Category Archives: General

Dave’s Top 25 Ballot (’18-’19): Week 9

Posted on by

Welcome to my weekly (kind of) blog that breaks down my D3hoops.com Top 25 men’s ballot. I apologize for being a little late on this. UW-Stevens Point Investigation had me a bit “distracted” earlier in the week.

This week featured a lovely vacuum in the middle of by ballot. Losses by each of the teams from 9 to 13 on my ballot from last week plus other losses and such created a huge hole where I wasn’t really sure where to put teams.

12 teams on my ballot (yeah half) suffered 13 losses. That results in a lot of questions, research, moving of teams, and other considerations. I like Ryan Scott’s approach where he basically started from scratch each week. However, I don’t like going completely from scratch. I have moved from being more slaved to my previous order to a hybrid effort. Some teams I feel comfortable with I move around accordingly. Other teams and sections of the ballot I don’t hold firm to where teams were previously placed.

In the past, I certainly was more prone to simply move teams, that continued to win, up when there were holes by losing teams ahead of them. It wasn’t the best idea and I didn’t do it all the time, but it was an inappropriate habit that didn’t necessarily create the best ballot. As the years have gone on, I have changed my voting habits many times. I am now to the point where, with some teams, I move them up because that’s where they fit. Other teams either don’t move at all despite spaces open above them, some are added anywhere on the ballot if that’s where they seem appropriate (I would only add in the bottom in the early days), and I leap-frog teams a lot more than in the past. I will even move teams down despite the fact they are winning.

Ok… that was a lot. My basic point is that this week I ran into a circumstance where the middle of my previous ballot had faltered, and I wasn’t really that confident with what teams to fill those spots. Moving some teams up didn’t feel like the right decision, but that would mean teams I no longer felt were the “x” ranked team would not move at all. It caused me to seriously scratch my head and come up with some interesting decisions.

With that, let’s just get to the ballot. I may not put in a lot of thoughts for these teams, but it can still give you an idea how this single voter is considering things.

A reminder, here is last week’s ballot.

Now on to my Week 9 ballot:

1 – Nebraska Wesleyan (NC)

2 – Whitman (Up 1)

3 – UW-Oshkosh (Up 1)

Augustana was tripped up in the CCIW which should have surprised no one.

4 – Augustana (Down 3)
The Vikings losing in the CCIW is the least surprising news this year. Of course they were going to lose in the conference. I am not surprised they lost at North Central. Per that, though, the reason I moved them down is games have been a bit closer than I would have expected in the last few weeks. Some games have been in hand, but games against Carroll, Elmhurst, and Carthage give me pause. It was nice to see the Vikings explode against North Park.

5 – St. Thomas (NC)
I write something here only to say, I never considered moving the Tommies into my Top 4 despite Augustana’s loss. I think the top four are their own entity. Losses in that group, unless getting to excess, will most likely result in just a rotation in that top four. St. Thomas is good, but I am also nervous that this young team is flying a little too close to the sun.

6 – MIT (Up 1)

7 – Randolph-Macon (Up 1)

8 – Hamilton (Up 6)
Yeah… the Continentals are all over my ballot and I couldn’t really tell you why. Depends on when you ask me the question. There are times I am bullish on only two losses, outscoring opponents by 20+ points, and other strong “on paper” items. There are other times that I am more bearish on what Hamilton is doing this season. Results against opponents I didn’t think should be close (Tufts) or turnover-plagued games concern me. And sometimes, I probably just over think it. Hamilton jumps up thanks to the fact that I am more bullish right now and the vacuum allowed significant jumps.

9 – Swarthmore (Up 7)
Ryan describe Swarthmore well on Hoopsville Monday night – saying a lot of how I feel. They are a darn good team, but sometimes they don’t seem to be in the right gear on offense. Having seen them, I have the pieces of a very dangerous team that could get to Fort Wayne … but then they have results like a loss to Ursinsus (who is good, but …) and a close game to Haverford causes me to shake my head. The Garnet is very good … trust me.

Wooster has skyrocketed up Dave’s ballot as he has bought in on the Scots in the last few weeks. (Courtesy: Wooster Athletics)

10 – Wooster (Up 8)
The vacuum on my ballot really cased some craziness. Heck, the Scots weren’t even on my ballot a few weeks ago (they were on my radar). I am finally bought in. Here is another example of a great conversation with Ryan on Monday’s Hoopsville. We finally see the Scots are actually for real and understand the three-game losing streak in December was just … weird.

11 – Whitworth (Down 1)
The Pirates might be leaking oil. No, a loss to Whitman didn’t surprise me. Basically not being in that game (until late) and then nearly dropping the game against Lewis & Clark later in the week is surprising. I couldn’t tell you exactly what’s wrong. Illness certainly could be a factor as Kyle Roach wasn’t himself against Willamette (though, he played 32 minutes) and he didn’t seem 100% against Whitman, but coaches will tell you that isn’t an excuse (Logie actually did say that on the Hoopsville Marathon). I just am worried Whitworth has boxed themselves into a corner. A win over Whitman would have been huge this season. They might not only play themselves out of giving the national committee a chance to shift them somewhere in the country the first weekend, but they may be in danger of not even making the tournament as an at-large team.

12 – St. John’s (Down 6)
Could the Johnnies have peaked too soon? It’s a thought I’ve had recently. Losses to Carleton and Bethel are … they can’t happen. Coupled with a loss to St. Thomas already and SJU is in a spot where they now have to win out to be in a good position in the MIAC race AND stay in the conversation about even hosting, or being in a good pod, the opening weekend of the NCAA Tournament. Four losses … for a team that is far better than that.

13 – Marietta (NC)

14 – Capital (Down 2)

North Central has been relying heavily on Connor Rairdon due to other injuries this season. (Courtesy: North Central Athletics)

15 – North Central (Up 5)
I should probably just direct you to my comments on Monday’s Hoopsville where I picked the Cardinals as my Dubious selection. I know they got a win over Augustana at home and they only have a few losses, but it feels like they are just getting by. A close win to Millikin throws up flags for me. And I know it took place a month ago, but I still can’t the loss to Ohio Northern out of my head.

