yah i agree with you.. anna maria is ranked probally 5th of the five finalist to get in to the gnac. (newbury, mt. ida, lasell and st. joes of maine are the other finaist.)
there has been rumors of a new new england league starting with the following schools (newbury, lesley, daniel webster, southern vermont, albertus magnus, becker, maine presque isle, mitchell, regis college (if they go co-ed), anna maria and green mountain college (who is spearheading this action) newbury and anna maira would only do this if they dont get into gnac.
what is everyone's thoughts on this. In two years it would give new england another AQ.
I've been saying all year, that there will be shake-ups coming soon in most of the leagues. I don't know what will get the ball rolling, but if this new league has any weight, this could be the beginning.
If there are big shakeups, will anyone issue news releases? I think the schools you have mentioned have sent this site a combined total of fewer than five releases in their history.
I've got a name for the new conference.....
The SBAL: S**t Bag Athletic League. Could that league get any worse? Would they be considered DIIII schools?
As a former player in the GNAC, I would not be sad to see SVC and DWC go.
yah it could get worse if they added all the NAC teams.. I bet this new league formed woud be better then the NAC. But the whole point of this new league would be to get a league that is more competitive for all teams involved.
over time the league would get batter though. i am sure the first year the CCC started they were awful or for just about any league for that matter.
Umaine PI would be a haul it is about 5 hours from portland maine and that might make travel difficult for some of the boston area school. Based on that alone I question the validity of this new league.
well the validity of the league would be to get the independents into a league and some other schools that don't like their current league and want to start over in a brand new league. yah UMPI would be a hall.. but just like williams to bowdoin or even albertus magnus to svc.
Remember, the benefits of a league aren't just competing for a championship (eventually an automatic bid), getting recognition for your student-athletes and the like. Filling a schedule is very important as well, and independents have to really struggle to do so once January and February roll around.
Even though UMPI is in a conference with NAIA schools, D-III regulations say half of your games must be regional games. UMPI would not have gotten there this year if they had been a full D-III member. Green Mountain wasn't even close. Filling a schedule is a strong enough pull on schools that you sometimes end up with strange bedfellows.
Well d3, I you figured out the solution without my help.
I think this new league may be a good thing for the region. A tiered system of conferences can give us a better perspective on who is doing what during the year.
It's all speculation until someone starts moving though.
alot will be figured out on May 24th whichis when the GNAC votes on who they accept into the league . mt. ida, lasell, newbury, st joes of ME and anna maria are all applying.
I think if newbury or AMC don't get in they will be part of the group that will seek to join the new league and also help grab other teams
Green Mountain is actively organizing this and are being very aggressive to it.
It will be very intersting to see what truley shakes out of all of this.
Green Mountain needs it. AMC also needs out of the CCC. I think they would be able to get some independents in as well. Sure, you've got a lot of basketball bottom feeders, but they would at least be getting wins and some better competition with schools more similar to themselves. UMPI is a drive for everyone; it doesn't matter where they go.
I'd like to see it happen.
Lets see what happens here.
Dave, thats enough, newbury has no shot of getting in the gnac,
I'd be suprised if st joes joined the GNAC, rumor had it they we're potentially joining the CCC in the fall of 07....
That would be a good fit, however, I just don't see the CCC sticking together for that long. Honestly, its more likely some of the Northern teams (CSC, UNE, EC, NEC) will break off and form their own conference. St Joe's would fit in there well.
I do still hear rumblings about Gordon's application to the NEWMAC. They need an 8th and GC's academics make them a pretty solid fit. I'm not sure when that vote is, but it could be telling as well.
d3,
I merged the poll with this board. It seemed to fit better here than out on its own cluttering things up.
i have also herd rumors of Emerson going to the NEWMAC once their gym is done.. Has anyone else herd any of that?
I think Emerson would probably fit well, but I don't see the NEWMAC going to more than 8 teams and Gordon's application is in now. Unless they have a deal with Emerson already worked out, I think they'll consider GC pretty heavily for entry.
i herd it was actually between emerson and gordan already .. not sure what that is all about. who would the newmac want more?? gordan or emerson?
I wasn't aware Emerson had submitted an application already, but if so, then this summer's meeting will be quite interesting indeed.
Emerson's academic reputation is ahead of Gordon's although, both, in actuality are very good. Emerson is known mostly for their fine arts. I don't know whether a niche like that is helpful or not.
Emerson has John Kerry speaking at commencement. Gordon probably couldn't pull that off. I doubt GC has the money a school like Emerson or Babson, for example has. Again, I'm not sure how much this matters, as Gordon has plenty of cash on hand.
Gordon has more sports than Emerson, including Swimming and Women's Field Hockey, as well as indoor and outdoor track. This probably has more to do with admittance than anything else. They also have very nice facilities.
The location isn't a huge factor. Gordon would be the northern and eastern most school in the conference, but its only another 30 mins beyond Emerson.
If it is true that Emerson has applied to the NEWMAC, I'd say they are a clear favorite over Gordan. But I think both of them would be an addition to that league though.
Quote from: d3bballinboston on April 26, 2006, 07:45:45 AM
If it is true that Emerson has applied to the NEWMAC, I'd say they are a clear favorite over Gordan. But I think both of them would be an addition to that league though.
Might the NEWMAC want to go from 10 to 12 women's teams, so they could split into divisions?
That might mean both Emerson and Gordon get in.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on April 25, 2006, 03:05:51 PMEmerson has John Kerry speaking at commencement. Gordon probably couldn't pull that off.
From what I know of Gordon, I'm not sure that the school would
want John Kerry to speak at commencement.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on April 25, 2006, 03:05:51 PMI doubt GC has the money a school like Emerson or Babson, for example has. Again, I'm not sure how much this matters, as Gordon has plenty of cash on hand.
Endowment figures from the latest
Peterson's Guide:
Gordon: $30.5m
Emerson: $86.5m
Babson: $179.2m
That for making me look silly with the endowments, Sager, although, it was true, Gordon was not in either of their leagues, its just Emerson and Babson weren't in the same league either.
Gordon is a Christian school, but they aren't overly conservative. There aren't too many schools in Massachusetts who would turn down John Kerry for commencement.
Sager,
Is there a way to get emdowment lists online? I know petersons.com gives you the ability to search schools individually, but is there a way to see, for example, the biggest endowments, or all the schools in one conference?
Clark University Endowment= 225 million
MIT is over a 1 billion
Coast Guard doesn't have an endowment listed, but I suspect they have plenty of money if they need it.
Springfield doesn't list their's either. Wheaton's is nine figures. WPI is 327m.
I guess Emerson fits a little better into that mix, but Gordon's has been growing fast, so you never know.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on April 26, 2006, 09:44:53 AM
Sager,
Is there a way to get emdowment lists online? I know petersons.com gives you the ability to search schools individually, but is there a way to see, for example, the biggest endowments, or all the schools in one conference?
I've had a comprehensive list that contained the vast majority of four-year schools' endowments sent to me on a PDF file in the past, but unfortunately it's one of the few useful URLs that I never saved.
I've never seen an online list of endowments by conference. I have easy access to the current endowments of the eight CCIW institutions because Augustana SID Dave Wrath keeps track of them. If you e-mail a conference SID you might be able to get such a list for that particular conference.
I guess I can just look them up one by one.
Is there anything new on a new New England league?
I'm new to this region's boards, and I know Green Mountain, which I live near, is interested in joining a league. I know Pat made a comment about how Green Mountain didn't have a shot at joining a DIII league because it hadn't played enough NCAA DIII teams, but the school is transitioning. It went from NAIA to DII, then realized it couldn't compete at that level.
GM is a provisional DIII member this year, with way more DIII teams on its schedule than last year.
If anyone knows anything I'd be interested in hearing about it.
It'll happen this spring. I'm not sure all how it will go down, but there are a lot of schools moving around and there is certainly room for one new league in New England. I doubt we'll hear much until the end of March.
Over the weekend I posted on the new conference thread about Green Mountain. I am new to that college's area and wondered if there is ever any discussion about the men's hoops team. I know the college, because of its transitioning phase, is not a factor in the northeast yet, but I wondered if there was ever any discussion about the Northeast independents.
If not that's cool, but I miss posting and reading posts about schools I live near. I came from the Rochester area, so there was plenty of discussion on the Empire 8 board there I was interested in.
That's probably a good thread to have. There are a lot of independents in the NE, although the numbers seem to be decreasing, as they are all trying to get a chance at the A bids these days.
It may become even more of a factor once things shake up as I expect they will next summer.
The only problem will be that so few posters for school in conferences post here, that it will be a stretch to think you can get much action on a page from independent school fans.
For what it's worth, here is the list for the NE region:
Green Mountain
Maine-Presque Isle
Mitchell
Newbury
Southern Vermont
St. Joseph's (ME)
I think the first three are all still provisional, so they can't participate in the post-season.
SVC just left the GNAC and is playing pretty close to a full GNAC schedule this season. I expect they are looking to move to another conference after this year.
St. Joe's has joined the GNAC for competition next year.
Thanks for the reply.
It's good to know the other independents, and some of them were Green Mountain opponents last year.
I knew it was a longshot to get many posters, but thought I'd try.
And yes, Green Mountain is a provisional DIII member this year. I think they'll be full-fledged next season.
Green Mountain now 0-4, anybody have a prediction when they might win one?
when they play any NAC school
yall better watch of for them svc boys they may be young but the have the mind of veterans
Quote from: THE BIG MAN on December 08, 2006, 03:59:06 PM
yall better watch of for them svc boys they may be young but the have the mind of veterans
shell shocked?
Are you serious, Southern Vermont? They are completely undisciplined. They have some talent, but by far were better last year.
you why they are better because they play together and no all that on eon one stuff
They were better because they were a better team with better talent. Hammond was player of the league, which drove that team. They were more disciplined as well. This year I would have to say that Julian Smith is probably the best player, but the main problem is a lack of discipline.
thereis no lack of discipline there just a young team there are only 3 vets and the rest are freshman. if they wasnt discipline then why did they come close to beatin williams and go to dc and come in second its the beginning of the year and they are a young team
Like I said, they are talented, which is why they almost beat the teams that they did. When they went to DC they beat a team which is 1-7, not sayin much. They are not a horrible team, they are at most average in my opinion (22 pt. loss to emerson, 26 pt loss to bates, 24 pt loss to middlebury)
we will see what happen at the end of the season they maybe young but they have alot of heart and will not back down from anybody
Does it really matter what svc does there not in a league, and the were better last year hammond was a very good ball player
SVC could win the Indpendent tourney :)
isnt lincoln pa a independent, what other schools are in that independent league mitchell, newbury, st joes, svc and who else
Yes, Lincoln is and independent. I think you all are forgetting that there are independents outside of New England that are decent. I doubt anyone is beating Lincoln.
Chapman is usually pretty good too.
http://www.d3independents.com/ there are 17 teams in the assoication of indpenedents
It will be tough for any NE team to get into the tournament as an independent this year, espeecially with the NathCon being Pool B this year. You've got Lincoln as a shoe in and Maryville (TN) always has a good squad.
lincoln's shoe-in into the NCAA's might be gone after losing to Ramapo College and now PennState Altoona.!! yikes
True enough. There is now hope for other independents, unfortunately probably none from the NorthEast.
Newbury is back to 6-6 now with a 5 point win over E. Naz
That was embarrassing. If ENC doesn't beat Anna Maria tomorrow, they're going 0 for the year.
Saturday, January 20th- The New England College Pilgrims (7-7, 2-3 CCC) fell 87-90 to the visiting Newbury College Nighthawks (8-6, 0-0 Ind) in an exhilarating match-up at Bridges Gym.
The Nighthawks led from the get-go as sophomore Kevin Cleveland (Lynn, MA) dropped in a game-high 26 points and nine rebounds for Newbury. The Pilgrims played a constant game of catch-up as Patrick Quinn (Sr., Holbrook, NY) contributed 17 points to the Pilgrim's offense. NEC trailed 35-47 at the half.
The Nighthawks continued to lead until a Pilgrims run late in the second stanza that tied the game at 84 a piece. NEC freshman Andre MacDonald (Hanson, MA) knocked down two three-pointers late in the game to keep the Pilgrims afloat. Newbury retained the lead and held off the NEC onslaught to walk away with a 90-87 victory.
Five NEC players scored in double digits including Quinn, Tyler Evans (Fr., Hartford, CT) with 15, Ryan Jaziri (Jr., Norwich, CT) with 16, Antoine Sylvia (Sr., Brockton, MA) with 11 points and 11 rebounds, and Trevor Tonkovich (Fr., Point Pleasant, NJ) with 14. Newbury's Heman Honore (Fr., Medford, MA) had 18 points and Steven Morris (Sr., Somerville, MA) had 16 for the Nighthawks.
Brookline, MA: Newbury College improved their record to 9-7 with a spectacular and exciting victory over the Commonwealth Coast Conference league leading Gordon College (12-5) by a score of 70-69 in Brookline tonight. The game came down to the final seconds, as Newbury turned the ball over with 3 seconds to go clinging to a 70-69 lead giving the Fighting Scots one last chance at victory. Unsung hero, Ivan DaSilva (New Bedford, MA/West Bridgewater) sealed the victory for the Nighthawks, stealing the pass in the final seconds.
After an early 10 point lead for Gordon College in the first 5 minutes of the game, the Nighthawks clawed back with defensive intensity and selfless offensive play to even the game at halftime at 37. Newbury had four players in double figures, led by Heman Honore (Medford, MA/St Clements's) 18 points, 7 blocks and Kevin Cleveland (Lynn, MA/Lynn Voc) 15 points, 10 rebounds and 6 assist. Also playing a major factor was Arch Mitchell (Framingham, MA/Framingham) 12 points and point guard Steve Morris (Somerville, MA/Somerville HS) who controlled the tempo, while pitching in 11 points with 6 assists.
Jon Marstaller, a 6-5 forward from Naples, ME, was sensational in defeat leading all scorers with 25 points on 10-16 shooting, 2-3 from behind the three point mark. Also contributing was Brady Bajema (Whitinsville, MA/ Whitinsville) scoring 10 points, Michael Schnackenber (South Portland, MA/Cheverus) 9 points and Michael Herr (Lampeter PA/Lampeter-Strasburg) also tossed in 9.
The Nighthawks, winners of the last 5 of 6, travel to MIT on Saturday; game time is 3:00.
The Nighthawks Whisk Past Lesley
Brookline, MA: Newbury College improved their record to 10-8 with an exciting victory over Lesley College by the score of 74-67 tonight in Brookline, MA. Lesley fought hard in the second half to cut the lead but just wasn't enough for the determined Nighthawks.
The Nighthawks led the entire game and had an answer for every run Lesley attempted. Captain Arch Mitchell (Framingham, MA/Framingham) led all scorers on the night with 24 points. Rookie Heman Honore (Medford, MA/St. Clements's) contributed 19 points and was a known presence in the paint with 7 blocks. Captain Steven Morris (Somerville, MA/Somerville) added 10 points and dished out 4 assists in the Nighthawks victory.
The Lynx fought until the very last second of the game, but just came up short in the loss. Malcolm Andrews (Medford, MA) led the Lynx in scoring with 14 points. Fellow teammates Michael Lush (Saugus, MA) added 12 points and Joseph Chatman (Boston, MA) contributed 11 points on the hard fought loss for Lesley.
The Nighthawks travel to Curry College on Thursday, February 1; tip-off is at 7:00 PM.
Official Basketball Box Score -- GAME TOTALS -- FINAL STATISTICS
Lesley University vs Newbury College
1 30 07 7:00 at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISITORS: Lesley University 9-10
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
03 Malcolm Andrews..... * 6-9 0-0 2-2 3 3 6 3 14 1 0 1 2 26
10 Joseph Chatman...... * 2-7 1-2 6-6 0 2 2 1 11 4 2 0 1 31
23 Stanley Chamblain... * 0-3 0-2 2-2 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 21
30 James Parker........ * 1-4 1-4 2-2 1 3 4 0 5 2 1 0 1 28
35 Sam Mead............ * 3-8 0-0 2-2 1 2 3 2 8 2 0 0 1 17
12 Michael Lush........ 3-11 2-6 4-5 2 2 4 1 12 2 3 0 4 22
22 Matt Grassa......... 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
25 Mark Stevens........ 3-4 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 0 0 12
32 Tyron Brooks........ 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
33 Darren Swanson...... 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
50 Anthony Drayton..... 3-7 0-3 1-1 3 4 7 1 7 3 3 0 0 26
55 John Micelin........ 0-1 0-0 2-2 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 9
TEAM................ 3 3
Totals.............. 21-54 4-17 21-22 14 20 34 11 67 15 12 1 9 200
TOTAL FG% 1st Half: 7-27 25.9% 2nd Half: 14-27 51.9% Game: 38.9% DEADB
3-Pt. FG% 1st Half: 2-11 18.2% 2nd Half: 2-6 33.3% Game: 23.5% REBS
F Throw % 1st Half: 9-10 90.0% 2nd Half: 12-12 100 % Game: 95.5% 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME TEAM: Newbury College 10-8
TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
15 Troy Johnson........ * 3-4 2-2 0-0 0 2 2 2 8 0 3 0 3 17
22 Kevin Cleveland..... * 3-4 0-0 1-2 2 3 5 2 7 10 4 2 4 34
32 Steven Morris....... * 1-5 0-0 8-10 0 1 1 0 10 4 3 0 0 39
33 Arch Mitchell....... * 10-15 4-6 0-0 1 3 4 0 24 1 2 2 1 37
52 Heman Honore........ * 8-16 1-1 2-2 3 5 8 3 19 0 2 7 0 36
21 Sonny Abraham....... 1-3 0-0 1-1 1 2 3 0 3 2 0 1 1 9
30 Javon Mathis........ 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 5
4 Ivan DaSilva........ 1-3 1-2 0-0 1 1 2 1 3 3 5 0 0 19
43 Maverick Magloire... 0-1 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4
TEAM................ 2 2
Totals.............. 27-52 8-11 12-15 8 20 28 10 74 20 21 12 10 200
TOTAL FG% 1st Half: 16-28 57.1% 2nd Half: 11-24 45.8% Game: 51.9% DEADB
3-Pt. FG% 1st Half: 4-6 66.7% 2nd Half: 4-5 80.0% Game: 72.7% REBS
F Throw % 1st Half: 2-3 66.7% 2nd Half: 10-12 83.3% Game: 80.0% 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officials:
Technical fouls: Lesley University-None. Newbury College-None.
