MBB: University Athletic Association

[Gregory Sager]

And since it's slight, I'm wondering how the committee can possibly ignore the head-to-head situation and Brandeis' superior UAA record.  I know neither is supposed to play a major role in the committee's decision-making process, but I'd think Deis and Carnegie would be on the board at about the same time.  If so, how can you ignore those factors? 

Am I off base here?  Thoughts?

You're right that the UAA standings don't figure into the process, but not about the head-to-head business. That is one of the five primary criteria, and if CMU and Brandeis are on the table at the same time you can rest assured that the sweep of the Tartans by the Judges will be brought up in the selection committee conference call.

[Hugenerd]

So Brandeis routs NYU 63-44, a very good end to the season.

Upsets around the country make it seem unlikely to me that the UAA will get three bids.  So, if there's a second team from the UAA (an open question in and of itself), who goes, Carnegie or Brandeis?

A quick comparison:

Brandeis - 17-8 in region, currently 8th in Northeast
-10th in OWP
-Wins against regionally-ranked teams: NE4 Rhode Island College, NE9 Amherst, GL3 Carnegie Mellon (twice), E5 Rochester (split),
-Manageable losses: MW2 Wash U (twice), NE1 WPI, NE5 Umass-Dartmouth
-Bad losses: Lasell, Framingham State, Chicago
-10-4 in UAA

Carnegie - 19-5 in region, currently 3rd in Great Lakes
-(not sure their OWP, but I'm sure Brandeis is way betteR)
-Wins against GL1 John Carroll, GL5 Wooster, E5 Rochester (twice)
-Manageable losses: MW2 Wash U (twice), A1 Richard Stockton (out of region, so doesn't count)
-Bad losses: Chicago, twice to Brandeis
-9-5 in UAA

The Chicago/Wash U situation cancels itself out.  Carnegie did better against Rochester, but Brandeis swept Carnegie and they have the better UAA record (FWIW).  Brandeis' OWP is better, but they have more losses in region.  Carnegie's wins over John Carroll and Wooster slightly trump Brandeis' wins over RIC and Amherst, but not by much.  Carnegie was home both times, while Brandeis won at Amherst (though, to be fair, the RIC win should mean less than it does because Bobby Bailey was out for RIC). 

So, it's close.  Carnegie's advantages are fewer bad losses, a better signature win (John Carroll>RIC) and a better regional record, albeit in a weaker region.  Brandeis' major advantage is the OWP.  Carnegie seems to have the edge, but it's slight.

And since it's slight, I'm wondering how the committee can possibly ignore the head-to-head situation and Brandeis' superior UAA record.  I know neither is supposed to play a major role in the committee's decision-making process, but I'd think Deis and Carnegie would be on the board at about the same time.  If so, how can you ignore those factors? 

Am I off base here?  Thoughts?

You missed one significant win for CMU on the road, against Averett.  They are now 17-5 in the South, won the USAC AQ, and have a very good chance of being ranked in the unpublished final rankings.  By the way, CMU did not lose to Chicago, but rather Case Western.

In terms of a Pool C, I think CMU may face some problems if Brandeis is on the board at the same time as them, but that is not a given. 

[pradam]

So Brandeis routs NYU 63-44, a very good end to the season.

Upsets around the country make it seem unlikely to me that the UAA will get three bids.  So, if there's a second team from the UAA (an open question in and of itself), who goes, Carnegie or Brandeis?

A quick comparison:

Brandeis - 17-8 in region, currently 8th in Northeast
-10th in OWP
-Wins against regionally-ranked teams: NE4 Rhode Island College, NE9 Amherst, GL3 Carnegie Mellon (twice), E5 Rochester (split),
-Manageable losses: MW2 Wash U (twice), NE1 WPI, NE5 Umass-Dartmouth
-Bad losses: Lasell, Framingham State, Chicago
-10-4 in UAA

Carnegie - 19-5 in region, currently 3rd in Great Lakes
-(not sure their OWP, but I'm sure Brandeis is way betteR)
-Wins against GL1 John Carroll, GL5 Wooster, E5 Rochester (twice)
-Manageable losses: MW2 Wash U (twice), A1 Richard Stockton (out of region, so doesn't count)
-Bad losses: Chicago, twice to Brandeis
-9-5 in UAA

The Chicago/Wash U situation cancels itself out.  Carnegie did better against Rochester, but Brandeis swept Carnegie and they have the better UAA record (FWIW).  Brandeis' OWP is better, but they have more losses in region.  Carnegie's wins over John Carroll and Wooster slightly trump Brandeis' wins over RIC and Amherst, but not by much.  Carnegie was home both times, while Brandeis won at Amherst (though, to be fair, the RIC win should mean less than it does because Bobby Bailey was out for RIC). 

