Ranking D3 BBall Conferences

[NY24]

Need opinions on strength of D3 conferences by region...please help

[Mr. Ypsi]

Need opinions on strength of D3 conferences by region...please help

This fluctuates more year-to-year than in many sports, since even one or two 'superstars' (with at least an adequate back-up cast) can make a team go.

Lately I would say the top three are definitely WIAC, CCIW, and UAA (pick your order), with NESCAC and ODAC challenging them (apologies if I forgot anyone).

In terms of depth (probably the best measure of a total conference), I'd say the WIAC and CCIW (again in either order, depending on year) have pretty consistently had the best 6th or 7th place teams in the country.

[Gregory Sager]

I don't agree with Chuck that the top three conferences are interchangeable. This is how I see the top baker's dozen:

1. WIAC -- clear-cut perennial #1
2. CCIW -- clear-cut perennial #2
3. UAA -- within shouting distance of the top two, but not quite there
4. OAC -- historically strong top-to-bottom
5. NESCAC -- hard to gauge, since it plays in a poor region and uses that wimpy single round-robin format
6. ODAC -- most improved league in D3 over the past ten years
7. NJAC -- former powerhouse circuit has slipped in recent seasons
8. NWC -- has had three separate schools make good postseason showings in this decade
9. MWC -- second-most improved league in D3 over the past ten years
10. MIAA --Hope, Calvin, and sometimes Albion ... and then nothing but dross
11. Centennial -- best of a mediocre region
12. HCAC -- very good balance ranks it over the MIAC
13. MIAC -- can anybody hoop up there besides the Tommies and the Gusties?

In terms of ranking each region league-by-league, well ... that's a little more difficult. You're better off going into the respective rooms in each region to determine, f'rinstance, whether the Liberty League is better than the E8 or the SUNYAC, or whether the GNAC or the CCC is better, or the USA South vs. the GSAC.

[Hugenerd]

I think it is difficult to argue WIAC at #1 historically (although the last couple of years the UAA has had 3-4 NCAA tourney teams, which is a lot for a d3 conference, as well as the last two national champions), but when was the last time the CCIW had a team win the NCAA?  I would hardly call them the clearcut pernennial #2 of the past decade.  The last time they had a team win the whole thing, if I am not mistaken, is Illinois Wesleyan in 1997.  Since then, the WIAC has won 4, the UAA has won 2, the NESCAC has won 2, with several other conferences also winning one.  

I think if you look at just recent years, specifically the last 3 years, the UAA has done extremely well and I would take their resume against anyone.  In 2007 they had 4 NCAA teams, in 2008 they had 4, and in 2009 they had 3.   I believe that in a couple of those years, the UAA placed a total of 6 of their 8 teams in postseason tournaments, with CMU and NYU playing in the ECAC tourneys (which I believe CMU won a couple years ago).  Obviously, ECACs are only regional to the northeast, so it is not a fair comparison to the midwest, but this does show depth through at least the top 6.  During those 3 years, WashU has made the final four every year, including two national championships and a 3rd palce finish.  In 2008, the UAA had 3 top 16 teams and 2 top 8 teams.  

If you look further back, the WIAC schools have done extremely well, with 6 championships since 1990 and a runner up finish.  In that time, the UAA has 3 championships and 3 runner up finishes.  While the CCIW has 1 championship and 1 runner-up finish in that time, and none since 1997 (if I am not mistaken).  I know the CCIW is a tough conference, but if you look at how the conference has faired in the NCAA tourney, I think you would be hard pressed to rank their performance over that of the UAA.

I would rank the top 4 nationally like this, which is based mainly on post-season performance:

Last 3 years:

UAA
WIAC
CCIW
ODAC

Last 20 years:

WIAC
UAA
MIAA
CCIW

However, the question initally posed was a bit ambiguous.  So if you are looking just by region, it gets a bit difficult because the UAA is spread out over at least 4 regions, so it would be hard to rank a one or two teams over an entire conference in a given region.  In the northeast, I would say the top conferences are: NESCAC, Little East and NEWMAC (and the last few years Brandeis has been strong out of the UAA).  In the East, I would put UAA first just because of Rochester, but if you are looking at entire conferences in the region, the top 3 are probably the Liberty League, E8 and the SUNYAC.  In the atlantic, I would say the top conference is the NJAC.  In the middle atlantic: the Landmark (Catholic has won some championships), the CAC, the Centennial, and the AMCC could all have arguments made for them.  In the south, the ODAC is the best conference.  In the Great Lakes, MIAA, OAC, and NCAC are all strong, but the best conference has varied between those 3 from year to year.  In the Midwest, it is the CCIW and UAA (although UAA only has WashU and Chicago in this region).  In the West, the WIAC is the best.

