Ranking D3 BBall Conferences

[Pat Coleman]

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

Just have to find the right land.

[haterinthehouse]

How are the Indy's looked at? Chapman always appears to have a chance to make the tnmt. But who else among the independents are consistently good? How are they viewed/rated for making the tournment

[lefrakenstein]

I already posted this in the NESCAC board, but I thought I would transfer here to generate discussion:

Here was the article that started the discussion. It names the UAA as the conference of the 2000s and the NESCAC as the conference of the 1990s.

http://bearsports.wustl.edu/womensbball/D3NBestofthe2000s.pdf

Good find. You would never see that kind of love for the UAA and NESCAC from certain other supposed DIII hoops authorities *ahem, ahem*

You don't think so? I think whenever we discuss power conferences in the past few years the UAA has been on the list, and the NESCAC has been on the list for even longer.

WIAC, CCIW, OAC, UAA, NESCAC ... and I don't think there's anyone else. That's pretty heady company, and the conference has the Walnuts and Bronzes to match.

No ODAC? with Randolph-Mason, Guilford, Hampton-Sydney and Virgina Wes you would think they would be up there.

What about the NCAC with Wooster and Witt or the MIAA with Calvin and Hope?

The CCIW hasn't won a Walnut and Bronze in over a decade, and before that one all they have is the North Park dynasty that most posters on the NESCAC board were barely alive for. The OAC  has two Walnut and Bronzes, but one was back in the early 90s and John Carroll is the only relevant team they currently have. By that standard the MIAA should be a power conference for sure. Granted, the NESCAC and UAA both only have two titles, but they both have two of the last seven. The CCIW I'm sure was a dominant conference in the late 70s and 80s, and I guess the OAC must have been pretty good in the 90s, but they're not at the level of the NESCAC, WIAC or UAA now. So either don't include those conferences or include at least the ODAC and MIAA for starters.

I know I'll take heat for saying this as usual, but in my humble opinion, I do believe this site overvalues teams from the OAC and CCIW in its rankings, and players from those conferences in its awards. I think the fact that with the exception of Tori Davis, the OAC and CCIW were completely blanked from the DIII News Best of the 2000s and 1990s is further evidence of this fact.

[lefrakenstein]

Again a re-post:

For the record, here are all conferences with multiple Final 4 appearances in the aughts along with their results: (records do not include consolation games)

CC 0-3 (3 Finals 4s)
CCIW 0-3 (3 Final 4s)
MIAA 2-1 (2 Final 4s, One Champion)
NESCAC 6-5 (7 Final 4s, Two Runners Up, Two Champions)
NCAC 1-3 (3 Final 4s, One Runner Up)
NJAC 1-2 (2 Final 4s, One Runner Up)
OAC 2-2 (3 Final 4s, One Champion)
ODAC 3-3 (4 Final 4s, One Runner Up, One Champion)
WIAC 5-1 (3 Final 4s, One Runner Up, Two Champions)
UAA 5-3 (5 Final 4s, One Runner Up, Two Champions)

Looks to me like there is a clear top 3 (UAA, NESCAC, WIAC). ODAC is 3rd in number of appearances and has a champion. OAC has the same .500 record as the ODAC, but one less appearance in the championship game. CCIW has the exact same results as the CC, including 0 wins.

Now, I understand the argument that the Midwest and Great Lakes are deeper overall regions, and that is probably true. Certainly that helps explain why the NESCAC has so many appearances. But the NESCAC has also held it's own when it has gotten to the Final 4, even coming a buzzer-beater away from knocking off a UW-SP team you called the greatest you've ever seen. If anything, you would expect battle hardened CCIW and OAC teams to dominate once they got to play teams from other, weaker regions, but a composite 2-5 record doesn't really support that.

I think the only way you can argue that the CCIW is a comparable conference to the UAA or NESCAC is by arguing that it is much deeper. Maybe it is, it's hard to say for sure without many interregional games. Would a Milikin or North Central roll a Tufts or Conn College?  Is Elmhurst a LOT better than Williams or Colby last year? Again, they might have been. But I tend to doubt it.

[Hugenerd]

I understand the sentiment, but you have to remember the source of that article: The DIII News, based out of Oregon.  How many d3 schools are there in Oregon?  I would say that the people involved with this site are more knowledgeable of the d3 landscape, but that is not to say that that knowledge does not come with some bias.  Either way, its an interesting discussion.

[lefrakenstein]

Reading through this thread, it seems that the main argument is that the CCIW is much deeper conference than the UAA or NESCAC.

I would make 4 arguments against that.

1. The CCIW only has 8 teams, while the NESCAC has 10. So it's not really fair to take the worst team in the CCIW and compare it to the worst team in the NESCAC. You should take the worst team in the CCIW and compare it to the 8th best team in the NESCAC.

