Ranking D3 BBall Conferences

[KnightSlappy]

Frankly, your credibility flew out the window when you put the NCAC and MIAA up there with the big boys, lefrakenstein. As you've seen here from two of the NCAC's most respected posters, the fact that Wooster and Wittenberg are national-caliber programs (as are Hope and Calvin in the MIAA) doesn't make them power conferences in the slightest.

I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss the MIAA as the big 2, little 6. Albion gets very little respect nationally, and in fairness they have been a bit down for a couple years, but ask Wooster how good they are.

It's easy to forget that Albion won the league outright in 2005 and missed out on a trip to Salem by losing to Calvin (who they had beaten twice in the regular season) in the sectional final.

I know Albion isn't a top tier team year in and year out, but they are a very good program that gets overshadowed by Calvin and Hope, who garner lots of national attention.

I won't argue that the MIAA is one of the top conferences, but if you are discussing the topic it's more than fair to discuss the MIAA. Definitely not a power conference, but they may be one of the "best of the rest."

[Titan Q]

Here are the NCAA tournament roads for the NESCAC teams (pre-Salem) this decade, again with Top 15 opponents in bold...

(Note, since I couldn't figure out the location of all games, I've just listed all as "vs".)



** Middlebury, #9 (2008-09)
Round 1 - bye
Round 2 – vs Bridgewater State (lost 76-78)

** Amherst, #25 (2008-09)
Round 1 – vs  Gwynedd-Mercy (lost 62-68)
---------------

** Amherst, #3 (2007-08)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs John Jay (won 96-74)
Round 3 – vs Richard Stockton (won 78-70)
Round 4 – vs #5 Brandeis (won 65-55)

** Trinity, #24 (2007-08)
Round 1 – vs Coast Guard (lost 65-70)

** Middlebury, not ranked (2007-08)
Round 1 – vs  #13 Rochester (lost 43-56)
---------------

** Amherst, #6 (2006-07)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Widener (won 76-63)
Round 3 – vs Stevens (won 69-61)
Round 4 – vs #21 Rhode Island (won 75-73)

** Trinity, #20 (2006-07)
Round 1 – vs Brandeis (lost 77-70 OT)
---------------

** Amherst, #4 (2005-06)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Hamilton (won 66-65 OT)
Round 3 – vs Tufts (won 83-59)
Round 4 – vs #16 St. John Fisher (won 94-68)

** Tufts, not ranked (2005-06)
Round 1 – vs Endicott (won 83-60)
Round 2 – vs Cortland State (won 68-54)
Round 3 – vs #4 Amherst (lost 59-83)
---------------

** Amherst, #2 (2004-05)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Springfield (won 81-68)
Round 3 – vs #21 Rochester (lost 62-69)
---------------

** Williams, #1 (2003-04)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Salem State (won 91-77)
Round 3 – vs Brockport State (won 78-50)
Round 4 – vs Keene State (won 79-64)

** Amherst, #5 (2003-04)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Plymouth State (won 113-85)
Round 3 – vs New Jersey City (won 92-74)
Round 4 – vs #9 Franklin & Marshall (won 82-70)

**  Trinity, #16 (2003-04)
Round 1 – vs Lasell (won 72-66)
Round 2 – vs Brockport State (lost 76-80)


---------------

** Williams, #3 (2002-03)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Salem State (won 94-67)
Round 3 - vs Hamilton (won 76-65)
Round 4 – vs #11 Amherst (won 94-75)

** Amherst, not ranked (2002-03)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Southern Vermont (won 84-60)
Round 3 – vs #5 Rochester (won 80-74)
Round 4 – vs #3 Williams (lost 75-94)
---------------

** Amherst, not ranked (2001-02)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2  - vs Western Connecticut (won 82-77)
Round 3 – vs #8 Brockport State (lost 64-69)

** Williams, not ranked (2001-02)
Round 1 – vs Cazenovia (won 121-49)
Round 2 – vs #18 Rochester (lost 51-66)

** Trinity, not ranked (2001-02)
Round 1 – vs Colby-Sawyer (won 74-47)
Round 2 – vs #8 Brockport State (lost 61-80)
---------------

** Amherst, not ranked (2000-01)
Round 1 – vs St. John Fisher (won 89-76)
Round 2 – vs Clark (won 89-76)
---------------

** Williams, #11 (1990-00)
Round  1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Springfield (lost 74-75)

** Amherst, not ranked (1999-00)
Round  1 – vs Western New England (won 79-77)
Round 2 – vs #21 Salem State (lost 75-81)

[Titan Q]

Not even factoring in the Sectionals (Rounds 3 & 4), it's telling to just look at Round 2 matchups to see how different the roads are in different parts of the country...

