2011 Final Four

[Knightstalker]

Well WPU held VA Wesleyan to the same number of points they are averaging per game.  Too bad they only scored thirty-five points.

[woosterbooster]

...a lot of what is said here makes me feel like I am just not worth very much.

diehardfan - To paraphrase an excerpt from your post, a lot of what you just said here makes me feel that you are worth a whole lot.

...I don't know, perhaps my expectations for what the world should be like are unrealistic, but they are sort of necessary to convince me that there is any point to me being here and posting my thoughts. 

Please do not go away.  Your posts regarding both basketball and life are among the very best on this forum.  And if you have lofty - but perhaps unrealistic - expectations for the world, my feelings are that if more people had those same expectations maybe they wouldn't be so unrealistic.

About that knitting, though... 

Jack

[Mr. Ypsi]

Last night I posed the question whether this was the strongest final four ever in terms of the final regular season poll.  No one took the bait, so I just confirmed that Yes, this is the strongest field since the poll began!

In terms of the lowest ranked team, #11 IWU beats out #13 JCU in 2004; in every other year there was a team ranked #17 or below.

In terms of average ranking of the four teams, this year's 6.25 edges out 2002 and 2004 which each averaged 7.25.  By this measure, the weakest field was the first (2000) - Champion Calvin came in ranked #1, but the other three were 15th, 19th, and 21st, though they barely nosed out last year with champion UWSP entering as #1, but the others at 14, 19, and 21.

One curiosity - don't finish 2nd in the final regular season poll!  Four #1 teams have made the FF, with Calvin (2000) and UWSP (2005) winning it all; Witt is the third #3 to make it (with Williams winning it all in 2003), and Amherst is the third #4 (with no winners yet), but no #2 has ever yet made it to the final four!

[Ralph Turner]

Last night I posed the question whether this was the strongest final four ever in terms of the final regular season poll.  No one took the bait, so I just confirmed that Yes, this is the strongest field since the poll began!

In terms of the lowest ranked team, #11 IWU beats out #13 JCU in 2004; in every other year there was a team ranked #17 or below.

In terms of average ranking of the four teams, this year's 6.25 edges out 2002 and 2004 which each averaged 7.25.  By this measure, the weakest field was the first (2000) - Champion Calvin came in ranked #1, but the other three were 15th, 19th, and 21st, though they barely nosed out last year with champion UWSP entering as #1, but the others at 14, 19, and 21.

One curiosity - don't finish 2nd in the final regular season poll!  Four #1 teams have made the FF, with Calvin (2000) and UWSP (2005) winning it all; Witt is the third #3 to make it (with Williams winning it all in 2003), and Amherst is the third #4 (with no winners yet), but no #2 has ever yet made it to the final four!

I have to believe that the strong field is due to the extra Pool C bids.  The extra Pool C bids winnowed the weaker teams in the Process.  The Cinderellas (Lincoln, Transy, Miss Coll, SJF, perchance Lawrence?) were finally caught by the clock!

A top 25 is one assessment of strength.  The Pool A criteria by which the tourney brackets are populated is another.   The Pool C process with the extra bids seems to brought worthy teams to the tourney and the Final Four.

I don't doubt that every fanatic could make the case that they should have been here.

[woosterbooster]

There is also a fairly large random element that runs through these big tournaments.  If one were to replay the whole thing, making some changes in locale and happenstance, chances are you'd have two, three, or even four different teams making it to the final four.

First of all, if you were to move some of the first and second round locations to schools that could just as easily have been chosen as hosts, that would likely have tipped some games in other directions. 

The same with sectionals.  Had Wittenberg had to travel and play at Hope would they be going to Salem?  Maybe, but maybe not.

And then there were just some very close games that could have gone either way.  Play those again, and it's just as likely that the actual loser would come out on top.  Amherst had to go to OT to win over Tufts. Lincoln lost to Virginia Wesleyan on a buzzer-beater.  That's what makes sports interesting, but not only unpredictable but often unanalyzable. 

And who knows if the final four actually comprises the best four teams, even considering the possible disparity of the original draw?  The only way, in my mind, to judge which of two evenly matched teams is better would be for them to play a long series of games against each other.  A series of indeterminate length, where one team would have to take a ten-game edge to win.  Otherwise, there would still be doubt. 

[Titan Q]

Some Final Four matchup notes:

http://www.iwuhoops.com/TOURN06.HTM

Looks like the marquis players are...