Because of the regional empahsis in d3, however, I think it is hard to rank conferences nationally.  How well would CCIW schools have done if many of them hadnt been ousted by WashU the last 3 years?  Who knows, but based on the fact that WashU has made it to the final four out of that region each of those years, I dont know how you can but them above the UAA.

[Gregory Sager]

I think it is difficult to argue WIAC at #1 historically (although the last couple of years the UAA has had 3-4 NCAA tourney teams, which is a lot for a d3 conference, as well as the last two national champions), but when was the last time the CCIW had a team win the NCAA?  I would hardly call them the clearcut pernennial #2 of the past decade.  The last time they had a team win the whole thing, if I am not mistaken, is Illinois Wesleyan in 1997.  Since then, the WIAC has won 4, the UAA has won 2, the NESCAC has won 2, with several other conferences also winning one.

National championships are one way of measuring league-wide success in D3, but they're hardly the best way. In fact, I'd argue that they're not even among the top three methods. Want proof as to why? Two words: Calvin College. The Knights have won two national championships over the past couple of decades; the CCIW over that span has won one. Furthermore, the Knights have a national championship within the past decade, while the CCIW has none. So does that mean that the MIAA is a better league than the CCIW? Not even the most diehard MIAA partisan would argue that. And I don't think that the most diehard ODAC or OAC partisans would argue their leagues' supremacy over the CCIW, either, even though they, too, have brought home Big Doorstops in this decade while the CCIW hasn't.

League strength is best measured from top-to-bottom -- and even if you have to measure it from the top, national championships are not necessarily the best way to do so.

I think if you look at just recent years, specifically the last 3 years, the UAA has done extremely well and I would take their resume against anyone.  In 2007 they had 4 NCAA teams, in 2008 they had 4, and in 2009 they had 3.   I believe that in a couple of those years, the UAA placed a total of 6 of their 8 teams in postseason tournaments, with CMU and NYU playing in the ECAC tourneys (which I believe CMU won a couple years ago).  Obviously, ECACs are only regional to the northeast, so it is not a fair comparison to the midwest, but this does show depth through at least the top 6.  During those 3 years, WashU has made the final four every year, including two national championships and a 3rd palce finish.  In 2008, the UAA had 3 top 16 teams and 2 top 8 teams.

What you neglected to mention is that the UAA gets to feast upon bad regional competition in the Northeast and East regions in both the regular season and the postseason, from which Brandeis, Rochester, and NYU benefit. Since the postseason success of Brandeis and (especially) Rochester has been considerable in recent years, stacking all of the UAA's postseason success into one pile as if it was all the same is highly deceptive.

I know the CCIW is a tough conference, but if you look at how the conference has faired in the NCAA tourney, I think you would be hard pressed to rank their performance over that of the UAA.

Not at all. I base my comparison between the CCIW and UAA upon the best method of all: Firsthand observation. Over the past decade I have seen a plethora of CCIW games every season (both non-conference and conference), and all but a few of Chicago's home games. In other words, I get more than a small sampling of both leagues every year -- and I'm very comfortable in saying that, top to bottom, the CCIW is consistently a better league.

[Hugenerd]

I know you know your d3 basketball.  I also know that the CCIW is a very tough conference and always very competitive with any conference in the country.  With that said, although the league is regularly very strong top to bottom, you also need to take into account the strength at the top as well.  The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU.  Because of the regional scheduling, I think it is only really fair to rank leagues in-region.  There are not a huge number of games out of region where you can make broad conclusions.  There are occasional games out-of-region in the regular season, but I dont think there is enough of them to difinitively rank conferences.

I know that often there are multiple CCIW teams ranked in the top 25, and many of them could play with any team in the country.  All I was saying was that if you want to make a strong argument for being the top or one of the top two conferences in the nation, some of your teams are going to have to perform on the national stage (since the NCAAs are the only national tourney we have, even though the initial stages are regional).  If you are just talking about in-region, however, I think the CCIW can definitely say they are the top team in the Midwest. 

