2017 Regional Rankings

[Tyler Madsen]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

Thursday results:
1) Bellarmine def. Southern Indiana, 67-61 (home)
2) Southern Indiana LOST to Bellarmine, 67-61 (road)
3) Ferris State def. Grand Valley, 77-59 (home)
4) Kentucky Wesleyan was idle
5) Findlay def. Walsh, 88-85 (OT; road)
6) Quincy def. Truman, 97-92 (road)
7) Truman LOST to Quincy, 97-92 (home)
8) UW-Parkside def. Lewis, 69-62 (home)

9) Lake Superior State def. Northwood, 83-81 (road)
10) Wayne State def. Saginaw Valley, 57-53 (home)

Next 2 in PI:
1) Ashland def. Tiffin, 78-67 (home)
2) Hillsdale was idle

[The Looter]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

Ferris State beats Grand Valley

77-59

[KnightStalker]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

That is a very deep question and I guess the answer would vary depending on your team sport philosophies. My school of thought is that it matters more who is the best in the end. However, there is a distinction between a team like UIndy who got significantly better and a team that "gets lucky" and makes a cinderella run.

But for a team like Indy isn't that what the saying "wait till next year" is for? They are young and will be good for a couple of years with the team they have. If a team was more senior-oriented than they should have played well from the beginning. I think it's not fair to the team that has been good all season to get knocked out by some team who just happens to get lucky but who really did not deserve to be there when the whole season is compared.

[schnautza]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

Are we trying to find the best team for the whole season or just the best team at the end? (I really don't know that answer)

That is a very deep question and I guess the answer would vary depending on your team sport philosophies. My school of thought is that it matters more who is the best in the end. However, there is a distinction between a team like UIndy who got significantly better and a team that "gets lucky" and makes a cinderella run.

[KnightStalker]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

I'd venture to guess that one good argument would be that some teams develop later in the season- see UIndy for the prime example. Their record isn't good enough for a regional seed at the moment, but they could beat just about anybody now that their team has gelled.

My response to that argument would be the whole season should be the determination of a team's worthiness. Maybe instead of conference tourney play a few more regular season games then and give the Indys of the world a chance to overcome the slow start. Are we trying to find the best team for the whole season or just the best team at the end? (I really don't know that answer)

[KnightStalker]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

That almost sounds like you are actively trying to jinx us.

I would never do that! ;-) Honestly, though if I were to assume BU is #1 seed, playing TNU, AB or Cedarville in the first game would be preferable to playing Parkside or Truman. But if BU was only #2 or #3 seed it would make a matchup against KWC in the first game more likely. Not sure I would want that. I be scared of playing KWC in first round. Not really sure what we would be up against.

[schnautza]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

I guess if I had to choose though, I would rather have no conference tourney at all. Why the heck should they play this long grueling regular season and then let someone get lucky a couple of games to grab the automatic bid? I understand, somewhat, why the big DI conferences do it. Its for the money, of course. But at the D2 level, conference tourneys are financially stupid. If a conference is going to have one, I wouldn't have more than the two division winners playing or at most the top 4 teams. Just doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

I'd venture to guess that one good argument would be that some teams develop later in the season - see UIndy for the prime example. Their record isn't good enough for a regional seed at the moment, but they could beat just about anybody now that their team has gelled.

[KnightStalker]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

That's one thing the GLVC does right at least is seeding 12 teams into the conference tourney. A 15 or 16 team league that only takes 8 into the tourney is likely going to leave some good teams out to dry, just like what has happened with Saginaw and Walsh this year. Of course, the reverse argument is they should have won more league games (not like they didn't know only the top 8 are in) but still I would rather see more teams get a shot at postseason runs than leave out good teams entirely. If the argument against is that you wind up with too many rounds in the conference tourney then maybe you shouldn't push to have so many teams in the league to begin with. Taking the top 8 in a 12 team league is more reasonable, IMO

Of course next year they don't have quite the same issue since they'll be several teams smaller.

