Ranking D3 BBall Conferences

[Ralph Turner]

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.

+1, sac! 

[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.

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

All that would have to happen is a UAA school get "stuck" in the rankings behind someone ranked ahead of them in that region that doesn't get picked for Pool C, and they would never even come up for discussion.

Your theory assumes the best 18 teams are being picked for Pool C, that may not be the case every season.

This could happen very easily if all the UAA teams were in one region.

[Hugenerd]

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.

When I said "not done well", I meant compared to the UAA.

[Mr. Ypsi]

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.

Watch the broad brush, sac - I agree with you!  I won't go so far as to say 'complete joke', but I do see it as indecisiveness - all seven had a very good record at that time; 3 or 4 were almost no-brainer top 25s, but voters were uncertain which other CCIW team deserved a 23rd or 25th place vote.

Still that does indicate great depth.  The CCIW won (if I recall correctly) over 80% of their non-con games; only a relative handful were out-and-out cupcakes.  While there were certainly not seven teams deserving of top 25 votes, I suspect there may have been seven top 100 teams.

[Hugenerd]

Dont get me wrong, I know that the UAA has a huge advantage when it comes to the system of d3 post season selections.  I think having multiple teams on the table isnt even one of the biggest advantages. The biggest, I would say, is the advantage of playing good teams in each of the regions, which decreases the amount of "in-breading" in the schedule (I am sure we all remember that discussion from the last couple Pool C boards).  This gives them a huge advantage in OWP and OOWP.

That said, I still think the UAAs resume is better than the CCIW's over the last few years.   In all honesty, because of the factors we have pointed out, I dont think a fair comparison is possible on the national stage, especially if you are willing to throw out all post-season performances because of the predescribed regional bias.  

[Hugenerd]

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.

Watch the broad brush, sac - I agree with you!  I won't go so far as to say 'complete joke', but I do see it as indecisiveness - all seven had a very good record at that time; 3 or 4 were almost no-brainer top 25s, but voters were uncertain which other CCIW team deserved a 23rd or 25th place vote.

Still that does indicate great depth.  The CCIW won (if I recall correctly) over 80% of their non-con games; only a relative handful were out-and-out cupcakes.  While there were certainly not seven teams deserving of top 25 votes, I suspect there may have been seven top 100 teams.

Well, only 2 of those teams were ranked at the end of the year with only 3 receiving votes.  At the 6 week point, 3 were ranked, Carthage was just outside of the top 25 and 3 had received 8 or less votes.  I am going to have to agree with sac's assessment on this one.    I think it is more likely that several different voters had varying #4 CCIW teams and they each put that team somewhere between 18-25.  I dont think it is likely that multiple voters had 5-7 CCIW teams ranked.

[Ralph Turner]

Dont get me wrong, I know that the UAA has a huge advantage when it comes to the system of d3 post season selections.  I think having multiple teams on the table isnt even one of the biggest advantages. The biggest, I would say, is the advantage of playing good teams in each of the regions, which decreases the amount of "in-breading" in the schedule (I am sure we all remember that discussion from the last couple Pool C boards).  This gives them a huge advantage in OWP and OOWP.

That said, I still think the UAAs resume is better than the CCIW's over the last few years.   In all honesty, because of the factors we have pointed out, I dont think a fair comparison is possible on the national stage, especially if you are willing to throw out all post-season performances because of the predescribed regional bias.  

Another +1!


We are well on our way in having completed the annual Pool C/OWP/OOWP discussion before the opening of pre-season practice!   

[Titan Q]

There is absolutely no question in my mind that Wash U has been better than the CCIW's best team the last few years, and the head-to-head results between Wash U and CCIW teams is direct evidence.  But almost all of those games have been nailbiters...

2007
Augustana 75
Wash U 73
(@ Augie)

Wash U 75
IWU 63
(@ IWU)


2008
Augustana 66
Wash U 60
(neutral)

Wash U 69
IWU 66
(@ Wash U)

Wash U 70
Augustana 67 (OT)
(@ Augie)

2009
Wash U 89
North Park 65
(neutral)

Wash U 87
Augustana 82 (OT)
(@ Augie)

Wash U 93
IWU 86
(@ Wash U)

Elmhurst 82
Wash U 75
(@ Elmhurst)

Wash U 55
Wheaton 52
(@ Wheaton)


Wash U is 7-3 vs the CCIW over the course of the last 3 seasons.  Note, though, that 3 of those wins were vs CCIW bottom-feaders - the wins over 0-14 North Park and 5-9 IWU last year, and the win vs 4-10 IWU in 2007.  Take those out and the Bears are 4-3 in games vs fellow conference "contenders", with basically all 4 wins coming down to the final seconds (2 OT's and 2 3-point games).

