tmcbd
New Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by tmcbd on Mar 1, 2014 20:47:18 GMT -5
Question, if Bethel wins the tournament do the get seeded higher than HU or SF in Branson and what is the best guess as to where that would be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 22:09:03 GMT -5
What a year for upsets in the conference tournaments! Two years ago, CU got in with the next to last at large, ranked at #25, due to the fact that there were basically no upsets - in fact, CU's loss to Lourdes was, ironically, the biggest upset. This year, wow; what a difference. Here are the upsets I've observed so far:
#1 Cardinal Stritch to #7 Saint Xavier in the CCAC finals (a mild upset, though) #2 Indiana Southeast to Cincinnati Christian - KIAC finals. #8 Midland - lost in the GPAC quarterfinals to Dakota Wesleyan. #12 Saint Francis loses in the CL quarterfinals to Spring Arbor. #16 Huntington loses in the CL quarterfinals to Grace. #20 Embry-Riddle loses in the TSC quarterfinals to Thomas. #22 Concordia loses in the quarterfinals of the CCC to Oregon Tech. #26 Southern Oregon loses in the quarterfinals of the CCC to Northwest Christian. #27 Saint Ambrose loses in the semifinals of the MCC tournament to Grand View.
Branson is going to look a bit different than we had thought just a week ago@
|
|
hoage
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by hoage on Mar 1, 2014 22:18:47 GMT -5
If Grace wins the Crossroads Tournament and the league only gets 4 in, who should be the team left out - Huntington or USF. Interesting that these two teams are quickly becoming Big Bethel fans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 22:32:11 GMT -5
If Grace wins the Crossroads Tournament and the league only gets 4 in, who should be the team left out - Huntington or USF. Interesting that these two teams are quickly becoming Big Bethel fans. Interesting question, but I think if Grace beats Bethel, the CL will get 5 teams into the national tournament.
|
|
|
Post by blue2blue on Mar 1, 2014 22:56:49 GMT -5
Where is the BC & Grace game being played?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2014 23:11:20 GMT -5
Yet another upset - #23 Ashford loses to Northern New Mexico in the finals of the AII tournament 51-48.
|
|
|
Post by The Pilot on Mar 2, 2014 8:06:03 GMT -5
Where is the BC & Grace game being played? Game is AT Bethel, Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by The Pilot on Mar 2, 2014 8:06:58 GMT -5
Question, if Bethel wins the tournament do the get seeded higher than HU or SF in Branson and what is the best guess as to where that would be? Yes, I believe they will be higher than both.
|
|
|
Post by tamrik on Mar 2, 2014 13:10:20 GMT -5
If Bethel wins, (At the risk of offending CU), I would suggest that the strategic approach for the rater would be to keep the rankings the same as the conference standings. Since Bethel would already have a ticket, this approach would insure a bid for both HU and USF.
The over-arching question is, does the rater go with the hot team or the body of work over the whole season. Based on the conference rules concerning who gets the #2 bid if the #1 team wins the tournament, it looks like the league values the season record over the team that is hot right now.
|
|
|
Post by Axman on Mar 2, 2014 14:20:54 GMT -5
Games to watch:
MCAC finals: 10 Bellevue vs Oklahoma Wesleyan SUN semis: 11 St. Thomas vs Thomas CPAC finals: 14 Cal Maritime vs Simpson
Worst case scenario, with rankings remaining as is, and Grace winning, Bethel would get the second to last At Large.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 15:18:41 GMT -5
If Bethel wins, (At the risk of offending CU), I would suggest that the strategic approach for the rater would be to keep the rankings the same as the conference standings. Since Bethel would already have a ticket, this approach would insure a bid for both HU and USF. The over-arching question is, does the rater go with the hot team or the body of work over the whole season. Based on the conference rules concerning who gets the #2 bid if the #1 team wins the tournament, it looks like the league values the season record over the team that is hot right now. tamrik - this certainly does not offend me. "Offend" is a much ballyhooed and overdone word in our culture! I just disagree strongly with the idea that the rater's job is to get his/her conference as many berths as possible. Rather, I think his/her job is to rate the teams in his/her conference as fairly and accurately as possible (admittedly a tough job, especially with conferences like the CL, especially this year), then lobby away all you can for your conference. But let the votes fall where they may, and don't jerry rig your conference rankings by ranking them in a way that gets an extra team in when you don't really believe the conference ranking you have submitted is accurate, but is instead expedient for your conference. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if Bethel beats Grace (and I can't imagine they won't; but I also couldn't imagine, say, Spring Arbor going into Saint Francis and winning either!), the CL will get four teams in - Bethel and IWU with automatics, and USF and Huntington as at larges. If Grace ends the CL season with perhaps the greatest of all CL upsets this season, then the CL gets 5 teams in. I'm guessing, and would even wager on, the former. So don't worry about offending me - just engage with my thoughts and opinions. After all, I am pretty much the only WHAC guy on this board!
