MBB: Northwest Conference

[so_cal_connection]

The newcomer to watch this year in the Northwest Conference is James Pickney at Puget Sound.  He's a 6'7" forward from San Diego who can fjump out of the gym and is very, very athletic.  Had several D1 opportunities, but chose to get a great education and have a better basketball experience.  Too bad Cross left, had he stayed they could've seriously challenged for the D3 national title with the addition of Pickney. 

[blackhawks4]

Any examples of east coast / midwest bias?? Look at the top 25 every year.  In recent history the NWC hardly ever has more than one team in (with the exception of lin/lc) about 5 years ago.  Why is this when it is one of the best D3 conferences in the nation (look at the Massey Ratings!) Anyways, I'm over it.

Himjay--Disagree, I think Wells from lc is far and away the best shooter in the league.  Who is your MVP?
Finally, can you explain to me how you choose Hayford as COTY with UPS finishing first?  It just doesnt add up for me!

[Gregory Sager]

You're confusing two things that have nothing to do with each other, Blackhawks4. The D3hoops.com Top 25 has nothing to do with the NCAA selection committee choosing Pool C (at-large) teams for the tournament. Nothing at all. The D3hoops.com Top 25 is a private poll run by a private site.

You started this conversation by grousing about an NWC champ likely being left out in the cold with regard to Pool C thanks to the NWC tournament. Now you've moved on to this site's Top 25. As I said, two different, unrelated things.

Pat asked you for an example of a west coast team being unjustly shut out of Pool C. You didn't provide one. You merely cited that the NWC has had only one Pool C selection in the past five years (if, indeed, you're referring to the tournament and not still referring to the D3hoops.com Top 25 with that aside about Linfield and Lewis & Clark). But that's not proof. Which is the team that should've gotten in over that time, and which team should they have pushed out?

I still don't see any evidence that you're familiar with the way that the NCAA D3 tourney is set up with regard to at-large selections. Your charge of midwest and east coast bias remains specious.

[blackhawks4]

Mr. Sager, my intention was to point out that the NWC and West Coast does not get represented as it should. 

I understand that the top 25 has nothing to do with the selection committee.  I 've seen highly ranked teams left out in past years.

You asked for bias and I drew attention to the Top 25.  Where the massey ratings put the NWC in the top 3 conferences in years past, we rarely had more than one team ranked at at time.

Its hard to point out bias in the tournament because our pool c had been so limited that many qualified teams were left out.  But how about this for bias.

It is financially hard for west coast d3 teams to get in region games due to proximity.  The NCAA uses in region games and records as a major criteria as you pointed out.  In a tough NWC, teams  hammer on each other (as we agreed upon) hurting their record.  With few other in region D3 games (other than cactus jam or taveling great distances for D3 games) often NWC teams are penalized because they can't get enough nonconference D3 action.  Now I don't know how this problem can be fixed, but you cannot deny that it exists.

Or what about our teams historically having to go to the midwest or east for playoffs?  The only reason UPS hosted 2 years back was because the stevens point women got the bid.  I understand the financial reasoning behind it, but is that fair?  What about LC going east for playoffs when they had their great teams a few years back.  Whether it can be controlled or not or its intentional or not its an unfair act based on location and finances.     

East coast teams have a better chance at making the tournament and getting at large bids despite the fact that the NWC is historically one of the best around. If you really feel there is no bias than fine, but I disagree.   

Now I'm sure you'll respond and make very good points (as you have in your previous posts) but I'm ready to talk NWC, because I really don't find this as interesting.

Loggers go to San Jose State saturday.   

[Gregory Sager]

I asked for evidence of bias with regard to the D3 tournament, which is what we were talking about. Hence, this quote of yours that raised the question of bias:

Mr. Sager, good point, I was not aware of the expansion of pool c teams.  However, it still does not change my opinion.  You and I both know that a 3rd place team in the NWC can end up with a 9-7 or 10-6 record.  That team has no business representing our league in the tourney if they pull off an upset.    If I'm not mistaken there are well over 350 teams in D3, and unlike D1,  4 and 5 teams from one conference will not make the tourney.  I disagree, I think there is a good chance that a first place team can get overlooked, especially with the midwest and east coast bias.      The team that wins the most league games over the course of the season should have the automatic bid.

