WBB: Landmark Conference

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

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.

I apologize - I am trying to get a lot done tonight and I was rushing. I should have taken more time to check my facts.

Clearly I need to focus on other things (like a massive show on Thursday), because my split thinking at this time of night ain't working.

Sorry, ronk. My point remains that the loss to E'town isn't comparable to the loss to Bowdoin - the number one team in the country.

As an aside, I actually don't like when voters demote a team for losing to a team they clearly predicted they would lose to. There are extenuating circumstances of course, but that didn't seem to fit the bill this week.

BTW ...

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

The voters aren't listening to me. I do not influence the voters in anyway. What I said on the show (and thanks for watching/listening) was what I suspected might happen. In reality, it didn't work out that way - though, I can't really talk about some things I know because it isn't fair to the voters.

Also ... when I said Amherst should be ahead of Scranton, that was based on a previous week's situation ... and not based on this week's situation. I felt Scranton was a better fit at four or five ... but again, voters are NOT changing their votes because of my random thoughts.

And they consider a LOT of things. I can only tell you some, but not all, of the things I consider:
- Location of game
- Conference/non-conference opponent
- What each team brings to the table in terms of talent
- Health of team and players
- Strength of each team in terms of who they are and talent they display
- My thoughts having seen them in person or on video
- What they look like statistically; what they are good at, struggle with, etc.
- How the game played out: did someone come from behind; was their an injury; did a team dominate; was it back and forth?

I could go on and on. If you are interested in just my opinion on the men's poll, I usually blog my ballot - which is one of the many things I was supposed to be working on tonight that has split my attention.

[gordonmann]

I administer and vote in the women's poll. I agree with you that Amherst should've fallen farther than one slot.

I dropped Amherst and Scranton on my ballot this week with Amherst falling from 4 to 10 and Scranton falling from 3 to 12. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning but here's why I slotted them that way.

- As Dave noted, Amherst's loss is certainly "less bad" than Scranton's. Amherst lost to the No. 2 team on my ballot, on the road, playing its second game in less than 24 hours. And Amherst did lead the game until late in the third quarter. Scranton lost to a team that's not on the national radar at home.

- At this point neither of these teams has what I consider to be a big headline win. Scranton's best win is DeSales, which is looking better and better every week (even better after tonight), though it was also back in November. Amherst's best win is maybe Trinity (Conn.) who also played DeSales tough So if we play the comparative score game -- Scranton is comparable to DeSales which is comparable to Trinity (Conn.) which got dusted by Amherst -- that doesn't favor Scranton.

(Incidentally this works the other way if you look at the Scranton/Mass-Boston/Eastern Connecticut/Amherst grouping).

- I dinged Scranton because Mann is out of the line up. With Bridget Mann I think that's a Top 10 team, but others on here have noted her absence. You guys probably know more about it than I do. From a distance I'm concerned about how they fill the absence of an All-American player at this point in the season. Tell me if you think that's overblown in my mind and I'll listen.

- Recent results do matter more to me. So Amherst's loss to Eastern Connecticut doesn't weigh heavily on my mind. And Scranton's win over DeSales (also back in November) doesn't have as much luster. There's nothing Scranton can do about that. It's not their fault that the Top 3 in the NESCAC are way better than the next two teams in the Landmark. But it does make the losses hurt that much more.

Finally -- and I'm not sure how much this one matters to me because I've seen the teams enough in person to appreciate them-- voters have watched Scranton lose by double digits to the NESCAC runner up at home by double digits in the NCAA Tournament the last two years and by nine points the year before that. I understand that these are not the same teams but at some point voters (particularly those in other parts of the country) say to themselves, "Scranton hasn't been better than the NESCAC runner up in recent years. How do I know that this year is different?"

Incidentally I think we're going to get to find out the answer to that last question. Unless Scranton falls apart down the stretch, I expect the Royals to definitely host the first weekend and likely host the second as well. In addition to having a really strong resume, Scranton is within the 500-mile driving radius of a lot of schools so they are good candidates to host. And my guess is whomever loses the Amherst/Tufts game this weekend is Scranton-bound come mid-March. I wouldn't be stunned if both teams come this way depending on the NESCAC tournament results.

[ronk]

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.

