Performance Indicators 2016-17

[tsull]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Basically teams that buy home games. I was only referencing attendance and profitability of their men's basketball program. Home games bring revenue to those schools (not sure about SPU, actually) because people watch.

I was looking at a lot of GNAC attendance numbers of late, these schools aren't making much money at the gate.

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

You guys seem to have exactly the opposite mindset of the Midwest region. We've had the problem for years now that the GLVC and GLIAC are both usually loaded with 4 teams that could easily play in the E8, and then a bunch of bottom dwellers. There is always somebody deserving that gets left out every year.

And 2 years ago a 3rd conference formed in the Midwest, the GMAC. That conference has ONE team that is in the top 2/3 of the nation (KWC). If somebody told the Midwest that the GMAC got two automatic bids, heads would roll. You'd be leaving about 4 teams with 19-20 wins at home and letting in one team that didn't even get a .500 record on the season.

Maybe the West is better balanced and this is why you have this mindset...but it just seems so wrong to me.

The only way I see 2 bids per conference working is if more than 8 teams were allowed to play. Maybe get 12 and have a 1st round playoff with the bottom 8 seeds.

[tsull]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

I'm glad D2 isn't like D-1 and the big dance, now 68 teams in; and 356 overeall. Name another league anywhere with 356 teams. Half those teams couldn't win a D2 title, 16 seeds have no chance. I'd prefer a 48-team tourney, to be honest. I know it wouldn't be as fun for office pools and so forth, so be it. I'm so tired of the watering down of college sports, watch them quickly destroy college football's awesome regular season with a 16-team tourney.

D-1 hoops: The regular season doesn't matter, none of it.

D2? You better be on your game every week or you might not have a shot at your conference tourney or your region tourney. Someone on ESPN.com said, "Will 11 ACC teams get in?" Wow, talk about fruit drinks, orange slices, participation ribbons. "Yeah, we got 11th, we're in!" No team lower than 3rd in a conference should get in. Didn't make it? Tough, get better ... and you guys ranked 200-350? Sorry, down to D2 you go.

[CCAA_Fanatic]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

You guys seem to have exactly the opposite mindset of the Midwest region. We've had the problem for years now that the GLVC and GLIAC are both usually loaded with 4 teams that could easily play in the E8, and then a bunch of bottom dwellers. There is always somebody deserving that gets left out every year.

And 2 years ago a 3rd conference formed in the Midwest, the GMAC. That conference has ONE team that is in the top 2/3 of the nation (KWC). If somebody told the Midwest that the GMAC got two automatic bids, heads would roll. You'd be leaving about 4 teams with 19-20 wins at home and letting in one team that didn't even get a .500 record on the season.

Maybe the West is better balanced and this is why you have this mindset...but it just seems so wrong to me.

The only way I see 2 bids per conference working is if more than 8 teams were allowed to play. Maybe get 12 and have a 1st round playoff with the bottom 8 seeds.

I don't think there are a lot of people subscribing to the 2 per conference idea out here, either. We have had pretty good balance between the conferences over the last 10 years, and generally, each conference gets at least 2. 20 years ago, the CCAA was dominant and would get 4-5 in quite often, but that just isn't the case anymore. The system works OK. Someone always is going to get left out when there is an upset in the conference tournament. I'm not a fan of the conference tournament system for that reason.

[CCAA_Fanatic]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

I was looking at a lot of GNAC attendance numbers of late, these schools aren't making much money at the gate.

Chico, Humboldt and Cal Bap get great crowds every year. Western Washington will probably get the crowds back once their facility is finished.

[Knightmoves]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Conference tournaments in D1 are about making money, so as far as that goes, they make sense. I don't understand why D2 conferences want to base their championship on a tournament. There is no way those tournaments make money. Over in the GLVC they rent out a 10,000 seat neutral site arena that will at most draw 1500 fans if a nearby team is in the final. It cannot be profitable. I will say that as far as the Midwest is concerned, there has not been a conference tournament winner qualify for the NCAA, who would not have otherwise made the tournament, in at least 10 years, maybe more.

What I really like about the D2 NCAA tournament set up is that it does put a huge premium on every game. If you are near the top, you are fighting for the home court advantage and if you are 6-12 in the region, you are fighting to get in.

[SValukis]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Do we have an updated PI Schnautza? I know there were some games Monday.

[Rob_AK]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

I will say that as far as the Midwest is concerned, there has not been a conference tournament winner qualify for the NCAA, who would not have otherwise made the tournament, in at least 10 years, maybe more.

What I really like about the D2 NCAA tournament set up is that it does put a huge premium on every game. If you are near the top, you are fighting for the home court advantage and if you are 6-12 in the region, you are fighting to get in.

