WBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Roundball999]

I'll be cheering for a Titan over Thunder title game, not only due to my green blood but also for the conference to get two teams into the tourney.  Under that scenario, Wheaton would finish 22-5 and be a near-lock for a Pool C bid.  No other conference team has a prayer of at-large selection.

Well, Wheaton is #4 (IWU is #5) in latest regional rankings so the Thunder seems to be in good shape.  Still, best to win it.  I recall it was 4 years ago I think when Hope was 22-5, 3 of the losses to top 5 Calvin, ranked in the top 20 yet didn't receive an at large bid.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'll be cheering for a Titan over Thunder title game, not only due to my green blood but also for the conference to get two teams into the tourney.  Under that scenario, Wheaton would finish 22-5 and be a near-lock for a Pool C bid.  No other conference team has a prayer of at-large selection.

Well, Wheaton is #4 (IWU is #5) in latest regional rankings so the Thunder seems to be in good shape.  Still, best to win it.  I recall it was 4 years ago I think when Hope was 22-5, 3 of the losses to top 5 Calvin, ranked in the top 20 yet didn't receive an at large bid.

I just examined the supporting stats for the ranked Central Region teams.  IWU had an SoS of .604, and that was as of Sunday!  By the time they played Wheaton, and will play Elmhurst and (hopefully) Wheaton again, their SoS will be downright stratispheric!  Add in ten games vRROs (thirteen if Elmhurst gets into the final rankings), and while their winning% is probably a deal-breaker, I'm not gonna lose hope of a bid after all.

And Wheaton, I suspect, will be much higher on other criteria than Hope was, even if the W-L records would be identical.  Wheaton's SoS was already .564 on Sunday, and will climb higher this week, and they will have far more vRROs than I assume Hope had.  I'll stick with my 'near-lock' assessment of Wheaton's Pool C chances (if we can make them need it! ), and I now have SOME (faint) hopes that IWU could get in (if we can't achieve the AQ).

But, yeah, it's always best to win the AQ and not have to rely on the proverbial 'smoke-filled room' (which, I assume, is no longer smoke-filled)!

[Roundball999]

I'll be cheering for a Titan over Thunder title game, not only due to my green blood but also for the conference to get two teams into the tourney.  Under that scenario, Wheaton would finish 22-5 and be a near-lock for a Pool C bid.  No other conference team has a prayer of at-large selection.

Well, Wheaton is #4 (IWU is #5) in latest regional rankings so the Thunder seems to be in good shape.  Still, best to win it.  I recall it was 4 years ago I think when Hope was 22-5, 3 of the losses to top 5 Calvin, ranked in the top 20 yet didn't receive an at large bid.

I just examined the supporting stats for the ranked Central Region teams.  IWU had an SoS of .604, and that was as of Sunday!  By the time they played Wheaton, and will play Elmhurst and (hopefully) Wheaton again, their SoS will be downright stratispheric!  Add in ten games vRROs (thirteen if Elmhurst gets into the final rankings), and while their winning% is probably a deal-breaker, I'm not gonna lose hope of a bid after all.

And Wheaton, I suspect, will be much higher on other criteria than Hope was, even if the W-L records would be identical.  Wheaton's SoS was already .564 on Sunday, and will climb higher this week, and they will have far more vRROs than I assume Hope had.  I'll stick with my 'near-lock' assessment of Wheaton's Pool C chances (if we can make them need it! ), and I now have SOME (faint) hopes that IWU could get in (if we can't achieve the AQ).

But, yeah, it's always best to win the AQ and not have to rely on the proverbial 'smoke-filled room' (which, I assume, is no longer smoke-filled)!

Agree on all points.  Hard to think the IWU would get in with that many losses, but their schedule was so darned tough and its showing in the regional rankings.  Wheaton should be in.

I think what did in Hope that year was a couple of "bad" losses in their league to teams that weren't exactly powerhouses.

[GoPerry]

After seeing 3 regional rankings, I'm getting the impression that A. the committee is giving SOS a lot of weight, perhaps because  B. there simply aren't that many good teams with good W/L records and strong SOS in the Central to rank.  In any case, it seems to me that the Titans, even if they lose again and don't get the AQ,  are going to remain regionally ranked and maybe pretty high.  I'm not even sure they'll drop below Concordia(Wisc) who has zero vRRO but will likely get the AQ out of the NACC anyhow.  Depending how Whitewater does in the WIAC, maybe they'll be behind them.  Chicago will be among the first Pool C's to go even if they lose their last game vs WashU.  So if IWU can stay ahead of UWW in the final RR, they could be on the board relatively early at the top of the Central.  Once they get there, who knows?  I haven't examined the strength of the other regions.