Attendance: 213
Score by Periods 1st 2nd Total
Lesley University............. 25 42 - 67
Newbury College............... 38 36 - 74
WHO DO YOU THINK SHOULD GET THE PLAYER OF THE YEAR FOR THE AD3I
Thats tough as it takes into consideration every indpendent team, not jsut the ones in New England.
on a side note.. st. joes of maine upset lincolin in the finals
i think that post from svc i think his name is harrington got a chance at it he s in the top ten in scoring and leads the ad3i in rebounding
Lincoln is holding up the Independent banner so far in the NCAA's. The Lions have made it to the sweet sixteen for the second consectutive year.
why can a player who leads the nation in rebounds and lead the independent league in scoring and rebounding get player of the year
I merged the topic on a new league in New England into the Independent College Discussion because there are a lot of the same topics here, especially over the summer.
Most likely if a new league is formed, it will happen, at least in principle, this summer and it will probably involve a good number of independents.
Any rumors yet on moves?
i have herd the following: wheelock, lesley, elms, becker, daniel webster, mitchell, newbury, pine manor, bay path, eastern naz, anna maria. with wheelock now adding men's sports it could make this geographically very very good.
ENC is not leaving their conference unless they're kicked out. Despite the recent performance problems, they're not looking to go down in competition. I think the other ten you've listed are good candidates.
Anna Maria has been looking to get out of the CCC for a few years now. Mitchell is the odd one out in terms of geography, but I think they would be in nearly every scenario.
What about the Vermont schools? Or do you think they'll form their own conference once they all make permanent d3 status?
well the only vermnot schools are southern vermont and green mountain.. or is johnson state vermont? ??maybe if the southern NAC schools (elms, wheelock, lesley, becker, baypath)joined this new league then the NAC would be really short for school. I could see presque isle, southern vermont, johnson state and green mountain all joining the NAC. Also some rumors that Vermont Tech is going from NAIA to d3 provisional. they could fit in there as well
Southern Vermont, Norwich, Johnson State, and Castleton State are all in Vermont, plus Green Mountain and Lyndon State as provisionals. If Vermont Tech comes in that would make seven, enough for an automatic bid (albeit about six or seven years down the line).
Elms would be the next closest school that makes geographical sense, but I think Elms would rather get into a Southern conference.
A team like Skidmore would also fit in well geographically, but they're in a good conference already.
The Maine schools make more sense, but it is a very long trip across those back roads up there and if they're trying to keep travel down that wouldn't make sense. Thomas, Farmington, Maritime and Husson would all be in that group (plus Presque Isle if anyone would let them into a conference).
I think you're right that it will probably be the southern schools getting into a new thing. As far as defections go, I don't think you'll see any outside the NAC (and maybe, maybe GNAC) other than UNE and Anna Maria who might like to move away from the CCC (but those are just speculations as well).
yah does make sense but i could see the maine schools and vt schools joining forces and being just the NAC. If all those southern schools rumored to be making their own league leave; the NAC will need schools to keep their AQ's. they might have to suck it up and take Presque Isle just for the peer number standpoints. Thats why i think they might take those VT schools.
That is still lower travel then what the NAC has now with all those teams in the Boston Metro area. I also doubt norwich would leave thet GNAC, but I really have no idea bout that.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on April 04, 2007, 10:10:28 AM
Southern Vermont, Norwich, Johnson State, and Castleton State are all in Vermont, plus Green Mountain and Lyndon State as provisionals. If Vermont Tech comes in that would make seven, enough for an automatic bid (albeit about six or seven years down the line).
Elms would be the next closest school that makes geographical sense, but I think Elms would rather get into a Southern conference.
A team like Skidmore would also fit in well geographically, but they're in a good conference already.
The Maine schools make more sense, but it is a very long trip across those back roads up there and if they're trying to keep travel down that wouldn't make sense. Thomas, Farmington, Maritime and Husson would all be in that group (plus Presque Isle if anyone would let them into a conference).
I think you're right that it will probably be the southern schools getting into a new thing. As far as defections go, I don't think you'll see any outside the NAC (and maybe, maybe GNAC) other than UNE and Anna Maria who might like to move away from the CCC (but those are just speculations as well).
Hoops Fan, I hope you are thinking beyond basketball. There are automatic qualifiers in M&W Soccer, M&W Hoops, M&W Lacrosse, M&W Golf, Baseball, Softball, and Women's Tennis, Field Hockey and Volleyball. (I don't think that this proposed conference will address M&W Hockey.)
If you are the President or the AD, how do you get your AQ for all of those student-athletes?
I think that going big with divisional play is the way to maximize your chances in all sports. Twleve may be a good number.
Also keeping a specific conference (? the North Atlantic Conference?) intact and adding teams means you do not spend 2 years in Pool B. There must have been some major reason why the Northern Illinois-Iowa Conference remnant did not like the Lake Michigan Conference name that it wanted the name changed to Northern Athletics Conference and spend 2 years in Pool B! :)
You could do the four Vermont schools (SVU, JSC, CSC, and Norwich) and add the four leftover Maine schools (Husson, Farmington, Maritime, and Thomas) for an eight team NAC. Throw in Green Mountain, Lyndon, and Presque Isle once they become full members and you're only looking for one more Maine school (possibly UNE?) to make up a two division, twelve team conference.
That's doable and it kind of makes sense.
That would leave Anna Maria free to join the southern conference (and drop the CCC back to 12 schools) with the likes of Elms, Lesley, Becker, Mitchell, Wheelock, and Newbury.
The problems all come down to the GNAC. Have any of the schools officially announced they're leaving? I know WNEC is in the CCC next year and SVC pulled out.
We're talking like Norwich is definitely gone, but are they? The GNAC, with the new additions, is not a bad place for a lot of these schools to be.
Then you've got the issue of the remaining all-women's schools: Bay Path, Simmons, St. Joe's (CT) and Pine Manor. I can't see any of them introducing men's sports in the foreseeable future, so I'm not sure if they'll have too much of an impact on the whole thing.
It just comes down to what the GNAC schools are doing. If Norwich doesn't leave, there is still a ten team VT-ME NAC. We move UNE to the new "southern" conference to give them 8 (7 with mitchell still provisional) and everyone should be happy.
Isn't it nice to solve everyone's problems so quickly? Why can't they just ask us to do this?
Ralph, I'm not so sure those VT schools care a whole lot about the AQs all around, some are just glad to have varsity sports programs, but you're right. A ten team league makes more sense.
We Texans anticipate the outcome of the Lyndon State/ Johnson State game, along with (Lubbock) Roosevelt High School versus New Deal High School. :D
Quote from: Hoops Fan on April 04, 2007, 10:10:28 AM
Southern Vermont, Norwich, Johnson State, and Castleton State are all in Vermont, plus Green Mountain and Lyndon State as provisionals. If Vermont Tech comes in that would make seven, enough for an automatic bid (albeit about six or seven years down the line).
I don't know about Lyndon State, but I believe Green Mountain will be off provisional status next season.
They might be. We'll have to get confirmation from Pat. I know some schools got "held back" in their progress towards full status and I don't know if Green Mountain was one of them or not.
rumor has it that this week or next the new league will be announced with the following schools: Mitchell, Daniel Webster, Bay Path, Elms, Becker, Newbury, Lesley and Wheelock have all supposedly got Presidental support and met the May 1 deadline to comit to the new league for league play starting 08-09.
I'd be intersting if this is true and if any other schools might consider this league. the travel is really low and you could see schools like, Anna Maria, Eastern Nazarene, Regis and Rivier might find this league financially attractive.
What would this do to the NAC? They might be forced to take Southern Vermont, Presque Isle, Green Mountain and Lyndon State to just keep their AQ's
The GNAC will still be fine though with the loss of DWEBS baseball team as Lasell College is now adding varsity baseball by 08-09, at least according to their website.
Those schools make sense to join. The only question will be Bay Path. Are they planning to expand in the near future? The given list has only seven schools with men's sports (assuming Wheelock is definitely going to be offering them), which is the bare minimum for an AQ. This seems a bit tenuous unless they attract a few more schools.
I'd also question whether Elms is looking to jump to this conference, which would come in squarely ranked below even the NAC in terms of level of play. It's not out of the questions, but they are the least likely to go for this.
This conference would put the GNAC at ten schools for men's sports and thirteen for women's sports. A school like Pine Manor may jump across to the new conference; that would be a natural fit (and even the numbers out for the GNAC).
As far as the NAC, this new conference would leave them with only six schools (for both women's and men's sports). Although all of the schools are in the north, either Vermont or Maine. They could add some of the independents (Southern Vermont, Presque Isle, Lyndon State, or Green Mountain) as natural fits.
This could solve a lot of the issues we've been debating for 2+ years in a realistic way. It will be interesting to see if and when this goes down. Where did you get the insider information?
in two-3 weeks the name of this new league will be decided. top choices are United Athletic Conference (UAC) or the Southern New England Athletic Conference (SNEAC).
Do we have any official press release on this yet?
not till after the AD meeting in a few weeks, which is when the name will be official
Might I suggest the Conference of Regional Athletic Participation?
that was almost funny Hoops Fan. After all it really is about what is inthe best interest for the student-Athlete. The ncaa doesn't care how competitive the league is when they award the AQ's they just look at if that league achieves the requirements. Geographically this might be one of the shortest travel leagues in New England, which is outstanding for the student-athletes invovled and not to mention the budgets of the athletic departments.
adminstration wise this league will be very good. This new league is already begun making a website and also will be hiring a full time Commish and a stipened SID to help with all of the PR of the league. With DWC and Elms involved in the planning of this league says a lot. both those school were involved in the GNAC and NAC planning and i doubt the new league will make some of the same mistakes those leagues made in their infancy.
So just because you don't think this league will be competitive does give you the right to call it the CRAP league. When every league starts from scratch their competiveness was usually really bad. It just takes time and energy to make them better.
I don't care man. I might be active on the national scene, but I'm all about the small schools. You're right, now that the CCC has to drive out to WNEC for games, this new league might be the shortest distance.
I love it. I just also like funny acronyms.
How long until the new league gets an AQ? Is there a waiting period?
I like the CRAP acronym. ;D
Two years without one, third year they would get one.
It is even more emphatic than that SNEAC-ky name they were thinking about. ;)
I feel bad for elms basketball, they have made the tourney two years in a row now, and now there wont have the AQ. wow that sucks
yah it does kinda suck for elms men's basketball and their softball team as they both made the NCAA's. but you have to look at the best interest of the entire department and school. This new league's travel budget is much much lower then the NAC. This will eventually alow more money for other things in their budgets. Maybe more recruiting?! This would make them even better! In other sports at Elms this new league will be good for them.
Um, well this doesn't take effect until 2008-2009, so they have one more AQ year. However, by 2008-2009 Pool B might be a nice place to hang out in terms of basketball.
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070510/SPORTS/705100389/1007/SPORTS
The new conference will be known as The New England Athletic Conference
www.GOTathletes.com
All,
A former CAC player on the best York College of Pennsylvania team of all-time, Padraic K. Lee #33, has created a websire to help develop an easier way for athletes, fans, coaches, and sponsors to connect off the feild. This could be very beneficial for top rated college players also. We plan to have a myriad of oversea's coaches and scouts as part of our network. For all the D3 players, like myself, to have a network to communicate with oversea's coaches would be great. I know that making the NBA would be to lofty of a goal. This website could help those collegiate players of any sport be able to network effectively to continue their athletic career anywhere, or anytime.
If you support the Division III sport world, please check this site out and create a profile. ITS FREE!!!!!!! If there are any questions or comments, please feel free to e mail the president of www.GOTatheletes.com, Pad Lee at patrick@GOTathletes.com. Thank you,
#54
Well its almost time for another season of independent basketball ..who do you guys think is going to lead the way .I've heard that Southern Vermont and Green Mountain might have a little rivalry brewing with Hammond facing off against Harrington anybody else have feedback on this one
What is Harrington on the ten year plan at SVC? when does his eligibility run out. It seems he has been there forever!!!!
Quote from: emmanuelfan on October 24, 2007, 12:26:02 PM
What is Harrington on the ten year plan at SVC? when does his eligibility run out. It seems he has been there forever!!!!
He keeps changing his first name every four years and telling people he's his younger brother.
Where do you get the info that Harrington is at GMC? Not on their roster but on SVC's roster. That would be a big hit for SVC. He's there only shot at getting some wins.
Quote from: BornBalla on October 25, 2007, 02:00:31 PM
Where do you get the info that Harrington is at GMC? Not on their roster but on SVC's roster. That would be a big hit for SVC. He's there only shot at getting some wins.
I wrote that wrong, it's the other way around.
Well i just heard that from an older source not to sure on how true it is but that would be good game to watch.
Well its official Hammond is on the green mountain team, heard they played hvcc and it was an exciting night up in poultney. Its good to see there will be talk in the independent league once again it will be good to see who moves up to an actual conference
Green Mountain now 3-1 with a 26-point win over Johnson. Hammond has made a big impact, even getting 37, 15 and five blocks in the only loss.
Quote from: buck1053 on November 25, 2007, 08:26:12 PM
Green Mountain now 3-1 with a 26-point win over Johnson. Hammond has made a big impact, even getting 37, 15 and five blocks in the only loss.
Where did this kid Hammond come from? I looked at GM's box scores. THis kid is a beast. this is his first year?
Quote from: CityD3 on December 22, 2007, 02:23:00 PM
Quote from: buck1053 on November 25, 2007, 08:26:12 PM
Green Mountain now 3-1 with a 26-point win over Johnson. Hammond has made a big impact, even getting 37, 15 and five blocks in the only loss.
Where did this kid Hammond come from? I looked at GM's box scores. THis kid is a beast. this is his first year?
He's a transfer of sorts from Southern Vermont. He didn't play last year, but was player of the year or something at SVC two years ago. I'm not sure on all the particulars, but other posters may know his history a little better.
im curious. how does the independent tournament work every year? what determines which teams make it and how many teams make it?
Quote from: CityD3 on January 01, 2008, 07:25:29 PM
im curious. how does the independent tournament work every year? what determines which teams make it and how many teams make it?
Here (http://www.d3independents.org/about.htm) is the best single web-site to which I can refer you. :)
they have a conference call during the last week of season b4 the turney. They select 4 teams to play over the course of two days. They being AD's. alot of times it is tough because not all the independents play each other.
will be interesting . next year he only independent in NE wll be presque isle.
newbury, mitchell, svc will all be joining the NECC. lyndon state and green mountain are joining the nac.
newbury beat Green mountain fairly easily. impressive considering gmc was 10-1 going into the game. This will stir the pot a little bit for the independeint tournament this y ear
hammond of GMC is being a beast as usual. consistent with the scoring. he is a guaranteed 22 and 15 with 4 blocks....however when his side kick Fisher does not show up (which he really seems to have problems doing against athletic guards) the team looses...such was the case in their two loses of the season.
svc has won 2 straight after the christmas break. with the acquisition of kordana over the break who can punish you from the arc, things have opened up inside for harrington and karnik making it easier for them to score.
btw who saw harrington score 37 and grab 33 boards at the williams tourney....
however hammond - harrington matchup when gmc and svc play should be a hell of a game to watch. My bets on GMC. Harrington is very good and his stats show it, but watch his games, he doesnt put up his regular numbers against equally strong and physical posts (and we all know hammond definitely fits the description). Hammond on the other hand eats when he wants to irrespective of who it is.
all in all this game should come down to the help both players get from their guards.
lets see what happens.
the second half of the season is looking promising, Green Mountain still leads the conference with newbury and svc on winning streaks trying to cut it closer. I just dont see any other team besides GMC winning the independent conference with their guard center combination of Fisher,Hammond who are tops in ncaa rankings. Actually 3 kids out of the independent conference lead in rankings of division 3 basketball. Why is it these kids dont get any recognition besides post ups. Congrats to those teams in the race and continue to the guys showing that independent is where it at.
um newbury beat gmc very handily this year.. I'd say newbury is the team to beat this year.. u foget the way the base the seedings is based on head to head agaisnt other independents. Newbury hasnt lost to any of the idependendts yet.
No disrespect to newbury they are strong led by Mitchell but there biggest win was the upset to gmc. At the rate Svc is going they can be a huge threat to newbury but I've seen gmc lost to NEC and there top players didn't play ? To that if anyone knows anymore. Hey who knows it seems anybody can win any given night . Any answer to what makes an all-american because harrington,Hammond,fisher have the stats as of today to be at least 1st or 2nd team but we all know the politics behind that getting close to the independent tourney. If gmc can bounce back and get a 20 win season and get the independent tournament may there be a bid to the big one who knows
if green mountain can have a 20 win season...i say da ncaa tourney should not be out of reach....gmc vs svc on tuesday should be da game of the season...hammond goes back to his former hometurf...very place he won gnac POY and the GNAC championship to square off against harrington who hasnt scored below 30 in the second half of the season......
should be a good one.......
