WBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[gordonmann]

You're right. My bad on Wisconsin Lutheran's regional ranking.

And, GoPerry, the answer to your earlier question is, "Yes, Thomas More is No. 1 now."

https://www.d3hoops.com/top25/women/2018-19/week12

[iwu70]

Ypsi, I think you have very realistic expectations for this weekend  -- @1-2.  Let's hope better, but that's about my view as well.  Would love to see either IWU or WC win two games this weekend, get to Sweet Sixteen.

We'll see if the tough IWU schedule earlier produces the kind of "battle-tested" Titans we hope for this time of year. 

Very tough first round game for Wheaton.

IWU'70

[GoPerry]

I hope I'm being too pessimistic, but I foresee the CCIW going 1-2 this post-season.  Wheaton losing to Hope on Friday; IWU beating WI Lu on Friday but losing to UST on Saturday.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, and both are still alive NEXT weekend.

Ypsi - I'm not optimistic that you're being too pessimistic.

And, GoPerry, the answer to your earlier question is, "Yes, Thomas More is No. 1 now."

https://www.d3hoops.com/top25/women/2018-19/week12

Hey! Finally got it right.  Undefeated and the toughest schedule but still not unanimous and Bowdoin still getting a vote . . .  maybe some TMU resentment out there for leaving DIII? "You don't get my vote if you're leaving the NCAA"??

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think the "don't get my vote" thing is not even in voter's minds.

Plus, most understand Thomas More isn't really leaving because they want to ... they have no other choice or stay independent. Those who want to be bitter are probably Thomas More.

[GoPerry]

One thing about the final RR in the Central:  there was a heck of a lot of movement up and down that, in my opinion, one wouldn't have suspected.  Even if one thought Wash U would beat Chicago, would we predict them to jump from #5 up to #2 and then host?  And who would've thought that UW-Whitewater would go from #7 to #4 by going 1-1 on the week?  Meanwhile, IWU goes 2-0 and UWW goes over them.  It's almost as if not a lot of thought went into the week 3 ranking.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

One thing about the final RR in the Central:  there was a heck of a lot of movement up and down that, in my opinion, one wouldn't have suspected.  Even if one thought Wash U would beat Chicago, would we predict them to jump from #5 up to #2 and then host?  And who would've thought that UW-Whitewater would go from #7 to #4 by going 1-1 on the week?  Meanwhile, IWU goes 2-0 and UWW goes over them.  It's almost as if not a lot of thought went into the week 3 ranking.

Talking to a few people ... the choice the committee(s) had was either bury Chicago or move WashU up ... but they have to consider all the other teams involved as well. It is never a Team A or Team B conversation. It is a Team A, B, C, maybe D, possible E, etc. conversation.

And a lot of data is always changing. vRRO changed twice between Week 3 and the end. SOS numbers go up and down. Etc., etc. One week's results do NOT dictate how the rankings will be adjusted. They start from scratch each week and see how a team rates on the criteria. 1-1 is pretty far down the list of things the committee is looking at. UWW had a .600 SOS and was at least 6-6 vRRO in the end. With a .667 WL% - that is a hard resume to keep buried.

[GoPerry]

One thing about the final RR in the Central:  there was a heck of a lot of movement up and down that, in my opinion, one wouldn't have suspected.  Even if one thought Wash U would beat Chicago, would we predict them to jump from #5 up to #2 and then host?  And who would've thought that UW-Whitewater would go from #7 to #4 by going 1-1 on the week?  Meanwhile, IWU goes 2-0 and UWW goes over them.  It's almost as if not a lot of thought went into the week 3 ranking.

Talking to a few people ... the choice the committee(s) had was either bury Chicago or move WashU up ... but they have to consider all the other teams involved as well. It is never a Team A or Team B conversation. It is a Team A, B, C, maybe D, possible E, etc. conversation.

And a lot of data is always changing. vRRO changed twice between Week 3 and the end. SOS numbers go up and down. Etc., etc. One week's results do NOT dictate how the rankings will be adjusted. They start from scratch each week and see how a team rates on the criteria. 1-1 is pretty far down the list of things the committee is looking at. UWW had a .600 SOS and was at least 6-6 vRRO in the end. With a .667 WL% - that is a hard resume to keep buried.

Week 3:                                                               Final:
UWO          22-3, 6-3 vRRo,  .568                                       UWO   24-3, 5-3, .574
Chicago    19-5,  5-3, .593                                              Wash U  19-6  4-5   .600
Wheaton    20-4,  3-3,  .556                                           Chicago  19-6  5-4  .598
Ill Wesleyan 21-4,  3-4, .551                                     Whitewater  18-9   5-5  .609
Wash U       18-6,  3-5,  .590                                     Ill Wesleyan, 23-4   4-4  .563
Wisc Luth     24-1,        .495                                         Wheaton  21-5*   3-4   .563  * s/b 22-5
Whitewater   17-8,  5-5, .595

Yes, understood and I have no problem with the final ranking.  But it appears to me the RAC's week 3 evaluation and ranking method wasn't consistent with their final one.  UWW's SOS was .595 in week 3, the highest in the region and stayed that way .609 in the final.  Same with Wash U and Chicago SOS (Wash U already had a h2h win over Chic).  And as you suggested, there are a lot of h2h results among these teams so that might've given them trouble. My point is that data really didn't change that much from week 3 to final but WashU and UWW made very big jumps.  For instance, I can't understand how they can have UWW below IWU in week 3, but above them in the final.  Contrast this with the other regions where the movement was merely tweaks up/down.

