WBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[iwu70]

Thanks, RogK.  Yes, Carthage and Augie are interesting cases.  Guess we'll see really how good they are when they play WC and IWU.  I think IWU really better than their 5-4 record, as they always play one of the toughest pre-CCIW schedules around.  Now #4 Thomas More.  Likely returning to conference play at 6-5 or some such.  They have the talent again to win or co-win the CCIW, though the loss of Holness a big setback.  She was a key rotational player and was one of the few who shot treys respectably.  IWU doesn't look very good stats wise, but always stay competitive with the full-on defensive pressure and the scoring of McGraw and Ehresman.  They need a third scorer and better rebounding.  Run and jump always produces a good TO margin, extra possessions.

IWU'70

[RogK]

IWU may get increased scoring from soph Maddie Merritt, who is quite good at drawing fouls and making her FTs. In her first season, she shot 1 FT every 5 minutes (.208) and her '16-'17 rate is currently .168 per min or 1 att per 6 minutes. My guess is that she could carry a heavier load. Of course, it could be that opposing teams do what they can to deny her the ball.

[iwu70]

Agreed on Maddie Merritt.  I think she's often the key, the difference to a good IWU win.  She's scored well in several games and does shoot FTs about the best of anyone in the starting line-up.  Hope she has the stamina to put up bigger numbers down the stretch.  More to come from freshman Shanks, too.  McGraw and Ehresman playing at a high and consistent level all season so far. Truly impressive. 

IWU'70

[lmitzel]

Thanks, RogK.  Yes, Carthage and Augie are interesting cases.  Guess we'll see really how good they are when they play WC and IWU.  I think IWU really better than their 5-4 record, as they always play one of the toughest pre-CCIW schedules around.  Now #4 Thomas More.  Likely returning to conference play at 6-5 or some such.  They have the talent again to win or co-win the CCIW, though the loss of Holness a big setback.  She was a key rotational player and was one of the few who shot treys respectably.  IWU doesn't look very good stats wise, but always stay competitive with the full-on defensive pressure and the scoring of McGraw and Ehresman.  They need a third scorer and better rebounding.  Run and jump always produces a good TO margin, extra possessions.

IWU'70

That's why it's hard to get a good read on Illinois Wesleyan with regards to the CCIW. That tough non-conference schedule brings their record down, and I definitely still think they and Wheaton are the top two teams in the conference, with Augie certainly up there now. I still wouldn't count out North Central. While they're only 1-2 in conference, those two losses came to the aforementioned Titans and Thunder by five points apiece. Free throw woes I've gone on about aside, they might be starting to gel a little bit. It's going to be a fun couple months once conference play gets going again.

[RogK]

Merely assembling a tough nonconference schedule should not earn credit for any team. In fact, it is mathematically impossible for a majority of D3 schools to have a tough nonconference schedule. It doesn't seem fair, then, to instantly diminish a couple hundred D3 teams because of their "inadequate" scheduling abilities.
But, I would say it is fully fair to give some credit for all wins, and significant extra credit for wins over tough opponents. So yes, for example, give IWU due credit for nonconf wins over Luther, Illinois College, Rose-Hulman and Chicago.
Applying credit for losses gets a bit muddy. Other teams who would've liked a chance at playing Wash U or Stevens Point or Whitewater but couldn't schedule them (for whatever reason) wouldn't want to concede any credit to IWU for losing to those tough opponents.
This discussion isn't exactly the same as a discussion of Strength of Schedule, but similar. By the way, am I correct in saying that a team's Strength of Schedule forms steadily over the 25 game season? An early season game that seemed to be an "upset" may turn out to not have been one.

[GoPerry]

Merely assembling a tough nonconference schedule should not earn credit for any team. In fact, it is mathematically impossible for a majority of D3 schools to have a tough nonconference schedule. It doesn't seem fair, then, to instantly diminish a couple hundred D3 teams because of their "inadequate" scheduling abilities.
But, I would say it is fully fair to give some credit for all wins, and significant extra credit for wins over tough opponents. So yes, for example, give IWU due credit for nonconf wins over Luther, Illinois College, Rose-Hulman and Chicago.
Applying credit for losses gets a bit muddy. Other teams who would've liked a chance at playing Wash U or Stevens Point or Whitewater but couldn't schedule them (for whatever reason) wouldn't want to concede any credit to IWU for losing to those tough opponents.
This discussion isn't exactly the same as a discussion of Strength of Schedule, but similar. By the way, am I correct in saying that a team's Strength of Schedule forms steadily over the 25 game season? An early season game that seemed to be an "upset" may turn out to not have been one.

RogK:  I generally agree with you.  It seems that playing a tough non-con schedule is really only advantageous as long as you win a decent amount of those tough games.  If you end up losing most of them, then it doesn't do much for you besides the nebulous 'toughening up' it might provide when you play a difficult league schedule like ours.  For instance, according to Massey, IWU has played the toughest schedule with respect to games played so far as well as their entire projected schedule.  Even if they go 1-1 next week vs Thomas More and Wilmington, 5 losses before Jan 1 puts an awful lot of pressure on the Titans for the balance of CCIW play even with their SOS.

I've been thinking the same thing regarding Wheaton whose Massey schedule is rated 2nd and 6th and they've gone 4-2(non-con).   I'm glad for the tough schedule but both losses were to teams that figure to be regionally ranked in late Feb- Hope and Oshkosh.  With just those 2 losses they're in far better shape than IWU to enable their SOS to help them should they need it.  In my opinion, I don't think anybody will emerge out of the regular schedule with less than 3 losses.