Green Mountain is in a very interesting situation, the depth of pool B candidates doesnt seem as strong as in years past, which certainly favors GMC, however as someone pointed out on the multi region board they have the 391st weakest schedule out of 399 teams, and if they beat castleton state they will have 2 wins all season against .500 teams or better. If green mountain played even mediocre teams (middle of the pack LEC, GNAC, CCC teams) they would be lucky to finish the season at .500
not taking away what theyve accomplished as the players have no control over who they play but they in all honesty do not deserve to make the NCAA tournament, their resume is just too weak and I fully expect the committee to look at GMC and see a team that would have absolutely no shot at all of winning a tournament game and thus give that pool B bid to someone else
BYA- well put... I was in the middle of writing a similar response but you beat me to the punch.
the green mountain have no shot at making all american they only have those good stats because they play awful school. lets see them put those numbers up agaisnt williams, amherst tufts and umass dartmout on their schedule
I understand the talk about Green Mountain, I know they've played nobody, but they currently stand at 17-4, and could be 20-4 by the time the independent tournament is played at their place. Would winning that tourney help make a case for NCAA's? That would likely make them 22-4. By the way, I realize the independent tourney does not have an automatic bid, I was just wondering if they could get an at-large.
You must be joking. GM is 17-4 but 3 wins are vs non ncaa teams so that puts them at 14-4. They also havent beaten a above 500 team all year. they have also lost 4 games to NEC, bard, newbury and east conn.
has anyone taken notice to Newbury? 12-2 in their last 14 games, 14-6 now overall. they are finally coming together and look like they could make a strong tournament push. keep in mind they still havent lost to an independent school which means if they win the independent tournament thats a bid into pool b.
Quote from: coachhawk on February 14, 2008, 10:24:29 AM
has anyone taken notice to Newbury? 12-2 in their last 14 games, 14-6 now overall. they are finally coming together and look like they could make a strong tournament push. keep in mind they still havent lost to an independent school which means if they win the independent tournament thats a bid into pool b.
There aren't very many Pool B spots in the tournament and I don't think Newbury has the record to compete for one of them. They aren't even ranked regionally, so that puts them at a huge disadvantage already.
They're doing well, but this is not their year.
Newbury has a test tonight against Wentworth. Should be a good game
Newbury by far has one of the best back courts with morris running the point and mitchell at the 2, morris is probably one of the most solid point gaurds i have seen quick plays great defense and always makes the big play when needed. arch mitchelle is another that will come out and give you 20 on any given night, plus they got a guarenteed double double coming from kevin clevland and also sophmore javon mathis has been impressive averaging 14 and 7 this season. lets stop the talk about these kids from green mountain (yes they are putting up some rediculous numbers but look at the weak schedule they doing it against) and talk about a team who's head coach was fired over christmas break and looked as if the season should have been over and have turned it around and again are 12-2 since coming back from christmas break.
looks like they will just have to prove you guys wrong again with another big home victory over a good wentworth team tonight.
Quote from: coachhawk on February 14, 2008, 01:59:50 PMlooks like they will just have to prove you guys wrong again with another big home victory over a good wentworth team tonight.
It's not about proving anything to me. I have no opinion on the team one way or another. Simply by numbers, unless a lot of Pool B teams lose a lot of games in the next couple weeks, they won't be in the discussion for the NCAA tournament.
Quote from: jamiejohn on February 14, 2008, 08:30:42 AM
You must be joking. GM is 17-4 but 3 wins are vs non ncaa teams so that puts them at 14-4. They also havent beaten a above 500 team all year. they have also lost 4 games to NEC, bard, newbury and east conn.
I never said GM has played a strong schedule, I know they are like four or five teams from the bottom of strength of schedule in D3. The NEC game was an anomaly, they were without their two best players in that one. The other three, I agree were losses that will hurt them. But if there is talk of Newbury, which only beat GMC by six or seven, I was just wondering if there was a way for Green Mountain to get in.
I hope this doesn't come off as defensive, I was just curious about the team's potential, should they win the independent tournament. I realize there is no automatic bid, but I was wondering if a tourney win would help their case at all.
newbury and GM combined have a zero % chance of getting a automatic bid to the ncaa. there schedules are way too easy. Your talking about maybe 3 teams for new england getting a bid, there is RIC, brandies, Keene st, Trinity, Bowdin, middlebury and bates are all ahead and thats not even counting the lower end conferences were there are teams like Emerson, lasell, Gordon, Westfield etc etc
Another big victory
Nighthawk Victory Came Down to the Wire
Newbury College beat the defending Commonwealth Coast Conference Champions, Wentworth Institute of Technology, tonight in a nail biting 68-67 win.
Right from the tip off, the Leopards and the Nighthawks were evenly matched, which culminated in a one point lead for the Nighthawks at half time, 35-34. Coming up with a renewed intensity in the second half, the Nighthawks went on a 8-2 run in the first five minutes due in large part to the play of senior guard Ivan DaSilva (New Bedford, MA/West Bridgewater) who had 4 points, 3 assists, and 2 steals in that time.
However, the Nighthawks found themselves in foul trouble early in the second half, allowing the Leopards to come back and tie the score at the 11 minute mark. Wentworth saw their first lead of the half at the 10:30 mark when Matt Abbott (Falmouth, MA/Falmout) hit a 3-pointer, followed by two free throws by Shane West (Saco, ME/Milford) which gave the Leopards their biggest lead of the half. The lead was short lived however, as the Nighthawks Arch Mitchell (Framingham, MA/Framingham) hit three field goals to bring the Newbury lead back.
After trading baskets for nearly 8 minutes, the teams found themselves in a tie with a minute to go in regulation. Wentworth had 4 opportunities to score in the final minute, but couldn't capitalize to take the lead. With 18 seconds left, Newbury's Steven Morris (Somerville, MA/Somerville) sank a three-pointer to give the Nighthawks a 67-64 lead. Amid time running down, Wentworth's Sherrad Prezzie-Blue (Norwalk, CT/McMahon) connected with a layup and a foul to tie the game at 67 with only 4 seconds to play.
Though Newbury retained possession of the ball, it seemed that the game was destined for overtime, when DaSilva made a final drive into the lane and was fouled with .7 seconds on the clock. DaSilva connected on his first free throw to give Newbury the one point advantage that sealed the victory for the Nighthawks, 68-67.
DaSilva finished the game with 13 points, 5 rebounds, 5 steals, and 5 assists, while Mitchell was high-scorer with 17 points. Wentworth's Prezzie-Blue and Todd Doyle (Mystic, CT/Fitch) finished with 16 points a piece.
After tonight's victory, Newbury boasts a 15-7 record. The Nighthawks will play their final home game, as well as celebrate their Seniors, next on Saturday, February 16th. Game time is 12:00 p.m.
newbury beating WIT is a good thing that is for sure. But before you come on here ranting and raving about your team you should realize that your email is public and now knows that you are on the team at NC. The fact is that NC has no chance to get an at-large birth in the NCAA's. GMC has no chance either.
Quote from: newenglandball on February 15, 2008, 07:17:34 AM
newbury beating WIT is a good thing that is for sure. But before you come on here ranting and raving about your team you should realize that your email is public and now knows that you are on the team at NC. .
I love when the kids post and they dont know there email is public haha
Quote from: jamiejohn on February 15, 2008, 08:18:36 AM
Quote from: newenglandball on February 15, 2008, 07:17:34 AM
newbury beating WIT is a good thing that is for sure. But before you come on here ranting and raving about your team you should realize that your email is public and now knows that you are on the team at NC. .
I love when the kids post and they dont know there email is public haha
I love this as well, but I can't really give credit to this kid for writing that whole piece. He must have just cut and paste from his school's web site. I can't imagine a kid who doesn't even know how to hide his email is going to be witty enough to come up with a game story like that. Needless to say, he shouldn't be posting on the board, he should be focused on getting some more PT for the Nighthawk squad.
Quote from: jamiejohn on February 14, 2008, 11:15:47 PM
newbury and GM combined have a zero % chance of getting a automatic bid to the ncaa. there schedules are way too easy. Your talking about maybe 3 teams for new england getting a bid, there is RIC, brandies, Keene st, Trinity, Bowdin, middlebury and bates are all ahead and thats not even counting the lower end conferences were there are teams like Emerson, lasell, Gordon, Westfield etc etc
Newbury and Green Mountain are not in competition with those teams for a bid. They are in competition with Pool B teams across the country, first and foremost.
http://www.d3hoops.com/notables.php?item=1964
hmm this might open the door a tad bit more for GMC or a Newbury getting a pool B. Out of curiosity, Pat. Who are the teams that are in conferences that don't have AQ's that would be the top pool B teams in the country.
Neil, i dont think your coach would be to happy about you posting on this fourm.
newbury does not deserve to make the NCAA's. if your BIG WIN of the year is against a team that is 12-9 then...haha
even if newbury wins the independent tournament it doesnt say much, it just means ur better than 3 other average teams. The NCAA tournament is no joke, its no easy task to get there which is why the teams that do make it are cream of the crop. If newbury played one of the top teams from the LEC, NEWMAC, GNAC, or any team from the NESCAC they wouldnt stand a chance. For them to be 15-7 with such an incredibly weak schedule they really shouldnt feel like they have much to be bragging about...
Quote from: newenglandball on February 15, 2008, 11:20:38 AM
hmm this might open the door a tad bit more for GMC or a Newbury getting a pool B. Out of curiosity, Pat. Who are the teams that are in conferences that don't have AQ's that would be the top pool B teams in the country.
There's very few Pool B slots and no team from New England has a shot unless a whole bunch of losses happen.
There is a Pool B board in the multi-region section if you want more info.
Miracle Overtime Buzzer-Beater Sends Newbury Past Eagles
Nashua – Two seconds can seem like a lifetime. Unfortunately for the Eagles men's basketball team, they found that out the hardest way imaginable Thursday night.
Two seconds away from forcing a second overtime after Eagle freshman Chris Hanson (Salem, Mass.) sank two pressure-packed free throws to tie the game at 97, Newbury guard Steve Morris (Somerville, Mass.) answered with a 75-foot miracle that hit nothing but net as the buzzer sounded giving the visiting Nighthawks a stunning 100-97 victory in a wild matchup of future New England Collegiate rivals at a raucous Vagge Gymnasium.
Morris, who had initially forced overtime knocking down a three pointer with 21 seconds to play in regulation, took the inbounds pass from Javon Mathis (Plainville, Conn.) and heaved the ball from the far right corner knocking down the longest shot recorded in Vagge Gymnasium history in a regular season game.
The win was the eighth straight for the Nighthawks (17-7), while the Eagles (7-17) dropped their fourth straight.
Kevin Cleveland (Lynn, Mass.) led all scorers for Newbury pouring in 28 points, going 13 of 16 from the field and added 12 rebounds. Arch Mitchell (Framingham, Mass.) knocked down 21, while Mathis chipped in with 18. Morris finished with 14.
Hanson led Daniel Webster with 19 points including five three-pointers, while Adam Landry (Vernon, Conn.) knocked down five more from outside on the way to 18 points. Tim Jackson (West Henrietta, N.Y.) added 11 while Steve Savage (Salem, N.H.) chipped in with 10.
Senior Eagle captain Ryan Middlemiss (Methuen, Mass.), playing in his final home game and honored in a pregame ceremony, dished out a game and career best nine assists and added eight rebounds and five points.
Newbury led by six (44-39) at the half and by as many as 13 in the second before a pair of wild swings led to overtime.
Trailing by 11 at 74-63 with 9:09 to go in regulation, the Eagles mounted a furious comeback with an 18-5 run consuming 4:24 to take the lead. Hanson knocked down a three with 6:34 left for a 77-74 Newbury lead, followed with another with 5:11 to go to cut it to one, and Landry added another for an 81-79 lead with 4:45 left.
After building the lead to 88-81 with 2:18 to after a Hanson jumper, Newbury responded with a wild finish to force overtime. After Cleveland buried two free throws, he followed with a lay up with 1:21 left setting up Morris's first heroics.
Newbury opened the extra session with the first six points thanks to a dunk and layup from Cleveland.
Trailing by five (97-92) with 51 seconds left, Jackson knocked down a three with 40 seconds to go and Middlemiss followed with a steal of Morris with 16 seconds left.
Hanson was then fouled outside the arc and sank both freebies with 2.1 seconds to go, setting up the Morris miracle.
The Eagles, who still own the eighth and final playoff spot for the upcoming GNAC tournament, close their regular season Saturday at Rivier beginning at 1:00 p.m. The Eagles hold a one-game lead over Mount Ida for the final spot. Mount Ida travels to Lasell for a 1:00 p.m. matchup. The Eagles can clinch a tournament spot with a victory or a Mount Ida loss.
Newbury travels to Green Mountain Saturday for the four-team Association of Division III Independents Northeast championships. The Nighthawks face future NECC rival Southern Vermont at 5:30 p.m.
Quote from: newenglandball on February 22, 2008, 07:10:10 AM
Miracle Overtime Buzzer-Beater Sends Newbury Past Eagles
Nashua – Two seconds can seem like a lifetime. Unfortunately for the Eagles men's basketball team, they found that out the hardest way imaginable Thursday night.
Two seconds away from forcing a second overtime after Eagle freshman Chris Hanson (Salem, Mass.) sank two pressure-packed free throws to tie the game at 97, Newbury guard Steve Morris (Somerville, Mass.) answered with a 75-foot miracle that hit nothing but net as the buzzer sounded giving the visiting Nighthawks a stunning 100-97 victory in a wild matchup of future New England Collegiate rivals at a raucous Vagge Gymnasium.
Morris, who had initially forced overtime knocking down a three pointer with 21 seconds to play in regulation, took the inbounds pass from Javon Mathis (Plainville, Conn.) and heaved the ball from the far right corner knocking down the longest shot recorded in Vagge Gymnasium history in a regular season game.
The win was the eighth straight for the Nighthawks (17-7), while the Eagles (7-17) dropped their fourth straight.
Kevin Cleveland (Lynn, Mass.) led all scorers for Newbury pouring in 28 points, going 13 of 16 from the field and added 12 rebounds. Arch Mitchell (Framingham, Mass.) knocked down 21, while Mathis chipped in with 18. Morris finished with 14.
Hanson led Daniel Webster with 19 points including five three-pointers, while Adam Landry (Vernon, Conn.) knocked down five more from outside on the way to 18 points. Tim Jackson (West Henrietta, N.Y.) added 11 while Steve Savage (Salem, N.H.) chipped in with 10.
Senior Eagle captain Ryan Middlemiss (Methuen, Mass.), playing in his final home game and honored in a pregame ceremony, dished out a game and career best nine assists and added eight rebounds and five points.
Newbury led by six (44-39) at the half and by as many as 13 in the second before a pair of wild swings led to overtime.
Trailing by 11 at 74-63 with 9:09 to go in regulation, the Eagles mounted a furious comeback with an 18-5 run consuming 4:24 to take the lead. Hanson knocked down a three with 6:34 left for a 77-74 Newbury lead, followed with another with 5:11 to go to cut it to one, and Landry added another for an 81-79 lead with 4:45 left.
After building the lead to 88-81 with 2:18 to after a Hanson jumper, Newbury responded with a wild finish to force overtime. After Cleveland buried two free throws, he followed with a lay up with 1:21 left setting up Morris's first heroics.
Newbury opened the extra session with the first six points thanks to a dunk and layup from Cleveland.
Trailing by five (97-92) with 51 seconds left, Jackson knocked down a three with 40 seconds to go and Middlemiss followed with a steal of Morris with 16 seconds left.
Hanson was then fouled outside the arc and sank both freebies with 2.1 seconds to go, setting up the Morris miracle.
The Eagles, who still own the eighth and final playoff spot for the upcoming GNAC tournament, close their regular season Saturday at Rivier beginning at 1:00 p.m. The Eagles hold a one-game lead over Mount Ida for the final spot. Mount Ida travels to Lasell for a 1:00 p.m. matchup. The Eagles can clinch a tournament spot with a victory or a Mount Ida loss.
Newbury travels to Green Mountain Saturday for the four-team Association of Division III Independents Northeast championships. The Nighthawks face future NECC rival Southern Vermont at 5:30 p.m.
Newbury couldn't get another miracle this weekend, huh? I saw tey lost to Green Mountain by 2 in the championship game of the Indy tourney.
yah i find it wierd that newbury was the #1 seed.. why were they playing at Green mountain if they are the 1 seed? strange if you ask me.
Quote from: newenglandball on February 27, 2008, 08:37:47 AM
yah i find it wierd that newbury was the #1 seed.. why were they playing at Green mountain if they are the 1 seed? strange if you ask me.
I think Newbury declined to host.
yikes talking about putting your team at a disadvantage escpecially sense Newbury easily beat GMC in the Regualar season..congrats to GMc though of pulling off the upset win
well technically Newbury doesn't have there own gym but regardless of were the game was played GMC won i see it was only a 2 pt win.Congrats to them for turning the team around this year there are some great players in this conference i wonder how the all conference team goes. Thinking it may be a long shot for GMC to get a bid in the tourney due to the politics behind selections but it would be nice to see how they rank amonst these teams since their schedule didnt allow them to.Good Luck
one last thing does any one know of camps or exposure leagues that are available to the players of this conference
camps or exposure leagues for players of this conference? are you crazy? teams or players need to get exposure theirselves.
on another not. the indpendent tourney in New England will be gone next year as UMPI is the only Indpendent left nextyear.