|
|
|
Post by Axman on Mar 2, 2014 19:02:53 GMT -5
If Bethel wins, (At the risk of offending CU), I would suggest that the strategic approach for the rater would be to keep the rankings the same as the conference standings. Since Bethel would already have a ticket, this approach would insure a bid for both HU and USF. The over-arching question is, does the rater go with the hot team or the body of work over the whole season. Based on the conference rules concerning who gets the #2 bid if the #1 team wins the tournament, it looks like the league values the season record over the team that is hot right now. tamrik - this certainly does not offend me. "Offend" is a much ballyhooed and overdone word in our culture! I just disagree strongly with the idea that the rater's job is to bet his/her conference as many berths as possible. Rather, I think his/her job is to rate the teams in his conference as fairly and accurately as possible (admittedly a tough job, especially with conferences like the CL, especially this year), then lobby away all you can for your conference. But let the votes fall where they may, and don't jerry rig your conference rankings by ranking them in a way that gets an extra team in when you don't really believe the conference ranking you have submitted is accurate, but is instead expedient for your conference. If rankings for the CL remain as they are now I wouldn't read too much into it. I do know that the decision was made to eliminate the 'post-conference tournament poll' next year. The thought being too much emphasis was being placed on the results of a couple of games and not a full season of work. If that is any indication then my thought would be that we will see little change from the Feb 25 poll from any of the raters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 20:53:27 GMT -5
That's a good point, Axman - that political pressure of sorts would result in LESS change to the rankings of this past Tuesday when the final ranking comes out after the conference tournaments. I have never liked the post-conference tournament poll myself - it is actually an at large selection committee, since the raters know who all the automatic berths are, and they can logically know exactly where the "bubble" is. If there is to be no post conference tournament poll next year, I consider that a good thing for sure!
|
|
|
Post by The Pilot on Mar 2, 2014 21:52:54 GMT -5
I see both of your points, CU and Ax, but my question to you then is why give the winner of the conference tourneys an automatic bid? It's using the same thinking, in that you aren't using an entire seasons body of work to show anything. A 7 or 8 seed could win the tourney with potentially a season or conf. record below 500, or even both could be below. In my opinion I say just drop the conference tournaments all together. Just some food for thought.
**I will post a bracketology update tomorrow.**
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2014 23:09:37 GMT -5
I see both of your points, CU and Ax, but my question to you then is why give the winner of the conference tourneys an automatic bid? It's using the same thinking, in that you aren't using an entire seasons body of work to show anything. A 7 or 8 seed could win the tourney with potentially a season or conf. record below 500, or even both could be below. In my opinion I say just drop the conference tournaments all together. Just some food for thought. **I will post a bracketology update tomorrow.** I totally agree with much of what you say. I don't agree with Bob Knight on much, partly because I think he represented everything that is wrong with college athletics in general, and with college basketball in particular. But he has always been a staunch opponent of conference tournaments, and I agree with his view and his reasons. I do think that conference tournaments inappropriately deemphasize the regular season "body of work" concept. The only redeeming feature I see is if in addition to a conference tournament berth, there is also a regular season berth as well. Of course, the NAIA has (arbitrarily?) decided that this can only happen when a conference has a minimum of 10 teams. But it is also interesting to note that while most teams give the second automatic berth to the tournament runner up when the same team wins both the regular season and the tournament, some teams (and the CL has just done this) award the second automatic berth to the regular season runner up in this situation. That seems like a more equitable situation to me - if a team can't win either the regular season, or the tournament, then they should not qualify for an automatic berth from their conference. Of course, there is the concept of "body of work" vs. "who is hot/has had their game come together" (i.e., a team that is playing its best basketball in, say, the last 2 weeks of the season). I do like the idea of a system that takes both kinds of teams into consideration. But I really don't like the conference tournament concept at all. Looking forward to your bracketology update - will it be after the Monday night games?
|
|