In conclusion, when you are ranking conferences nationally, when 90% of games are played regionally in d3, I disagree that there are many better ways then to look at the season ending tourney. I feel that most other arguments present a lot of subjectivity.  Although the tourney is initially set-up regionally, if you have some of the best teams in the country, someone from your conference should be making it to the late stages of the tourney. I know that the CCIW teams are very good, but the only chance they have to show that definitively is by making the final four and beating the best teams from the other regions.  That is my opinion, anyway.   

By the way, I agree with you about NYU, they play a cupcake out-of-conference schedule and have regularly gone 11-0 out-of-conference followed up by mediocre UAA records.  Rochester and Brandeis I think have a better argument.  Rochester has done well in the tourney and Brandeis plays alot of NESCAC schools, which is also a top conference in d3, in my opinion.  With that said, the UAA is the one conference that plays in multiple regions so you can get a gauge where their teams are in their respective regions.  WashU has regularly been the top team in the Midwest (Chicago has been near the top in the past, not last year), Rochester is always a top team in the East, CMU has been a top team in the Great Lakes recently, and Brandeis has also been a top team in the Northeast recently.  With that said, it is really tough to rank teams nationally in d3, with the lack of games between regions.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Two problems with using the national tourney as a primary conference measurement:

1. It only tests the very top of a conference; to me, depth is the number one factor in conference strength.  Looking only at the top would, as Greg noted, overrate the MIAA (Calvin, Hope, and sometimes Albion) or even more so the NCAC (Witt and Woo).

2. The tourney, too, is regional.  Last year went to the ultimate extreme, with the top SEVEN teams in the d3hoops.com poll all grouped in the same quadrant; meanwhile, SOMEONE has to win the East, however mediocre they may be!

[BTW, using WashU as the standard for saying the CCIW has not done well lately in the tourney is a bit unfair - NO ONE has done very well lately by that standard!]

In my first post, I noted 'apologies if I forgot anyone' - well, apologies to the OAC.  I'd agree with 4th over the 'general' past, with occasional years where NESCAC or ODAC may have passed them.

[AndOne]

I know you know your d3 basketball.  I also know that the CCIW is a very tough conference and always very competitive with any conference in the country.  With that said, although the league is regularly very strong top to bottom, you also need to take into account the strength at the top as well.  The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU.  Because of the regional scheduling, I think it is only really fair to rank leagues in-region.  There are not a huge number of games out of region where you can make broad conclusions.  There are occasional games out-of-region in the regular season, but I dont think there is enough of them to difinitively rank conferences.

I know that often there are multiple CCIW teams ranked in the top 25, and many of them could play with any team in the country.  All I was saying was that if you want to make a strong argument for being the top or one of the top two conferences in the nation, some of your teams are going to have to perform on the national stage (since the NCAAs are the only national tourney we have, even though the initial stages are regional).  If you are just talking about in-region, however, I think the CCIW can definitely say they are the top team in the Midwest. 

In conclusion, when you are ranking conferences nationally, when 90% of games are played regionally in d3, I disagree that there are many better ways then to look at the season ending tourney. I feel that most other arguments present a lot of subjectivity.  Although the tourney is initially set-up regionally, if you have some of the best teams in the country, someone from your conference should be making it to the late stages of the tourney. I know that the CCIW teams are very good, but the only chance they have to show that definitively is by making the final four and beating the best teams from the other regions.  That is my opinion, anyway.   

By the way, I agree with you about NYU, they play a cupcake out-of-conference schedule and have regularly gone 11-0 out-of-conference followed up by mediocre UAA records.  Rochester and Brandeis I think have a better argument.  Rochester has done well in the tourney and Brandeis plays alot of NESCAC schools, which is also a top conference in d3, in my opinion.  With that said, the UAA is the one conference that plays in multiple regions so you can get a gauge where their teams are in their respective regions.  WashU has regularly been the top team in the Midwest (Chicago has been near the top in the past, not last year), Rochester is always a top team in the East, CMU has been a top team in the Great Lakes recently, and Brandeis has also been a top team in the Northeast recently.  With that said, it is really tough to rank teams nationally in d3, with the lack of games between regions.

In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
Also, since 05-06, I believe the CCIW is 4-4 vs Wash U, including a loss to Elmhurst last year in their most recent matchup with a CCIW opponent. 

