Need opinions on strength of D3 conferences by region...please help
Quote from: NY24 on October 09, 2009, 09:25:53 PM
Need opinions on strength of D3 conferences by region...please help
This fluctuates more year-to-year than in many sports, since even one or two 'superstars' (with at least an adequate back-up cast) can make a team go.
Lately I would say the top three are definitely WIAC, CCIW, and UAA (pick your order), with NESCAC and ODAC challenging them (apologies if I forgot anyone).
In terms of depth (probably the best measure of a total conference), I'd say the WIAC and CCIW (again in either order, depending on year) have pretty consistently had the best 6th or 7th place teams in the country.
I don't agree with Chuck that the top three conferences are interchangeable. This is how I see the top baker's dozen:
1. WIAC -- clear-cut perennial #1
2. CCIW -- clear-cut perennial #2
3. UAA -- within shouting distance of the top two, but not quite there
4. OAC -- historically strong top-to-bottom
5. NESCAC -- hard to gauge, since it plays in a poor region and uses that wimpy single round-robin format
6. ODAC -- most improved league in D3 over the past ten years
7. NJAC -- former powerhouse circuit has slipped in recent seasons
8. NWC -- has had three separate schools make good postseason showings in this decade
9. MWC -- second-most improved league in D3 over the past ten years
10. MIAA --Hope, Calvin, and sometimes Albion ... and then nothing but dross
11. Centennial -- best of a mediocre region
12. HCAC -- very good balance ranks it over the MIAC
13. MIAC -- can anybody hoop up there besides the Tommies and the Gusties?
In terms of ranking each region league-by-league, well ... that's a little more difficult. You're better off going into the respective rooms in each region to determine, f'rinstance, whether the Liberty League is better than the E8 or the SUNYAC, or whether the GNAC or the CCC is better, or the USA South vs. the GSAC.
I think it is difficult to argue WIAC at #1 historically (although the last couple of years the UAA has had 3-4 NCAA tourney teams, which is a lot for a d3 conference, as well as the last two national champions), but when was the last time the CCIW had a team win the NCAA? I would hardly call them the clearcut pernennial #2 of the past decade. The last time they had a team win the whole thing, if I am not mistaken, is Illinois Wesleyan in 1997. Since then, the WIAC has won 4, the UAA has won 2, the NESCAC has won 2, with several other conferences also winning one.
I think if you look at just recent years, specifically the last 3 years, the UAA has done extremely well and I would take their resume against anyone. In 2007 they had 4 NCAA teams, in 2008 they had 4, and in 2009 they had 3. I believe that in a couple of those years, the UAA placed a total of 6 of their 8 teams in postseason tournaments, with CMU and NYU playing in the ECAC tourneys (which I believe CMU won a couple years ago). Obviously, ECACs are only regional to the northeast, so it is not a fair comparison to the midwest, but this does show depth through at least the top 6. During those 3 years, WashU has made the final four every year, including two national championships and a 3rd palce finish. In 2008, the UAA had 3 top 16 teams and 2 top 8 teams.
If you look further back, the WIAC schools have done extremely well, with 6 championships since 1990 and a runner up finish. In that time, the UAA has 3 championships and 3 runner up finishes. While the CCIW has 1 championship and 1 runner-up finish in that time, and none since 1997 (if I am not mistaken). I know the CCIW is a tough conference, but if you look at how the conference has faired in the NCAA tourney, I think you would be hard pressed to rank their performance over that of the UAA.
I would rank the top 4 nationally like this, which is based mainly on post-season performance:
Last 3 years:
UAA
WIAC
CCIW
ODAC
Last 20 years:
WIAC
UAA
MIAA
CCIW
However, the question initally posed was a bit ambiguous. So if you are looking just by region, it gets a bit difficult because the UAA is spread out over at least 4 regions, so it would be hard to rank a one or two teams over an entire conference in a given region. In the northeast, I would say the top conferences are: NESCAC, Little East and NEWMAC (and the last few years Brandeis has been strong out of the UAA). In the East, I would put UAA first just because of Rochester, but if you are looking at entire conferences in the region, the top 3 are probably the Liberty League, E8 and the SUNYAC. In the atlantic, I would say the top conference is the NJAC. In the middle atlantic: the Landmark (Catholic has won some championships), the CAC, the Centennial, and the AMCC could all have arguments made for them. In the south, the ODAC is the best conference. In the Great Lakes, MIAA, OAC, and NCAC are all strong, but the best conference has varied between those 3 from year to year. In the Midwest, it is the CCIW and UAA (although UAA only has WashU and Chicago in this region). In the West, the WIAC is the best.
Because of the regional empahsis in d3, however, I think it is hard to rank conferences nationally. How well would CCIW schools have done if many of them hadnt been ousted by WashU the last 3 years? Who knows, but based on the fact that WashU has made it to the final four out of that region each of those years, I dont know how you can but them above the UAA.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 10, 2009, 08:05:56 PM
I think it is difficult to argue WIAC at #1 historically (although the last couple of years the UAA has had 3-4 NCAA tourney teams, which is a lot for a d3 conference, as well as the last two national champions), but when was the last time the CCIW had a team win the NCAA? I would hardly call them the clearcut pernennial #2 of the past decade. The last time they had a team win the whole thing, if I am not mistaken, is Illinois Wesleyan in 1997. Since then, the WIAC has won 4, the UAA has won 2, the NESCAC has won 2, with several other conferences also winning one.
National championships are one way of measuring league-wide success in D3, but they're hardly the best way. In fact, I'd argue that they're not even among the top three methods. Want proof as to why? Two words: Calvin College. The Knights have won two national championships over the past couple of decades; the CCIW over that span has won one. Furthermore, the Knights have a national championship within the past decade, while the CCIW has none. So does that mean that the MIAA is a better league than the CCIW? Not even the most diehard MIAA partisan would argue that. And I don't think that the most diehard ODAC or OAC partisans would argue their leagues' supremacy over the CCIW, either, even though they, too, have brought home Big Doorstops in this decade while the CCIW hasn't.
League strength is best measured from top-to-bottom -- and even if you have to measure it from the top, national championships are not necessarily the best way to do so.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 10, 2009, 08:05:56 PMI think if you look at just recent years, specifically the last 3 years, the UAA has done extremely well and I would take their resume against anyone. In 2007 they had 4 NCAA teams, in 2008 they had 4, and in 2009 they had 3. I believe that in a couple of those years, the UAA placed a total of 6 of their 8 teams in postseason tournaments, with CMU and NYU playing in the ECAC tourneys (which I believe CMU won a couple years ago). Obviously, ECACs are only regional to the northeast, so it is not a fair comparison to the midwest, but this does show depth through at least the top 6. During those 3 years, WashU has made the final four every year, including two national championships and a 3rd palce finish. In 2008, the UAA had 3 top 16 teams and 2 top 8 teams.
What you neglected to mention is that the UAA gets to feast upon bad regional competition in the Northeast and East regions in both the regular season and the postseason, from which Brandeis, Rochester, and NYU benefit. Since the postseason success of Brandeis and (especially) Rochester has been considerable in recent years, stacking all of the UAA's postseason success into one pile as if it was all the same is highly deceptive.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 10, 2009, 08:05:56 PMI know the CCIW is a tough conference, but if you look at how the conference has faired in the NCAA tourney, I think you would be hard pressed to rank their performance over that of the UAA.
Not at all. I base my comparison between the CCIW and UAA upon the best method of all: Firsthand observation. Over the past decade I have seen a plethora of CCIW games every season (both non-conference and conference), and all but a few of Chicago's home games. In other words, I get more than a small sampling of both leagues every year -- and I'm very comfortable in saying that, top to bottom, the CCIW is consistently a better league.
I know you know your d3 basketball. I also know that the CCIW is a very tough conference and always very competitive with any conference in the country. With that said, although the league is regularly very strong top to bottom, you also need to take into account the strength at the top as well. The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU. Because of the regional scheduling, I think it is only really fair to rank leagues in-region. There are not a huge number of games out of region where you can make broad conclusions. There are occasional games out-of-region in the regular season, but I dont think there is enough of them to difinitively rank conferences.
I know that often there are multiple CCIW teams ranked in the top 25, and many of them could play with any team in the country. All I was saying was that if you want to make a strong argument for being the top or one of the top two conferences in the nation, some of your teams are going to have to perform on the national stage (since the NCAAs are the only national tourney we have, even though the initial stages are regional). If you are just talking about in-region, however, I think the CCIW can definitely say they are the top team in the Midwest.
In conclusion, when you are ranking conferences nationally, when 90% of games are played regionally in d3, I disagree that there are many better ways then to look at the season ending tourney. I feel that most other arguments present a lot of subjectivity. Although the tourney is initially set-up regionally, if you have some of the best teams in the country, someone from your conference should be making it to the late stages of the tourney. I know that the CCIW teams are very good, but the only chance they have to show that definitively is by making the final four and beating the best teams from the other regions. That is my opinion, anyway.
By the way, I agree with you about NYU, they play a cupcake out-of-conference schedule and have regularly gone 11-0 out-of-conference followed up by mediocre UAA records. Rochester and Brandeis I think have a better argument. Rochester has done well in the tourney and Brandeis plays alot of NESCAC schools, which is also a top conference in d3, in my opinion. With that said, the UAA is the one conference that plays in multiple regions so you can get a gauge where their teams are in their respective regions. WashU has regularly been the top team in the Midwest (Chicago has been near the top in the past, not last year), Rochester is always a top team in the East, CMU has been a top team in the Great Lakes recently, and Brandeis has also been a top team in the Northeast recently. With that said, it is really tough to rank teams nationally in d3, with the lack of games between regions.
Two problems with using the national tourney as a primary conference measurement:
1. It only tests the very top of a conference; to me, depth is the number one factor in conference strength. Looking only at the top would, as Greg noted, overrate the MIAA (Calvin, Hope, and sometimes Albion) or even more so the NCAC (Witt and Woo).
2. The tourney, too, is regional. Last year went to the ultimate extreme, with the top SEVEN teams in the d3hoops.com poll all grouped in the same quadrant; meanwhile, SOMEONE has to win the East, however mediocre they may be!
[BTW, using WashU as the standard for saying the CCIW has not done well lately in the tourney is a bit unfair - NO ONE has done very well lately by that standard!]
In my first post, I noted 'apologies if I forgot anyone' - well, apologies to the OAC. I'd agree with 4th over the 'general' past, with occasional years where NESCAC or ODAC may have passed them.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:01:07 AM
I know you know your d3 basketball. I also know that the CCIW is a very tough conference and always very competitive with any conference in the country. With that said, although the league is regularly very strong top to bottom, you also need to take into account the strength at the top as well. The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU. Because of the regional scheduling, I think it is only really fair to rank leagues in-region. There are not a huge number of games out of region where you can make broad conclusions. There are occasional games out-of-region in the regular season, but I dont think there is enough of them to difinitively rank conferences.
I know that often there are multiple CCIW teams ranked in the top 25, and many of them could play with any team in the country. All I was saying was that if you want to make a strong argument for being the top or one of the top two conferences in the nation, some of your teams are going to have to perform on the national stage (since the NCAAs are the only national tourney we have, even though the initial stages are regional). If you are just talking about in-region, however, I think the CCIW can definitely say they are the top team in the Midwest.
In conclusion, when you are ranking conferences nationally, when 90% of games are played regionally in d3, I disagree that there are many better ways then to look at the season ending tourney. I feel that most other arguments present a lot of subjectivity. Although the tourney is initially set-up regionally, if you have some of the best teams in the country, someone from your conference should be making it to the late stages of the tourney. I know that the CCIW teams are very good, but the only chance they have to show that definitively is by making the final four and beating the best teams from the other regions. That is my opinion, anyway.
By the way, I agree with you about NYU, they play a cupcake out-of-conference schedule and have regularly gone 11-0 out-of-conference followed up by mediocre UAA records. Rochester and Brandeis I think have a better argument. Rochester has done well in the tourney and Brandeis plays alot of NESCAC schools, which is also a top conference in d3, in my opinion. With that said, the UAA is the one conference that plays in multiple regions so you can get a gauge where their teams are in their respective regions. WashU has regularly been the top team in the Midwest (Chicago has been near the top in the past, not last year), Rochester is always a top team in the East, CMU has been a top team in the Great Lakes recently, and Brandeis has also been a top team in the Northeast recently. With that said, it is really tough to rank teams nationally in d3, with the lack of games between regions.
In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
Also, since 05-06, I believe the CCIW is 4-4 vs Wash U, including a loss to Elmhurst last year in their most recent matchup with a CCIW opponent.
You can say what you want about the NE basketball but keep in mind they have had a team in the championship game 6 out of 7 years. There are so many schools in the NE that the talent pool is watered down but don't take anything away from the good teams. It still takes the really good teams to make it to that game.
Quote from: old_hooper on October 11, 2009, 08:30:17 PM
You can say what you want about the NE basketball but keep in mind they have had a team in the championship game 6 out of 7 years. There are so many schools in the NE that the talent pool is watered down but don't take anything away from the good teams. It still takes the really good teams to make it to that game.
Detractors to that argument will contend that the road to Salem out of the Northeast, East and Mid-Atlantic Regions is the easiest, too. Those New England teams have had an easier path.
Quote from: AndOne on October 11, 2009, 05:02:32 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:01:07 AM
I know you know your d3 basketball. I also know that the CCIW is a very tough conference and always very competitive with any conference in the country. With that said, although the league is regularly very strong top to bottom, you also need to take into account the strength at the top as well. The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU. Because of the regional scheduling, I think it is only really fair to rank leagues in-region. There are not a huge number of games out of region where you can make broad conclusions. There are occasional games out-of-region in the regular season, but I dont think there is enough of them to difinitively rank conferences.
I know that often there are multiple CCIW teams ranked in the top 25, and many of them could play with any team in the country. All I was saying was that if you want to make a strong argument for being the top or one of the top two conferences in the nation, some of your teams are going to have to perform on the national stage (since the NCAAs are the only national tourney we have, even though the initial stages are regional). If you are just talking about in-region, however, I think the CCIW can definitely say they are the top team in the Midwest.
In conclusion, when you are ranking conferences nationally, when 90% of games are played regionally in d3, I disagree that there are many better ways then to look at the season ending tourney. I feel that most other arguments present a lot of subjectivity. Although the tourney is initially set-up regionally, if you have some of the best teams in the country, someone from your conference should be making it to the late stages of the tourney. I know that the CCIW teams are very good, but the only chance they have to show that definitively is by making the final four and beating the best teams from the other regions. That is my opinion, anyway.
By the way, I agree with you about NYU, they play a cupcake out-of-conference schedule and have regularly gone 11-0 out-of-conference followed up by mediocre UAA records. Rochester and Brandeis I think have a better argument. Rochester has done well in the tourney and Brandeis plays alot of NESCAC schools, which is also a top conference in d3, in my opinion. With that said, the UAA is the one conference that plays in multiple regions so you can get a gauge where their teams are in their respective regions. WashU has regularly been the top team in the Midwest (Chicago has been near the top in the past, not last year), Rochester is always a top team in the East, CMU has been a top team in the Great Lakes recently, and Brandeis has also been a top team in the Northeast recently. With that said, it is really tough to rank teams nationally in d3, with the lack of games between regions.
In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
Also, since 05-06, I believe the CCIW is 4-4 vs Wash U, including a loss to Elmhurst last year in their most recent matchup with a CCIW opponent.
Check your CCIW vs. WhashU numbers. WashU's last game against a CCIW opponent was actually a win over Wheaton in last year's tourney. WashU was 4-1 against the CCIW last year alone (wins: North Park, Augie, IWU, and Wheaton). 2-1 the year before that, and 1-1 the year before that. That makes 7-3, if I am not mistaken. If you dont count postseason, they are 5-3. By the way, 8 of those 10 games have been away from home (on the road or neutral site) and 6 have been true road games.
Also, putting stock in the "others receiving votes category" is a bit of a stretch. Anyone receiving less than 10 points is essentially noise, because one voter putting you in their top 25, especially early in the season, does not make you a legit top 25 team (especially since SIDs and coaches in the same conference are also likely voters).
You can make the same top-to-bottom argument recently with the UAA. The UAA has had as many as six teams play in a single postseason in the last a few years (3-4 in the NCAAs, 2 in ECACs). They have had four 20-win teams two of the last three years, in 2008 they had 5 19+ win teams, and 4 NCAA teams 2 of the last 3 years (and 3 last year). The only couple teams that have been consistently down the last 5 years have been Case and Emory. I know you guys are going to bring up the regional argument, but the UAA schools are located where they are and that is not going to change, so I think having 4 20 win teams and 6 teams with 15+ wins (out of 8) is pretty darn deep. Even the CCIW cant claim more than two 20 win teams in any of those years. The league games are also usually close, WashU was nearly nocked off on consecutive nights against Case Western and Emory last season (two of the bottom 3 teams). Add to that how the UAA has performed in the postseason recently, I think the UAA has been stronger than the CCIW in the last 3-5 years.
Also, I understand the tourney is setup regionally, however, the selection committee has to look at the top team in each region when assigning at-large bids. The fact that Brandeis, Rochester, and CMU have taken at large bids over CCIW schools also shows that other people in-the-know have rated UAA schools ahead of their CCIW counterparts. The fact that the 3rd or 4th ranked UAA team is getting an at-large bid over the 2nd or 3rd ranked CCIW school should say something (CCIW has had 1-2 NCAA teams the last 3 years). In 2007, 4 UAA teams made it, one from CCIW (3 at large for UAA, none for CCIW). In 2008, 4 UAA schools, 2 CCIW (3 at large for UAA, 1 for CCIW). In 2009, 3 UAA and 2 CCIW (2 UAA at large, 1 CCIW).
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 09:01:32 PM
Also, I understand the tourney is setup regionally, however, the selection committee has to look at the top team in each region when assigning at-large bids. The fact that Brandeis, Rochester, and CMU have taken at large bids over CCIW schools also shows that other people in-the-know have rated UAA schools ahead of their CCIW counterparts. The fact that the 3rd or 4th ranked UAA team is getting an at-large bid over the 2nd or 3rd ranked CCIW school should say something (CCIW has had 1-2 NCAA teams the last 3 years). In 2007, 4 UAA teams made it, one from CCIW (3 at large for UAA, none for CCIW). In 2008, 4 UAA schools, 2 CCIW (3 at large for UAA, 1 for CCIW). In 2009, 3 UAA and 2 CCIW (2 UAA at large, 1 CCIW).
All this says is the UAA schools benefit from being in 4 different regions. If they were in one Region, some of the recent UAA at large's would never make the table for discussion as an at large selection because they'd never be ranked in that region.
Quote from: sac on October 11, 2009, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 09:01:32 PM
Also, I understand the tourney is setup regionally, however, the selection committee has to look at the top team in each region when assigning at-large bids. The fact that Brandeis, Rochester, and CMU have taken at large bids over CCIW schools also shows that other people in-the-know have rated UAA schools ahead of their CCIW counterparts. The fact that the 3rd or 4th ranked UAA team is getting an at-large bid over the 2nd or 3rd ranked CCIW school should say something (CCIW has had 1-2 NCAA teams the last 3 years). In 2007, 4 UAA teams made it, one from CCIW (3 at large for UAA, none for CCIW). In 2008, 4 UAA schools, 2 CCIW (3 at large for UAA, 1 for CCIW). In 2009, 3 UAA and 2 CCIW (2 UAA at large, 1 CCIW).
All this says is the UAA schools benefit from being in 4 different regions. If they were in one Region, some of the recent UAA at large's would never make the table for discussion as an at large selection because they'd never be ranked in that region.
That comment is not completely true. The "official" ranking list is actually longer than the publicly released one. The UAA may benefit from have more than one team on the table at a time, but those teams are still being picked over the current midwest team on the table (which likely is a CCIW team). The system doesnt state that a region cannot have multiple picks in a row for at large, so if the CCIW schools had better resumes, they, in theory, could have multiple schools picked consecutively before a UAA school, regardless of the number of UAA schools on the table.
* Edit fixed format to show quote
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:01:07 AM
The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU.
2008 WashU 70 Augustana 67 OT
2009 WashU 55 Wheaton 52
.........this is hardly "not done well", neither is Augustana winning 2 of the last 3 regular season meetings with the only loss at WashU in OT.
and neither is this "not done well in the NCAAs in general"
2006--IWU finished 3rd in NCAA's
2008--Augustana elimnated by Washington in OT in 2nd round (National Champion)
2008--Wheaton eliminated by Hope @ Hope in quarterfinals (3rd place team)
2009--Wheaton eliminated by Washington in sweet 16 (National Champion).......this was an absolute travesty of a pairing.
Quote from: AndOne on October 11, 2009, 05:02:32 PM
In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
No offense to the CCIW posters, but that was a complete joke.....and only proved the indecisiveness of voters rather than actual strength of the CCIW.
Quote from: sac on October 11, 2009, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 09:01:32 PM
Also, I understand the tourney is setup regionally, however, the selection committee has to look at the top team in each region when assigning at-large bids. The fact that Brandeis, Rochester, and CMU have taken at large bids over CCIW schools also shows that other people in-the-know have rated UAA schools ahead of their CCIW counterparts. The fact that the 3rd or 4th ranked UAA team is getting an at-large bid over the 2nd or 3rd ranked CCIW school should say something (CCIW has had 1-2 NCAA teams the last 3 years). In 2007, 4 UAA teams made it, one from CCIW (3 at large for UAA, none for CCIW). In 2008, 4 UAA schools, 2 CCIW (3 at large for UAA, 1 for CCIW). In 2009, 3 UAA and 2 CCIW (2 UAA at large, 1 CCIW).
All this says is the UAA schools benefit from being in 4 different regions. If they were in one Region, some of the recent UAA at large's would never make the table for discussion as an at large selection because they'd never be ranked in that region.
+1, sac! :)
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: sac on October 11, 2009, 09:20:16 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 09:01:32 PM
Also, I understand the tourney is setup regionally, however, the selection committee has to look at the top team in each region when assigning at-large bids. The fact that Brandeis, Rochester, and CMU have taken at large bids over CCIW schools also shows that other people in-the-know have rated UAA schools ahead of their CCIW counterparts. The fact that the 3rd or 4th ranked UAA team is getting an at-large bid over the 2nd or 3rd ranked CCIW school should say something (CCIW has had 1-2 NCAA teams the last 3 years). In 2007, 4 UAA teams made it, one from CCIW (3 at large for UAA, none for CCIW). In 2008, 4 UAA schools, 2 CCIW (3 at large for UAA, 1 for CCIW). In 2009, 3 UAA and 2 CCIW (2 UAA at large, 1 CCIW).
All this says is the UAA schools benefit from being in 4 different regions. If they were in one Region, some of the recent UAA at large's would never make the table for discussion as an at large selection because they'd never be ranked in that region.
That comment is not completely true. The "official" ranking list is actually longer than the publicly released one. The UAA may benefit from have more than one team on the table at a time, but those teams are still being picked over the current midwest team on the table (which likely is a CCIW team). The system doesnt state that a region cannot have multiple picks in a row for at large, so if the CCIW schools had better resumes, they, in theory, could have multiple schools picked consecutively before a UAA school, regardless of the number of UAA schools on the table.
* Edit fixed format to show quote
All that would have to happen is a UAA school get "stuck" in the rankings behind someone ranked ahead of them in that region that doesn't get picked for Pool C, and they would never even come up for discussion.
Your theory assumes the best 18 teams are being picked for Pool C, that may not be the case every season.
This could happen very easily if all the UAA teams were in one region.
