more loss drop it to .720

The gap in W% becomes wider if you play fewer countable games.

Yes, Sac, but doesn't the math work both ways?  One less loss raises a .760 to .800.  Ergo, playing more DIII opponents could hurt or it could help (though, yes, the greater the number of games the less one win or loss matters).

Lets use this example

NCAC team:  22-6    .786
MIAA team:  19-6     .760

In order for the MIAA team to overcome that gap they have to play a much more difficult schedule

NCAC team 22-6     .786
MIAA team  20-5     .800

In order for the the NCAC team to overcome that gap they have to play a more difficult schedule, but not as much as the MIAA team above.

To go apples to apples by looking at the wins side, you have to give the MIAA team and the NCAC the same number of wins as you did when you were looking at losses.

NCAC team:  22-6    .786
MIAA team:  22-3     .880

Now give the NCAC team one more win.

NCAC team 23-5     .821
MIAA team  22-3     .880

And another...

NCAC team 24-4     .857
MIAA team  22-3     .880

Play fewer games and win your games and you shift the burden to make up any SOS difference on the other team.

[KnightSlappy]

Its a math and perception problem

If an NCAC school plays an all D3 schedule (28 games) with 6 losses their WP is .786 one more loss is .750
If Hope or Calvin plays a schedule with 2 NAIA's (25 games) with 6 losses their WP is  .760  one more loss drop it to .720

The gap in W% becomes wider if you play fewer countable games.

Yes, Sac, but doesn't the math work both ways?  One less loss raises a .760 to .800.  Ergo, playing more DIII opponents could hurt or it could help (though, yes, the greater the number of games the less one win or loss matters).

Lets use this example

NCAC team:  22-6    .786
MIAA team:  19-6     .760

In order for the MIAA team to overcome that gap they have to play a much more difficult schedule

NCAC team 22-6     .786
MIAA team  20-5     .800

In order for the the NCAC team to overcome that gap they have to play a more difficult schedule, but not as much as the MIAA team above.

I think we're getting into the weeds here. If you want to use the 2 games = .030 SOS rule of thumb, we're talking about roughly a .011 SOS difference in the top example and a .006 SOS in the bottom example. That .005 total difference is well within any sort of reasonable accuracy you could calculate ahead of time.

[sac]

It seems like if you play fewer games though, the argument is always going to be if you have a higher w%, unless its significant.   "well they played fewer games"

[KnightSlappy]

It seems like if you play fewer games though, the argument is always going to be if you have a higher w%, unless its significant.   "well they played fewer games"

I think maybe that was an issue when Calvin was only playing something like 21 D3 games, but if they make the MIAA final, they'll have played 25. That's as many as the UAA plays.

[sac]

How can anyone not like Alma's Jason Beckman

MIAA Player of the Week

[KnightSlappy]

How can anyone not like Alma's Jason Beckman

MIAA Player of the Week

I will tell you after Thursday night. (Depends on the socks.)

[wiz]

  http://www.hollandsentinel.com/article/20150223/SPORTS/150229570/2000/NEWS