MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

Started by sac, February 19, 2005, 11:51:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: sac on July 07, 2015, 07:04:43 PM
Taking Bob's numbers further.......

When the MIAA/CCIW challenge began in 2004/05 Carthage was one year removed from a trip to the Final Four and a couple years from 2 CCIW titles in 3 years.  They had finished ahead of Wheaton in the CCIW standings 4 years in a row.  It could have been argued then Carthage was a better program than Wheaton pretty easily.

In the 11 years since, Wheaton has had the better stretch and by a pretty substantial margin.  108 CCIW wins to 88 and finished ahead of Carthage in the CCIW standings 9 times.

Overall Records from 2004/05 to 2014/15
Wheaton 209-95      .688
Carthage  150-125   .545

20 win seasons:  Wheaton 6  Carthage 1
losing seasons:   Wheaton 2  Carthage 5


Unbelievably Todd Raridon has been at North Central for 9 years now.  His overall record is 176-75, that's a nice .701 clip, better than Carthage and nearly identical to Wheaton(.703) over that same nine year stretch.  Todd started winning right away at North Central, inheriting a program that was on an upswing after having one winning season in a stretch from 1991 to 2004.  He's already passed Carthage's 20 win season count with 2 and has had just one losing season.

For the near future it looks like North Central is a pretty decent improvement over Carthage (weird words to say), but in 2004/05 when this challenge started if you had asked which CCIW program I feared more Carthage or Wheaton, I would have said Carthage.  At that time a solid 4 year run of success with a national championship winning coach at the helm and not at that different than where North Central is right now.   It just hasn't worked that way.

Its hard to tell how these things will spin out over time.

Good point, sac. NCC-for-Carthage is a significant swap whether you're looking through the windshield or in the rear-view mirror.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

AndOne

#41476
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 07, 2015, 09:24:28 PM
Quote from: sac on July 07, 2015, 07:04:43 PM
Taking Bob's numbers further.......

When the MIAA/CCIW challenge began in 2004/05 Carthage was one year removed from a trip to the Final Four and a couple years from 2 CCIW titles in 3 years.  They had finished ahead of Wheaton in the CCIW standings 4 years in a row.  It could have been argued then Carthage was a better program than Wheaton pretty easily.

In the 11 years since, Wheaton has had the better stretch and by a pretty substantial margin.  108 CCIW wins to 88 and finished ahead of Carthage in the CCIW standings 9 times.

Overall Records from 2004/05 to 2014/15
Wheaton 209-95      .688h
Carthage  150-125   .545

20 win seasons:  Wheaton 6  Carthage 1
losing seasons:   Wheaton 2  Carthage 5


Unbelievably Todd Raridon has been at North Central for 9 years now. His overall record is 176-75, that's a nice .701 clip, better than Carthage and nearly identical to Wheaton(.703) over that same nine year stretch.  Todd started winning right away at North Central, inheriting a program that was on an upswing after having one winning season in a stretch from 1991 to 2004.  He's already passed Carthage's 20 win season count with 2 and has had just one losing season.

For the near future it looks like North Central is a pretty decent improvement over Carthage (weird words to say), but in 2004/05 when this challenge started if you had asked which CCIW program I feared more Carthage or Wheaton, I would have said Carthage.  At that time a solid 4 year run of success with a national championship winning coach at the helm and not at that different than where North Central is right now.   It just hasn't worked that way.

Its hard to tell how these things will spin out over time.

Good point, sac. NCC-for-Carthage is a significant swap whether you're looking through the windshield or in the rear-view mirror.

In actuality, Todd Raridon has now been at North Central for 11 years, rather than 9, and has compiled a record of 188-106 (.639).  ;)
He has taken the Cardinals to the national tournament 3 times, including the Final Four in 2013.

Prior to his arrival in Naperville, he was already a successful head coach, having spent 15 years at Nebraska Wesleyan where his record was 269-125. During his time at NWU he took the Plainsmen/Prairie Wolves to the national tournament 7 times, including the national championship game in 1997, where they lost to IWU by 3 points. His overall record in 26 years is 457-231 (.664).