Quote from: sac on October 11, 2009, 09:30:03 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:01:07 AM
The fact is that, especially recently, the top CCIW teams have not done well in the NCAAs in general, and especially against WashU.
2008 WashU 70 Augustana 67 OT
2009 WashU 55 Wheaton 52
.........this is hardly "not done well", neither is Augustana winning 2 of the last 3 regular season meetings with the only loss at WashU in OT.
and neither is this "not done well in the NCAAs in general"
2006--IWU finished 3rd in NCAA's
2008--Augustana elimnated by Washington in OT in 2nd round (National Champion)
2008--Wheaton eliminated by Hope @ Hope in quarterfinals (3rd place team)
2009--Wheaton eliminated by Washington in sweet 16 (National Champion).......this was an absolute travesty of a pairing.
When I said "not done well", I meant compared to the UAA.
Quote from: sac on October 11, 2009, 09:33:36 PM
Quote from: AndOne on October 11, 2009, 05:02:32 PM
In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
No offense to the CCIW posters, but that was a complete joke.....and only proved the indecisiveness of voters rather than actual strength of the CCIW.
Watch the broad brush, sac - I agree with you! I won't go so far as to say 'complete joke', but I do see it as indecisiveness - all seven had a very good record at that time; 3 or 4 were almost no-brainer top 25s, but voters were uncertain which other CCIW team deserved a 23rd or 25th place vote.
Still that does indicate great depth. The CCIW won (if I recall correctly) over 80% of their non-con games; only a relative handful were out-and-out cupcakes. While there were certainly not seven teams deserving of top 25 votes, I suspect there may have been seven top 100 teams.
Dont get me wrong, I know that the UAA has a huge advantage when it comes to the system of d3 post season selections. I think having multiple teams on the table isnt even one of the biggest advantages. The biggest, I would say, is the advantage of playing good teams in each of the regions, which decreases the amount of "in-breading" in the schedule (I am sure we all remember that discussion from the last couple Pool C boards). This gives them a huge advantage in OWP and OOWP.
That said, I still think the UAAs resume is better than the CCIW's over the last few years. In all honesty, because of the factors we have pointed out, I dont think a fair comparison is possible on the national stage, especially if you are willing to throw out all post-season performances because of the predescribed regional bias.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 11, 2009, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: sac on October 11, 2009, 09:33:36 PM
Quote from: AndOne on October 11, 2009, 05:02:32 PM
In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
No offense to the CCIW posters, but that was a complete joke.....and only proved the indecisiveness of voters rather than actual strength of the CCIW.
Watch the broad brush, sac - I agree with you! I won't go so far as to say 'complete joke', but I do see it as indecisiveness - all seven had a very good record at that time; 3 or 4 were almost no-brainer top 25s, but voters were uncertain which other CCIW team deserved a 23rd or 25th place vote.
Still that does indicate great depth. The CCIW won (if I recall correctly) over 80% of their non-con games; only a relative handful were out-and-out cupcakes. While there were certainly not seven teams deserving of top 25 votes, I suspect there may have been seven top 100 teams.
Well, only 2 of those teams were ranked at the end of the year with only 3 receiving votes. At the 6 week point, 3 were ranked, Carthage was just outside of the top 25 and 3 had received 8 or less votes. I am going to have to agree with sac's assessment on this one. I think it is more likely that several different voters had varying #4 CCIW teams and they each put that team somewhere between 18-25. I dont think it is likely that multiple voters had 5-7 CCIW teams ranked.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:26:43 PM
Dont get me wrong, I know that the UAA has a huge advantage when it comes to the system of d3 post season selections. I think having multiple teams on the table isnt even one of the biggest advantages. The biggest, I would say, is the advantage of playing good teams in each of the regions, which decreases the amount of "in-breading" in the schedule (I am sure we all remember that discussion from the last couple Pool C boards). This gives them a huge advantage in OWP and OOWP.
That said, I still think the UAAs resume is better than the CCIW's over the last few years. In all honesty, because of the factors we have pointed out, I dont think a fair comparison is possible on the national stage, especially if you are willing to throw out all post-season performances because of the predescribed regional bias.
Another +1! :)
We are well on our way in having completed the annual Pool C/OWP/OOWP discussion before the opening of pre-season practice! ;)
There is absolutely no question in my mind that Wash U has been better than the CCIW's best team the last few years, and the head-to-head results between Wash U and CCIW teams is direct evidence. But almost all of those games have been nailbiters...
2007
Augustana 75
Wash U 73
(@ Augie)
Wash U 75
IWU 63
(@ IWU)
2008
Augustana 66
Wash U 60
(neutral)
Wash U 69
IWU 66
(@ Wash U)
Wash U 70
Augustana 67 (OT)
(@ Augie)
2009
Wash U 89
North Park 65
(neutral)
Wash U 87
Augustana 82 (OT)
(@ Augie)
Wash U 93
IWU 86
(@ Wash U)
Elmhurst 82
Wash U 75
(@ Elmhurst)
Wash U 55
Wheaton 52
(@ Wheaton)
Wash U is 7-3 vs the CCIW over the course of the last 3 seasons. Note, though, that 3 of those wins were vs CCIW bottom-feaders - the wins over 0-14 North Park and 5-9 IWU last year, and the win vs 4-10 IWU in 2007. Take those out and the Bears are 4-3 in games vs fellow conference "contenders", with basically all 4 wins coming down to the final seconds (2 OT's and 2 3-point games).
If that is the argument for the UAA being the stronger conference, I'm just not sure there is enough separation there to make that case.
Believe me, I have a ton of respect for both Wash U and the UAA...just not sold at all on the logic here, hugenerd.
Quote from: Titan Q on October 11, 2009, 10:45:18 PM
There is absolutely no question in my mind that Wash U has been better than the CCIW's best team the last few years, and the head-to-head results between Wash U and CCIW teams is direct evidence. But almost all of those games have been nailbiters...
2007
Augustana 75
Wash U 73
(@ Augie)
Wash U 75
IWU 63
(@ IWU)
2008
Augustana 66
Wash U 60
(neutral)
Wash U 69
IWU 66
(@ Wash U)
Wash U 70
Augustana 67 (OT)
(@ Augie)
2009
Wash U 89
North Park 65
(neutral)
Wash U 87
Augustana 82 (OT)
(@ Augie)
Wash U 93
IWU 86
(@ Wash U)
Elmhurst 82
Wash U 75
(@ Elmhurst)
Wash U 55
Wheaton 52
(@ Wheaton)
Wash U is 7-3 vs the CCIW over the course of the last 3 seasons. Note, though, that two of those wins were vs CCIW bottom-feaders - the wins over 0-14 North Park and 7th place IWU last year. Take those out and the Bears are 5-3 vs fellow conference "contenders", with basically all 5 wins coming down to the final seconds.
If that is the argument for the UAA being the stronger conference, I'm just not sure there is enough separation there to make that case.
Believe me, I have a ton of respect for both Wash U and the UAA...just not sold at all on the logic here, hugenerd.
This wasnt my entire argument, you can read my other posts to see the other ones. One thing you left out in your conclusions was that 8 of those 10 games were road games for WashU (either true road or neutral site).
I made points about the top-to-bottom strength, the number of 20+ win teams, the number of postseason teams, the number of at-large bids, the performance of postseason teams (not just WashU), and the number of national championships (I may be leaving out something). The problem remains that because of the strong regional tie-in with any form of metric used, all these points are very subjective. There is no UAA-CCIW challenge like there is between some conferences in d1 that we can use as definitive evidence. Therefore, it is clear that no one is going to convince anybody of anything, because you can always say that this data is regionally biased (because essentially every general statistic is regionally biased in d3).
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:33:52 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 11, 2009, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: sac on October 11, 2009, 09:33:36 PM
Quote from: AndOne on October 11, 2009, 05:02:32 PM
In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
No offense to the CCIW posters, but that was a complete joke.....and only proved the indecisiveness of voters rather than actual strength of the CCIW.
Watch the broad brush, sac - I agree with you! I won't go so far as to say 'complete joke', but I do see it as indecisiveness - all seven had a very good record at that time; 3 or 4 were almost no-brainer top 25s, but voters were uncertain which other CCIW team deserved a 23rd or 25th place vote.
Still that does indicate great depth. The CCIW won (if I recall correctly) over 80% of their non-con games; only a relative handful were out-and-out cupcakes. While there were certainly not seven teams deserving of top 25 votes, I suspect there may have been seven top 100 teams.
Well, only 2 of those teams were ranked at the end of the year with only 3 receiving votes. At the 6 week point, 3 were ranked, Carthage was just outside of the top 25 and 3 had received 8 or less votes. I am going to have to agree with sac's assessment on this one. I think it is more likely that several different voters had varying #4 CCIW teams and they each put that team somewhere between 18-25. I dont think it is likely that multiple voters had 5-7 CCIW teams ranked.
If you review my post, I believe that is precisely what I said! ;) I'll go one step further than you - I doubt ANY one voter listed more than 5 CCIW teams. But as of that point in the season, there were 7 teams for whom a plausible case could be made; different voters differed on who the fourth or fifth most worthy team was.
One thing that you may have thought made your case more applicable, but I think makes it weaker - you're relying too much on what WashU has done to the CCIW lately. The last two years that doesn't exactly make the CCIW the Lone Ranger! ;)
[Though if you wish to go back further, the all-time IWU-WashU series is 16-11 for the Titans (who also lead Chicago, 11-5)! :D]
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:01:07 AM
I know you know your d3 basketball. I also know that the CCIW is a very tough conference and always very competitive with any conference in the country. With that said, although the league is regularly very strong top to bottom, you also need to take into account the strength at the top as well.
Of course, and since Wash U has been the premier program in the land over the past three-year span, nobody will compare to the UAA in that regard, the WIAC included. But you're evading the essential point here, which is that league strength is measured
top-to-bottom. In other words, the fifteen-point neutral-court win by CCIW eighth-place North Park over UAA sixth-place Case Western Reserve last season is as relevant as any game played by Wash U against Augie, Wheaton, or the like.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 11, 2009, 08:49:17 PM
Quote from: old_hooper on October 11, 2009, 08:30:17 PM
You can say what you want about the NE basketball but keep in mind they have had a team in the championship game 6 out of 7 years. There are so many schools in the NE that the talent pool is watered down but don't take anything away from the good teams. It still takes the really good teams to make it to that game.
Detractors to that argument will contend that the road to Salem out of the Northeast, East and Mid-Atlantic Regions is the easiest, too. Those New England teams have had an easier path.
Exactly. And since the East Region has been the weakest-performing region in the tournament over the past twenty years, it only exaggerates further the fact that the Northeast Region is fairly weak to begin with, since those two regions are invariably paired in the early rounds of the tourney every March. Meanwhile, as Chuck pointed out, the overloaded West and Midwest regions
always get stuck playing each other, again due to geography -- and on the occasions where there's some actual crossover, the teams that get crossed over into the West/Midwest meat grinder tend to be Hope and/or Calvin, again for reasons of geography, and Hope and Calvin are not exactly a couple of East-Region-caliber floral arrangements.
The people I know who have seen the Amherst and Williams teams of recent Final Four vintage have attested to their bona-fides. But there's no mistaking that Ralph's right about those teams -- and Rochester and Brandeis, too, while we're on the subject of the UAA -- having had easier roads to Salem than anybody else.
Plus, I don't buy the "we've got so many schools that the talent is watered down" excuse for the Northeast. First of all, New England (i.e., the Northeast Region) has a very high population density when compared with other regions, so the correspondingly high D3-school density is balanced out. Second, the league that is by far the region's best, the NESCAC, features schools that recruit
nationally rather than merely within New England -- and I'm thinking of Amherst and Williams in particular when I say that.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 09:01:32 PM
You can make the same top-to-bottom argument recently with the UAA. The UAA has had as many as six teams play in a single postseason in the last a few years (3-4 in the NCAAs, 2 in ECACs).
Please stop bringing up the ECAC. It's absolutely, totally, and completely irrelevant. Since it does not include anything but schools located in the northeastern corner of the country, you can't use it to pad your numbers in any kind of comparison with a midwestern-based conference.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 11, 2009, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: sac on October 11, 2009, 09:33:36 PM
Quote from: AndOne on October 11, 2009, 05:02:32 PM
In week 6 last year, between the Top 25 and Others Receiving Votes, the CCIW had 7 of its 8 teams listed. Strength from top to bottom.
No offense to the CCIW posters, but that was a complete joke.....and only proved the indecisiveness of voters rather than actual strength of the CCIW.
Watch the broad brush, sac - I agree with you! I won't go so far as to say 'complete joke', but I do see it as indecisiveness - all seven had a very good record at that time; 3 or 4 were almost no-brainer top 25s, but voters were uncertain which other CCIW team deserved a 23rd or 25th place vote.
I'm another CCIW poster who agrees with your assessment as well, sac.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:26:43 PM
Dont get me wrong, I know that the UAA has a huge advantage when it comes to the system of d3 post season selections.
What I think you're missing here is that what you're conceding is
two huge regional advantages for the UAA. One is that the league is spread out over multiple regions. The other is that three of the better programs in the UAA over the past decade have reaped the bonanza of playing in a couple of bottom-feeder regions, the Northeast and the East. (And your countercharge that Brandeis makes up for its Northeast Region location by playing lots of NESCAC teams doesn't wash; in recent campaigns the Judges have only played
two NESCAC programs, Tufts and Amherst, in the regular season.)
If we were to give, say, Elmhurst, Carthage, and Wheaton the chance to fatten up on Northeast or East teams every year in November and December and then again in March -- or UW-Platteville, UW-LaCrosse, and UW-Oshkosh, or John Carroll, Capital, and Ohio Northern, while we're at it -- we'd see the exact same syndrome at work.
(Does anyone remember the last time that a CCIW school played a Northeast Region school in the tournament? Allow me to refresh your memory.) (http://www.d3hoops.com/salem/01/round3/carthumd.htm)
Quote from: hugenerd on October 11, 2009, 10:53:18 PMI made points about the top-to-bottom strength, the number of 20+ win teams, the number of postseason teams, the number of at-large bids, the performance of postseason teams (not just WashU), and the number of national championships (I may be leaving out something). The problem remains that because of the strong regional tie-in with any form of metric used, all these points are very subjective.
And I freely admit that my ultimate case, firsthand observation, is subjective as well. You're obviously not buying what I have to say about what I've seen with my own eyes on a regular basis in various CCIW gyms and in the Ratner Center, and that's your right. But it doesn't make me any less adamant that the level of the CCIW, from teams one thru eight, is better than the level of the UAA's octet.
Give Augustana or Wheaton, Rochester or Brandeis' bracket........then lets see if their success rate would be any different.
.......or what Sager said. :D
This is a very interesting and entertaining topic. Anyone who wants to push for their conference can probably come up with a method that sounds good for their conference. I find it hard to argue that the UAA isn't at the top for the last three years anyway. Although if you want to look at all 8 teams you can argue that those teams at the bottom (3), haven't been that competitive. I have seen all UAA teams play and have been to all 18 NCAA tourney games Wash U has played. The fact that Wash U has only won the UAA outright once while going to the Final Four three straght years speaks volumes for the league. The fact that Wash U only hosted 2 of those tourney games also gives strength to the argument. IMO
Quote from: WAS A PLAYER on October 12, 2009, 12:09:21 PM
The fact that Wash U has only won the UAA outright once while going to the Final Four three straght years speaks volumes for the league.
That may not be as unusual as one might expect - the last two times IWU made the Final Four (2001 and 2006), they did not win the CCIW either time.
I don't know how unusual it is but I would say that indicates the strength of that league during those years.
It would at least indicate strength at the top of the conference. But, to me at least, if you are ranking conferences, you've got to consider the entire conference.
Another problem with overly relying on tourney results is that with a one-loss-you're-out format, successful teams have to be not only good, but also fortunate. In IWU's only title year (1997) it took a falling-down final-seconds shot to survive Rose Hulman in the second round (a team we had beaten by 25 earlier in the season). Greg has mentioned that at least 3 of NPU's 5 national title teams had at least one game that they were 'fortunate' to win. (Personally, I'm not sure IWU's title team was even among the top FIVE IWU teams all-time - but they are the ones who prevailed.)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 12, 2009, 03:10:06 PMAnother problem with overly relying on tourney results is that with a one-loss-you're-out format, successful teams have to be not only good, but also fortunate. In IWU's only title year (1997) it took a falling-down final-seconds shot to survive Rose Hulman in the second round (a team we had beaten by 25 earlier in the season). Greg has mentioned that at least 3 of NPU's 5 national title teams had at least one game that they were 'fortunate' to win. (Personally, I'm not sure IWU's title team was even among the top FIVE IWU teams all-time - but they are the ones who prevailed.)
Last season's Wash U outfit was a classic example of that. The Bears won their first three tourney games by two, three, and three points -- and in their first-round game against Lawrence they actually trailed going into the final twenty seconds.
In order to compare the CCIW and the UAA on a top-to-bottom basis over the past four years based upon head-to-head results, I jotted down the results of all of the games between the two leagues -- which, of course, mostly involve Chicago and Wash U on the UAA side -- and the standings of the two leagues for each season. Then I went through the results and assigned a value of +1 to either league if that league's team beat the other league's standings counterpart head-to-head (e.g., UAA #1 Wash U beating CCIW #1 Wheaton last season), +1.5 if that league's team beat the team that finished one place farther up in the other league, +2 if that league's team beat the team that finished two places farther up in the other league, etc. I didn't assign any points for wins over a team that finished farther down in the other league, since, if the two leagues are presumed to be equal, such a victory would be an expected outcome.
Here's what I came up with:
2008-09Elmhurst (CCIW #2) > Washington (UAA #1)
North Park (CCIW #8) > Case Western Reserve (UAA #6)
Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW #7) > Chicago (UAA #5)
Washington (UAA #1 ) > Wheaton (CCIW #1)
total: CCIW 5.5, UAA 12007-08Wheaton (CCIW #2) > Chicago (UAA #1)
Washington (UAA #2) > Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW #2)
Washington (UAA #2) > Augustana (CCIW #1)
total: UAA 2.5, CCIW 1.52006-07Augustana (CCIW #1) > Washington (UAA #1)
total: CCIW 1, UAA 02005-06Wheaton (CCIW #5) > Chicago (UAA #3)
Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW #2) > Washington (UAA #2)
total: CCIW 3, UAA 0four-year total: CCIW 11, UAA 3.5That's not definitive, but it's a good snapshot of how the two leagues have measured up to each other on a slot-by-slot basis.
What a wonderful extremely arbitrary system, why not just make it an exponential dependence on difference, that would make the CCIW look even better. Also only one game respresents teams other than WashU and Chicago (great sample size) and you essentially discount all of the UAAs wins because you dont take into account essentially all of WashU's wins because they have been #1 or #2 in the UAA for the last 4 years and Chicago has been #1 two of those years and 3rd another year. So a win by WashU on the road @ #3 Augie doesnt count for anything? I also noticed you took the liberty of rounding the rankings up in the case of a tie. This may not seem like a big deal, but WashU was tied for 2nd in 2008 (so effectively 2.5) and tied for first in 2007, so they were not solely 1st and 2nd. Therefore, since every game but one was played by WashU and Chicago and those teams have accounted for 4 #1s (they tied in 2007), 2 #2s, and 1 #3, nearly all of their wins are discounted and they are punished very heavily for an upset.
Just to give you an example of what I mean. If WashU played every team in the CCIW each year from 2005 to 2008 and they were number #1 in the UAA each year, there would be only 1 game each year where they could gain points, whereas the CCIW would have 8 games each year to gain points. If the CCIW lost 7 of those games and won only 1, lets say an upset by the #3 team, WashU would still be -1 overall per year(1 pt for beating CCIW #1 team, -2 for losing to #3 team), even though they went 7-1 each year, and -4 for the total of the 4 years. I am sorry, but this may be the worst comparison/analysis/invention-of-a-system-to-skew-an-argument-in-your-favor I have ever seen. If anyone would like to rank the CCIW over the UAA because of this argument, than that is your right, but I am sure that I can come up with an arbitrary analysis that shows the UAA equally superior to the CCIW (for example, tourney wins vs. CCIW).
While Greg's system had plenty of flaws (as he already acknowledged), it did use the available data. You complain about his 'small sample size', yet propose to substitute tourney wins (which would reduce the UAA sample recently to ONE, and losing to WashU hardly makes the CCIW unique)!
(Besides, if you wanna go tourney I'll pull out the 2001 card: when CCIW #3 IWU beat Chicago en route to the Final Four, Chicago was not just UAA #1, they were ranked #1 in the country. ;D)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 13, 2009, 09:45:14 PM
While Greg's system had plenty of flaws (as he already acknowledged), it did use the available data. You complain about his 'small sample size', yet propose to substitute tourney wins (which would reduce the UAA sample recently to ONE, and losing to WashU hardly makes the CCIW unique)!
(Besides, if you wanna go tourney I'll pull out the 2001 card: when CCIW #3 IWU beat Chicago en route to the Final Four, Chicago was not just UAA #1, they were ranked #1 in the country. ;D)
Actually, two in the past two years, they won @ Augie 2 years ago and @ Wheaton last year. If I use the following formula to calculate an arbitrary number of points: 1 point for win, +5 for win on the road, + (difference in national ranking entering tourney)^2 if winner is ranked lower than opponent.
Here is what we have
WashU
2008: 1+5+(11-6)^2= 31 (win @ Augie)
2009: 1+5+0 = 6 (win @ Wheaton)
Under my system: the UAA clearly has the advantage over the CCIW 37-0
As I said almost a dozen times now, you can make any argument you want with the small sample size. Therefore, especially because of the regional issues raised in d3, no one is going to make any headway in this argument.
I meant a sample size of one team (WashU), not one game. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Of course this is unresolvable - like most sports arguments! That's why they're fun! ;D
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 13, 2009, 10:36:30 PM
I meant a sample size of one team (WashU), not one game. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Of course this is unresolvable - like most sports arguments! That's why they're fun! ;D
That is quite alright, this entire argument lacks clarity.
I guess my main disagreement with the general "top-to-bottom" argument is that no conference ever has 0 weak teams. Nobody is making the argument that the Big East isnt the top D1 basketball conference because DePaul, Rutgers and South Florida have been absolutely horrible (combined 30% winning percentage last year, South Florida lost badly to Oral Roberts, Wright State, and Niagara, Rutgers lost to Lehigh, Binghamton, etc.). Also, as is the case with poor teams, they are usually inconsistent. So if Case lost to North Park on any given night, that is not surprising to me (WashU beat North Park by 24, but didnt beat Case by more than 10 points in 2 meetings). It is one game, which unfortunately is a large basis of the "top-to-bottom" argument. The same Case team was also beating WashU for 38 minutes last year (Emory, the worst team in the conference was also within a basket of beating WashU). And that is not to say that North Park isnt a better team than Case Western, they may be. All I am saying is that just because the bottom 3 teams in the CCIW are better than the bottom 3 in the UAA, that does not make it impossible for the UAA to be a better conference overall than the CCIW. That is why I think that, although top-to-bottom strength is one factor in overall conference strength, another essential factor is the strength of the other teams in the conference, especially those at the top.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 13, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
What a wonderful extremely arbitrary system, why not just make it an exponential dependence on difference, that would make the CCIW look even better. Also only one game respresents teams other than WashU and Chicago (great sample size) and you essentially discount all of the UAAs wins because you dont take into account essentially all of WashU's wins because they have been #1 or #2 in the UAA for the last 4 years and Chicago has been #1 two of those years and 3rd another year. So a win by WashU on the road @ #3 Augie doesnt count for anything?