CCIW 2nd Rounds
2008-09:  Wheaton vs #5 UW-Platteville
2007-08:  Augustana vs #11 Wash U (eventual national champ)
2006-07:  n/a
2005-06:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #15 UW-Whitewater
2005-06:  Augustana vs #19 UW-Stout
2004-05:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #12 Hanover
2003-04:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #2 Hanover
2002-03:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #2 Wash U
2001-02:  Carthage vs Hope
2000-01:  Illinois Wesleyan vs #12 Wartburg
2000-01:  Carthage vs #2 Wooster
2000-01:  Elmhurst vs #8 Wash U
1999-00:  Carthage vs #15 UW-Eau Claire         


NESCAC 2nd Rounds
2008-09:  Middlebury vs Bridgewater State
2007-08:  Amherst vs John Jay
2006-07:  Amherst vs Widener
2005-06:  Amherst vs Hamilton
2005-06:  Tufts vs Cortland State
2004-05:  Amherst vs Springfield
2003-04:  Williams vs Salem State
2003-04:  Amherst vs Plymouth State
2003-04:  Trinity vs Brockport State
2002-03:  Williams vs Salem State
2002-03:  Amherst vs Southern Vermont
2001-02:  Amherst vs Western Connecticut
2001-02:  Williams vs Cazenovia
2001-02:  Trinity vs #8 Brockport State
2000-01:  Amherst vs Clark
1999-00: Williams vs Springfield
1999-00: Amherst vs #21 Salem State

[lefrakenstein]

CC 0-3 (3 Finals 4s)

The CCIW is 3-3 in Final Four games this decade, not 0-3. That includes going 1-0 against the NESCAC in Salem.

Frankly, your credibility flew out the window when you put the NCAC and MIAA up there with the big boys, lefrakenstein. As you've seen here from two of the NCAC's most respected posters, the fact that Wooster and Wittenberg are national-caliber programs (as are Hope and Calvin in the MIAA) doesn't make them power conferences in the slightest.

The CCIW went 73-19 (including postseason play) in non-conference action last year, a .791 clip that set a new league record. That makes three years in a row that the CCIW has done better than .700 in non-conference play, and the league hasn't finished below the .630s in over a decade. The league has universal respect from everybody in the part of the country where the best D3 ball in the land is played (i.e., west of the Pennsylvania/Ohio border), and that includes the WIAC folks. I see absolutely nothing in any of your arguments that refutes the CCIW's commonly-held status as one of the top two or three conferences in D3 men's basketball.

I note at the top that I'm not including consolation games. Illinois Wes's win over Amherst when Amherst chose to start and give heavy minutes to all of their seniors, including guys who typically didn't play very much, is hardly an indicative win.

[lefrakenstein]

And while I certainly value teams that get it done in Salem, in terms of determing conference strength, I think you are over-valuing results of national semifinal games.  For example, if Illinois Wesleyan holds onto its lead vs Virginia Wesleyan (a game IWU led almost the entire game), does that somehow make the CCIW stronger?

http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2006/ncaa5.htm

Or if Carthage comes out on top in that tight game vs Jeff Gibbs and Otterbein, is that supposed to mean something about the CCIW vs the OAC?

This I think is the best response because it most highlights my difference in philosophy.

Yes, I do think it would make a huge difference if those close games had gone the other way. We currently think of the Wash U teams of the past couple of years as all-time great times, and certainly two of the best teams of the decade. Both of those teams survived nail-biters in the tournament though. Had they lost, we wouldn't even think of them as being very remarkable.

I think to be an elite conference you need to have teams that have gotten the job done in Salem, period.

I really do understand that the NESCAC has a MUCH, MUCH easier time making it to Salem than the CCIW. And, I admit, again, that I am not qualified to comment on the bottom of the NCAC/MIAA.

Restating my point again, I personally believe, (and it would seem as though many here do not) that although both factors should be considered, bringing home the hardware every once in awhile should outweigh the performance of bottom teams in measuring a conference's strength.

