Ranking D3 BBall Conferences

[sac]

The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record.

That is actually a rather new tendency Greg, the MIAA has traditionally been much stronger than its last 3 seasons.

Through the year 2006, the MIAA had a winning non-conference record as far back as I can recall.   Only the last 3 years has the league slipped below the .500 mark.  Unless I'm forgetting a season or two, but I'm certain thats the case.

Last year the MIAA finished a paltry 35-51 out of conference.....the lowest I can remember.

[David Collinge]

The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record. The NCAC is more of the same; Wooster and Wittenberg are consistently among the top teams in D3, and yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.

That is actually....uh....er....well....true.

Anyway....

I hope you all realize that you're never going to settle this argument unless and until you can agree on an objective, measurable definition of "better conference" or "strength of conference."  You have to decide what the definition is ("top to bottom strength," "Massey ratings," "preseason nonconference results," or whatever) and then decide on an objective way to evaluate that definition.

As someone (I think it was Chuck) has already suggested, however, I think the fun in this is the arguing, not a possible resolution.  This is why I never have supported the idea of a playoff in FBS; the ability to argue all off-season who the "real" national champion should be is the only fun thing about D1 football.

Personally, I think strength of conference should be based on all-time victories. 

[John Gleich]

Just for comparison...

2009

CCIW 7 - 1 (WashU wins title)

Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (228) - Wheaton (283)   -  Point (298)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Elmhurst (408) - Carnegie (620)  - Whitewater (344)
Spot 3 (CCIW): Augie (446) - Brandeis (731)  -  Platteville (347)
Spot 4 (CCIW): North Central (526) - Rochester (815)  -  Oshkosh (514)
Spot 5 (CCIW): Carthage (551) - NYU (940)  -  Eau Claire (611)
Spot 6 (CCIW): Millikin (569) - Chicago (1192)  - La Crosse (682)
Spot 7 (CCIW): Ill Wes (655) - Case (1229)  -  Superior  (737)
Spot 8 (CCIW): North Park (909) - Emory (1311)  - River Falls (745)
                                                                              Spot 9 - Stout (966)

WIAC and CCIW were 4-4, WIAC and UAA were 7-1 in favor of WIAC.

Head to head
#1 Point W @ #2 Elmhurst
#2 Whitewater W @ #4 North Central, W @ #2 Elmhurst, L (neut) #1 Wash U
#3 Platteville W @ #5 Carthage, L @ #1 Wheaton
#4 Oshkosh L @ #3 Augustana
#6 La Crosse L @ #2 Elmhurst, W vs. #3 Augustana

So, head to head, the WIAC went 5-3 against the CCIW and 0-1 against the UAA.  All of the games "followed suit" except for #6 La Crosse beating #3 Augustana.

What is interesting is that all of the games in the CCIW vs. WIAC were in the CCIW gym. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Hey, I already admitted it was 'rationalization'!

But your explanation actually confirmed my point - WashU's titles raised the entire UAA.  Thus my (admittedly snarky) conclusion that the CCIW going 7-1 in 2009 was amazing, while the UAA's 7-1 in 2008 was (admittedly hyperbolically) only to 'be expected'!

Well it technically also brings up the CCIW a little, because WashU plays games against the CCIW and plays in the same region (many common opponents-opponents, etc.).  I dont really buy that excuse though, the differences in the top 7 are huge in 2008 in favor of the UAA (the UAA had 3 schools with a higher ranking than the first team in the CCIW).  CWRU still has its expected rankings in the high 1100s - low 1200s, so it didnt help them very much.  Also, the results of a given team are obviously more significant than opponents-opponents, etc.   

This was my attempt to give you "real data" from an established algorithm, but you are still making excuses.  It didnt even show a significant edge to either conference. To be honest, the post-season should have some weight, so the fact that you keep arguing that it shouldnt baffles me.  If the top teams in your conference do well in the tourney, that makes your conference better, hence higher rankings.  It doesnt make sense to ignore the post-season. 

As I said before, the conferences have been very close over the past 3-4 years.  You can make an argument either way.  Nobody is going to gain any headway in this argument.  There is no compelling evidence to show that either conference is supremely better than the other.  I still contend that the UAA has the slight edge with the performance of their teams in the tourney in recent years

If you return to the start of the discussion, you will see this as part of the very first response to the thread-opening post:

Lately I would say the top three are definitely WIAC, CCIW, and UAA (pick your order).