In the west, the conferences must be deeper. It is not unusual for a conference tourney winner to be an outsider. I can think of three instances since 2007 without looking it up. There may be more. But I think the GNAC and PacWest have only had the conference tourney for about 6 years now so that is a limiting factor also. Each region is different and what works well for one might create problems for another. In the west region, where there is parity and a regular season conference champ might have 5 conference losses, only a single team from one conference is troublesome.

I know the tourney does not make much money in the GNAC as the host team has yet to qualify for the tourney. Attendance is probably about 250 for most games.

Agree that the D2 approach does put a premium on every game. It also puts a bigger premium on the conference tourney, which in the west region has been a significant factor in the regional tourney..

[tsull]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Conference tournaments in D1 are about making money, so as far as that goes, they make sense. I don't understand why D2 conferences want to base their championship on a tournament. There is no way those tournaments make money. Over in the GLVC they rent out a 10,000 seat neutral site arena that will at most draw 1500 fans if a nearby team is in the final. It cannot be profitable. I will say that as far as the Midwest is concerned, there has not been a conference tournament winner qualify for the NCAA, who would not have otherwise made the tournament, in at least 10 years, maybe more.

What I really like about the D2 NCAA tournament set up is that it does put a huge premium on every game. If you are near the top, you are fighting for the home court advantage and if you are 6-12 in the region, you are fighting to get in.

I'd rather have regular season champ win, too. The GNAC is at a decent place at St. Martin's, but outside of the home team -- which might not make the conference tourney this year -- the crowds will be awful. It's not a money-maker. Shipping it to Alaska is very expensive for teams, too, though it would be a fun trip. I'm for earning it in the regular season, though I know that's not how sports works these days. Everyone is deemed D-1 ready and everyone gets a spot in a tourney, whether they deserve it or not.

I like the Region tourney, but those berths earned in the regular season.

* On attendance, WWU draws poorly even on campus when they're not playing CWU or SPU. The crowds this year in the GNAC have been pretty bad. WOU is getting some bump from last year, hovering around 800-900 a game. NNU, St. Martin's, and UAF, have drawn poorly.

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

Do we have an updated PI Schnautza? I know there were some games Monday.

Here you go. I normally try to post them on Fridays and Sundays/Mondays since the Midwest region plays on Thursday and Saturday, but these are through last night's games.

10	San Francisco State	West	CCAA	17-3	85.00%	16.05	49.32%	51.53%
13	Chico State	West	CCAA	16-4	80.00%	15.90	54.12%	51.25%
16	California Baptist	West	PWC	20-2	90.91%	15.82	47.87%	50.48%
17	UC San Diego	West	CCAA	16-5	76.19%	15.76	54.70%	51.32%
21	Sonoma State	West	CCAA	15-5	75.00%	15.40	54.73%	50.90%
34	Hawai'i Pacific	West	PWC	16-2	88.89%	14.83	42.28%	51.14%
37	Western Washington	West	GNAC	16-5	76.19%	14.76	50.30%	50.39%
45	Dixie State	West	PWC	16-5	76.19%	14.38	47.89%	51.37%
58	Alaska Anchorage	West	GNAC	14-5	73.68%	13.95	48.35%	50.11%
72	Cal State San Marcos	West	CCAA	10-7	58.82%	13.59	56.53%	51.51%
91	Concordia (Calif.)	West	PWC	13-8	61.90%	13.14	52.60%	49.88%
95	Cal State San Bernardino	West	CCAA	10-8	55.56%	13.11	52.37%	51.89%
96	Chaminade	West	PWC	14-6	70.00%	13.10	43.78%	49.74%
115	Western Oregon	West	GNAC	12-9	57.14%	12.57	52.95%	50.59%
122	Cal Poly Pomona	West	CCAA	8-10	44.44%	12.33	57.73%	51.25%
133	Montana State Billings	West	GNAC	12-8	60.00%	12.15	44.85%	50.82%
136	Central Washington	West	GNAC	10-8	55.56%	12.11	50.19%	50.27%
141	Azusa Pacific	West	PWC	11-13	45.83%	12.00	57.68%	49.28%
157	Northwest Nazarene	West	GNAC	8-9	47.06%	11.65	52.31%	50.24%
159	Cal State LA	West	CCAA	10-11	47.62%	11.57	50.14%	50.68%
159	Point Loma	West	PWC	12-9	57.14%	11.57	45.75%	49.84%
162	Cal State Dominguez Hills	West	CCAA	9-9	50.00%	11.50	47.30%	50.91%
166	Cal State East Bay	West	CCAA	11-11	50.00%	11.32	47.44%	50.64%
170	Saint Martin's	West	GNAC	9-10	47.37%	11.21	49.37%	50.86%
178	Seattle Pacific	West	GNAC	10-12	45.45%	11.05	50.99%	49.89%
208	Humboldt State	West	CCAA	8-11	42.11%	10.32	44.82%	50.65%
222	Alaska	West	GNAC	9-13	40.91%	9.95	48.72%	50.24%
227	Concordia (Ore.)	West	GNAC	6-12	33.33%	9.83	52.16%	50.76%
230	Dominican (Calif.)	West	PWC	7-14	33.33%	9.76	49.72%	48.47%
252	Stanislaus State	West	CCAA	6-16	27.27%	9.23	51.10%	50.33%
254	Academy of Art	West	PWC	6-14	30.00%	9.00	45.71%	49.77%
264	Hawai'i Hilo	West	PWC	5-13	27.78%	8.72	51.95%	49.16%
281	BYU-Hawaii	West	PWC	4-15	21.05%	8.05	51.66%	48.63%
283	Fresno Pacific	West	PWC	4-17	19.05%	8.05	52.07%	47.70%
290	Cal State Monterey Bay	West	CCAA	3-18	14.29%	7.76	49.90%	50.58%
291	Holy Names	West	PWC	5-17	22.73%	7.68	42.74%	48.73%
293	Notre Dame de Namur	West	PWC	3-17	15.00%	7.60	51.34%	48.19%
296	Simon Fraser	West	GNAC	2-20	9.09%	7.32	56.55%	49.08%

