MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mr. Y:  Sorry if I offended you by my choice of the U of M as my example.  I was trying to make the point the App. State loss shouldn't have happened, and I think it spilled over the next week into the OR. game.   I don't think U of M really ever recovered from the first loss, and don't think losses (even early in the season) to teams you should beat do anything positive.
I agree 100% on Bosko.  He definitely had a reason for doing what he did.  Even if it was just letting his players know he wasn't going to let them sit on the bench and sulk while his bench players got hammered making the loss that much worse.

No offense taken.  Just wanted to get in a plug for Dennis Dixon (who will get NO love in the Heisman voting).  THEY will say he didn't finish the season; I say that PROVES he was the MVP of D1A!

Thanks for the support on Djurikovic (just wanted to prove I could type Bosko's surname)!

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Early in the game Sat. versus Hope a Carthage player was given an "intentional" foul against DVS.  I know several Hope posters questioned the validity of that call being made when it went Calvin's way a week ago.  Did you still feel it was an improper call when a Hope player potentially could have been hurt? 
I don't think DVS was in real danger of being hurt on that play, but think the ref. made the call to send a message to the players.  It sure seemed to work.

Sorry but that's totally apples to oranges.  We were discussing the intentional foul being called when a player is faked into trying to block a shot and lands on the faking player.  If I remember correctly, the intentional foul against DVS was a tackle (or at least a strong grab) near mid-court.  It was quite obvious the player was attempting to grab DVS - no attempt was made at the ball.  That is the definition of an intentional foul.

[northb]

  It was quite obvious the player was attempting to grab DVS - no attempt was made at the ball.  That is the definition of an intentional foul.

So how would that definition square with the common intentional attempt to foul a player at the end of the game in order to stop the clock and get the ball back?  Usually, those fouls have nothing to do with going for the ball.  IMHO, the call should only be made when the clear intent was to stop the player with the ball from an obvious score (i.e., on a breakaway), or when the intent was to harm the other player.

[Mr. Ypsi]

  It was quite obvious the player was attempting to grab DVS - no attempt was made at the ball.  That is the definition of an intentional foul.

So how would that definition square with the common intentional attempt to foul a player at the end of the game in order to stop the clock and get the ball back?  Usually, those fouls have nothing to do with going for the ball.  IMHO, the call should only be made when the clear intent was to stop the player with the ball from an obvious score (i.e., on a breakaway), or when the intent was to harm the other player.

I don't see any difference in what you and FDF are saying.  The earlier discussion had to do with a defender, totally faked out, landing on the 'faker'.  IMO, that should be an intentional foul ONLY if the defender makes a grab beyond the natural instinct to save himself from a nasty fall.  The obvious problem is that 'intentional foul' assumes 'intent' - in some cases, what a presumption by the ref!

[Gregory Sager]

It's pretty clear that Hope should have a higher ranking that Calvin at this point.

I'd actually give Calvin the edge over Wheaton, considering both teams on average. Panner won't usually go 7-7 from 3-point range, and Calvin really played a lackidasical first few minutes, in which they went down 10-2. Calvin was the better team most of the night. (Not to mention that one of Calvin's best players had a bad ankle and limited mobility.)

Nonetheless, Wheaton beat Calvin on Calvin's home floor. How you can possibly rank Calvin ahead of them if you are rewarding actual performance? If Calvin played lackadaisically, more's the pity. should have won.

Here's where this all becomes difficult (and why I'm glad I don't have to do the ranking).  Hope beats Wheaton by 30.  Based on that game, Wheaton is out of the poll.  But then that must mean that Calvin is also out of the poll, since they lost to Wheaton (and maybe Wheaton sneaks back in??), so then Wash U must be further out of the poll, since they lost to Calvin...

With these polls the idea of basing your rankings purely on head to head competition has to go out the window after the first week or two. After that it just becomes such a mess because you get a story of A beat B who lost to C who beat X but lost to A. Then everyone ends up tied ranked 25th.

So that said I think one could still rank Calvin ahead of Wheaton despite the results of this weekend's game based on the total picture of the season so far. I think if you look at Calvin's two losses and Wheaton's one loss plus their respective wins they come out real close. It could go either way.

