WBB: Landmark Conference

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Funny note: at one point last night, it looked like Scranton was playing two games at the same time! Susquehanna had a glitch, so their live stats showed they were playing Scranton in logo and name. It definitely caused me to do a double-take.

And yes, Scranton was good enough to win both games with apparently a split-squad. LOL

[saratoga]

Here's hoping the Lady Royals continue their quest today vs. E-town.

A win by Scranton would then give the BlueJays 4 losses.

Then I guess we hope Drew knocks off Juniata today in Madison to give the Eagles 3 losses and then Catholic takes care of business in Bethlehem to give Moravian 4 losses.

The standings would then have...

*Juniata-3 losses

*Drew-4 losses

*Catholic-4 losses

*Moravian-4 losses

*E-town-4 losses

Goucher & Susquehanna pick-em.

Essentially a 5 team race for 3 spots.

[saratoga]

Taking nothing away from E-town as they out-hustled Scranton on the boards all day but there are only so many games you can keep piecing together while your All-American is injured and not contributing.

Great run by the ladies but if they thought everyone brought their A game to play them before...just wait.

Catholic has been playing really inspired ball down at Moravian today & they will be ready & waiting for Scranton next Sat.

Just glancing at the stats it becomes pretty obvious the usually rock steady defense was a step too slow, rarely seemed to pressure the ball, killed on the boards by a very aggressive & prepared team & one of the Royal starters only took 5 shots???

Not sure if she was sick but certainly needs to be involved more than she was.

Very lethargic game with no sense of urgency or rhythm, nothing crisp.

You'll have these games from time to time.

Write it off, learn from it & start again.

Otherwise, it may end up just like 2 years ago where we lost 3 out of 4 games to, you guessed it...E-town, Moravian & Catholic.

[ronk]

Back to basketball after that commercial for spellcheck.

If the Mid-Atlantic Regional came out tomorrow (which I know it doesn't) this is how I see it right now:

1.Scranton

2.Messiah

3.Gettysburg

4.Johns Hopkins

5.Widener

6.Southern Virginia

7.Christopher Newport

8. Probably 5 teams vying for the last spot.

Any other schools I'm missing having solid years?

This is certainly all subject to change over the next 2 weeks.

The school that is somewhat surprising in a good way is Southern Virginia. They are doing a real nice job and passed a big test last evening.

On the other hand, the team moving in the wrong direction is Muhlenberg.

They are 0 for 2019 and have lost at least 5 & possibly 6 straight games.

What is interesting this year about the Mid-Atlantic rankings is that Trevor is the Landmark rep on the regional advisory committee(RAC); other members are Nate Davis(Gettysburg-originally rumored to be the leading contender for the Scranton position), Janice Luck-Albright, and Bill Broderick-CNU with the chair being the Landmark director, Daniel Fisher.
  It'll be a question for Dave McHugh about the ranking procedures within the RAC, especially when there are only 5 members. Each of those 3 male coaches could conceivably want their own team to be #1 in the region at this time. is the ranking going to be decided by the other 2 members?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Members are not allowed to discuss their teams or be on the call when they discuss their team. So, when those teams are being discussed, they basically are not on the call or muted. That does kind of come down to the others to discuss (remember the chair, who doesn't vote, will discuss things and help advise and guide the RAC).

Then everyone votes. The voting takes place on computer (has for several years now) and no longer on the phone call, so someone can actually change their minds. There are no reasons to keep members from voting.

But here is where things are key: This is only an "advisory" committee - Regional Advisory Committee. The National Committee is ultimately responsible for rankings and they can completely ignore the RAC if they want. They can rank teams how they want and just thank the RAC for their work and move on. The chair of the region does "vote" on the national committee (unless it is their team, then, again, they are removed from consideration and conversation) and they will present, usually, how their RAC came to their rankings.* The national committee will consider that, but a lot of the time will make adjustments and then the chair is responsible to communicate why those changes too place back to the RAC so they can adjust.

* - a lot of chairs ask for RAC members to explain their choices after they are done voting, so they can have that information for the national call.

[ronk]

 Thanks, Dave, your remarks are very helpful. With only 4 voters in the Mid/A and 3 being the top 3 teams in the region this coming week, I can foresee the discussion being "who are teams ranked 4 through whatever"? It would be tough to compare/contrast  anyone else against the top 3 without muting everyone except Janice Luck.      Just an unusual situation this season in the M/A.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Thanks, Dave, your remarks are very helpful. With only 4 voters in the Mid/A and 3 being the top 3 teams in the region this coming week, I can foresee the discussion being "who are teams ranked 4 through whatever"? It would be tough to compare/contrast  anyone else against the top 3 without muting everyone except Janice Luck.      Just an unusual situation this season in the M/A.

It is an unusual situation this year to be sure. Basically four heavyweights (though, Albright has fallen back a bit) on the regional committee. I will see if I can get some insight on it because it is a bit more on the rare side to be sure.

That said, again, if one's team isn't being discussed, they can participate. Of course, it also isn't just a Team A v Team B conversation all that often ... so the likelihood of having to mute three voices could happen!

They start their mock calls this week. I can get more insight after that point.

[Rofrog]

Scranton loses a game without All American and 3 of the starters sick and move from 3rd to 7th.But almighty Amherst gets beat by Eastern Connecticut and loses by 8 even though being up 18 with all starters and moved down one, are you kidding me Joke poll.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Amherst lost to the number one team in the country ... most voters aren't going to penalize a team for losing to a team ranked above them, because the poll (and their own ballots) indicated that should happen.