2. The comparison of a conference's bottom teams is mostly conjecture due to the fact that there is so little interregional play in division III. It really is hard to say how a mediocre-to-bad NESCAC team would do against a mediocre-to-bad CCIW team. Therefore, it makes more sense to use postseason comparisons and especially comparisons of Final Four performance, because that is where top teams will play each other head to head.

3. I would argue that seeing games in person is not necessarily the ultimate indicator. For one, style of play can greatly affect how good a team looks. Plenty of very successful teams specialize in winning ugly games, but often don't look very good in doing so.

Also, when a conference has less differential in talent from top to bottom, like the CCIW, it may seem as though its bad teams are better than bad teams from other conferences, such as the UAA, because the CCIW's bad teams  put up a stiffer fight against the CCIW's top teams. However,it could be that the CCIW's top teams are simply less dominate than the top teams from the UAA, and thus have more trouble with teams of equal quality. In other words, the games may appear closer in the CCIW because the top teams are worse, not because the bottom teams are better.

4. In general it is the top of a conference that is considered when determining overall strength. Look at college football for instance, where the Pac-10 has over the years been considered to be stronger than the ACC despite the "USC and the 9 dwarves" perception of the Pac-10 and the perception that the ACC is 12 deep with mediocre teams. Having at least one team contending for titles is a more important than overall depth in considering a conference's strength. The UAA and NESCAC have both had multiple teams play for the national championship in the last decade. No team from the CCIW has done so much a win a single game in Salem in over 10 years.

[lefrakenstein]

I understand the sentiment, but you have to remember the source of that article: The DIII News, based out of Oregon.  How many d3 schools are there in Oregon?  I would say that the people involved with this site are more knowledgeable of the d3 landscape, but that is not to say that that knowledge does not come with some bias.  Either way, its an interesting discussion.

You're dead on about the knowledge leading to bias. Being from Oregon makes the DIII News less likely to be biased towards teams from the midwest, great lakes or northeast region. I would also say that a publication dedicated to only dIII sports is likely to be pretty knowledgeable, but that's total speculation.

Meanwhile, many posters on this site (myself included) have spent most of their time watching games in only one region, and thus tend to be biased towards teams and conferences in that area.

[David Collinge]

I think whenever we discuss power conferences in the past few years the UAA has been on the list, and the NESCAC has been on the list for even longer.

WIAC, CCIW, OAC, UAA, NESCAC ... and I don't think there's anyone else. That's pretty heady company, and the conference has the Walnuts and Bronzes to match.

No ODAC? with Randolph-Mason, Guilford, Hampton-Sydney and Virgina Wes you would think they would be up there.

What about the NCAC with Wooster and Witt or the MIAA with Calvin and Hope?

With all due respect, and without implying anything about your larger point, mentioning the NCAC as a possibility in this discussion completely undermines your credibility.  And I say this as probably the biggest NCAC devotee who frequents this site.

[lefrakenstein]

I think whenever we discuss power conferences in the past few years the UAA has been on the list, and the NESCAC has been on the list for even longer.

WIAC, CCIW, OAC, UAA, NESCAC ... and I don't think there's anyone else. That's pretty heady company, and the conference has the Walnuts and Bronzes to match.

No ODAC? with Randolph-Mason, Guilford, Hampton-Sydney and Virgina Wes you would think they would be up there.

What about the NCAC with Wooster and Witt or the MIAA with Calvin and Hope?

With all due respect, and without implying anything about your larger point, mentioning the NCAC as a possibility in this discussion completely undermines your credibility.  And I say this as probably the biggest NCAC devotee who frequents this site.

Fair enough, I have only seen Wooster and Witt play in person, so my credibility with regards to evaluating the conference as a whole is certainly minimal.

That being said, do you think that Wooster and Witt could hold their own against the top of the CCIW? Or would they be totally outclassed?  

[Mr. Ypsi]

Woo and Witt could hold their own against the top of the CCIW (and have done so in the past).  Likewise for Hope and Calvin.  But you are missing the point - if you are comparing conferences you can't just compare the top teams.  No one in either the NCAC or MIAA themselves consider them to be 'power conferences', because the rest of the teams are generally quite weak and it is nearly always the same two teams on top.

And FF appearances are not a particularly good indicator either, since the tourney is so regionally grouped.  Last year the quadrant within which the CCIW had to compete (Midwest-West) contained the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 ranked teams in the country (the sectional final was the real FF) - how many fewer appearances do you think NESCAC would have if they faced that gauntlet?!

BTW, I don't really approve of omitting the consolation games in the FF comparison.  I'm proud that IWU placed 3rd in the nation in both 2001 and 2006 - and did not win the CCIW either year!  

[David Collinge]

The Wooster and Wittenberg programs, over an extended period of time, could compete in any conference, including those mentioned.  But one or the other (or both) of these two teams has won at least a share of every regular season title since 1988 and every tournament title since 1998, so until the other NCAC members demonstrate that they can compete in their own conference, I can't say they'd compete in anyone else's.