16 – Williams (Down 7)
The loss to Bowdoin bugs me. That shouldn’t have been a game if the Ephs are as good as they have seemed. It was a great game by the Polar Bears, but it went to overtime and Williams allowed that to come down to a last second shot in the corner. Middlebury played the same two teams this weekend (in reverse order) and didn’t seem to have as much trouble. Maybe I am overacting. I just feeling somewhat bearish and have for a while.

17 – Wabash (Down 6)
I can’t keep writing about every team, but some of these squads I am losing faith in how I felt previously. The Little Giants’ loss to Allegheny … was … it just … I mean … really? The follow up to a big game, and loss, to Wooster was a loss to Allegheny? By 12? I am very glad Wabash refocused to get past Hiram, but the damage has already been done.

18 – Nichols (Up 1)

19 – Pomona-Pitzer (Up 2)

Amherst is back on Dave’s ballot after going through the week unscathed. (Courtesy: Amherst Athletics)

20 – Amherst (NR)
I am so undecided about the Mammoths. I had them ranked two weeks ago, then they lost, so I removed them from my ballot. Then this past week Amherst blows through Tufts and Bates, but that wasn’t really something that I would rank them. I got to a point in this level of the ballot where there were not a lot of great options. I looked at a lot of teams and

didn’t feel comfortable with a majority of them being consider “Top 25 squads.” Amherst feels more like a Top 25 team right now than the others.

21 – Guilford (Up 3)

22 – Arcadia (NR)
Just read the Amherst reasoning and consider Arcadia. I like the Knights and really like their defense. That said, I still don’t love their close results this past week. I actually second guessed this decision after the poll was released and it was too late to change my vote. That said, I am not really sure who I would have replaced Arcadia with.

23 – Loras (Down 8)
You cannot defeat the (then) number one team in the country and it is the FILLING to a loss-sandwich (Wartburg and Dubuque before and after). You also cannot lose to a team like Dubuque, rival notwithstanding, for the second time in the season. I know very well that Loras is a good team, but they are the definition of inconsistent right now. I was very tempted to drop them altogether, but a five-loss team that has recently defeated one of the top team in the country is going to get the benefit of the doubt, slightly, from me right now.

Christopher Newport appears on Dave’s ballot of the first time this season. (Courtesy: CNU Athletics)

24 – Christopher Newport (NR)
So, I am now voting for the Captains, but I don’t have to like it! I am sure they are thrilled to read that. Some of the reasons I think CNU has the record they have is they are in what is a down Capital Athletic Conference. Their losses aren’t bad, but for some reason I can’t figure out what is about this team that makes them a Top 25 team (considering their ranking leading up to this week). Maybe I am missing it, but this week I voted because I had a spot and CNU was better than others I was considering – I think. Hopefully, I can learn more about the Captains on Thursday’s Hoopsville when John Krikorian joins us (knock on wood).

25 – Centre (NR)
I’ve been keeping an eye on the Colonels for a while now. Much like CNU and others, I am just not sure if Centre is that good or if the conference is a by-product of their success. Meaning: the wins are coming from a conference that isn’t able to compete. Centre also has a bad loss to Augustana, but I have also chalked that up to a team in this part of my Top 25 is probably not supposed to be on the same level as those in the top four or five. Thus, that result isn’t really a surprise.

Dropped Out:

Lynchburg (Previously 17)
This is going to be short and simple: The Hornets have lost four in a row. No chance I can keep them on my ballot with those circumstances.

UW-Lacrosse (Previously 22)
With the Eagles it came down to this: The win over Stevens Point was very good, but the loss to Platteville not-so-much. That isn’t to say that the Pioneers aren’t good enough that it’s consider a bad loss, but for me it was the wrong game to lose last week. The WIAC is difficult, but the best teams need to rise above it. With a sixth loss, I’m a little nervous.

UW-Stevens Point dropped off Dave’s ballot in part to the fact that UW-Lacrosse also dropped off. (Courtesy: UWSP Athletics)

UW-Stevens Point (Previously 23)
The Pointers at least didn’t lose the wrong game last week (River Falls), but they did lose to Lacrosse. The decision came down to this: I removed Lacrosse and I couldn’t justify also leaving UWSP on the ballot; 14-6 is a hard record to keep on a ballot despite how difficult the record.

Wheaton (Ill.) (Previously 25)
As goes Francis, so goes the Thunder. I’ve said that before, but it isn’t entirely true. Francis continues to play well, but Wheaton has gotten to a point in the season where they needed to have another option to keep opponents from only focusing Francis. That said, losing to Carroll could be a season-shortening result. There were points in the second half Wheaton was down double-digits. Inexcusable. Unacceptable.

Previous Ballots:
Week 8
Week 7
Week 6
Week 4
Preseason (Top 10, 11-20, Final Five)

Not sure if I learned anything this week let alone you as the reader. Heading into the first Regional Rankings and the final few weeks of the season, I am not sure anything is clearer as to who are the top teams in the country. A number of teams seem to be fading, others surging, and some just coasting along. Best I can tell you is outside of the top four, I am not really sure I have my finger on things properly. I may have a completely different point of view next week and change all these positions radically.

post

Greenville coach’s take on the run to 200

Posted on by

Greenville coach George Barber has seen and heard it all about his team’s 200-point outing on Saturday, and how the team got to that final point total. He shared his thoughts with D3hoops.com, and they run below, unedited.

With 173 points and with roughly 6 minutes to go, I said “Go for it.” I had never seen that many points on a scoreboard with that much time left in the game.

I knew I would take heat; I deserve any scorn people might have, and hope I respond well. I said, “If they keep trying to score, we will keep trying to score.”

There was a palpable shift in the crowd in the final minutes from “Will they win?”, to “Will they get 200?” You could feel it.

With 10 seconds to go, opponent’s ball and at 198 points, I called time out. I told the team, “You will never be this close again. Never. So go for a steal or foul but give yourself a chance. If we don’t get it (200) no problem, but being this close, you will regret if you don’t try.”

They got it.

A lot of the angst centers around winning and losing, and where sportsmanship fits in once one of those possibilities is certain. This brings up a point we make with our team all the time. Is winning an idol? We have a wallpaper sign in our locker room that says: “De-emphasize the Win, Play with Freedom.” If you take away the possibility of winning, (or losing) will you still play hard? Is it only about winning and losing? With our style we can be up 30 and lose, down 30 and come back and win, and even if there is no possibility of one or the other, will you give it your best? Will you give it your absolute best?