Now, if you disagree with this view, then yes, I officially concede that the CCIW is a stronger conference than the NESCAC. I unfortunately have seen Tufts and Conn College play recently, and they are not good. No two ways about it. So you've got me on that one.

[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.

I think Pat, and most of the guys that are involved with the site, do their best to be impartial when it comes to year end awards, etc.  Are there really any All-America picks you can argue with from last year?  Freshman of the year went to a NCAC player (Great Lakes) and a NEWMAC player (Northeast) was chosen over a player from the CCCIW, Kent Raymond, who most CCIW followers said was one of the best players to ever play in the conference.  If there was any significant bias at all, it would have been extremely easy to defend the choice of the top CCIW player.

I honestly believe they do too, but I think the nature of DIII makes it difficult not to be somewhat partial. I know I sure as heck couldn't do it. It's impossible not to be affected in the way you feel about a player or team by watching them play. Having the opportunity to see some teams play but not others therefore necessarily leads to some bias.

I also think seeing a conference allows you to be more accurate in its appraisal. For instance, right now, I think Williams is a better team than Middlebury, and probably a better team than Amherst. So looking at the top 25 standings, I tend to think, 'What are these homers doing having Midd so high, but not ranking Williams at all?" But if it were me doing the rankings, I would have to make the same conjectures about the midwest and west teams based on previous year's results, and I might very well bump an up-and-coming team that I know less about, in favor of a similar team like Williams from New England.

That was kind of convoluted, but my point is that having un-uniformly informed fans leads as easily to accusations of bias as it does to actual bias.

[Titan Q]

I note at the top that I'm not including consolation games. Illinois Wes's win over Amherst when Amherst chose to start and give heavy minutes to all of their seniors, including guys who typically didn't play very much, is hardly an indicative win.

I don't have a real strong opinion of whether the consolation game means anything or not, but I do think you've misrepresented some things.  Here are the Amherst players who averaged 10 minutes per game or more in 2005-06.  In parenthesis is their minutes vs IWU in the 3rd place game...

John Bedford (Sr) - 29 min/game on the season (36 vs IWU)
Dan Wheeler (Jr) - 28 (36)
Andrew Olson (So) - 27 (36)
John Casnocha (Sr) - 22 (15)
Tim McLaughlin (Jr) - 17 (22)
Dan O'Shea (Jr) - 16 (19)
Matt Goldsmith (So) - 15 (11)
Adolphe Coulibaly (So) - 10 (10)
Kevin Hopkins (So) - 10 (7)

The usual group that accounted for 174 minutes per game played 192 (of 200 total) in the consolation game.

Where are all the heavy minutes for the guys who typically didn't play very much?



http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2006/ncaa6.htm

http://www3.amherst.edu/~sports/2005_2006/m-bball/teamcume.htm

[Titan Q]

I think to be an elite conference you need to have teams that have gotten the job done in Salem, period.

"There aint no good guys....there aint no bad guys...there's only you and me and we just disagree."

In my opinion, conference strength comes down to the depth of quality teams.  And this is where I think the CCIW has clearly established itself as one of the top 2-3 in the country year-in and year-out.  Examples from this decade:

• As I noted yesterday, last year CCIW #2 Elmhurst beat Wash U... #3 Augustana took the Bears to OT...and #7 IWU played Wash U very tough at their place

• Last year, 6th place Millikin beat new D1 program SIU-Edwardsville (SIU-E was not as good as the D3 Top 25 teams, but a pretty impressive win for #6 regardless)

• Last year, 5th place Carthage beat both Calvin and Hope (they weren't powers, but they did finish #1 and #2 in the MIAA)

• In 2005-06, the IWU team that won at #1 Lawrence in the Sectionals and got to Salem was the #4 seed in the CCIW conference tournament (#1 Augustana, #2 North Central, #3 Elmhurst, #4 IWU).

• In 2000-01, the IWU team that won at #1 Chicago in the Sectionals and got to Salem finished 3rd in the CCIW (#1 Elmhurst, #2 Carthage, #3 IWU).

• In 2000-01, 2nd place Carthage was a basket away from giving the CCIW two teams in Salem (after winning at #2 Wooster, the Red Men beat Mass-Dartmouth by 50 in the Sweet 16, then lost by 2 @ Ohio Northern).

• 5 different programs have won the CCIW this decade (Carthage, Elmhurst, Illinois Wesleyan, Augustana, Wheaton) and 6 have been in the NCAA tournament (add North Central).