With regard to a recent comparison with Carthage, over the last 3 years the Wisconsinites have gone 38-38, while the Cardinals have checked in at 60-23. So, as Mr. Sager advised above, a significant swap indeed.

sac

Quote from: AndOne on July 07, 2015, 10:34:06 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 07, 2015, 09:24:28 PM
Quote from: sac on July 07, 2015, 07:04:43 PM
Taking Bob's numbers further.......

When the MIAA/CCIW challenge began in 2004/05 Carthage was one year removed from a trip to the Final Four and a couple years from 2 CCIW titles in 3 years.  They had finished ahead of Wheaton in the CCIW standings 4 years in a row.  It could have been argued then Carthage was a better program than Wheaton pretty easily.

In the 11 years since, Wheaton has had the better stretch and by a pretty substantial margin.  108 CCIW wins to 88 and finished ahead of Carthage in the CCIW standings 9 times.

Overall Records from 2004/05 to 2014/15
Wheaton 209-95      .688h
Carthage  150-125   .545

20 win seasons:  Wheaton 6  Carthage 1
losing seasons:   Wheaton 2  Carthage 5


Unbelievably Todd Raridon has been at North Central for 9 years now. His overall record is 176-75, that's a nice .701 clip, better than Carthage and nearly identical to Wheaton(.703) over that same nine year stretch.  Todd started winning right away at North Central, inheriting a program that was on an upswing after having one winning season in a stretch from 1991 to 2004.  He's already passed Carthage's 20 win season count with 2 and has had just one losing season.

For the near future it looks like North Central is a pretty decent improvement over Carthage (weird words to say), but in 2004/05 when this challenge started if you had asked which CCIW program I feared more Carthage or Wheaton, I would have said Carthage.  At that time a solid 4 year run of success with a national championship winning coach at the helm and not at that different than where North Central is right now.   It just hasn't worked that way.

Its hard to tell how these things will spin out over time.

Good point, sac. NCC-for-Carthage is a significant swap whether you're looking through the windshield or in the rear-view mirror.

In actuality, Todd Raridon has now been at North Central for 11 years, rather than 9, and has compiled a record of 188-106 (.639).  ;)
He has taken the Cardinals to the national tournament 3 times, including the Final Four in 2013.

Prior to his arrival in Naperville, he was already a successful head coach, having spent 15 years at Nebraska Wesleyan where his record was 269-125. During his time at NWU he took the Plainsmen/Prairie Wolves to the national tournament 7 times, including the national championship game in 1997, where they lost to IWU by 3 points. His overall record in 26 years is 457-231 (.664).

With regard to a recent comparison with Carthage, over the last 3 years the Wisconsinites have gone 38-38, while the Cardinals have checked in at 60-23. So, as Mr. Sager advised above, a significant swap indeed.

Your media guide needs updating, more specifically page 4, first sentence.  http://www.sidearmdmg.com/ncentral/mbball/

Gregory Sager

Quote from: KnightSlappy on July 06, 2015, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: AndOne on July 04, 2015, 04:30:29 PM
If you are a fan of a "bubble" team in any given year, you better hope your team has played all or almost all D3 teams because the D3 national committee is going to non D3 opponents as non entities. You can beat a good or great NAIA team and you'll get precisely zero credit as far as consideration for inclusion in the national tournament is concerned.

Quote from: Titan Q on July 05, 2015, 09:31:44 AM

To make the tournament as a Pool C, you basically want to:
   * Meet the 70% requirement (also noted on page 18).
   * Finish with the best D3 win/loss % possible - this is clearly the most important criterion.
   * Finish with an SOS that at least doesn't hurt you - maybe .510+.
   * Hope you end up having played at least a few games against other RRO, with at least 1 win.

Non-D3 games are counted in the secondary criteria for overall which seems to be nearly always used when they're down to the final few Pool C spots.

It's been said (or strongly hinted at) that the D3 committee makes no attempt to qualify relative strength of non-D3 schools, so a win against Marygrove would count the same as a win over Cornerstone. And the team that beats Marygrove is going to get the nod over the team that loses to Cornerstone, assuming everything else in the criteria was equal.