Absolutely must beat Elmhurst though.

[iwu70]

Yes, let's hope IWU keeps moving up the Board.  Win vs. EC a key, then that rubber match. Hope it happens, should be another great game.  Those two teams so even now and playing at a high level.

IWU70

[GoPerry]

Of course, we won't know who moves up or down because we'll never see the next/final ranking used to draw the field.  I appreciate the data for the first 3 rankings.  But if you're going to do that, then why not release the final one as well?

[Mr. Ypsi]

Of course, we won't know who moves up or down because we'll never see the next/final ranking used to draw the field.  I appreciate the data for the first 3 rankings.  But if you're going to do that, then why not release the final one as well?

They do now release the final regional rankings.  Unfortunately, not until AFTER the selections have been released.

It's a step in the right direction, but I guess they still don't want second-guessing BEFORE the decisions are made.  But that 'second-guessing' can potentially uncover factual errors in the data.  Not sure why they are so scared of 'crowd-sourcing' information - the final decisions are still theirs regardless.

[GoPerry]

Of course, we won't know who moves up or down because we'll never see the next/final ranking used to draw the field.  I appreciate the data for the first 3 rankings.  But if you're going to do that, then why not release the final one as well?

They do now release the final regional rankings.  Unfortunately, not until AFTER the selections have been released.

It's a step in the right direction, but I guess they still don't want second-guessing BEFORE the decisions are made.  But that 'second-guessing' can potentially uncover factual errors in the data.  Not sure why they are so scared of 'crowd-sourcing' information - the final decisions are still theirs regardless.

I didn't realize that, thanks.  Is that new this year or last?

[Gregory Sager]

It's new this year.

[RogK]

For the 16 conference games only, here are the offense eFG% and FG% :
         eFG%    FG%
ELM  .531     .484
WHE  .501    .455
CTG  .487     .427
IWU  .465    .427
MIL   .461    .415
AUG  .456    .413
NPU   .442   .394
NCC  .435    .357
CRL   .395    .356
The innate flaw of FG% is that it treats 2FGs and 3FGs as the same thing.

[lmitzel]

For the 16 conference games only, here are the offense eFG% and FG% :
         eFG%    FG%
ELM  .531     .484
WHE  .501    .455
CTG  .487     .427
IWU  .465    .427
MIL   .461    .415
AUG  .456    .413
NPU   .442   .394
NCC  .435    .357
CRL   .395    .356
The innate flaw of FG% is that it treats 2FGs and 3FGs as the same thing.

This is especially true with North Central. You look purely at field goal percentage and wonder how the Cardinals not only beat up on Carroll both times, but finished .500 in conference. The eFG adjustment makes that clear, and also to a degree still shows the clear imbalance in terms of threes taken by North Central, combined with the fact that they will, over the course of a season, only hit between 26 and 29 percent of them. That's why North Central makes the biggest jump by far (88 percentage points; next highest is Carthage's 60).

[RogK]

The .435 eFG% is not good, which means they were above average in other aspects of the game in order to be 8-8. These "other aspects" would surely include making a lot of FTs (248 made in 16 games, tied for most), getting many o-rebs, inducing many turnovers.
I just checked : NCC's eFG% in recent seasons were .451 in 2015-16, .433 in 2014-15 and .428 in 2013-14. Only the .451 could be considered decent.
My opinion is that the goal for any WBB team should be to make 1/2 of their 2FGs and make 1/3 of their 3FGs. By doing so, you get a .500 eFG%.
This is achievable for a System WBB team, for example this year's Olivet Nazarene has a .510 eFG (and .432 FG%).
Where I've ended up in this thinking is -- NCC has not yet developed a consistently impressive offense. If they did, we'd see a scoring average at 100 or better, not 90-ish.
p.s. .435 - .357 = .078.
p.s. #2 - hey lmitzel, have you heard any early news regarding recruits headed for Naperville? You don't have to name names. Also, I think there was a freshman who sat out '16-'17 due to injury.