You're right - if you measure conference strength by the number of national championships this decade, the CCIW is nowhere near the best.  However, if you measure it by the number of very strong teams (teams good enough to be in the Top 25 or knocking on that door) and by the quality of the teams in the 4-7 or so range, you won't find many better than the CCIW.

[John Gleich]

I forgot to post this before I left for lunch, but I'll echo TQ.

I think to be an elite conference you need to have teams that have gotten the job done in Salem, period.

This makes the discussion JUST be among the top teams.  That might actually broaden the discussion... but I don't think it's the correct one.  How many conference teams have made the NCAA tournament in the past decade?  6 for the CCIW (out of 8 ), 5 for the NESCAC (out of 11[?]).  And if the NESCAC is a power conference, then their lack of a double round robin would certainly increase the records of the participant teams.  And yet, a smaller percentage of the conference has made the NCAA tournament.

As an aside, the WIAC has had 7/9 in the tournament and 5/9 have won the conference.  For the decade, the WIAC is 583-185 in regular season non-con (.759) and 31-15 in the NCAA tournament (.674) for an overall non-con record of 614-200 (.754) for the oughts.

[Gregory Sager]

Frankly, your credibility flew out the window when you put the NCAC and MIAA up there with the big boys, lefrakenstein. As you've seen here from two of the NCAC's most respected posters, the fact that Wooster and Wittenberg are national-caliber programs (as are Hope and Calvin in the MIAA) doesn't make them power conferences in the slightest.

I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss the MIAA as the big 2, little 6.

I didn't describe the MIAA as the big two, little six, for precisely the reason you mentioned. I've grown to respect Albion's performance over the years. The Britons are not a national-caliber program, but they're almost always a decent team and occasionally good enough to break into March.

And if the NESCAC is a power conference, then their lack of a double round robin would certainly increase the records of the participant teams.  And yet, a smaller percentage of the conference has made the NCAA tournament.

Thanks for bringing that up, PS. The fact that the NESCAC only plays a single round-robin rather than the double round-robin (or modified double round-robin) played by every other conference in D3 is a serious Achilles heel in any argument put forth for NESCAC national hegemony. That's especially true when you consider the weakness of the Northeast Region outside of the NESCAC; take away the responsibility of the NESCAC to beat itself up twice over every year, the way all of the other power conferences do, and add the opportunity to augment your non-conference schedule with a bunch of lesser opponents to take the place of that missing second round-robin, and you end up with fatter overall and in-region records -- and the chance at more Pool C bids -- than you'd otherwise have.

[lefrakenstein]

I note at the top that I'm not including consolation games. Illinois Wes's win over Amherst when Amherst chose to start and give heavy minutes to all of their seniors, including guys who typically didn't play very much, is hardly an indicative win.

I don't have a real strong opinion of whether the consolation game means anything or not, but I do think you've misrepresented some things.  Here are the Amherst players who averaged 10 minutes per game or more in 2005-06.  In parenthesis is their minutes vs IWU in the 3rd place game...

John Bedford (Sr) - 29 min/game on the season (36 vs IWU)
Dan Wheeler (Jr) - 28 (36)
Andrew Olson (So) - 27 (36)
John Casnocha (Sr) - 22 (15)
Tim McLaughlin (Jr) - 17 (22)
Dan O'Shea (Jr) - 16 (19)
Matt Goldsmith (So) - 15 (11)
Adolphe Coulibaly (So) - 10 (10)
Kevin Hopkins (So) - 10 (7)

The usual group that accounted for 174 minutes per game played 192 (of 200 total) in the consolation game.

Where are all the heavy minutes for the guys who typically didn't play very much?



http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2006/ncaa6.htm

http://www3.amherst.edu/~sports/2005_2006/m-bball/teamcume.htm

you're right. I remembered that Zalaski started, but I guess he only played 2 minutes. Still, I would say motivation (or lack there of) plays a factor in the consolation game.

[lefrakenstein]

I think to be an elite conference you need to have teams that have gotten the job done in Salem, period.

You're right - if you measure conference strength by the number of national championships this decade, the CCIW is nowhere near the best.  However, if you measure it by the number of very strong teams (teams good enough to be in the Top 25 or knocking on that door) and by the quality of the teams in the 4-7 or so range, you won't find many better than the CCIW.

Bingo, totally agree.