This was a conference game against a team that has beaten us often. Earlier in January we beat them by 12, and were losing with about 10 minutes to play.

I was nervous because it was Senior Day with a lot of distractions and was just hoping we would play well. One of my starting point guards (we rotate 10-15 players a game and call anyone in the top 10 a starter) was out with an injury (he literally told me as we sent him to the scorer’s table checking in – I can’t go). So instead, we played a JV point guard (2nd Varsity game ever) all game. We had suspensions, ineligibility due to lack of financial aid and unpaid bills, and academic dismissals, etc. The bench was full of guys in street clothes. I was just hoping to survive. We caught fire from the three, and as the game wound down, I remember thinking, I’ve never seen a score this high (173), with this much time on the clock (just over 6 mins) and that’s when I made a decision: If they (opponents) keep trying to score, we’ll keep trying to score and see what happens. I knew some people would crucify me, but with seniors playing in front of their parents, some for the first time live in a college uniform, we would go for it. I emphasized trying (for the goal), not necessarily getting it (the 200), in the last five minutes.

After the game we had, as I expected, some negative feedback. I deserved all of that. After the time out with 10 seconds to go (we rarely call a time out in System play) I told the team to, by all means, possible (steal or foul) get the ball back and to give yourselves a chance to get 200. As I sat down beside my assistant after the time out, I said, “No matter what the outcome, I will never regret calling that time out. I want to give the kids a chance to do something amazing.”

At that point I felt 198 to whatever the opponents had would not have been as memorable as 200 would be.

We had no idea that the D-III record was 201, and didn’t care and still don’t. As a System coach, pushing the edges of what’s possible you wonder if that’s possible. System Patriarchs ask that question about scoring 200 in the book “The System,” and in calls. The authors said they never got 200, although they tried, but never were able to achieve it, so that’s all we were going for when it got close. As long as they kept trying to score (and they did) we would keep trying to score as well. That was the only way we would go for it. It’s like doing anything extraordinary you have to have co-facilitators, otherwise it’s not any fun, or as legit. Since this was a conference game, and against a team that beat us last year in a double overtime NCAA combined scoring record setting game, and not in any way an inferior team we scheduled to run the score up against, I thought, this is as legit as it gets. It’s as fair as it gets, it’s how we play, it’s the last 5 or 6 minutes of the game and we are close enough for me to say, “I’ll let the kids go for it.”

George Barber and his seniors, who were honored before the game. (Greenville athletics photo)

They (the team) hate it when I pull the press off. We don’t even practice, ever, defense without a press.

Side note, a couple of weeks ago, we were up 40 with 10 mins to go and my assistant said maybe we should consider taking off the press. I agreed and you could see a real let down in the kids. I told them we don’t want any hard feeling with the opponent’s coach. The opponent from that point on stormed back in the game, however we held on to win by 12 or 13. In that game, we had two players in the same shift (unusual) with a lot of points. One had over 30, and one had 28. I asked the one with 28 (and the entire team) not to shoot allowing him to go for 30. He was frustrated, but he complied and dribbled out the last 30 seconds. I felt bad for him, but was so proud of his compliance and deference to me and my decision to put team goals and relationships above his personal goals.

In the 200 point game, I wondered if people might understand the desire to reach that goal. Some do not, at least for now. I truly feel bad about that because I think preserving relationships is important. I just felt I would take that risk since 200 was such a “way out there, number.”

After the game, we introduced parents and guests, and follow that our usual “Put-up’s” (we do this whether we win or lose), where we let players give each other compliments about things they did well during the game, followed by an “ATTAWAAAY!” cheer from the team. After our Put-Up’s I told them, “You just went to the moon! Not very many people get to go to the moon! (Scoring 200) Also, not everyone likes it that you went to the moon. Their will be some that don’t like it and will say negative things. Our job will be to respond graciously to both compliments and negative comments.” They all nodded, we had a little further conversation, and it was a great teaching moment.

I almost feel like I have to apologize for doing this, and certainly that’s fair for some to think. I remember the first time we played System basketball, and the agonizing decisions I had to make after thoroughly researching this style of play before making that decision to go for it. I knew, once we went for it, there was no going back. On long, silent, in the dark early morning jogs, trying to contemplate all the implications of playing this style of basketball, and fully aware of the possible negative reactions, I decided to paint Picasso style. I felt we needed it in our game and at least for me and our program. It had the possibility to take some of the holy emphasis off winning. It could “release” the energy of the young people, as opposed to “harnessing” that energy. It would increase participation from traditional 8-man rotations to possibly double that number. I felt all these were positive things. Plus, I felt it would be exciting and fun. It would require super buy-in (a good thing), require super unselfishness (a good thing), and allow more people to get on the floor and in the game when the game was on the line. Increased participation would allow me to at least engage more guys, believe in more guys, and have ministry with more guys.

When we unfurled The System for the first time to an unsuspecting Illinois Wesleyan team coached by my friend Ron Rose in the Shirk Center in Bloomington. I had a prepared apology for Ron after the game. We lost 150 something to 117, and as planned, I apologized in the line shaking hands after the game. To my surprise Ron hugged me and said, “This looked good, keep it up!”. That was a great encouragement to me. I wondered if he would have said that if somehow, we would have come out victorious over the Titans. Either way, it meant a lot to me. After the game, in the locker room at IWU, I said, “I know you lost by 30-something, but I am proud of how you fought the entire game! And, you just set a record for the most points scored by an opponent in the Shirk Center.” It was a start!

Another weird side note. During President Lincoln’s tenure, Secretary of War Stanton has to order executions for deserters. I read that wives, mothers, and children would go to his office to plea for a pardon. He felt though that to keep discipline and for the larger purpose, he would not choose to give the pardon. As he families left, he would retreat to a back room and weep. I made the decision to let my guys go for 200, because in the end I thought it would be special. Some may disagree with what I did, and I have to take that responsibility and shoulder that reality. I do not want it to permanently damage relationships, and would weep about that. I hope I respond graciously to both those who agree and those that disagree with what I did.