[old_hooper]

You can say what you want about the NE basketball but keep in mind they have had a team in the championship game 6 out of 7 years.  There are so many schools in the NE that the talent pool is watered down but don't take anything away from the good teams.  It still takes the really good teams to make it to that game.

[Ralph Turner]

You can say what you want about the NE basketball but keep in mind they have had a team in the championship game 6 out of 7 years.  There are so many schools in the NE that the talent pool is watered down but don't take anything away from the good teams.  It still takes the really good teams to make it to that game.

Detractors to that argument will contend that the road to Salem out of the Northeast, East and Mid-Atlantic Regions is the easiest, too.  Those New England teams have had an easier path.

[Hugenerd]

I know you know your d3 basketball.  I also know that the CCIW is a very tough conference and always very competitive with any conference in the country.  With that said, although the league is regularly very strong top to bottom, you also need to take into account the strength at the top as well.  The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU.  Because of the regional scheduling, I think it is only really fair to rank leagues in-region.  There are not a huge number of games out of region where you can make broad conclusions.  There are occasional games out-of-region in the regular season, but I dont think there is enough of them to difinitively rank conferences.

I know that often there are multiple CCIW teams ranked in the top 25, and many of them could play with any team in the country.  All I was saying was that if you want to make a strong argument for being the top or one of the top two conferences in the nation, some of your teams are going to have to perform on the national stage (since the NCAAs are the only national tourney we have, even though the initial stages are regional).  If you are just talking about in-region, however, I think the CCIW can definitely say they are the top team in the Midwest. 

In conclusion, when you are ranking conferences nationally, when 90% of games are played regionally in d3, I disagree that there are many better ways then to look at the season ending tourney. I feel that most other arguments present a lot of subjectivity.  Although the tourney is initially set-up regionally, if you have some of the best teams in the country, someone from your conference should be making it to the late stages of the tourney. I know that the CCIW teams are very good, but the only chance they have to show that definitively is by making the final four and beating the best teams from the other regions.  That is my opinion, anyway.   

By the way, I agree with you about NYU, they play a cupcake out-of-conference schedule and have regularly gone 11-0 out-of-conference followed up by mediocre UAA records.  Rochester and Brandeis I think have a better argument.  Rochester has done well in the tourney and Brandeis plays alot of NESCAC schools, which is also a top conference in d3, in my opinion.  With that said, the UAA is the one conference that plays in multiple regions so you can get a gauge where their teams are in their respective regions.  WashU has regularly been the top team in the Midwest (Chicago has been near the top in the past, not last year), Rochester is always a top team in the East, CMU has been a top team in the Great Lakes recently, and Brandeis has also been a top team in the Northeast recently.  With that said, it is really tough to rank teams nationally in d3, with the lack of games between regions.

In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
Also, since 05-06, I believe the CCIW is 4-4 vs Wash U, including a loss to Elmhurst last year in their most recent matchup with a CCIW opponent. 

Check your CCIW vs. WhashU numbers.  WashU's last game against a CCIW opponent was actually a win over Wheaton in last year's tourney.  WashU was 4-1 against the CCIW last year alone (wins: North Park, Augie, IWU, and Wheaton).  2-1 the year before that, and 1-1 the year before that.  That makes 7-3, if I am not mistaken.  If you dont count postseason, they are 5-3.  By the way, 8 of those 10 games have been away from home (on the road or neutral site) and 6 have been true road games.

Also, putting stock in the "others receiving votes category" is a bit of a stretch.  Anyone receiving less than 10 points is essentially noise, because one voter putting you in their top 25, especially early in the season, does not make you a legit top 25 team (especially since SIDs and coaches in the same conference are also likely voters).  

You can make the same top-to-bottom argument recently with the UAA.  The UAA has had as many as six teams play in a single postseason in the last a few years (3-4 in the NCAAs, 2 in ECACs).  They have had four 20-win teams two of the last three years, in 2008 they had 5 19+ win teams, and 4 NCAA teams 2 of the last 3 years (and 3 last year).  The only couple teams that have been consistently down the last 5 years have been Case and Emory.  I know you guys are going to bring up the regional argument, but the UAA schools are located where they are and that is not going to change, so I think having 4 20 win teams and 6 teams with 15+ wins (out of 8) is pretty darn deep.  Even the CCIW cant claim more than two 20 win teams in any of those years.  The league games are also usually close, WashU was nearly nocked off on consecutive nights against Case Western and Emory last season (two of the bottom 3 teams).  Add to that how the UAA has performed in the postseason recently, I think the UAA has been stronger than the CCIW in the last 3-5 years.  

