MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[GoKnights68]

This thing I'm doing includes the 1998 season.


I garuntee you can't predict the top 3.  When its done, I'm sure it will be a smitefest. 

I was going to say:

1. 2000 Calvin
2.  1998 Hope
3. 2005 Calvin


I am guessing that won't be the top 3 then since you sound confident I won't get it.  I guess I don't know how much you're going by tournament sucess then.



EDIT:  Oops, I just read Calvin '05 was number 8.  I guess I was way off.   I guess I should've known that those 3 MIAA regular season losses hurt them.  They were close in all 3 of those games, but just couldn't pull them off.

And no I would never smite someone over some friendly top 10 list

[realist]

GK68:  Sac pointed out early on that post season success is no indicator of how a team will finsih in the final standings, and using #8 & #7 this is obvious.  IMHO this is a fundamental flaw in the criteria used to come up with the rankings.  However, it is very interesting reading, and I applaud Sac for putting in the time and effort to provide this material for us.   It has been enjoyable recalling some of the games, and players.

[Joel-Eric Van Bosma Brady]

Sac,

Very interesting/compelling reading.  My focus will be, in general, Hope specific.  Depending on the definition of all-time best Hope teams, I have a hard time including the 2006 Dutchmen.   My reasoning is  that they weren't regular season MIAA champs.  If you define Hope' all-time best as the top  9-12 teams,  I'll agree (with all apologies to the 1958 - 1960 Dutchmen who had a great run, but of whom I lack a working knowledge).  If you define the very best as top five, I'll disagree.  My list and rationale follow:

1.)  1996:  27-5, MIAA Champs,  MIAA Tournament Champs,  National Runners Up.

2.)  1998:  26-5,  MIAA Champs,  Lost to Albion at the Civ in the tourney finals, National Runners Up.  6 reasons they don't out rank 1996:  Aforemention loss to Albion,  Rowan,  Bosma, Brintell, Spencer, and Van Fossen.

3.) 1995:  26-1,  undefeated regular season,  MIAA Champs,  MIAA Tournament Champs,  Lost in the 1st round at the Dow to Baldwin Wallace.

4.) 1991:  24-2,  MIAA Champs,  no MIAA tournament,  Lost in the 1st round of the NCAA to Calvin at the Civ in ot  (Knoester's coming out party).   Averaged an amazing 92.5 ppg, held opp. to 75 ppg.  Only regular season loss came at GVSU 94 - 92.  1 reason they don't out rank 1995:  1995 team would have never lost to Calvin at the Civ. 

5) 1984:  22-2,  1st undefeated regular season Hope team, MIAA Champs, no MIAA tournament,  Lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament (and in the consolation NCAA tournament game).  Reason they don't out rank 1995 or 1991:  Neither team would have lost back to back games in the NCAA tournament.

Sac, I am interested why you thought the 2006 (and 1995 for that matter)  had a better chance at winning the NC than either the 1996 or 1998 team.  Were these pre-season or mid-season feelings? 

[Flying Dutch Fan]

JEVBB - Just keep in mind that sac has indicated these rankings are computer generated based on stats leaning heavily in favor of scoring (since stats tend to do that) and only include the last 10 years.

Hard to argue with your top 5, (and I actually saw all of them play). 

[sac]

GK68:  Sac pointed out early on that post season success is no indicator of how a team will finsih in the final standings, and using #8 & #7 this is obvious.  IMHO this is a fundamental flaw in the criteria used to come up with the rankings.  However, it is very interesting reading, and I applaud Sac for putting in the time and effort to provide this material for us.   It has been enjoyable recalling some of the games, and players.

Flawed maybe, but I also don't always think the best teams always go the furthest in the playoffs, and just because a team went far in the playoffs does not necessarily make them great.

Its been fun to go back and look at past stats, and lineups, it certainly has flashed memories of individual games I'd forgotten.  The one standing theme has been how many twists and turns the MIAA races had between 2002 and 2006, those all were pretty incredible races.  A nice walk down memory lane.


JEVBB---welcome to the board!   FDF pretty much covers it as far as how the rankings came about.  Not necessarily how I would personally rank them.

2006 Hope could compete with any of the previous Hope teams because of defense, they would have had the most trouble with 95 and 96 because of Bosma, Merritt, Muhlenberg, VanFossan, and for that matter 97 Hope, another overlooked team.




Sorry I haven't added another team or two, I got a little busy the last two days, I hope to have another 1 or 2 out later.  Glad your enjoying it.