As I said, if you start from the neutral assumption that the two leagues are presumed to be equal, a #1 team should beat a #3 team. Yes, road factors can cancel that out -- in the CCIW, even the #1 team often can't beat the #3 team in the #3 team's gym -- but you can't quantify them. More to the point, your complaint that the experiment is skewed against the UAA because Wash U and Chicago are perennially at the top of that circuit really doesn't hold. Of the games listed, the UAA only has a #1 represented one more time than does the CCIW, 4 to 3.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 13, 2009, 08:10:00 PMI also noticed you took the liberty of rounding the rankings up in the case of a tie. This may not seem like a big deal, but WashU was tied for 2nd in 2008 (so effectively 2.5) and tied for first in 2007, so they were not solely 1st and 2nd.
That argument cuts both ways. Wheaton and Wesleyan tied for second in the CCIW in 2007-08, and Wesleyan was one of three teams that tied for second in 2005-06.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 13, 2009, 10:22:48 PMAs I said almost a dozen times now, you can make any argument you want with the small sample size. Therefore, especially because of the regional issues raised in d3, no one is going to make any headway in this argument.
Yes, the regional issues that constitute most of the UAA's strengths in this argument. ;)
Quote from: hugenerd on October 13, 2009, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 13, 2009, 10:36:30 PM
I meant a sample size of one team (WashU), not one game. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
Of course this is unresolvable - like most sports arguments! That's why they're fun! ;D
That is quite alright, this entire argument lacks clarity.
I guess my main disagreement with the general "top-to-bottom" argument is that no conference ever has 0 weak teams. Nobody is making the argument that the Big East isnt the top D1 basketball conference because DePaul, Rutgers and South Florida have been absolutely horrible (combined 30% winning percentage last year, South Florida lost badly to Oral Roberts, Wright State, and Niagara, Rutgers lost to Lehigh, Binghamton, etc.).
Stick to the apples-and-apples analogies, please. There are plenty of D3 leagues to choose from; let's leave D1 out of this.
The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record. The NCAC is more of the same; Wooster and Wittenberg are consistently among the top teams in D3, and yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.
Your contention that "no conference ever has zero weak teams" is demonstrably false. Look at the CCIW; North Park went winless in league play last season, and yet the Vikings went 8-3 in non-con play, with one of the three losses coming at the hands of a D1 team. In each of the past three seasons the CCIW's bottom-dweller has posted a winning record in non-con play. The WIAC has done it for four seasons in a row.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 13, 2009, 11:02:19 PMAlso, as is the case with poor teams, they are usually inconsistent. So if Case lost to North Park on any given night, that is not surprising to me (WashU beat North Park by 24, but didnt beat Case by more than 10 points in 2 meetings). It is one game, which unfortunately is a large basis of the "top-to-bottom" argument.
It's actually two games (CCIW #7 IWU beat UAA #5 Chicago), and in both cases the CCIW team beat a UAA team that finished two notches higher. But I'm more than willing to go by the much larger sample size afforded by cumulative non-con record, with the understanding that three of the UAA's eight schools -- Brandeis, Rochester, and NYU -- play in regions that are vastly inferior to the Midwest Region, and that this substantial number of non-con games with East and Northeast teams distorts the UAA's final tally for comparative purposes. In that respect, the UAA's overall advantage over the past four years, which is 287-106 (.730) to the CCIW's 268-104 (.720), seems very, very underwhelming.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 13, 2009, 11:02:19 PMThe same Case team was also beating WashU for 38 minutes last year (Emory, the worst team in the conference was also within a basket of beating WashU). And that is not to say that North Park isnt a better team than Case Western, they may be.
The Vikings led for the last 29 minutes of the game, the last nine minutes in double digits, and they did it with two starters sitting on the bench in street clothes due to injury. NPU was clearly a better team than CWRU.
Conference games tend to take on different patterns than non-con games, especially on the road. The competition is typically much fiercer, due to both higher stakes and greater familiarity, and blowouts tend to be less common. It's not at all unusual in any league to find a bottom-dweller giving a contender a tough game; that's what conference play is all about. What's ultimately important is that the better team usually wins, so the ability of a bottom-dweller to hang with a top team for 38 minutes before succumbing is really a distinction without a difference.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 13, 2009, 11:02:19 PMAll I am saying is that just because the bottom 3 teams in the CCIW are better than the bottom 3 in the UAA, that does not make it impossible for the UAA to be a better conference overall than the CCIW.
No, but it makes it very difficult, because you've conceded three out of the eight spots. That only leaves you five left, and the UAA's gotta be better at four of those five just to break even.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 13, 2009, 11:02:19 PMThat is why I think that, although top-to-bottom strength is one factor in overall conference strength, another essential factor is the strength of the other teams in the conference, especially those at the top.
What "other teams"? Top-to-bottom strength means just that:
Every team in the conference, which in the case of both the CCIW and UAA means all eight of them.
Your contention that strength at the top taken in isolation is an "essential factor" just doesn't make sense. It disregards the fact that there are eight teams in the league, not one or two. And, as both Chuck and I have pointed out, it leaves you holding the bag when the MIAA and the NCAC are brought up as counterexamples.
Let me introduce a new angle (admitting right away that there is probably no conclusive game-results to test the proposition): granting that every conference can be forgiven ONE deadbeat (though Greg already showed that the last place teams in the CCIW and WIAC still consistently post winning non-con records), how strong are your 'near-bottom' teams?
While (as I admitted) there is probably no real data to 'prove' it, I doubt you'd find many (if any) national observers claiming that any other conference's #6 and #7 teams (or their equivalent in larger or smaller conferences) would match up well (at least MOST years) with #6 and #7 in the CCIW or #6-8 of the WIAC.
As Greg emphasized, conference strength means top-to bottom strength, with no extra weight given to tourney wins at the top. Virtually everyone gave the nod to WIAC over OAC as the top football conference because of depth (even before UWW became at least a near-peer of MUC).
Here is some real data for you guys:
Massey 2006 (Overall Ranking)
4 - 4 tie
Spot 1 (CCIW): Ill Wes (319) - Carnegie (506)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Augustana (407) - WashU (568)
Spot 3 (CCIW): North Central (429) - Rochester (613)
Spot 4 (CCIW): Elmurst (525) - NYU (623)
Spot 5 (UAA): Chicago (633) - Carthage (695)
Spot 6 (UAA): Brandeis (742) - Wheaton (756)
Spot 7 (UAA): Emory (824) - Millikin (922)
Spot 8 (UAA): Case (849) - North Park (1136)
Massey 2007
4-4 Tie (WashU finishes 3rd in the country)
Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (392) - Augie (441)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Elmhurst (461) - Chicago (473)
Spot 3 (UAA): Brandeis (493) - Wheaton (502)
Spot 4 (UAA): NYU (506) - Carthage (533)
Spot 5 (UAA): Rochester (542) - North Central (587)
Spot 6 (CCIW): Ill Wesleyan (704) - CMU (792)
Spot 7 (CCIW): North Park (708) - Emory (897)
Spot 8 (CCIW): Millikin (883) - Case (1194)
Massey 2008:
UAA wins 7 - 1 (WashU wins national title)
Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (308) - Augustana (402)
Spot 2 (UAA): Brandeis (340) - Wheaton (473)
Spot 3 (UAA): Rochester (381) - Illinois Wes (577)
Spot 4 (UAA): Chicago (421) - Elmhurst (581)
Spot 5 (UAA): Carnegie (528) - Carthage (778)
Spot 6 (UAA): NYU (696) - North Park (792)
Spot 7 (UAA): Emory (782) - North Central (937)
Spot 8 (CCIW): Millikin (1095) - Case Western (1176)
Massey 2009
CCIW 7 - 1 (WashU wins title)
Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (228) - Wheaton (283)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Elmhurst (408) - Carnegie (620)
Spot 3 (CCIW): Augie (446) - Brandeis (731)
Spot 4 (CCIW): North Central (526) - Rochester (815)
Spot 5 (CCIW): Carthage (551) - NYU (940)
Spot 6 (CCIW): Millikin (569) - Chicago (1192)
Spot 7 (CCIW): Ill Wes (655) - Case (1229)
Spot 8 (CCIW): North Park (909) - Emory (1311)
As you can see from above, the conferences are very similar. They have essentially flip flopped each of the last 4 years. In 2006, CCIW won the top 4 matchups , then in 2007 the UAA won 4 of the 5 top matchups. Then in 2008 the UAA won the 7 top matchups, and then in 2009 the CCIW won 7 of the 8 matchups. If the trend follows, the UAA should have a stronger year this year than the CCIW.
According to the above results, I think the conferences are very close (maybe even too close to call), with a slight edge going to the UAA (obviously, in my opinion) because of recent performances in the NCAA tourney.
In terms of the top-to-bottom argument. The UAA has had the stronger bottom of the conference (according to Massey) 2 of the last 4 years, and the CCIW has had the stronger bottom of the conference the other two years.
While I have not researched Massey's methodology, I strongly suspect that it highly weights tourney success, pulling up whole conferences (on the 'shirt-tails' of successful tourney teams). If I'm correct, the 2009 results are amazing for the CCIW, while the 2008 results would be expected.
How's that for rationalization?! But I suspect I'm right, however 'convenient' it may be! :D
I am pretty sure Massey takes all the games into consideration. For example, even though 3 UAA teams made the tourney last year, it didnt really help two of them because they lost in the first couple of rounds. Obviously, wins over quality teams do help your ranking, but that should be expected with any system.
There is no "weighting" of the games near the end of the season. Here is the overview from the massey website:
"In essence, each game "connects" two teams via an equation. As more games are played, eventually each team is connected to every other team through some chain of games. When this happens, the system of equations is coupled and a computer is necessary to solve them simultaneously.
The ratings are totally interdependent, so that a team's rating is affected by games in which it didn't even play. The solution therefore effectively depends on an infinite chain of opponents, opponents' opponents, opponents' opponents' opponents, etc. The final ratings represent a state of equilibrium in which each team's rating is exactly balanced by its good and bad performances. "
Therefore, the only thing that the postseason helps you with is getting you more games (and potentially quality games). However, if you beat a bad AQ team in the first round and lose in the second round (or lose in the first round), the tourney can actually hurt you.
And I am a bit disappointed by your post Ypsi, without any research you immediately throw out excuses? I expected more. That is why I appreciate Sager's posts, at least they are well thought out, even if I do not always agree with them.
Hey, I already admitted it was 'rationalization'! :D
But your explanation actually confirmed my point - WashU's titles raised the entire UAA. Thus my (admittedly snarky) conclusion that the CCIW going 7-1 in 2009 was amazing, while the UAA's 7-1 in 2008 was (admittedly hyperbolically) only to 'be expected'! ;D
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 14, 2009, 09:24:05 PM
Hey, I already admitted it was 'rationalization'! :D
But your explanation actually confirmed my point - WashU's titles raised the entire UAA. Thus my (admittedly snarky) conclusion that the CCIW going 7-1 in 2009 was amazing, while the UAA's 7-1 in 2008 was (admittedly hyperbolically) only to 'be expected'! ;D
Well it technically also brings up the CCIW a little, because WashU plays games against the CCIW and plays in the same region (many common opponents-opponents, etc.). I dont really buy that excuse though, the differences in the top 7 are huge in 2008 in favor of the UAA (the UAA had 3 schools with a higher ranking than the first team in the CCIW). CWRU still has its expected rankings in the high 1100s - low 1200s, so it didnt help them very much. Also, the results of a given team are obviously more significant than opponents-opponents, etc.
This was my attempt to give you "real data" from an established algorithm, but you are still making excuses. It didnt even show a significant edge to either conference. To be honest, the post-season should have some weight, so the fact that you keep arguing that it shouldnt baffles me. If the top teams in your conference do well in the tourney, that makes your conference better, hence higher rankings. It doesnt make sense to ignore the post-season.
As I said before, the conferences have been very close over the past 3-4 years. You can make an argument either way. Nobody is going to gain any headway in this argument. There is no compelling evidence to show that either conference is supremely better than the other. I still contend that the UAA has the slight edge with the performance of their teams in the tourney in recent years
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 14, 2009, 06:52:47 PM
The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record.
That is actually a rather new tendency Greg, the MIAA has traditionally been much stronger than its last 3 seasons.
Through the year 2006, the MIAA had a winning non-conference record as far back as I can recall. Only the last 3 years has the league slipped below the .500 mark. Unless I'm forgetting a season or two, but I'm certain thats the case.
Last year the MIAA finished a paltry 35-51 out of conference.....the lowest I can remember.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 14, 2009, 06:52:47 PM
The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record. The NCAC is more of the same; Wooster and Wittenberg are consistently among the top teams in D3, and yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.
That is actually....uh....er....well....
true. :-[
Anyway....
I hope you all realize that you're never going to settle this argument unless and until you can agree on an objective, measurable definition of "better conference" or "strength of conference." You have to decide what the definition is ("top to bottom strength," "Massey ratings," "
preseason nonconference results," or whatever) and then decide on an objective way to evaluate that definition.
As someone (I think it was Chuck) has already suggested, however, I think the fun in this is the arguing, not a possible resolution. This is why I never have supported the idea of a playoff in FBS; the ability to argue all off-season who the "real" national champion should be is the only fun thing about D1 football.
Personally, I think strength of conference should be based on all-time victories. ;D
Just for comparison...
2009
CCIW 7 - 1 (WashU wins title)
Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (228) - Wheaton (283) - Point (298)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Elmhurst (408) - Carnegie (620) - Whitewater (344)
Spot 3 (CCIW): Augie (446) - Brandeis (731) - Platteville (347)
Spot 4 (CCIW): North Central (526) - Rochester (815) - Oshkosh (514)
Spot 5 (CCIW): Carthage (551) - NYU (940) - Eau Claire (611)
Spot 6 (CCIW): Millikin (569) - Chicago (1192) - La Crosse (682)
Spot 7 (CCIW): Ill Wes (655) - Case (1229) - Superior (737)
Spot 8 (CCIW): North Park (909) - Emory (1311) - River Falls (745)
Spot 9 - Stout (966)
WIAC and CCIW were 4-4, WIAC and UAA were 7-1 in favor of WIAC.
Head to head
#1 Point W @ #2 Elmhurst
#2 Whitewater W @ #4 North Central, W @ #2 Elmhurst, L (neut) #1 Wash U
#3 Platteville W @ #5 Carthage, L @ #1 Wheaton
#4 Oshkosh L @ #3 Augustana
#6 La Crosse L @ #2 Elmhurst, W vs. #3 Augustana
So, head to head, the WIAC went 5-3 against the CCIW and 0-1 against the UAA. All of the games "followed suit" except for #6 La Crosse beating #3 Augustana.
What is interesting is that all of the games in the CCIW vs. WIAC were in the CCIW gym.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 14, 2009, 09:43:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 14, 2009, 09:24:05 PM
Hey, I already admitted it was 'rationalization'! :D
But your explanation actually confirmed my point - WashU's titles raised the entire UAA. Thus my (admittedly snarky) conclusion that the CCIW going 7-1 in 2009 was amazing, while the UAA's 7-1 in 2008 was (admittedly hyperbolically) only to 'be expected'! ;D
Well it technically also brings up the CCIW a little, because WashU plays games against the CCIW and plays in the same region (many common opponents-opponents, etc.). I dont really buy that excuse though, the differences in the top 7 are huge in 2008 in favor of the UAA (the UAA had 3 schools with a higher ranking than the first team in the CCIW). CWRU still has its expected rankings in the high 1100s - low 1200s, so it didnt help them very much. Also, the results of a given team are obviously more significant than opponents-opponents, etc.
This was my attempt to give you "real data" from an established algorithm, but you are still making excuses. It didnt even show a significant edge to either conference. To be honest, the post-season should have some weight, so the fact that you keep arguing that it shouldnt baffles me. If the top teams in your conference do well in the tourney, that makes your conference better, hence higher rankings. It doesnt make sense to ignore the post-season.
As I said before, the conferences have been very close over the past 3-4 years. You can make an argument either way. Nobody is going to gain any headway in this argument. There is no compelling evidence to show that either conference is supremely better than the other. I still contend that the UAA has the slight edge with the performance of their teams in the tourney in recent years
If you return to the start of the discussion, you will see this as part of the very first response to the thread-opening post:
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 09, 2009, 09:49:30 PM
Lately I would say the top three are definitely WIAC, CCIW, and UAA (pick your order).
Blame it all on Greg, who established a definite 1,2,3 order! :o As a loyal CCIW fan, I had to support my compatriot! ;) [Though, I confess, I agree with him, but only by a whisker, and not for each and every year.]
But the banter (and
attempted proofs) are the fun of these boards. ;D
I believe the SLIAC is the best D3 conference in the land.
Now I can't wait to see the 'proofs' on that one! ;D
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 14, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Now I can't wait to see the 'proofs' on that one! ;D
Probably wouldnt be too hard. You just need to find a scoring metric that only counts the SLIACs wins, weight those an inordinate amount, and somehow negate all of their losses. Maybe Mr. Sager can help out with that? ;)
Quote from: David Collinge on October 14, 2009, 10:27:34 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 14, 2009, 06:52:47 PM
The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record. The NCAC is more of the same; Wooster and Wittenberg are consistently among the top teams in D3, and yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.
That is actually....uh....er....well....true. :-[
Anyway....
I hope you all realize that you're never going to settle this argument unless and until you can agree on an objective, measurable definition of "better conference" or "strength of conference." You have to decide what the definition is ("top to bottom strength," "Massey ratings," "preseason nonconference results," or whatever) and then decide on an objective way to evaluate that definition.
As someone (I think it was Chuck) has already suggested, however, I think the fun in this is the arguing, not a possible resolution. This is why I never have supported the idea of a playoff in FBS; the ability to argue all off-season who the "real" national champion should be is the only fun thing about D1 football.
Personally, I think strength of conference should be based on all-time victories. ;D
I think "top-to-bottom" is even too abstract a metric. How do you measure top-to-bottom? I think only one thing is really certain in this argument, and I may be going out on a limb here, is that the UAA has had the best team (WashU) and the worst team (CWRU) when considering the UAA and CCIW over the past 3 years.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 12:54:57 AM
I think "top-to-bottom" is even too abstract a metric. How do you measure top-to-bottom? I think only one thing is really certain in this argument, and I may be going out on a limb here, is that the UAA has had the best team (WashU) and the worst team (CWRU) when considering the UAA and CCIW over the past 3 years.
Depending how far you want to take Massey, it would be possible to note that the top CCIW schools "ranked" ahead of even the UAA's #2, and that the #7 team ranked ahead of UAA's #3... but I think Massey's rating really DO take into consideration conference rankings as derived from non-conference results... so the out of conference losses of Emory, Case, Chicago, and NYU may drag the other schools down a bit... But there is no perfect metric. On any given night, any one team CAN beat another... Even if it's 1 in every 1000 games, that one chance does exist... and thus even the game results don't provide the perfect metric. That defies pretty much all logic... but it's the reason why we even bother to play the games. One team (or conference) can be better than the other on paper, but the other may score more points on that given night.
Does that mean the winning team is better? I guess it depends what the definition of "better" is. On that particular night they weren't... but is it who would win out of 10, 50, or 100 games? And how would you even come close to approximating that? And, also, with the constant fluxuation of teams (from individual players improving as the year goes on to injuries to new offenses/defenses) at what point do we measure? At the time of the game? At the end of the season? As an average over the entire season?
The NCAA tournment is set up as a tool to measure who is the "best" at the end of the year... but we've documented how flawed that really is, too.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 14, 2009, 06:52:47 PM...yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.
The NCAC is about to get a little tougher. (http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2009/10/15/hcac-formally-welcomes-earlham.html)
Quote from: sac on October 14, 2009, 10:09:55 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 14, 2009, 06:52:47 PM
The ideal examples have already been introduced to this discussion by Chuck: The MIAA and the NCAC. Nobody disputes the fact that, year in and year out, the MIAA has two of the strongest programs in the land in Hope and Calvin. Yet, year in and year out, the MIAA posts a losing cumulative non-con record.
That is actually a rather new tendency Greg, the MIAA has traditionally been much stronger than its last 3 seasons.
Through the year 2006, the MIAA had a winning non-conference record as far back as I can recall. Only the last 3 years has the league slipped below the .500 mark. Unless I'm forgetting a season or two, but I'm certain thats the case.
Last year the MIAA finished a paltry 35-51 out of conference.....the lowest I can remember.
I was just trying to keep that "year in and year out" theme going, but your point is well taken, sac. Inflammatory charge retracted.
Quote from: David Collinge on October 14, 2009, 10:27:34 PMI hope you all realize that you're never going to settle this argument unless and until you can agree on an objective, measurable definition of "better conference" or "strength of conference."
The whole problem is that Hugenerd won't accept my eyewitness testimony as objective and measurable. ;)
Quote from: David Collinge on October 15, 2009, 01:54:38 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 14, 2009, 06:52:47 PM...yet the NCAC posts one bad non-con season after another.
The NCAC is about to get a little tougher. (http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2009/10/15/hcac-formally-welcomes-earlham.html)
Yeah, I noticed that a few weeks ago. It looks like a classic case of addition by subtraction for the NCAC, as far as competition level is concerned. I'm not so sure, though, that Earlham's President Bennett has an accurate read on the situation, at least as far as men's basketball is concerned:
QuoteDouglas Bennett, Earlham's president, had told Earlham's student newspaper, The Earlham Word, that the school's goal is to win half of its games every season. A switch from the NCAC would help meet that goal, the paper cited Bennett as having said.