Dave’s Top 25 Ballot (’18-’19): Week 8

Posted on by

Last week was interesting. About midway through the week, it seemed like it might be a somewhat calm week in terms of outcomes and upsets. Then we entered the weekend and it got far more interesting. Big wins, surprising defeats, and incredible endings provided Top 25 voters (in both polls) a lot to contemplate Sunday evening and Monday.

The biggest question: Who should be the number one team in men’s basketball?

This is about the time of a season when the conference grind does present some interesting results. I am no longer surprised when several different outcomes suddenly change how I am voting or how I perceive teams. The challenge really has become determining who really is good and who may be rising thanks to smoke and mirrors.

I appreciate the fact there are 25 different voters from around the country even more in weeks like these as well. We all have different opinions and that not only makes for fascinating decisions, but also great conversation. My chat with Bob Quillman on Sunday’s Hoopsville was helpful and insightful just as my weekly conversations with Ryan Scott has become. It also proves that one can have two completely different viewpoints, and both realize the other could change your opinion.

Bob and I debated the “who is number one” question and I’ll admit, I was thinking about changing my decision after a while. He seemed to indicate the same. It could have gone on for hours, because when you start peeling back more and more layers, the more interesting discoveries and more questions are brought up.

Voting for who should be number one, or should be in any position on the poll, is not cut and dry even when it looks like it should be on paper. It only gets more difficult and more blurred the further down the poll you go. There are legitimately many teams that one could argue deserve to have some attention for the Top 25. There isn’t a single team in the country that isn’t flawed or unbeatable. I’ve said that since Day 1 of this season. I think we are seeing it more now than earlier in the season.

So who is my number one team? Well, I already gave that away multiple times before voting, but here is my ballot for Week 8. Just a reminder, here is how I voted in Week 7.

NWU remains Dave’s #1 pick thanks in part to precedent.

1 – Nebraska Wesleyan (NC)
I am not going to jump off the Prairie Wolves selection just because they lost. I’ve said from the beginning of the season that no team was going to go undefeated. That included NWU. The fact they lost to the second-best team in the ARC on the road is a large reason why I didn’t feel removing Nebraska Wesleyan from the top spot was necessary. I still think they are the best, deepest, most talented team in the country. I also would be hypocritical as a few years ago when Augustana lost their first game in CCIW play (something, again, that isn’t unexpected), I didn’t move them from number-one either.

2 – Augustana (NC)
I think Bob raised some good points as to why voting for the Vikings to be the top team in the country would make sense. He nearly got me to change my mind. Augustana does seem to be clicking well, but I am still a little leery of close results against teams that should be tight games in conference play. Yes, Augie hasn’t lost in the CCIW this season and that is becoming complicated. If they were to go undefeated (all else being equal), I am telling you now I am going to have to re-examine my vote here. In the meantime, Augustana’s close results in the last few weeks, coupled with a tough stretch ahead (especially on the road), plus the fact Loras has beaten both Nebraska Wesleyan AND Augustana (plus the DII Augustana) this season … gives me confidence in leaving by #1 and #2 picks solid no matter the outcomes this past week.

3 – Whitman (NC)

4 – UW-Oshkosh (Up 1)

5 – St. Thomas (Up 2)

6 – St. John’s (Up 3)

7 – MIT (Up 3)

8 – Randolph-Macon (Up 3)

9 – Williams (Up 3)

Willamette upended Whitworth which caused the Pirates to plunged down Dave’s ballot, but not out of the Top 10. (Courtesy: Willamette Athletics)

10 – Whitworth (Down 4)
I have said before I think this is the best Pirates squad I have seen on the court. Yes. That includes the overall number one team many moons back. I have also said that while they have the talent, I still am concerned about the drop off on the bench and how they can play “down” to their opponents. The NWC has improved and the bottom teams are no longer nearly as bad, however that doesn’t excuse the loss to Willamette (granted on the road). Those are games Whitworth must win to stay in the NCAA conversation AND allow the committee to get their way and split the Whits come NCAA Tournament time. Now there is also more pressure on the Pirates to win, on the road, at Whitman Tuesday night.

11 – Wabash (Down 3)
I didn’t move the Little Giants down as much as some may have expected due to their loss to Wooster for the following reasons: It was on the road at a difficult place to play; I am now more in the camp of understanding Wooster is a good team; there are plenty of teams below Wabash I still think they are better than. I may still have Wabash higher (and Wooster lower) than most, but I also think Wabash is a very good team. They got into a 14-0 hole against the Scots and stormed back. That speaks volumes.

12 – Capital (Up 1)

13 – Marietta (Up 1)

14 – Hamilton (Down 8)
The Continentals made Colby look good … or maybe Colby is good? Hamilton dropped a home game against a team they should have seen coming. The Mules had already knocked off Amherst the night before and had to travel to Clinton, New York. I don’t give Hamilton much slack for losing that game as a result. They didn’t shoot very well, and they struggled to stop a Colby team that clearly was confident, but again Hamilton should have seen coming and was prepared to handle. BTW, 11 turnovers to just five assists… those TOs are hurting Hamilton especially when they are shooting .393 for a game.

The image that has been seen around DIII this past week. Reactions from Loras after defeating previously undefeated NWU. (Courtesy: Loras Athletics)

15 – Loras (Up 1)
The Duhawks basically remained stable despite their win over Nebraska Wesleyan. They had lost to Wartburg earlier in the week which meant the game against NWU was close to a must-win. They also were the one team in conference I felt could beat NWU – that seemed clear after they beat Augustana earlier in the season. Loras’ problem is inconsistency (common refrain for many). They lose to NWU two weeks ago by 18 and then barely get past Coe. They blitz Central and then barely get past Buena Vista and lose to Wartburg. Loras is a good team, but they must buckle down the rest of the way especially considering their rival, Dubuque, who already knocked them off this season is next.

16 – Swarthmore (Up 1)

17 – Lynchburg (Down 2)
I considered dropping the Hornets a few more spots, but kind of ran into a bubble where I didn’t think they were worse than those below them. Losing two games last week is tough, though they lost to Randolph-Macon ranked ahead of them (thus expected) and to Guilford that is proving to be a giant killer in the ODAC (and probably underappreciated; clipped the Hornets twice this season). The only thing that bugs me was both games were at Turner Gymnasium. That feels unacceptable. I am not sure if Lynchburg rose too high too soon, but I will be watching games against Roanoke and others to see how they respond.