Perimeter
Keelan Amelianovich (6-6/210, Sr), IWU - 18.2 ppg, 90-195 3-pt (.462)
John Bedford (6-3/195, Sr), Amherst - 17.3 ppg, 45-96 3-pt (.469)
Dan Wheeler (6-5/218, Jr), Amherst - 14.5 ppg, 67-151 3-pt (.444)
Adam Dauksas (6-3/190, Sr), IWU - 14.3 ppg, 6.5 apg, 2.6 A/T.O.
Marques Fitch (6-0/165, Sr), VWC - 12.2 ppg, 25-91 3-pt (.295)
Ton Ton Balenga (6-1/190, So), VWC - 12.2 ppg, 56-131 3-pt (.427)

Low post 
Brandon Adair (6-5/205, Jr), VWC - 18.4 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 231-371 FG (.623)
Zach Freeman (6-7/210, Jr), IWU - 15.8 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 165-284 FG (.581)
Dan Russ (6-9/210, Sr), Witt - 15.0 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 189-338 FG (.559)
Dane Borchers (6-8/215, Sr), Witt - 12.6 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 152-239 FG (.636)

[Titan Q]

Last night I posed the question whether this was the strongest final four ever in terms of the final regular season poll.  No one took the bait, so I just confirmed that Yes, this is the strongest field since the poll began!

In terms of the lowest ranked team, #11 IWU beats out #13 JCU in 2004; in every other year there was a team ranked #17 or below.

In terms of average ranking of the four teams, this year's 6.25 edges out 2002 and 2004 which each averaged 7.25.  By this measure, the weakest field was the first (2000) - Champion Calvin came in ranked #1, but the other three were 15th, 19th, and 21st, though they barely nosed out last year with champion UWSP entering as #1, but the others at 14, 19, and 21.

One curiosity - don't finish 2nd in the final regular season poll!  Four #1 teams have made the FF, with Calvin (2000) and UWSP (2005) winning it all; Witt is the third #3 to make it (with Williams winning it all in 2003), and Amherst is the third #4 (with no winners yet), but no #2 has ever yet made it to the final four!

I have to believe that the strong field is due to the extra Pool C bids. 

Pool C Illinois Wesleyan was about #13 or #14 on the Pool C list (of 18)...I think it is very safe to say that last year, with 8 Pool C's, IWU wouldn't have made the tournament.

[Ralph Turner]

On the women's side, HSU benefited as well.

The Cowgirls lost their point guard on Feb 9th when they had a record of 19-2.  They lost 3 of the next 4 incliding the Quarterfinals in the ASC Tourney.  I calcuated that they were about the #17th or #18th of the 21 Pool C bids.

They retooled and made the run.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Q, I think you're absolutely correct that IWU would not have made the field with last year's number of Cs.

Of course, that might have made the FF even stronger in terms of the poll, since #1 Lawrence would quite likely be there instead!

[diehardfan]

About that knitting, though... 

Ha, you've seen me knitting before a game, haven't you?  Hmm... either that or you want a scarf or blanket? 

I have to believe that the strong field is due to the extra Pool C bids.  The extra Pool C bids winnowed the weaker teams in the Process.  The Cinderellas (Lincoln, Transy, Miss Coll, SJF, perchance Lawrence?) were finally caught by the clock!

Ralph, while I certainly agree with the concept in general, I gotta believe that Lawrence isn't a weaker Pool A team, weeded out in the process thanks to the extra Pool Cs this year. Lawrence was ranked #1 in the country, and aguably showed that they deserved at least a very high ranking after leading IWU by wide point spreads for all but the four minutes that really counted.

It's sorta funny you know... Lawrence had to be the favorite in the whole tournament, thanks to their ranking, incredible season, and strong showings in the tournament for the last two years. But a lot of people have been treating them like they've actually been the underdog all along. Heck, in one of those articles Q posted before their game with IWU, even Tharp made it sound like they were the underdogs.

I gotta believe that Lawrence is pretty much even or better than most of the teams in the Final Four this year, and not so much a Cinderella as they are simply an excellent basketball program.

Perhaps all this just shows that the MWC and Lawrence still have a long way to go to make believers out of people?

[augiedad]

The MWC this year was a league with two great teams, Lawrence (16-0 in conf) and Carroll (14-2).  After that, there wasn't much at all.  I don't see how it should be regarded any different than people talk about the NCAC - just two teams basically, and maybe a couple that can give the top 2 a scare, and then some really bad teams.

The MWC's teams didn't get it done in the tournament, and that is where strength is measured.  Carroll lost on a neutral court to IWU (9-5 in the CCIW) 81-68 in a game it looks like IWU controlled almost the whole way.  Lawrence lost at home to IWU 71-68 and couldn't protect a double digit 2nd half lead.