If you have an issue with the D3hoops.com Top 25, re: that poll being out of sync with the Massey ratings, take that up with Pat Coleman. It's a completely different discussion than this one.

In the quote above you explicitly linked the possibility of a 15-1 NWC champ getting left out of Pool C after losing in the NWC tourney to midwest and east coast bias. It seems to me that you've tried to change the argument from one in which you're questioning the NCAA selection committee to one in which you're questioning the integrity of Pat's Top 25 poll. I simply ask that you stick to one argument at a time.

It's true that the NWC is handicapped by geography in terms of scheduling West Region non-conf games. But that doesn't affect the way NWC teams are treated by the five Pool C criteria, which are:

* win-lose percentage against regional opponents;
* Quality of Wins Index;
* In-region head-to-head competition;
* In-region results versus common regional opponents;
* In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.

These criteria were, in fact, set up to help allay the problem faced by geographically remote conferences such as yours and the ASC and the SCIAC -- namely, the annual shortage of non-conference regional games due to distance constraints.

Notice that the first criterion is based upon win-lose percentage. Say the NWC champ goes 13-3 in conference, doesn't play any non-conference West Region games, and loses the NWC tourney championship. That makes them 13-4 (.764) in the West Region for the season -- and it gives them a leg up on a Pool C aspirant from a more geographically central league that played a lot more games within their region and went, say, 18-6 (.750).

The second criterion is likewise quantity-neutral. Quality of Wins Index is measured by the 15-to-0 scale (15 points awarded for a road victory over a team with a regional winning percentage at or above .667, 14 points awarded for a home victory over a team with a regional winning percentage at or above .667, 13 points awarded for a road victory over a team with a regional winning percentage between .500 and .666, etc., on down to 0 points awarded for a home loss to a team with a regional winning percentage below .333). You add up the points you earned in each regional game, be it win or loss, and divide it by the number of games you've played in the region. In other words, playing more games within the region (as most other D3 teams tend to do in comparison to NWC teams) doesn't improve your chances of having a higher QoWI.

The third, fourth, and fifth criteria will most likely be irrelevant in the case of a NWC or SCIAC Pool C aspirant, unless there's another regionally-ranked opponent or Pool C aspirant within the conference. Some of the also-ran teams from more geographically central leagues that likewise aspire to get their name called for Pool C on Selection Sunday do well in these three categories, others do poorly. By dint of their lack of games against regionally-ranked opponents, head-to-head games against (or common opponents with) other West Region teams seeking a Pool C bid, etc., NWC teams will be pretty much even-steven in these categories.

In other words, the penalty for not being able to play many (if any) West Region non-conference games doesn't exist. Rather, the NWC plays on a slightly different scale of regional competition in which most, if not all, of their regional games are played within their own conference. It makes the conference season all the more important in your league, if anything. And the argument about this being a handicap because the NWC beats itself up so much doesn't hold any water, because every league makes that claim. In fact, your regionmates in Wisconsin harp on that point more than anybody else on Posting Up, because the widespread perception in D3 is that the WIAC is the toughest league in the land and they therefore ought to have more Pool C teams than they do -- but they can't get them because the WIAC cannibalizes itself in league play.

[Gregory Sager]

As for the point about travel and the lack of hosting opportunities afforded to the NWC, that, too, is a separate argument that has nothing to do with Pool C bids. I agree that it isn't fair, although you and I both know that the parsimony of D3 (our national tournament, after all, is a money loser and it's essentially bankrolled by D1) is the reason behind it rather than bias.

[piofan]

Bearcats fan- in regards to LC not having Magnuson..that will explain why the team will go 100% uptempo and launch as many 3's as possible.  Should be interesting if Tommy does come back or he sits it out to save a year. 