I could see ranking Calvin ahead of Wheaton in spite of losing to the Sonic Atmospheric Disturbance; after all, the loss was only by one point, and Calvin has a better resume apart from that game than does Wheaton. However, the important point that I think some of you are missing (HopeConvert being a notable exception) is the fact that Calvin lost to Wheaton at Calvin. Losing on your home floor is a much bigger deal than losing on the road when you're being directly compared for ranking purposes to the team that beat you.

Actually, the ferry is not involved in making Hope/Carthage in region.  If you use the backroads, and basically hug the lakeshore all the way, it is less than 200 miles.  It might take you six hours, but it is less than 200 miles.

With regard to hugging the lakeshore from Holland to Kenosha (or vice-versa), I have to admit that I've never heard Chicago's Lake Shore Drive described as a "backroad" before. I guess that it can be considered one if you're riding a dead horse upon it.

A couple of thoughts. First of all, we are stumbling on the problem of preseason polling, a practice I would like to see eliminated. While relatively benign as far as basketball is concerned, it is positively pernicious in football. Polling should be based on what teams accomplish, not what we think they might accomplish.

Yes! I've been saying that for years. Thank you, HC!

I have nothing against preseason polls per se. My objection is to the way that they bleed into the regular season polls. In other words, pollsters will base their first in-season poll upon how the first weekend's results modify the preseason poll. That's applying a real-data modifier to a no-data base, and you can't do that and call it a legitimate in-season poll that is constructed from real data (i.e., actual game results).

oldknight, be awfully careful second-guessing Bosko - he's got several more national title rings than all the coaches in the MIAA (AND other coaches in the CCIW) combined.  I've got a sneaking suspicion that he may know what to do in November to be ready for March!

I don't claim to have 100% clarity of insight into Bosko's coaching methodology, but in this case I'm pretty sure that the reason why he left in his starters against Hope and Calvin in the waning minutes against those teams' benches when the outcome had already been decided has to do with Carthage's non-conference schedule. The Red Men don't have much in the way of decent competition on their docket between now and the start of the CCIW season, so it's my guess that Bosko wants to stretch his starters as much as he can while the Red Men are playing against a good team -- even if that good team happens to be into its bench in garbage time. I'll almost guarantee you that he'll do the same thing when Carthage plays Trinity (TX) and Olivet Nazarene (the other two good teams on the Red Men's non-con sked), even if Carthage is trailing badly at the end of those games as well.

Thanks for the support on Djurikovic (just wanted to prove I could type Bosko's surname)!

You can't, Chuck.  It's "Djurickovic", with a 'c' in the middle.

[ChicagoHopeNut]

  It was quite obvious the player was attempting to grab DVS - no attempt was made at the ball.  That is the definition of an intentional foul.

So how would that definition square with the common intentional attempt to foul a player at the end of the game in order to stop the clock and get the ball back?  Usually, those fouls have nothing to do with going for the ball.  IMHO, the call should only be made when the clear intent was to stop the player with the ball from an obvious score (i.e., on a breakaway), or when the intent was to harm the other player.

I think there are two answers to that question. First, I have seen intentional fouls called in that situation at the end of a game if the player makes 0 effort to at least "go for the ball." Second, over the years I think it has just become accepted practice to make those sorts of fouls to slow the game down so referees usually will not call intentional fouls so long as the player made at least a token effort to appear as if they were going after the ball. I think the definition of what constitutes going after the ball is much much more generous at the end of the game than at the beginning.

[Titan Q]

I have nothing against preseason polls per se. My objection is to the way that they bleed into the regular season polls. In other words, pollsters will base their first in-season poll upon how the first weekend's results modify the preseason poll. That's applying a real-data modifier to a no-data base, and you can't do that and call it a legitimate in-season poll that is constructed from real data (i.e., actual game results).

I understand your point, Greg, but the problem is that to have a credible poll in the first month/month and a half, you have to consider preseason information to a pretty significant degree.  Take defending national champion and current #1 Amherst, for example.   Their schedule hasn't allowed them to prove anything at this point...

Nov. 16  Hunter       
Nov. 17  Southern Vermont     
Nov. 27  Emmanuel     
Nov. 30  Westfield State   
Dec. 1  at Western New England   
Dec. 6  MIT

While I agree with your main point, which is that as the season goes on the pollsters should be using in-season data only, that is not always practical in determining who the best 25 teams really are.  Without factoring in what you know about teams coming in - at least a little bit - you're vulnerable to overreacting to one great win or one terrible loss.  Now there will always been those teams that everyone is too high on or too low on coming in, and that affects their placement in the poll for a month or so (see UW-Oshkosh a couple years ago), but most of the time the pre-season information used is pretty reliable.