I apologize - I am trying to get a lot done tonight and I was rushing. I should have taken more time to check my facts.

Clearly I need to focus on other things (like a massive show on Thursday), because my split thinking at this time of night ain't working.

Sorry, ronk. My point remains that the loss to E'town isn't comparable to the loss to Bowdoin - the number one team in the country.

As an aside, I actually don't like when voters demote a team for losing to a team they clearly predicted they would lose to. There are extenuating circumstances of course, but that didn't seem to fit the bill this week.

BTW ...

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

The voters aren't listening to me. I do not influence the voters in anyway. What I said on the show (and thanks for watching/listening) was what I suspected might happen. In reality, it didn't work out that way - though, I can't really talk about some things I know because it isn't fair to the voters.

Also ... when I said Amherst should be ahead of Scranton, that was based on a previous week's situation ... and not based on this week's situation. I felt Scranton was a better fit at four or five ... but again, voters are NOT changing their votes because of my random thoughts.

And they consider a LOT of things. I can only tell you some, but not all, of the things I consider:
- Location of game
- Conference/non-conference opponent
- What each team brings to the table in terms of talent
- Health of team and players
- Strength of each team in terms of who they are and talent they display
- My thoughts having seen them in person or on video
- What they look like statistically; what they are good at, struggle with, etc.
- How the game played out: did someone come from behind; was their an injury; did a team dominate; was it back and forth?

I could go on and on. If you are interested in just my opinion on the men's poll, I usually blog my ballot - which is one of the many things I was supposed to be working on tonight that has split my attention.

Yes, you've overextended yourself; time to add your kids to your research staff.  Save yourself for your marathon show Thursday and the Whits replay later today.

[ronk]

I administer and vote in the women's poll. I agree with you that Amherst should've fallen farther than one slot.

I dropped Amherst and Scranton on my ballot this week with Amherst falling from 4 to 10 and Scranton falling from 3 to 12. Feel free to disagree with my reasoning but here's why I slotted them that way.

- As Dave noted, Amherst's loss is certainly "less bad" than Scranton's. Amherst lost to the No. 2 team on my ballot, on the road, playing its second game in less than 24 hours. And Amherst did lead the game until late in the third quarter. Scranton lost to a team that's not on the national radar at home.

- At this point neither of these teams has what I consider to be a big headline win. Scranton's best win is DeSales, which is looking better and better every week (even better after tonight), though it was also back in November. Amherst's best win is maybe Trinity (Conn.) who also played DeSales tough So if we play the comparative score game -- Scranton is comparable to DeSales which is comparable to Trinity (Conn.) which got dusted by Amherst -- that doesn't favor Scranton.

(Incidentally this works the other way if you look at the Scranton/Mass-Boston/Eastern Connecticut/Amherst grouping).

- I dinged Scranton because Mann is out of the line up. With Bridget Mann I think that's a Top 10 team, but others on here have noted her absence. You guys probably know more about it than I do. From a distance I'm concerned about how they fill the absence of an All-American player at this point in the season. Tell me if you think that's overblown in my mind and I'll listen.

- Recent results do matter more to me. So Amherst's loss to Eastern Connecticut doesn't weigh heavily on my mind. And Scranton's win over DeSales (also back in November) doesn't have as much luster. There's nothing Scranton can do about that. It's not their fault that the Top 3 in the NESCAC are way better than the next two teams in the Landmark. But it does make the losses hurt that much more.

Finally -- and I'm not sure how much this one matters to me because I've seen the teams enough in person to appreciate them-- voters have watched Scranton lose by double digits to the NESCAC runner up at home by double digits in the NCAA Tournament the last two years and by nine points the year before that. I understand that these are not the same teams but at some point voters (particularly those in other parts of the country) say to themselves, "Scranton hasn't been better than the NESCAC runner up in recent years. How do I know that this year is different?"

Incidentally I think we're going to get to find out the answer to that last question. Unless Scranton falls apart down the stretch, I expect the Royals to definitely host the first weekend and likely host the second as well. In addition to having a really strong resume, Scranton is within the 500-mile driving radius of a lot of schools so they are good candidates to host. And my guess is whomever loses the Amherst/Tufts game this weekend is Scranton-bound come mid-March. I wouldn't be stunned if both teams come this way depending on the NESCAC tournament results.