The Scots were a jumpin’ after defeating Wabash, at home, to split the series with the Little Giants and get Dave to now buy in. (Courtesy: Wooster Athletics)

18 – Wooster (NR)
Okay, I’m buying in to the Scots, for now. I just haven’t been that impressed in what has been a crazy Great Lakes and NCAC. However, they had a smart game-plan against Wabash and took advantage of opportunities. The stretch of three losses in December clearly was an example of “the reports of Wooster’s death are greatly exaggerated.” The real challenge now is not to let their guard down. Ohio Wesleyan is around the corner and rematch for Wittenberg looks … not to mention the rest of the conference including DePauw which would love nothing more than to knock off Wooster. But I’m buying in …

19 – Nichols (Up 1)

20 – North Central (Ill.) (Up 1)

21 – Pomona-Pitzer (NR)
I am also buying into the Sagehens, for now. There are only two things I chalk up to note worthy so far for Pomona-Pitzer: A double-overtime win over Whitman and having just one loss (to WashU following the Whitman game) on the season at this point. There are more question marks when it comes to their schedule than almost anyone else in the poll or being considered. The SCIAC is hard to grasp as so many teams play schedules unrelatable to the rest of DIII, so is a win over Occidental really all that great? But a 14-game winning streak and solid wins in their last three, including against Claremont-Mudd-Scripps, left me very little reason to keep them off my ballot.

UW-Lacrosse is one of several teams at the bottom of Dave’s ballot who have five losses, but four of the Eagles losses happened in November. (Courtesy: UWL Athletics)

22 – UW-Lacrosse (NR)
Welcome to the “Five-Loss Club” of my ballot. I struggled mightily with this part of my ballot. The Eagles are sitting a game out of first place in the WIAC and any team that high should probably be ranked in the Top 25. That said, their losses this season to Ripon, Central, and Elmhurst make one shake their head – because if they are good enough to be near the top of the WIAC, they should be good enough to win those games. Granted, three of their losses came in a four-game stretch in November, but they still lost to Elmhurst in late December. You then counter that information with wins over Whitewater (twice), Stevens Point, and Platteville in conference play and it change the equation again. So, I’m riding what is happening more now than in November … but UWSP and UWP are the next two games on tap. Take note.

23 – UW-Stevens Point (Down 4)
Despite winning two games this past week, the decision to move the Pointers down was more about where other teams were being positioned. I also felt Lacrosse was playing better than UWSP and I couldn’t justify Stevens Point being higher. So, no fault of their own, but maybe a “heat check” on where I had UWSP in the first place – I didn’t bring them far enough down last week.

24 – Guilford (NR)
Similar to UW-Lacrosse, I felt I needed to recognize the “now” from the Quakers versus the earlier season results. They, too, lost most of their games in November. Four out of five to be exact in a six-game, 15-day span. Those losses were all two-possessions or less as well. Since then, they have lost just one game in 13 and have a sweep of Lynchburg and win over Randolph-Macon. The only reason they aren’t head of Lynchburg with that sweep is that five losses and a loss to Roanoke is holding down. There is a real chance they flip with Lynchburg later.

25 – Wheaton (NC)

Dropped Out:

Rochester has a lot of good weapons at their disposal but 3-3 in their last six games has resulted in coming off Dave’s ballot. (Courtesy: Rochester Athletics)

Rochester (Previously 19)
It almost feels like the old “NYU Effect” with the Yellowjackets, except that I know they played a pretty decent out-of-conference schedule. However, conference play hasn’t been as good. Rochester is 3-3 in their last six games in UAA play and dropped a game this past weekend to, improved, Brandeis. I am just not sure the UAA has a Top 25 team right now. The conference turns the page on the schedule this week and the cream will most likely rise to the top very soon. Then Rochester or whomever (Emory, Chicago, WashU) may reemerge as a Top 25 team.

Amherst (Previously 22)
When there is as much parity and diversity of teams in Division III, I struggle to keep a team in the 20s ranked when they take a loss, I figure, they shouldn’t. Losing to Colby, even if it was the first game, is hard to swallow especially when it comes somewhat on the heels of an emotional win against Williams. Colby was also at LeFrak Gymnasium which makes that loss a bit harder to wrap one’s head around. The NESCAC is always a grind, but these are the games the top teams should be winning.

Many will tell you Arcadia is a very good team that is flying under the radar with a stellar defense. Unfortunately, they couldn’t stop Rosemont. (Courtesy: Arcadia Athletics)

Arcadia (Previously 23)
The Knights lost the day I put them on my ballot. Dropping the game to Rosemont is not a quality result. Nothing against the Ravens who I think haven’t had as good a season as they should be having, but Arcadia should have dominated that game. They then followed it up with a narrow win, on the road, against a depleted Stevenson unit. I still buy in that Arcadia is a darn good defensive team that may make waves in March, but they need to refocus here in January and early February.

Wesleyan (Previously 24)
While the Cardinals dropped their fifth game which puts them in the same company as UWL, UWSP, Guilford, and Wheaton, the difference is Wesleyan did it this past week and the rest of that core did not. Furthermore, the loss to Tufts (10-10) doesn’t look as good as it did in the last few years. The Cardinals continue to be plagued by inconsistency, by my vantage point, and can ill-afford to lose very more games if they have NCAA hopes.

Previous Ballots:
Week 7
Week 6
Week 4
Preseason (Top 10, 11-20, Final Five)

There you have it. Yes, there are a lot of teams I don’t have on my ballot that some feel should be there. I feel they have a place as well, but I don’t have more than 25 slots. I went through a lot of versions that had the 18-25 positions constantly being erased and new teams inserted. This was the best I could settle on for this week.

Next week could be a completely different story.

Don’t forget to tune into Hoopsville Thursday and Sunday nights throughout the season. While we are normally on the air 7-9 PM ET those evenings, Thursday this week we have the annual “Marathon Show” which will start at 12pm ET and run until about 8pm. We are also moving Sunday’s show to Monday due to some conflicts (and Super Bowl Sunday) and start at 7pm ET. To watch the show, log onto www.d3hoopsville.com or follow us on Twitter (@d3hoopsville) and Facebook (www.facebook.com/Hoopsville) for direct show links and more information.

