MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Flying Dutch Fan]

I know Hope and Calvin have their arrangement every year it seems with Cornerstone and Aquinas to play each other. Not being in the know on this, has there every been any discussion of moving away from those games and adding Division III games? Have to think Hope would love to have had an extra couple D3 games here to help the SOS.

Lots of discussion on this board about this in the past, but it's not going away from what I know.  Hope's SOS last year was one of the tops in the nation for much of the year (and they played those same games).  The issue is all about the quality of the opponents - aka the WIAC having a very down year for example. 

[sac]

Final public regional rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/24/third-ncaa-regional-ranking/

The lack of a response to this post is all you need to know about Hope's fan response to still being ranked behind OWU and JCU... 

We can do a more thorough post-mortem on Hope's schedule when its all done.  Hope could have done a couple things different, keeping in mind that  "in theory" and reality are two different things.  They caught a couple bad breaks with teams having sub-par years.   But really the one thing they could do nothing about was Olivet and Kalamazoo going 0-14 in the non-conference.  That's 4 games that provided no help at all to any MIAA teams SOS calculations.  Just 4 total non-conference wins by those two changes the math enough that Hope might be ahead of JCU and knocking on OWU's door.

I don't believe any conference West of the Alleghaney's had to deal with something like that.

(Alma's SOS should really be way over .600 which would make them an absolute lock for Pool C if they needed it)

[fantastic50]

Using just WP and SOS, it's very close among the #2 through #6 teams in the region.

If you look at RPI, you get
1) Marietta .639
2) Hope .6130
3) JCU .6128
4) OWU .6120
5) Wooster .606
6) Alma .602
7) Mt Union .570

Or, applying the principle that two extra losses is equivalent to .030 WP difference, you can take SOS - .015*L, to get the following:
1) Marietta .514
2) Hope .484
3) JCU .477
4) OWU .476
5) Wooster .465
6) Alma .460
7) Mt Union .413

Either way, it's tight enough among that group of five that I think the committee is likely considering other criteria (maybe including secondary criteria) to distinguish among them.  It could be that a weaker schedule is being held against Hope a second time, with vRRO.  This is one of my qualms with the current system (and for the record, I'm an NCAC guy.) 

It seems to me that almost any final ordering of these five is possible, depending on the results of the conference tournaments, so we could still see any of them hosting next weekend.

[HOPEful]

Either way, it's tight enough among that group of five that I think the committee is likely considering other criteria (maybe including secondary criteria) to distinguish among them.  It could be that a weaker schedule is being held against Hope a second time, with vRRO.  This is one of my qualms with the current system (and for the record, I'm an NCAC guy.) 

I think my biggest problem with the rankings is exactly this. The vRRO draws an imaginary line in the sand. The difference between Mt. Union, Hiram, and St. Vincent vs. Albion, Trine, or UW-LaCrosse is not much. However, Hope's 5 wins against the latter are a lot less significant because of where the NCAA decided to draw an imaginary line.

[sac]

Either way, it's tight enough among that group of five that I think the committee is likely considering other criteria (maybe including secondary criteria) to distinguish among them.  It could be that a weaker schedule is being held against Hope a second time, with vRRO.  This is one of my qualms with the current system (and for the record, I'm an NCAC guy.) 

I think my biggest problem with the rankings is exactly this. The vRRO draws an imaginary line in the sand. The difference between Mt. Union, Hiram, and St. Vincent vs. Albion, Trine, or UW-LaCrosse is not much. However, Hope's 5 wins against the latter are a lot less significant because of where the NCAA decided to draw an imaginary line.

Also RRO's are double counting, and the majority of them come of conference opponents.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Either way, it's tight enough among that group of five that I think the committee is likely considering other criteria (maybe including secondary criteria) to distinguish among them.  It could be that a weaker schedule is being held against Hope a second time, with vRRO.  This is one of my qualms with the current system (and for the record, I'm an NCAC guy.) 

I think my biggest problem with the rankings is exactly this. The vRRO draws an imaginary line in the sand. The difference between Mt. Union, Hiram, and St. Vincent vs. Albion, Trine, or UW-LaCrosse is not much. However, Hope's 5 wins against the latter are a lot less significant because of where the NCAA decided to draw an imaginary line.

Where are you seeing an imaginary line? "Results" Versus Regionally Ranked Opponents allows the committee to dive into the results... not just take it as wins and losses or a percentage. We have been told many times they will look and see exactly where those teams are ranked and how they compare to other regions (if not in the same region). I don't know where there is an imaginary line.

Either way, it's tight enough among that group of five that I think the committee is likely considering other criteria (maybe including secondary criteria) to distinguish among them.  It could be that a weaker schedule is being held against Hope a second time, with vRRO.  This is one of my qualms with the current system (and for the record, I'm an NCAC guy.) 

I think my biggest problem with the rankings is exactly this. The vRRO draws an imaginary line in the sand. The difference between Mt. Union, Hiram, and St. Vincent vs. Albion, Trine, or UW-LaCrosse is not much. However, Hope's 5 wins against the latter are a lot less significant because of where the NCAA decided to draw an imaginary line.