Newbury, Mitchell, Southern Vermont will all be charter members of the NECC.
Green Mountain and Lyndon State will be in the NAC.
Quote from: newenglandball on February 27, 2008, 12:42:19 PM
yikes talking about putting your team at a disadvantage escpecially sense Newbury easily beat GMC in the Regualar season..congrats to GMc though of pulling off the upset win
I'm not sure you could classify Newbury's win the first time as an easy one, it was just 7 points at the end, but from the looks of it, the Nighthawks certainly gave GMC everything it could handle. That game, I understand, basically determined the first and second spots for New England Pool B teams, but with only four bids, it's unlikely either will get in the NCAA's. Especially with Nebrasksa Wesleyan having a great in-region record (6-1), despite having only played 7 in-regon games because the conference they are in is NAIA.
i guess the NCAA thought Green Mountain's schedule was way to week to get a Pool B
Quote from: newenglandball on March 03, 2008, 01:16:10 PM
i guess the NCAA thought Green Mountain's schedule was way to week to get a Pool B
They never had a chance; just too many bad teams on the schedule.
I like to look at the teams GM lost too, here goes Bard, Newbury, Lyndon st, NEC, East Conn. Minus East conn and look at those teams.
looks like Newbury is the only Independent school left playing as they are hosting JWU as a 3 seed in the ECAC's.
congrats to hammond for winning POY in the independents....heard it was a tough race b'n him n harrington
How does a player who average 27 and 15 not get player of the year not to say he leads the nation in rebounding and he is in sports illustrated harrington also got player of the week 11 times and player of the month twice had a 30 and 30 game how doesnt harrington from svc get the poy award if you look at the game he played and the team then look at gmc and who they played i just dont understand
because he is a good player on a really bad team. if he was that good.. his team would have won more games.
Congradulations to Doug Hammond for signing in Germany good luck out there.It's funny how this kid got no press release seems like these d3hoop politics kick in even after the season i mean isnt that finally an accomplishment for him but yet no recognition who chooses these things
the_real_gnac: If his school would bother to log in and post a release the way all the other schools do, then it would appear with the other releases.
It isn't politics. EVERY school has a login. EVERY release that they send gets posted, automatically. It's a matter of a school actually DOING it.
sorry about that i thought it all went through the website.I just dont understand why a school wouldnt want that to be known sorry about that pat
help me understand the talent difference between D2 and D3...
Beyond academics...how do Williams players compare to say Westfield or Salem State players
After seeing many of the best teams in D3 from this region and a few near by regions and seeing many of this region's D2 teams, I think the biggest difference is the size and athleticism of the players and not necessarily the skill set. I have seen many kids get D2 scholarships just because they are a bigger kid and another get looked over because he's "too small"(ie kid might be a 5-9 guard or 6-3/6-4 forward). Scholarship level is definitely concerned with the tale of the tape. The other difference is the academic reputations. Many D2 or even D1 level kids will opt to go to NESCAC schools(or even a few NEWMACS). Having seen past Amherst,Williams, and Trinity teams, I saw many kids who could easily have done well at Northeast Region's D2 teams. Just my thoughts
Must admit I only saw Williams once last year on a webcast but have seen Salem St. several times over last few years. I've seen Westfield St. a few times as well and would not compare them to Salem St. at all in terms of player characteristics. Here's my thoughts:
Westfield St. usually has one or two "basketball players" and then the rest of the guys are big bruiser types or specialists(ie a shooter). They will physically try to beat you down with physical play and tough defense. They don't seem to be offensively that diverse but are still very effective.
Salem St. simply gets the largest group of talented players in the MASCAC. They will often get scholarship kids who slip for one reason or another. A few years ago they had this 6-5 guard(last name was Downey I think) who was nasty. Salem will play hard nosed defense but usually has a multitude of offensive weapons who can score the ball.
As with many NESCACs, I think the stereotype of Williams is a bunch of "heady" players who beat you with high IQ, toughness, and great perimeter shooting. I think Williams,Trinity, Amherst, and Middlebury(last year) have shown that they all have super talented kids who are athletic as well( and rarely get credit for that). I heard that Williams runs a version of the Princeton offense(in the past Amherst has run some set from the Princeton as well) so people equate the offense with only smart players who are not very athletic because of the Princeton teams from Pete Carrill in the 80's & 90's. But several NBA teams have run the Princeton with some of the most athletic people in the world. The biggest differences I have seen with Williams(mainly based off the past) is that they have much more size at all positions and maybe a few less guards than SalemSt.(oh and their grads probably make more upon graduation than the other too)
I've created this board, as I did last season to hold some of the region-wide discussions we start in various places. This also helps to keep the region page from getting too cluttered. So if you find your thread gone, it's just been moved to this thread.
According to the National Preseason Poll, here are the Northeast preseason rankings:
1. UMD (9 in top 25, 397 points)
2. Bridgewater State (11, 352)
3. Brandeis (22, 123)
4. Amherst (25, 95)
5. Middlebury (NR, 69)
6. Elms (NR, 38)
7. RIC (NR, 13)
7t. Williams (NR, 13)
9. Salem State (NR, 11)
10. WPI (NR, 10)
11. MIT (NR, 3)
I'd say a more accurate ranking:
1. UMD
2. (tie) Williams / Amherst
4. Brandeis
5. Middlebury
6. WPI
7. Bowdoin
8. Elms
9. Wheaton
10. Bridgewater State
Other possibles: MIT, Salem State, RIC, Trinity, Colby, Emerson
how do you have Bridgewater St at 10 in NE when they are ranked 11 in the COUNTRY? just curious.
Quote from: CCCalum2 on November 20, 2009, 11:53:22 AM
how do you have Bridgewater St at 10 in NE when they are ranked 11 in the COUNTRY? just curious.
Check out the box score from the WNEC game.
After some early season results are in:
1. UMass Dartmouth -- yes, they lost a game, but that was without their all-american, still have the most talent, deepest roster, and beating Brandeis shows they are for real
2. Williams -- still a bit up and down, and a few of the veterans have yet to get on track. But Schultz is playing at an all-american level and Wang and Whittington have really stepped up. Need to improve defense a bit. Two quality wins.
3. Amherst -- when they play Elms will get a better sense. Tremendous size and athleticism at basically every position, but may have a tough time against quicker teams, without a lot of smaller guards to defend and handle the ball. If Meehan gets in foul trouble, watch out. Could easily make an argument for them at number one given their depth and talent.
4. Elms -- again, the real test will be against Amherst but they are always tough.
5. Brandeis -- great top seven but NO depth at all -- will those guys wear down??
6. MIT -- with huge infusion of talent seem to be for real, but young team will inevitably experience some bumps
7. WPI -- always in the mix, always falls short in post-season
8. Colby -- great starting group, questionable depth
9. Middlebury -- incredible defense, offense is questionable though. No real go-to guy on O but they are gonna shut down a lot of teams especially once Edwards comes back.
10. Eastern Conn -- two wins over NESCAC squads
11. Bowdoin -- I think they will eventually rise higher. Sleeper team with great inside-outside balance.
Others to watch: Wesleyan (opposite of Midd, all offense, no defense), Wheaton (MA), Bridgewater St., Westfield St., Roger Williams
For whatever it is worth this early:
Conference Winning Percentages:
1. NEWMAC - .700, 21-9 - MIT and WPI 4-0
2. NESCAC - .643, 18-10 - Middlebury and Williams 3-0, Amherst and Colby 2-0
3. LEC - .594, 19-13 - Eastern Connecticut St. 4-0
4. GNAC - .483, 14-15 - Mount Ida and St. Joseph (ME) 2-0
5. MASCAC - .482, 13-14 - Westfield St. 4-0
6. NECC - .469, 15-17 - Wheelock 4-0, Elms 3-0
7. CCC - .393, 22-34 - Roger Williams 4-0
8. NAC - .370, 10-17 - Thomas 4-0
*Brandeis - .666, 2-1
*UMPI - .000, 0-3
Much of anything to be taken from that? MIT impressive, even with outstanding newcomers, start considering Bartolotta graduation. Wheelock is eye brow raising and has legit wins. Feels like there might be a relatively significant seperation from contenders to those in the bottom group in the NESCAC.
Looking forward to the rest of the semester...
Quote from: nescac1 on November 25, 2009, 07:32:15 AM
After some early season results are in:
1. UMass Dartmouth -- yes, they lost a game, but that was without their all-american, still have the most talent, deepest roster, and beating Brandeis shows they are for real
2. Williams -- still a bit up and down, and a few of the veterans have yet to get on track. But Schultz is playing at an all-american level and Wang and Whittington have really stepped up. Need to improve defense a bit. Two quality wins.
3. Amherst -- when they play Elms will get a better sense. Tremendous size and athleticism at basically every position, but may have a tough time against quicker teams, without a lot of smaller guards to defend and handle the ball. If Meehan gets in foul trouble, watch out. Could easily make an argument for them at number one given their depth and talent.
4. Elms -- again, the real test will be against Amherst but they are always tough.
5. Brandeis -- great top seven but NO depth at all -- will those guys wear down??
6. MIT -- with huge infusion of talent seem to be for real, but young team will inevitably experience some bumps
7. WPI -- always in the mix, always falls short in post-season
8. Colby -- great starting group, questionable depth
9. Middlebury -- incredible defense, offense is questionable though. No real go-to guy on O but they are gonna shut down a lot of teams especially once Edwards comes back.
10. Eastern Conn -- two wins over NESCAC squads
11. Bowdoin -- I think they will eventually rise higher. Sleeper team with great inside-outside balance.
Others to watch: Wesleyan (opposite of Midd, all offense, no defense), Wheaton (MA), Bridgewater St., Westfield St., Roger Williams
I agree with u Nescac1. Only thing is that UMD has had there all-american every game except the 1st game. The problem is he is still recovering from off season surgery so he is not in his all american status just yet. Once he gets healthy UMD will prob be the best in the northeast hands down. I also think that East Conn has a chance to move up to that 8 or 9 lot if they keep playing the way they have been playing
According to the Week 1 national poll, this is how the Northeast looks:
1. UMD (11 in the top 25, 319 points, -78 points)
2. Amherst (13, 259, +164)
3. Middlebury (15, 200, +131)
4. Bridgewater State (19, 118, -234)
5. Elms (20, 113, +75)
6. Brandeis (23, 97, -26)
7. Williams (29, 67, +54)
8. WPI (32, 37, +27)
9. MIT (34, 21, +18)
No others received votes, meaning Salem State and RIC both went from receiving votes (although not a lot), to having none.
Biggest gainers were Amherst (+164, or up 6.5 spots on the average posters poll), Elms (+75, up 3 spots per posters poll), and Williams (+54, +2 spots per posters poll). Biggest losers were Bridgewater (-234, or down 9.5 spots on the avearge posters poll), UMD (-78, or down 3 spots per posters poll), and Brandeis (-26, or down 1 spot per posters poll).
Quote from: hugenerd on December 01, 2009, 01:04:09 PM
According to the Week 1 national poll, this is how the Northeast looks:
1. UMD (11 in the top 25, 319 points, -78 points)
2. Amherst (13, 259, +164)
3. Middlebury (15, 200, +131)
4. Bridgewater State (19, 118, -234)
5. Elms (20, 113, +75)
6. Brandeis (23, 97, -26)
7. Williams (29, 67, +54)
8. WPI (32, 37, +27)
9. MIT (34, 21, +18)
No others received votes, meaning Salem State and RIC both went from receiving votes (although not a lot), to having none.
Biggest gainers were Amherst (+164, or up 6.5 spots on the average posters poll), Elms (+75, up 3 spots per posters poll), and Williams (+54, +2 spots per posters poll). Biggest losers were Bridgewater (-234, or down 9.5 spots on the avearge posters poll), UMD (-78, or down 3 spots per posters poll), and Brandeis (-26, or down 1 spot per posters poll).
This poll makes sense but I dont get how amherst gains 164 pts from being 2-0 and not beating anyone good. THat doesnt quite make sense to me
My guess is that it was NE voters switching votes from Brdigewater to Amherst. The votes that Bridgewater and and UMD lost (-312 combined) went directly to Amherst and Middlebury (+295 combined), it appears.
Quote from: hugenerd on December 01, 2009, 09:05:41 PM
My guess is that it was NE voters switching votes from Brdigewater to Amherst. The votes that Bridgewater and and UMD lost (-312 combined) went directly to Amherst and Middlebury (+295 combined), it appears.
That makes sense. Thanks Hugenerd
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Middlebury (9 in the top 25, 359 points, +159 points)
2. UMD (10 , 342 points, +23 points)
3. Amherst (17, 185, -74)
4. Brandeis (18, 181, +84)
5. Williams (20, 120, +53)
6. Elms (26, 87, -26)
7. MIT (27, 86, +65)
8. WPI (36, 12, -25)
Bridgewater State continues its decent, losing all 118 points it had (in the last two weeks they have dropped 352 points.
Biggest surprise is probably Middlebury jumping UMD without really beating anybody (this could again be the same thing we saw last week, voters perceive them as the top NESCAC team now that Amherst lost and therefore points lost by Amherst are potentially shifting to them). They moved up 159 points, or an average of 6 spots per ballot. Brandeis also moved up about 3.5 spots per ballot, while Amherst dropped about 3 spots per ballot. Williams moved up about 2 spots per ballot while MIT moved up about 2.5 spots per ballot. MIT and Elms are just a few points out of the top 25 (#25 has 90 points).
Quote from: thatdude 30 on November 30, 2009, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: nescac1 on November 25, 2009, 07:32:15 AM
Only thing is that UMD has had there all-american every game except the 1st game. The problem is he is still recovering from off season surgery so he is not in his all american status just yet. Once he gets healthy UMD will prob be the best in the northeast hands down. I also think that East Conn has a chance to move up to that 8 or 9 lot if they keep playing the way they have been playing
Who is UMD's all american--I don't recall them having one?
Well, I should have said, top player and potential all-american, Brandon Shelton ...
I think the top 25 poll is now getting closer to reality, especially with Bridgewater gone, but Brandeis is too high, and MIT as a returning tourney team that is 8-0 deserves more props and should slide into that spot.
I might go something like this:
1. UMD (maybe not quite playing up to its talent level yet, but I think still the top team in the region as it gets healthy) 2. Williams 3. Middlebury 4. MIT 5. Elms 6. Amherst (probably a little low but they did lose to Elms head-to-head; I imagine they'll quickly return to the top 3-4) 7. Colby 8. Brandeis 9. Bowdoin 10. WPI. I think two through six are fairly interchangeable and they will all slide around quite a bit in that range ...
Quote from: All-around on December 08, 2009, 01:39:23 PM
Quote from: thatdude 30 on November 30, 2009, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: nescac1 on November 25, 2009, 07:32:15 AM
Only thing is that UMD has had there all-american every game except the 1st game. The problem is he is still recovering from off season surgery so he is not in his all american status just yet. Once he gets healthy UMD will prob be the best in the northeast hands down. I also think that East Conn has a chance to move up to that 8 or 9 lot if they keep playing the way they have been playing
Who is UMD's all american--I don't recall them having one?
Brandon Shelton was a D3 News Pre-season Honarable-Mention All-American, I believe. He has never been named an All-American, or All-Region for that matter, by d3hoops.com.
Quote from: hugenerd on December 08, 2009, 02:22:34 PM
Quote from: All-around on December 08, 2009, 01:39:23 PM
Quote from: thatdude 30 on November 30, 2009, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: nescac1 on November 25, 2009, 07:32:15 AM
Only thing is that UMD has had there all-american every game except the 1st game. The problem is he is still recovering from off season surgery so he is not in his all american status just yet. Once he gets healthy UMD will prob be the best in the northeast hands down. I also think that East Conn has a chance to move up to that 8 or 9 lot if they keep playing the way they have been playing
Who is UMD's all american--I don't recall them having one?
Brandon Shelton was a D3 News Pre-season Honarable-Mention All-American, I believe. He has never been named an All-American, or All-Region for that matter, by d3hoops.com.
Yea i think he was a 3rd team all american for division 3 news and honorable mention for sporting news
with the win today over Umass dartmouth (whose all american has been playing for the past couple weeks) I find it hard to believe that western ct isnt in the discussion for one of the top teams in the region, there only loss of the season was to a richard stockton team who was at the time #4 in the country by only 2 points, a supposed very athletic umd team was dominated today on the glass (47-27!) by a western team playing with a ton of confidence and should to start to be given its due.
Quote from: LECFAN32 on December 12, 2009, 11:35:14 PM
with the win today over Umass dartmouth (whose all american has been playing for the past couple weeks) I find it hard to believe that western ct isnt in the discussion for one of the top teams in the region, there only loss of the season was to a richard stockton team who was at the time #4 in the country by only 2 points, a supposed very athletic umd team was dominated today on the glass (47-27!) by a western team playing with a ton of confidence and should to start to be given its due.
Im sure they will pickup a couple votes this week. It is always most difficult to get noticed by the voters the first time, so if they continue to play well the rankings will sort themselves out by february.
