Because I'm a team player.

Lakeland's in-region schedule

9 pts-W @ Lake Forest (5-12, .294)
8 pts-W vs. Maranatha Baptist (0-12, .000)
6 pts-L vs. La Crosse (16-4, .800)
12 pts-W vs. Stevens Point (11-6, .647)
13 pts-W @ Edgewood (9-9, .500)
3 pts-L @ Wisconsin Lutheran (5-9, .357)
9 pts-W @ Marian (6-13, .316)
10 pts-W vs. Concordia (IL) (7-9, .438)
5 pts-L @ Rockford (8-8, .500)
12 pts-W vs. Edgewood (9-9, .500)
13 pts-W @ Dominican (12-9, .571)
11 pts-W @ Concordia (WI) (6-10, .375)
8 pts-W vs. Marian (6-13, .316)
10 pts-W vs. Wisconsin Lutheran (5-9, .357)
10 pts-W vs. Concordia (WI) (6-10, .375)
12 pts-W vs. Dominican (12-9, .571)
15 pts-W @ MSOE (13-4, .765)
3 pts-L @ Benedictine (7-8, .467)

QOWI is 9.388.

I think this is right! Lakeland will be rooting for their opponents to win so they keep their QOWI points or possibly improve them.  If Point gets to the .667 threshold, that win would be worth 14 points, not 12!  Getting Benedictine to get to .500 is worth another 2 points for Lakeland's loss as well.

Lakeland has a solid record as iwumichigander said.  They do only have four in-region losses and that's what the NCAA looks at.  That 5th loss was to Hope and since that was not an in-region loss, it doesn't count.  The NCAA looks at teams on a national level using regional criteria.  Yeah, it's the NCAA, what do you expect?  So, if Lakeland runs the table and loses in the LMC tourney, they will only have FIVE losses.  As far as the NCAA is concerned, Lakeland is actually just 14-4, not 18-5. 

There several criteria that goes into picking Pool C teams.  In-region winning % and QOWI are just two of them.  Here is the NCAA Handbook that explains who QOWI is calculated and the other selection criteria.  If you decide to calculate Lakeland's QOWI, be sure to use just the in-region opponents and their in-region records.  Explanation starts on Page 7 with the QOWI calculations on Page 9.

The reason why Lakeland's QOWI is so low is because their opponents have really bad in-region records.  The LMC is not a very good conference!

There are several other boards in on this site that can help you out and give you an idea of what others think.  There is a Pool C board and a QOWI board.  Pat Coleman lists the QOWI on the Top 100 teams and it was last posted last month. 

P.S.- O.S  How come Swampgoon doesn't post 

He only has a computer at his parent's house.  Plus, I like when he doesn't post because all he does is rip on me! 

Well, looking forward to tomorrow' game vs. La Crosse.  I hope its a full house with the students and band back.

This year has been tough for me and I'm sure other Pointer fans.  I'm still at a loss at some of our nonconference losses, especially against Clarke and Edgewood.  Lakeland played lights out vs. us in She-Vegas and Mid-America Nazerene is a pretty good NAIA team.  I was looking up some stats on Point and according to the WIAC website, Point hadn't lost a regular season nonconference game since December of the 1999-2000 season...against Edgewood at Quandt!  So, I guess every team can have a "down year" every seven years or so!    This and Point is still just a half a game out of the WIAC title.  I'm still hoping all these bumps this year will only make Point better next year.

I've always contended that five losses puts teams on the proverbial bubble.  I still believe that.  I know the Pool C is expanding to 18 or whatever, up from 7 or so, but there is NO WAY a 7-loss team is getting in.  I think you might see one or two 6-loss teams.  Of course, I hope I'm wrong.  Hopefully this weekend I'll have a list, based on records, who I think still have shots at Pool C bids.  I still think conferences like the WIAC, CCIW, MIAA and UAA with 3-5 solid teams will be stuck with two (and the WIAC might not even get that)...while top-heavy  weaker conferences will get two as well, if not more.  Not to say the NESCAC is a weaker conference, but they have a shot at three because of their dumb single round robin crap! lol. 

My thoughts on Stout...

I think in the past they have played that "up tempo" game and, yeah, I think it might have hurt them a little because they were so run and gun.  I noticed at the Point game this year, they were a lot more disciplined and actually used the Nonemachers more than just on defense and as decoys.  I applaud Andrist for that.

In regards to the Stout women's team and the women's game in general.  Not to be sexist here either.  The games I've seen Point play (against Stout especially and other as well) is that they just run up and down the court as fast as they can AT TIMES.  After a rebound, even if it's not a full breakaway, they are running at such full speed that sometimes when they go up for the shot, they actually overrun the hoop and hit the bottom of the rim or the backboard! 

As my friend would like to say, "They don't know where they are going, but they're getting there in a hurry!"  Funny stuff.  So, we both appreciate it when they actually SLOW DOWN and "regroup". 

One of the first full women's games I saw was about three or four years ago and Stout was playing Point.  I swear, there were like 60 turnovers.  It was crazy.  But, I figured out that I had to attribute part of that to Stout's full court press style of play and the fact the women's game is played much faster, IMO.  To say the least, it wasn't the best first impression to a women's game that someone could have! 

If any of you Oshkosh or Point fans (since it's relatively close for you) are bored on Friday night, head over to Ripon and see Grinnell play (talking about run and gun)!  It's entertaining to watch.

My top 27 matched the PP top 27 - I had #26 Bates at 21, and #27 Elmhurst at 19.  I really WANTED to include both Carroll and Lincoln (and Calvin and another WIAC, though not sure which one), but couldn't find room.

I TOLD YOU to do a Top 30!  Oh, wait a minute, no I didn't.