Last year Lawrence lost to Stevens Point 79-45.  The MWC's only NCAA tournament claim to fame is the 82-81 overtime loss to Stevens Point in 2004.  For top MWC teams to earn respect from the masses, at some point one is going to have to get to Salem.  This year it was all set up for Lawrence - given the chance to host all the way up to Salem - and LU did not convert.  And for the MWC to become what people consider a "strong league", there will need to be more than just 2 "top 25 caliber" teams. 

Finally, I do not think it is fair to say "I gotta believe that Lawrence is pretty much even or better than most of the teams in the Final Four this year" because Wittenberg, Amherst, IWU, and Va Wesleyan are going to Salem while Lawrence did not get it done...at home.

[Mr. Ypsi]

augiedad,

I'm gonna have to stick up for April on this one - I think Lawrence IS fully FF worthy, just ran into a buzzsaw named IWU, seemingly FINALLY playing like the team that was once unanimously #1.  Pretty much everyone agreed they had the talent to be distinctly #1; they seem to finally be playing that way.  Losing by 3 (even at home) to such a team is certainly no disgrace.

Another intriguing anomaly I just noticed in the FF vs. final regular season poll comparison (again, with just six years, no doubt coincidence, but still intriguing).  Of the four teams, the highest ranked has won 3 titles (#1 Calvin, #3 Williams, and #1 UWSP)  while the third highest has also won 3 titles (#14 Catholic vs. 3, 11, and 17; #6 Otterbein vs. 1, 4, and 18; and #10 UWSP vs. 1, 5, and 13).  Never the 2nd or 4th highest rated team.  Can either Amherst or IWU break this streak?

[Ralph Turner]

... The MWC's only NCAA tournament claim to fame is the 82-81 overtime loss to Stevens Point in 2004. ...

Aw shucks, Augie Dad, I was hoping that you would have said that Lawrence's claim to fame was a Sweet 16 OT win over the ASC's Sul Ross State in 2004! 

[Roughrider]

Hey, all joking aside, I would really really appreciate it if the jokes didn't go in that direction again. I've been trying really hard not to let the original comment bother me, but I just can't help it.

. . .

I don't know, perhaps my expectations for what the world should be like are unrealistic, but they are sort of necessary to convince me that there is any point to me being here and posting my thoughts. 

. . .

Well spoken, diehardfan.     Do not get too discouraged by ignorant remarks made by ignorant posters hiding behind the anonymity of their login names.

I am a first-year poster, but a long-time reader, so on that basis I speak from my own observations.  Many regular posters, including this one, want you to know that they consider you to be:

1.  Very knowledgeable about d3hoops for men and women, and that includes the conferences, the teams, the players, and the games.

2.  Very articulate in your posts.  They are well thought out, and clearly presented.

3.  A great example of good sportsmanship.

4.  Very much a lady.  Your good-natured ribbing and verbal jousting are taken as that and nothing more.

5.  Legendary for your home-made cookies served at Final Four events.  One of these years, but not this year, I hope to have the privilege of attending and finding out for myself.

Note to all the guys on this forum—I enjoy "locker-room" camaraderie as much as the next guy, but there is a time and a place for it.  Some of us would like to consider D3hoops.com a "family-friendly" site.  Some of us even come into contact with future MIAA (and CCIW) players and their families, and encourage them to log on to catch some of the excitement and enjoyment that many of us find in D3hoops.com, arguably "The definitive resource" as Pat bills it.

A good rule of thumb would be that if it's not appropriate in the workplace, then it's not appropriate here either.  And after all, Pat Coleman does have his standards for this site.  If you don't think so, just read his "Terms of Service" posted on the home page for "Posting Up".  If you push his limits too far, you just might learn what they are the hard way.  My advice is don't.  He has in the past, and will in the future when necessary, exercise the options he warns about.

Note to Mr. Ypsi and Wooster Booster, thank you for speaking up on behalf of diehardfan.  Perhaps if more of us followed your example and stood up for what was right, then the world, and this board, would be a better place for it.

Again, do not be discouraged, diehardfan.  You and your posts are very much appreciated on this board.   

Roughrider

[Roughrider]

And now back to the Final Four . . . .  Two of my original picks are gone.  For those of us who are similarly disadvantaged, what say we start a new round of picks, given the final four as they are.  My new picks this week are as follows.

Witt over IWU for the title.  The Tigers found a way to get past #2 Hope.

VaWes?  Amherst?  VaWes?  Amherst?  OK, VaWes over Amherst for third.  Ton Ton Balenga, need I say more?

Roughrider