But, as the name makes plain, "secondary criteria" is a plural term rather than a singular. Do we know how the secondary criteria are used, up to and including the relative weight assigned to each of them? Also, as pertains to your "strongly hinted at" statement, I'd love to see where this is laid out on d3boards.com. Perhaps Dave McHugh, who is the closest thing we have to a (non-ambiguous) Delphic oracle when it comes to elucidating the mysteries of the selection committee, can chime in here.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

AndOne

#41479
Quote from: sac on July 07, 2015, 10:58:17 PM

Your media guide needs updating, more specifically page 4, first sentence.  http://www.sidearmdmg.com/ncentral/mbball/

Sorry, sac, but that content requires an update to Adobe Flash Player which is not supported by my (iPad) device.  ;)
Besides, all the information contained in my post can easily be viewed on the NCC basketball web site which is much more easily accessible than paging thru a lengthy Media Guide.  ;D

HOPEful

http://athletics.hope.edu/sports/mbkb/2014-15/releases/201507070rxb5a

Not to be missed as a side note, I'm glad the MIAA was able to take back top attendance from the CCIW...
Let's go Dutchmen!

2015-2016 1-&-Done Tournament Fantasy League Co-Champion

AndOne

Hope,

Congrats. Once upon a time, I visited DeVos Fieldhouse while on a weekend trip to the Holland area. Very impressive even when empty. I can imagine that when playing Hope, it's like playing against 6 guys rather than 5.
I've heard that a certain rival also does exceedingly well on the attendance front and thus contributes greatly to the MIAA's top finish.  :)

sac


Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: Gregory Sager on July 07, 2015, 11:02:21 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on July 06, 2015, 10:00:02 AM
Quote from: AndOne on July 04, 2015, 04:30:29 PM
If you are a fan of a "bubble" team in any given year, you better hope your team has played all or almost all D3 teams because the D3 national committee is going to non D3 opponents as non entities. You can beat a good or great NAIA team and you'll get precisely zero credit as far as consideration for inclusion in the national tournament is concerned.

Quote from: Titan Q on July 05, 2015, 09:31:44 AM

To make the tournament as a Pool C, you basically want to:
   * Meet the 70% requirement (also noted on page 18).
   * Finish with the best D3 win/loss % possible - this is clearly the most important criterion.
   * Finish with an SOS that at least doesn't hurt you - maybe .510+.
   * Hope you end up having played at least a few games against other RRO, with at least 1 win.

Non-D3 games are counted in the secondary criteria for overall which seems to be nearly always used when they're down to the final few Pool C spots.

It's been said (or strongly hinted at) that the D3 committee makes no attempt to qualify relative strength of non-D3 schools, so a win against Marygrove would count the same as a win over Cornerstone. And the team that beats Marygrove is going to get the nod over the team that loses to Cornerstone, assuming everything else in the criteria was equal.

But, as the name makes plain, "secondary criteria" is a plural term rather than a singular. Do we know how the secondary criteria are used, up to and including the relative weight assigned to each of them? Also, as pertains to your "strongly hinted at" statement, I'd love to see where this is laid out on d3boards.com. Perhaps Dave McHugh, who is the closest thing we have to a (non-ambiguous) Delphic oracle when it comes to elucidating the mysteries of the selection committee, can chime in here.

Wow... some big words used there following my name... I hope I can ever live up to them! LOL Thank you, Sager.

From what I have gathered over the years, the secondary criteria is a) used more often than people realize (more on that in a minute) and b) doesn't necessary carry more or less weight as individual parts. That last part is also true with the primary criteria. The information is put out on the table and is analyzed equally as other information. For example... the WL% is not actually weighted more than the SOS or visa versa. Sure, we see where those kinds of numbers seem to have more weight from when we are reading into the data... but the committee may have already decided a team was ahead of another one via many parts of the data put in front of them ... not just two parts.

Now ... it is also good to understand what the secondary criteria actually states: "Non-Division III win-loss percentage" and "Results versus common non-Division III opponents." Nowhere in those two elements is comparing results of games that are not related. So in no way will the committee look at a win against Marygrove for Team A and a win over Cornerstone for Team B and compare them. And considering both teams will have an additional win on their side, essentially the secondary criteria is mute.