I think everyone (myself included) was giving UMD the benefit of the doubt because of their performance last year and all the talent they have on paper, but clearly, something is missing so far this year -- even in their wins, for the most part they haven't exactly been crushing the lesser opponents they faced. They are going to drop pretty hard. Meanwhile, Western Conn, a very young team, seems to have arrived a year ahead of schedule. Now that we've had enough time to see teams to judge more on this year's performance than past reputation, I'd say a New England ranking would look something like this:
1. Williams, 2. Middlebury, 3. MIT, 4. Amherst (clearly the top four teams in the region in some order based on talent and performance to date, after that it gets a little tricky). I'm not sure anyone outside of that group deserves to be in the national top 25 based on performance to date. Then there is a group of about ten solid teams, Western Conn, Eastern Conn, UMD, Bowdoin, Colby, Brandeis, WPI, Lasell, Thomas, Bates, that all seem capable of beating each other on any given night.
Lasell's in that mix with a 3-5 record?
Woops, I meant Elms, not Lasell.
Conference Winning Percentages:
1. NESCAC - .675, 52-25 - Williams 8-0, Middlebury 7-0, Colby 7-1, Amherst 6-1, Bowdoin 6-2, Bates 5-2
2. NEWMAC - .600, 39-26 - MIT 11-0, WPI 9-1, Clark 7-3
3. LEC - .589, 43-30 - West Conn 8-1, East Conn 7-1, UMD 6-2
4. GNAC - .520, 40-37 - Albertus Magnus and St. Joseph (ME) 6-1, Mount Ida 6-2
5. NAC - .450, 27-33, Thomas 7-1
6. NECC - .438, 28-36 - Elms 6-2, Wheelock 5-2
7. CCC - .415, 49-69 - Roger Williams 7-2, Colby-Sawyer 5-2
8. MASCAC - .390, 23-36 - Westfield State 6-4
*Brandeis - .875, 7-1
*UMPI - ..000, 0-5
MIT is really an unknown quantity at this point. Their pre-conference schedule is so weak that it is really difficult to presume anything about them other than to say they are pretty good---but that is it. I think they will really struggle against NEWMAC opponents such as WPI, Clark and Babson who will recognize that they are very slow on the defensive end of the floor ( except for the freshman, Kates) and will attack them mercilessly. The question for opponents of MIT, of course, will be whether or not they will be able to contain the MIT offense which has multiple options. MIT is not ready to be put in a class with Williams, Middlebury or some of the other verifiably strong D3 teams just yet. They are probably somewhere in the range of about 45th or so in terms of D3 rankings ( this, of course, is an intuitive ranking). No defense, no rank high ranking. Beat a couple of pretty good teams ( WPI, Clark for instance) and then maybe some consideration for national ranking.....until then, MIT is a year away. They REALLY need to upgrade their schedule if they want to get some serious consideration as a top team.......get rid of the Newbury, Suffolk, Emerson, Lesley type teams....I'm sure there are some legitimate opponents out there who would like to play you in the first half of the season. Why not a return to the Lopata Tournament for a start?
Quote from: remsleep on December 14, 2009, 01:13:35 AM
MIT is really an unknown quantity at this point. Their pre-conference schedule is so weak that it is really difficult to presume anything about them other than to say they are pretty good---but that is it. I think they will really struggle against NEWMAC opponents such as WPI, Clark and Babson who will recognize that they are very slow on the defensive end of the floor ( except for the freshman, Kates) and will attack them mercilessly. The question for opponents of MIT, of course, will be whether or not they will be able to contain the MIT offense which has multiple options. MIT is not ready to be put in a class with Williams, Middlebury or some of the other verifiably strong D3 teams just yet. They are probably somewhere in the range of about 45th or so in terms of D3 rankings ( this, of course, is an intuitive ranking). No defense, no rank high ranking. Beat a couple of pretty good teams ( WPI, Clark for instance) and then maybe some consideration for national ranking.....until then, MIT is a year away. They REALLY need to upgrade their schedule if they want to get some serious consideration as a top team.......get rid of the Newbury, Suffolk, Emerson, Lesley type teams....I'm sure there are some legitimate opponents out there who would like to play you in the first half of the season. Why not a return to the Lopata Tournament for a start?
I disagree with you about MIT's hierarchy in the NEWMAC. Who has WPI beat that is impressive? They only have one win over a team with a winning record, Thomas. Every other team they have played has a losing record at this point. Clark has played a tougher schedule, but they too only have one win over a team with a winning record, Nichols (they have lost to both good teams they have played). Babson is currently 3-5 with their only wins coming over Curry, King's and Emerson. I think MIT will be just fine in the NEWMAC. I dont see them being blown out by anybody in league play. They are also better defensively than you are giving them credit for. MIT has not given up more than 61 points in a non-overtime game this year. You throw in a couple overtime games and the numbers go up slightly, but they are still only giving up 57.7 ppg on average, with opponents shooting 38% overall and outrebounding their opponents by 11. I am sure Coach Anderson and the rest of the coaching staff would tell you that they are not where they need to be defensively yet, but they are not bad by any means.
Also, weak schedules early in the season are not just a NEWMAC thing, look at Middlebury, currently ranked 9 in the country, they have not beat a single team with a winning record yet. None. They have only played 7 games, 6 of those d3, and their OWP is 0.40 (16-24). MITs OWP is 0.42 (31-43) to date. How do you know any more about Middlebury than you know about MIT? Brandeis has essentially the same schedule as MIT to date, except they lost to UMD. Brandeis has only beaten one team with a winning record, Clark (MIT has beaten two). This is also not unique to the NE: Mighty Wooster has not beaten a single team with a winning record this year, yet they are ranked #23 with 3 losses to the only 3 teams they have played with winning records. So it is easy to bash a team, their schedule, etc. based on your "intuition", but when you look at other highly ranked teams in the region and even the country, MIT does not stack up all that unfavorably.
The fact is is that everything is relatively speculative at this point in the season. There are not many marquee games that give you a lot of info about how teams rank in the region, yet. Salem State was supposed to be good, they were an NCAA round of 16 team, but they fell off. Emerson was a preseason favorite in the GNAC, but have had a little trouble out of the gate, in part due to Jeremy Shannon being out a few games. Gordon (5-3) IS good, but they have a couple close loses and will win the CCC, in my opinion. RPI's (6-1) only loss is to MIT. So I dont think MIT's schedule was too weak coming into the season, but it may look that way now with the way Salem, and perhaps Emerson, has played.
Dont even get me started on your "intuitive" ranking. What does that mean? Intuitively, I feel that you looked only at MITs schedule when making some of these remarks and did not look at the schedules of some other highly ranked teams. I think MIT will do just fine this year and, as you said, the future looks even brighter with so much young talent.
Quote from: remsleep on December 14, 2009, 01:13:35 AM
MIT is really an unknown quantity at this point. Their pre-conference schedule is so weak that it is really difficult to presume anything about them other than to say they are pretty good---but that is it. I think they will really struggle against NEWMAC opponents such as WPI, Clark and Babson who will recognize that they are very slow on the defensive end of the floor ( except for the freshman, Kates) and will attack them mercilessly. The question for opponents of MIT, of course, will be whether or not they will be able to contain the MIT offense which has multiple options. MIT is not ready to be put in a class with Williams, Middlebury or some of the other verifiably strong D3 teams just yet. They are probably somewhere in the range of about 45th or so in terms of D3 rankings ( this, of course, is an intuitive ranking). No defense, no rank high ranking. Beat a couple of pretty good teams ( WPI, Clark for instance) and then maybe some consideration for national ranking.....until then, MIT is a year away. They REALLY need to upgrade their schedule if they want to get some serious consideration as a top team.......get rid of the Newbury, Suffolk, Emerson, Lesley type teams....I'm sure there are some legitimate opponents out there who would like to play you in the first half of the season. Why not a return to the Lopata Tournament for a start?
By the way, MIT received the 27th most votes in the country last week, and will likely pick up some with their 3-0 week. I think it is very feasible that they do get ranked this week for the first time ever.
I agree. MIT is a good/solid team. Teams like Salem State who I believe will not finish with a horrible record..but is obviously not as good as previous years teams and do play a very tough early season schedule and Emerson who has been a good/tough opponent over the years (but has been missing their pre-season All-American Shannon) do not have good records early but will most likely finish off stronger.
This problem however is always the case in D3. A team can be top 25 the previous year and can loose players, or have injuries to cause them to not be the same the following year.
MIT should be very good for years to come, Kates and Hollingsworth should be studs. It will be interesting to see how they handle teams with quicker guards because that is their one weakness.
Western Connecticut is a very solid team. They can flat out score. They have a little guiard who is the best guard in Connecticut and maybe top 5 in the region. He can create his own shot and can light it up. They can play big or small and will be very hard to beat in the little east.
Rankings don't mean much this time of year (unless the program is up and coming). League play has just begun, I want to see rankings and how teams are playing in late January/ early February.
See response to remsleep's defense comment on NEWMAC board.
Facts say MIT's defense is pretty good.
Hugenerd: take a breath.....everything is going to be OK for MIT. I specifically chose to insert my "intuitive" opinion of where MIT is on the D3 food chain right now. Although I am not an MIT grad I recognize that basing opinions on intuition is not an equal alternative to rankings based on real-life data analysis....I was simply stating my intuition.....sorry you seemed to be so excited about that.
Additionally, I enjoyed your analysis of combined opponents' records, etc......TBall (I think it was) also did a good job on that as well.......truth be told I already knew that stuff before it was posted....anyone who follows D3 basketball closely would do that routinely I would think....especially if they are looking for ways to make publicly defensible arguments for relative strengths, weaknesses etc of various teams
My current observations about MIT and the possible challenges they face are based not on intuition but on familiarity with most of the players they will be facing from here on......those who attack MIT off the bounce will be successful because MIT's individual defenders ( not Kates) are slow afoot.
Finally, I also strongly believe that as long as MIT's offensive weapons continue to function.....and their team offense has really come on in the past several games....they will be a force....
I also expect that MIT will show up in the Top 25 this week.
Quote from: remsleep on December 14, 2009, 11:19:14 PM
Hugenerd: take a breath.....everything is going to be OK for MIT. I specifically chose to insert my "intuitive" opinion of where MIT is on the D3 food chain right now. Although I am not an MIT grad I recognize that basing opinions on intuition is not an equal alternative to rankings based on real-life data analysis....I was simply stating my intuition.....sorry you seemed to be so excited about that.
Additionally, I enjoyed your analysis of combined opponents' records, etc......TBall (I think it was) also did a good job on that as well.......truth be told I already knew that stuff before it was posted....anyone who follows D3 basketball closely would do that routinely I would think....especially if they are looking for ways to make publicly defensible arguments for relative strengths, weaknesses etc of various teams
My current observations about MIT and the possible challenges they face are based not on intuition but on familiarity with most of the players they will be facing from here on......those who attack MIT off the bounce will be successful because MIT's individual defenders ( not Kates) are slow afoot.
Finally, I also strongly believe that as long as MIT's offensive weapons continue to function.....and their team offense has really come on in the past several games....they will be a force....
I also expect that MIT will show up in the Top 25 this week.
I wasnt "excited", I just disagreed with you. MIT isnt all that bad off the dribble, either. They have several good on the ball defenders, including Kates (as you mentioned), Jimmy Burke, and Billy Bender. When you couple that with a big and deep back line, they can give teams problems, especially because they will be bigger than most teams they play. Obviously, very offensively talented, quick wing players can give them problems, but I dont think anymore than most other teams. Coach Anderson has been playing Bender and Burke over MITs starters for significant minutes presumably due to this very reason. MIT finally has some depth and different pieces than they have had in previous years, I trust that the coaching staff can make the appropriate adjustments and put the right players in the game to give them the best chance to win. That does not mean that I think they will win every game, but I think they will continue to be successful.
After years of watching these boards, remsleep brought me to life after making an erroneous post which hugenerd and tball already thoughtfully refuted.
I'll only add that while MIT's deficincies are apparent (most notably the fact that the Engineers have relied almost entirely on freshmen and sophomores to carry the load), you'll have to figure that whatever they lack in speed and athleticism, they will be able to offset with disciplined defense and a major size advantage over most of the teams they will see this season. While MIT's schedule is by no means daunting, they have held 9 of its 11 opponents to their lowest offensive output on the year. The only times they didn't were overtime games against a perennially tough Salem State team and a Gordon team that won 20 games last season and returned all its best players. This team will certainly endure some tough games, but MIT has never had such a strong foundation of young talent and the future is incredibly bright (keep in mind that the league's top three-point shooter last year, Jamie Karraker, has yet to begin his sophomore season because of injury).
The other point I wanted to comment on is MIT's apparently weak schedule. Considering that the Engineers were going into battle this year with virtually no college game experience, the coaching staff couldn't have forecasted an 11-0 start or a 3-8 start. No one expected Mitchell Kates to demonstrate such a command of the point guard position so early, and Hollingsworth never saw the floor at Brown. Their strong play as well as the solid support by the rest of the incoming class and the growth of the sophomores has created an unexpected buzz on campus.
That said, don't expect MIT's scheduling philosphy to change in the future. The last three seasons, the Massey Ratings have indicated that the NEWMAC has the highest parity among any conference in the nation, guaranteeing at least 12 tough games. In addition, scheduling games like Salem, RPI, and Gordon gives MIT plenty of non-conference opportunities to get prepared for the part of the slate that matters most. With MIT's demanding academic workload and plenty of competition in the area, Coach Anderson has no desire to take these guys on the road for long trips, especially in a nuetral setting. Remsleep mentioned Lopata, well within the last few years MIT has been asked to participate, but when MIT proposed a home and home, Wash U lost interest. I'm sure Williams would love MIT to trek three hours across state on a Tuesday night, but do you think they'd reciprocate? Besides look at Springfield. Maybe the toughest early schedule in the country. How's that working out for them? No, coaches schedule this way intentionally (not just at MIT, look at some of the top DI teams and their schedules), because the idea is to get your team ready to be playing its best basketball by Febrauary, not ruin your postseason chances in December.
Cost will continue to be an issue for MIT scheduling. Remember they dropped 8 varsity sports this year and it would be hard to justify traveling in the preseason when they can look across the river at 30 teams to play. Their travel budget is reserved for conference play.
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Middlebury (7 in the top 25, 404 points, +45 points)
2. Williams (12, 280, +160)
3. Amherst (13, 268, +83)
4. Brandeis (16, 207, +26)
5. UMD (20 , 164, -178)
6. MIT (22, 132, +46)
7. Elms (31, 27, -60)
8. WPI (33, 20, +8)
9. Western Connecticut (39, 7, +7)
Biggest gainer was Williams, at +6.5 spots per poll on average, Amherst also gained more than 3 spots per poll on average, and both MIT and Middlebury gained about 2 spots per poll on average. Big losers were UMD, at -7 spots per poll, and Elms at -2.5 spots per poll.
Congrats to MIT for being ranked in the top 25 for the first time ever.
Feel like a dunce...how do you bump up someone's karma?
Have to have a certain threshold number of posts, cant remember, maybe 50. The when you hit this number you will start to see "applaud" and "smite" under posters name, (under Karma total), at left. Clicking applaud provides +1K, smite, -1K
LLL, you need to keep posting sir.
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Have to have a certain threshold number of posts, cant remember, maybe 50. The when you hit this number you will start to see "applaud" and "smite" under posters name, (under Karma total), at left. Clicking applaud provides +1K, smite, -1K
LLL, you need to keep posting sir.
You will start getting that option when you get to 200 posts.
Quote from: hugenerd on December 27, 2009, 03:19:15 PM
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Have to have a certain threshold number of posts, cant remember, maybe 50. The when you hit this number you will start to see "applaud" and "smite" under posters name, (under Karma total), at left. Clicking applaud provides +1K, smite, -1K
LLL, you need to keep posting sir.
You will start getting that option when you get to 200 posts.
Boy, I was way off!!! :-[
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 05:02:20 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 27, 2009, 03:19:15 PM
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Have to have a certain threshold number of posts, cant remember, maybe 50. The when you hit this number you will start to see "applaud" and "smite" under posters name, (under Karma total), at left. Clicking applaud provides +1K, smite, -1K
LLL, you need to keep posting sir.
You will start getting that option when you get to 200 posts.
Boy, I was way off!!! :-[
Kinda reminds us of Nuke LaLoosh... ;) :)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 27, 2009, 05:28:51 PM
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 05:02:20 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 27, 2009, 03:19:15 PM
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Have to have a certain threshold number of posts, cant remember, maybe 50. The when you hit this number you will start to see "applaud" and "smite" under posters name, (under Karma total), at left. Clicking applaud provides +1K, smite, -1K
LLL, you need to keep posting sir.
You will start getting that option when you get to 200 posts.
Boy, I was way off!!! :-[
Kinda reminds us of Nuke LaLoosh... ;) :)
Ralph,
Is there a place to go for new posters to get accurate info?? :D :D
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 06:06:48 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 27, 2009, 05:28:51 PM
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 05:02:20 PM
Quote from: hugenerd on December 27, 2009, 03:19:15 PM
Quote from: ECSUalum on December 27, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Have to have a certain threshold number of posts, cant remember, maybe 50. The when you hit this number you will start to see "applaud" and "smite" under posters name, (under Karma total), at left. Clicking applaud provides +1K, smite, -1K
LLL, you need to keep posting sir.
You will start getting that option when you get to 200 posts.
