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 - hickory_cornhusker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35
Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Conference changes
« on: February 21, 2017, 06:31:58 pm »

It looks like the results of the NCAA D3 membership committee are finalized:

We'll be welcoming three new exploratory members: SUNY-Dehli (as Delhi State), J&W of Colorado, and Mississippi College for Women.
Another school in the Mountain Time Zone? Maybe one day there will be a peninsula instead of islands :)

It would be more of an isthmus between the West Coast and the rest of the country. Unfortunately Nevada has no possibilities unless UNLV or University of Nevada drop from FBS.

Central Region / Re: MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
« on: November 01, 2016, 05:00:23 pm »
Luckily, the CCIW is only playing 16 conference games.  ???  ;D  ;)

Good thing I'm sticking to football. Fewer games and I can count them on my fingers.

Technically 18 conference dates are needed. With nine teams and a double round robin each team will have 16 games and two byes.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Conference changes
« on: September 05, 2016, 11:04:50 am »

Thanks Greek   +1... Very interesting reasoning behind the schedule, but not a league member....
A veritable travel partner for UW-Superior.

Finlandia is going to be partnered with Northland College in Ashland, WI. UW-Superior will be partnered with Northland's old travel partner St. Scholastica.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Conference Tournaments 2015-16
« on: February 20, 2016, 05:42:39 pm »
NACC field has been set. (Benedictine has locked up the #1 seed heading into their game tonight and Lakeland is eliminated via tiebreakers).

Top 2 Seeds have Byes to the Semifinals

#1 Benedictine (24-0, 19-0)
#2 Aurora (20-5, 16-4)


#6 MSOE (13-12, 10-10) at #3 Concordia Wisconsin (16-9, 14-6)
#5 Marian (13-12, 10-10) at #4 Wisconsin Lutheran (13-12, 11-9)

Lowest seed goes to Benedictine and the higher seed goes to Aurora.

The NACC website is showing they don't reseed the semifinals.

Multi-Regional Topics / Re: Pool C
« on: February 11, 2016, 01:53:33 pm »
It is baffling to me that a team in the East like Lancaster Bible doesn't get in over a team that has 6-7 losses. I mean if a team that is undefeated cant get into the rankings that tells me the NCAA has to go back to the drawing board and find different criteria. Another example Penn St Behrend a team who was 19-1 going into the rankings in the Great Lakes cant get into the top 9 in there region!! I just think its a bit ridiculous that NCAA is rewarding teams that have a bunch of losses over teams that win the games on there schedule.

I get the SOS factor but reward teams that win there games. Its not like these teams can just go join the NESCAC or UAA OR SUNYAC.

Lancaster and Behrend also ranked top 15 and top 25 in the D3hoops poll.

rant over.

would love to here what people think

SOS has to be a factor.  In the case of Lancaster, their SOS is so weak that it does overcome their record.  I think it's widely believed that the teams ranked above them would probably have the same record if they played Lancaster's schedule.  Hey, if they win their league, they'll get their shot to prove everyone wrong...

From what I was told... it absolutely has to do with the SOS. It is. 421 and I have been told by several committee sources that they can't justify it especially when using the .03 SOS = 2 games system.

Now, there are some factors that will come into play later like vRRO that will change the equation. Remember, LBC's game against F&M isn't really being evaluated right now. It might be when it comes to common opponents, but that's it. When it comes to East Region discussions, not a lot - if any - of the East has played F&M. So, that game will pop up and maybe give LBC a boost.

All of that is also the same with Behrend.

No, dcahill, I would caution you comparing to the Top 25. It isn't a criteria. We enter dangerous waters when we say, "but they are ranked xx, why aren't they being considered." The coaches and administrators on these committees are fully aware of the Top 25 and who are the best teams, but they have to ignore that stuff when it comes to the NCAA criteria. Plain and simple.

I have said it publicly and some committee members know I am concerned about LBC being left out of the tournament. If, worse case scenario, they lose their first game in the conference final, it seems clear they may be left out of the NCAA Tournament. If that were to happen, I think we set a precedent that SOS is indeed more important that WL% even if they try and argue it away by using the .03=2 element. The problem is that 1 loss is 1 loss. Last year we saw the women's committee, who understands and uses the same ratio but doesn't rely on it clearly as much as the men, put McDaniel in the tournament when they picked up their second loss of the season in the conference title game. Their reasoning: at some point the fact is they only lost two games out of 26 or 27. That has to mean something.

I don't think this plays for Behrend, though. We have already seen three and four loss teams left out of the tournament. But this committee, in recent years, has never allowed a team with a below .500 SOS into the tournament. I am not saying that happens this year because I think a number of at-large teams will be sitting there with below .500 SOS numbers. But if they stick to that plan, then we are saying the SOS is more important than WL% and I think that is getting a little dangerous.

The irony is WL% does play a role when a team with a very strong SOS is left home because they lost too many games (North Central might get put in this situation if they are an at-large team). I don't know what the right answer is, but I do know that the optics of leaving a 1-loss team at home with a bad SOS (basically because of their conference) is a precedent I don't like.

Is this right? I feel that isn't enough SOS shift for two games, that means a 25-0 Lancaster Bible with a .421 would be considered roughly equal to a 0-25 team with a .500 SOS. Is it maybe supposed to be .3 SOS=2 games?