Also RRO's are double counting, and the majority of them come of conference opponents.

I know the committees tend to break out the conference opponents and look at non-conference results seperately at times as well. As I said just in the last part, they are looking at the results. While you think they count twice, and I get where that is coming from, the committee isn't looking at it as a WL%... they want to see how the games played out and who they were against.

The idea that they counted twice and conference games played too big a role is one of the major reasons "once ranked, always ranked" was done away with.

And while I get your point that it is "counted twice," I don't fully buy in. Sure, a team's SOS is boosted by playing good teams and if the conference is good they will have multiple teams ranked thus boosting a vRRO raw number. However, if a team has played eight vRRO games and is 2-6... no matter what their SOS says, it shows they didn't do well against the "tougher" part of their schedule. Now, if they did 6-2, it shows they were able to take on the stronger schedule and get wins as a result of it. Also remember, by beating an opponent... they take a hit to their WL% which technically won't help your OWP and thus SOS.

And again, the committee is looking at what happened in those games and who exactly those ranked opponents were and where they are ranked. It just isn't a raw number.

[sac]

Either way, it's tight enough among that group of five that I think the committee is likely considering other criteria (maybe including secondary criteria) to distinguish among them.  It could be that a weaker schedule is being held against Hope a second time, with vRRO.  This is one of my qualms with the current system (and for the record, I'm an NCAC guy.) 

I think my biggest problem with the rankings is exactly this. The vRRO draws an imaginary line in the sand. The difference between Mt. Union, Hiram, and St. Vincent vs. Albion, Trine, or UW-LaCrosse is not much. However, Hope's 5 wins against the latter are a lot less significant because of where the NCAA decided to draw an imaginary line.

Where are you seeing an imaginary line? "Results" Versus Regionally Ranked Opponents allows the committee to dive into the results... not just take it as wins and losses or a percentage. We have been told many times they will look and see exactly where those teams are ranked and how they compare to other regions (if not in the same region). I don't know where there is an imaginary line.

The imaginary line is being ranked vs not being ranked.   There really is no difference between the strength of Trine and Mt. Union, they both have 8 losses.  But Mt. Union is ranked, so that game counts more for teams that played them.  While teams that played Trine, a comparatively equal opponent get nothing.

I think you could make a case LaCrosse in a different region would be ranked, but because they're in the Central they aren't ranked.  You could also make the case Carroll in the Central might not be ranked in the Great Lakes.  There are several of those examples out there.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Either way, it's tight enough among that group of five that I think the committee is likely considering other criteria (maybe including secondary criteria) to distinguish among them.  It could be that a weaker schedule is being held against Hope a second time, with vRRO.  This is one of my qualms with the current system (and for the record, I'm an NCAC guy.) 

I think my biggest problem with the rankings is exactly this. The vRRO draws an imaginary line in the sand. The difference between Mt. Union, Hiram, and St. Vincent vs. Albion, Trine, or UW-LaCrosse is not much. However, Hope's 5 wins against the latter are a lot less significant because of where the NCAA decided to draw an imaginary line.

Where are you seeing an imaginary line? "Results" Versus Regionally Ranked Opponents allows the committee to dive into the results... not just take it as wins and losses or a percentage. We have been told many times they will look and see exactly where those teams are ranked and how they compare to other regions (if not in the same region). I don't know where there is an imaginary line.

The imaginary line is being ranked vs not being ranked.   There really is no difference between the strength of Trine and Mt. Union, they both have 8 losses.  But Mt. Union is ranked, so that game counts more for teams that played them.  While teams that played Trine, a comparatively equal opponent get nothing.

I think you could make a case LaCrosse in a different region would be ranked, but because they're in the Central they aren't ranked.  You could also make the case Carroll in the Central might not be ranked in the Great Lakes.  There are several of those examples out there.

Ah... I got the point about the line now... okay.

As much as I understand the sentiment... are we really going to start playing the "well, if they were in a different region they would be ranked" game? Sure, you can make all of those cases... but LaCrosse is in the Central Region and Carroll is not in the Great Lakes Region. We also don't know they might schedule differently if they were in different regions. I know when I talked to Lancaster Bible, they understand they have to travel up to New York to play some games against East Region teams (the region they are in), but they probably would play a lot more Mid-Atlantic teams if they were in the Mid-Atlantic region. That just isn't a game worth playing.

The criteria states regionally ranked opponents. Sure, there is a line between the last team and the first one not ranked, but I think people are making an assumption that the committee looks at a win over the bottom ranked team is being significantly more important than a win over a non-ranked team. Sure, it adds to the raw number, but the general consensus I get is the higher the ranked team the more important that win or even loss. But the lower the ranking, the more likely the committee isn't going to give it much credence.

[sac]

I think it is a very good point that what gets you ranked in one region is not the same in others Dave.  Especially when RvRRO's is such an important part of the ranking process.