Also, the final data had Wheaton's record at 21-5 (.808) when it should have been 22-5 (.815).  I doubt this mattered in the end but is it conceivable that the RAC might've been evaluating a Pool C team with a poorer record than actual?  None of us were on the calls, but this all gives the outside impression that the process could use some tightening.

[lmitzel]

Also, the final data had Wheaton's record at 21-5 (.808) when it should have been 22-5 (.815).  I doubt this mattered in the end but is it conceivable that the RAC might've been evaluating a Pool C team with a poorer record than actual?  None of us were on the calls, but this all gives the outside impression that the process could use some tightening.

I'm assuming the discrepancy here was the game against Trinity Christian College. Since they're not NCAA, that game doesn't count towards the primary criteria, hence the one fewer win on the resume. It would have counted as part of secondary criteria though, if I remember right.

[GoPerry]

Also, the final data had Wheaton's record at 21-5 (.808) when it should have been 22-5 (.815).  I doubt this mattered in the end but is it conceivable that the RAC might've been evaluating a Pool C team with a poorer record than actual?  None of us were on the calls, but this all gives the outside impression that the process could use some tightening.

I'm assuming the discrepancy here was the game against Trinity Christian College. Since they're not NCAA, that game doesn't count towards the primary criteria, hence the one fewer win on the resume. It would have counted as part of secondary criteria though, if I remember right.

Ahh, yes. Thanks Imitzel.

[GoPerry]

Wheaton has quite a stern matchup in playing this young but very skilled Hope team starting 4 sophomores and senior, Frankie Buchanan. Thunder height advantage won't be as dramatic as they're used to.  The Flying Dutch have good team speed and play much more up tempo on offense than the Thunder.  One key will be rebounding which is not a Wheaton strength.  Hope is aggressive especially on the offensive glass where at least one or two players will charge the offensive boards. Wheaton can't stand around watching a shot go up or their opponent will slip under and get a put back.  Another critical element will be the Thunder being able to match Hope's defensive intensity.  They've done so on a few occasions this year, but not consistently.

I think slowing the game down will work to Wheaton's advantage.  A fast paced game could mean getting run out of the gym- Hope averaging 77 pts/game, Wheaton 68.  I'd like to see Coach Madsen use some creativity, perhaps throw in some zone defense here and there just to break the flow some.  Hannah Frazier vs Buchanan will be a good matchup; ditto Devin Kyler – 6'3" Olivia Voskuil.  Jordan Myroth's last 2 games have been fairly mediocre but the Thunder will need her to stay aggressive, use her size and try to finish drives better.

Wheaton has a good chance here but will have to deliver a complete game, start fast, not play scared despite Hope's higher ranking.  Go Thunder!

[RogK]

Ya don't want to hold Hope under 60 pts; they are 2-0 when scoring in the 50s!
here are Hope's scoring outputs so far :
50 56 ... (2-0 W-L record)
61 61 63 64 65 65 69 ... (4-3)
72 73 73 74 75 78 79 ... (6-1)
80 83 84 85 86 88 ... (6-0)
92 93 93 96 ... (4-0)
109 ... (1-0)
They are 17-0 when reaching 73 pts. Nevertheless, it's possible that Wheaton will win 79-74.
They average 77 (76.6) but finished in the 70s in only 7 of 27 games.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Also, the final data had Wheaton's record at 21-5 (.808) when it should have been 22-5 (.815).  I doubt this mattered in the end but is it conceivable that the RAC might've been evaluating a Pool C team with a poorer record than actual?  None of us were on the calls, but this all gives the outside impression that the process could use some tightening.

I'm assuming the discrepancy here was the game against Trinity Christian College. Since they're not NCAA, that game doesn't count towards the primary criteria, hence the one fewer win on the resume. It would have counted as part of secondary criteria though, if I remember right.

Correct. It is not considered part of the primary criteria because the game is against a non-DIII member. It would pop up in the secondary criteria to bolster their WL% (something I think most committees don't worry about unless there is some massive difference suddenly between teams) and with comparable games with other teams. Considering the chances of a non-DIII opponent being played by multiple DIII teams in consideration is pretty low ... this game basically isn't really considered ever. It is essentially a waste of a game when it comes to criteria.

[Gregory Sager]

Massey sez:

Illinois Wesleyan
First round: 70.30
Second round: 9.51
Sectional semis: 3.35
Sectional finals: 1.43
National semis: 0.44
National championship: 0.07

Wheaton
First round: 34.08
Second round: 11.76
Sectional semis: 4.40
Sectional finals: 0.76
National semis: 0.19
National championship: 0.02

Illinois Wesleyan 68, Wisconsin Lutheran 61
Hope 64, Wheaton 59

[GoPerry]

Ya don't want to hold Hope under 60 pts; they are 2-0 when scoring in the 50s!
here are Hope's scoring outputs so far :
50 56 ... (2-0 W-L record)
61 61 63 64 65 65 69 ... (4-3)
72 73 73 74 75 78 79 ... (6-1)
80 83 84 85 86 88 ... (6-0)
92 93 93 96 ... (4-0)
109 ... (1-0)
They are 17-0 when reaching 73 pts. Nevertheless, it's possible that Wheaton will win 79-74.
They average 77 (76.6) but finished in the 70s in only 7 of 27 games.

Good data RogK.  Keeping Hope under 70 will be difficult which is why some creative thinking, different looks might be required I think.   

[iwu70]

Good luck to the TITANS and Wheaton this weekend.  Bring home some Ws for the CCIW.

IWU'70

P.S.  Anyone have a good take on Wisconsin Lutheran?  26-1 isn't chopped liver.  St. Thomas another matter, right . . . .?