“Because if you want to talk about Division III basketball, you’ve got to watch Hoopsville!”

Division III has leverage in important NCAA-wide vote

Posted on by

D-III Business Session at NCAA Convention (Courtesy: NCAA.org)

I will start admitting it is far too late to bring up these ideas if no one in Division III has thought or discussed them. The time to think and debate on these was the past few months. There is also not a lot of time in Orlando this week to think or debate these because the NCAA wants the media recognition.

Division II and Division III have a golden opportunity this week at the annual NCAA Convention in Orlando. They have the chance to remind not only their brethren in Division I, but the entire country, that despite how it looks the NCAA is truly run by its membership – and not just those in the Power Five.

A major vote to be considered by all three divisions is to change the structure of the NCAA Board of Governors. In the fallout of the recent Division I men’s basketball situation regarding shoe companies and payments to recruits, their families, and members of coaching staffs, one of the major recommendations from an independent review is to add five non-NCAA, conference, or school members to the Board of Governors (BOG).

The 20-member BOG is made up of NCAA membership comprising of 16 voting members and four non-voting members (i.e. NCAA President, former members, etc.). Of those 16 voting members, eight are chancellors or presidents from the D-I Board of Directors from the Football Bowl Subdivision institutions, two from the D-I Board of Directors from the Football Championship Subdivision, two from the Division I Board of Directors from Division I at-large, two from Division II, and two from Division III.

The recommendation to add five independent members to the BOG will be decided at a rare Thursday vote to be held in conjunction with the official opening of the NCAA Convention and “state of the NCAA” speech from NCAA President Mark Emmert. However, there has been some discussion on whether Division III should support the vote.

Courtesy: NCAA.org

This past fall, the Division III President’s Council (the highest board in Division III’s governance) showed general support for the added members, but there was also some concern. Some voiced a need for transparency for how the new members would be selected and interest in diversity not only in who the individuals are, but the fields in which they originate.

Meanwhile, the Division III Commissioners Association (DIIICA) expressed concerns that the five new members on their own would out-number Division III representation further diminishing Division III representation (new membership would outnumber D-II and D-III representation combined). They formally requested that the process of selection of the new members to include one-on-one time with Division III Board of Governor representatives. They also requested that individuals with a “Division III perspective” also be considered for the selections.

I have also been told by several source that there are institutions in Division III who have voiced their interest in voting down the BOG plan. There is also interest by some in DII to do the same.

While I support the idea of five “public members” to be added to the NCAA Board of Governors, I think there is an opportunity for Division II and Division III to make sure they are properly heard and represented. Unfortunately, the vote on this measure will take place on Thursday evening which is unheard of for any kind of vote, even division-wide measures. The last division-wide measure requiring all three divisions to approve was held a few years ago when women’s beach volleyball was added as a 90th sport in the NCAA. That vote was held during the usual Business Sessions on Saturday mornings where all three divisions gather in their own convention rooms (halls) and vote individually on division-only and NCAA-wide legislation.

This Thursday vote is being done for one obvious reason: media attention. The NCAA gets to say this has been “approved” on Thursday night and all-day Friday it is discussed (and, the NCAA hopes, applauded) by the media on Friday. Wait until Saturday to vote as would be the norm … and you won’t hear any serious discussions (or applause) until Monday when it already might be a distant memory.

Division III voting at NCAA Convention (Courtesy: NCAA.org)

Because the vote is taking place on Thursday evening, there is less time for Division II and III to possibly make a power move. Discussions will have already needed to take place over the phone, email, or in random gatherings. Not at the usual “Issues Forum” held on Friday mornings where Divisions come together to discuss the current legislation to be voted on and take straw votes on possible future legislation and ideas.

What kind of power move could Division III, or combined with Division II, make? Remember, Division III is made up of 450 institutions. Compare that to less than 350 in Division I and around 300 in Division II. Division III has more membership and with the help of Division II – even a little more than half – they could derail this vote and force Division I to listen to Division III’s concerns or ideas.

There are two ideas that could benefit Division III that would be worth pursuing. The first, which I’m told is already being discussed, would be to make sure one of the five public positions on the BOG must be a Division III individual. Someone with a Division III background and understanding that could represent the Division from the more public point of view. Division II could demand the same causing the balance on the BOG to remain somewhat the same as now.

The other idea: More money.

Division III operating budget for 2017-18 (Courtesy: NCAA.org)

We constantly discuss, complain, and shake our heads at how Division III being the largest division in the NCAA only gets 3.18% of the overall NCAA operating budget – the smallest allocation. That equates to around $30.2 million (per the 2017-18 budget), but we see how in all sports where the championship committees must make sacrifices to stay within the budgetary limits put in place. 75-percent of the D-III budget goes to championships and that still isn’t enough for the 28 team championships each year in the division. It isn’t enough to make sure two top ten football teams don’t face off in the first round or several conference foes in basketball don’t see each other in the opening weekend.

Division III could use its leverage to get a little bit more money from Division I.

Of course, Division I brings in about 98% of the operating budget to begin with thanks primarily to the TV contract with CBS/Turner to put on the Division I men’s basketball tournament. It is their money they are giving up, by NCAA rule, to the other divisions. However, that doesn’t mean this isn’t an opportunity Division III could capitalize on for the betterment of the division — a division even D-I speaks highly of for being the champion of the “student-athlete.”

Imagine if four or five percent of the NCAA operating budget went to Division III? D-II gets 4.37% of the overall operating budget. That equated to $42.7 million in the latest figures put on NCAA.org. That is $12.5 million more than D-III, for a division that has two-thirds the membership. Could you imagine how far that additional $12 million a year would go in D-III?

Again, I am coming at this a little late. I would hope that those at the DIIICA, President’s Council, or others have maybe already thought this through and maybe had these discussions. While D-III understands it doesn’t bring a ton of money to the table ($436,500 in membership dues), D-I needs D-III (along with D-II) to go along with this vote to be sure it passes. D-I would have egg on its faces if this vote were to fail, so making sure either one of the new public five BOG members is a D-III representative or the division has its budget allocation raised a percentage point or two (or both!) isn’t the worst deal to make. It is a drop in the bucket, literally.