It also means that an underperforming program is leaving the Great Lakes Region and entering the Midwest Region, FWIW.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 14, 2009, 08:24:39 PM
Here is some real data for you guys:
Massey 2006 (Overall Ranking)
4 - 4 tie
Spot 1 (CCIW): Ill Wes (319) - Carnegie (506)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Augustana (407) - WashU (568)
Spot 3 (CCIW): North Central (429) - Rochester (613)
Spot 4 (CCIW): Elmurst (525) - NYU (623)
Spot 5 (UAA): Chicago (633) - Carthage (695)
Spot 6 (UAA): Brandeis (742) - Wheaton (756)
Spot 7 (UAA): Emory (824) - Millikin (922)
Spot 8 (UAA): Case (849) - North Park (1136)
Massey 2007
4-4 Tie (WashU finishes 3rd in the country)
Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (392) - Augie (441)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Elmhurst (461) - Chicago (473)
Spot 3 (UAA): Brandeis (493) - Wheaton (502)
Spot 4 (UAA): NYU (506) - Carthage (533)
Spot 5 (UAA): Rochester (542) - North Central (587)
Spot 6 (CCIW): Ill Wesleyan (704) - CMU (792)
Spot 7 (CCIW): North Park (708) - Emory (897)
Spot 8 (CCIW): Millikin (883) - Case (1194)
Massey 2008:
UAA wins 7 - 1 (WashU wins national title)
Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (308) - Augustana (402)
Spot 2 (UAA): Brandeis (340) - Wheaton (473)
Spot 3 (UAA): Rochester (381) - Illinois Wes (577)
Spot 4 (UAA): Chicago (421) - Elmhurst (581)
Spot 5 (UAA): Carnegie (528) - Carthage (778)
Spot 6 (UAA): NYU (696) - North Park (792)
Spot 7 (UAA): Emory (782) - North Central (937)
Spot 8 (CCIW): Millikin (1095) - Case Western (1176)
Massey 2009
CCIW 7 - 1 (WashU wins title)
Spot 1 (UAA): WashU (228) - Wheaton (283)
Spot 2 (CCIW): Elmhurst (408) - Carnegie (620)
Spot 3 (CCIW): Augie (446) - Brandeis (731)
Spot 4 (CCIW): North Central (526) - Rochester (815)
Spot 5 (CCIW): Carthage (551) - NYU (940)
Spot 6 (CCIW): Millikin (569) - Chicago (1192)
Spot 7 (CCIW): Ill Wes (655) - Case (1229)
Spot 8 (CCIW): North Park (909) - Emory (1311)
I'll see your real data, and raise you:
Massey ranking averages(the first number is the total number of ranking points amassed by the league; the second number is the average team rank for the league)2005-06| CCIW | 5,189 | 648.6 |
| UAA | 5,358 | 669.8 |
2006-07| CCIW | 4,769 | 596.1 |
| UAA | 5,289 | 661.1 |
2007-08| CCIW | 5,585 | 698.1 |
| UAA | 4,632 | 579.0 |
2008-09| CCIW | 4,347 | 543.4 |
| UAA | 7,066 | 883.3 |
four-year totals| CCIW | 19,890 | 621.6 |
| UAA | 22,345 | 698.3 |
Greg, I honestly had already done those calculations. The reasons I didnt post them are as follows: First off, Case Western and Emory absolutely kill the UAA, if you take into the top 6, the numbers are nearly all square. Secondly, in a previous post, you yourself stated that a good top-to-bottom metric would be comparing the first teams, the second teams, the third teams, and so on; therefore, I did exactly that analysis. Also, I had already stated that over the past 3 years they CCIW's bottom 3 teams have been much better than the UAA's bottom 3. Over those 3 years (l listed 4 years, so I am only looking at 2007-2009 here), the bottom 3 spots alone have account for +2017 ranking spots for the CCIW (that is 672 spots per year, or 224 spots per position). Average that over all 8 teams, that is 84 spots per position, taking into account only the difference in the bottom 3 teams. However, in those same 3 years, they UAA has been +1927 or 642 spots per year, or 80 spots per team. So therefore, the UAA has been equally strong in its first 5, compared to the CCIW, as it has been week compared to the bottom 3. Therefore, along with the fact that comparing the 1st place teams, 2nd place teams, third place teams, etc. were based on yours and Ypsis comments, I did not present that data. I still would rather be strong in the first 5 spots than in the final 3: edge UAA. What that analysis truly shows is how weak the bottom 3 have been for the UAA in comparison to their CCIW counterparts.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PM
Greg, I honestly had already done those calculations.
>:( You could've saved me a lot of time spent wrestling with the calculator function on my cell phone. :D
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PMThe reasons I didnt post them are as follows: First off, Case Western and Emory absolutely kill the UAA, if you take into the top 6, the numbers are nearly all square.
You already know what I'm going to say in response to that, don't you? ;) Case Western Reserve and Emory are just as much a part of the UAA as are Wash U and Rochester. You can't leave them out.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PMSecondly, in a previous post, you yourself stated that a good top-to-bottom metric would be comparing the first teams, the second teams, the third teams, and so on; therefore, I did exactly that analysis.
Yes, I did say that, and, yes, you did exactly that. But averaging out the data you presented to give both league ranking totals and mean average of each league's eight teams are good top-to-bottom metrics, too. In fact, they might be even better ways of top-to-bottom comparison than the slot-by-slot method, since they fit the CCIW and UAA into the overall context of four-year college basketball.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PMAlso, I had already stated that over the past 3 years they CCIW's bottom 3 teams have been much better than the UAA's bottom 3. Over those 3 years (l listed 4 years, so I am only looking at 2007-2009 here), the bottom 3 spots alone have account for +2017 ranking spots for the CCIW (that is 672 spots per year, or 224 spots per position). Average that over all 8 teams, that is 84 spots per position, taking into account only the difference in the bottom 3 teams. However, in those same 3 years, they UAA has been +1927 or 642 spots per year, or 80 spots per team. So therefore, the UAA has been equally strong in its first 5, compared to the CCIW, as it has been week compared to the bottom 3. Therefore, along with the fact that comparing the 1st place teams, 2nd place teams, third place teams, etc. were based on yours and Ypsis comments, I did not present that data.
Well, I'm making progress. I've got you to move from basing your argument upon the top team to basing your argument upon the top five teams. ;)
While, according to Massey, four years ago the CCIW was better on average than the UAA, although handicapped by two bottom teams that were significantly weaker than anything the UAA had to offer, I would agree that in two of the past three years there has been rough parity between the two leagues in terms of their top fives while the UAA's bottom three were noticeably weaker than their CCIW counterparts. (In 2007-08, the CCIW actually had a weaker bottom three, on average). Nevertheless, you're still cherry-picking the data by drawing two arbitrary cutoff points (in terms of both time span and number of standings slots) rather than taking the data -- and thus, the two leagues themselves -- as a whole.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PMI still would rather be strong in the first 5 spots than in the final 3: edge UAA. What that analysis truly shows is how weak the bottom 3 have been for the UAA in comparison to their CCIW counterparts.
"Edge: UAA"? Even if you cherry-pick the numbers in the manner you suggested -- by dropping out the bottom three from each league over the past three seasons -- the UAA gains only 2,067 points on the CCIW, and that's not enough to close the 2,455-point gap between the two leagues. If anything, that only brings the UAA into rough parity with the CCIW; it doesn't give the UAA an edge at all.
It's all still dancing around the bottom line, though, which is that you can't hide any of your league's teams and pretend that they don't exist. A league still has to be held accountable from the penthouse to the basement.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PM
What that analysis truly shows is how weak the bottom 3 have been for the UAA in comparison to their CCIW counterparts.
That begs the question as to whether you're comparing the conferences, then... or if you're comparing select schools (or portions of the conference). If you don't take the whole conference into account, then I don't think you can really make statements about the entire conference.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 15, 2009, 03:22:07 PM
Yeah, I noticed that a few weeks ago. It looks like a classic case of addition by subtraction for the NCAC, as far as competition level is concerned. I'm not so sure, though, that Earlham's President Bennett has an accurate read on the situation, at least as far as men's basketball is concerned:
QuoteDouglas Bennett, Earlham's president, had told Earlham's student newspaper, The Earlham Word, that the school's goal is to win half of its games every season. A switch from the NCAC would help meet that goal, the paper cited Bennett as having said.
It also means that an underperforming program is leaving the Great Lakes Region and entering the Midwest Region, FWIW.
Geez, what kind of goals are those? Do you only want to play the first half of games well and the second half doesn't matter, as long as you were leading at halftime?
That's gotta feel really crappy for those players! "We're playing for the status quo this year! Ok guys, average on three... one, two three!"
If they play the slate of allowable games (25) then they really CAN'T end up .500!
I kind of like this cherry picking idea...........this brings the MIAA right back into the race. ;) ::)
Quote from: PointSpecial on October 15, 2009, 05:16:40 PM
That's gotta feel really crappy for those players! "We're playing for the status quo this year! Ok guys, average on three... one, two three!"
+k
Quote from: PointSpecial on October 15, 2009, 05:16:40 PMGeez, what kind of goals are those? Do you only want to play the first half of games well and the second half doesn't matter, as long as you were leading at halftime?
That's gotta feel really crappy for those players! "We're playing for the status quo this year! Ok guys, average on three... one, two three!"
If they play the slate of allowable games (25) then they really CAN'T end up .500!
The impression I got was that President Bennett was talking about the entire spectrum of Earlham athletics, not just the men's basketball program. But I agree with you, and I wondered the same thing about his quote. Worse, what sort of impact will it have upon recruiting? I mean, this quote was in the papers. If I was the coach of another D3 school, and I was vying with Earlham for a high-school prospect, I'd tell the kid, "Do you really want to compete for a school whose self-declared goal is to win half of its games? Or would you rather compete for
my school, where our goal is to win
all of our games?"
Quote from: sac on October 15, 2009, 05:22:16 PM
I kind of like this cherry picking idea...........this brings the MIAA right back into the race. ;) ::)
If I had called it tulip-picking instead, it would've vaulted you guys right into the lead. ;)
Greg, I believe Michigan leads the nation in cherry production, too! ;)
It probably does. If Tim Allen ever gives up that gig doing the voiceovers for the "Pure Michigan" tourism commercials, you and sac can fight it out to be his successor.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 15, 2009, 05:38:08 PM
It probably does. If Tim Allen ever gives up that gig doing the voiceovers for the "Pure Michigan" tourism commercials, you and sac can fight it out to be his successor.
No disrespect to you two Michiganders, but I hope Allen keeps it going... just about the only thing I like more than those "Pure Michigan" commercials is the spoof ad that a suburban mini-golf place did on it over the summer... Now that was great!
... Back to your regularly scheduled conversations...
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 15, 2009, 05:09:22 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PM
Greg, I honestly had already done those calculations.
>:( You could've saved me a lot of time spent wrestling with the calculator function on my cell phone. :D
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PMThe reasons I didnt post them are as follows: First off, Case Western and Emory absolutely kill the UAA, if you take into the top 6, the numbers are nearly all square.
You already know what I'm going to say in response to that, don't you? ;) Case Western Reserve and Emory are just as much a part of the UAA as are Wash U and Rochester. You can't leave them out.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PMSecondly, in a previous post, you yourself stated that a good top-to-bottom metric would be comparing the first teams, the second teams, the third teams, and so on; therefore, I did exactly that analysis.
Yes, I did say that, and, yes, you did exactly that. But averaging out the data you presented to give both league ranking totals and mean average of each league's eight teams are good top-to-bottom metrics, too. In fact, they might be even better ways of top-to-bottom comparison than the slot-by-slot method, since they fit the CCIW and UAA into the overall context of four-year college basketball.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PMAlso, I had already stated that over the past 3 years they CCIW's bottom 3 teams have been much better than the UAA's bottom 3. Over those 3 years (l listed 4 years, so I am only looking at 2007-2009 here), the bottom 3 spots alone have account for +2017 ranking spots for the CCIW (that is 672 spots per year, or 224 spots per position). Average that over all 8 teams, that is 84 spots per position, taking into account only the difference in the bottom 3 teams. However, in those same 3 years, they UAA has been +1927 or 642 spots per year, or 80 spots per team. So therefore, the UAA has been equally strong in its first 5, compared to the CCIW, as it has been week compared to the bottom 3. Therefore, along with the fact that comparing the 1st place teams, 2nd place teams, third place teams, etc. were based on yours and Ypsis comments, I did not present that data.
Well, I'm making progress. I've got you to move from basing your argument upon the top team to basing your argument upon the top five teams. ;)
While, according to Massey, four years ago the CCIW was better on average than the UAA, although handicapped by two bottom teams that were significantly weaker than anything the UAA had to offer, I would agree that in two of the past three years there has been rough parity between the two leagues in terms of their top fives while the UAA's bottom three were noticeably weaker than their CCIW counterparts. (In 2007-08, the CCIW actually had a weaker bottom three, on average). Nevertheless, you're still cherry-picking the data by drawing two arbitrary cutoff points (in terms of both time span and number of standings slots) rather than taking the data -- and thus, the two leagues themselves -- as a whole.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 04:14:48 PMI still would rather be strong in the first 5 spots than in the final 3: edge UAA. What that analysis truly shows is how weak the bottom 3 have been for the UAA in comparison to their CCIW counterparts.
"Edge: UAA"? Even if you cherry-pick the numbers in the manner you suggested -- by dropping out the bottom three from each league over the past three seasons -- the UAA gains only 2,067 points on the CCIW, and that's not enough to close the 2,455-point gap between the two leagues. If anything, that only brings the UAA into rough parity with the CCIW; it doesn't give the UAA an edge at all.
It's all still dancing around the bottom line, though, which is that you can't hide any of your league's teams and pretend that they don't exist. A league still has to be held accountable from the penthouse to the basement.
Greg, I said this in my post, but you apparently missed it. You averaged the entire 4 years in your initial analysis, while I based my analysis on the last 3 years (I listed 4 years in my initial post because that is how far back I could get the Massey data, I would have gone back further if I could get more data, but I have basing my argument on the past 3 years in as early as my first post on this board, and therefore I will stick with 3 years). The UAA is +1927 overall over the past 3 years for the top 5 spots compare to the CCIW. That means that, on average, the top 5 teams are ranked +128 spots higher compared to their respective CCIW team (1927/3 seasons/5 spots), while the bottom is -2017, or -224 spots per bottom 3 team (2017/3 seasons / 3 teams). This means that, overall the conference are very close on average over all 8 teams; however, the reason for this is because the bottom 3 for the UAA has been so bad. In otherwords, on average, the UAA has been significantly better than the CCIW in the top 5 spots and the UAA has been nearly equally significantly worse in the bottom 3.
I was not cherry picking, I was just breaking up the data into the top 5 of the conference vs. the bottom 3 (over the past 3 seasons), which I believe is valid. If the top 5 spots, on average, are better in the UAA, than that is still the majority of the conference. The reason your numbers are different is because 4 years ago, which is not in the last 3 years, the CCIW had better numbers than the UAA.
Well, you gave four years' worth of data, so four years' worth of data is what I used. And why would three years be a more suitable sample size than four years, anyway? Four years is a good, solid number to use in D3 sports, since it's the timespan of a matriculating class. Heck, I'll go as far back with the numbers as anyone is willing to provide them, because the CCIW only gains by that analysis. But, still, four years is a better sample size than three.
Even if you cancel out 2005-06, the CCIW still comes out ahead in the total numbers. If the UAA comes out very, very slightly ahead at some arbitrary point -- be it the top team, the top three, the top five, whatever -- but the trend isn't borne out over the entire eight teams, then what good is it? As PS said, you're just looking at part of the league rather than the whole league. And the discussion is about how whole leagues stack up against each other.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 15, 2009, 06:27:02 PM
Well, you gave four years' worth of data, so four years' worth of data is what I used. And why would three years be a more suitable sample size than four years, anyway? Four years is a good, solid number to use in D3 sports, since it's the timespan of a matriculating class. Heck, I'll go as far back with the numbers as anyone is willing to provide them, because the CCIW only gains by that analysis. But, still, four years is a better sample size than three.
Even if you cancel out 2005-06, the CCIW still comes out ahead in the total numbers. If the UAA comes out very, very slightly ahead at some arbitrary point -- be it the top team, the top three, the top five, whatever -- but the trend isn't borne out over the entire eight teams, then what good is it? As PS said, you're just looking at part of the league rather than the whole league. And the discussion is about how whole leagues stack up against each other.
I reported the data as far back as I could, but Massey only has four years prior in d3 (d1 goes back further). I stuck with 3 years for my analysis because that is what I have been using for the last several dozen posts. And again, the overall numbers are ahead for the CCIW because of the bottom 3 teams, the top 5 for the UAA almost make up the complete difference (the total difference is 90 total, or 30 per year, or less than 4 spots per team). Using your own metric, which is matching up the 1's, the 2's. etc. The UAA is ahead in the top 5 over the past 3 years, while the CCIW is well ahead in the bottom 3. The question is "which is the better conference" and because we can interpret that differently, I still take the UAA because of their superior strength in the majority of spots in the conference.
And some justification for 3 years. Although a class is 4 years, even a spectacular freshman class doesnt usually contribute in its first year. For example, if we take the case of last year's POY Jimmy Bartolotta, he averaged only about 10 ppg in his freshman year, before averaging 21, 23 and 28 ppg, respectively. And regardless of whether you "buy" that or not, I was using 3 years initially, and I will continue to use it now. And as was predicted by many, including myself, absolutely no head-way in this argument.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMI reported the data as far back as I could, but Massey only has four years prior in d3 (d1 goes back further). I stuck with 3 years for my analysis because that is what I have been using for the last several dozen posts. And again, the overall numbers are ahead for the CCIW because of the bottom 3 teams, the top 5 for the UAA almost make up the complete difference (the total difference is 90 total, or 30 per year, or less than 4 spots per team). Using your own metric, which is matching up the 1's, the 2's. etc. The UAA is ahead in the top 5 over the past 3 years, while the CCIW is well ahead in the bottom 3. The question is "which is the better conference" and because we can interpret that differently, I still take the UAA because of their superior strength in the majority of spots in the conference.
Again, though, you're cherry-picking the data. You're not using all of the data available. And even if one concedes to your insistence upon using the last three years (rather than the last four, or last year all by itself -- it's just as arbitrary to use the last three years as the last year, or the last two years), your reasoning that the UAA wins five slots to three really doesn't follow. If the edge is barely discernible in the UAA's direction in five spots, while it's a gulf in the CCIW's direction in the other three, that trumps the whole slot-by-slot thing. Why? Because the way I'm using the data
examines the league as a whole, not as a collection of eight disparate teams that are not interrelated. In other words, however good the slot-by-slot method may be, the total points / mean average method is better.
I'm not sorry that I originally proposed the slot-by-slot method, mind you. But part of wisdom lies in realizing when it's time to get rid of your perfectly good mousetrap because a better one's now on the market.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMI reported the data as far back as I could, but Massey only has four years prior in d3 (d1 goes back further). I stuck with 3 years for my analysis because that is what I have been using for the last several dozen posts.
OK, I can buy the idea that your motives were pure. But why continue to draw that arbitrary line in that one exact spot, when the line can either be drawn to cover last year only or by using the full four years of available data?
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMAnd again, the overall numbers are ahead for the CCIW because of the bottom 3 teams, the top 5 for the UAA almost make up the complete difference (the total difference is 90 total, or 30 per year, or less than 4 spots per team).
They still don't make up the difference, however, even though you are using the numbers to the UAA's optimal advantage by disregarding 2005-06.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMUsing your own metric, which is matching up the 1's, the 2's. etc. The UAA is ahead in the top 5 over the past 3 years, while the CCIW is well ahead in the bottom 3.
Yes, that was my metric. But this is a better one, again because it: a) examines the leagues as a whole; and b) puts them into the greater numerical context of all four-year college basketball: D1, D2, D3, NAIA-1, NAIA-2, USCAA, and NCCAA. It's one thing to say that Team A from League 1 is better than Team X from League 2, while Team Y from League 2 is better than Team B from League 1. But if there's a qualitative difference there -- if the edge of Team A over Team X is miniscule, while the edge of Team Y over Team B is vast -- then that needs to come out in a good analysis, if the data to determine such a thing is available.
As I said, however good the slot-by-slot thing is, the total points / mean average thing is better.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMAnd some justification for 3 years. Although a class is 4 years, even a spectacular freshman class doesnt usually contribute in its first year. For example, if we take the case of last year's POY Jimmy Bartolotta, he averaged only about 10 ppg in his freshman year, before averaging 21, 23 and 28 ppg, respectively.
Aw, c'mon, you're really reaching with that one. For one thing, this discussion is not about examining which league had the better class of '09. Four years is simply a convenient block of time for data-gathering purposes because it's a familiar collegiate measurement.
I'm not a statistics prof (although we are blessed to have one in our midst ;)), but I'm pretty sure that it's axiomatic in statistics discussions that, for comparative purposes, the more data one can use to make comparisons, the better. I just don't see the point of using three years when we have four years' worth of data -- and "I'm using three years because that's what I started with" doesn't really wash. That's especially true when you're the one who provided the four years' worth of data. ;)
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMAnd as was predicted by many, including myself, absolutely no head-way in this argument.
Well, I give you credit for both obstinence and persistence ;), but you're really stretching to make your point. I'm not really stretching to make my point at all. The data you've provided is on my side.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 15, 2009, 10:02:24 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMI reported the data as far back as I could, but Massey only has four years prior in d3 (d1 goes back further). I stuck with 3 years for my analysis because that is what I have been using for the last several dozen posts. And again, the overall numbers are ahead for the CCIW because of the bottom 3 teams, the top 5 for the UAA almost make up the complete difference (the total difference is 90 total, or 30 per year, or less than 4 spots per team). Using your own metric, which is matching up the 1's, the 2's. etc. The UAA is ahead in the top 5 over the past 3 years, while the CCIW is well ahead in the bottom 3. The question is "which is the better conference" and because we can interpret that differently, I still take the UAA because of their superior strength in the majority of spots in the conference.
Again, though, you're cherry-picking the data. You're not using all of the data available. And even if one concedes to your insistence upon using the last three years (rather than the last four, or last year all by itself -- it's just as arbitrary to use the last three years as the last year, or the last two years), your reasoning that the UAA wins five slots to three really doesn't follow. If the edge is barely discernible in the UAA's direction in five spots, while it's a gulf in the CCIW's direction in the other three, that trumps the whole slot-by-slot thing. Why? Because the way I'm using the data examines the league as a whole, not as a collection of eight disparate teams that are not interrelated. In other words, however good the slot-by-slot method may be, the total points / mean average method is better.
I'm not sorry that I originally proposed the slot-by-slot method, mind you. But part of wisdom lies in realizing when it's time to get rid of your perfectly good mousetrap because a better one's now on the market.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMI reported the data as far back as I could, but Massey only has four years prior in d3 (d1 goes back further). I stuck with 3 years for my analysis because that is what I have been using for the last several dozen posts.
OK, I can buy the idea that your motives were pure. But why continue to draw that arbitrary line in that one exact spot, when the line can either be drawn to cover last year only or by using the full four years of available data?
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMAnd again, the overall numbers are ahead for the CCIW because of the bottom 3 teams, the top 5 for the UAA almost make up the complete difference (the total difference is 90 total, or 30 per year, or less than 4 spots per team).
They still don't make up the difference, however, even though you are using the numbers to the UAA's optimal advantage by disregarding 2005-06.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMUsing your own metric, which is matching up the 1's, the 2's. etc. The UAA is ahead in the top 5 over the past 3 years, while the CCIW is well ahead in the bottom 3.
Yes, that was my metric. But this is a better one, again because it: a) examines the leagues as a whole; and b) puts them into the greater numerical context of all four-year college basketball: D1, D2, D3, NAIA-1, NAIA-2, USCAA, and NCCAA. It's one thing to say that Team A from League 1 is better than Team X from League 2, while Team Y from League 2 is better than Team B from League 1. But if there's a qualitative difference there -- if the edge of Team A over Team X is miniscule, while the edge of Team Y over Team B is vast -- then that needs to come out in a good analysis, if the data to determine such a thing is available.
As I said, however good the slot-by-slot thing is, the total points / mean average thing is better.
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMAnd some justification for 3 years. Although a class is 4 years, even a spectacular freshman class doesnt usually contribute in its first year. For example, if we take the case of last year's POY Jimmy Bartolotta, he averaged only about 10 ppg in his freshman year, before averaging 21, 23 and 28 ppg, respectively.
Aw, c'mon, you're really reaching with that one. For one thing, this discussion is not about examining which league had the better class of '09. Four years is simply a convenient block of time for data-gathering purposes because it's a familiar collegiate measurement.
I'm not a statistics prof (although we are blessed to have one in our midst ;)), but I'm pretty sure that it's axiomatic in statistics discussions that, for comparative purposes, the more data one can use to make comparisons, the better. I just don't see the point of using three years when we have four years' worth of data -- and "I'm using three years because that's what I started with" doesn't really wash. That's especially true when you're the one who provided the four years' worth of data. ;)
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 07:04:01 PMAnd as was predicted by many, including myself, absolutely no head-way in this argument.
Well, I give you credit for both obstinence and persistence ;), but you're really stretching to make your point. I'm not really stretching to make my point at all. The data you've provided is on my side.
You rang, sir?! :D
Yes, as long as it is accurate (Massey ain't perfect, but it's probably the best we've got) and relevant (and I can't think of any reason why 3 years is better than 4). more is better than less.
(Of course, if the question were 'is the CCIW or UAA better NOW', none of this would be relevant and we could go to reading tea leaves! ;D)
I kinda like the idea of going back MORE than four years;
historically we wouldn't even be having this discussion (though that would take away the fun!).
