Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - KnightSlappy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 288
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: 2018 NCAA Tournament
« on: March 09, 2018, 12:39:29 pm »
I've always thought the best size for a Division III conference tournament is half the membership (rounded up to make an even number). I think that keeps enough teams in the race and competitive all the way to the end of the season. I don't like putting everyone into the conference tournament at this level, because I think you ultimately hurt the top seeds who might be competing nationally for at-large bids, and there's not nearly as many at-large bids available as in D-I.

I think I would be in favor of limiting the criteria to the 25 game regular season schedule. Conference tournaments can be for the AQ. Your regular season is to establish your Pool C bona fides.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: 2018 NCAA Tournament
« on: March 08, 2018, 11:01:02 pm »
Undecided if I agree or disagree.  Unless some provision is made to benefit the top teams in the regular season, it seems to me this makes the entire regular season just a 'preseason', and the entire 'season' is 3 (or however many) games in February.

The conference championship is a worthy goal on its own, no? There are over 400 teams in Division III. Only one will win the national championship.

Sure, give a bye or a double bye, whatever. I just like the idea of a Berry getting to play for that AQ.

You're a stats guy.  Do you really want a small sample to potentially outweigh a much larger sample? ::)

The national tournament (and conference tournaments, for that matter) have never been about determining the best teams. They're about crowning a champion. In this case I like small sample size. Small sample size means fun things can happen!

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: 2018 NCAA Tournament
« on: March 08, 2018, 08:48:31 pm »
Something I'd like to see is for conferences to diminish their conference tournaments. It's a great story to have some low seeded team get hot and make their way in but it diminishes the value of the regular season. If you know your conference is a one bid league then why bother playing the regular season if all that matters is a few games in February?
I'd be all for the UAA model of no tournament but if you had to have one, do something like:
a) 2 vs 5 and 3 vs 4 then the winner of that pod plays the 1 in the final
b) 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 and if the winner is someone other than the 1 they have to play the 1 seed

This topic came up in the CCIW board a couple months ago when the conference announced it was expanding its conference tournament from four to six. I'm actually a fan of the expansion. With it for next year I think the number came out to roughly 62 percent of teams nationwide play in their conference's tournament (factoring in that the UAA doesn't have one).

I can see the argument that it diminishes the regular season (which is why I'm glad that most conferences don't just invite everyone to the postseason tournament) but you're arguably adding more value to the regular season in that more games will matter in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah, the conference tournaments can boost team's Pool C chances if they lose, or increase the likelihood of hosting a weekend or two in the NCAA's, but those extra 1-3 games don't count any more than a Tip Off Tournament game in November or a first matchup between rivals in January.

This is my take. It's really not much fun to play games when you're eliminated. If everyone's invited to the conference tournament then everybody has something to play for in every single game. Even if it's not for seeding, it's to get better and to keep working to grow as a team.

I like the idea that a team's season doesn't have to end until they lose a tournament game of some sort. If I was the Sports Czar, I'd stipulate that conferences only get an AQ if they award it to their tournament champion with every conference member receiving a invite.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: 2018 NCAA Tournament
« on: March 08, 2018, 08:49:32 am »
So, two random thoughts on this topic.  And before I tee them up, I should note for the record that I do not support expanding the tournament beyond its current size.  If you do so, though:

- If you expand from 64 to 68, as noted above, you may not be able to set up a bracket so the play-in games are the last eight teams in the field from a school night/travel time standpoint.  Given how much more restricted access to the tournament is in D3 versus in D1, one potential solution for this is to go to 72 rather than 68 teams.  I don't know that there is a dramatic difference between Pool C #25 and Pool C #29, so you're not necessarily watering down the field, but what you are doing is giving yourself more options to make this work geographically.

I was thinking about this idea yesterday as well. If you did 72 then you could pit the last in vs. first out in every region. I know we like the committee to mix it up as much as possible, but regional play-in games would travel and early bracketing a lot cleaner for the committee. Big downside: My guess is we'd end up with a fair number of conference matchups.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: 2018 NCAA Tournament
« on: March 03, 2018, 10:21:03 pm »
Nebraska Wesleyan moves on with an 82-61 win over Aurora in St. Louis.

I think Nebraska Wesleyan’s non-conference schedule caused a sizable chunk of fans, analysts, and poll voters to underestimate their overall level of talent and capabilities.

Can anyone explain how the NCAA looks at host sites for the 3rd and 4th rounds? If a team hosted games last evening and tonight, does that make any difference as far as hosting again next weekend?
Is it all dependent on the remaining seeds? Thanks.

All of the computer ratings systems had Nebraska Wesleyan in the top five or six at the end of the season.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: 2018 NCAA Tournament
« on: March 03, 2018, 09:58:43 pm »
John Carroll to Augustana is 503 miles :-\

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Posters' Poll
« on: February 28, 2018, 08:52:35 am »

Who still has MIT #2?  That's insane.

True, but no more insane than the voter who still refuses to vote for Whitworth.  (Scary thought: maybe both are the same voter?! ::))

I don't think that's crazy.  I don't think they're anywhere close to #2 in the country.

Yeah, I think it's funny what people think is crazy sometimes. As much as we pride ourselves as being separate from the mothership's poll (Ryan Scott excluded), I think our opinions are still anchored to it in a lot of ways.

For example: Nebraska Wesleyan was only named on 7 ballots but so far no one's called that out as crazy! (My ratings, Drew Pasteur, Massey, and Bennett all have them in the top six using different statistical models). Granted, those models are never perfect (see: my rating and MIT).

Great Lakes Region / Re: MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
« on: February 27, 2018, 12:35:32 pm »
It occurs to me upon reflection that "Satan and his Legions of Hell" against OSU would be an intrasquad scrimmage.