Thanks for the info on Willamette.  John Olinger is back for them.  That is good.  I remember that kid as a little 8th grade punk, and now look at him.  hahahaha.  Not a big Willamette fan coming from LC and all, but hope he does well. 

This league has always been exciting and something can always happen.  I know UPS is stacked, but the ball is round, and you never know.  Expecting Bridgeland to have UPS ready to go though, so will be hard for the others to catch up.

[Himjay23]

blackhawks,  the reason I have Hayford winning coach of the year is because I think everyone expects Puget to run away with the league this year, which they might, but I think Whitworth will finish 13-3, possibly 14-2 and beat Puget when they play them at home. If this happens then I think Hayford will deserve it. With regards to Wells, he is a great shooter, even though he went through a tough year shooting the ball in 04-05. I do expect him to be back to his old self hitting around 40%. I'd say the top 3 shooters in the league are Wells, Young, and Aaron Schmick. Others right up there are Kawazoe at Pacific, Robinowitz LC, and Oliver PLU.  George Fox should also contend for the playoffs, but the loss of Gayman, who was not only the teams top player but also their unquestioned leader, will be just a little too much to overcome.

[HopeHoopsFan]

 test

[Loggerville]

Well, seems we all agree this is a race for second, so best wishes to  the rest of the NWC for moral victories.

And while I would agree with Blawkhacks4 - a smooth court operator in his day I might add - that geographical isolation is an issue for the NWC schools in general, the programs need to take the responsibility for that.  Bridgeland has done a job of trying to get the UPS squad out of the area to play non-conference games of meaning - traveling to the South region two years ago comes to mind, along with this year's Cali match-ups - but the rest of the conference needs to follow the lead. 

If Presidents and AD's are going to join an NCAA Div. III, then funding needs to follow to allow for travel and the scheduling of DIII competition out of the NW.  Pacific last season played no DIII games other than the conference schedule I believe.  Until the conference as a whole takes seriously the issue of building national cred. by going and playing folks, it is hard to argue with the lack of respect at the regional and national level.

That being said, the Logger have done a job of getting their individual institution respect, and winning home games and providing quality NCAA play-off games is a good start.

Should be a good season, and don't sleep on R Jay Barsh, he's a NWC POY canadiate for sure.

[Gregory Sager]

And while I would agree with Blawkhacks4 - a smooth court operator in his day I might add - that geographical isolation is an issue for the NWC schools in general, the programs need to take the responsibility for that. Bridgeland has done a job of trying to get the UPS squad out of the area to play non-conference games of meaning - traveling to the South region two years ago comes to mind, along with this year's Cali match-ups - but the rest of the conference needs to follow the lead.

If Presidents and AD's are going to join an NCAA Div. III, then funding needs to follow to allow for travel and the scheduling of DIII competition out of the NW. Pacific last season played no DIII games other than the conference schedule I believe. Until the conference as a whole takes seriously the issue of building national cred. by going and playing folks, it is hard to argue with the lack of respect at the regional and national level.

Well said, and I'd add that it appears that the presidents and ADs of D3 are making a concerted effort to help out NWC and its fellow geographical isolates in that regard. There's a proposal on the table for action at next year's D3 convocation to turn all games between D3 opponents that are played five days removed from a class day -- in other words, games played over Christmas break -- into regional games. In other words, an NWC team could go to the Cactus Jam and have every single game they play count as a regional game, even if they're playing the likes of Amherst, Alfred, Albion, or Augustana, as long as that team is a member of D3. And an NWC team that travels to La-La-Land and participates in a SCIAC tournament over the holidays would no longer have to hope that they get scheduled against a SCIAC, WIAC, IIAC, or MIAC team -- every game in that tournament played against a D3 team would count as a regional game, regardless of the home region of the foe.

If this proposal passes, it could be a real boon to solving the problem of the NWC not playing enough non-conference West Region games.

[piofan]

Guys- please excuse my ignorance on the selections and game count issues, as I am still catching up to this.  Do the games against quality teams not count anymore?  Meaning, if a D3 plays a D2 for example and wins, does that help them, hurt them, or doesnt matter?