If we have a #10 playing a #5, but the reasoning of the voters and thus the poll... #5 should win, right? So #4 played at #1 and lead for a good chunk of the game, but then lost. By the reasoning of the voters and the poll... that was an expected outcome.

Scranton, in the meantime, is missing players including their All-American and lost to a team that was on a three-game losing streak and wasn't receiving and still isn't receiving any votes in the Top 25. So an unranked team which is struggling is playing AT #3's court ... and #3 loses.

Those two examples are not even close to comparable.

BTW, Amherst lost 34 points which ended up moving them down a slot. Scranton lost 86 points. Considering the circumstances, I think that works.

Per the other loss to Eastern Connecticut, I suspect the voters feel that was long enough ago to not matter ... of feel that even with that loss, Amherst is still a Top 5 team.

Scranton worked it's way up to 3 and is still in the Top 10 at 7. That is very significant. That isn't anything to sneeze at. And I think the voting was fair. Some teams have fallen a lot further and lost a lot more points if they had Scranton's challenges right now (as you said, no All-American and three starters out with illness). I dare say, they didn't know about the illness aspect - they may have fallen further.

I don't vote on the women's poll. That all is just my read on the poll from how I know the mechanics plus understanding the circumstances. I don't think it's worth complaining about. Scranton is still getting plenty of love and respect.

[Rofrog]

No but your influence worked when you said Amherst should be ahead of Scranton,Seriously what considerations do they look at when they vote.

[Rofrog]

Just remember that with the guys Dave because loras beat the number one team and they moved back one in the mens,See double standards

[ronk]

Amherst lost to the number one team in the country ... most voters aren't going to penalize a team for losing to a team ranked above them, because the poll (and their own ballots) indicated that should happen.

If we have a #10 playing a #5, but the reasoning of the voters and thus the poll... #5 should win, right? So #4 played at #1 and lead for a good chunk of the game, but then lost. By the reasoning of the voters and the poll... that was an expected outcome.

Scranton, in the meantime, is missing players including their All-American and lost to a team that was on a three-game losing streak and wasn't receiving and still isn't receiving any votes in the Top 25. So an unranked team which is struggling is playing AT #3's court ... and #3 loses.

Those two examples are not even close to comparable.

BTW, Amherst lost 34 points which ended up moving them down a slot. Scranton lost 86 points. Considering the circumstances, I think that works.

Per the other loss to Eastern Connecticut, I suspect the voters feel that was long enough ago to not matter ... of feel that even with that loss, Amherst is still a Top 5 team.

Scranton worked it's way up to 3 and is still in the Top 10 at 7. That is very significant. That isn't anything to sneeze at. And I think the voting was fair. Some teams have fallen a lot further and lost a lot more points if they had Scranton's challenges right now (as you said, no All-American and three starters out with illness). I dare say, they didn't know about the illness aspect - they may have fallen further.

I don't vote on the women's poll. That all is just my read on the poll from how I know the mechanics plus understanding the circumstances. I don't think it's worth complaining about. Scranton is still getting plenty of love and respect.

No 3-game losing streak for E-town; they lost their previous game but had won 7 of 8 before then, all except Scranton 3 weeks previous.

[Rofrog]

Bridgette Mann played that game and no one was sick either

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Just remember that with the guys Dave because loras beat the number one team and they moved back one in the mens,See double standards

I am not following your point. Are you talking about Loras or NWU? Loras moved up, despite losing to Wartburg earlier in the week (and staying rather static on my ballot).

Yes, NWU fell back a spot, but they also didn't lose all of their first place votes. The result against Loras created a split with the voters. Also, Loras beat Augustana this season. By your "double standard" reasoning ... they shouldn't be number one, either.

And again ... I don't get your point about double-standards. You are looking at two VASTLY different polls, with different voting panels, voting on two different genders, with two insanely different situations.

In women's basketball, they have an upper tier (that Scranton is a part of, BTW), that is the best of the best. You see this group in every second weekend of the NCAA tournament and in the final four. It is very, very rare to see anyone else battling for a championship. This group is small - maybe eight teams (off the top of my head). There is then a second group, of unknown size right this moment, that is no where close to the same level as the top tier. They may snipe at them and get an occasional good, or great, result, but it isn't the same level. And then there is basically everyone else.

In men's basketball, parity is insane. There are probably 15-20 teams who could get to Fort Wayne this year and wouldn't surprise me. There are some very good teams, but where the line between the top tier and the second tier ... is very blurred. There are a number of teams that can win championships and that's why the final fours have been incredibly diverse and we have had a mixture of participants, results, and champions.

You can't compare the two when trying to make an argument about one particular poll. You also can't make a comparison with just two teams in a vacuum. Did you look at the week and seasons of all the rest of the Top 10? How about the Top 15 or Top 25? There is a lot going on and a lot of results to work through. It creates a lot of moving parts.

No voter I know looks at one team and another and slots them. They, like myself, are looking at a lot of teams and trying our best to put them in the positions we feel are an accurate representation of who are the best 25 teams in the country. There is a reason there are 25 voters - so there can be 25 opinions from all over the country.

But when you try and compare what is going on in the women's poll and what is going on in the men's poll ... you aren't making any sense.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Bridgette Mann played that game and no one was sick either

Then I simply can't follow what you are saying ... I was basing my point on this:

Scranton loses a game without All American and 3 of the starters sick and move from 3rd to 7th.But almighty Amherst gets beat by Eastern Connecticut and loses by 8 even though being up 18 with all starters and moved down one, are you kidding me Joke poll.

You see how this gets confusing?