When I can give Karma, I will come back and +1 this.

I don't know, unless you're talking about football.  To me, the fact that smack talk exists between Michigan and OSU basketball teams is just testament to the depths to which Michigan basketball has fallen.

Michigan is the defending Big Ten Tournament Champion, Ohio State was runner-up in this years regular season.


Also, Michigan was the top finisher in the 2013 NCAA (D1) Tournament!

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Pool C
« on: February 26, 2018, 02:20:49 pm »
My goal in life is to get all 21 some year.

Just gotta keep grinding.


Love it!

19 for me also, 19 for Matt Snyder, 18 for my students' consensus (some of them got 19, including Brockport, but missed NCC and Springfield)

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.

I didn't do much projecting this year besides looking at the picks made by you and TitanQ and making minor tweaks.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Pool C
« on: February 26, 2018, 08:13:34 am »
Using my final projection, it seems there are 16 very safe teams...

1. Hamilton (NE/NESCAC): .846 (22-4)/.573/6-3 
2. Wesleyan (NE/NESCAC): .778 (21-6)/.590/8-4   
3. UW-Platteville (CE/WIAC: .833 (20-4)/.577/4-1   
4. Whitman (WE/NWC): .962 (25-1)/.515/4-1
5. Swarthmore (MA/CC): .815 (22-5)/.542/3-4   
6. St. John's (WE/MIAC): .880 (22-3)/.524/3-2 
7. Middlebury (NE/NESCAC): .760 (19-6).590/4-6   
8. Wooster (GL/NCAC): .778 (21-6)/.565/4-3
9. Marietta (GL/OAC): .778 (21-6)/.564/4-5   
10. New Jersey City (AT/NJAC): .731 (19-7)/.567/6-4   
11. Emory (SO/UAA): .840 (21-4)/.530/4-2 
12. Christopher Newport (MA/CAC): .777 (21-6)/.546/3-2   
13. UW-Oshkosh (CE/WIAC): .741 (20-7)/.554/2-4   
14. St. Olaf (WE/MIAC): .731 (19-7)/.544/3-2   
15. Albright (MA/Commonwealth): .769 (20-6)/.544/3-2   
16. Franklin and Marshall (MA/CC): .769 (20-6)/.536/3-4 

And then the bubble starts here...

17. North Central (CE/CCIW): .692 (18-8)/.563/4-5   
18. Illinois Wesleyan (CE/CCIW): .731 (19-7)/.550/3-6 
19. Amherst (NE/NESCAC): .680 (17-8)/.570/4-6 
20. Springfield (NE/NEWMAC): .692 (18-8)/.558/4-2 
21. Loras (WE/IIAC): .731 (19-7)/.542/2-3   

Top teams left at the table...
* Ohio Wesleyan (GL/NCAC): .679 (19-9)/.564/3-5 
* LeTourneau (SO/ASC): .852 (23-4)/.511/2-2
* Hobart (East/LL): .808 (21-5)/.526/1-2
* Gwynedd Mercy (AT/CSAC): .769 (20-6)/.519/2-3
* Keene State (NE/LEC): .679/.575/2-6
* UW-River Falls (CE/WIAC): .667 (18-9)/.586/3-7   
We'll know soon enough!

I really like these picks, except give me LeTourneau and Hobart instead of Springfield and Loras.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Pool C
« on: February 20, 2018, 10:43:09 am »
If those games count as non-conference, I would think they count in the ncSOS. A few years ago (could be 10 or more), Stevens Point played a rare non-conference game against Oshkosh and then played them twice in conference and then again in the WIAC tournament.

In 2007 Calvin and Hope played each other in a non-conference tournament, then twice in the regular season, then once in the MIAA tournament, then once in the NCAA Tournament. That was... not great.

I believe I am correct in remembering that they played 9 times between the 2006 and 2007 seasons.

Great Lakes Region / Re: MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
« on: February 18, 2018, 07:02:08 pm »
I think officiating in the MIAA is now a huge problem. This game had what I felt was a lot of blown calls at both ends and then, just as problematically, a switch to a quick whistle at both ends. Olivet was already into the bonus with 15:42 to play in the second, then Calvin proceeded to commit three fouls the rest of the way. Likewise Olivet had 1 (maybe two, I cannot remember when the bench picked up the 2nd via a Tech) at that same point and quickly got Calvin to the bonus as well. It was a game where I think both teams fans were left scratching their head as to what the heck is and isn't going to be called.

One of my favorite moments in the game happened around this time. With second-half fouls in Olivet's favor 10-6, an OC supporter yelled "Olivet has not gotten one call all game".  :-\

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Conference changes
« on: February 14, 2018, 08:41:40 pm »
St. Thomas (TX) will join D3 in the exploratory phase next year. They'll join the SCAC.

Hat tip to Ralph Turner

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Pool C
« on: February 14, 2018, 09:36:24 am »
I am no math savant so perhaps there is a mathematical explanation for this that I am missing, but I am blown away that not one conference has a winning records against non-conference regionally ranked opponents.

When I first ran those numbers, I thought that I had a mistake.  However, regionally ranked teams get there because they win most of their games, so we should expect few conferences have a winning record against strong non-conference teams.  That being said, I thought that at least one power conference would have pulled it off.

Right. And since most teams are not regionally ranked, most of these games are unranked teams vs. ranked teams. In which case our expectation is that the ranked team probably wins.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Pool C
« on: February 13, 2018, 03:58:14 pm »
I wonder if this is something that would be easy to simulate by our friend Fantastic50? What would the NESCAC Pool C situation look like if they played a double round robin schedule? I might be able to toy with some numbers but I'm not able to simulate like he is.

My gut tells me that we make too much of the single round robin. It's an advantage for the top teams, but I'm not convinced how big it is.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 288