I agree 100% that the NWC teams have to leave the area and stop playing the other schools in the NW.  LC has been doing it for years, UPS is consistant now with it and Whitworth has done a good job of things since my time in the 90's, but the other schools are just too inconsistant with it. 

With regards to the money for the budgets...that is a hard situation to overcome.  Look at what happened to Pio football.  Season cut short due to lack of players, which is points at a lack of recruiting, lack of school help, lack of money.  That said, most of these schools will not spend if their team is not "that good".  I really feel that if all the schools had the reputation of UPS or LC (a few years ago with Scott Davis, Oriard and the group) in D3 then the school would spend a little more because they are 1) representing the school 2) spreading the name of the school to all over the nation. 

The schools and administrators have to realize there is more to sports than just sports.  Some schools have great support, but some do not.  A personal opinion that things need to be changed.

[Gregory Sager]

Guys- please excuse my ignorance on the selections and game count issues, as I am still catching up to this. Do the games against quality teams not count anymore? Meaning, if a D3 plays a D2 for example and wins, does that help them, hurt them, or doesnt matter?

Don't worry, Piofan -- the methodology that D3 uses for tournament selection is pretty byzantine by anybody's standards.

To answer your question: No, games played against non-D3 teams (D1, D2, NAIA, NCCAA, etc.) do not count in terms of the selection committee's criteria. In fact, they never did. The D3 tournament has been based strictly upon D3 vs. D3 competition since long before your league entered the division in the late '90s. Non-D3 games still count on a team's record, but they're irrelevant in terms of postseason play.

The more pertinent point, though, is that a lot of D3 vs. D3 games don't count, either. The criteria are now completely regionally-based. In other words, how an NWC team fares against a team such as Elmhurst or Eastern Nazarene or Emory & Henry is just as irrelevant as how they do against a D2 team. The committee only looks at how an NWC team does against other West Region (NWC, SCIAC, WIAC, MIAC, and IIAC) teams.

[piofan]

Greg Sager-  I find that absolutely crazy.  I knew the selection process and everything was a bit off when I was explained it by the LC coaches during Scott Davis years.  Didnt get it then, still dont get it.

I just dont understand how a game against another D3 or higher can not be counted.  I know the D1 selection looks at that kind of thing.  If a team played too many D2's then they will probably get omitted from the field.  Shouldnt it be the opposite for the D3's?! I'll "give" them the NAIA schools not counting.  Dont agree with that also since I have seen some really really good players and teams at that level.  But ok.  Just seems strange to me that you cant count something that is suppose to be making you better.  This is probably been discussed for years on years. 

Thanks for the info.

[Gregory Sager]

Actually, D1 teams aren't penalized for playing games against D2 or D3 or NAIA teams. They just don't get credit for them. Those games aren't added onto their RPI or figured into their pertinent (as opposed to actual) records. In effect, they're simply irrelevant in the same way that they're irrelevant for tournament purposes from the point of view of the D2 or D3 team.

There's several reasons why games against D1 or D2 teams don't count for tournament purposes. First, not every D3 team gets the opportunity to play an NCAA scholarship team. Since those games don't count for their (D1 or D2) tournament purposes either, they don't tend to draw as well, and they usually don't provide much in the way of competition, D1 and D2 teams don't have much incentive anymore to schedule D3 teams. Such games still exist, of course, but there aren't as many as there used to be -- particularly in terms of D1 vs. D3. Counting such games would therefore constitute an uneven playing field in terms of D3 tournament merit.

Second, one of the expressed purposes of D3 is to facilitate competition within the division. The whole idea behind D3 is that it consists of like-minded schools that share a common philosophy regarding the student-athlete. D3 wants to encourage its schools to play each other (in fact, it goes one step beyond that -- it wants to encourage its schools to play their near neighbors within D3, which is why the tournament is based upon regional criteria). Encouraging games against non-D3 competition works at cross-purposes to that.

Lastly, D3 has some modicum of control over gauging the competitive level within itself -- screwy and haphazard though it may be. Gauging non-D3 competition is something that's completely out of their hands.