By the way, a budgetary increase for Division III would also require an NCAA-wide vote and that’s where this plan becomes complicated. If I were in these conversations, I would make sure that budgetary increase was approved first before D-III then voted on the BOG membership. If it was done the other way around, there are no guarantees D-I or others would approve the increase after the fact. If that happened, D-III would have lost its leverage.

It seems D-III and D-II have an opportunity to not only help D-I improve itself (and thus the image of the NCAA), but improve their situations as well. Unfortunately, I am not sure there is time to pull it off.

Dave’s Top 25 Ballot (’18-’19): Week 7

Posted on by

Welcome to my D3hoops.com Men’s Top 25 ballot blog. If you are familiar with this and have read it before, thanks for coming back. If you are new, welcome. I try and do this as often as I can – weekly is the goal – to give those interested insight on how at least one voter approaches the time and work to put a ballot together and how this voter ends up voting. A reminder that I am just one voter and I don’t expect any other voters to vote like I do, nor necessarily agree with my approach or reasoning. My take on things may be completely off one week and spot on the next (ok … maybe not that last part LOL).

This week I found my ballot had developed at least three “sections.” A top tier of team I am very comfortable knowing are some of the best in the country. A second tier I think are teams who are very good and could compete with the top tier but have shown flaws or inconsistencies so far this season – or I am just not sure are as good as their resume seems to indicate. Then a third tier of teams that are flawed, are not rising to their potential, or are difficult to truly grasp how good they are … or are not!

Whitman Blues are one of five teams Dave is comfortable saying are the best in the country.

One thing that has developed for quite a few weeks, I’m pretty set with my top five. They have shown to be the best in the country and no other teams have shown they should be in that group. It is the ballot spots after the top five where things get more interesting.

I can explain it more later, but I found myself in an endless loop near the end with the final five, maybe eight, poll positions. I could insert a number of teams that both felt like Top 25 teams, but also didn’t feel like squads that should be there. There are probably 15-20 teams I could slot into those five to eight spots and no combination was going to make me feel I had the right teams in the right spots.

In the last few blogs, I shared my thoughts on all the teams on my ballot. I won’t be doing that moving forward. I will select a few based on either movement up or down, being added or removed. If you are interested in my thoughts on teams, I have links shared with each ballot throughout and at the bottom of each blog.

The one thing I do feel comfortable saying: there are a lot of very good teams in Division III men’s basketball. We expected that fact this season and while some teams haven’t lived up to expectations, others have emerged who we are now talking about. March is going to be wide-open and the national committee is going to face a real challenge trying to balance the bracket the best they can with the limitations they are given.

Allen County War Memorial Coliseum – destination for DIII men’s basketball this season.

I was talking with a voter and another person familiar with the process recently and we all agreed, there are 12, maybe more, teams who could get to Fort Wayne and battle for a national title. Whoever wins this year will not have taken an easy road – no matter where they are in the country.

With that, let’s get to my Week 7 ballot. As a reminder, here is how I voted last week. For reference: NC (No Change); NR (Not Ranked).

1 – Nebraska Wesleyan (NC)

2 – Augustana (NC)

3 – Whitman (NC)

4 – Whitworth (NC)

5 – UW-Oshkosh (NC)

6 – Hamilton (Up 3)
I didn’t want to move the Continentals up at all, but I due to other results and decisions someone had to fill the six-spot. Hamilton got passed SUNY Geneseo in non-conference action, but their only conference game, against Amherst, had to be postponed due to the massive winter storm (I don’t follow the winter storm names, crap; read more why here). That game would have been very helpful and Hamilton benefits as the result of there being no game. Turnovers are still a concern for me especially in conference play.

UST has skyrocketed up Dave’s ballot and are once again back in the conversation atop the MIAC. (Courtesy: Ryan Coleman, D3photography.com

7 – St. Thomas (Up 3)
The Tommies continue their meteoric rise on my ballot (and the overall Top 25 poll) thanks to other results and John Tauer’s ability to get the most out of his team … and get them to focus on doing just that much better than their opponent. UST being back in the picture really makes the Central/West Region national conversation more interesting and complicated. Voters cast their ballots before St. Thomas’ game against St. John’s Monday evening. Tommies prevailed in overtime, but the two teams proved to me why the MIAC has two serious national contenders this season.

8 – Wabash (Up 3)
The Little Giants moved up, like others, mainly because of other results with other programs. I think Wabash is a good team, but this is starting to feel a little too high. I am not sure they are a top ten program. I might be wrong, but I am still leery with this position. These kinds of developments, along with Hamilton’s positioning, usually leads me to completely blow up my ballot in the near future.

9 – St. John’s (Down 2)
The Johnnies are a good team, but they didn’t have a good game against Carleton on Saturday. Stokman, one of the better guards in the country, was 0-10 from the field! Just one or two shots made and SJU is headed into their game with St. Thomas 14-1! I still think, despite their ranking, St. John’s is an under-appreciated program who should prove that between now and March. Of course, SJU ends up losing to UST in their first rivalry game of the season on Monday evening. My thoughts, compiled before the game, aren’t changed too much with that result. However, it did change my thoughts on the control St. John’s has on the MIAC and if they can use the home court to their advantage.

MIT’s AJ Jurko returned from what appeared to be a very scary injury to pour in 37-points against Babson in an OT win. (Courtesy: MIT Athletics)

10 – MIT (Up 7)
For most, the “yo-yo effect” talks about losing and gaining weight. In my voting world, it refers to a team I have all over my ballot from week to week. The Engineers fit that bill currently. If you have read these blogs or listened to Hoopsville, you know I think MIT is a very good team this season. However, they have been dealing with injuries especially with their core five all season. I dropped them significantly last week mainly because three guys were out, and it wasn’t clear when they would return. Don’t look now, two of the three are back including AJ Jurko whose injury against Coast Guard looked severe enough to not only be back boarded to an ambulance and on to the hospital, but also ended the game with just under three minutes to play. His return: 37-point explosion in an overtime win against Babson on Saturday. Hamilton Forsythe has also returned after missing most of the season and reports are Cameron Korb will be back this week – meaning MIT is going to be back at relatively “full strength.”

11 – Randolph-Macon (Up 2)

Williams dropped two games last week to Amherst and Middlebury which caused them to tumble a bit on Dave’s ballot.