[GoPerry]

The .435 eFG% is not good, which means they were above average in other aspects of the game in order to be 8-8. These "other aspects" would surely include making a lot of FTs (248 made in 16 games, tied for most), getting many o-rebs, inducing many turnovers.
I just checked : NCC's eFG% in recent seasons were .451 in 2015-16, .433 in 2014-15 and .428 in 2013-14. Only the .451 could be considered decent.
My opinion is that the goal for any WBB team should be to make 1/2 of their 2FGs and make 1/3 of their 3FGs. By doing so, you get a .500 eFG%.
This is achievable for a System WBB team, for example this year's Olivet Nazarene has a .510 eFG (and .432 FG%).
Where I've ended up in this thinking is -- NCC has not yet developed a consistently impressive offense. If they did, we'd see a scoring average at 100 or better, not 90-ish.
p.s. .435 - .357 = .078.
p.s. #2 - hey lmitzel, have you heard any early news regarding recruits headed for Naperville? You don't have to name names. Also, I think there was a freshman who sat out '16-'17 due to injury.

The poor .435 eFG% is offset by the fact that they have so many more FG attempts/game, correct?  Isn't that sort of what the system is all about?

[Roundball999]

The .435 eFG% is not good, which means they were above average in other aspects of the game in order to be 8-8. These "other aspects" would surely include making a lot of FTs (248 made in 16 games, tied for most), getting many o-rebs, inducing many turnovers.
I just checked : NCC's eFG% in recent seasons were .451 in 2015-16, .433 in 2014-15 and .428 in 2013-14. Only the .451 could be considered decent.
My opinion is that the goal for any WBB team should be to make 1/2 of their 2FGs and make 1/3 of their 3FGs. By doing so, you get a .500 eFG%.
This is achievable for a System WBB team, for example this year's Olivet Nazarene has a .510 eFG (and .432 FG%).
Where I've ended up in this thinking is -- NCC has not yet developed a consistently impressive offense. If they did, we'd see a scoring average at 100 or better, not 90-ish.
p.s. .435 - .357 = .078.
p.s. #2 - hey lmitzel, have you heard any early news regarding recruits headed for Naperville? You don't have to name names. Also, I think there was a freshman who sat out '16-'17 due to injury.

The poor .435 eFG% is offset by the fact that they have so many more FG attempts/game, correct?  Isn't that sort of what the system is all about?

Some interesting math could be done I think.  Simple look at the season box score, NCC had about 11% more shots than opponents but that translated into only 4% more points.  More than half of NCC shots were 3s, but they only hit those at 29%.  What if they used those extra attempts to work the ball for higher % shots?  But then maybe they wouldn't have so many more shots and the point differential would be less favorable.... my head always hurts thinking about the pros and cons of the system approach.  For me it always seems to come back to "if you have better players, who shoot rebound and defend better" then you probably win regardless of the style of play.  And vice versa if you don't have better players.

[RogK]

I agree, GoPerry. For the reason you stated, they were able to be a middle-of-the-pack team despite the below average FG shooting.
In CCIW play, they got outrebounded a bit, with opponents getting 53% of the rebounds.
They were +7 on turnovers, so that helped 'em get more FG/FT attempts than the opponent. They should have had maybe +10, because a couple of times in each of the games I saw, they would go through all the effort and get a steal, only to turn it back over two seconds later.
Looking forward, the rebounding could be somewhat better, but probably not a huge improvement.
Could they improve their turnover margin? Yeah, as some of their young players get more accustomed to the frantic pace. To make a big leap in getting steals, they may need 2 or 3 highly athletic players who could each average a steal every 5 to 7 minutes.
The other area of possible substantial improvement is in the FG shooting pcts.
I recall your recent discussion about Wheaton's quantity of 3FG attempts, where you seemed to say that there is a finite amount of good 3 point "looks" in a game. I see some truth in that, because it's very difficult for a team to regularly shoot 50 threes and still make over a third of them. Anyway, if NCC can get their eFG% up to .500, they'd have a good chance to perennially be in the top third of the league. Or at least avoid a 33-5 1st quarter at Wheaton!
Roundball999, I had to laugh at your line about your head hurting. I think many opposing coaches feel that way when preparing their team to play vs NCC.
Incidentally, if you add nearly all of NCC's FT attempts to the 2FG side of the offense, the 2 vs 3 balance goes slightly toward the 2FG side.