Hugenerd is correct that this is not really going anywhere (
obviously because he is unwilling to yield ;)), but I'll stick with my position that
lately (3-4 years?) the top three conferences are WIAC, CCIW, UAA (and I think at least one of those years #1 was CCIW), in no
clear order - with the proviso that over the last 5-15 years it is WIAC, then CCIW, then OAC or UAA or NESCAC (ODAC is coming on strong [especially because of Strong ;)], but wouldn't make the top five for the longer period).
In all honesty, I think what would provide really compelling data is if we had the rankings only for d3 and did this type of averaging. Since we are trying to compare among d3 conferences, it would make sense that we only use d3 massey rankings (it shouldnt matter if schools from all these other divisions are ranked among the d3 schools we care about). Why does it matter how good the D1, D2, NAIA-1, NAIA-2, USCAA, and NCCAA schools are compared to d3? I was under the impression that we were comparing only d3 schools. I am sure this will not help your argument, because it will diminish the gap between the top 5 and the bottom 3, so I am sure you will find an escuse as to why the other method is better. Either way, unfortunately, when I looked at the website, it was not readily possible to sort the data in terms of division (that is why I used overall ranking only to compare level by level, ie first spot, second spot, etc., because the level by level would be unchanged by having the other teams sorted in). If anyone wants to take the lead on this, that would be great, but it seems like it would take a whole lot of time and may not be worth it.
I honestly dont think that comparing only d3 schools is a "stretch." The other schools from the other divisions are irrelevant to this argument.
Discussing the latest bumper crop of Tart Cherries is becoming more and more appealing than carrying on this discussion which has gone nowhere.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 15, 2009, 05:30:19 PM
Greg, I believe Michigan leads the nation in cherry production, too! ;)
I do have to once again correct Mr. Y, sort of.........Michigan leads the nation in
Tart Cherry production for certain. Just over 90% of the cherry crop in Michigan is of the Tart variety.....aprox 230 million lbs. (thats about 210 million more than #2 Washington or 80% of US production, we simply dominate) Without Tart cherries we are only 4th in the Cherry pecking order, behind Washington, California and Oregon. So with Tart Cherries we are #1, consider sweet cherries our Case Western or Emory........or Alma.
Oh but things are changing.........
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=48962
-----------------
sidenote.............Amazingly I can file this under my 'learn something new everyday' category...........the State of
Utah is third in Tart Cherry production........and that is one of the many reason I love the internet.
Take a deep breath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWzJFiAbi98&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 11:22:46 PM
In all honesty, I think what would provide really compelling data is if we had the rankings only for d3 and did this type of averaging. Since we are trying to compare among d3 conferences, it would make sense that we only use d3 massey rankings (it shouldnt matter if schools from all these other divisions are ranked among the d3 schools we care about). Why does it matter how good the D1, D2, NAIA-1, NAIA-2, USCAA, and NCCAA schools are compared to d3? I was under the impression that we were comparing only d3 schools. I am sure this will not help your argument, because it will diminish the gap between the top 5 and the bottom 3, so I am sure you will find an escuse as to why the other method is better. Either way, unfortunately, when I looked at the website, it was not readily possible to sort the data in terms of division (that is why I used overall ranking only to compare level by level, ie first spot, second spot, etc., because the level by level would be unchanged by having the other teams sorted in). If anyone wants to take the lead on this, that would be great, but it seems like it would take a whole lot of time and may not be worth it.
I honestly dont think that comparing only d3 schools is a "stretch." The other schools from the other divisions are irrelevant to this argument.
Wouldn't it be better to use the 'rating' category, rather than the rank?
Quote from: KnightSlappy on October 16, 2009, 08:56:44 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on October 15, 2009, 11:22:46 PM
In all honesty, I think what would provide really compelling data is if we had the rankings only for d3 and did this type of averaging. Since we are trying to compare among d3 conferences, it would make sense that we only use d3 massey rankings (it shouldnt matter if schools from all these other divisions are ranked among the d3 schools we care about). Why does it matter how good the D1, D2, NAIA-1, NAIA-2, USCAA, and NCCAA schools are compared to d3? I was under the impression that we were comparing only d3 schools. I am sure this will not help your argument, because it will diminish the gap between the top 5 and the bottom 3, so I am sure you will find an escuse as to why the other method is better. Either way, unfortunately, when I looked at the website, it was not readily possible to sort the data in terms of division (that is why I used overall ranking only to compare level by level, ie first spot, second spot, etc., because the level by level would be unchanged by having the other teams sorted in). If anyone wants to take the lead on this, that would be great, but it seems like it would take a whole lot of time and may not be worth it.
I honestly dont think that comparing only d3 schools is a "stretch." The other schools from the other divisions are irrelevant to this argument.
Wouldn't it be better to use the 'rating' category, rather than the rank?
Yes, it probably would be. The reason I originally used rank was because I was only comparing the first team in each conference, 2nd team, etc. so rating was unnecesary. However, when you start averaging these numbers, the rating is likely a more fitting metric than averaging ranks.
**It is also not possible to do this currently because, for some reason, the massey site does not list the ratings of the teams for 2008, but only ranks them if you click the 'csv' link.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 14, 2009, 11:35:00 PM
Now I can't wait to see the 'proofs' on that one! ;D
Just have to find the right land.
How are the Indy's looked at? Chapman always appears to have a chance to make the tnmt. But who else among the independents are consistently good? How are they viewed/rated for making the tournment
I already posted this in the NESCAC board, but I thought I would transfer here to generate discussion:
Here was the article that started the discussion. It names the UAA as the conference of the 2000s and the NESCAC as the conference of the 1990s.
http://bearsports.wustl.edu/womensbball/D3NBestofthe2000s.pdf
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 03, 2009, 02:08:08 AM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 02, 2009, 11:31:32 AM
Good find. You would never see that kind of love for the UAA and NESCAC from certain other supposed DIII hoops authorities *ahem, ahem*
You don't think so? I think whenever we discuss power conferences in the past few years the UAA has been on the list, and the NESCAC has been on the list for even longer.
WIAC, CCIW, OAC, UAA, NESCAC ... and I don't think there's anyone else. That's pretty heady company, and the conference has the Walnuts and Bronzes to match.
No ODAC? with Randolph-Mason, Guilford, Hampton-Sydney and Virgina Wes you would think they would be up there.
What about the NCAC with Wooster and Witt or the MIAA with Calvin and Hope?
The CCIW hasn't won a Walnut and Bronze in over a decade, and before that one all they have is the North Park dynasty that most posters on the NESCAC board were barely alive for. The OAC has two Walnut and Bronzes, but one was back in the early 90s and John Carroll is the only relevant team they currently have. By that standard the MIAA should be a power conference for sure. Granted, the NESCAC and UAA both only have two titles, but they both have two of the last seven. The CCIW I'm sure was a dominant conference in the late 70s and 80s, and I guess the OAC must have been pretty good in the 90s, but they're not at the level of the NESCAC, WIAC or UAA now. So either don't include those conferences or include at least the ODAC and MIAA for starters.
I know I'll take heat for saying this as usual, but in my humble opinion, I do believe this site overvalues teams from the OAC and CCIW in its rankings, and players from those conferences in its awards. I think the fact that with the exception of Tori Davis, the OAC and CCIW were completely blanked from the DIII News Best of the 2000s and 1990s is further evidence of this fact.
Again a re-post:
For the record, here are all conferences with multiple Final 4 appearances in the aughts along with their results: (records do not include consolation games)
CC 0-3 (3 Finals 4s)
CCIW 0-3 (3 Final 4s)
MIAA 2-1 (2 Final 4s, One Champion)
NESCAC 6-5 (7 Final 4s, Two Runners Up, Two Champions)
NCAC 1-3 (3 Final 4s, One Runner Up)
NJAC 1-2 (2 Final 4s, One Runner Up)
OAC 2-2 (3 Final 4s, One Champion)
ODAC 3-3 (4 Final 4s, One Runner Up, One Champion)
WIAC 5-1 (3 Final 4s, One Runner Up, Two Champions)
UAA 5-3 (5 Final 4s, One Runner Up, Two Champions)
Looks to me like there is a clear top 3 (UAA, NESCAC, WIAC). ODAC is 3rd in number of appearances and has a champion. OAC has the same .500 record as the ODAC, but one less appearance in the championship game. CCIW has the exact same results as the CC, including 0 wins.
Now, I understand the argument that the Midwest and Great Lakes are deeper overall regions, and that is probably true. Certainly that helps explain why the NESCAC has so many appearances. But the NESCAC has also held it's own when it has gotten to the Final 4, even coming a buzzer-beater away from knocking off a UW-SP team you called the greatest you've ever seen. If anything, you would expect battle hardened CCIW and OAC teams to dominate once they got to play teams from other, weaker regions, but a composite 2-5 record doesn't really support that.
I think the only way you can argue that the CCIW is a comparable conference to the UAA or NESCAC is by arguing that it is much deeper. Maybe it is, it's hard to say for sure without many interregional games. Would a Milikin or North Central roll a Tufts or Conn College? Is Elmhurst a LOT better than Williams or Colby last year? Again, they might have been. But I tend to doubt it.
I understand the sentiment, but you have to remember the source of that article: The DIII News, based out of Oregon. How many d3 schools are there in Oregon? I would say that the people involved with this site are more knowledgeable of the d3 landscape, but that is not to say that that knowledge does not come with some bias. Either way, its an interesting discussion.
Reading through this thread, it seems that the main argument is that the CCIW is much deeper conference than the UAA or NESCAC.
I would make 4 arguments against that.
1. The CCIW only has 8 teams, while the NESCAC has 10. So it's not really fair to take the worst team in the CCIW and compare it to the worst team in the NESCAC. You should take the worst team in the CCIW and compare it to the 8th best team in the NESCAC.
2. The comparison of a conference's bottom teams is mostly conjecture due to the fact that there is so little interregional play in division III. It really is hard to say how a mediocre-to-bad NESCAC team would do against a mediocre-to-bad CCIW team. Therefore, it makes more sense to use postseason comparisons and especially comparisons of Final Four performance, because that is where top teams will play each other head to head.
3. I would argue that seeing games in person is not necessarily the ultimate indicator. For one, style of play can greatly affect how good a team looks. Plenty of very successful teams specialize in winning ugly games, but often don't look very good in doing so.
Also, when a conference has less differential in talent from top to bottom, like the CCIW, it may seem as though its bad teams are better than bad teams from other conferences, such as the UAA, because the CCIW's bad teams put up a stiffer fight against the CCIW's top teams. However,it could be that the CCIW's top teams are simply less dominate than the top teams from the UAA, and thus have more trouble with teams of equal quality. In other words, the games may appear closer in the CCIW because the top teams are worse, not because the bottom teams are better.
4. In general it is the top of a conference that is considered when determining overall strength. Look at college football for instance, where the Pac-10 has over the years been considered to be stronger than the ACC despite the "USC and the 9 dwarves" perception of the Pac-10 and the perception that the ACC is 12 deep with mediocre teams. Having at least one team contending for titles is a more important than overall depth in considering a conference's strength. The UAA and NESCAC have both had multiple teams play for the national championship in the last decade. No team from the CCIW has done so much a win a single game in Salem in over 10 years.
Quote from: hugenerd on December 03, 2009, 05:33:34 PM
I understand the sentiment, but you have to remember the source of that article: The DIII News, based out of Oregon. How many d3 schools are there in Oregon? I would say that the people involved with this site are more knowledgeable of the d3 landscape, but that is not to say that that knowledge does not come with some bias. Either way, its an interesting discussion.
You're dead on about the knowledge leading to bias. Being from Oregon makes the DIII News less likely to be biased towards teams from the midwest, great lakes or northeast region. I would also say that a publication dedicated to only dIII sports is likely to be pretty knowledgeable, but that's total speculation.
Meanwhile, many posters on this site (myself included) have spent most of their time watching games in only one region, and thus tend to be biased towards teams and conferences in that area.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 05:28:48 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 03, 2009, 02:08:08 AM
I think whenever we discuss power conferences in the past few years the UAA has been on the list, and the NESCAC has been on the list for even longer.
WIAC, CCIW, OAC, UAA, NESCAC ... and I don't think there's anyone else. That's pretty heady company, and the conference has the Walnuts and Bronzes to match.
No ODAC? with Randolph-Mason, Guilford, Hampton-Sydney and Virgina Wes you would think they would be up there.
What about the NCAC with Wooster and Witt or the MIAA with Calvin and Hope?
With all due respect, and without implying anything about your larger point, mentioning the NCAC as a possibility in this discussion completely undermines your credibility. And I say this as probably the biggest NCAC devotee who frequents this site.
Quote from: David Collinge on December 03, 2009, 06:05:50 PM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 05:28:48 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 03, 2009, 02:08:08 AM
I think whenever we discuss power conferences in the past few years the UAA has been on the list, and the NESCAC has been on the list for even longer.
WIAC, CCIW, OAC, UAA, NESCAC ... and I don't think there's anyone else. That's pretty heady company, and the conference has the Walnuts and Bronzes to match.
No ODAC? with Randolph-Mason, Guilford, Hampton-Sydney and Virgina Wes you would think they would be up there.
What about the NCAC with Wooster and Witt or the MIAA with Calvin and Hope?
With all due respect, and without implying anything about your larger point, mentioning the NCAC as a possibility in this discussion completely undermines your credibility. And I say this as probably the biggest NCAC devotee who frequents this site.
Fair enough, I have only seen Wooster and Witt play in person, so my credibility with regards to evaluating the conference as a whole is certainly minimal.
That being said, do you think that Wooster and Witt could hold their own against the top of the CCIW? Or would they be totally outclassed?
Woo and Witt could hold their own against the top of the CCIW (and have done so in the past). Likewise for Hope and Calvin. But you are missing the point - if you are comparing conferences you can't just compare the top teams. No one in either the NCAC or MIAA themselves consider them to be 'power conferences', because the rest of the teams are generally quite weak and it is nearly always the same two teams on top.
And FF appearances are not a particularly good indicator either, since the tourney is so regionally grouped. Last year the quadrant within which the CCIW had to compete (Midwest-West) contained the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 ranked teams in the country (the sectional final was the real FF) - how many fewer appearances do you think NESCAC would have if they faced that gauntlet?!
BTW, I don't really approve of omitting the consolation games in the FF comparison. I'm proud that IWU placed 3rd in the nation in both 2001 and 2006 - and did not win the CCIW either year! ;)
The Wooster and Wittenberg programs, over an extended period of time, could compete in any conference, including those mentioned. But one or the other (or both) of these two teams has won at least a share of every regular season title since 1988 and every tournament title since 1998, so until the other NCAC members demonstrate that they can compete in their own conference, I can't say they'd compete in anyone else's.
(I can't believe I'm going to make a D1 reference here; I just hope my nearly complete ignorance and utterly complete distaste for D1 sports doesn't destroy the analogy.) Suggesting that the NCAC is a "power conference" because it has two "power programs" in it is like suggesting that whatever conference Gonzaga is in is a "power conference" merely because Gonzaga is in it.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2009, 06:33:58 PM
Woo and Witt could hold their own against the top of the CCIW (and have done so in the past). Likewise for Hope and Calvin. But you are missing the point - if you are comparing conferences you can't just compare the top teams. No one in either the NCAC or MIAA themselves consider them to be 'power conferences', because the rest of the teams are generally quite weak and it is nearly always the same two teams on top.
BTW, I don't really approve of omitting the consolation games in the FF comparison. I'm proud that IWU placed 3rd in the nation in both 2001 and 2006 - and did not win the CCIW either year! ;)
I understand that point. And I wouldn't suggest that the NESCAC or UAA are as strong 5-8 as the CCIW. But I do think the fact that that teams from the NESCAC and UAA have played for and won championships in the last decade DOES make a difference. It's not just a matter of getting there, it's a matter of winning when you get there. The CCIW is 0-3 in Final Four games over the last decade. If the CCIW had teams like '03 Williams, '07 Amherst or '08-'09 Wash U, I think they would have won a few games in Salem.
Again, it's a definition thing. If you put a lot of weight on the year-in, year-out strength at the bottom of a conference, then the CCIW is certainly right there at the top and above at least the NESCAC (I would say the UAA too, but I wouldn't want to make hugenerd whip out his calculator again to prove me wrong).
However, if you put a lot of emphasis on producing championship caliber squads, I would say the NESCAC and UAA jump ahead of the CCIW and top-heavy conferences like the MIAA and NCAC enter the conversation.
Personally, I would argue that it is standard to put more weight on championships and championship appearances than on the strength of the bottom of a conference. That's my whole point. I'm done now, I swear. This has been fun, thanks for indulging me. ;D
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 03, 2009, 06:33:58 PM
And FF appearances are not a particularly good indicator either, since the tourney is so regionally grouped. Last year the quadrant within which the CCIW had to compete (Midwest-West) contained the #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 ranked teams in the country (the sectional final was the real FF) - how many fewer appearances do you think NESCAC would have if they faced that gauntlet?!
Ok, one more thing. It's a pet peeve of mine that people on this site argue that the site is not biased by referencing rankings that the site produces.
But, I agree it's harder to get to the final four from the Midwest-West quadrant. However, it certainly didn't stop Wash U from winning the past two years, and I don't believe it would have stopped Amherst '07 or Williams '03. And of course it's a necessarily small sample size to draw conclusions from, but the CCIW hasn't one a single game once they've made it to the Final Four, while the NESCAC and UAA have winning records in Salem.
Wash U went 13-1 in UAA play last year. The Bears averaged 76 points in UAA games and gave up 62 per game...in other words, they rolled through the conference.
Here are Wash U's games vs CCIW teams in 2008-09:
vs North Park (CCIW #8) - won by 24
@ Augustana (CCIW #3) - won in OT
vs Illinois Wesleyan (CCIW #7) – won by 7 (2-point game with 3:00 to play)
@ Elmhurst (CCIW #2) – lost by 7
@ Wheaton (CCIW #1) – won by 3
I saw Wash U play 9 times last year (including their last 4 tournament games), and the Bears were better than the best CCIW team (Wheaton)...but just by a basket or so. And as the results above show, the CCIW had several teams that played Wash U tougher than most of their UAA opponents.
I think you are underestimating the top of the CCIW. The CCIW has not won a title since Illinois Wesleyan in 1997, but the league usually has 2 outstanding teams...teams that can play with anyone...and then another 2 that are very strong. This year, the group of Wheaton, Carthage, Illinois Wesleyan, and Augustana (probably the top 4 in 2010, in some order) probably won't produce a national champion, but it makes for a top four that matches up with most very well.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 07:01:28 PM
But, I agree it's harder to get to the final four from the Midwest-West quadrant. However, it certainly didn't stop Wash U from winning the past two years, and I don't believe it would have stopped Amherst '07 or Williams '03. And of course it's a necessarily small sample size to draw conclusions from, but the CCIW hasn't one a single game once they've made it to the Final Four, while the NESCAC and UAA have winning records in Salem.
I also think you're underestimating the difference in the roads to Salem. Consider these games from Wash U's tournament path last year:
Round 1 - Wash U 67 Lawrence 65
Round 2 - Wash U 73 UW-Whitewater 70
Round 3 - Wash U 55 Wheaton 52
The Bears rolled both Guilford and Richard Stockton in Salem.
In 2007-08...
Round 2 - Wash U 70 Augustana 67 (OT)
Again, the Bears dominated both Hope and Amherst in Salem.
Think Augustana in 2008 or Wheaton in 2009 could have made it a little farther had they not run into Wash U so early?
The NCAC, unfortunately, can't get more than 3 to 5 teams that are worth a hoot in a year. If Wabash is up, someone else is down (and usually WAY down). Sure, Wooster and Witt can be counted on year over year (ok, not Witt the last two) but the other 8 are flaky or just awful every year.
And you have to really consider the depth and breadth of a conference to determine it's strength. Not just the elite, but the middle and the bottom. And for that, you need to look at the non-conference records and the strength of that schedule.
And while I certainly value teams that get it done in Salem, in terms of determing conference strength, I think you are over-valuing results of national semifinal games. For example, if Illinois Wesleyan holds onto its lead vs Virginia Wesleyan (a game IWU led almost the entire game), does that somehow make the CCIW stronger?
http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2006/ncaa5.htm
Or if Carthage comes out on top in that tight game vs Jeff Gibbs and Otterbein, is that supposed to mean something about the CCIW vs the OAC?
If I had known you had crossposted your argument here, frak, I wouldn't have responded in the NESCAC board.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
You're dead on about the knowledge leading to bias. Being from Oregon makes the DIII News less likely to be biased towards teams from the midwest, great lakes or northeast region. I would also say that a publication dedicated to only dIII sports is likely to be pretty knowledgeable, but that's total speculation.
They also publish the D-II Bulletin.
My decades in the Washington DC area would seem to make us less biased toward the Midwest, Great Lakes or Northeast Region as well.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 07:01:28 PM
I don't believe it would have stopped Amherst '07 or Williams '03.
This is something we will never know. However, we'll almost always know whether the CCIW or WIAC could get out of the Midwest/West regional.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 03, 2009, 05:33:34 PM
I understand the sentiment, but you have to remember the source of that article: The DIII News, based out of Oregon. How many d3 schools are there in Oregon? I would say that the people involved with this site are more knowledgeable of the d3 landscape, but that is not to say that that knowledge does not come with some bias. Either way, its an interesting discussion.
You're dead on about the knowledge leading to bias. Being from Oregon makes the DIII News less likely to be biased towards teams from the midwest, great lakes or northeast region. I would also say that a publication dedicated to only dIII sports is likely to be pretty knowledgeable, but that's total speculation.
Meanwhile, many posters on this site (myself included) have spent most of their time watching games in only one region, and thus tend to be biased towards teams and conferences in that area.
That is one way to look at it, but not the only way I intended the comment. How many teams, or players, do you think they get to see in person out in Oregon? My guess is they look at stats and maybe the RPI numbers and thats pretty much all they get (maybe they get some game tape, but I doubt they see any games in person). Last year DIII News had some huge omissions from their All-America teams, the most glaring of which was Jeff Skemp, who was First teamm AA on this site and didnt make any of the 4 teams for DIII News.
I think Pat, and most of the guys that are involved with the site, do their best to be impartial when it comes to year end awards, etc. Are there really any All-America picks you can argue with from last year? Freshman of the year went to a NCAC player (Great Lakes) and a NEWMAC player (Northeast) was chosen over a player from the CCCIW, Kent Raymond, who most CCIW followers said was one of the best players to ever play in the conference. If there was any significant bias at all, it would have been extremely easy to defend the choice of the top CCIW player.
I think the top 25 voting is not necessarily a CCIW bias, but what appears to be human nature. Voters feel comfortable voting for those teams because they have voted for them in the past and they are on their radar (think Notre Dame in football). You see the same thing at any level. The teams from the top conferences get rewarded for good starts early in the season, while teams from lower conferences have to win a lot more games to get attention on the national scene until they do it consistently for many years (Gonzaga, Butler, etc. in D1). It takes a couple years of being consistently good before you starting gaining some respect on the national level as a consistently solid program. This past week Amherst and Middlebury didnt beat any quality opponets, and they jumped a lot also. Why was Amherst deserving of jumping 12 spots in the poll (25 ->13)? Were Maine-Farmington or Ithaca huge wins (neither team was ranked top 35 in the country)? They still jumped a lot. That is just the nature of these things, it doesnt necessarily mean it is an obvious bias.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 05:29:58 PM
Again a re-post:
For the record, here are all conferences with multiple Final 4 appearances in the aughts along with their results: (records do not include consolation games)
CC 0-3 (3 Finals 4s)
CCIW 0-3 (3 Final 4s)
MIAA 2-1 (2 Final 4s, One Champion)
NESCAC 6-5 (7 Final 4s, Two Runners Up, Two Champions)
NCAC 1-3 (3 Final 4s, One Runner Up)
NJAC 1-2 (2 Final 4s, One Runner Up)
OAC 2-2 (3 Final 4s, One Champion)
ODAC 3-3 (4 Final 4s, One Runner Up, One Champion)
WIAC 5-1 (3 Final 4s, One Runner Up, Two Champions)
UAA 5-3 (5 Final 4s, One Runner Up, Two Champions)
The MIAA has 3 trips to the Final Four this past decade.... Calvin 2000, Calvin 2005, Hope 2008
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 05:29:58 PM
CC 0-3 (3 Finals 4s)
The CCIW is 3-3 in Final Four games this decade, not 0-3. That includes going 1-0 against the NESCAC in Salem.