Blame it all on Greg, who established a definite 1,2,3 order!   As a loyal CCIW fan, I had to support my compatriot!   [Though, I confess, I agree with him, but only by a whisker, and not for each and every year.]

But the banter (and attempted proofs) are the fun of these boards.

[Titan Q]

I believe the SLIAC is the best D3 conference in the land.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Now I can't wait to see the 'proofs' on that one!

[Hugenerd]

Now I can't wait to see the 'proofs' on that one!

Probably wouldnt be too hard.  You just need to find a scoring metric that only counts the SLIACs wins, weight those an inordinate amount, and somehow negate all of their losses.  Maybe Mr. Sager can help out with that?

[Hugenerd]

The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record. The NCAC is more of the same; Wooster and Wittenberg are consistently among the top teams in D3, and yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.

That is actually....uh....er....well....true.

Anyway....

I hope you all realize that you're never going to settle this argument unless and until you can agree on an objective, measurable definition of "better conference" or "strength of conference."  You have to decide what the definition is ("top to bottom strength," "Massey ratings," "preseason nonconference results," or whatever) and then decide on an objective way to evaluate that definition.

As someone (I think it was Chuck) has already suggested, however, I think the fun in this is the arguing, not a possible resolution.  This is why I never have supported the idea of a playoff in FBS; the ability to argue all off-season who the "real" national champion should be is the only fun thing about D1 football.

Personally, I think strength of conference should be based on all-time victories. 

I think "top-to-bottom" is even too abstract a metric.  How do you measure top-to-bottom?  I think only one thing is really certain in this argument, and I may be going out on a limb here, is that the UAA has had the best team (WashU) and the worst team (CWRU) when considering the UAA and CCIW over the past 3 years. 

[John Gleich]

I think "top-to-bottom" is even too abstract a metric.  How do you measure top-to-bottom?  I think only one thing is really certain in this argument, and I may be going out on a limb here, is that the UAA has had the best team (WashU) and the worst team (CWRU) when considering the UAA and CCIW over the past 3 years. 

Depending how far you want to take Massey, it would be possible to note that the top CCIW schools "ranked" ahead of even the UAA's #2, and that the #7 team ranked ahead of UAA's #3... but I think Massey's rating really DO take into consideration conference rankings as derived from non-conference results... so the out of conference losses of Emory, Case, Chicago, and NYU may drag the other schools down a bit...  But there is no perfect metric.  On any given night, any one team CAN beat another...  Even if it's 1 in every 1000 games, that one chance does exist... and thus even the game results don't provide the perfect metric.  That defies pretty much all logic... but it's the reason why we even bother to play the games.  One team (or conference) can be better than the other on paper, but the other may score more points on that given night. 

Does that mean the winning team is better?  I guess it depends what the definition of "better" is.  On that particular night they weren't... but is it who would win out of 10, 50, or 100 games?  And how would you even come close to approximating that?  And, also, with the constant fluxuation of teams (from individual players improving as the year goes on to injuries to new offenses/defenses) at what point do we measure?  At the time of the game?  At the end of the season? As an average over the entire season?

The NCAA tournment is set up as a tool to measure who is the "best" at the end of the year... but we've documented how flawed that really is, too.

[David Collinge]

...yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.

The NCAC is about to get a little tougher.

[Gregory Sager]

The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record.

That is actually a rather new tendency Greg, the MIAA has traditionally been much stronger than its last 3 seasons.

Through the year 2006, the MIAA had a winning non-conference record as far back as I can recall.   Only the last 3 years has the league slipped below the .500 mark.  Unless I'm forgetting a season or two, but I'm certain thats the case.

Last year the MIAA finished a paltry 35-51 out of conference.....the lowest I can remember.

I was just trying to keep that "year in and year out" theme going, but your point is well taken, sac. Inflammatory charge retracted.

I hope you all realize that you're never going to settle this argument unless and until you can agree on an objective, measurable definition of "better conference" or "strength of conference."

The whole problem is that Hugenerd won't accept my eyewitness testimony as objective and measurable.

...yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.

The NCAC is about to get a little tougher.

Yeah, I noticed that a few weeks ago. It looks like a classic case of addition by subtraction for the NCAC, as far as competition level is concerned. I'm not so sure, though, that Earlham's President Bennett has an accurate read on the situation, at least as far as men's basketball is concerned:

Douglas Bennett, Earlham's president, had told Earlham's student newspaper, The Earlham Word, that the school's goal is to win half of its games every season. A switch from the NCAC would help meet that goal, the paper cited Bennett as having said.

