WBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[iwu70]

Pretty much only good teams left now, right?   Gotta face some pretty tough competition.  Would be nice to avoid Hope right off.  No walk in the woods, right?  Chicago would be nice . . .

'70

[GoPerry]

Great show Dave, Gordon and other guests last night! Thanks for doing that.

During your selection process, I was a little surprised at the mentioning of teams with bad losses (Wheaton losing to Carroll, Ohio Northern to Muskingum) as if that is one of the criteria - which of course it isn't.  It sounded like an interview with a committee member indicated that will now be considered? 

I'm not arguing that "loss quality" should or should not be considered.  But the integrity of the process has been preserved by a strict adherence to the stated criteria and little more (mid season injuries, early season wins vs late season wins, etc).     

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Great show Dave, Gordon and other guests last night! Thanks for doing that.

During your selection process, I was a little surprised at the mentioning of teams with bad losses (Wheaton losing to Carroll, Ohio Northern to Muskingum) as if that is one of the criteria - which of course it isn't.  It sounded like an interview with a committee member indicated that will now be considered? 

I'm not arguing that "loss quality" should or should not be considered.  But the integrity of the process has been preserved by a strict adherence to the stated criteria and little more (mid season injuries, early season wins vs late season wins, etc).     

I can see the logic, though.  On the men's side we ended up comparing Benedictine to Babson, I think, at one point.  We pointed out that Babson's resume was hurt by losing to so many ranked conference opponents, while Bendictine had a pristine 3-0 vRRO, because the conference games they lost were to even worse teams.

There's something amiss there.  Not sure how you solve it, but I can't begrudge he women's committee if they do it this way.

[GoPerry]

Great show Dave, Gordon and other guests last night! Thanks for doing that.

During your selection process, I was a little surprised at the mentioning of teams with bad losses (Wheaton losing to Carroll, Ohio Northern to Muskingum) as if that is one of the criteria - which of course it isn't.  It sounded like an interview with a committee member indicated that will now be considered? 

I'm not arguing that "loss quality" should or should not be considered.  But the integrity of the process has been preserved by a strict adherence to the stated criteria and little more (mid season injuries, early season wins vs late season wins, etc).     

I can see the logic, though.  On the men's side we ended up comparing Benedictine to Babson, I think, at one point.  We pointed out that Babson's resume was hurt by losing to so many ranked conference opponents, while Bendictine had a pristine 3-0 vRRO, because the conference games they lost were to even worse teams.

There's something amiss there.  Not sure how you solve it, but I can't begrudge he women's committee if they do it this way.

I wouldn't either necessarily.  But then I think you open up even more subjectivity if you decide to give some weight to a one off bad loss?  For instance, was the team down a player(s) due to injury or illness? 

My point is that considering "loss quality" departs from the stated criteria which is normally closely adhered to.  This is why I'm surprised to hear that it is a factor.  On the boards, anybody introducing other outside factors will typically get the " . . that might be so, but that is not part of the primary selection criteria" statement.

[Gregory Sager]

This.

[Gregory Sager]

(Rats. The effect is ruined by a page break. Anyway, I was just trying to say that what GoPerry said in his last post is spot-on.)

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Great show Dave, Gordon and other guests last night! Thanks for doing that.

During your selection process, I was a little surprised at the mentioning of teams with bad losses (Wheaton losing to Carroll, Ohio Northern to Muskingum) as if that is one of the criteria - which of course it isn't.  It sounded like an interview with a committee member indicated that will now be considered? 

I'm not arguing that "loss quality" should or should not be considered.  But the integrity of the process has been preserved by a strict adherence to the stated criteria and little more (mid season injuries, early season wins vs late season wins, etc).     

I can see the logic, though.  On the men's side we ended up comparing Benedictine to Babson, I think, at one point.  We pointed out that Babson's resume was hurt by losing to so many ranked conference opponents, while Bendictine had a pristine 3-0 vRRO, because the conference games they lost were to even worse teams.