If that is the argument for the UAA being the stronger conference, I'm just not sure there is enough separation there to make that case.

Believe me, I have a ton of respect for both Wash U and the UAA...just not sold at all on the logic here, hugenerd.

[Hugenerd]

There is absolutely no question in my mind that Wash U has been better than the CCIW's best team the last few years, and the head-to-head results between Wash U and CCIW teams is direct evidence.  But almost all of those games have been nailbiters...

2007
Augustana 75
Wash U 73
(@ Augie)

Wash U 75
IWU 63
(@ IWU)


2008

Augustana 66
Wash U 60
(neutral)

Wash U 69
IWU 66
(@ Wash U)

Wash U 70
Augustana 67 (OT)
(@ Augie)

2009

Wash U 89
North Park 65
(neutral)

Wash U 87
Augustana 82 (OT)
(@ Augie)

Wash U 93
IWU 86
(@ Wash U)

Elmhurst 82
Wash U 75
(@ Elmhurst)

Wash U 55
Wheaton 52
(@ Wheaton)


Wash U is 7-3 vs the CCIW over the course of the last 3 seasons.  Note, though, that two of those wins were vs CCIW bottom-feaders - the wins over 0-14 North Park and 7th place IWU last year.  Take those out and the Bears are 5-3 vs fellow conference "contenders", with basically all 5 wins coming down to the final seconds.

If that is the argument for the UAA being the stronger conference, I'm just not sure there is enough separation there to make that case.

Believe me, I have a ton of respect for both Wash U and the UAA...just not sold at all on the logic here, hugenerd.

This wasnt my entire argument, you can read my other posts to see the other ones.  One thing you left out in your conclusions was that 8 of those 10 games were road games for WashU (either true road or neutral site).  

I made points about the top-to-bottom strength, the number of 20+ win teams, the number of postseason teams,  the number of at-large bids, the performance of postseason teams (not just WashU), and the number of national championships (I may be leaving out something).  The problem remains that because of the strong regional tie-in with any form of metric used, all these points are very subjective.  There is no UAA-CCIW challenge like there is between some conferences in d1 that we can use as definitive evidence.  Therefore, it is clear that no one is going to convince anybody of anything, because you can always say that this data is regionally biased (because essentially every general statistic is regionally biased in d3).

[Mr. Ypsi]

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.

Watch the broad brush, sac - I agree with you!  I won't go so far as to say 'complete joke', but I do see it as indecisiveness - all seven had a very good record at that time; 3 or 4 were almost no-brainer top 25s, but voters were uncertain which other CCIW team deserved a 23rd or 25th place vote.

Still that does indicate great depth.  The CCIW won (if I recall correctly) over 80% of their non-con games; only a relative handful were out-and-out cupcakes.  While there were certainly not seven teams deserving of top 25 votes, I suspect there may have been seven top 100 teams.

Well, only 2 of those teams were ranked at the end of the year with only 3 receiving votes.  At the 6 week point, 3 were ranked, Carthage was just outside of the top 25 and 3 had received 8 or less votes.  I am going to have to agree with sac's assessment on this one.    I think it is more likely that several different voters had varying #4 CCIW teams and they each put that team somewhere between 18-25.  I dont think it is likely that multiple voters had 5-7 CCIW teams ranked.

If you review my post, I believe that is precisely what I said!   I'll go one step further than you - I doubt ANY one voter listed more than 5 CCIW teams.  But as of that point in the season, there were 7 teams for whom a plausible case could be made; different voters differed on who the fourth or fifth most worthy team was.

One thing that you may have thought made your case more applicable, but I think makes it weaker - you're relying too much on what WashU has done to the CCIW lately.  The last two years that doesn't exactly make the CCIW the Lone Ranger!

[Though if you wish to go back further, the all-time IWU-WashU series is 16-11 for the Titans (who also lead Chicago, 11-5)! ]

[Gregory Sager]

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.

Of course, and since Wash U has been the premier program in the land over the past three-year span, nobody will compare to the UAA in that regard, the WIAC included. But you're evading the essential point here, which is that league strength is measured top-to-bottom. In other words, the fifteen-point neutral-court win by CCIW eighth-place North Park over UAA sixth-place Case Western Reserve last season is as relevant as any game played by Wash U against Augie, Wheaton, or the like.

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.