Can't disagree with your reasoning; just surprised that you put 9 teams ahead of Amherst and 11 before Scranton.

[Rofrog]

Gordon let's use that theory.So Dartmouth only losses to bowdoin by 7 then they loss to umass Boston that Scranton dusted by 31 does that count.See you cant use that in justifying voting you take the whole picture into account if Mann played and 3 starters are not sick they win that game or do you do that just for certain teams .

[Rofrog]

 Ithaca was a good win also.

[Rofrog]

Dave Amherst has 2 losses not 1 Scranton has one loss.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Dave Amherst has 2 losses not 1 Scranton has one loss.

I'm fully aware ...

[saratoga]

Although I certainly love my Royals, I'm not naive and blind at the same time when discussing them.

When they're good, I'll reinforce that & when there's work to do, I'll state that as well.

Regarding the Lady Royals...some things to keep in perspective.

*They only played 3 3/4 games with Bridget to start the season.

She received injury number one in the 4th. quarter of the Desales game.

*Her teammates then regrouped without her for 6 games and won all of them.

*Bridget returns in game 11 & in first game back she scores 28 pts.

*Game 13 vs, E-town (at E-town) Scranton wins & she scores 26 pts.

*Three games back, 64 points, the MVP of the WPI tournament and carries the ladies past E-town.

*Next game vs. Moravian, turns her ankle & is now out 5 additional games & counting.

*In that next period, Scranton wins them all but the last one vs. E-town last Sat.

Now we all know that just like the stock market, previous results do not necessarily reflect future earnings or, in this case, points... but I think it's safe to say that if she were healthy, Saturday's outcome may have been different.

So the reality of this years edition of the Lady Royal's is that an All-American player has suited up for just 7 of their games and in that period of substantial time, they have lost but 1 single solitary game thus far.

Personally, I think that's pretty incredible.

The question will now be once she returns, how long will it take for her legs to come back, the shooting touch & feel for what's taking place on the court?

Very few teams could ever lose an All-American of this calibre for this length of time and be where this team is right now.

Do they have weaknesses...yep.

Do they need to take better care of the ball...yes, but getting better.

Do they need to help on the offensive glass...most certainly.

Was this loss just an anomaly...nope, this team has to work hard all game. If they don't, there will be others.

Will they be ready for the stretch run...I think the addition of Bridget will help answer that convincingly.

The other kids have to remember that they did remarkable work to keep everything moving in the right direction while she was out & if they continue to play tough D, they'll be in every game, regardless of where they're ranked in a very subjective poll.

[Rofrog]

Well said!

[gordonmann]

Gordon let's use that theory.So Dartmouth only losses to bowdoin by 7 then they loss to umass Boston that Scranton dusted by 31 does that count.See you cant use that in justifying voting you take the whole picture into account if Mann played and 3 starters are not sick they win that game or do you do that just for certain teams .

I try to apply the same standards to all teams, but don't know if I always succeed. Fortunately my opinion only accounts for 1/25th of the poll results.

I did take Bridgette's injury into account as I noted below. I dropped the Royals in part because of her status. I wasn't aware of the players being sick this weekend. That's a level of personal detail that's not appropriate for us to request (nor would teams provide it if we did).

Your point about the Mass-Dartmouth/Mass-Boston/Scranton/Bowdoin comparative results is a very good one. That comparative score set you noted certainly does make Scranton look good.

So here's a criteria I use in putting together my ballot, and again remember I'm only one voter. I keep a list of what I consider to be good wins and bad losses. The theory here is that the best win sets a team's ceiling -- what it's capable of doing in March -- and the worst loss sets the floor. Results vary within that range throughout the year. 

Here's how my ballot looks.