Boy, I was way off!!! :-[
Kinda reminds us of Nuke LaLoosh... ;) :)
Ralph,
Is there a place to go for new posters to get accurate info?? :D :D
I think that the terms of service have most of that, but I don't think I have ever seen that info on Karma posted. :)
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Middlebury (7 in the top 25, 445 points, +41 points)
2. Williams (10, 333, +53)
3. Amherst (11, 303, +35)
4. Brandeis (13, 292, +85)
5. MIT (21, 144, +12)
6. UMD (22 , 128, -36)
7. WPI (ORV 30, 26, +6)
8. Elms (ORV 31, 24, -3)
9. Western Connecticut (ORV 32, 21, +14)
Biggest gainer was Brandeis with about 3.5 spots per ballot, despite not playing any games. Essentially all the NE teams moved up a bit or stayed the same, except UMD fell about 1.5 spots per ballot.
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Middlebury (7 in the top 25, 488 points, +43 points)
3. Brandeis (8, 361, +69)
3. Amherst (9, 356, +53)
4. Williams (10, 333, 0)
5. MIT (15, 236, +92)
6. WPI (ORV 27, 53, +27)
7. Western Connecticut (ORV 30, 35, +14)
8. Elms (ORV 34, 21, -3)
UMD loses all 128 of their votes to drop off the list. Biggest gainer is MIT at +92 points (or about 4 spots per ballot). MIT is at it highest ranking ever for the 3rd week in a row. Williams does not lose any points with their loss, but drop in the rankings because people around them gained points. Middlebury, Brandeis and Amherst each gain about 2-3 spots worth of points each.
Tough week for the New England top group, with everyone in the top eight going down except for Williams. Williams and MIT are now the clear top two, each with one very understandable loss (on road v. number one and on road v. Harvard). After that still a bit of a jumble, I'd say Middlebury three, then Amherst, Western Conn, WPI, Brandeis, after that, it is an even bigger jumble ...
Quote from: nescac1 on January 10, 2010, 11:31:49 AM
Tough week for the New England top group, with everyone in the top eight going down except for Williams. Williams and MIT are now the clear top two, each with one very understandable loss (on road v. number one and on road v. Harvard). After that still a bit of a jumble, I'd say Middlebury three, then Amherst, Western Conn, WPI, Brandeis, after that, it is an even bigger jumble ...
Actually, MIT lost two weeks ago, they were undefeated this week. If you check the rankings, their loss to Harvard has been in their record for the past two rankings.
Quote from: nescac1 on January 10, 2010, 11:31:49 AM
Tough week for the New England top group, with everyone in the top eight going down except for Williams. Williams and MIT are now the clear top two, each with one very understandable loss (on road v. number one and on road v. Harvard). After that still a bit of a jumble, I'd say Middlebury three, then Amherst, Western Conn, WPI, Brandeis, after that, it is an even bigger jumble ...
I agree Williams and MIT are the clear cut top two teams as of now in the northeast
Quote from: thatdude 30 on January 10, 2010, 08:57:07 PM
Quote from: nescac1 on January 10, 2010, 11:31:49 AM
Tough week for the New England top group, with everyone in the top eight going down except for Williams. Williams and MIT are now the clear top two, each with one very understandable loss (on road v. number one and on road v. Harvard). After that still a bit of a jumble, I'd say Middlebury three, then Amherst, Western Conn, WPI, Brandeis, after that, it is an even bigger jumble ...
I agree Williams and MIT are the clear cut top two teams as of now in the northeast
While I'd agree they are the top two, to say 'clear cut' is exaggerating the margin of victory by Williams over Amherst (and Midd might be in the discussion also).
Yeah, but Amherst has one more loss than Williams, and Amherst's loss to Elms is looking worse as Elms is struggling, plus Williams' loss by five on the road to the number one team is about an impressive as a loss can be. You can't just compare head-to-head. Overall, in terms of aggregate body of work, Williams and MIT are deservedly at the top of New England.
As for Williams v. Midd, they played the same team back to back the same week (and Midd even got them second), Williams wins by double digits, Midd loses by double digits, so that is also fairly persuasive, especially now that Williams has a signature win, something Midd has yet to achieve. OF course, Williams has to play both Midd and Amherst on the road in conference play, which is a bit of bad luck with scheduling, so the Ephs will have to play even better if they hope to pick up wins in one or both of those games.
New England outside of NESCAC and MIT is a big jumble this year. Lots of results that are hard to make sense of. No good teams in MASCAC, no great teams in LEC, although with its talent I still wouldn't totally discount UMD from turning things around ...
Quote from: nescac1 on January 10, 2010, 10:42:45 PM
Yeah, but Amherst has one more loss than Williams, and Amherst's loss to Elms is looking worse as Elms is struggling, plus Williams' loss by five on the road to the number one team is about an impressive as a loss can be. You can't just compare head-to-head. Overall, in terms of aggregate body of work, Williams and MIT are deservedly at the top of New England.
As for Williams v. Midd, they played the same team back to back the same week (and Midd even got them second), Williams wins by double digits, Midd loses by double digits, so that is also fairly persuasive, especially now that Williams has a signature win, something Midd has yet to achieve. OF course, Williams has to play both Midd and Amherst on the road in conference play, which is a bit of bad luck with scheduling, so the Ephs will have to play even better if they hope to pick up wins in one or both of those games.
New England outside of NESCAC and MIT is a big jumble this year. Lots of results that are hard to make sense of. No good teams in MASCAC, no great teams in LEC, although with its talent I still wouldn't totally discount UMD from turning things around ...
According to the LEC board, UMD has lost 4 players including Matt Walker for the 2nd semester. If true, that really hurts their depth and their chances for the post season.
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=1679.510
FWIW, I had Williams #7 on my Posters' Poll ballot, MIT #10, Amherst 13, and Midd 14. Against my better judgment, I also had Brandeis at #20 (from the early returns, they MIGHT finish #25) and WPI at 25 (so far the only vote they've gotten).
OMG, I've become a lobster-loving beaneater! :o ;D (Rumor has always had it that I'm a CCIW booster - I had IWU 18th and Wheaton 24th, and while I considered them, I barely had Augustana and Carthage in my top 35.)
Wow, that is wild news re: UMD. I wonder if there is something more going on behind the scenes that would explain the rough start and the defections after such high expectations ...
Mr. Ypsi, those ratings look about right ... and I agree that Brandeis and WPI will both be lucky to finish in or near the top 25, although WPI always seems to manage to put up fairly gaudy regular season records before having a bit more trouble against the tougher teams in the post season.
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Williams (7, 438, +105)
2. MIT (9, 329, +103)
3. Middlebury (10, 328 points, -160 points)
4. Amherst (13, 302, -54)
5. Brandeis (20, 150, -211)
6 Western Connecticut (ORV 33, 11, -24)
7. WPI (ORV 36, 7, -46)
Biggest losers are Brandeis (-211 points, average of 8.5 sp0ts per poll) and Middlebury (-160 points, average of 6.5 spots per poll). Biggest gainers are Williams and MIT at almost exactly 4 spots per poll. MIT slides into the top 10 for the first time ever. Congrats to them.
I think MIT a bit high right now as they have not played a real notable team. First test will be tomorrow vs. WPI. What is the highest D3 ranking that a Newmac team has attained in the last few years? I assume that it was WPI. How high did they get in the top 25?
Yeah, MIT is having a problem of luck this season. They scheduled fairly well, but most of the solid teams on the schedule are having down years thus far. They've lacked a barometer by which to judge their ability so far.
I'm happy to see MIT doing so well; let's hope it continues.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 12, 2010, 11:19:56 PM
Yeah, MIT is having a problem of luck this season. They scheduled fairly well, but most of the solid teams on the schedule are having down years thus far. They've lacked a barometer by which to judge their ability so far.
I'm happy to see MIT doing so well; let's hope it continues.
It's a sure sign of a confident (cocky?) team when opponents having down years is seen as bad luck! :D
Quote from: toooldtoplay on January 12, 2010, 11:04:24 PM
I think MIT a bit high right now as they have not played a real notable team. First test will be tomorrow vs. WPI. What is the highest D3 ranking that a Newmac team has attained in the last few years? I assume that it was WPI. How high did they get in the top 25?
Highest I remember from memory was when WPI was ranked #9 for a few weeks at the beginning of the 05-06 season. You would have to look it up to see if anyone was ever ranked higher than that.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 12, 2010, 11:19:56 PM
Yeah, MIT is having a problem of luck this season. They scheduled fairly well, but most of the solid teams on the schedule are having down years thus far. They've lacked a barometer by which to judge their ability so far.
I'm happy to see MIT doing so well; let's hope it continues.
I think you are right with respect to the scheduling part. How can you foresee an NCAA tourney team returning so many players to start 1-10. I still think, by the end of the season, their out of conference schedule wont look as bad. Emerson is starting to play better with the return of Shannon, Gordon is the best team I have seen in the CCC, and some of the other schools they played seem to be starting to pick it up. If nothing else, they played teams that should do pretty well in their conferences, so at least their OWP numbers will go up.
It also doesnt hurt when teams in your conference start beating good opponents. For example, MITs win over Babson may have just looked like any other blowout, when MIT beat them by 27 on the road with Babson playing their full squad. Two days later, same gym, except Babson is playing without their starting point guard (Amherst's starting point guard was also out), they beat a team that was ranked top 10 nationally the weak prior. I know the transitive property isn't as well defined in basktball as it is in mathematics, but things like that help somewhat (obviously not as much as beating someone yourself).
They have their chance tomorrow night. Go MIT!
It's looking already like no league in New England other than NESCAC has much of a shot of more than one NCAA bid this year, unless MIT fails to win the NEWMAC. MASCAC and LEC both seem way down. The top of New England is now fairly easy to rank:
Williams, MIT, Middlebury, Amherst, Brandeis, Colby, Eastern Conn I'd say. After that, no one has really distinguished themselves, and it seems like, already, outside of that group, not anyone with a chance for a Pool C.
Bowdoin has managed to lose four games by a total of eight points, including three losses at home by a total of four points -- sounds like a bit of a tough luck squad there.
ECSU is playing well, best start in 40 years, but they also have a young team, with just 1 senior Edwin Ortiz, their top scorer. Starters are Sophomores and Jr's next to EO, who rotates out. Freshmen Joe Ives and Mike Garrow, will be very good players in the comming years and are getting substantial playing time. ECSU may not get into NCAA's this year, or go far if they do, however, next year looks to maybe be a year where they can be ranked and be competitive from a national standpoint.
RIC, WConn and UMD seem to have faltered a bit as we entered LEC Conference play. ECSU have found a way to win a lot of close games, which last year they lost. Mostly due to better defense, much better FT shooting, and maturation of their relatively young team.
As hugenerd commented earlier, Conference play can result in upsets of strong teams, so it ain't over till the Conference Tournaments are completed!!
NESCAC teams are perennial powerhouses and should, (hope), do well in the National Tourney.
MIT will be a tough team to get by early in the Regionals NCAA
I pick Williams over Amherst this year to advance deep into the NCAA tourney!!! Good luck to all for rest of season
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Williams (5, 508, +70)
2. MIT (8, 428, +99)
3. Middlebury (10, 412, +84)
4. Brandeis (15, 272, +122)
5. Amherst (20, 165, -137)
6. WPI (ORV 39, 3, -4)
Number of teams receiving votes in the NE goes down by 1, with West Conn dropping off the list. The top 4 NE teams all made big jumps in points this week (not necessarily in position). MIT about +100 for the second week in a row, although they only move up 1 spot in the polls, it seems like more voters are putting them near the top of their ballot. Williams jumped into the top 5, gaining 70 points and Middlebury remained at 10, despite gaining 84 points. Brandeis was the big winner this week, gaining 122 points and 5 poll positions (while they WashU team they beat hardly took any hit, only dropping 1 spot in the polls). Big loser was Amherst, droppong 7 spots and 137 points.
Brandeis has a test this week, playing Rochester at home.
MIT plays Springfield on Wednesday for the outright lead in the NEWMAC (both are 3-0 currently).
All 3 NESCAC schools dont play any real big games.
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Williams (4, 532, +24)
2. Middlebury (8, 432, +20)
3. MIT (14, 303, -125)
4. Amherst (18, 183, +18)
5. Brandeis (20, 141, -131)
6. WPI (ORV 34, 2, -1)
A couple teams flip-flopped (Middlebury, MIT and Amherst, Brandeis), but not much else changed. Still the same 6 teams receiving votes and the same 5 teams in the rankings.
Williams @ Middlebury this week will tell the voters a lot about both teams, I think.
Not to mention, Amherst at Colby ... this ranking looks pretty good, other than, I might slip Colby between Brandeis and WPI. It's looking more and more like, unless MIT fails to win NEWMAC, no northeast teams outside of NESCAC and maybe Brandeis will have a shot at Pool C ... NESCAC will likely end up with at least two Pool C's I would think, unless Colby, Amherst, Williams and Midd all beat each other up a bit in more or less equal doses ...
The remaining league games look like they will tell the story. Home court and final score will be important. Looks like Brandeis has the most to gain (or lose) as they have been very inconsistent even though talented.
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Williams (2, 586, +15)
2. Middlebury (7, 432, +41)
3. MIT (11, 370, +22)
4. Brandeis (21, 98, -98)
5. Colby (ORV 32, 6, -38)
6. Bridgewater (ORV 37, 3, +3)
7. Gordon (ORV 38, 2, +2)
West Conn (ORV 38, 2, +2)
Late posting this update this week. All 3 new NE ORV teams have already lost this week. Colby is almost out after their two losses by large margins to the top two NESCAC teams. MIT and Middlebury each move up a spot, while Brandeis loses half their points with their loss to CWRU last week.
Per the release by the NCAA, the regional rankings for the Northeast are as follows:
Team | In-Region Record | Overall Record |
Williams | 17-0 | 19-1 |
MIT | 17-1 | 18-2 |
Colby | 13-1 | 15-2 |
Middlebury | 13-2 | 17-2 |
Brandeis | 14-3 | 14-3 |
Bridgewater State | 12-3 | 13-5 |
Gordon | 14-3 | 15-3 |
West Conn. State | 12-4 | 13-4 |
Mass-Dartmouth | 13-6 | 13-6 |
RIC | 13-6 | 13-6 |
East Conn. State | 13-6 | 13-6 |
Does MIT get penalized in the polls for their loss to Harvard?? If so, should they?
Quote from: ECSUalum on February 03, 2010, 05:58:12 PM
Does MIT get penalized in the polls for their loss to Harvard?? If so, should they?
I doubt it - especially with the season Harvard is having. Voters would not expect even d3's #1 team to beat Harvard this year.
Thanks Ypsi,
I seem to remember, last year or the year before, one of the UW teams playing U of Wisconsin Madison and it wasn't included in their record, obviously the Harvard game was included for MIT. Curious.
Maybe I am mistaken.
The Wisconsin 'game' was an exhibition. MIT/Harvard was a regular season game.
For MIT, the game essentially doesn't exist for NCAA selection purposes, and IMO would be virtually ignored by poll voters (unless they had pulled the upset, of course! ;))
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 03, 2010, 07:30:52 PM
The Wisconsin 'game' was an exhibition. MIT/Harvard was a regular season game.
For MIT, the game essentially doesn't exist for NCAA selection purposes, and IMO would be virtually ignored by poll voters (unless they had pulled the upset, of course! ;))
I agree and it wasnt even as big a blowout as it appears in the final stats. MIT was down 15 with 3 minutes to go and then cleared their bench. The end of Harvards bench was clearly a lot better than MIT's, as they were outscored 12-0 in that span to make the final margin 27.
Just released...
Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. Williams 17-0 19-1
2. MIT 17-1 18-2
3. Colby 13-1 15-2
4. Middlebury 13-2 17-2
5. Brandeis 14-3 14-3
6. Bridgewater State 12-3 13-5
7. Gordon 14-3 15-3
8. Western Conn. St. 12-4 13-4
9. Mass.-Dartmouth 13-6 13-6
10. Rhode Island College 13-6 13-6
11. Eastern Connecticut State 13-6 13-6
Lots to talk about here, I'm sure...
Quote from: GC Oldtimer on February 04, 2010, 04:10:22 PM
Just released...
Northeast Region In-Region Record Overall Record
1. Williams 17-0 19-1
2. MIT 17-1 18-2
3. Colby 13-1 15-2
4. Middlebury 13-2 17-2
5. Brandeis 14-3 14-3
6. Bridgewater State 12-3 13-5
7. Gordon 14-3 15-3
8. Western Conn. St. 12-4 13-4
9. Mass.-Dartmouth 13-6 13-6
10. Rhode Island College 13-6 13-6
11. Eastern Connecticut State 13-6 13-6
Lots to talk about here, I'm sure...
This was released yesterday, look on page 4 of this thread.
My bad
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Williams (2, 586, +15)
2. Middlebury (7, 432, +41)
3. MIT (11, 370, +22)
4. Brandeis (21, 98, -98)
5. Colby (ORV 32, 6, -38)
6. Bridgewater (ORV 37, 3, +3)
7. Gordon (ORV 38, 2, +2)
West Conn (ORV 38, 2, +2)
Late posting this update this week. All 3 new NE ORV teams have already lost this week. Colby is almost out after their two losses by large margins to the top two NESCAC teams. MIT and Middlebury each move up a spot, while Brandeis loses half their points with their loss to CWRU last week.
Those are from last week. Here's this week:
http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/10/2010-regional-rankings-week-2/
Gordon lost to up and down Colby-Sawyer last night. I'm curious what this will do to their Regional Ranking.
They will lose their two lone votes in the Top 25, but I'm still interested in their Pool C chances.
Most likely, they won't run the table the rest of the way... but what if they did and made it to the conference tourney. Let's say they lose the game by 3 and it was close the whole way.