Frankly, your credibility flew out the window when you put the NCAC and MIAA up there with the big boys, lefrakenstein. As you've seen here from two of the NCAC's most respected posters, the fact that Wooster and Wittenberg are national-caliber programs (as are Hope and Calvin in the MIAA) doesn't make them power conferences in the slightest.
The CCIW went 73-19 (including postseason play) in non-conference action last year, a .791 clip that set a new league record. That makes three years in a row that the CCIW has done better than .700 in non-conference play, and the league hasn't finished below the .630s in over a decade. The league has universal respect from everybody in the part of the country where the best D3 ball in the land is played (i.e., west of the Pennsylvania/Ohio border), and that includes the WIAC folks. I see absolutely nothing in any of your arguments that refutes the CCIW's commonly-held status as one of the top two or three conferences in D3 men's basketball.
He's not counting third-place games ... and honestly, I don't have a problem with that measure.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 04, 2009, 02:09:28 AM
He's not counting third-place games ... and honestly, I don't have a problem with that measure.
I realize that the third-place game was the red-headed stepchild of the postseason, and that its death appears to be largely unmourned, but to not count it implies that there have been players -- or entire teams -- that weren't trying their best to win that game. And I find that very hard to believe.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 04, 2009, 02:09:28 AM
He's not counting third-place games ... and honestly, I don't have a problem with that measure.
Your opinion is noted. Personally, I'm quite proud that after the disappointment of losing in the semis, IWU has never finished 4th.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 04, 2009, 02:21:12 AM
to not count it implies that there have been players -- or entire teams -- that weren't trying their best to win that game. And I find that very hard to believe.
I've seen enough deflated teams come back out on the floor on Saturday afternoon at my dozen Final Fours to believe this. Indeed, IWU has never finished fourth. But in some third-place games, only one team shows up.
But what about the regionality? The Midwest/West region is the toughest, year in and year out. I started to compile stats for how often WIAC or CCIW schools are in the same sectional as their conference foes... AND against each other, and it's a high percentage of the time. I understand that the conferences from the same region will be matched up, (and thus the top of the NCAC, OAC, and MIAC will likely butt heads every year) but when there is such inequality in the sectionals, then teams that could legitimately make a run to Salem with even brackets ends up playing a should-be-in-Salem-quality game in one of the first three rounds.
I don't know about the OAC, MIAC, or NCAC, but the NESCAC has routinely had its teams split up between geographical regions. Likewise, the UAA is typically split (though, ironically, every year that Wash U and Chicago made the tournament, they were in the same quadrant in the oughts, the W/MW). They're travel partners in their league... and the NCAA sort of follows suit.
Btw Pat, I can't find the '09 Salem stuff. It doesn't appear that it's on the Archive page, but I can't find a different direct link, either.
The pre-Salem NCAA tournament road of the CCIW entrants this decade...
The rankings noted are from the D3hoops.com Top 25 at the time of the game...in other words, from the poll before the final of the season. I've highlighted the opponents from the Top 15.
** Wheaton, #3 (2008-09)
Round 1 - vs Fontbonne (won 85-58)
Round 2 - vs #5 UW-Platteville (won 74-69, OT)
Round 3 - vs #2 Wash U (lost 52-55) - eventual national champion
** Elmhurst, #19 (2008-09)
Round 1 - vs #8 UW-Whitewater (lost 79-81, OT)
--------------------
** Augustana, #6 (2007-08)
Round 1 – vs Aurora (won, 72-61)
Round 2 – vs #11 Wash U (lost 67-70, OT) – eventual national champion
** Wheaton, not ranked (2007-08)
Round 1 – (n) vs #15 Lawrence (won 93-83, OT)
Round 2 – (n) vs Loras (won 76-73)
Round 3 – (n) vs Whitworth (won 76-67)
Round 4 – @ #1 Hope (lost 70-83)
--------------------
** Augustana, #7 (2006-07)
Round 1 – vs Carroll (lost 69-73)
--------------------
** Illinois Wesleyan, #11 (2005-06)
Round 1 – (n) vs #17 Carroll (won 81-68)
Round 2 - @ #15 UW-Whitewater (won 76-68)
Round 3 - @ #1 Lawrence (won 63-59)
Round 4 – (n) vs #14 Puget Sound (won 89-81)
** Augustana, #13 (2005-06)
Round 1 - vs Buena Vista (won 71-66)
Round 2 - vs #19 UW-Stout (won 66-64)
Round 3 – (n) vs #14 Puget Sound (lost 81-89)
** North Central, #10 (2005-06)
Round 1 - @ #24 St. Thomas (lost 68-76)
--------------------
** Illinois Wesleyan, #6 (2004-05)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs #12 Hanover (lost 76-81)
** Wheaton, #11 (2004-05)
Round 1 vs #14 Calvin (lost 74-75)
--------------------
** Illinois Wesleyan, #19 (2003-04)
Round 1 – vs Maryville (won 82-73)
Round 2 - @ #2 Hanover (won 67-77)
Round 3 - @ #4 Wooster (lost 53-58)
--------------------
** Illinois Wesleyan, #13 (2002-03)
Round 1 – vs Blackburn (won 79-59)
Round 2 – @ #2 Wash U (won 85-73)
Round 3 – (n) vs #4 Hampden-Sydney (lost 68-76)
--------------------
** Carthage, #1 (2001-02)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Hope (won 63-57)
Round 3 – vs #12 Gustavus Adolphus (won 71-65)
Round 4 – vs #22 Lewis & Clark (won 85-70)
--------------------
** Illinois Wesleyan, #17 (2000-01)
Round 1 – vs Grinnell (won 132-91)
Round 2 - @ #12 Wartburg (won 65-60)
Round 3 – (n) vs #9 Elmhurst (won 63-60)
Round 4 - @ #1 Chicago (won 77-68)
** Carthage, #4 (2000-01)
Round 1 – vs Marian (won 83-65)
Round 2 – @ #2 Wooster (won 88-80)
Round 3 – (n) vs UMass-Dartmouth (won 90-41)
Round 4 – @ #3 Ohio Northern (lost 64-66)
** Elmhurst, #9 (2000-01)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs #8 Wash U (won 78-77)
Round 3 – (n) vs #17 Illinois Wesleyan (lost 60-63)
--------------------
** Carthage, #12 (1999-00)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs #15 UW-Eau Claire (lost 62-74)
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 04, 2009, 01:42:10 AM
Frankly, your credibility flew out the window when you put the NCAC and MIAA up there with the big boys, lefrakenstein. As you've seen here from two of the NCAC's most respected posters, the fact that Wooster and Wittenberg are national-caliber programs (as are Hope and Calvin in the MIAA) doesn't make them power conferences in the slightest.
I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss the MIAA as the big 2, little 6. Albion gets very little respect nationally, and in fairness they have been a bit down for a couple years, but ask Wooster how good they are.
It's easy to forget that Albion won the league outright in 2005 and missed out on a trip to Salem by losing to Calvin (who they had beaten twice in the regular season) in the sectional final.
I know Albion isn't a top tier team year in and year out, but they are a very good program that gets overshadowed by Calvin and Hope, who garner lots of national attention.
I won't argue that the MIAA
is one of the top conferences, but if you are discussing the topic it's more than fair to discuss the MIAA. Definitely not a power conference, but they may be one of the "best of the rest."
Here are the NCAA tournament roads for the NESCAC teams (pre-Salem) this decade, again with Top 15 opponents in bold...
(Note, since I couldn't figure out the location of all games, I've just listed all as "vs".)
** Middlebury, #9 (2008-09)
Round 1 - bye
Round 2 – vs Bridgewater State (lost 76-78)
** Amherst, #25 (2008-09)
Round 1 – vs Gwynedd-Mercy (lost 62-68)
---------------
** Amherst, #3 (2007-08)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs John Jay (won 96-74)
Round 3 – vs Richard Stockton (won 78-70)
Round 4 – vs #5 Brandeis (won 65-55)
** Trinity, #24 (2007-08)
Round 1 – vs Coast Guard (lost 65-70)
** Middlebury, not ranked (2007-08)
Round 1 – vs #13 Rochester (lost 43-56)
---------------
** Amherst, #6 (2006-07)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Widener (won 76-63)
Round 3 – vs Stevens (won 69-61)
Round 4 – vs #21 Rhode Island (won 75-73)
** Trinity, #20 (2006-07)
Round 1 – vs Brandeis (lost 77-70 OT)
---------------
** Amherst, #4 (2005-06)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Hamilton (won 66-65 OT)
Round 3 – vs Tufts (won 83-59)
Round 4 – vs #16 St. John Fisher (won 94-68)
** Tufts, not ranked (2005-06)
Round 1 – vs Endicott (won 83-60)
Round 2 – vs Cortland State (won 68-54)
Round 3 – vs #4 Amherst (lost 59-83)
---------------
** Amherst, #2 (2004-05)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Springfield (won 81-68)
Round 3 – vs #21 Rochester (lost 62-69)
---------------
** Williams, #1 (2003-04)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Salem State (won 91-77)
Round 3 – vs Brockport State (won 78-50)
Round 4 – vs Keene State (won 79-64)
** Amherst, #5 (2003-04)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Plymouth State (won 113-85)
Round 3 – vs New Jersey City (won 92-74)
Round 4 – vs #9 Franklin & Marshall (won 82-70)
** Trinity, #16 (2003-04)
Round 1 – vs Lasell (won 72-66)
Round 2 – vs Brockport State (lost 76-80)
---------------
** Williams, #3 (2002-03)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Salem State (won 94-67)
Round 3 - vs Hamilton (won 76-65)
Round 4 – vs #11 Amherst (won 94-75)
** Amherst, not ranked (2002-03)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Southern Vermont (won 84-60)
Round 3 – vs #5 Rochester (won 80-74)
Round 4 – vs #3 Williams (lost 75-94)
---------------
** Amherst, not ranked (2001-02)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 - vs Western Connecticut (won 82-77)
Round 3 – vs #8 Brockport State (lost 64-69)
** Williams, not ranked (2001-02)
Round 1 – vs Cazenovia (won 121-49)
Round 2 – vs #18 Rochester (lost 51-66)
** Trinity, not ranked (2001-02)
Round 1 – vs Colby-Sawyer (won 74-47)
Round 2 – vs #8 Brockport State (lost 61-80)
---------------
** Amherst, not ranked (2000-01)
Round 1 – vs St. John Fisher (won 89-76)
Round 2 – vs Clark (won 89-76)
---------------
** Williams, #11 (1990-00)
Round 1 – bye
Round 2 – vs Springfield (lost 74-75)
** Amherst, not ranked (1999-00)
Round 1 – vs Western New England (won 79-77)
Round 2 – vs #21 Salem State (lost 75-81)
Not even factoring in the Sectionals (Rounds 3 & 4), it's telling to just look at Round 2 matchups to see how different the roads are in different parts of the country...
CCIW 2nd Rounds
2008-09: Wheaton vs #5 UW-Platteville
2007-08: Augustana vs #11 Wash U (eventual national champ)
2006-07: n/a
2005-06: Illinois Wesleyan vs #15 UW-Whitewater
2005-06: Augustana vs #19 UW-Stout
2004-05: Illinois Wesleyan vs #12 Hanover
2003-04: Illinois Wesleyan vs #2 Hanover
2002-03: Illinois Wesleyan vs #2 Wash U
2001-02: Carthage vs Hope
2000-01: Illinois Wesleyan vs #12 Wartburg
2000-01: Carthage vs #2 Wooster
2000-01: Elmhurst vs #8 Wash U
1999-00: Carthage vs #15 UW-Eau Claire
NESCAC 2nd Rounds
2008-09: Middlebury vs Bridgewater State
2007-08: Amherst vs John Jay
2006-07: Amherst vs Widener
2005-06: Amherst vs Hamilton
2005-06: Tufts vs Cortland State
2004-05: Amherst vs Springfield
2003-04: Williams vs Salem State
2003-04: Amherst vs Plymouth State
2003-04: Trinity vs Brockport State
2002-03: Williams vs Salem State
2002-03: Amherst vs Southern Vermont
2001-02: Amherst vs Western Connecticut
2001-02: Williams vs Cazenovia
2001-02: Trinity vs #8 Brockport State
2000-01: Amherst vs Clark
1999-00: Williams vs Springfield
1999-00: Amherst vs #21 Salem State
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 04, 2009, 01:42:10 AM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 05:29:58 PM
CC 0-3 (3 Finals 4s)
The CCIW is 3-3 in Final Four games this decade, not 0-3. That includes going 1-0 against the NESCAC in Salem.
Frankly, your credibility flew out the window when you put the NCAC and MIAA up there with the big boys, lefrakenstein. As you've seen here from two of the NCAC's most respected posters, the fact that Wooster and Wittenberg are national-caliber programs (as are Hope and Calvin in the MIAA) doesn't make them power conferences in the slightest.
The CCIW went 73-19 (including postseason play) in non-conference action last year, a .791 clip that set a new league record. That makes three years in a row that the CCIW has done better than .700 in non-conference play, and the league hasn't finished below the .630s in over a decade. The league has universal respect from everybody in the part of the country where the best D3 ball in the land is played (i.e., west of the Pennsylvania/Ohio border), and that includes the WIAC folks. I see absolutely nothing in any of your arguments that refutes the CCIW's commonly-held status as one of the top two or three conferences in D3 men's basketball.
I note at the top that I'm not including consolation games. Illinois Wes's win over Amherst when Amherst chose to start and give heavy minutes to all of their seniors, including guys who typically didn't play very much, is hardly an indicative win.
Quote from: Titan Q on December 03, 2009, 08:06:16 PM
And while I certainly value teams that get it done in Salem, in terms of determing conference strength, I think you are over-valuing results of national semifinal games. For example, if Illinois Wesleyan holds onto its lead vs Virginia Wesleyan (a game IWU led almost the entire game), does that somehow make the CCIW stronger?
http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2006/ncaa5.htm
Or if Carthage comes out on top in that tight game vs Jeff Gibbs and Otterbein, is that supposed to mean something about the CCIW vs the OAC?
This I think is the best response because it most highlights my difference in philosophy.
Yes, I do think it would make a huge difference if those close games had gone the other way. We currently think of the Wash U teams of the past couple of years as all-time great times, and certainly two of the best teams of the decade. Both of those teams survived nail-biters in the tournament though. Had they lost, we wouldn't even think of them as being very remarkable.
I think to be an elite conference you need to have teams that have gotten the job done in Salem, period.
I really do understand that the NESCAC has a MUCH, MUCH easier time making it to Salem than the CCIW. And, I admit, again, that I am not qualified to comment on the bottom of the NCAC/MIAA.
Restating my point again, I personally believe, (and it would seem as though many here do not) that although both factors should be considered, bringing home the hardware every once in awhile should outweigh the performance of bottom teams in measuring a conference's strength.
Now, if you disagree with this view, then yes, I officially concede that the CCIW is a stronger conference than the NESCAC. I unfortunately have seen Tufts and Conn College play recently, and they are not good. No two ways about it. So you've got me on that one.
Quote from: hugenerd on December 03, 2009, 10:19:40 PM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 03, 2009, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 03, 2009, 05:33:34 PM
I understand the sentiment, but you have to remember the source of that article: The DIII News, based out of Oregon. How many d3 schools are there in Oregon? I would say that the people involved with this site are more knowledgeable of the d3 landscape, but that is not to say that that knowledge does not come with some bias. Either way, its an interesting discussion.
You're dead on about the knowledge leading to bias. Being from Oregon makes the DIII News less likely to be biased towards teams from the midwest, great lakes or northeast region. I would also say that a publication dedicated to only dIII sports is likely to be pretty knowledgeable, but that's total speculation.
Meanwhile, many posters on this site (myself included) have spent most of their time watching games in only one region, and thus tend to be biased towards teams and conferences in that area.
I think Pat, and most of the guys that are involved with the site, do their best to be impartial when it comes to year end awards, etc. Are there really any All-America picks you can argue with from last year? Freshman of the year went to a NCAC player (Great Lakes) and a NEWMAC player (Northeast) was chosen over a player from the CCCIW, Kent Raymond, who most CCIW followers said was one of the best players to ever play in the conference. If there was any significant bias at all, it would have been extremely easy to defend the choice of the top CCIW player.
I honestly believe they do too, but I think the nature of DIII makes it difficult not to be somewhat partial. I know I sure as heck couldn't do it. It's impossible not to be affected in the way you feel about a player or team by watching them play. Having the opportunity to see some teams play but not others therefore necessarily leads to some bias.
I also think seeing a conference allows you to be more accurate in its appraisal. For instance, right now, I think Williams is a better team than Middlebury, and probably a better team than Amherst. So looking at the top 25 standings, I tend to think, 'What are these homers doing having Midd so high, but not ranking Williams at all?" But if it were me doing the rankings, I would have to make the same conjectures about the midwest and west teams based on previous year's results, and I might very well bump an up-and-coming team that I know less about, in favor of a similar team like Williams from New England.
That was kind of convoluted, but my point is that having un-uniformly informed fans leads as easily to accusations of bias as it does to actual bias.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 04, 2009, 11:56:52 AM
I note at the top that I'm not including consolation games. Illinois Wes's win over Amherst when Amherst chose to start and give heavy minutes to all of their seniors, including guys who typically didn't play very much, is hardly an indicative win.
I don't have a real strong opinion of whether the consolation game means anything or not, but I do think you've misrepresented some things. Here are the Amherst players who averaged 10 minutes per game or more in 2005-06. In parenthesis is their minutes vs IWU in the 3rd place game...
John Bedford (Sr) - 29 min/game on the season (36 vs IWU)
Dan Wheeler (Jr) - 28 (36)
Andrew Olson (So) - 27 (36)
John Casnocha (Sr) - 22 (15)
Tim McLaughlin (Jr) - 17 (22)
Dan O'Shea (Jr) - 16 (19)
Matt Goldsmith (So) - 15 (11)
Adolphe Coulibaly (So) - 10 (10)
Kevin Hopkins (So) - 10 (7)
The usual group that accounted for 174 minutes per game played 192 (of 200 total) in the consolation game.
Where are all the heavy minutes for the guys who typically didn't play very much?
http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2006/ncaa6.htm
http://www3.amherst.edu/~sports/2005_2006/m-bball/teamcume.htm
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 04, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I think to be an elite conference you need to have teams that have gotten the job done in Salem, period.
"There aint no good guys....there aint no bad guys...there's only you and me and we just disagree."In my opinion, conference strength comes down to the depth of quality teams. And this is where I think the CCIW has clearly established itself as one of the top 2-3 in the country year-in and year-out. Examples from this decade:
• As I noted yesterday, last year CCIW #2 Elmhurst beat Wash U... #3 Augustana took the Bears to OT...and #7 IWU played Wash U very tough at their place
• Last year, 6th place Millikin beat new D1 program SIU-Edwardsville (SIU-E was not as good as the D3 Top 25 teams, but a pretty impressive win for #6 regardless)
• Last year, 5th place Carthage beat both Calvin and Hope (they weren't powers, but they did finish #1 and #2 in the MIAA)
• In 2005-06, the IWU team that won at #1 Lawrence in the Sectionals and got to Salem was the #4 seed in the CCIW conference tournament (#1 Augustana, #2 North Central, #3 Elmhurst, #4 IWU).
• In 2000-01, the IWU team that won at #1 Chicago in the Sectionals and got to Salem finished 3rd in the CCIW (#1 Elmhurst, #2 Carthage, #3 IWU).
• In 2000-01, 2nd place Carthage was a basket away from giving the CCIW two teams in Salem (after winning at #2 Wooster, the Red Men beat Mass-Dartmouth by 50 in the Sweet 16, then lost by 2 @ Ohio Northern).
• 5 different programs have won the CCIW this decade (Carthage, Elmhurst, Illinois Wesleyan, Augustana, Wheaton) and 6 have been in the NCAA tournament (add North Central).
You're right - if you measure conference strength by the number of national championships this decade, the CCIW is nowhere near the best. However, if you measure it by the number of very strong teams (teams good enough to be in the Top 25 or knocking on that door) and by the quality of the teams in the 4-7 or so range, you won't find many better than the CCIW.
I forgot to post this before I left for lunch, but I'll echo TQ.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 04, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I think to be an elite conference you need to have teams that have gotten the job done in Salem, period.
This makes the discussion JUST be among the top teams. That might actually broaden the discussion... but I don't think it's the correct one. How many conference teams have made the NCAA tournament in the past decade? 6 for the CCIW (out of 8 ), 5 for the NESCAC (out of 11[?]). And if the NESCAC is a power conference, then their lack of a double round robin would certainly increase the records of the participant teams. And yet, a smaller percentage of the conference has made the NCAA tournament.
As an aside, the WIAC has had 7/9 in the tournament and 5/9 have won the conference. For the decade, the WIAC is 583-185 in regular season non-con (.759) and 31-15 in the NCAA tournament (.674) for an overall non-con record of 614-200 (.754) for the oughts.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 04, 2009, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 04, 2009, 01:42:10 AM
Frankly, your credibility flew out the window when you put the NCAC and MIAA up there with the big boys, lefrakenstein. As you've seen here from two of the NCAC's most respected posters, the fact that Wooster and Wittenberg are national-caliber programs (as are Hope and Calvin in the MIAA) doesn't make them power conferences in the slightest.
I wouldn't be so quick to simply dismiss the MIAA as the big 2, little 6.
I
didn't describe the MIAA as the big two, little six, for precisely the reason you mentioned. I've grown to respect Albion's performance over the years. The Britons are not a national-caliber program, but they're almost always a decent team and occasionally good enough to break into March.
Quote from: PointSpecial on December 04, 2009, 02:32:25 PMAnd if the NESCAC is a power conference, then their lack of a double round robin would certainly increase the records of the participant teams. And yet, a smaller percentage of the conference has made the NCAA tournament.
Thanks for bringing that up, PS. The fact that the NESCAC only plays a single round-robin rather than the double round-robin (or modified double round-robin) played by every other conference in D3 is a serious Achilles heel in any argument put forth for NESCAC national hegemony. That's especially true when you consider the weakness of the Northeast Region outside of the NESCAC; take away the responsibility of the NESCAC to beat itself up twice over every year, the way all of the other power conferences do, and add the opportunity to augment your non-conference schedule with a bunch of lesser opponents to take the place of that missing second round-robin, and you end up with fatter overall and in-region records -- and the chance at more Pool C bids -- than you'd otherwise have.
Quote from: Titan Q on December 04, 2009, 12:46:18 PM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 04, 2009, 11:56:52 AM
I note at the top that I'm not including consolation games. Illinois Wes's win over Amherst when Amherst chose to start and give heavy minutes to all of their seniors, including guys who typically didn't play very much, is hardly an indicative win.