It also means that an underperforming program is leaving the Great Lakes Region and entering the Midwest Region, FWIW.

[Gregory Sager]

Here is some real data for you guys:

Massey 2006 (Overall Ranking)

4 - 4 tie

Spot 1 (CCIW): Ill Wes (319) -  Carnegie (506)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Augustana (407) - WashU (568)
Spot 3 (CCIW): North Central (429) - Rochester (613)
Spot 4 (CCIW): Elmurst (525) - NYU (623)
Spot 5 (UAA): Chicago (633) - Carthage (695)
Spot 6 (UAA): Brandeis (742) - Wheaton (756)
Spot 7 (UAA): Emory (824) - Millikin (922)
Spot 8 (UAA): Case (849) - North Park (1136)


Massey 2007

4-4 Tie (WashU finishes 3rd in the country)

Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (392)   -     Augie (441)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Elmhurst (461)     -     Chicago (473)      
Spot 3 (UAA): Brandeis (493)     -     Wheaton (502)
Spot 4 (UAA): NYU (506)     -     Carthage (533)
Spot 5 (UAA): Rochester (542)     -     North Central (587)
Spot 6 (CCIW): Ill Wesleyan (704) - CMU (792)
Spot 7 (CCIW): North Park (708) - Emory (897)
Spot 8 (CCIW): Millikin (883) - Case (1194)


Massey 2008:

UAA wins 7 - 1 (WashU wins national title)

Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (308) - Augustana (402)
Spot 2 (UAA): Brandeis (340) - Wheaton (473)
Spot 3 (UAA): Rochester (381) - Illinois Wes (577)
Spot 4 (UAA): Chicago (421) - Elmhurst (581)
Spot 5 (UAA): Carnegie (528) - Carthage (778)
Spot 6 (UAA): NYU (696) - North Park (792)
Spot 7 (UAA): Emory (782) - North Central (937)
Spot 8 (CCIW): Millikin (1095) - Case Western (1176)


Massey 2009

CCIW 7 - 1 (WashU wins title)

Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (228) - Wheaton (283)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Elmhurst (408) - Carnegie (620)
Spot 3 (CCIW): Augie (446) - Brandeis (731)
Spot 4 (CCIW): North Central (526) - Rochester (815)
Spot 5 (CCIW): Carthage (551) - NYU (940)
Spot 6 (CCIW): Millikin (569) - Chicago (1192)
Spot 7 (CCIW): Ill Wes (655) - Case (1229)  
Spot 8 (CCIW): North Park (909) - Emory (1311)

I'll see your real data, and raise you:

Massey ranking averages
(the first number is the total number of ranking points amassed by the league; the second number is the average team rank for the league)

2005-06

CCIW	5,189	648.6
UAA	5,358	669.8

2006-07

CCIW	4,769	596.1
UAA	5,289	661.1

2007-08

CCIW	5,585	698.1
UAA	4,632	579.0

2008-09

CCIW	4,347	543.4
UAA	7,066	883.3

four-year totals

CCIW	19,890	621.6
UAA	22,345	698.3

[Hugenerd]

Greg, I honestly had already done those calculations.  The reasons I didnt post them are as follows: First off, Case Western and Emory absolutely kill the UAA, if you take into the top 6, the numbers are nearly all square.  Secondly, in a previous post, you yourself stated that a good top-to-bottom metric would be comparing the first teams, the second teams, the third teams, and so on; therefore, I did exactly that analysis.   Also, I had already stated that over the past 3 years they CCIW's bottom 3 teams have been much better than the UAA's bottom 3.  Over those 3 years (l listed 4 years, so I am only looking at 2007-2009 here), the bottom 3 spots alone have account for +2017 ranking spots for the CCIW (that is 672 spots per year, or 224 spots per position).  Average that over all 8 teams, that is 84 spots per position, taking into account only the difference in the bottom 3 teams.  However, in those same 3 years, they UAA has been +1927 or 642 spots per year, or 80 spots per team.  So therefore, the UAA has been equally strong in its first 5, compared to the CCIW, as it has been week compared to the bottom 3.  Therefore, along with the fact that comparing the 1st place teams, 2nd place teams, third place teams, etc. were based on yours and Ypsis comments, I did not present that data.  I still would rather be strong in the first 5 spots than in the final 3: edge UAA.  What that analysis truly shows is how weak the bottom 3 have been for the UAA in comparison to their CCIW counterparts.