And if the NESCAC is a power conference, then their lack of a double round robin would certainly increase the records of the participant teams.  And yet, a smaller percentage of the conference has made the NCAA tournament.

Thanks for bringing that up, PS. The fact that the NESCAC only plays a single round-robin rather than the double round-robin (or modified double round-robin) played by every other conference in D3 is a serious Achilles heel in any argument put forth for NESCAC national hegemony. That's especially true when you consider the weakness of the Northeast Region outside of the NESCAC; take away the responsibility of the NESCAC to beat itself up twice over every year, the way all of the other power conferences do, and add the opportunity to augment your non-conference schedule with a bunch of lesser opponents to take the place of that missing second round-robin, and you end up with fatter overall and in-region records -- and the chance at more Pool C bids -- than you'd otherwise have.

I agree on this, and I think it would be great to see the NESCAC play a double round robin. Two points though-

First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice. Also Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan each play each other twice in the regular season and the Maine teams (Colby, Bowdoin, Bates) do as well. Amherst usually plays 13-14 NESCAC games a year (9 reg season league games, 2 extra 'Little Three' games, and 2-3 tourny games). So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)

Secondly, I understand that the NE is still no where near an elite region, but it's been getting a lot better outside of the NESCAC. Teams like UMass-Dartmouth, RIC, Keene State, Elms, MIT, Brandeis and others have all been getting better recently. Definitely a lot more challengers than there were just a few years ago. Little East and NEWMAC both seem like they are edging towards legitimacy. Huge Nerd can probably comment on this more knowledgeably than I can.

Again, I agree on the whole, but just sayin....

[Hugenerd]

I think the top teams in the northeast can play with the top teams in the midwest or anywhere, for that matter.   I also think that the worst teams in any region are generally comparable (sans a few outliers).  However, I think the main difference comes in with the number of bad teams in each region.  I havent done any statistics on this, but it seems that there are just a lot more cupcakes in the northeast (possibly becasue there are a lot more teams in general), and those teams are scheduled by the top teams in the region, which results in essential off nights for those teams.  From what I observed in the midwest (I played in the UAA not so long ago, so we would travel to WashU and Chicago every year), the number of cupcakes scheduled by the top teams is few and far between (again, this is just by observation).  Therefore, they get fewer off nights and you get a  better idea where the top teams in those regions rank amongst eachother.   However, I think that if there were a UAA/NESCAC or CCIW/NESCAC challenge, I think virtually every game would be competitive.  You have 3 seemingly very strong teams at the top of the NESCAC this year, Williams, Midd, and Amherst, a few up and comers that also seem to be strong, Colby, Bowdoin, Bates, a level right below that, Trinity and Wesleyan, and then your cellar dwellars, Conn College and Tufts.  I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year.  In past year, I dont know, but the NESCAC has certainly been impressive so far this year.   CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls.  CCIW has 68% out-of conference winning percentage right now (32-15), UAA is 76% (38-12), and NESCAC is 69% (42-19), but the NESSCACs top 8 are 79% (38-10).

[Mr. Ypsi]

Point of order - is comparing the top 8 in a 10-team conference to the 'top' 8 in an 8-team conference really playing fair?!   If you're dropping the bottom 2, surely the CCIW should get to drop at least 1!

Your point about cupcakes is noted - this week alone the CCIW will face Gonzaga (yes, THAT Gonzaga), WashU twice, and UWSP, as well as a few more from the top 60 or 70.  My lazy man's 'CCIW Sweep' in the CCIW Pickems is faring a lot worse this year than last (when the conference won about 80% of the non-con, regular season games).

[Hugenerd]

Point of order - is comparing the top 8 in a 10-team conference to the 'top' 8 in an 8-team conference really playing fair?!   If you're dropping the bottom 2, surely the CCIW should get to drop at least 1!

Your point about cupcakes is noted - this week alone the CCIW will face Gonzaga (yes, THAT Gonzaga), WashU twice, and UWSP, as well as a few more from the top 60 or 70.  My lazy man's 'CCIW Sweep' in the CCIW Pickems is faring a lot worse this year than last (when the conference won about 80% of the non-con, regular season games).

Thats why I reported the whole conference, as well as the top 8.  Obviously the top 8 was selected because if one were to do a CCIW/NESCAC challenge, there would only be 8 games played and, therefore, only 8 teams would be relevant in such a format.  However, the CCIW does seem to have a drop off at the bottom 2, just as the NESCAC does.