I don't have a real strong opinion of whether the consolation game means anything or not, but I do think you've misrepresented some things. Here are the Amherst players who averaged 10 minutes per game or more in 2005-06. In parenthesis is their minutes vs IWU in the 3rd place game...
John Bedford (Sr) - 29 min/game on the season (36 vs IWU)
Dan Wheeler (Jr) - 28 (36)
Andrew Olson (So) - 27 (36)
John Casnocha (Sr) - 22 (15)
Tim McLaughlin (Jr) - 17 (22)
Dan O'Shea (Jr) - 16 (19)
Matt Goldsmith (So) - 15 (11)
Adolphe Coulibaly (So) - 10 (10)
Kevin Hopkins (So) - 10 (7)
The usual group that accounted for 174 minutes per game played 192 (of 200 total) in the consolation game.
Where are all the heavy minutes for the guys who typically didn't play very much?
http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2006/ncaa6.htm
http://www3.amherst.edu/~sports/2005_2006/m-bball/teamcume.htm
you're right. I remembered that Zalaski started, but I guess he only played 2 minutes. Still, I would say motivation (or lack there of) plays a factor in the consolation game.
Quote from: Titan Q on December 04, 2009, 01:23:18 PM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 04, 2009, 12:09:41 PM
I think to be an elite conference you need to have teams that have gotten the job done in Salem, period.
You're right - if you measure conference strength by the number of national championships this decade, the CCIW is nowhere near the best. However, if you measure it by the number of very strong teams (teams good enough to be in the Top 25 or knocking on that door) and by the quality of the teams in the 4-7 or so range, you won't find many better than the CCIW.
Bingo, totally agree.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 05, 2009, 03:13:29 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on December 04, 2009, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 04, 2009, 01:42:10 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on December 04, 2009, 02:32:25 PMAnd if the NESCAC is a power conference, then their lack of a double round robin would certainly increase the records of the participant teams. And yet, a smaller percentage of the conference has made the NCAA tournament.
Thanks for bringing that up, PS. The fact that the NESCAC only plays a single round-robin rather than the double round-robin (or modified double round-robin) played by every other conference in D3 is a serious Achilles heel in any argument put forth for NESCAC national hegemony. That's especially true when you consider the weakness of the Northeast Region outside of the NESCAC; take away the responsibility of the NESCAC to beat itself up twice over every year, the way all of the other power conferences do, and add the opportunity to augment your non-conference schedule with a bunch of lesser opponents to take the place of that missing second round-robin, and you end up with fatter overall and in-region records -- and the chance at more Pool C bids -- than you'd otherwise have.
I agree on this, and I think it would be great to see the NESCAC play a double round robin. Two points though-
First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice. Also Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan each play each other twice in the regular season and the Maine teams (Colby, Bowdoin, Bates) do as well. Amherst usually plays 13-14 NESCAC games a year (9 reg season league games, 2 extra 'Little Three' games, and 2-3 tourny games). So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)
Secondly, I understand that the NE is still no where near an elite region, but it's been getting a lot better outside of the NESCAC. Teams like UMass-Dartmouth, RIC, Keene State, Elms, MIT, Brandeis and others have all been getting better recently. Definitely a lot more challengers than there were just a few years ago. Little East and NEWMAC both seem like they are edging towards legitimacy. Huge Nerd can probably comment on this more knowledgeably than I can.
Again, I agree on the whole, but just sayin....
I think the top teams in the northeast can play with the top teams in the midwest or anywhere, for that matter. I also think that the worst teams in any region are generally comparable (sans a few outliers). However, I think the main difference comes in with the number of bad teams in each region. I havent done any statistics on this, but it seems that there are just a lot more cupcakes in the northeast (possibly becasue there are a lot more teams in general), and those teams are scheduled by the top teams in the region, which results in essential off nights for those teams. From what I observed in the midwest (I played in the UAA not so long ago, so we would travel to WashU and Chicago every year), the number of cupcakes scheduled by the top teams is few and far between (again, this is just by observation). Therefore, they get fewer off nights and you get a better idea where the top teams in those regions rank amongst eachother. However, I think that if there were a UAA/NESCAC or CCIW/NESCAC challenge, I think virtually every game would be competitive. You have 3 seemingly very strong teams at the top of the NESCAC this year, Williams, Midd, and Amherst, a few up and comers that also seem to be strong, Colby, Bowdoin, Bates, a level right below that, Trinity and Wesleyan, and then your cellar dwellars, Conn College and Tufts. I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year. In past year, I dont know, but the NESCAC has certainly been impressive so far this year. CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls. CCIW has 68% out-of conference winning percentage right now (32-15), UAA is 76% (38-12), and NESCAC is 69% (42-19), but the NESSCACs top 8 are 79% (38-10).
Point of order - is comparing the top 8 in a 10-team conference to the 'top' 8 in an 8-team conference really playing fair?! ;) If you're dropping the bottom 2, surely the CCIW should get to drop at least 1!
Your point about cupcakes is noted - this week alone the CCIW will face Gonzaga (yes, THAT Gonzaga), WashU twice, and UWSP, as well as a few more from the top 60 or 70. My lazy man's 'CCIW Sweep' in the CCIW Pickems is faring a lot worse this year than last (when the conference won about 80% of the non-con, regular season games). :P
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 06, 2009, 06:19:25 PM
Point of order - is comparing the top 8 in a 10-team conference to the 'top' 8 in an 8-team conference really playing fair?! ;) If you're dropping the bottom 2, surely the CCIW should get to drop at least 1!
Your point about cupcakes is noted - this week alone the CCIW will face Gonzaga (yes, THAT Gonzaga), WashU twice, and UWSP, as well as a few more from the top 60 or 70. My lazy man's 'CCIW Sweep' in the CCIW Pickems is faring a lot worse this year than last (when the conference won about 80% of the non-con, regular season games). :P
Thats why I reported the whole conference, as well as the top 8. Obviously the top 8 was selected because if one were to do a CCIW/NESCAC challenge, there would only be 8 games played and, therefore, only 8 teams would be relevant in such a format. However, the CCIW does seem to have a drop off at the bottom 2, just as the NESCAC does.
just to add another 'data point'
records vs D3 out of conference thru 12/5/09 note - there may be a couple of situation where games between conference foes that do not count as conference games are included.
ODAC 34 8 0.810
UAA 35 11 0.761
WIAC 28 9 0.757
MACC 29 10 0.744
NJAC 33 12 0.733
NESCAC 36 16 0.692
CCIW 29 15 0.659
MIAC 21 11 0.656
E8 25 14 0.641
SCAC 25 15 0.625
Newmac 29 19 0.604
SUNYAC 21 14 0.600
LEC 28 19 0.596
HCAC 22 16 0.579
OAC 22 16 0.579
GNAC 24 19 0.558
IIAC 20 16 0.556
NATCH 16 15 0.516
LL 22 21 0.512
AMCC 15 15 0.500
CAC 19 19 0.500
Mascac 20 22 0.476
MWC 17 21 0.447
Landmark 16 20 0.444
SCIAC 12 15 0.444
CC 16 21 0.432
ASC 8 11 0.421
NWC 7 10 0.412
NCAC 18 26 0.409
CCC 33 50 0.398
MACF 11 17 0.393
Sky 11 17 0.393
NECC 18 28 0.391
CSAC 9 14 0.391
MIAA 9 16 0.360
Independent 18 35 0.340
PrAC 9 19 0.321
CUNY 15 32 0.319
NAC 11 25 0.306
USAC 12 29 0.293
SLIAC 8 21 0.276
NEAC 12 36 0.250
UMAC 6 21 0.222 |
hopefan,
Your next assignment, of course, is to compute the OWP and OOWP! ;)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 06, 2009, 08:20:07 PM
hopefan,
Your next assignment, of course, is to compute the OWP and OOWP! ;)
Along with the regional rankings. ;) ;)
Quote from: hopefan on December 06, 2009, 08:06:31 PM
records vs D3 out of conference thru 12/5/09 note - there may be a couple of situation where games between conference foes that do not count as conference games are included.
Top 30 Bay-Bee!!!!! Who says we're not a Power Conference?!? Lefrakenstein was right all along! Heck, even Ted Williams couldn't bat .409! ;D
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 06, 2009, 03:08:30 PMI agree on this, and I think it would be great to see the NESCAC play a double round robin. Two points though-
First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice. Also Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan each play each other twice in the regular season and the Maine teams (Colby, Bowdoin, Bates) do as well. Amherst usually plays 13-14 NESCAC games a year (9 reg season league games, 2 extra 'Little Three' games, and 2-3 tourny games). So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)
That's 14 games against conference foes
only if you're one of the two teams that reach the NESCAC title game, and only if you're in either the WAW triad or the CBB triad. Since Middlebury appears to be one of the top three NESCAC teams according to the NESCAC room consensus, this doesn't apply to the Panthers at all. They'll play 12 games at best against NESCAC foes prior to Selection Sunday. It's also selective enough to skew any comparisons to a true double round-robin; yes, it could be tougher in that Williams may regularly be good and thus a tough opponent for Amherst to have to face twice in the regular season, but Wesleyan may be poor enough to offset that. Same goes for the Maine triad.
The UAA only plays 14 games, since it's the last holdout circuit as far as postseason conference tourneys are concerned. But the CCIW plays a four-team postseason conference tournament, so any likely contender for a Pool C bid will have to play at least 15 games against fellow CCIW teams, and one of them will have to play 16 of them.
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 05:11:05 PMI think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year.
Hmmm. Now
you're going by eyewitness observation, and you refused to accept
my eyewitness observation back in the CCIW vs. UAA debate! ;) :D
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 05:11:05 PMCCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls.
That's true -- they are opinion polls. But the d3hoops.com Top 25 has generally proven to be a fairly reliable indicator of postseason success -- either Pat or David most likely has the data on that -- and, more importantly, it's
the preponderance of evidence that is important here. Take another look at the data that Q supplied; it's overwhelming how often the CCIW has had to face highly-ranked teams in the tournament as opposed to the NESCAC. Even if you allow for the fact that the d3hoops.com Top 25 is an opinion poll, that's still an avalanche of evidence.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 06, 2009, 03:08:30 PM
First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice.
...Except that every conference 'cept the UAA has a conference tournament. So that affords teams the opportunity to play the top teams in their conference thrice, not twice.
Quote
So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)
The CCIW is an 8 team league so they play 14 league games. The UAA is also 8 (14 league games). The WIAC is 9 (16). Other conferences play even more league games than this if they've got two divisions and crossover.
And Amherst's choice to play non-con opponents a second time is laudible... but that doesn't expose them to a full slate of games against all the conference teams. Having home and away series against league foes can make immense amounts of difference. UW Whitewater and UW Platteville both lost in away games at Oshkosh and Eau Claire respectively, in the same night last season, by 1 and 5 points. They'd won these games by 11 and 31 on their home courts in December, and it cost them a chance at a share of the conference championship and the best seeding in the conference tournament. Platteville and Whitewater played 3 times, as did Platteville and Point. Had these 3 teams not lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament, Whitewater and Platteville would have met up in the Sweet 16 and the winner could have met up with Stevens Point in the Elite 8 (Point would have met Puget Sound in the Elite 8 for the 3rd time in 6 years.
Quote
Secondly, I understand that the NE is still no where near an elite region, but it's been getting a lot better outside of the NESCAC. Teams like UMass-Dartmouth, RIC, Keene State, Elms, MIT, Brandeis and others have all been getting better recently. Definitely a lot more challengers than there were just a few years ago. Little East and NEWMAC both seem like they are edging towards legitimacy. Huge Nerd can probably comment on this more knowledgeably than I can.
Where's the evidence of this? I'm not necessarily saying it isn't true... but unless these teams beat non-regional opponents, they might just be beating up on the other regional lightweights.
Actually, multi-division conferences don't necessarily play more conference games... conferences with two 6 team divisions might play their division round robin and the opposite division once, so that would be 18 games.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 06, 2009, 11:06:28 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 05:11:05 PMI think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year.
Hmmm. Now you're going by eyewitness observation, and you refused to accept my eyewitness observation back in the CCIW vs. UAA debate! ;) :D
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 05:11:05 PMCCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls.
That's true -- they are opinion polls. But the d3hoops.com Top 25 has generally proven to be a fairly reliable indicator of postseason success -- either Pat or David most likely has the data on that -- and, more importantly, it's the preponderance of evidence that is important here. Take another look at the data that Q supplied; it's overwhelming how often the CCIW has had to face highly-ranked teams in the tournament as opposed to the NESCAC. Even if you allow for the fact that the d3hoops.com Top 25 is an opinion poll, that's still an avalanche of evidence.
First off, I have watched both CCIW and NESCAC teams play online this year (I have not seen any NESCAC teams in person). Secondly, that comment was also based on looking at other early season results.
With regards to the poll, I am not downing the poll at all. I am sure it is great at predicting postseason success near the end of the season. However, my comment about the NESCAC was solely based on this season and, therefore, my comment about the poll being opinion based was meant to say that even through there are more ranked CCIW teams currently, that doesnt mean anything yet. I doubt that you can prove a strong correlation between the week 1 poll in years past and post-season success. You seem to have missed this part of my comment:
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 05:11:05 PM
I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year. In past year, I dont know, but the NESCAC has certainly been impressive so far this year. CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls. CCIW has 68% out-of conference winning percentage right now (32-15), UAA is 76% (38-12), and NESCAC is 69% (42-19), but the NESSCACs top 8 are 79% (38-10).
My comments of the relative strength of the NESCAC was solely based on what I think of the conference this year. Since the season is so early, my comment about the top 25 poll meant that even though CCIW teams are receiving more votes currently (which some CCIW proponents have pointed out already), that doesnt make them a stronger conference
this year yet.
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 11:26:59 PMWith regards to the poll, I am not downing the poll at all. I am sure it is great at predicting postseason success near the end of the season. However, my comment about the NESCAC was solely based on this season and, therefore, my comment about the poll being opinion based was meant to say that even through there are more ranked CCIW teams currently, that doesnt mean anything yet. I doubt that you can prove a strong correlation between the week 1 poll in years past and post-season success. You seem to have missed this part of my comment:
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 05:11:05 PM
I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year. In past year, I dont know, but the NESCAC has certainly been impressive so far this year. CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls. CCIW has 68% out-of conference winning percentage right now (32-15), UAA is 76% (38-12), and NESCAC is 69% (42-19), but the NESSCACs top 8 are 79% (38-10).
My comments of the relative strength of the NESCAC was solely based on what I think of the conference this year. Since the season is so early, my comment about the top 25 poll meant that even though CCIW teams are receiving more votes currently (which some CCIW proponents have pointed out already), that doesnt make them a stronger conference this year yet.
Thanks for clearing that up, although I thought that you were using this season to draw larger inferences, a la the CCIW vs. UAA argument. I wouldn't hang an argument of any sort upon a poll that is taken before the holidays; I've gone on record numerous times as dismissing their accuracy and thus their importance.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 07, 2009, 12:32:17 AM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 11:26:59 PMWith regards to the poll, I am not downing the poll at all. I am sure it is great at predicting postseason success near the end of the season. However, my comment about the NESCAC was solely based on this season and, therefore, my comment about the poll being opinion based was meant to say that even through there are more ranked CCIW teams currently, that doesnt mean anything yet. I doubt that you can prove a strong correlation between the week 1 poll in years past and post-season success. You seem to have missed this part of my comment:
Quote from: hugenerd on December 06, 2009, 05:11:05 PM
I think the top 8 in the NESCAC are as strong as the top 8 in any conference this year. In past year, I dont know, but the NESCAC has certainly been impressive so far this year. CCIW proponents can point to the rankings all they want, but those dont really prove conference strength at all because they are simply opinion polls. CCIW has 68% out-of conference winning percentage right now (32-15), UAA is 76% (38-12), and NESCAC is 69% (42-19), but the NESSCACs top 8 are 79% (38-10).
My comments of the relative strength of the NESCAC was solely based on what I think of the conference this year. Since the season is so early, my comment about the top 25 poll meant that even though CCIW teams are receiving more votes currently (which some CCIW proponents have pointed out already), that doesnt make them a stronger conference this year yet.
Thanks for clearing that up, although I thought that you were using this season to draw larger inferences, a la the CCIW vs. UAA argument. I wouldn't hang an argument of any sort upon a poll that is taken before the holidays; I've gone on record numerous times as dismissing their accuracy and thus their importance.
No problem, I was simply trying to convey my impressions of the NESCAC early this year. They have been one of the most impressive conferences early on, especially among their top 5-6 teams (we know that I tend to value the top of the conference more than the bottom from past discussions).
Quote from: PointSpecial on December 06, 2009, 11:14:52 PM
Actually, multi-division conferences don't necessarily play more conference games... conferences with two 6 team divisions might play their division round robin and the opposite division once, so that would be 18 games.
This would actually be 16.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 07, 2009, 01:23:14 AM
Quote from: PointSpecial on December 06, 2009, 11:14:52 PM
Actually, multi-division conferences don't necessarily play more conference games... conferences with two 6 team divisions might play their division round robin and the opposite division once, so that would be 18 games.
This would actually be 16.
Good thing I didn't major in math or anything.... oh, wait...
That make sense, of course. Double RR in 6 league division means 5x2 games vs. those teams and 6x1 vs. the other division.
Thanks for setting me straight!
Or the MIAC where they play 20, PLUS conference tourney. If you are 3-6, you could potentially play 3 more games.
The MWC and the NathCon play uneven schedules, they don't play everyone twice.
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on December 07, 2009, 11:38:39 AM
The MWC and the NathCon play uneven schedules, they don't play everyone twice.
Same goes for the NCAC, although that will change to a full (9 team) double-round-robin next year with the departure of Earlham.
Also the SUNYAC. 10 teams, double RR =18 games plus 3 conference tourney games, as top 8 make the playoffs. 21 games for the tournament champion and runner up.
The 8-team ASC West and the 7-team ASC East play single round robin inter-divisional games and double round-robin intra-divisional games to make a 21- and 20-game conference schedule. The top 4 teams in the division go the conference tourney which alternates between division winners, men and women, in alternating years.
Quote from: PointSpecial on December 06, 2009, 11:08:35 PM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 06, 2009, 03:08:30 PM
First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice.
...Except that every conference 'cept the UAA has a conference tournament. So that affords teams the opportunity to play the top teams in their conference thrice, not twice.
Quote
So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)
The CCIW is an 8 team league so they play 14 league games. The UAA is also 8 (14 league games). The WIAC is 9 (16). Other conferences play even more league games than this if they've got two divisions and crossover.
And Amherst's choice to play non-con opponents a second time is laudible... but that doesn't expose them to a full slate of games against all the conference teams. Having home and away series against league foes can make immense amounts of difference. UW Whitewater and UW Platteville both lost in away games at Oshkosh and Eau Claire respectively, in the same night last season, by 1 and 5 points. They'd won these games by 11 and 31 on their home courts in December, and it cost them a chance at a share of the conference championship and the best seeding in the conference tournament. Platteville and Whitewater played 3 times, as did Platteville and Point. Had these 3 teams not lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament, Whitewater and Platteville would have met up in the Sweet 16 and the winner could have met up with Stevens Point in the Elite 8 (Point would have met Puget Sound in the Elite 8 for the 3rd time in 6 years.
Quote
Secondly, I understand that the NE is still no where near an elite region, but it's been getting a lot better outside of the NESCAC. Teams like UMass-Dartmouth, RIC, Keene State, Elms, MIT, Brandeis and others have all been getting better recently. Definitely a lot more challengers than there were just a few years ago. Little East and NEWMAC both seem like they are edging towards legitimacy. Huge Nerd can probably comment on this more knowledgeably than I can.
Where's the evidence of this? I'm not necessarily saying it isn't true... but unless these teams beat non-regional opponents, they might just be beating up on the other regional lightweights.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. We play Williams and Wesleyan, who are in the NESCAC, twice in the regular season, but only one of the games counts towards the conference records. So we do play a home and away with at least two of the teams, including Williams, the other traditional power.
Didn't realize the WIAC plays a 16 game regular season conference schedule PLUS a conference championship, That's a whole lot of conference games.
I don't really have much evidence other than personal observation for the improvement of the rest of New England. I'm sure Huge Nerd could pull up some crazy stats.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 10, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on December 06, 2009, 11:08:35 PM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 06, 2009, 03:08:30 PM
First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice.
...Except that every conference 'cept the UAA has a conference tournament. So that affords teams the opportunity to play the top teams in their conference thrice, not twice.
Quote
So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)
The CCIW is an 8 team league so they play 14 league games. The UAA is also 8 (14 league games). The WIAC is 9 (16). Other conferences play even more league games than this if they've got two divisions and crossover.
And Amherst's choice to play non-con opponents a second time is laudible... but that doesn't expose them to a full slate of games against all the conference teams. Having home and away series against league foes can make immense amounts of difference. UW Whitewater and UW Platteville both lost in away games at Oshkosh and Eau Claire respectively, in the same night last season, by 1 and 5 points. They'd won these games by 11 and 31 on their home courts in December, and it cost them a chance at a share of the conference championship and the best seeding in the conference tournament. Platteville and Whitewater played 3 times, as did Platteville and Point. Had these 3 teams not lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament, Whitewater and Platteville would have met up in the Sweet 16 and the winner could have met up with Stevens Point in the Elite 8 (Point would have met Puget Sound in the Elite 8 for the 3rd time in 6 years.
Quote
Secondly, I understand that the NE is still no where near an elite region, but it's been getting a lot better outside of the NESCAC. Teams like UMass-Dartmouth, RIC, Keene State, Elms, MIT, Brandeis and others have all been getting better recently. Definitely a lot more challengers than there were just a few years ago. Little East and NEWMAC both seem like they are edging towards legitimacy. Huge Nerd can probably comment on this more knowledgeably than I can.
Where's the evidence of this? I'm not necessarily saying it isn't true... but unless these teams beat non-regional opponents, they might just be beating up on the other regional lightweights.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. We play Williams and Wesleyan, who are in the NESCAC, twice in the regular season, but only one of the games counts towards the conference records. So we do play a home and away with at least two of the teams, including Williams, the other traditional power.
Didn't realize the WIAC plays a 16 game regular season conference schedule PLUS a conference championship, That's a whole lot of conference games.
I don't really have much evidence other than personal observation for the improvement of the rest of New England. I'm sure Huge Nerd could pull up some crazy stats.
I think that the old message board (pre-2005) had a statistical analysis of the NESCAC and their SOS numbers.
If I were a conference commissioner designing a schedule to optimize the SOS of my conference, I would choose either the NESCAC or the UAA.
1) Fewer conference games (NESCAC, no more than 9-12 regular season games versus conference opponents. UAA only has 14.)
2) Very little duplication in non-conference, in-region opponents. NESCAC has 70+ likely teams that are in-region with good geographic proximity and good records to boost the numbers. The UAA is spread over five regions, but has very close proximity to two more (Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Regions). They can cherry-pick beatable teams that will have good numbers for SOS/OWP/OOWP.
3) The UAA is spread over five regions when being considered for in-region rankings. Several teams may be at the table when bids are being deliberated.
4) If you want to see how not to do it, consider the ASC which basically has little choice in non-conference opponents. It is just easier on class time and schedule making to go with the 20-21 game conference slate.