(I can't believe I'm going to make a D1 reference here; I just hope my nearly complete ignorance and utterly complete distaste for D1 sports doesn't destroy the analogy.)  Suggesting that the NCAC is a "power conference" because it has two "power programs" in it is like suggesting that whatever conference Gonzaga is in is a "power conference" merely because Gonzaga is in it.

[lefrakenstein]

Woo and Witt could hold their own against the top of the CCIW (and have done so in the past).  Likewise for Hope and Calvin.  But you are missing the point - if you are comparing conferences you can't just compare the top teams.  No one in either the NCAC or MIAA themselves consider them to be 'power conferences', because the rest of the teams are generally quite weak and it is nearly always the same two teams on top.

BTW, I don't really approve of omitting the consolation games in the FF comparison.  I'm proud that IWU placed 3rd in the nation in both 2001 and 2006 - and did not win the CCIW either year!  

I understand that point. And I wouldn't suggest that the NESCAC or UAA are as strong 5-8 as the CCIW. But I do think the fact that that teams from the NESCAC and UAA have played for and won championships in the last decade DOES make a difference. It's not just a matter of getting there, it's a matter of winning when you get there. The CCIW is 0-3 in Final Four games over the last decade. If the CCIW had teams like '03 Williams, '07 Amherst or '08-'09 Wash U, I think they would have won a few games in Salem.

Again, it's a definition thing. If you put a lot of weight on the year-in, year-out strength at the bottom of a conference, then the CCIW is certainly right there at the top and above at least the NESCAC (I would say the UAA too, but I wouldn't want to make hugenerd whip out his calculator again to prove me wrong).

However, if you put a lot of emphasis on producing championship caliber squads, I would say the NESCAC and UAA jump ahead of the CCIW and top-heavy conferences like the MIAA and NCAC enter the conversation.

Personally, I would argue that it is standard to put more weight on championships and championship appearances than on the strength of the bottom of a conference. That's my whole point. I'm done now, I swear. This has been fun, thanks for indulging me. 

[lefrakenstein]

And FF appearances are not a particularly good indicator either, since the tourney is so regionally grouped.  Last year the quadrant within which the CCIW had to compete (Midwest-West) contained the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 ranked teams in the country (the sectional final was the real FF) - how many fewer appearances do you think NESCAC would have if they faced that gauntlet?!

Ok, one more thing. It's a pet peeve of mine that people on this site argue that the site is not biased by referencing rankings that the site produces.

But, I agree it's harder to get to the final four from the Midwest-West quadrant. However, it certainly didn't stop Wash U from winning the past two years, and I don't believe it would have stopped Amherst '07 or Williams '03. And of course it's a necessarily small sample size to draw conclusions from, but the CCIW hasn't one a single game once they've made it to the Final Four, while the NESCAC and UAA have winning records in Salem.

[Titan Q]

Wash U went 13-1 in UAA play last year.  The Bears averaged 76 points in UAA games and gave up 62 per game...in other words, they rolled through the conference.

Here are Wash U's games vs CCIW teams in 2008-09:

vs North Park (CCIW #8) - won by 24
@ Augustana (CCIW #3) - won in OT
vs Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW #7) – won by 7 (2-point game with 3:00 to play)
@ Elmhurst (CCIW #2) – lost by 7
@ Wheaton (CCIW #1) – won by 3


I saw Wash U play 9 times last year (including their last 4 tournament games), and the Bears were better than the best CCIW team (Wheaton)...but just by a basket or so.  And as the results above show, the CCIW had several teams that played Wash U tougher than most of their UAA opponents.

I think you are underestimating the top of the CCIW.  The CCIW has not won a title since Illinois Wesleyan in 1997, but the league usually has 2 outstanding teams...teams that can play with anyone...and then another 2 that are very strong.  This year, the group of Wheaton, Carthage, Illinois Wesleyan, and Augustana (probably the top 4 in 2010, in some order) probably won't produce a national champion, but it makes for a top four that matches up with most very well.

[Titan Q]

But, I agree it's harder to get to the final four from the Midwest-West quadrant. However, it certainly didn't stop Wash U from winning the past two years, and I don't believe it would have stopped Amherst '07 or Williams '03. And of course it's a necessarily small sample size to draw conclusions from, but the CCIW hasn't one a single game once they've made it to the Final Four, while the NESCAC and UAA have winning records in Salem.

I also think you're underestimating the difference in the roads to Salem.  Consider these games from Wash U's tournament path last year:

Round 1 - Wash U 67 Lawrence 65
Round 2 - Wash U 73 UW-Whitewater 70
Round 3 - Wash U 55 Wheaton 52


The Bears rolled both Guilford and Richard Stockton in Salem.

In 2007-08...

Round 2 - Wash U 70 Augustana 67 (OT)

Again, the Bears dominated both Hope and Amherst in Salem.


Think Augustana in 2008 or Wheaton in 2009 could have made it a little farther had they not run into Wash U so early?