[Hope ful]

Rankings will be what they are, at the end of it the outcome is most likely the same.  Hope will need to simply win a bunch of games in a row against quality opponents.  Same number of wins needed independent of the rankings.  No trophies for the rankings.  I do hope that the Dutchmen can figure a way to play over 30 minutes of quality basketball in one game.  Sometimes this season they struggled to get 30 minutes over 3 game span, that needs to be behind them now.

[HOPEful]

Yes, the imaginary line I was referring to is the line between the last regionally ranked team and the next several teams. I could easily see a situation where John Caroll loses to Marietta while OWU and Hope win their conference tournaments... If the committee saw the two teams a virtual tie, the tie breakers certainly could come down to their records against regionally ranked opponents.

Hope - 2-1  (@Alma - L, Alma - W, Alma - W assuming they play in MIAA championship game)
OWU - 4-2  (Alma - W, Wooster - W, @Hiram - L, @Wooster - L, Hiram - W, Wooster/Hiram - W)

But using Knightslappy's data, Hiram is the last team "in" followed by Albion and Trine. If you draw the "imaginary" line two spots lower, Hope would be 7-1 against regionally ranked opponents. Draw it one spot higher and OWU would become 3-1.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The final days of the regular season are here. Results of games across the country are affecting other teams not even playing. How will it all shake out and how does one result affect another?

Thursday night on Hoopsville, Dave McHugh gives you the insight you need to know how the NCAA Tournament brackets are already taking shape. Dave will talk to many coaches around the country who are looking to lock up automatic bids, securing at-large opportunities, or knowingly playing for the postseason lives. Dave will even make sure you better understand the selection criteria and how something like the Strength of Schedule helps or hurts teams.

Hoopsville hits the air at 7pm ET. You can tune in below.

Guests include (in order of appearance)
- Michele Durand, No. 10 Ohio Northern women's coach
- Fred Richter, DeSales women's coach
- Warren Caruso, Husson men's coach
- Zach Frilen, No. 15 Lancaster Bible men's coach
- Todd Raridon, No. 11 North Central (Ill.) men's coach
- Marcus Kahn (Mary Washington) or Andy Sachs (Salisbury), CAC men's semifinal winner
- Matt Snyder, Strength of Schedule/Numbers guru

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

And the Hoopsville Fundraising project is in it's closing days as well, but we have not met the goal. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509.

Thanks!

[Grutte Dirk]

Alma beat Olivet 97-85 tonight.  Olivet's Lee Gardner tossed in 50 points which is believed to be the 2nd highest point total in regulation in MIAA history.  (further research being done as I post)

http://miaa.org/sports/mbkb/2015-16/boxscores/20160220_73tu.xml

I've thought all year Gardner had that kind of potential.  It's been an interesting year for Mr. Gardner, pretty nice way to finish a career.

Does anyone else give sac a +karma eveytime they come on the board?

[sac]

Alma beat Olivet 97-85 tonight.  Olivet's Lee Gardner tossed in 50 points which is believed to be the 2nd highest point total in regulation in MIAA history.  (further research being done as I post)

http://miaa.org/sports/mbkb/2015-16/boxscores/20160220_73tu.xml

I've thought all year Gardner had that kind of potential.  It's been an interesting year for Mr. Gardner, pretty nice way to finish a career.

Does anyone else give sac a +karma eveytime they come on the board?

As a matter of fact I'm in the head of at least one "poster".   I have a -1 groupie or two. 

[sac]

Watching for a couple things in todays games

Albion/Alma  --  Alma's transition offense.  In the game at Alma it was very good, provided separation that Albion couldn't keep up with.  At Albion they made a few mistakes in transition the 2nd half that cost them in the end.  Alma likely wins if they convert on a bunch of transition plays, Brits can hang around if they limit those situations.

---Albion's activity on offense.   I've really enjoyed watching Hope and Albion try to attack Alma's zone.  In my opinion they've both been very good at it with slightly different takes.  Albion ends up creating a triangle of options.  Top of the key, baseline, and either corner or wing.  Herron's good off the dribble from the top of the key, if that's not there he'll look baseline or recycle.  When the ball goes baseline they either try to beat the defense to the basket, look for the cutter from the top or look to the corner or opposite wing.  If Albion's moving the ball well, creating open looks from gaps in the zone and making those corner and wing 3's they'll have a chance.

---rebounding, Albion is really good and really active on the glass, esp Oakes and Herron.



Hope/Trine     ---Hope has defended Trine really well in both previous games.  Its hard to imagine they'll have the same success a third time.  Hope forced a bunch of turnovers in both games many of the bad passing variety.

----Cummings was a big factor in the first half at Trine, if he's having a good 1st half around the basket on both ends again this game will remain pretty close.  That probably goes the same for Hope if they aren't able to keep Benson and Blackledge from staying out of foul trouble.

----Trine might try to play Kreglow more tonight over Syroka, he seems like a better option to get the ball in the paint and had some success in Angola.   Overall Trine will need better 3-point shooting, 2-9 and 3-9 won't cut it against Hope.

---It probably won't look pretty.



Really happy the semi-finals are back in one location this year, I really have missed watching both.