.......and I'll try to keep them a bit shorter, I got carried away with the last two because the memories are still so fresh.  That will be easier to do with some of the remaining teams.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

sac - don't cut them short - it's not like the board is flooded with posts.  Your strolls down memory lane in these is the part I enjoy the most.  Plus it only adds to the debate that is brewing

[GoKnights68]

GK68:  Sac pointed out early on that post season success is no indicator of how a team will finsih in the final standings, and using #8 & #7 this is obvious.  IMHO this is a fundamental flaw in the criteria used to come up with the rankings.  However, it is very interesting reading, and I applaud Sac for putting in the time and effort to provide this material for us.   It has been enjoyable recalling some of the games, and players.

Oh no worries.  I applaud SAC for what he is doing also.  I didn't really get a chance to read the explanation of how he decides the rankings.

[oldknight]

JEVBB:  Welcome to the board. Just a word of warning. You might want to delete the second sentence under your paragraph 3) lest you be deemed to be in violation of sac's "the game that shall never be named" rule.      I would to hate for you to suffer smite so early in your posting career--you'll get plenty of that later. 

[Joel-Eric Van Bosma Brady]

Thanks for the welcome gentlemen,

FDF:  My post was generated by Sac's assertion in his notes about the 2006 team being one of Hope's all-time greats.  I understand his rankings are based on an offensive friendly computer program going back only ten years. 

oldKnight:  Thanks for the head's up on THAT game.   In all honesty,  although that game was a heart breaker, I have a tougher time stomaching the games  Hope has lost to Calvin as a result of the end of the game heroics by Hennick, Knoester, and Veldhouse.  The rivalry I guess...

Sac:  I agree with the 1997 team,  they made my top ten of Hope All-Time teams. 

[sac]

Aquinas will be playing in the Holland Sentinel Tournament this December.

For the first time in several years, Hope will not be playing Trinity Christian. 

[Flying Dutch Fan]

And it appears that Grace Bible (according to their schedule) is the first round game for the Russ Devette tourney on 12/28.  Not sure we can believe that one, since their schedule also lists Lakeland and Mt. Vernon Nazarene at that tournament, yet the Lakeland schedule does not include it (Mt. V has no schedule posted yet).

Grace Bible Schedule
http://www.gbcol.edu/schedules/schedules.php?mode=gbc_mbball&seasonsort=2007

Lakeland Schedule
http://www.lakeland.edu/Athletics/mens_basketball/mbasketball_schedule.asp

[GoKnights68]

Thanks for the welcome gentlemen,

FDF:  My post was generated by Sac's assertion in his notes about the 2006 team being one of Hope's all-time greats.  I understand his rankings are based on an offensive friendly computer program going back only ten years. 

oldKnight:  Thanks for the head's up on THAT game.   In all honesty,  although that game was a heart breaker, I have a tougher time stomaching the games  Hope has lost to Calvin as a result of the end of the game heroics by Hennick, Knoester, and Veldhouse.  The rivalry I guess...

Sac:  I agree with the 1997 team,  they made my top ten of Hope All-Time teams. 

Don't forget more recently, Derek Griffin.  Don't worry, though.  Hope got their revenge soon after that in the NCAA tourney

[sac]

My apologies, I forgot I had to make a run to Detroit Metro tonight.

I'll continue the top 10 tommorrow.


PS  Mt Vernon Nazarene would be the equivalent of some of the higher rated C'Stone teams.  Although it looks like they lose some height from this years team.  They finished #10 in NAIA II and have had 10 20 win seasons in 11 years.  Good program.   I was pretty impressed at a couple attendance figures I saw too.   As NAIA's go, they're pretty solid.

[CalvinChelseaMom]

GK68:  Sac pointed out early on that post season success is no indicator of how a team will finsih in the final standings, and using #8 & #7 this is obvious.  IMHO this is a fundamental flaw in the criteria used to come up with the rankings.  However, it is very interesting reading, and I applaud Sac for putting in the time and effort to provide this material for us.   It has been enjoyable recalling some of the games, and players.

Oh no worries.  I applaud SAC for what he is doing also.  I didn't really get a chance to read the explanation of how he decides the rankings.

Yes, SAC.  Thanks for pulling all of this information together.  I've only checked in a few times this summer, and frankly, it wasn't very fun.  Thanks for getting us back on track.  Hope you're enjoying the off-season.

[realist]

OK;  Very sage advice to our new poster.   That is why the following quote from Sac:   "Flawed maybe, but I also don't always think the best teams always go the furthest in the playoffs, and just because a team went far in the playoffs does not necessarily make them great."    took me a little off gaurd.  Sac:  Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.  Perhaps it is my character flaw from watching to many Nascar races where it doesn't matter: where you started, your lap times or laps lead, number of cars passed etc. etc. etc.: it only matters where you were when the checkered flag was waved.