So, it's close.  Carnegie's advantages are fewer bad losses, a better signature win (John Carroll>RIC) and a better regional record, albeit in a weaker region.  Brandeis' major advantage is the OWP.  Carnegie seems to have the edge, but it's slight.

And since it's slight, I'm wondering how the committee can possibly ignore the head-to-head situation and Brandeis' superior UAA record.  I know neither is supposed to play a major role in the committee's decision-making process, but I'd think Deis and Carnegie would be on the board at about the same time.  If so, how can you ignore those factors? 

Am I off base here?  Thoughts?

You missed one significant win for CMU on the road, against Averett.  They are now 17-5 in the South, won the USAC AQ, and have a very good chance of being ranked in the unpublished final rankings.  By the way, CMU did not lose to Chicago, but rather Case Western.

In terms of a Pool C, I think CMU may face some problems if Brandeis is on the board at the same time as them, but that is not a given. 

Ahh, that's right, they lost to Case, not Chicago.  Not sure whether that's better or worse. 

[Hugenerd]

Also I dont know why you consider Brandeis a bad lost, they were ranked NE#8 last week.  It is obviously bad head-to-head, but its not a tremendous upset.  I would say CMU has one bad loss, while Brandeis has 3 bad losses. 

The one positive for CMU is that they may be first on the board in the GL.  Last week, Capital was ranked #2 and CMU was ranked #3.  Capital lost to JCU again, meaning their record against in-region ranked oppents will be 1-2, while CMU will be 2-0 (they beat JCU and Wooster).  CMU will also have better OWP and OOWP numbers than Capital.  Capital will be 22-4 (0.85 winning%) and CMU will be 15-5 (0.75), but will that be enough to keep Capital over CMU.  IF CMU is ranked first in the GL, then that means they would be on the board before Brandeis, but would they get off the board before Brandeis came on?  To ponder that question we can look at the NE rankings.  Using last weeks rankings, the teams ranked ahead of Brandeis that definitely need a Pool C are WPI, RIC and Salem State.  How does RIC and Salem State match-up against CMU?  RIC also lost to Brandeis, has similar OWP, slightly lower OOWP and also has 5 regional losses.  Salem State has not played Brandeis, has 6 region losses, and will have slightly higher OWP, and slightly lower OOWP.  If CMU is ranked ahead of one of these teams, that means they will come off the board before Brandeis gets on which could make all the difference for CMU.

[pradam]

Also I dont know why you consider Brandeis a bad lost, they were ranked NE#8 last week.  It is obviously bad head-to-head, but its not a tremendous upset.  I would say CMU has one bad loss, while Brandeis has 3 bad losses. 

It's bad only in the sense that the committee will consider H2H results.  I didn't really know where to put that information, so I put them in the "bad loss" category even though they really aren't.

I'd agree that CMU has only one bad loss, while Brandeis has three. 

The one positive for CMU is that they may be first on the board in the GL.  Last week, Capital was ranked #2 and CMU was ranked #3.  Capital lost to JCU again, meaning their record against in-region ranked oppents will be 1-2, while CMU will be 2-0 (they beat JCU and Wooster).  CMU will also have better OWP and OOWP numbers than Capital.  Capital will be 22-4 (0.85 winning%) and CMU will be 15-5 (0.75), but will that be enough to keep Capital over CMU.  IF CMU is ranked first in the GL, then that means they would be on the board before Brandeis, but would they get off the board before Brandeis came on?  To ponder that question we can look at the NE rankings.  Using last weeks rankings, the teams ranked ahead of Brandeis that definitely need a Pool C are WPI, RIC and Salem State.  How does RIC and Salem State match-up against CMU?  RIC also lost to Brandeis, has similar OWP, slightly lower OOWP and also has 5 regional losses.  Salem State has not played Brandeis, has 6 region losses, and will have slightly higher OWP, and slightly lower OOWP.  If CMU is ranked ahead of one of these teams, that means they will come off the board before Brandeis gets on which could make all the difference for CMU.

That's interesting, though Carnegie has a lot in winning% to make up the gap.  I'd guess that Capital would stay in front of Carnegie, but barely. 