The trick is if Team B lost to Cornerstone and Team A won against Maryville... creating (for argument's sake) a tie-breaker and giving Team A the advantage to be selected into the tournament. Some may argue that isn't fair because Team A's win is less significant than Team B's loss (the fact they played, deemed by some, a tougher opponent). I will give you the fact that's a tough way to get left out of the tournament... but if we are down to the secondary criteria... something has to give. Yes, to win against a lower-skilled team is a back-door way to get into the tournament... but at that point if everything else has been exhausted... we are getting to a coin flip anyway.

The reason I say secondary criteria is used more often than people realize is because I have always had the sense the committee wants as much information as possible when they are splitting hairs in the primary criteria. They may have two teams (for argument's sake) nearly identical though one of the teams may have an ever-so-slight advantage in the primary criteria. However because it is so close, the committee decides to look at the secondary criteria to determine if there is anything that makes either team's case stronger for selection. Yes, the primary criteria may give one of the teams a slight advantage - but at the same time there could be members of the committee who feel that advantage doesn't exist. Using the secondary criteria may help break a tie or help sway people from one side of the selection argument to the other. Of course... it also may not help at all!

I will say that games against non-common opponents isn't even analyzed and if it comes down to having to put weight on secondary criteria to make a decision... a team with any advantage is going to take the case. That being said, I firmly believe a lot of the primary criteria already gives the committee a decision maker and they use secondary criteria when they are trying to find a significant reason to go with a particular team. If the secondary criteria doesn't give them that (as my example wouldn't do)... then they have to split the hairs in the primary and make a decision.

One final note... I am fine with the national committee not understanding other divisions or leagues (i.e. NAIA) more than just names on a sheet. It is hard to read into games that are non-Division III than it is to understand just the games within the division and region(s). They aren't going to necessarily get a lesson or look at rankings from another division or league just to say, "ok, well Team B should get in because their win over Cornerstone is more impressive than Team A's over Marygrove." They aren't tasked with understanding what those teams really represent and it would just add more work to an already overworked group to get that information (especially outside of the NCAA). The committee has enough of a tough time understanding common opponents in Division III, we shouldn't then ask them to understand the significance of 1,000 other programs! Thus why the criteria reads "common non-Division III opponents" and "win-loss percentage."
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Gregory Sager

"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

sac


AndOne

Quote from: sac on July 13, 2015, 11:24:59 AM
Alma's schedule:  http://www.goalmascots.com/sports/mbkb/2015-16/schedule

By my count the Scots are missing 2 games.

Looks like Alma is gettin' tight with the CCIW. Four consecutive games vs Elmhurst, North Park, North Central, and Wheaton.

Also 4 non-conference Sunday games. Is this common either for Alma in particular or among MIAA teams in general?

HOPEful

Quote from: AndOne on July 13, 2015, 02:01:03 PM
Also 4 non-conference Sunday games. Is this common either for Alma in particular or among MIAA teams in general?

Albion, Olivet, Adrian, Trine, and KZoo all played Sunday games last season. Hope and Calvin both will not.
Let's go Dutchmen!

2015-2016 1-&-Done Tournament Fantasy League Co-Champion

Flying Dutch Fan

Quote from: AndOne on July 13, 2015, 02:01:03 PM
Quote from: sac on July 13, 2015, 11:24:59 AM
Alma's schedule:  http://www.goalmascots.com/sports/mbkb/2015-16/schedule

By my count the Scots are missing 2 games.

Looks like Alma is gettin' tight with the CCIW. Four consecutive games vs Elmhurst, North Park, North Central, and Wheaton.

Also 4 non-conference Sunday games. Is this common either for Alma in particular or among MIAA teams in general?

Sunday games are not unusual for most MIAA teams - they are non-existent for Hope or Calvin.
2016, 2020, 2022 MIAA Pick 'Em Champion

"Sports are kind of like passion and that's temporary in many cases, but academics - that's like true love and that's enduring." 
John Wooden

"Blame FDF.  That's the default.  Always blame FDF."
goodknight

sac

only Hope and Calvin are restricted from Sunday play.  (and St. Mary's on the women's side, probably)