[iwu70]

I think Mia Smith is surely of the school that a very tough pre-CCIW schedule does toughen your team, make them better for conference play, even with 3-4 losses.  Of course, this does often put the TITANS on the bubble come tournament time, as it is often difficult for them to get to 19 or 20 wins overall.  They could still win conference, say, with 3 additional losses, and still only be at 17-8 at tournament selection time.  I guess SOS figures in, but that always puts them in difficulty if not winning the AQ.  And, sometimes an additional loss in the conference tournament might put them at 17-9 or 18-9.  They are tournament ready, probably one of the toughest, best teams in the nation, but may not get a nod for the tournament. 

IWU70

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mark, but considering how many years in a row they made the tourney, AND went deep (including a title), I'm bankin' on her knowing what she's doing for a goodly period of time.  If they miss the tourney for 5-6 years in a row, then I'm a skeptic.

For now: IN MIA WE TRUST!

[iwu70]

I think Mia is on to something, for sure.  I'm just saying that it makes it very tough for them to have a stellar, almost tournament proof record by the time late February rolls round.  It is good for toughness in conference play and good to get the team fully tournament ready, should they make the dance, but we all know that 18-8 or so won't get you in most years, unless you win the AQ. 

'70

[GoPerry]

I think Mia is on to something, for sure.  I'm just saying that it makes it very tough for them to have a stellar, almost tournament proof record by the time late February rolls round.  It is good for toughness in conference play and good to get the team fully tournament ready, should they make the dance, but we all know that 18-8 or so won't get you in most years, unless you win the AQ. 

'70

Right- and this was my point.  Last year, the Pool C cutoff was 7 losses(several teams).  So, if you don't get the AQ and end up with 8 losses, you'd likely have to have a very strong SOS AND a winning % vs RR just to be on the bubble. IWU has the SOS, but the record vs RR is off to a very rough start( just projecting who will likely be RR).  9 losses and your SOS won't matter. 

By contrast, Augie's Massey SOS is #42 so not nearly as strong.  But at 10-0, and likely 11-0 after their remaining non-con game, they'll be a strong at-large candidate if they go 10-6 or better in league play(and they look at least as good as that to me).

Thus, strong schedule is important but winning with it is critical.

[iwu70]

GoPerry, agreed.  I'm not sure such a tough schedule is the best course for IWU.  (as you rightly compared it to Augie's current situation).   I'm pretty sure IWU will beat Augie twice.  Of course, we'll see.  Perhaps Augie is much stronger this year, though IWU has surely not fallen back.  Playing two WIAC teams and Thomas More is not exactly chopped liver.  IWU almost has to go with three or less losses in CCIW to have a record now that puts them in the conversation for a tournament bid, even with the strong SOS.  Not an easy task, esp. with a loss to EC already.  Of course, an upset of #4 Thomas More would be grand!  IWU came within one point of upsetting Wash U, but that's just a loss now.  One can see how good a team IWU is, but a loss is a loss. 

Happy holidays, Merry Christmas to all my CCIW chatsters colleagues. 

IWU'70

[iwu70]

19 of the top 25 teams in the current poll are still undefeated and even some ORVs are also undefeated, like Augie.  Must surely be some very puff schedules out there or some very top heavy conferences with only a few strong teams.  Surely not the case on the men's side, right? 


IWU'70

[Mr. Ypsi]

19 of the top 25 teams in the current poll are still undefeated and even some ORVs are also undefeated, like Augie.  Must surely be some very puff schedules out there or some very top heavy conferences with only a few strong teams.  Surely not the case on the men's side, right? 


IWU'70

If you compare the men's and women's 'How They Fared' posts, there is ALWAYS vastly more red (i.e. losses) on the men's.  The women have improved dramatically in recent years, but are still no where near the parity of the men.  Women's sports took off too recently to have enough 'great' athletes to go around.  (And except for the occasional Sydney Moss, the few great women's athletes are D1.)

Lots and lots of undefeated teams at this point of the season is simply the norm for women's bball.  It will sort itself out in the next two months - though 3-4 undefeated teams entering the tourney is probably normal.

[Gregory Sager]

The imbalance isn't because there aren't enough "great athletes to go around." Women's basketball at the D3 level isn't typically about superstars in the Sydney Moss mold, anyway (not that she has really had a peer); it tends to be more of a classic interplay of teamwork and is less individual-oriented than the men's version, which is one of the virtues of women's basketball on this level. The imbalance is because there's a much wider disparity between schools in terms of resources and interest regarding women's basketball than there is on the men's side, where just about every single one of the 420-odd institutions that offer the sport in D3 is busting its butt to put the best product possible on the floor.

[iwu70]

I tend to agree with Ypsi that there really aren't enough good players to go'round in DIII women's basketball.  We've seen some really great players over the years, from Wash U, surely Olivia Lett's one year at IWU matches up well with Moss, though Moss' career overall was probably matchless.  On many teams in DIII, there just aren't that many decent players.  The stronger programs have them, but even there, it often depends on 2-3 really good players and the rest playing roles, hoping to improve over the tenure of their playing days.  Surely, many conferences have a few strong programs, and many others that often just can't really break .500. 

CCIW women looks pretty strong this year overall -- with at least six teams having a shot at the post-season CCIW tournament.  Maybe more.  I still tend to think its WC, IWU, Augie and NPU that will be there at the end to play in the tournament.  We'll see of course. 

January is coming . . . and the long run in conference play to the end of February.  A real grind.  Conditioning and experience now really playing more a part.

IWU'70