MBB: Landmark Conference

[Pat Coleman]

Hence, I clarified.

[cold_case]

cold_case - you and certainly say whatever you want... but I am quite sure you aren't talking for a majority of people. That being said... I know quite a lot of about journalism as it pays my bills and allows me to also have the time to dedicate to this site and coverage of Division III sports. You can say anything you want... but don't try and use "journalism" as an excuse after the comments you make are anything but "professional."

My late father said it best: "Son, never get into a urinating contest with a skunk."

I think 28 years in the business and numerous awards have shown I'm very professional. I have never been accused of biased journalism and always had the evidence to halt my detractors.
You have done nothing but challenge the intelligence and to some respect, integrity of these posters, and have come up woefully short.

Not only do I rest my case, I officially end my dialogue with you. However, it will be entertaining to read your sad justifications.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't think you're performing the journalism role here, though, are you? I mean, certainly this claim wouldn't stand up to an editor: "You have done nothing but..."

I have pointed out your shortcomings in this regard in the past, but you have never tried to wrap yourself in the flag of a professional journalist on the board, either. Now, if you choose to do so, you may need to act like it.

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

Pat why is it that every time Dave as a gripe you answer for him?  (first with me on a simple clarification and now with cold).  i'm pretty sure he can handle himself

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yeah - haven't responded because simply I was in bed... since I had to be up at 4 AM to go to my professional journalism job (hint, cold_case) as a news producer here in Baltimore.

cold_case - you don't act like a journalist here, especially throwing around comments about ones integrity and character. You are also more than bias here - which is completely fine when it comes to cheering on your team. However, don't play the "I'm a journalist card" when you aren't acting like one.

Also... just because my opinion is different then yours doesn't give you reason to call me ignorant or anything else. I have presented factual information to this arguement... something you have not done. Instead you have just called me names.

Lusty - it's nice to have someone back me up. You and cold_case are backing each other up... should I complain that you can't present your arguments and cold_case as do it for you... or visa versa?

I also did explain a #1 regionally ranked team... and a #2 regionally ranked team - don't think I could explain it better. You can't have two #1 regionally ranked teams from the same region in a pod - that is impossible.

[NEPAFAN]

Ronk brought up a good point on the multi-region board. For some period of time the NCAA regional rankings did not include a win for the Royals. Ronk has more info then me, but I believe it took the Scranton staff emailing to point out the mistake.

[cold_case]

Yeah - haven't responded because simply I was in bed... since I had to be up at 4 AM to go to my professional journalism job (hint, cold_case) as a news producer here in Baltimore.

cold_case - you don't act like a journalist here, especially throwing around comments about ones integrity and character. You are also more than bias here - which is completely fine when it comes to cheering on your team. However, don't play the "I'm a journalist card" when you aren't acting like one.

Also... just because my opinion is different then yours doesn't give you reason to call me ignorant or anything else. I have presented factual information to this arguement... something you have not done. Instead you have just called me names.

Lusty - it's nice to have someone back me up. You and cold_case are backing each other up... should I complain that you can't present your arguments and cold_case as do it for you... or visa versa?

I also did explain a #1 regionally ranked team... and a #2 regionally ranked team - don't think I could explain it better. You can't have two #1 regionally ranked teams from the same region in a pod - that is impossible.

Never insulted you, was stating a fact.
Everyone posted valid gripes regarding sites/selections and you did a poor job of justifying, instead leaving your answers open for even more debate.
Now you come on and say you have to go to your "professional journalism job."
Unless I'm wrong, aren't all jobs in the journalism field professional?
I have no problems with you coming on here and acting like Mr. Know-it-all, but when you use the I,I,I and me, me, me theory when it comes to your, your, your, rankings, that does humor me.
If Pat wants to watch your back or Lusty watch mine, that's fine.
However, I am a member of a certain teams NFL (you know, professional) message board for 11 years and I've yet to see the moderator come on and involve himself in anyway.
I've already been told stop posting on this site so I will. I need to keep my non-professional job.
Ciao.