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

6	San Francisco State	West	CCAA	17-3	85.00%	16.20	49.34%	51.30%
12	Chico State	West	CCAA	16-4	80.00%	15.90	54.00%	51.20%
15	California Baptist	West	PWC	20-2	90.91%	15.68	48.15%	50.51%
15	UC San Diego	West	CCAA	17-5	77.27%	15.68	54.18%	51.24%
17	Sonoma State	West	CCAA	15-5	75.00%	15.55	54.81%	50.90%
31	Western Washington	West	GNAC	17-5	77.27%	15.05	50.49%	50.49%
36	Hawai'i Pacific	West	PWC	16-2	88.89%	14.83	43.32%	51.09%
47	Alaska Anchorage	West	GNAC	14-5	73.68%	14.42	48.95%	50.20%
49	Dixie State	West	PWC	16-5	76.19%	14.38	48.03%	51.47%
61	Cal State San Marcos	West	CCAA	11-7	61.11%	13.78	54.68%	51.71%
86	Concordia (Calif.)	West	PWC	13-8	61.90%	13.29	53.07%	49.92%
95	Chaminade	West	PWC	14-6	70.00%	13.10	44.44%	49.80%
97	Cal State San Bernardino	West	CCAA	10-9	52.63%	13.00	52.59%	51.43%
109	Western Oregon	West	GNAC	12-10	54.55%	12.77	54.17%	50.46%
122	Azusa Pacific	West	PWC	12-13	48.00%	12.44	58.18%	49.19%
129	Cal Poly Pomona	West	CCAA	8-10	44.44%	12.33	57.91%	51.29%
140	Central Washington	West	GNAC	10-9	52.63%	12.05	49.98%	50.11%
145	Montana State Billings	West	GNAC	12-9	57.14%	11.95	44.68%	50.63%
157	Cal State Dominguez Hills	West	CCAA	9-10	47.37%	11.68	49.23%	50.94%
159	Cal State LA	West	CCAA	11-11	50.00%	11.59	50.24%	51.01%
161	Saint Martin's	West	GNAC	10-10	50.00%	11.55	49.48%	50.71%
163	Point Loma	West	PWC	12-10	54.55%	11.45	46.36%	50.14%
163	Cal State East Bay	West	CCAA	11-11	50.00%	11.45	47.32%	50.58%
165	Northwest Nazarene	West	GNAC	8-10	44.44%	11.44	51.98%	50.13%
167	Seattle Pacific	West	GNAC	11-12	47.83%	11.35	51.10%	49.93%
185	Alaska	West	GNAC	10-13	43.48%	10.83	49.43%	50.06%
208	Concordia (Ore.)	West	GNAC	7-12	36.84%	10.37	49.61%	51.10%
212	Humboldt State	West	CCAA	8-11	42.11%	10.32	45.12%	50.53%
228	Dominican (Calif.)	West	PWC	8-14	36.36%	9.82	48.34%	48.41%
253	Hawai'i Hilo	West	PWC	6-13	31.58%	9.05	50.74%	49.51%
254	Academy of Art	West	PWC	6-14	30.00%	9.00	45.60%	49.66%
259	Stanislaus State	West	CCAA	6-17	26.09%	8.83	51.18%	50.66%
276	Fresno Pacific	West	PWC	4-18	18.18%	8.18	51.17%	48.02%
282	BYU-Hawaii	West	PWC	4-15	21.05%	8.05	52.30%	48.84%
289	Cal State Monterey Bay	West	CCAA	3-18	14.29%	7.76	49.77%	50.40%
292	Notre Dame de Namur	West	PWC	3-17	15.00%	7.60	51.40%	48.22%
294	Holy Names	West	PWC	5-18	21.74%	7.35	42.31%	48.81%
295	Simon Fraser	West	GNAC	2-21	8.70%	7.26	56.07%	49.11%