Do they have a Pool C shot? That would put them at 24-5 including the conference tourney (I think). Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but just wondering what the chance would be.
Sorry I messed that up. The link said week 2 rankings then I didn't double check on the page. Inexcusable.
Here are this week's:
Northeast Region | In-Region Record | Overall Record |
1. Williams | 19-0 | 21-1 |
2. MIT | 18-1 | 19-2 |
3. Middlebury | 15-2 | 19-2 |
4. Bridgewater State | 14-3 | 15-5 |
5. Colby | 14-3 | 16-4 |
6. Brandeis | 15-4 | 15-4 |
7. Western Connecticut State | 15-4 | 16-4 |
8. Mass.-Dartmouth | 15-6 | 15-6 |
9. Albertus Magnus | 17-3 | 17-4 |
10. Gordon | 16-3 | 17-3 |
11. WPI | 14-5 | 15-5 |
Note that games are through Feb. 6, so it does not take into account results from this week (Bridgewater, West Conn., Albertus and Gordon have all lost already). |
It is interesting that Brandeis is still stuck behind Colby. It will be interesting what happens at the end of the seaosn, with Colby likely picking up another loss in the NESCAC tourney. Brandeis will likely also drop at least another game, as they have a pretty tough schedule. If Brandeis wins out, it would definitely put them ahead of Colby, but if they drop a game or two and are stuck behind Colby in the Pool C discussion, that could seriously hurt their chances at an at-large bid.
With WPI being ranked this week, MIT now has 3 wins against regionally ranked teams (they are 3-0), the most of any team ranked. In the Top 3, Williams has 2 (2-0) and Midd has 1 (1-1).
Something else that is interesting (at least to me), is that Wheaton (MA) has 3 wins against unique ranked opponents (MIT, Bridgewater, and WPI), despite only having 7 wins overall. They have had a lot of injuries this year and are better than their record suggests when they have their entire team. Their best player has been out much of the year.
Does anyone know how many at-large bids are available in the Northeast region?
Quote from: pjunito on February 11, 2010, 01:40:07 PM
Does anyone know how many at-large bids are available in the Northeast region?
No, because they are not allotted by region. Teams compete for at large berths nationally (but based on in-region criteria - which is absurd).
Quote from: pjunito on February 11, 2010, 01:40:07 PM
Does anyone know how many at-large bids are available in the Northeast region?
It's not done by region. Once all the conference tournaments are out of the way and the automatic qualifiers are selected. The committee selects Pool B teams (teams without an automatic bid available to them). Once this process is done, the at-large teams are selected (Pool C).
The way this is done is that each regional committee submits a final regional ranking, like the one's we see every Wednesday. There's rumor that the final ranking will be public this year, but we'll have to wait and see. These rankings go to the national committee (I believe comprised of the chairs of each regional committee).
They take the rankings and remove every team that has already qualified for the tournament. Then they consider the top team left in each region together as a group.
They choose the team most worthy of those eight and give them a Pool C bid. Then the next team on the list from that region joins the table and those eight are considered.
They continue this process until all Pool C bids are filled.
What this means is that no region is guaranteed any at-large selections. Teams are chosen nationally, using regional criteria. It's why the NE region has the advantage of having so many bad teams with good records which the better teams can use to pad their records.
The number of spots available for the NE region will depend greatly on upsets in conference tournaments around the country. Teams with questionable records need to root for the top seeds.
Thanks!! That was very informative.
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Williams (2, 603, +17)
2. Middlebury (6, 449, +17)
3. MIT (11, 370, +8)
4. Brandeis (ORV 26, 45, -43)
5. Gordon (ORV 33, 4, +2)
Only 3 ranked teams and only 5 receiving votes this week. No real big gainers. Williams, Midd, and MIT all with modest gains in votes. Brandeis loses half their votes to drop out of the poll after a loss to the #1 team in the country?!?
According to the national top 25, here is how the northeast looks, same format as last week:
1. Williams (2, 605, +2)
2. Middlebury (6, 479, +30)
3. MIT (13, 13, -57)
4. Gordon (ORV 31, 10, +6)
5. Brandeis (ORV 33, 5, -40)
6. Colby (ORV 37, 2, +2)
There is a link to the final region rankings at:
MIT Basketball Blog (http://mitbasketball.blogspot.com/2010/02/mit-drops-spot-in-final-regular-season.html)
it is also now posted on the front page:
http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2010/02/24/2010-regional-ranking-week-4/
I assume that will hurt the Engineers chances of a Pool C bid if they lose in the conference?
Quote from: toooldtoplay on February 24, 2010, 09:42:21 PM
I assume that will hurt the Engineers chances of a Pool C bid if they lose in the conference?
I doubt it, Colby will almost definitely pick up another loss this week so I doubt they drop below 3 in the region. I think Middlebury is pretty much a lock at this point, and definitely will be so if they beat Colby this weekend. If you listen to Hoopsville from this past week, Pat Coleman listed MIT as one of his "lock" teams. I think if they win the NEWMAC this weekend they have a chance of jumping Middlebury again (if Middlebury doesnt win the NESCAC) and possibly hosting a pod because of the large numbers of NE Pool A teams and bids in general (they also have proximity to other regions on the east coast).
MIT's in. Even if they lose in the semis. With that record it would take a lot of other upsets to knock them out.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2010, 11:33:02 PM
MIT's in. Even if they lose in the semis. With that record it would take a lot of other upsets to knock them out.
MIT only has 3 losses. One is to d1 Harvard. 2 are to d3 Wheaton (MA), but Clark kicked Wheaton out. Heck, MIT is now virtually undefeated! ;D
They're a lock; and potential Pool C teams everywhere hope they're a Pool A! ;)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 24, 2010, 11:44:51 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2010, 11:33:02 PM
MIT's in. Even if they lose in the semis. With that record it would take a lot of other upsets to knock them out.
MIT only has 3 losses. One is to d1 Harvard. 2 are to d3 Wheaton (MA), but Clark kicked Wheaton out. Heck, MIT is now virtually undefeated! ;D
They're a lock; and potential Pool C teams everywhere hope they're a Pool A! ;)
I am pretty sure they are hoping they are a Pool A too. They would triple their total number of conference championships in program history if they could pickup the tourney win (last year was the first, and the tourney would be their second this year).
Also, I know that MIT has already brought in more bleachers for the NEWMAC tourney games this weekend, almost doubling capacity from what I hear, and I am sure they would love to leave the gym that way for an extra week to host a pod.
I haven't seen Williams yet but it is my impression that as you go up in level the players are 3 inches bigger and 20 pounds heavier or more and the athleticism and quickness increases. I know of players that have gotten scholarships to play DII ball and left because they got little playing time. I also think you see players make a few more little mistakes maybe they make more turnovers maybe they only have one go to move. Jst my opinion. I will say this it is very physical no matter the level. It sure isn't the game I learned. Certainly the NESCAC schools and some NEWMAC schools may attract a kid that can play DI but want that great sheepskin.
Quote from: emesb on March 04, 2010, 03:30:11 PM
I haven't seen Williams yet but it is my impression that as you go up in level the players are 3 inches bigger and 20 pounds heavier or more and the athleticism and quickness increases.
I think that's probably true of the top players in each division, however, for the "average" player there is quite a bit of competition among the ranks.
Yes it woulb be but the general question was the differance between The better dIII schools like a Williams and a school such as Salem State. You are right the better players in a division are always bigger, quicker and faster but the general differance between divisions is what I was talking about.
Quote from: emesb on March 04, 2010, 06:57:17 PM
Yes it woulb be but the general question was the differance between The better dIII schools like a Williams and a school such as Salem State. You are right the better players in a division are always bigger, quicker and faster but the general differance between divisions is what I was talking about.
That's what I was saying, the best players in division I would be bigger and faster than those in division II and then division III. But, I think you'd find that average d1 players are on par with many players in d2 or even d3. After the elite there is a lot of competition.
It's also why you see talent so evenly spread over the entirety of d3 - different schools work better for different athletes. You're more likely to see a better team at Williams, but individual players are spread around all over the place.
My take on the difference in the divisions is usual all around play. The really fast guards in DIII are either too small or can't really shoot because with their speed, if they were bigger of great shooters they would have been recruited. The shooters in DIII usually cannot guard the DI guards even though they have good offensive skills. Each player usually has one area of their game that is weak - many times it is on the defensive side of the ball (the one that stats don't tell the story!!).
A lot of it, especially between d2 and d3 is money. A school with a big endowment might be able to lure away a scholarship player.
With the dissolution of (T)CCC, how do New England fans and pundits rank the conferences now?
(Pat Coleman has labeled the new conference of the Commonwealth schools that left as the New New England AC, NNEAC.)
I think the new conference can be #3 above the LEC, but we'll have to see how the rest of the movements play out.
The LEC has had some very good teams the last few years.
No way I would put them above the LEC. What have they done to suggest they could be #3? Also, the only CCC team to be more than 3 games over 0.500 just graduated 5 players (3 starters), and their two best perimeter scorers. Further, there is no team in the CCC, or the new NNEAC, that has come close in recent years to what the top LEC teams have done nationally. UMD and RIC (and you may be able to add East Conn and West Conn to that group after last year) are teams that are top-tier NE teams. Additionally, most years, the MASCAC has also been stronger than the CCC (and the subset that will join the NNEAC). I also wouldnt necessarily put them ahead of the GNAC, with the way Albertus, Emerson, and St. Jo's all played last year. I would say they are at best a middle-tier conference in NE, in the 4-6 range.
I would project them this way for 2011-2012 (based on historical results of current teams in each league):
1. NESCAC
2. NEWMAC
2b. LEC
4. MASCAC
5. GNAC
5b. NNEAC
7. NECC
8. NAC
9* TCCC (currently only has 2 teams for 2011-2012)
I think you could even see NECC jump up into the middle group in certain years, with Elms and Becker at the top of that conference, and challenge the NNEAC. I dont feel that this re-alignment will make a significant difference in their position of the NNEAC compared to the original TCCC. I guess only time will tell what really happens, but I cant see NNEAC jumping into the top 3 in the near future.
Thanks for the comments, so far. I hope that others will join in.
Hugenerd's ranking makes sense to me, for the reasons that he has said. The LEC has had too much at the top to ignore.
What the TCCC shak-out did was to "debulk" an overly large conference. It is too tough to have a conference of more than 12, for many reasons. The 6-team divisions usually reflect geographical convenience. Going from 8 to 12 gives some economies of scale in admin costs.
Regis and ENC will land somewhere soon.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 09, 2010, 09:19:35 PMFurther, there is no team in the CCC, or the new NNEAC, that has come close in recent years to what the top LEC teams have done nationally.
"Nationally"?
In terms of rankings and in the NCAA tournament. Those are the only two national metrics we have. Several teams in the LEC have received votes in the national poll (I believe at least 4 different LEC teams picked up votes at some point last season) and UMD and RIC have cracked the top 25, and in some cases the top 10, in recent years. Rarely do you see any TCCC school pick up any votes. I know those are human polls, but they still are a national-level accomplishment. Also, I dont remember their exact results, but they have also won a few games in the post-season (not trying to rekindle the debate about the regionality of the first few rounds). Either way, the LEC has performed better in the northeast and nationally, in my opinion.
Also, out of that whole post, you just pick out that one word? Seems a bit petty. The point of the post was that the LEC is a stronger conference than the TCCC. Would it have made a huge difference if I had said "in the NE", "in postseason play", or "in the national rankings." I think the point was pretty clear.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 10:10:56 AM
In terms of rankings and in the NCAA tournament. Those are the only two national metrics we have. Several teams in the LEC have received votes in the national poll (I believe at least 4 different LEC teams picked up votes at some point last season) and UMD and RIC have cracked the top 25, and in some cases the top 10, in recent years. Rarely do you see any TCCC school pick up any votes. I know those are human polls, but they still are a national-level accomplishment. Also, I dont remember their exact results, but they have also won a few games in the post-season (not trying to rekindle the debate about the regionality of the first few rounds). Either way, the LEC has performed better in the northeast and nationally, in my opinion.
The point about the poll is legitimate, although I think your statement would've been better served if you'd simply said that the LEC has done better than the CCC in the poll, since, as you implied with the word "human," the poll is a fallible guesstimate based upon vastly incomplete data regarding nationally-based comparisons.
The point about "the regionality of the first few rounds" speaks for itself, since Rhode Island College's first-round win over Rutgers-Newark this past March marked the first time that the LEC has had a team beat an opponent from outside the East or Northeast regions in the tournament since Western Connecticut beat Johns Hopkins back in 1990. The LEC went 0-6 against non-NE/E teams during that timespan in tournament play, with half of the six losses being blowouts (including Carthage's memorable 90-41 romp over Mass-Dartmouth back in '01). You really can't speak about national success for a league unless you examine how it has done in the tournament against teams from far beyond its own backyard.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 10:10:56 AM
Also, out of that whole post, you just pick out that one word? Seems a bit petty.
Not at all. It was the only word with which I took issue in your post.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 10:10:56 AMThe point of the post was that the LEC is a stronger conference than the TCCC. Would it have made a huge difference if I had said "in the NE", "in postseason play", or "in the national rankings." I think the point was pretty clear.
Of course it was clear. My interjection had nothing to do with your point about the LEC's superiority over the CCC. I simply took issue with the implication that the LEC has somehow achieved something (polls notwithstanding) on the national level in recent decades. So, yes, if you would've chosen one of those other three wordings I would not have taken issue with it.
I think the LEC has done more on the national stage than the CCC. All 3 of those wordings would have fit, so I chose a more general term, which is still true. I wasnt comapring the LEC to WIAC, NESCAC, CCIW, or UAA, just the CCC.
In the past 5 NCAA tourneys: RIC made it to the Final 8 in 2007, losing to eventual champion Amherst. They also won a tourney game in 08 and made it to the final 16 in '10. Also, UMD made the final 16 in '09 and Keene made it to the round of 16 in '07. Meanwhile, in the last 5 tourneys, the CCC has gone 0-6, losing by an average of 18 ppg (they had 2 teams make it in 06). Also, when UMD was ranked as high as #2 in the 07-8 season, starting 19-0, was pretty impressive (despite finishing the season 25-4), and RIC averaging 24 wins per season the last 4 seasons (being ranked on and off during that time). I would say that the LEC has definitely done more nationally, with respect to both the NCAA tourney and the d3hoops polls. There arent really any other national metrics to go by.
Again, I wasnt trying to compare the LEC to every other conference in the country, just simply the CCC, in terms of national success. You can say that a conference has been more successful on the national level than another conference, despite the fact that both have not done a whole lot on the national stage. If I am comparing A and B, there is no need to bring in C-Z.
As I said earlier, this seems a rather petty splitting of hairs. Everytime someone uses national success in a comparison, we dont need a reference to the CCIW.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 04:56:53 PM
I think the LEC has done more on the national stage than the CCC. All 3 of those wordings would have fit, so I chose a more general term, which is still true. I wasnt comapring the LEC to WIAC, NESCAC, CCIW, or UAA, just the CCC.
Nevertheless, the term "nationally" has an ambiguity to it in this case. An inference can be drawn that the LEC has earned some modicum of national D3 respect, and it really hasn't.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 04:56:53 PMIn the past 5 NCAA tourneys: RIC made it to the Final 8 in 2007, losing to eventual champion Amherst. They also won a tourney game in 08 and made it to the final 16 in '10. Also, UMD made the final 16 in '09 and Keene made it to the round of 16 in '07.
In none of those cases, except for the epoch-shattering Rhode Island College win over Rutgers-Newark in March that I've already cited, did the LEC representative defeat a team from outside of New York State or New England, which is the whole point I am making. You're just as familiar as anyone else with the truism that the NE/E quadrant of the bracket is significantly inferior to the other three on an annual basis, aside from the NESCAC representatives and, on occasion, Rochester. The LEC's success within the NE/E bracket quadrant does nothing to establish the league's credentials nationally, because, aside from the NESCAC and the UAA, nobody from New York State or New England has performed well against the greater D3 world in decades.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 04:56:53 PMMeanwhile, in the last 5 tourneys, the CCC has gone 0-6, losing by an average of 18 ppg (they had 2 teams make it in 06).
Not germane, since I have not disputed your original point about the CCC's inferiority to the LEC.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 04:56:53 PMAlso, when UMD was ranked as high as #2 in the 07-8 season, starting 19-0, was pretty impressive (despite finishing the season 25-4), and RIC averaging 24 wins per season the last 4 seasons (being ranked on and off during that time).
I addressed the issue of the polls in my previous post. And, as for the impressive records of LEC teams, the inevitable question one has to ask is: Impressive records earned against whom? It's the Chapman debate all over again.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 04:56:53 PMI would say that the LEC has definitely done more nationally, with respect to both the NCAA tourney and the d3hoops polls. There arent really any other national metrics to go by.
I would say that in this case there are
specific aspects within the tourney that provide a much more useful national metric than does the tournament in its entirety. In other words, please don't ask me to be impressed by a Sweet Sixteen run in which the wins were over the likes of Rivier and Salem State. That's why I referenced the LEC's twenty-year tourney performance against teams from south and west of New York State's borders.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 04:56:53 PMAgain, I wasnt trying to compare the LEC to every other conference in the country, just simply the CCC, in terms of national success. You can say that a conference has been more successful on the national level than another conference, despite the fact that both have not done a whole lot on the national stage. If I am comparing A and B, there is no need to bring in C-Z.