[Pat Coleman]

That may be true, Cold Case, or they may be posting under a handle. But I've been doing it this way for 14 years so you shouldn't be surprised. I don't give up my right to be a D-III fan because I run this site and I never have or will.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

No wonder all the SID's I talk with think you're ignorant.

By making this comment... you insulted me. I stated that. You made a blanket statement and passed it off on SID's you apparently talk to... "all" of them for that matter.

As for the "professional journalism" comment... it was simply to point out it is my paying job and one I do to pay the bills, help support a family, and even pay for a lot of what I do with D3sports.com. I was also pointing out that you are not the only journalist on this board... so by trying to play the "high and mighty" card doesn't fly with me.

I, I, I... and me, me, me??? What in the world are you talking about?
You also say I did a poor job justifying... instead leaving my answers open for more debate:

REGIONAL RANKINGS... you can not complain that Scranton should be hosting when last week they were NOT in the regional rankings... and in the final rankings they sit 9th.

By the numbers:
Team               In-Region            OWP             OOWP            SOS         Reg. Ranked
Scranton        19-5 (.792)           .452               .450              .451           2-1 (.667)
Cabrini           22-5 (.815)           .510               .493              .504           5-0 (1.000)
F&M               20-5 (.800)            .468              .452              .463            0-2 (.000)

Tell me again why Scranton or F&M should be hosting and Cabrini shouldn't?!

This is the type of "facts" I pointed out and then stated why I didn't think Scranton or F&M can complain about not hosting and why they are traveling on the road. If you think this constitutes "I,I,I and me, me, me theory" you have... I don't get it. If you think this is a poor job of justifying sites and selections... I don't get it. How much more fact - that I did do research on versus many posters who just throw around accusations and theories - do you need?

I have never had a problem with you, cold_case, in the years we have interacted on these boards - including agreeing with you on many occasions including my thoughts on your team and your players (much to Matt's expense - love ya, Matt!) But because I disagreed with your "gripes" and others... all of the sudden you decided to attack me and my posts. No idea where that all came from and honestly I don't care any more. I have had enough...

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

cold is absolutely right.  as a comparison theres a pro football site out there where the mods do post a lot.  Mostly to clarify, answer questions, and have a fun discussion.  Even though many of them are espn writers, have actual insider access and write top-selling books, never once has any of them acted in the condescending, arrogant attititude that Pat uses in 50% of his posts.  Theres a reason this site has been around "14 years" yet most boards dont have any posters at all and others have only a select handful.  

[Pat Coleman]

Might have to do with the fact that pro football is a little more popular than Division III basketball. And that doesn't preclude a moderator from maintaining a separate handle and mixing it up that way. Behind the scenes at a couple of jobs I've had, I know that takes place. But I'm up front about it, no hiding.

People who post with an attitude sometimes get attitude back, no doubt. But that's a small percentage of my 25,000-some posts. (And smaller every year.)

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

d-mac, i'm not going to rehash 2 days worth of debate.  You presented those numbers 2 days ago, without doing any research into asking whether or not those numbers are inflated.  Newsflash, when you venture over to the Landmark board, you are going to get people who will defend the Landmark conference.  Sadly, our well reasoned argments dont mesh with your narrative that the NCAA is always right, so you are forced to defend the NCAA at all costs.  

[NEPAFAN]

d-mac, i'm not going to rehash 2 days worth of debate.  You presented those numbers 2 days ago, without doing any research into asking whether or not those numbers are inflated.  Newsflash, when you venture over to the Landmark board, you are going to get people who will defend the Landmark conference.  Sadly, our well reasoned argments dont mesh with your narrative that the NCAA is always right, so you are forced to defend the NCAA at all costs.  

Especially when the NCAA was wrong about Scranton's # of victories in their initial regional rankings.

[Pat Coleman]

d-mac, i'm not going to rehash 2 days worth of debate.  You presented those numbers 2 days ago, without doing any research into asking whether or not those numbers are inflated.  

Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether they are inflated -- those are the numbers the NCAA uses.