Exactly. And since the East Region has been the weakest-performing region in the tournament over the past twenty years, it only exaggerates further the fact that the Northeast Region is fairly weak to begin with, since those two regions are invariably paired in the early rounds of the tourney every March. Meanwhile, as Chuck pointed out, the overloaded West and Midwest regions always get stuck playing each other, again due to geography -- and on the occasions where there's some actual crossover, the teams that get crossed over into the West/Midwest meat grinder tend to be Hope and/or Calvin, again for reasons of geography, and Hope and Calvin are not exactly a couple of East-Region-caliber floral arrangements.

The people I know who have seen the Amherst and Williams teams of recent Final Four vintage have attested to their bona-fides. But there's no mistaking that Ralph's right about those teams -- and Rochester and Brandeis, too, while we're on the subject of the UAA -- having had easier roads to Salem than anybody else.

Plus, I don't buy the "we've got so many schools that the talent is watered down" excuse for the Northeast. First of all, New England (i.e., the Northeast Region) has a very high population density when compared with other regions, so the correspondingly high D3-school density is balanced out. Second, the league that is by far the region's best, the NESCAC, features schools that recruit nationally rather than merely within New England -- and I'm thinking of Amherst and Williams in particular when I say that.

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).

Please stop bringing up the ECAC. It's absolutely, totally, and completely irrelevant. Since it does not include anything but schools located in the northeastern corner of the country, you can't use it to pad your numbers in any kind of comparison with a midwestern-based conference.

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.

Watch the broad brush, sac - I agree with you!  I won't go so far as to say 'complete joke', but I do see it as indecisiveness - all seven had a very good record at that time; 3 or 4 were almost no-brainer top 25s, but voters were uncertain which other CCIW team deserved a 23rd or 25th place vote.

I'm another CCIW poster who agrees with your assessment as well, sac.

Dont get me wrong, I know that the UAA has a huge advantage when it comes to the system of d3 post season selections.

What I think you're missing here is that what you're conceding is two huge regional advantages for the UAA. One is that the league is spread out over multiple regions. The other is that three of the better programs in the UAA over the past decade have reaped the bonanza of playing in a couple of bottom-feeder regions, the Northeast and the East. (And your countercharge that Brandeis makes up for its Northeast Region location by playing lots of NESCAC teams doesn't wash; in recent campaigns the Judges have only played two NESCAC programs, Tufts and Amherst, in the regular season.)

If we were to give, say, Elmhurst, Carthage, and Wheaton the chance to fatten up on Northeast or East teams every year in November and December and then again in March -- or UW-Platteville, UW-LaCrosse, and UW-Oshkosh, or John Carroll, Capital, and Ohio Northern, while we're at it -- we'd see the exact same syndrome at work.

(Does anyone remember the last time that a CCIW school played a Northeast Region school in the tournament? Allow me to refresh your memory.)

I made points about the top-to-bottom strength, the number of 20+ win teams, the number of postseason teams,  the number of at-large bids, the performance of postseason teams (not just WashU), and the number of national championships (I may be leaving out something).  The problem remains that because of the strong regional tie-in with any form of metric used, all these points are very subjective.

And I freely admit that my ultimate case, firsthand observation, is subjective as well. You're obviously not buying what I have to say about what I've seen with my own eyes on a regular basis in various CCIW gyms and in the Ratner Center, and that's your right. But it doesn't make me any less adamant that the level of the CCIW, from teams one thru eight, is better than the level of the UAA's octet.

[sac]

Give Augustana or Wheaton, Rochester or Brandeis' bracket........then lets see if their success rate would be any different.



.......or what Sager said. 

[WAS A PLAYER]

This is a very interesting and entertaining topic. Anyone who wants to push for their conference can probably come up with a method that sounds good for their conference. I find it hard to argue that the UAA isn't at the top for the last three years anyway. Although if you want to look at all 8 teams you can argue that those teams at the bottom (3), haven't been that competitive. I have seen all UAA teams play and have been to all 18 NCAA tourney games Wash U has played. The fact that Wash U has only won the UAA outright once while going to the Final Four three straght years speaks volumes for the league. The fact that Wash U only hosted 2 of those tourney games also gives strength to the argument. IMO

[Mr. Ypsi]

The fact that Wash U has only won the UAA outright once while going to the Final Four three straght years speaks volumes for the league.

That may not be as unusual as one might expect - the last two times IWU made the Final Four (2001 and 2006), they did not win the CCIW either time.

[WAS A PLAYER]

I don't know how unusual it is but I would say that indicates the strength of that league during those years.