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

6	California Baptist	West	PWC	21-2	91.30%	16.13	49.54%	50.54%
7	San Francisco State	West	CCAA	19-3	86.36%	16.00	47.18%	50.99%
13	UC San Diego	West	CCAA	18-5	78.26%	15.74	53.36%	51.64%
18	Chico State	West	CCAA	16-5	76.19%	15.43	54.67%	50.86%
20	Hawai'i Pacific	West	PWC	17-2	89.47%	15.32	42.80%	50.97%
21	Western Washington	West	GNAC	18-5	78.26%	15.30	50.06%	50.44%
22	Sonoma State	West	CCAA	17-5	77.27%	15.27	51.76%	51.09%
44	Alaska Anchorage	West	GNAC	15-5	75.00%	14.45	49.32%	49.87%
46	Dixie State	West	PWC	16-6	72.73%	14.41	49.94%	50.93%
49	Cal State San Marcos	West	CCAA	12-7	63.16%	14.26	55.35%	51.80%
75	Chaminade	West	PWC	15-6	71.43%	13.48	43.64%	49.53%
98	Western Oregon	West	GNAC	13-10	56.52%	12.96	52.01%	50.75%
104	Concordia (Calif.)	West	PWC	13-9	59.09%	12.77	53.08%	50.45%
118	Cal State San Bernardino	West	CCAA	10-10	50.00%	12.45	51.85%	51.56%
120	Azusa Pacific	West	PWC	13-13	50.00%	12.42	58.39%	49.21%
136	Montana State Billings	West	GNAC	12-10	54.55%	12.05	45.85%	50.63%
137	Saint Martin's	West	GNAC	11-10	52.38%	12.00	49.03%	50.50%
149	Cal State LA	West	CCAA	11-12	47.83%	11.74	51.27%	51.26%
151	Central Washington	West	GNAC	10-10	50.00%	11.70	49.29%	50.32%
151	Cal State Dominguez Hills	West	CCAA	10-10	50.00%	11.70	49.28%	51.08%
156	Cal Poly Pomona	West	CCAA	8-11	42.11%	11.63	56.84%	51.44%
160	Point Loma	West	PWC	12-10	54.55%	11.59	46.43%	50.31%
166	Seattle Pacific	West	GNAC	11-13	45.83%	11.38	51.40%	49.76%
171	Northwest Nazarene	West	GNAC	8-11	42.11%	11.26	51.16%	50.33%
173	Cal State East Bay	West	CCAA	11-13	45.83%	11.25	50.10%	50.38%
188	Alaska	West	GNAC	10-13	43.48%	10.83	49.33%	50.15%
199	Concordia (Ore.)	West	GNAC	7-13	35.00%	10.55	50.97%	50.80%
204	Humboldt State	West	CCAA	9-11	45.00%	10.40	44.76%	51.48%
209	Dominican (Calif.)	West	PWC	9-14	39.13%	10.30	47.02%	48.53%
237	Hawai'i Hilo	West	PWC	7-13	35.00%	9.50	49.56%	49.58%
252	Stanislaus State	West	CCAA	6-17	26.09%	9.22	51.73%	50.16%
253	Academy of Art	West	PWC	6-15	28.57%	9.10	46.83%	49.16%
274	BYU-Hawaii	West	PWC	4-16	20.00%	8.35	51.87%	48.67%
278	Simon Fraser	West	GNAC	3-21	12.50%	8.21	56.47%	49.37%
280	Fresno Pacific	West	PWC	4-19	17.39%	8.17	53.01%	47.83%
290	Holy Names	West	PWC	6-18	25.00%	7.75	41.32%	48.96%
291	Cal State Monterey Bay	West	CCAA	3-20	13.04%	7.74	52.25%	50.20%
299	Notre Dame de Namur	West	PWC	3-19	13.64%	7.00	49.51%	48.04%

[tsull]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

A lot of records still way off. If someone is going to do this, they need to get it right. If they don't have the time to do this, then don't do it.

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

A lot of records still way off. If someone is going to do this, they need to get it right. If they don't have the time to do this, then don't do it.

How about telling me where you think the mistakes are? That would be a lot more productive than a snarky comment. And it is the first mention you've made that there may be mistakes.

[schnautza]

Re: Performance Indicators 2016-17

I've looked through the top 15 West teams so far and have found ZERO mistakes. I don't have time to dig through 310 teams schedules on a daily basis, so PLEASE be specific if you think there is a mistake. At least give me a team name.