We have spent a fair amount of time being critical about the way the NCAA changed the strength of schedule calculation and about the lack of openness in their data leading to errors. We aren't really in a position to rehash two months of debate every time someone asks about it just like you don't want to rehash two days of debate.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I never said the NCAA is always right... I just understand these particular decisions. I also don't defend them at all costs... you would know that if you listen to Hoopsville more then just Monday. I also have a comment about how I disagree with them below. But to that end... compared to what the committees and the NCAA did for the tournament and selections back in the mid to late '90s and early this century... things have come a long way. So instead of me complaining and not supporting minute decisions when they have solved and improved vast parts of the process... I choose to applaud them on decisions that deserve applause in comparison to the "old boys" network of years ago (I will resist the urge to point out the most glaring fact of that network for those who know me the best!)

And how are the numbers overinflated? They are numbers. Based on a team's Opponents Winning Percentage... the Opponents Opponents Winning Percentage... a team's in-region record... and their SOS which is a math formula based on 2/3 weighting of the OWP and 1/3 weighting of the OOWP that have already been affected by the multiplier.

Numbers early on in a season can seem inflated due to a smaller sample size... but by the time we are in late February... those numbers are pretty good indicators. Are they perfect? Certainly not. The RPI in D1 isn't perfect.

As for Scranton's number of victories... that was fixed after the first regional rankings and in the end didn't have any affect as Scranton did make the regionally ranked list in the end - thus changing regionally ranked opponent records for everyone.

The problem both Scranton and F&M had with their numbers were the following:
- both played a large number of home games thus not getting the benefit of the multiplier for neutral (1.0) or away (1.4) games. (I do know that Scranton lost the Vegas tournament, which didn't help their situation. I was looking forward to seeing Scranton there, so I was also disappointed.)
- both teams played in conferences that didn't help - or have helped in recent years. The bottom of these conferences have teams (like Goucher) who have struggled to put solid seasons together. Some of those teams also have poor schedules for whatever reason so OWP's and OOWP's are pretty lousy at the bottom.
- both teams did NOT take advantage of away games and win, thus lowering their in-region losses (i.e. Scranton's weekend at MMA and Drew and F&M against teams like McDaniel). If you don't have a lot of away games and are already taking a hit as a result, losing unnecessary games will compound the problem.

I have stated publicly on boards and in conversations with coaches and others in this region and elsewhere that the multiplier might be too heavy handed. If this is what you are talking about in terms of "overinflated" then I follow your reasoning... to a point. I would like to see more of a 1.2 to 0.8 multiplier... but that is to be decided by others who make the decisions in the off-season.

To that point... everyone is working with those same numbers so - without having time to do the math (maybe KnightSlappy can adjust his program), I can't say that Cabrini wouldn't still be the top team and Scranton and F&M would still finish where they are (though, in theory they might rise up a bit thanks to their home records).

I have also had a problem with the inconsistencies between the men's and women's committees and selections. I have a problem with how the regions are set-up in the men and women. I have a problem with the fact the men follow the 6.1:1 ratio when it comes to regional rankings, but the women don't and the frustration I have had not getting a straight answer as to why. I have stated these publicly on my show... on boards... and to those I speak with like SID's and coaches throughout the country when the topics are brought up.

Lusty - as for your comment about "venture over to the Landmark board"... do your own research. I am a Goucher graduate and if you noticed at the bottom of my posts it indicates I have been their Public Address Announcer since 1995 - 16 seasons. Goucher plays in the Landmark and thus I am on this board often - though mostly reading during the season.

I also frequent all of the rest of the Mid-Atlantic, Atlantic, and the ODAC boards as this is are I live in and thus the regions I tend to cover the most for D3sports.com and D3hoops.com. However, I also frequent many of the other boards throughout the country... mostly reading up to get an idea of what is going on and help me produce Hoopsville each week. I also do this so I have a better idea of who are the best teams in the country and where I think regions are struggling (i.e. Atlantic).

Sorry for the long post... I will keep my thoughts shorter in the future.