Math edit: it's actually worse than that because under your numbers the difference between .421 SOS and .500 SOS is a 52 game swing.

I retract this whole thing, I messed up a decimal point. This is why I was into writing and not math.

General football / Re: D3 vs. NAIA
« on: September 30, 2015, 01:18:57 pm »
The NAIA had two divisions for football until about the mid 90s when they went down to one because they didn't have enough teams to justify two divisions anymore.

Central Region / Re: MBB: Midwest Conference
« on: September 01, 2015, 09:11:57 pm »
If they schedule like they used to, there would be midweek games against teams that are close to one another such as LFC vs BC or GC vs CC

West Region football / Re: FB: Midwest Conference
« on: August 22, 2015, 06:22:08 pm »
Prediction 2015:  Scots go to DePere, Wi for MWC championship game

I was confused until I realized which of the MWC's Scots you meant.

Actually grboob should have said "Fighting Scots." Macalester is just normal Scots. Monmouth are Scots that fight.

General Division III issues / Re: Drug testing polivy
« on: July 30, 2015, 08:46:52 pm »
Drug testing, prior to NCAA championship/tournament competition is up to the individual institutions. There are a few schools who have had problems in the past. It's standard operating procedure at some schools and non-existent at others. It's very cost prohibitive for most D-III schools, so even those that do test, do it rather sparingly.

In NCAA championship/tournament events, it's always a possibility. It doesn't happen at every site and they never reveal which competition sites will be tested, but all schools are warned that it can happen.

I've heard they do it at a third of the events, having been to about ten cross country/track championships that seems about right from what I remember. I don't know what they do for bracketed playoffs.

General Division III issues / Re: DII moving to DIII
« on: July 20, 2015, 01:50:18 pm »
It takes four years to move to Division III and there is an exploratory year usually needed before that so it is often five years. Sometimes schools can get the final two years combined into one. How its set up, everyone would use the four years of scholarship before the school would be a full Division III member. Going into Division II only takes three years.

General football / Re: Pool B
« on: July 17, 2015, 01:23:38 pm »
Chicago and WashU are no longer in Pool B. They are in the SAA this year which I believe will have its own Pool A bid.

North Region football / Re: University Athletic Association
« on: June 14, 2015, 08:57:41 pm »

Thanks for sharing the information regarding the U of C facilities.  I remember when the Fieldhouse was transformed into the two tier level facility.  The old Athletic Hall/A.A. Stagg's old office (I forget the name without looking it up right now) next to it was where the Heisman/history room was.  As it has been several years since I visited that, is it still there or did they move it to the new Ratner AC?

It is kind of a neat experience to walk the area of The Regenstein Library where the old stadium stood and envision what it was like in the old days, especially in comparing it to old photographs of games there.  I'm also that the University preserved one of the old gates from the original Stagg Field stadium and incorporated that in the new entrance to New Stagg Field when those renovations were done back in the 1980's.  A nice touch to preserve a little history for today's teams.

One last comment:  When I was co-writing Alma College's Centennial Football History back in 1993-1994, we found in the archives and yearbooks that A.A. Stagg was invited up to Alma to the football team's end-of-the season banquet to give a speech and partake in the dinner in 1902.  It was a most interesting read about his visit.   

The Heismann Trophy is now in the center of the front lobby of Ratner. Stagg's office is still marked in Bartlett (the old athletic) Hall but the spot is being used. I can't remember what it is for.

North Region football / Re: University Athletic Association
« on: June 14, 2015, 04:18:22 pm »
That's a good point. But Lake Forest may have an ongoing investment in the rivalries it has with the other South Division teams. Or, it may not. We'll see.

Possible. Back in the 1990s when Cornell and Coe were both still in the conference, Lake Forest was part of the North so they do have a history with those teams as well. My guess is if Chicago were to affiliate with the MWC, Lake Forest would be allowed to play in the division they want and Chicago would take the other.

North Region football / Re: University Athletic Association
« on: June 14, 2015, 12:28:38 pm »
According to the front page of, it sounds as though Chicago is probably going to move to the MWC, where it will fill the hole in the North Division that will be caused by Carroll's defection to the CCIW after this coming school year. That's probably the best fit available for the Maroons.

Lake Forest may want that North Division spot. I don't know how Macalester alters the numbers but I know without them the travel distances are better for Lake Forest in the North than the South. Also, geographically, Lake Forest is north of Chicago.

Central Region / Re: WIAC
« on: March 02, 2015, 09:56:20 pm »
Actually, I've always thought the best way to beat a Grinnell style team is to go make layups. They are essentially giving you layups if you can beat the press. So go shoot 80 percent from the 2-feet away, and if you defend the three-point line well, they're not likely to make enough three's to make up for it.

I actually think holding the ball through the shot clock plays into their hands. You now have to beat 5 defenders to get a two-point bucket, instead of a 2-on-1 layup. You'll have a harder time scoring enough points to outweigh their three-point baskets.

Of course, if you can't beat their press, it doesn't matter what you do.

Grinnell figured out the dirty little secret about the 3 point line. If you shoot 50 percent from the field, they only need a pedestrian 33 percent from behind the arc to keep pace. They hit 40 percent from outside, you need to hit 60 percent from inside the arc. Even your 80 percent from 2 feet only requires an excellent but by no means impossible 53 percent from downtown by The System running team to keep up on the scoreboard. And this doesn't factor in what happens if you start coughing up the rock.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35