As far as the Northeast, if Carnegie can go before RIC and Salem, why not Brandeis?  RIC now has fiven regional losses.  They have good wins over UMD (twice, who beat Brandeis) and Bridgewater, but also has bad losses to Colby, Springfield and Keene (not to mention Brandeis) and a lower OWP than Deis.  RIC tops Deis, but it's not as wide a gap as I originally thought.  Salem's probably going to be easier for Brandeis to pass.  They have one marquee win (WPI, who beat Brandeis) and a higher winning %, but a lower OWP.  Brandeis' win over Amherst trumps Salem's win over MIT (and Bowdoin too).  Both teams lost to Framingham State.  Salem is 2-3 against the likely NE top 10 (Bowdoin will drop out), Brandeis is 2-2.  Could Brandeis not pass Salem?

Either way, your point is a good one.  I've always felt Carnegie's overall resume was better than Brandeis', except for Brandeis' two H2H wins.  If the committee thinks its way better, it may render the H2H games meaningless.

[Marty Peretz]

Now that UAA play is wrapped up, here are my picks for first team, rookie of the year, and player of the year. Explanations to come when I have more time.

POY--Thompson edges Chamilowek in a close one. Chamilowek would have gotten it if he could have pulled off a miraculous performance in the finale.
1st team- Wallis, Chamilowek, Thompson, Deluca, Einwag.
2nd team-Mish, Corning, Roberson, Nading, Fernandez
3rd team--Anderson, Anderson, Pancratz, Olson, Kaplan, Herring (I added a 6th because, well, this isn't terribly official)

Notable honorable mention selections: Glavan, Small

Rookie of the Year: Richter.. with the Emory frosh all getting consideration.

Didn't see enough UAA action this year to comment much further.

Tried to go according to position, but that became a bit difficult. And, I'll be honest, I know very little about Emory or Case. This board seems to dominated by WU, UC, Roch, Deis, and NYU people.

[deiscanton]

Dylan Richter of Wash U is a good pick for UAA Rookie of the Year despite the fact that he is not the highest scoring rookie in the UAA-- but that is because Wash U has a talented class of frosh, and Richter tends to defer to the other players as well.

The Emory frosh get consideration, but I think that Nate Novosel of Rochester also deserves consideration too, despite the fact that Rochester did not finish as strong as people would have liked them to finish.

[Marty Peretz]

Deiscanton,
I totally forgot about Novosel (indeed, he might get votes for 3rd team of HM as well). He should be the UAA Rook of the year. I'll give him the edge there and Thompson the edge in the UR-WU POY battle for POY. Not surprisingly, in both cases, the players in question did what they did very much because of circumstances. WU is a junio/senior laden team, so Richter got less pt than Novosel and Thompson took less shots than Chamilowek. Novosel is that rare frosh who started every single game. Had Richter started every game, he very likely might have put up bigger numbers, but that's something we'll never know. So, amend my prior comment and give the nod to Novosel. Credit a heads up Allen with bringing it to my attention.

[deiscanton]

Nate Novosel is also my pick for UAA Rookie of the Year, and when I talked with Wash U sports information director Chris Mitchell the week that Wash U was at Brandeis, Mitchell said that Novosel would probably win the UAA Rookie of the Year award this season, but that Richter is a future candidate for UAA Player of the Year once he reaches his junior and senior seasons at Wash U.

[BUBeaverFan]

Wash U vs. Lawrence @ Elmhurst
Brandeis vs. Scranton @ Franklin & Marshall
Carnegie Mellon vs. Brockport State @John Carroll

[Hugenerd]

So those of you who chose CMU and Brandeis in the poll above are the winners (only 4 of 12 got it right).

[jagluski]

Wash U vs. Lawrence @ Elmhurst
Brandeis vs. Scranton @ Franklin & Marshall
Carnegie Mellon vs. Brockport State @John Carroll

'


Wash U got a pretty tough draw with St. Thomas, Elmhurst, Puget Sound, Wheaton, UW-Whitewater, and UW-SP all in their sectional.  Whoever gets to Salem from that group definitely deserves it.

[HopeConvert]

Top 7 teams in the country in that sectional.

[jagluski]

Top 7 teams in the country in that sectional.

I left out Platteville.  You are correct.

[mark_reichert]

I wish somebody could explain the Defending Champions being forced to play at the one road court they've lost on this year.  Going for the UAA women all hosting established a conflict?  Punishment for losing to Rochester?  Travel requirements because Lawrence is in the group?

On the other hand, Howard Payne is having to come to St. Louis, but then Abilene Texas is much more out of the way.  Lambert International Airport is an easy 15 minute drive from the Clayton hotels and the WashU Field House.