Unfortunately, when it comes to Midwest/West vs. Northeast, there is not many games for comparison (you could always look at the Massey ratings, which are not out yet for this year). You might have some oddball tourney that a team goes to, but usually all you have is the final four of the NCAA tourney. The one constant is to see how Brandeis does in the UAA and then see how they do in NE to see the relative strength, but again, that is just one team so who knows how matchups, etc., would go if you had a larger population of inter-region games. Last year, for example, Brandeis only had 4 losses in the UAA (2 to WashU), finishing 2nd to WashU, and played WashU really tight at home, while having 4 non-conference losses in region to Lasell, WPI, UMD, and Framingham State. With that performance, Brandeis was ranked 8th in the final released NE rankings at the end of last year. So make what you will with those numbers, but if the 2nd best team in the UAA is the 8th best team in NE, I would say NE is pretty deep (in my opinion). Also, the NESCAC was really down last year and, in my opinion, the conference appears to be very strong this year, so I think the NE is stronger this year than last in terms of the top teams. There are some teams that were very strong last year that appear to have fallen off a bit (RIC, Salem State, Bridgewater), but, in general, I think it is too early to tell even the hierarchy in-region, let alone to know with any sense of certainty across the whole nation. I really don't see any reason to try to bash the Northeast, there are very strong teams up here just like there are in the Midwest/West. It just so happens that, unfortunately for the CCIW and their fans, the top team in the CCIW has not been as good as either the top team in the UAA (WashU) or the top team in the WIAC in recent years, and due to their geographic proximity those teams meet before the final four. Therefore, although the CCIW is a strong conference and a deep conference, they dont have the hardware they feel they deserve. We just have to accept this as a geographic fact because I doubt one of the following two things will happen: a) someone comes up with a business plan that makes flying d3 teams all across the country to play games profitable, or b) WashU decides St. Louis isnt for them and relocates to Maine.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 10, 2009, 03:20:20 PM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 10, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on December 06, 2009, 11:08:35 PM
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 06, 2009, 03:08:30 PM
First, the NESCAC tournament provides a chance to play a lot of the better teams twice.
...Except that every conference 'cept the UAA has a conference tournament. So that affords teams the opportunity to play the top teams in their conference thrice, not twice.
Quote
So its actually pretty comparable to the CCIW and UAA (14 league games I believe?)
The CCIW is an 8 team league so they play 14 league games. The UAA is also 8 (14 league games). The WIAC is 9 (16). Other conferences play even more league games than this if they've got two divisions and crossover.
And Amherst's choice to play non-con opponents a second time is laudible... but that doesn't expose them to a full slate of games against all the conference teams. Having home and away series against league foes can make immense amounts of difference. UW Whitewater and UW Platteville both lost in away games at Oshkosh and Eau Claire respectively, in the same night last season, by 1 and 5 points. They'd won these games by 11 and 31 on their home courts in December, and it cost them a chance at a share of the conference championship and the best seeding in the conference tournament. Platteville and Whitewater played 3 times, as did Platteville and Point. Had these 3 teams not lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament, Whitewater and Platteville would have met up in the Sweet 16 and the winner could have met up with Stevens Point in the Elite 8 (Point would have met Puget Sound in the Elite 8 for the 3rd time in 6 years.
Quote
Secondly, I understand that the NE is still no where near an elite region, but it's been getting a lot better outside of the NESCAC. Teams like UMass-Dartmouth, RIC, Keene State, Elms, MIT, Brandeis and others have all been getting better recently. Definitely a lot more challengers than there were just a few years ago. Little East and NEWMAC both seem like they are edging towards legitimacy. Huge Nerd can probably comment on this more knowledgeably than I can.
Where's the evidence of this? I'm not necessarily saying it isn't true... but unless these teams beat non-regional opponents, they might just be beating up on the other regional lightweights.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. We play Williams and Wesleyan, who are in the NESCAC, twice in the regular season, but only one of the games counts towards the conference records. So we do play a home and away with at least two of the teams, including Williams, the other traditional power.
Didn't realize the WIAC plays a 16 game regular season conference schedule PLUS a conference championship, That's a whole lot of conference games.
I don't really have much evidence other than personal observation for the improvement of the rest of New England. I'm sure Huge Nerd could pull up some crazy stats.
I think that the old message board (pre-2005) had a statistical analysis of the NESCAC and their SOS numbers.
If I were a conference commissioner designing a schedule to optimize the SOS of my conference, I would choose either the NESCAC or the UAA.
1) Fewer conference games (NESCAC, no more than 9-12 regular season games versus conference opponents. UAA only has 14.)
2) Very little duplication in non-conference, in-region opponents. NESCAC has 70+ likely teams that are in-region with good geographic proximity and good records to boost the numbers. The UAA is spread over five regions, but has very close proximity to two more (Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Regions). They can cherry-pick beatable teams that will have good numbers for SOS/OWP/OOWP.
3) The UAA is spread over five regions when being considered for in-region rankings. Several teams may be at the table when bids are being deliberated.
4) If you want to see how not to do it, consider the ASC which basically has little choice in non-conference opponents. It is just easier on class time and schedule making to go with the 20-21 game conference slate.
Yeah, you may as well not even waste your time calculating OWP and OOWP numbers for the ASC, just plug in 0.5 for every team and move on to some other criteria.
Quote from: lefrakenstein on December 10, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. We play Williams and Wesleyan, who are in the NESCAC, twice in the regular season, but only one of the games counts towards the conference records. So we do play a home and away with at least two of the teams, including Williams, the other traditional power.
Didn't realize the WIAC plays a 16 game regular season conference schedule PLUS a conference championship, That's a whole lot of conference games.
I don't really have much evidence other than personal observation for the improvement of the rest of New England. I'm sure Huge Nerd could pull up some crazy stats.
I knew what you meant, it was me who was not clear. I know that Williams and Amherst play once as a conference game and once as a non-conference game. That's what I said is laudable to a point... but it still isn't a double round robin. As I said, it takes a lot to play a team twice, home and away. Those late-season road trips can be brutal and they can often be games that a good team loses. And I'm not even talking about rivalry games like Williams and Amherst. Those games are always going to be tough and records won't matter. It's the games against teams that have been up and down that have some talented players that can get hot.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 10, 2009, 03:20:20 PM
If I were a conference commissioner designing a schedule to optimize the SOS of my conference, I would choose either the NESCAC or the UAA.
1) Fewer conference games (NESCAC, no more than 9-12 regular season games versus conference opponents. UAA only has 14.)
You are absolutely right, Ralph...but in my opinion, optimizing conference SOS is not really what's in the best interest of a conference. If I'm a conference commissioner, I'd rather know that my league has fair system for determining a conference champion, and that every school (and student-athlete) plays on a level field each season. The best way to do that is via a double round robin. This year Middlebury plays @ Amherst, but does not get a chance to host the Lord Jeffs. In terms of determining a true conference champion, that just does not sit well with me.
I like the UAA's model - double round robin, but no conference tournament. Why should a strong league beat itself up even more by playing a conference tourny? The CCIW held out a long time before going to one and I wish the league would scrap it. The teams that go 0-1 and 1-1 in the 4-team tournament always end up in worse position come Selection Sunday (and most years, one or both of those teams are strong Pool C candidates).
Quote from: Titan Q on December 11, 2009, 08:02:42 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 10, 2009, 03:20:20 PM
If I were a conference commissioner designing a schedule to optimize the SOS of my conference, I would choose either the NESCAC or the UAA.
1) Fewer conference games (NESCAC, no more than 9-12 regular season games versus conference opponents. UAA only has 14.)
You are absolutely right, Ralph...but in my opinion, optimizing conference SOS is not really what's in the best interest of a conference.
From the standpoints of fairness, fan interest, and basketball purism, you're right, of course. But from the standpoint of, "Let's get as many teams into the D3 tourney as we can so that we can ramp up our accomplishments as a league in March," it's hard to argue with the NESCAC model.
Just imagine what would happen if the CCIW abandoned the double round-robin and moved to a single round-robin, and replaced those seven CCIW games with games against the top tier of the surrounding leagues -- teams such as Benedictine, Aurora, Wartburg, Hope, Webster, Fontbonne, DePauw, Carroll, St. Norbert, Lawrence, Franklin, Defiance, etc. Sure, the CCIW would lose some of those games, especially the second-division CCIW teams. But the upper four or five CCIW teams, if not more of them, would in all likelihood enhance their credentials over what they would be if the league was still in a double round-robin schedule format, via strength of schedule if not in-region winning percentage as well.
I'd hate to see that happen, of course. But it would certainly augment the league's chances for additional Pool C berths every season.
Updated D3 vs D3 non conference standings
1 ODAC 34 9 0.791
2 UAA 40 12 0.769
3 WIAC 29 9 0.763
4 MACC 34 12 0.739
5 NJAC 38 15 0.717
6 NESCAC 44 20 0.688
7 MIAC 22 11 0.667
8 CCIW 31 16 0.660
9 SCAC 27 15 0.643
10 LEC 35 22 0.614
11 SUNYAC 23 15 0.605
12 E8 25 18 0.581
13 Newmac 33 25 0.569
14 OAC 22 17 0.564
15 IIAC 20 16 0.556
16 GNAC 27 22 0.551
17 HCAC 22 18 0.550
18 LL 25 23 0.521
19 AMCC 16 15 0.516
20 CAC 20 19 0.513
21 Landmark 19 22 0.463
22 ASC 9 11 0.450
23 SCIAC 13 16 0.448
24 MWC 17 22 0.436
25 NCAC 22 29 0.431
26 CC 16 22 0.421
27 Mascac 21 29 0.420
28 Sky 12 17 0.414
29 NWC 7 10 0.412
30 NECC 22 32 0.407
31 CCC 39 58 0.402
32 MIAA 11 17 0.393
33 MACF 13 21 0.382
34 CUNY 21 36 0.368
35 Independent 22 38 0.367
36 NATCH 16 28 0.364
37 CSAC 9 16 0.360
38 PrAC 11 21 0.344
39 NAC 13 28 0.317
40 USAC 12 30 0.286
41 SLIAC 8 22 0.267
42 NEAC 12 38 0.240
43 UMAC 6 25 0.194 |
This is a fascinating argument because it has echoes of back when the NCAA D-1 tourney regionals were actually regionals, and the argument was that UCLA usually had an easy route to the final 4 because the West wasn't so strong. Of course, they had to win the Pac-10 and then had to win IN the Final 4, but still.
Unless a sugar daddy allows D-3 to break away from its regionality, you're going to have issues like all of the above, where the NESCAC can cherry pick, the CCIW is stuck in a tough area and the ASC plays with itself for the most part.
Maybe an ASC / SCAC / GSAC challenge?
Quote from: smedindy on December 11, 2009, 05:02:39 PM
This is a fascinating argument because it has echoes of back when the NCAA D-1 tourney regionals were actually regionals, and the argument was that UCLA usually had an easy route to the final 4 because the West wasn't so strong. Of course, they had to win the Pac-10 and then had to win IN the Final 4, but still.
Unless a sugar daddy allows D-3 to break away from its regionality, you're going to have issues like all of the above, where the NESCAC can cherry pick, the CCIW is stuck in a tough area and the ASC plays with itself for the most part.
Maybe an ASC / SCAC / GSAC challenge?
This is a good idea in theory but with the OOWP factored in the SOS would still gravitate around .500 with all of the teams playing each other but no one else. You almost would have to do a ASC-CCIW/WIAC challenge to get it to work. (There are a alot of teams in the ASC so I put two conferences on the other side of the challenge.) You have to get fresh blood for your opponents and fresh blood for your opponents' opponents.
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on December 11, 2009, 05:08:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 11, 2009, 05:02:39 PM
This is a fascinating argument because it has echoes of back when the NCAA D-1 tourney regionals were actually regionals, and the argument was that UCLA usually had an easy route to the final 4 because the West wasn't so strong. Of course, they had to win the Pac-10 and then had to win IN the Final 4, but still.
Unless a sugar daddy allows D-3 to break away from its regionality, you're going to have issues like all of the above, where the NESCAC can cherry pick, the CCIW is stuck in a tough area and the ASC plays with itself for the most part.
Maybe an ASC / SCAC / GSAC challenge?
This is a good idea in theory but with the OOWP factored in the SOS would still gravitate around .500 with all of the teams playing each other but no one else. You almost would have to do a ASC-CCIW/WIAC challenge to get it to work. (There are a alot of teams in the ASC so I put two conferences on the other side of the challenge.) You have to get fresh blood for your opponents and fresh blood for your opponents' opponents.
Perhaps they could hold the ASC/CCIW-WIAC Challenge in Branson, MO. Tony Orlando could do the pregame renditions of the national anthem.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 11, 2009, 05:44:57 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on December 11, 2009, 05:08:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 11, 2009, 05:02:39 PM
This is a fascinating argument because it has echoes of back when the NCAA D-1 tourney regionals were actually regionals, and the argument was that UCLA usually had an easy route to the final 4 because the West wasn't so strong. Of course, they had to win the Pac-10 and then had to win IN the Final 4, but still.
Unless a sugar daddy allows D-3 to break away from its regionality, you're going to have issues like all of the above, where the NESCAC can cherry pick, the CCIW is stuck in a tough area and the ASC plays with itself for the most part.
Maybe an ASC / SCAC / GSAC challenge?
This is a good idea in theory but with the OOWP factored in the SOS would still gravitate around .500 with all of the teams playing each other but no one else. You almost would have to do a ASC-CCIW/WIAC challenge to get it to work. (There are a alot of teams in the ASC so I put two conferences on the other side of the challenge.) You have to get fresh blood for your opponents and fresh blood for your opponents' opponents.
Perhaps they could hold the ASC/CCIW-WIAC Challenge in Branson, MO. Tony Orlando could do the pregame renditions of the national anthem.
And Yakov Smirnov could be the PA announcer! "What a country! What a layup! In Soviet Russia, shot blocks you!"
Quote from: smedindy on December 12, 2009, 01:04:36 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 11, 2009, 05:44:57 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on December 11, 2009, 05:08:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 11, 2009, 05:02:39 PM
This is a fascinating argument because it has echoes of back when the NCAA D-1 tourney regionals were actually regionals, and the argument was that UCLA usually had an easy route to the final 4 because the West wasn't so strong. Of course, they had to win the Pac-10 and then had to win IN the Final 4, but still.
Unless a sugar daddy allows D-3 to break away from its regionality, you're going to have issues like all of the above, where the NESCAC can cherry pick, the CCIW is stuck in a tough area and the ASC plays with itself for the most part.
Maybe an ASC / SCAC / GSAC challenge?
This is a good idea in theory but with the OOWP factored in the SOS would still gravitate around .500 with all of the teams playing each other but no one else. You almost would have to do a ASC-CCIW/WIAC challenge to get it to work. (There are a alot of teams in the ASC so I put two conferences on the other side of the challenge.) You have to get fresh blood for your opponents and fresh blood for your opponents' opponents.
Perhaps they could hold the ASC/CCIW-WIAC Challenge in Branson, MO. Tony Orlando could do the pregame renditions of the national anthem.
And Yakov Smirnov could be the PA announcer! "What a country! What a layup! In Soviet Russia, shot blocks you!"
I'm sure there are a lot of older alumni from the WIAC who would love another reason to visit Branson. It seems like every senior center around eastern Wisconsin plans at least one trip a year there, usually another one near Christmas.
Didnt know what the best forum for this was, but here is the complete list for the NCSA Collegiate Power Rankings (takes into account athletics, academics, and graduation rate):
http://www.ncsasports.org/about-ncsa/power-rankings
Quote from: PointSpecial on December 06, 2009, 11:14:52 PM
Actually, multi-division conferences don't necessarily play more conference games... conferences with two 6 team divisions might play their division round robin and the opposite division once, so that would be 18 games.
When the NJAC went to a two division format they went from 18 regular conference games to 13. Two five team divisions that play each other twice and then one game against each of the team in the other division. They expanded from a four team to a six team tournament, so it you don't win your division you will play a total of 16 conf games to win the AQ, 15 if you win the division and get the bye.
Quote from: hopefan on December 11, 2009, 04:39:09 PM
Updated D3 vs D3 non conference standings
1 ODAC 34 9 0.791
2 UAA 40 12 0.769
3 WIAC 29 9 0.763
4 MACC 34 12 0.739
5 NJAC 38 15 0.717
6 NESCAC 44 20 0.688
7 MIAC 22 11 0.667
8 CCIW 31 16 0.660
9 SCAC 27 15 0.643
10 LEC 35 22 0.614
11 SUNYAC 23 15 0.605
12 E8 25 18 0.581
13 Newmac 33 25 0.569
14 OAC 22 17 0.564
15 IIAC 20 16 0.556
16 GNAC 27 22 0.551
17 HCAC 22 18 0.550
18 LL 25 23 0.521
19 AMCC 16 15 0.516
20 CAC 20 19 0.513
21 Landmark 19 22 0.463
22 ASC 9 11 0.450
23 SCIAC 13 16 0.448
24 MWC 17 22 0.436
25 NCAC 22 29 0.431
26 CC 16 22 0.421
27 Mascac 21 29 0.420
28 Sky 12 17 0.414
29 NWC 7 10 0.412
30 NECC 22 32 0.407
31 CCC 39 58 0.402
32 MIAA 11 17 0.393
33 MACF 13 21 0.382
34 CUNY 21 36 0.368
35 Independent 22 38 0.367
36 NATCH 16 28 0.364
37 CSAC 9 16 0.360
38 PrAC 11 21 0.344
39 NAC 13 28 0.317
40 USAC 12 30 0.286
41 SLIAC 8 22 0.267
42 NEAC 12 38 0.240
43 UMAC 6 25 0.194 |
Anyone have updated numbers for this? I know UWSP is up to over .800 vs. D-III.
Vs D3 non conf
1 WIAC 49 12 0.803
2 ODAC 53 18 0.746
3 UAA 56 22 0.718
4 MACC 49 20 0.710
5 MIAC 31 14 0.689
6 NJAC 57 26 0.687
7 NESCAC 58 31 0.652
8 SCAC 46 27 0.630
9 IIAC 39 24 0.619
10 CCIW 49 31 0.613
11 SUNYAC 30 20 0.600
12 Newmac 45 30 0.600
13 E8 36 25 0.590
14 LEC 37 28 0.569
15 OAC 35 28 0.556
16 CAC 35 29 0.547
17 HCAC 35 30 0.538
18 GNAC 30 28 0.517
19 SCIAC 31 30 0.508
20 LL 35 34 0.507
21 Landmark 34 37 0.479
22 NWC 15 17 0.469
23 CC 27 33 0.450
24 AMCC 17 21 0.447
25 MIAA 23 30 0.434
26 MACF 26 34 0.433
27 PrAC 29 38 0.433
28 NECC 28 38 0.424
29 NCAC 34 48 0.415
30 NATCH 29 42 0.408
31 CCC 53 79 0.402
32 MWC 24 36 0.400
33 CUNY 36 57 0.387
34 Sky 16 26 0.381
35 NAC 19 31 0.380
36 ASC 13 22 0.371
37 Mascac 26 45 0.366
38 SLIAC 16 28 0.364
39 Independent 33 58 0.363
40 USAC 21 47 0.309
41 CSAC 13 31 0.295
42 NEAC 15 44 0.254
43 UMAC 10 47 0.175 |
Not that it matters much, but the CCIW is actually 50-30 (.625) against D3 non-conference competition.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 04, 2010, 12:06:14 PM
CCIW overall: 55-33 (.625)
| ... | vs. D1 | 0-1 | |
| ... | vs. D2 | 1-0 | |
| ... | vs. NAIA-1 | 0-1 | |
| ... | vs. NAIA-2 | 3-1 | |
| ... | vs. other | 1-0 | |
| ... | vs. D3 | 50-30 (.625) | |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. non-region* D3 | 2-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. in-region indies | 0-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. ASC | 2-2 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. HCAC | 5-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. IIAC | 3-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. MIAA | 6-4 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. MIAC | 1-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. MWC | 9-2 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. NAthC | 6-5 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. NCAC | 1-0 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. SCAC | 2-0 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. SCIAC | 4-0 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. SLIAC | 6-3 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. UAA | 2-4 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. WIAC | 1-5 |
* not including MIAA and NCAC
hey it matters - found my backwards score thanks....
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 06, 2010, 04:01:44 PM
Not that it matters much, but the CCIW is actually 50-30 (.625) against D3 non-conference competition.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 04, 2010, 12:06:14 PM
CCIW overall: 55-33 (.625)
| ... | vs. D1 | 0-1 | |
| ... | vs. D2 | 1-0 | |
| ... | vs. NAIA-1 | 0-1 | |
| ... | vs. NAIA-2 | 3-1 | |
| ... | vs. other | 1-0 | |
| ... | vs. D3 | 50-30 (.625) | |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. non-region* D3 | 2-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. in-region indies | 0-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. ASC | 2-2 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. HCAC | 5-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. IIAC | 3-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. MIAA | 6-4 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. MIAC | 1-1 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. MWC | 9-2 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. NAthC | 6-5 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. NCAC | 1-0 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. SCAC | 2-0 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. SCIAC | 4-0 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. SLIAC | 6-3 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. UAA | 2-4 |
| ... | ... ... ... | vs. WIAC | 1-5 |
* not including MIAA and NCAC
Wow! I made it through about three conferences and then I threw in the the towel. All I know is DC went undefeated against non-conference teams and that made me happy! ;D +1 to you Sager!
It seems like the WIAC and the ODAC are extra strong this year and some of the other big conferences may be down slightly.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 10, 2010, 03:07:34 PM
It seems like the WIAC and the ODAC are extra strong this year and some of the other big conferences may be down slightly.
I would agree with the WIAC and that the top 4 in the ODAC appear to be very strong.
Updated through Jan 31 W/L vs D3 non conference
1 WIAC 52 12 0.813
2 ODAC 56 19 0.747
3 UAA 61 24 0.718
4 MACC 52 22 0.703
5 NJAC 70 30 0.700
6 MIAC 31 14 0.689
7 SCAC 48 27 0.640
8 NESCAC 82 47 0.636
9 CCIW 50 30 0.625
10 IIAC 38 24 0.613
11 E8 42 27 0.609
12 Newmac 49 33 0.598
13 LEC 45 32 0.584
14 OAC 36 28 0.563
15 SUNYAC 32 25 0.561
16 CAC 35 29 0.547
17 HCAC 35 32 0.522
18 Landmark 38 38 0.500
19 GNAC 33 33 0.500
20 SCIAC 30 32 0.484
21 LL 36 40 0.474
22 PrAC 43 51 0.457
23 NWC 14 17 0.452
24 CC 27 34 0.443
25 AMCC 18 23 0.439
26 MACF 32 41 0.438
27 Mascac 34 46 0.425
28 MWC 26 36 0.419
29 NCAC 34 48 0.415
30 NATCH 30 43 0.411
31 CCC 62 90 0.408
32 MIAA 21 31 0.404
33 ASC 14 22 0.389
34 NECC 29 46 0.387
35 CUNY 40 65 0.381
36 Sky 16 27 0.372
37 Independent 45 78 0.366
38 SLIAC 16 28 0.364
39 NAC 22 39 0.361
40 CSAC 18 34 0.346
41 USAC 22 51 0.301
42 NEAC 20 55 0.267
43 UMAC 15 48 0.238
|
This isn't about ranking so much as a chance for me to show off my hard work to more than five people who will see it on the CCC board.
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4235.msg1177411#msg1177411
This is the rundown of the CCC playoff hunt with one game remaining. Seven teams vying for five playoff spots still up for grabs.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 17, 2010, 11:23:56 PM
This isn't about ranking so much as a chance for me to show off my hard work to more than five people who will see it on the CCC board.
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4235.msg1177411#msg1177411
This is the rundown of the CCC playoff hunt with one game remaining. Seven teams vying for five playoff spots still up for grabs.
He deserves every one of the karma points you can give him. Outside of the lock for number one that Gordon has in the conference, every seed will be determined by the games this Saturday.