There's something amiss there.  Not sure how you solve it, but I can't begrudge he women's committee if they do it this way.

I wouldn't either necessarily.  But then I think you open up even more subjectivity if you decide to give some weight to a one off bad loss?  For instance, was the team down a player(s) due to injury or illness? 

My point is that considering "loss quality" departs from the stated criteria which is normally closely adhered to.  This is why I'm surprised to hear that it is a factor.  On the boards, anybody introducing other outside factors will typically get the " . . that might be so, but that is not part of the primary selection criteria" statement.

In the old days, the "criteria" was very fluid.  I'd attribute a lot of the stringency of the men's committee to the chairmanship of Steve Ulrich, former of the Centennial Conference.  He's an analytical guy who took a very data driven approach to things.  The women's committee works hard to adhere to their mandate; I would never accuse them of anything untoward or inappropriate - but the two committees have evolved differently.  I don't think there's any element, outside of the committees' own members, enforcing the level of rigidity they use.

As you can see, both committees change approaches every year based on new membership and feedback.  We're really just trying to understand how each committee approaches their decisions each year.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

(Rats. The effect is ruined by a page break. Anyway, I was just trying to say that what GoPerry said in his last post is spot-on.)

Some of us also have our settings so the most recent posts appear at the top.

[gordonmann]

During your selection process, I was a little surprised at the mentioning of teams with bad losses (Wheaton losing to Carroll, Ohio Northern to Muskingum) as if that is one of the criteria - which of course it isn't.  It sounded like an interview with a committee member indicated that will now be considered?

That's what I gleaned from Dave's conversation with Coach Harvey on Wednesday. Maybe that's not what she meant or maybe she spoke in err (understandable in a long, free-flowing interview). But I think she said they would consider whether teams have any bad losses. That's the only reason I interjected it into the conversation.

[GoPerry]

Kind of what we thought: 

IWU traveling to Holland and #2 Hope but will play un-ranked(Massey #76) Berea (25-3) in the first round.  Wheaton heads to #8 Wartburg and plays #7 Whitman (24-3) in the first round.  Brutal but expected.

[iwumichigander]

During your selection process, I was a little surprised at the mentioning of teams with bad losses (Wheaton losing to Carroll, Ohio Northern to Muskingum) as if that is one of the criteria - which of course it isn't.  It sounded like an interview with a committee member indicated that will now be considered?

That's what I gleaned from Dave's conversation with Coach Harvey on Wednesday. Maybe that's not what she meant or maybe she spoke in err (understandable in a long, free-flowing interview). But I think she said they would consider whether teams have any bad losses. That's the only reason I interjected it into the conversation.

Stating up front I am not implying anything, the problem to me is the women's teams seem so close with the criteria that one really has to breakdown the criteria with a razor fine edge.
Not so much the case with the men.i.e., a broader spectrum on the men's side.

[iwu70]

Well, a tough draw for IWU.  So much for avoiding Hope.  Guess you have to continue to follow Mia Smith's logic in scheduling top programs always -- "To be the best, you have to play the best." 

Good luck to WC and IWU this weekend.  I hope both programs make some noise for the CCIW.   IWU is surely battled tested, playing well at this point in the season.  March is March, no easy outings.

IWU'70

[gordonmann]

Coach Harvey confirmed that they did take "bad losses" into consideration.

That was the biggest strike against Ohio Northern, which did have a really bad loss to Muskingum. I'm not real comfortable with using that as a criteria because some bad losses are subjective. Augsburg's loss to Puget Sound was cited as a bad loss. UPS was .500 and narrowly missed beating George Fox. Wheaton had a bad loss to Carroll, and it didn't stop them from getting into the tournament early enough that a couple other Central teams followed.

But that's the way it goes. The Committee has a tough job.

[Pat Coleman]

Harvey made it sound like "bad loss" was a secondary criteria, put into play between teams with indistinguishable resumes.

[Gregory Sager]

Am I the only one who cares that the national committee is invoking a criterion that doesn't exist in order to decide between Pool C candidates?

Whatever happened to following the rules?