I guess if I had to choose though, I would rather have no conference tourney at all. Why the heck should they play this long grueling regular season and then let someone get lucky a couple of games to grab the automatic bid? I understand, somewhat, why the big DI conferences do it. Its for the money, of course. But at the D2 level, conference tourneys are financially stupid. If a conference is going to have one, I wouldn't have more than the two division winners playing or at most the top 4 teams. Just doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

[kwcpantherfan]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

GVSU, with their game against Ferris tonight, maybe the one unmentioned team that still has a shot at qualifying for the region. If they beat Ferris tonight and then at least make the conf final, they may jump over some teams.

Grand Valley is an enigma this season. They've got some decent wins, but some bad losses. Take their last 3 games, for example. Good wins against Lake Superior and Mich Tech, then a bad loss to Northern Michigan.

[kwcpantherfan]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

Still think there is a good chance for an upset in the "mini-tourneys". Indy is my first choice for that. In fact after BU and USI, I think Indy is the next in line to win it. In the GLIAC, Michigan Tech and Ashland would be my picks for the upset. I think its a little harder for them as they will have to play true road games to win it whereas Indy gets a home game to start and then a neutral site after. As far as the GMAC, oh who am I kidding, there is no way KWC doesn't win it so I won't waste any effort on thinking about a possible upset.

That almost sounds like you are actively trying to jinx us.

KWC should certainly cruise through the G-MAC tourney, especially at home, but it's far from a guarantee. Any of the teams in the tourney (Ohio Valley is the only one left out) have the ability to challenge us if we don't play well and they do play their best. Stranger things have happened in March.

[Knightmoves]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

GVSU, with their game against Ferris tonight, maybe the one unmentioned team that still has a shot at qualifying for the region. If they beat Ferris tonight and then at least make the conf final, they may jump over some teams.

[KnightStalker]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

Still think there is a good chance for an upset in the "mini-tourneys". Indy is my first choice for that. In fact after BU and USI, I think Indy is the next in line to win it. In the GLIAC, Michigan Tech and Ashland would be my picks for the upset. I think its a little harder for them as they will have to play true road games to win it whereas Indy gets a home game to start and then a neutral site after. As far as the GMAC, oh who am I kidding, there is no way KWC doesn't win it so I won't waste any effort on thinking about a possible upset.

[kwcpantherfan]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

Amazing thing is a teams like Saginaw and Walsh are not even in contention to make the GLIAC tourney. Saginaw is 17-10 and Walsh 16-10 but they are SOL for the conference tourney and I would think the regional tourney as well. I dare say there probably hasn't been a team in the Midwest Region at least who made the regional but didn't even make their conference tourney.

That's one thing the GLVC does right at least is seeding 12 teams into the conference tourney. A 15 or 16 team league that only takes 8 into the tourney is likely going to leave some good teams out to dry, just like what has happened with Saginaw and Walsh this year. Of course, the reverse argument is they should have won more league games (not like they didn't know only the top 8 are in) but still I would rather see more teams get a shot at postseason runs than leave out good teams entirely. If the argument against is that you wind up with too many rounds in the conference tourney then maybe you shouldn't push to have so many teams in the league to begin with. Taking the top 8 in a 12 team league is more reasonable, IMO

Of course next year they don't have quite the same issue since they'll be several teams smaller.

[KnightStalker]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

I didn't realize this when I included SVSU as another game to watch tonight on my previous post in the thread... the more I think about it, the more I really think it's down to just 9-10 teams for the 8-team field, barring someone outside of that grouping winning a conference tournament.

Yes, it is weird to think that William Jewel or UMSL have a better chance of making the regional than Walsh or SVSU.

[Tyler Madsen]

Re: 2017 Regional Rankings

Amazing thing is a teams like Saginaw and Walsh are not even in contention to make the GLIAC tourney. Saginaw is 17-10 and Walsh 16-10 but they are SOL for the conference tourney and I would think the regional tourney as well. I dare say there probably hasn't been a team in the Midwest Region at least who made the regional but didn't even make their conference tourney.

I didn't realize this when I included SVSU as another game to watch tonight on my previous post in the thread... the more I think about it, the more I really think it's down to just 9-10 teams for the 8-team field, barring someone outside of that grouping winning a conference tournament.