Also, I understand the tourney is setup regionally, however, the selection committee has to look at the top team in each region when assigning at-large bids.  The fact that Brandeis, Rochester, and CMU have taken at large bids over CCIW schools also shows that other people in-the-know have rated UAA schools ahead of their CCIW counterparts.  The fact that the 3rd or 4th ranked UAA team is getting an at-large bid over the 2nd or 3rd ranked CCIW school should say something (CCIW has had 1-2 NCAA teams the last 3 years).  In 2007, 4 UAA teams made it, one from CCIW (3 at large for UAA, none for CCIW).  In 2008, 4 UAA schools, 2 CCIW (3 at large for UAA, 1 for CCIW).  In 2009, 3 UAA and 2 CCIW (2 UAA at large, 1 CCIW).

[sac]

Also, I understand the tourney is setup regionally, however, the selection committee has to look at the top team in each region when assigning at-large bids.  The fact that Brandeis, Rochester, and CMU have taken at large bids over CCIW schools also shows that other people in-the-know have rated UAA schools ahead of their CCIW counterparts.  The fact that the 3rd or 4th ranked UAA team is getting an at-large bid over the 2nd or 3rd ranked CCIW school should say something (CCIW has had 1-2 NCAA teams the last 3 years).  In 2007, 4 UAA teams made it, one from CCIW (3 at large for UAA, none for CCIW).  In 2008, 4 UAA schools, 2 CCIW (3 at large for UAA, 1 for CCIW).  In 2009, 3 UAA and 2 CCIW (2 UAA at large, 1 CCIW).

All this says is the UAA schools benefit from being in 4 different regions.  If they were in one Region, some of the recent UAA at large's would never make the table for discussion as  an at large selection because they'd never be ranked in that region.

[Hugenerd]

Also, I understand the tourney is setup regionally, however, the selection committee has to look at the top team in each region when assigning at-large bids.  The fact that Brandeis, Rochester, and CMU have taken at large bids over CCIW schools also shows that other people in-the-know have rated UAA schools ahead of their CCIW counterparts.  The fact that the 3rd or 4th ranked UAA team is getting an at-large bid over the 2nd or 3rd ranked CCIW school should say something (CCIW has had 1-2 NCAA teams the last 3 years).  In 2007, 4 UAA teams made it, one from CCIW (3 at large for UAA, none for CCIW).  In 2008, 4 UAA schools, 2 CCIW (3 at large for UAA, 1 for CCIW).  In 2009, 3 UAA and 2 CCIW (2 UAA at large, 1 CCIW).

All this says is the UAA schools benefit from being in 4 different regions.  If they were in one Region, some of the recent UAA at large's would never make the table for discussion as  an at large selection because they'd never be ranked in that region.

That comment is not completely true.  The "official" ranking list is actually longer than the publicly released one.  The UAA may benefit from have more than one team on the table at a time, but those teams are still being picked over the current midwest team on the table (which likely is a CCIW team).  The system doesnt state that a region cannot have multiple picks in a row for at large, so if the CCIW schools had better resumes, they, in theory, could have multiple schools picked consecutively before a UAA school, regardless of the number of UAA schools on the table.



*  Edit fixed format to show quote

[sac]

The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU. 

2008 WashU 70 Augustana 67 OT
2009 WashU 55 Wheaton 52

.........this is hardly "not done well", neither is Augustana winning 2 of the last 3 regular season meetings with the only loss at WashU in OT.

and neither is this "not done well in the NCAAs in general"

2006--IWU finished 3rd in NCAA's
2008--Augustana elimnated by Washington in OT in 2nd round (National Champion)
2008--Wheaton eliminated by Hope @ Hope in quarterfinals (3rd place team)
2009--Wheaton eliminated by Washington in sweet 16 (National Champion).......this was an absolute travesty of a pairing.

[sac]

In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.

No offense to the CCIW posters, but that was a complete joke.....and only proved the indecisiveness of voters rather than actual strength of the CCIW.