[Gregory Sager]

Greg, I honestly had already done those calculations.

You could've saved me a lot of time spent wrestling with the calculator function on my cell phone.

The reasons I didnt post them are as follows: First off, Case Western and Emory absolutely kill the UAA, if you take into the top 6, the numbers are nearly all square.

You already know what I'm going to say in response to that, don't you?  Case Western Reserve and Emory are just as much a part of the UAA as are Wash U and Rochester. You can't leave them out.

Secondly, in a previous post, you yourself stated that a good top-to-bottom metric would be comparing the first teams, the second teams, the third teams, and so on; therefore, I did exactly that analysis.

Yes, I did say that, and, yes, you did exactly that. But averaging out the data you presented to give both league ranking totals and mean average of each league's eight teams are good top-to-bottom metrics, too. In fact, they might be even better ways of top-to-bottom comparison than the slot-by-slot method, since they fit the CCIW and UAA into the overall context of four-year college basketball.

Also, I had already stated that over the past 3 years they CCIW's bottom 3 teams have been much better than the UAA's bottom 3.  Over those 3 years (l listed 4 years, so I am only looking at 2007-2009 here), the bottom 3 spots alone have account for +2017 ranking spots for the CCIW (that is 672 spots per year, or 224 spots per position).  Average that over all 8 teams, that is 84 spots per position, taking into account only the difference in the bottom 3 teams.  However, in those same 3 years, they UAA has been +1927 or 642 spots per year, or 80 spots per team.  So therefore, the UAA has been equally strong in its first 5, compared to the CCIW, as it has been week compared to the bottom 3.  Therefore, along with the fact that comparing the 1st place teams, 2nd place teams, third place teams, etc. were based on yours and Ypsis comments, I did not present that data.

Well, I'm making progress. I've got you to move from basing your argument upon the top team to basing your argument upon the top five teams.

While, according to Massey, four years ago the CCIW was better on average than the UAA, although handicapped by two bottom teams that were significantly weaker than anything the UAA had to offer, I would agree that in two of the past three years there has been rough parity between the two leagues in terms of their top fives while the UAA's bottom three were noticeably weaker than their CCIW counterparts. (In 2007-08, the CCIW actually had a weaker bottom three, on average). Nevertheless, you're still cherry-picking the data by drawing two arbitrary cutoff points (in terms of both time span and number of standings slots) rather than taking the data -- and thus, the two leagues themselves -- as a whole.

I still would rather be strong in the first 5 spots than in the final 3: edge UAA.  What that analysis truly shows is how weak the bottom 3 have been for the UAA in comparison to their CCIW counterparts.

"Edge: UAA"? Even if you cherry-pick the numbers in the manner you suggested -- by dropping out the bottom three from each league over the past three seasons -- the UAA gains only 2,067 points on the CCIW, and that's not enough to close the 2,455-point gap between the two leagues. If anything, that only brings the UAA into rough parity with the CCIW; it doesn't give the UAA an edge at all.

It's all still dancing around the bottom line, though, which is that you can't hide any of your league's teams and pretend that they don't exist. A league still has to be held accountable from the penthouse to the basement.

[John Gleich]

What that analysis truly shows is how weak the bottom 3 have been for the UAA in comparison to their CCIW counterparts.

That begs the question as to whether you're comparing the conferences, then... or if you're comparing select schools (or portions of the conference).  If you don't take the whole conference into account, then I don't think you can really make statements about the entire conference.

Yeah, I noticed that a few weeks ago. It looks like a classic case of addition by subtraction for the NCAC, as far as competition level is concerned. I'm not so sure, though, that Earlham's President Bennett has an accurate read on the situation, at least as far as men's basketball is concerned:

Douglas Bennett, Earlham's president, had told Earlham's student newspaper, The Earlham Word, that the school's goal is to win half of its games every season. A switch from the NCAC would help meet that goal, the paper cited Bennett as having said.

It also means that an underperforming program is leaving the Great Lakes Region and entering the Midwest Region, FWIW.

Geez, what kind of goals are those?  Do you only want to play the first half of games well and the second half doesn't matter, as long as you were leading at halftime?

That's gotta feel really crappy for those players!  "We're playing for the status quo this year!  Ok guys, average on three... one, two three!"

If they play the slate of allowable games (25) then they really CAN'T end up .500!