12 – Williams (Down 6)
The Ephs had a bad week. First, they dropped their rivalry game at Amherst on Wednesday. Okay. That happens. One should expect that in their rivalry. It ended their unbeaten streak to start the season. I wouldn’t have done much with that. However, Williams then played host to Middlebury and lost that as well. That one is harder to figure, especially coming after a loss when you expect teams to be more focused on being sure to play well.

13 – Capital (NC)

14 – Marietta (NC)

15 – Lynchburg (Up 5)
I have probably been soft pedaling the Hornets for a few weeks now. I haven’t really bought in until now, though they are also in the midst of a very challenging stretch of games. They have gotten through Virginia Wesleyan, Washington & Lee, and Eastern Mennonite. However, the stretch continues with Guilford, Randolph-Macon, and Roanoke in the next three. (The ODAC’s demise is greatly exaggerated.) One little bird shared with me that Lynchburg reminds them of Ramapo from last season. It’s an interesting comment. I look forward to watching at least the next three games.

16 – Loras (NC)

17 – Swarthmore (Down 2)

Bob Semling always seems to have a team clicking defensively, but it seems the Pointers are off their defensive game lately.

18 – UW-Stevens Point (Down 10)
Williams wasn’t the only team who had a rough week. UWSP has had a rough two weeks. They have lost three of their last four to Oshkosh, La Crosse, and Platteville. Sure, the WIAC is the toughest conference in the country currently. Losses aren’t a surprise, so dropping a game to UWO was expected. The UWL outcome was a bit of a surprise, but the Eagles are also having a very good season. It was the UWP defeat that raised my eyebrows. The Pioneers were expected to be a good team this year (I had them on my ballot early in the season), but they have been very inconsistent. Having lost two of three heading into the UWP game, I figured UWSP would respond and show their medal. It didn’t happen. Feels like the rip cord suddenly got pulled. I may have been completely wrong when I felt this team was reminding me of the 2015 national champion squad. Ryan and I discussed the Pointers during the “Top 25 Double-Take” segment on Hoopsville this past Sunday night.

19 – Rochester (Up 2)

20 – Nichols (Up 3)

21 – North Central (Ill.) (Up 3)

22 – Amherst (NR)
The win over Williams gave me some reassurance that the Mammoths were maybe as good as advertised. I just really wish they had the Hamilton game to at least finish off the week and give me a result to counter-act the Williams game. Would they fall trap to Hamilton after the emotional win against the Ephs? Would they actually finish the week with another strong victory? How would it all play out? Amherst didn’t have the game thanks to Mother Nature, and it left me a little leery with this selection … for now. Side note: Our thoughts are with Dave Hixon and his family as they mourn the death of his mother last week.

23 – Arcadia (NR)
The Knights are one of those teams that has been flying under the radar for a while now. They are in one of the most competitive conferences in the country (MAC Commonwealth) that just hasn’t produced a national power. When talking to those who play against Arcadia, they site their solid defense, senior core, and a sophomore who may be the best player in the conference. The challenge with Arcadia is that their schedule doesn’t reveal a lot. You actually get more out of their losses to Salisbury and Swarthmore than their wins. My voting luck can be wrapped up with Arcadia quite well: I buy in and put the Knights on my ballot, and they follow it up immediately with a loss to Rosemont Monday night. This is why voting near the bottom of the ballot can cause one to pull their hair out.

24 – Wesleyan (Up 1)

25 – Wheaton (Ill.) (Down 6)
Those who know me might be surprised I dropped the Thunder so severely when they lost to second-ranked Augustana. As I mentioned last week, the Thunder are living and dying on the play of Aston Francis. He played well. That isn’t the issue. It’s the fact that Wheaton now has four losses on the season, and I am expecting a few more before things are all said and done. At some point, I want to see them beat a significant team. They upset UW-Oshkosh early this season which put the Thunder on everyone’s radar (along with Francis’ play). Since then, Wheaton hasn’t beaten a significant team while mixing in losses to Illinois Tech and North Park (4-14!) – they escaped NPU (82-75) in their rematch last week. Can I keep voting for a team which only has one significant result on it’s resume?

Dropped Out:

Plattsburgh’s Jonathan Patron is most likely not as happy with the position the Cardinals currently find themselves in the SUNYAC.

Plattsburgh State (Previously 18)
Going 0-2 in conference games last week was enough for me to step away from the Cardinals. Jonathan Patron is an outstanding talent, but teams seem to have clipped Plattsburgh’s wings. They just don’t feel like the same, strong team we saw last season. They now have three losses in the SUNYAC which puts them 2.5 games back of first place (Oswego State) and tied with Cortland who just beat them. All three teams in the top four (Oswego, Brockport, & Cortland) have defeated the Cardinals so far this season. Coincidentally, Plattsburgh was another team Ryan and I discussed in the “Top 25 Double-Take” on Hoopsville back on January 13.

Gordon (Previously 22)
I mentioned my nervousness last week about the Fighting Scots. The win over Nichols was good, but they had a lot of results that were tighter than I was comfortable with for a Top 25 team from the CCC. Gordon lost to Western New England this week and I decided it was enough to pull them from my ballot. You could say I was looking for an excuse, but harder to make that excuse when a team keeps winning.

As I indicated above, the last five to eight slots on by ballot could be a mixture including ten to twenty different teams. I have gone ‘round and ‘round this week and in the last few trying to determine who I think should be in those slots. I know other voters are doing the same, though I am surprised there aren’t more teams getting votes each week as a result of those debates. And of course, my luck showed with the choice of Arcadia only to have them promptly lose to Rosemont on Monday evening. Those are literally head-shaking moments for me as a voter.

So, the bottom five to eight can basically “represent” the third tier of men’s basketball which includes several teams and not all can be fit in. That’s little solace to those fans (even coaches) who want to see their team on someone’s ballot and especially the poll, but we can’t vote for everyone. Some may notice there are several one, two, and three loss teams I am not voting for that I have lumped into this third tier. Those teams just haven’t convinced me they are as good as gaudy records seem to indicate. Time will tell which is more accurate, I’m wrong or the records are gaudy, with each individual team.

Previous Blogs:
Week 6
Week 4
Preseason: Final Five
Preseason: 11-20
Preseason: The Top 10