1) Thomas More -- Best win: No. 6 Mary Hardin-Baylor/No. 11 Hope...worst loss: none
2) Bowdoin -- W - No. 4 Tufts/No. 5 Amherst...L - None
3) Mary Hardin-Baylor: W - No. 15 East Texas Baptist...L - No. 2 Thomas More
4) St. Thomas: W - No. 14 George Fox...L - No. 16 Wartburg
5) Trine: W - No. 11 Hope (twice)...L - No. 22 Transylvania
6) Illinois Wesleyan: W - No. 16 Wartburg...L - UW-Whitewater (12-7 overall)
7) Wartburg: W - No. 4 St. Thomas...L - Luther (9-8)
8) Hope: W - No. 12 UW-Oshkosh...L - No. 8 Trine (twice)
9) UW-Oshkosh: W - Wheaton (ranked on my ballot)...L - UW-Whitewater (12-7 overall)
10) Amherst: W - Trinity (16-4)...L - East Conn (12-7)
11) Tufts: W - Middlebury (17-3)...L - No. 1 Bowdoin
12) Scranton: W - No. 18 DeSales...L - Elizabethtown (12-6)
13) Whitman: W - No. 14 George Fox...L - Puget Sound (14-4)
14) George Fox: W - Puget Sound or Claremont...L - Bethel (14-5) or Puget Sound
15) Messiah: W - No. 23 Gettysburg (not on my ballot)...L - York (9-10)
16) Texas-Dallas: W - No. 15 East Texas Baptist...L - Hardin-Simmons (16-3)
17) DeSales: W - Trinity (16-4)...L - Sage (10-8) [Misericordia is now the best win but it wasn't when I cast my ballot]
18) St. Joseph's (Maine): W - Husson/Pomona-Pitzer...L - None
19) Chicago: W - No. 13 Illinois Wesleyan...L - NYU (10-7)
20) East Texas Baptist: W - Hardin-Simmons (13-6)...L - No. 15 Texas-Dallas
21) Wheaton: W - No. 13 Illinois Wesleyan...L - Augustana (11-9)
22) DePauw: W - No. 8 Trine...L - Wittenberg (12-8)
23) Transylvania: W - No. 8 Trine...L - Rose-Hulman (13-6)
24) Loras: W - Washington U. (13-5)...L - Wheaton
25) Washington U. W - No. 19 Chicago...L - Westminster (Mo.) 15-4

This isn't the only criteria I use, but I try to have some level of internal consistency here within my own ballot. So a win over Wheaton means more to me than it does to the average voter. I'm very high on UMHB so Thomas More's win over them on the road is a better win than Bowdoin beating Tufts and Amherst.

Teams that lack a really good win fall much lower on my ballot than in the poll. St. Joe's is 18th and has fallen in recent weeks versus No. 10 in the poll. No. 17 SUNY Geneseo isn't on my ballot at all because they have a loss to New Paltz (13-4) and no signature win I can point to.

For some teams the best result is a close loss. So Texas-Dallas gets a push up my ballot because they had a very close loss to Thomas More. Amherst's best result is a relatively close loss to Bowdoin (it was within two possessions with a minute to play). Oshkosh's best result is a close loss to Hope. George Fox's is a close loss to St. Thomas, though these geographically isolated teams are the hardest to slot. I think the NWC and ASC teams are very good, but most of their results only refer back to each other.

From a best win perspective, you could certainly argue that Scranton belongs above Amherst and Tufts. Those three teams are really close in my mind and the Amherst/Tufts loser drops below Scranton after Saturday. I'm hedging my bets a little by keeping the two NESCAC teams close to each other for one week. In retrospect Oshkosh looks out of place.

From a "worst loss perspective," the team with the lowest floor is Wartburg, but they also have a really high ceiling because they crushed St. Thomas. The only team ahead of Scranton on my ballot with a worst loss is maybe Amherst or UW-Oshkosh. I would take East Conn and UW-Whitewater over E-town, but maybe I'm selling E-town short.

The gap between Scranton and Amherst, Tufts and Oshkosh isn't big. Your argument that I have the order wrong is reasonable.

[Rofrog]

I just cant see IWU up that high with 3 losses and a couple more.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I just cant see IWU up that high with 3 losses and a couple more.

I mean this in all seriousness: How aware are you of the make-up of teams and conferences around the country? I'm not asking about recognizing school names, seeing records, and such, but understanding the detail stuff similar to what Gordon (and others like myself) have shared with you? You can't just brush a team away by saying "with three losses." All schedules are not created equal.

I think where IWU is slotted is about right for them right now.

[Rofrog]

Dave I watch alot,I'm not busting Gordon I'm giving my opinion.

[Rofrog]

I was talking how high Gordon has them 6th.Not where they are in the polls.