To have a poll where only in-season data is used, I honestly don't think I'd feel comfortable submitting a ballot until about February 1.

[HopeConvert]

I've argued that in football polling should not take place until the season is concluded; or, barring that, not until the first of November. It's too prejudicial with regards to which teams get to play where. But, as Bob said, the main idea of the D3Hoops poll is to have fun, and to provide schools with some bragging rights, so I don't see the harm here, so long as it doesn't affect Pool C bids. If that were the case, then it seems to me a February 1st launch date wouldn't be a bad idea.

"A man's maturity consists in recovering the seriousness he had as a child - at play" Nietzsche once wrote. Inasmuch as this is serious play, I think it speaks well for the persons voting in the poll. At least at the DIII level. DI is a whole other story.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Interesting article on the Klingler's (Ryan and Becky) coaching together.

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/stories/120407/localsports_20071204041.shtml

[realist]

  It was quite obvious the player was attempting to grab DVS - no attempt was made at the ball.  That is the definition of an intentional foul.

So how would that definition square with the common intentional attempt to foul a player at the end of the game in order to stop the clock and get the ball back?  Usually, those fouls have nothing to do with going for the ball.  IMHO, the call should only be made when the clear intent was to stop the player with the ball from an obvious score (i.e., on a breakaway), or when the intent was to harm the other player.

I think there are two answers to that question. First, I have seen intentional fouls called in that situation at the end of a game if the player makes 0 effort to at least "go for the ball." Second, over the years I think it has just become accepted practice to make those sorts of fouls to slow the game down so referees usually will not call intentional fouls so long as the player made at least a token effort to appear as if they were going after the ball. I think the definition of what constitutes going after the ball is much much more generous at the end of the game than at the beginning.

It seems to me the foul at the end of the game is sometimes caled flagrant, and the intent of the defender is to stop the scoring attempt.  The intentional rule is a means to give the refs. some way to send a message to the players that some types of defensive behavior are overly agressive.  The Carthage players got the message on Sat.  They still defended, but didn't get carried away.  Interestingly the call in both games had the desired affect of modifying player behavior, and how can that be bad?
DCNH:  You live a blessed life.  I recall Josh Tubergen of Calvin having a defender land on him in just the situation described, and it really impacted his career.  Both offensive, and defensive players are responsible for keeping themselves under control, and avoiding contact.  It doesn't seem logical to give a defender a free pass on a foul just because he took a fake.

[ChicagoHopeNut]

DCNH:  You live a blessed life.  I recall Josh Tubergen of Calvin having a defender land on him in just the situation described, and it really impacted his career.  Both offensive, and defensive players are responsible for keeping themselves under control, and avoiding contact.  It doesn't seem logical to give a defender a free pass on a foul just because he took a fake.

As I said I don't recall seeing it personally, of course it has happened. My point is that I don't think calling an intentional foul in the situation I described has any more impact on changing how the game is played than calling a normal foul like refs have typically done in the past. Any good, active defensive player is going to bite on a fake once in awhile and get caught in the air in this situation. I don't think the type of foul being called in this situation is going to change that fact.

[scottiedawg]

Hope to #11, Calvin to #18 in the new poll.  Albion moves up another 16 spots to 28th, just outside of the top 25. 

[sac]

Hope to #11, Calvin to #18 in the new poll.  Albion moves up another 16 spots to 28th, just outside of the top 25. 

Wheaton #24

Whitewater and Hope among the two biggest movers, WW up 14 spots, Hope up 5 along with Lewis and Clark

Stevens Point still gets a #1 vote?

[HopeConvert]

Sac,

Kirk Herbstreit might have pretty hair, but not as pretty as this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

[Dark Knight]

Tonight Calvin faces Aquinas again, this time in the Saints' grotto. Aquinas is still undefeated, at 8-0, having defeated both Calvin and Hope. They are just coming off a 90-41 victory vs. Holy Cross. Calvin had a pair of tough games last weekend and could still be tired out. Is there any reason to think tonight's game will come out differently from the game two weeks ago?