But how do you honestly justify references to
national success unless you're using the entire alphabet (i.e., the entire nation)? Sure, national success is a relative term, but it's misleading to imply that the mediocre has achieved something significant simply because it isn't the incompetent. Again, your implication is that the LEC has attained something noteworthy on the national stage, if by nothing else than by defaulted comparison. It really hasn't. It's a third-rate league, and the argument that it's better than a fourth-rate league in its own neighborhood is not necessarily an endorsement of any kind of national prowess on the part of the third-rate league. As I said, my dispute is with your use of the word "nationally," which I think needs to be hedged in with qualifiers if you're talking about the LEC.
Quote from: hugenerd on July 10, 2010, 04:56:53 PMAs I said earlier, this seems a rather petty splitting of hairs. Everytime someone uses national success in a comparison, we dont need a reference to the CCIW.
Who's splitting hairs now? I simply brought up the Carthage/UMD game of nine years ago to make a point about the LEC's inability to compete against non-NE/E teams in the tournament for two decades, and you defensively draw Carthage's league affiliation into it as though it was relevant. Fine. If it makes you feel better, delete my reference to the 90-41 Carthage win over UMD in '01 and replace it with a reference to Kean's 105-80 win over UMD in 1991. ;) :D
This has all the makings of a never-ending debate. The original post was meant to simply state that the LEC is a historically much better league than the CCC. I am pretty sure you and I are in agreement on that point, so lets just leave it at that.
I guess I was judging by the last decade rather than the last couple of years.
The MASCAC has only been decent the last year or two - before that it was Salem and a bunch of scrubs.
The LEC had a lot of down years and just a recent resurgence.
I think all of the leagues in New England have been improving lately. The big reason why these teams left the CCC was to continue their development. I think the new league will be a lot stronger as its made up of teams with the means and will to keep raising the bar athletically.
They might not be the third best conference this year, or even the fourth, but in the long run, I think this puts them there.
Do you really believe that?
Salem and a bunch of scrubs is still better than a bunch of scrubs. The CCC has not won a single NCAA tourney game in the last decade, and gotten blown out in nearly all of those first round games (check it out yourself (http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/stats/m_basketball_champs_records/2009/d3/champs.pdf)). At least the MASCAC has had some teams win NCAA games, Salem State even made the final four about a decade back. At this point there is no comparison, the LEC and MASCAC are better conferences than the CCC. In fact, the CCC is the only conference in the NE that has not won an NCAA game in the past decade (unless I missed something). Even the NAC and NECC have won an NCAA tourney game in that span. The CCC may be on the rise (which is also a matter of opinion), but they are not going to be in the top half of NE conferences in the foreseable future.
I think we're using different criteria. I'm trying to judge conferences top to bottom. The CCC essentially jettisoned some of their poorest teams. I gladly concede that the top CCC teams have not been competitive with the top teams in New England, but top to bottom it's had better class than most of the NE conferences.
The NESCAC is tops, the NEWMAC is strong. The LEC is next. I think the GNAC may be vaulting the CCC, but that's a recent development.
I'm just not going to rank a conference based on its best teams. I'm fine with you doing so, I just think we're talking passed each other a bit.
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There isnt nearly enough quality at the bottom of the CCC (or the new conference) to make up for the lack of results at the top of the conference. Further, I dont think the bottom of the conference is any stronger than any other middle-of-the-pack northeast conference. I understand where you are coming from, because I would defend the conferences I back also, but I just dont see it the same way at this point. Maybe a few more consistent seasons from the top of the CCC and we can rekindle this debate.
A look at 2010-11 NE Region:
Pre-Season Top Five:
1. MIT
2. Middlebury
3. West Conn
4. RIC
5. Albertus Magnus
Pre-Season All-Region 1st Team:
Noel Hollingsworth, MIT
Ray Askew, Albertus Magnus
James Wang, Williams
Ryan Sherry, Middlebury
Nicholas Motta, Bridgewater State
Teams to Beat:
NESCAC - Middlebury - Led by a frontcourt consisting of Ryan Sharry and Andrew Locke and the rising sophomore backcourt of Jake Wolfin and Nolan Thompson, the Panthers remain on the best in the region. (Runner Up - Williams)
NEWMAC - MIT - With arguably the best 1-2 punch in the region with reigning POY Noel Hollingsworth and Mitchell Kates the Engineers are in good shape to improve on last year's 22-5 campaign. (Runner Up - WPI)
LEC - West Conn - With their entire roster slated to be back, including POY DaQuan Brooks, the Colonials will have their hands very full fighting off other veteran rosters in RIC and East Conn. (Runner Up - RIC)
MASCAC - Bridgewater State - POY Nicholas Motta and Judah Jackson, both seniors, lead a team that has went 11-1 in league last season though PG McLaughlin was an underrated player and will be missed. (Runner Up - Salem State)
TCCC - Wentworth - Led by 6'11" Sam Herrick, the Leopards have enough back to over take Gordon due to their loss of dynamic backcourt Aaron Trigg and Brady Bajema. (Runner Up - Gordon)
GNAC - Albertus Magnus - The return of POY Ray Askew and along with rising sophomore big man Jefferson Lora and wing Walden St. Juste make AMC a very scary team in 2010-11 though St. Joseph's may pose a significant hurdle. (Runner Up - St. Joseph's (ME))
NAC - Thomas - A veteran Terrier squad, led by one of the top guards in the region in Andrew Duncanson, return their entire starting five from an 18-8 team. (Runner Up - Castleton)
NECC - Becker - The defending champs return their entire roster and are led by a versatile trio in Rajai Leggett, Terrance Favors, and Trey Jacobs. ECAC Tournament champs Elms will be hungry to regain their spot at the top of the conference. (Runner Up - Elms)
Williams is still going to be real tough in the NESCAC. They have arguably the two best players in the conference, in Wang and Whittington. I would put them above Midd. Midd does return the most players, but I still think Williams edges them out. I think those two and maybe Amherst, if they can figure out what they are doing (because they have the talent), will contend for the top of the NESCAC.
MIT should be real good, but its tough to put too high of expectations on such a young team. I would love to see them atop the region when it is all said and done, but they could start only 1 junior (Hollingsworth), and 4 freshman or sophomores (Karraker will be returning as a redshirt sophomore, also Tashman and Kates, and the other spot is pretty wide open for anyone to win, even a freshman). With a year under most of those players belts, I hope they handle the pressure a bit better this year (and stay healthy), but they are still young. There is also a lot of talent returning to other NEWMAC teams, as well as strong recruiting classes by several teams, but I do think MIT returns the strongest group. I think Kates will emerge as the best point guard in the northeast soon. He has all the tools and is extremely athletic (check out the recent picture on the MIT basketball blog (http://mitbasketball.blogspot.com/). It would be fun to see him and Wang go head-to-head, and hopefully we do get to see that in the NCAAs this year. Wang is a great player, but I just think Kates can do some things athletically that Wang cannot. Kates/Hollingsworth and Wang/Whittington are arguably the two best 1-2 combos in the NE. MIT also has one of the best young power forwards in the region in Will Tashman.
I more or less agree with your other conference picks (only major difference would be the NESCAC). Tough to gauge some of the teams from other conferences because there has been no official word on any recruits.
The University of Massachusetts men's basketball team has added an exhibition game for a good cause.
The Minutemen announced Tuesday they will host Division III Brandeis University at 7 p.m. on Nov. 4 at the Mullins Center. The game will benefit The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts.
"For us to give back to The Food Bank is extra special to me," UMass coach Derek Kellogg said in a statement. "We are doing our part for the Pioneer Valley, my home, with this game to benefit The Food Bank."
To gain admission to the game, fans must bring two cans of non-perishable food or a meal to be donated to The Food Bank. All seating will be general admission.
I few of our New Hampshire stars went div III
Jake Nelson Nashua South supposedly went to WPI but he is not on the 16 man roster !
Justin Holjo was at Plymouth State had a monster HS carreer . He is no where to be found . New Coach at Plymouth
Any Word on where these two very good HS palyers wound up ??
From HS I expected both to be very good Div II players capable of stong contribution.[
I do know that Jake Nelson was on the WPI team when official practices started, but I do not have any insight into what the issues were that led to him no longer being on the the roster.
I do not know anything of Justin Hojlo and can't help with you his situation other than to say just having a big HS career has nothing to do with doing well in college. You have to remember that when you get to college, you are now competeing with team full of guys who all had high end HS careers. The college game is very different from high school & some very good HS players have problems stepping up to it. Sometimes you have to wait and work hard behind an older player.
I did look at the Plymouth stat sheet for last year and he only played in 10 games out of 26 for a total of 83 minutes. He scored a total of 10 points on 3 for 21 (14%) from the field. He is listed on that stat sheet but not on the roster, which means he was not an active player at the end of the year. I am not sure why you think he would have been a very good D2 player. Did he recieve any scholarships offers for D2, or even any real interest from any D2 teams?
I do know the WPI has a history of getting very good talent from NH. They currently start 2 players from NH, Ben Etten & Matt Carr, and have a 3rd, George Tsougranis, on the roster. In the recent past they have had also Ryan Bourque & Adam Lirette from NH.
You are correct ,
College ball is different .
Many kids have great stats and perform well in HS
pariculary in New Hampshire
I must recalibrate my eye balls .
I was at Stonehill last weekend and no way could Nelson and /or Holjo match up defensively against these guys .
Thanks for the guidance
BTW La Rosa had a nice opening at Save Regina . He is another kid small but quite a shooter .
A shot at an early season New England ranking:
1. Williams ... not convinced they are any better than Amherst or Midd right now, but until they lose, they deserve this spot. Have three top-notch guys in Whittington (the best player in the region), Wang (not far behind) and Klemm, but need some other guys to step up and establish themselves as scorers.
2. Middlebury ... very big, deep, and experienced, and always play tough defense.
3. Amherst ... still need to prove they can get it done against tougher competition, but no one can deny the talent or depth. Meehan and Waller being healthy is a huge difference from last year, as is new addition Aaron Toomey.
4. MIT ... strange early season loss to Framingham, but still one of the most talented teams in the region. Injury to star center is a concern.
5. Western Conn ... lost a few key underclassmen in the offseason, but Daquan Brooks is one of the top players in the region
6. WPI ... also suffered an unexpected early season loss, but lots of experienced talent on hand
7. Brandeis ... impressive early season run for a very young team. Next year, watch out.
8. RIC ... if Antone Gray returns, they could rocket up these rankings.
9. Keene State - most improved team in New England? Star Dererk D'Amours has not played this year (injured?) but if he returns, watch out. Undefeated without him, and added a big-time transfer who is off to a strong start:
http://www.keeneowls.com/sports/mbkb/2010-11/bios/Wright_Rashad
10. Southern Maine ... impressive win over a solid Bates team enhances the resume
HM: Bates ... probably the only NESCAC team with ny sort of shot of breaking into the top three in the conference, other than Amherst/Williams/Midd. Brian Ellis having a huge start to the season.
This early loss to Framingham could come back and bite MIT if they can't win the NEWMAC and need an at-large. While the three NESCAC teams are clearly the top of the region all have had early struggles, so this should be a wide open and fun year.
Looking a bit more into Keene. They could be VERY interesting this year, if D'Amours returns. In addition to the impressive 6'10 transfer noted above, they have two other top notch scholarship transfers playing key roles right now ... those three plus D'Amours and returning LEC ROY Anthony Mariano sound like as talented a core group as any in the region, potentially. If they become cohesive early on, could be a dark horse than no one is talking about. And, no seniors on the roster, so the future is doubly bright:
http://www.keeneowls.com/sports/mbkb/2010-11/bios/Hunter_Ollie
http://www.keeneowls.com/sports/mbkb/2010-11/bios/Martin_Ryan
Martin was Mr. Basketball in Maine as a senior in high school.
Look at the pedigree / balance of a potential starting five: 6'10 center / shot blocking and boarding specialist Rashad Wright, a D-1 transfer; 6-5 forward Derek D'Amours, first team all conference and LEC leading scorer as a sophomore, had a ridiculous year statistically last season; 6'3 SF Hunter, defensive specialist and D-II transfer; 6'3 SG Mariano, LEC rookie of the year; and 5'9 PG Martin, tremendous deep shooter / D-1 transfer. That give them three stellar shooter / scorers to go along with two potential lock-down defenders.
Keene has made a few deep tourney runs in the past, but this group sounds like a true national power in the making. Definitely worth keeping an eye on.
Very early look at how league's are doing:
Rank-League-Record-Win%-Notable Win;Loss
1. LEC - 26-8 - .765 - WCSU 86 vs. Plattsburgh 80; Paul Smith's 65 vs. Plymouth 59
2. NESCAC - 24-11 - .686 - Midd 86 at UMD 62; Colby 71 vs. Curry 73
3. GNAC - 17-16 - .515 - Emerson 69 at Babson 66; Albertus 72 at CGA 97
4. NEWMAC - 14-14 - .500 - Babson 84 at Rochester 74; MIT 70 at Framingham 73
5. TCCC - 26-33 - .441 - Anna Maria 91 vs. Ursinus 76; Gordon 42 at Husson 88
6. NECC - 13-19 - .406 - Becker 67 at RIC 53; Fisher 75 at Daniel Webster 67
7. MASCAC - 10-15 - .400 - MIT 70 at Framingham 73; Bridgewater 69 at King's 75
8. NAC - 7-18 - .280 - Springfield 59 at Castleton 72; UMF 89 at Amherst 90 (OT)
Current NE Region Undefeated and One-Loss Teams:
Brandeis - 8-0
NEC - 7-0
Williams - 7-0
Middlebury - 6-0
Keene - 6-1
MIT - 6-1
West Conn - 6-1
Bates - 5-1
Becker - 5-1
Husson - 5-1
RIC - 5-1
WPI - 5-1
Rivier - 4-1
St. Joseph's (ME) - 4-1
How I'd rank 'em (which actually aligns fairly well with D3Hoops' rankings):
1. Williams 2. Middlebury 3. Amherst 4. MIT 5. Brandeis 6. WPI 7. Bates 8. Western Conn 9. Keene State 10. RIC
Not sure that any other New England teams are close to that group. I'd say there are the top three which are basically a toss-up (and MIT may well join them, but have to knock them down a peg for a bad loss), and then 4-10 are likewise a toss-up. Brandeis has been very impressive in the early going but at some point being so young figures to cost a game or two. Outside of these ten, I don't think anyone in New England is a threat to do much this year.
Roger Williams is 5-1, too. Not that it matters, they aren't a top 10 team anyway.
Looking at everyone's ranking it seems that the top of the class this year is in the NESCAC, and the Little East. Looking at the teams in NE I think that this year it is really wide open. I dont see anyone running away with NE anytime soon.
Williams seems like the best team right now, but I'm not sold on them being dominant this year. We'll have to see how it plays out.
MIT could be fantastic if they can get the injuries figured out.
I'm also not sure what to make of Brandeis; they lost a good amount from last year, but they've started really well so far. Their conference games will be interesting - the UAA is down this year, but still strong enough to provide a challenge for them.
My sincere apologies to RWU peeps for their ommission from that list...
Williams, Amherst, NEC, Keene, Bates, MIT, and Becker all won off that list last night. WPI, albeit at Harvard, and RWU both lost. Becker's win at Bridgewater was probably the 'best win' of the night for that group.
With the first semester schedule basically done, a glimpse at how league's are doing:
LEAGUE - W/L - PCT. - Top League Record - Top Overall Record
NESCAC - 61-24 - .718 - NA - Amherst (9-0), Williams (9-0), Middlebury (6-0)
LEC - 49-22 - .690 - Keene (2-0), WCSU (2-0), RIC (2-0) - Keene (8-1), WCSU (8-1)
NEWMAC - 36-28 - .563 - NA - MIT (9-1)
GNAC - 34-40 - .460 - Albertus (2-0) - St. Joseph's (5-2)
NECC - 33-40 - .452 - Daniel Webster (2-0) - Becker (8-1)
TCCC - 51-72 - .415 - NA - NEC (9-1)
NAC - 23-36 - .390 - NA - Husson (6-1)
MASCAC - 23-37 - .383 - NA - MCLA (6-3)
TOP 15 NE WIN %:
1. Amherst - 1.000 (9-0)
Williams - 1.000 (9-0)
Brandeis - 1.000 (8-0)
Middlebury - 1.000 (6-0)
5. MIT - .900 (9-1)
NEC - .900 (9-1)
7. Becker - .889 (8-1)
Keene - .889 (8-1)
West Conn - .889 (8-1)
10. Husson - .857 (6-1)
11. Bates - .778 (7-2)
East Conn - .778 (7-2)
RIC - .778 (7-2)
WPI - .778 (7-2)
15. Bowdoin - .750 (6-2)
RUMBLIN', BUMBLIN', STUMBLIN'
WNEC - 0-9 (.000)
Green Mountain - 0-3 (.000)
Mitchell - 1-9 (.100)
Lyndon - 1-8 (.111)
Newbury - 1-8 (.111)
Worcester - 1-8 (.111)
Curry - 1-7 (.125)
With the first semester schedule basically done, a glimpse at how player's are doing:
NE Region Leaders in Points Per Game:
1. Lamonte Thomas - Johnson & Wales - 25.8
2. Ray Askew - Albertus Magnus - 23.4
3. DaQuan Brooks - West Conn - 22.4
4. Lance Spratling - Southern Vermont - 21.5
5. Sedale Jones - Curry - 20.9
NE Region Leaders in Rebounds Per Game:
1. Ray Askew - Albertus Magnus - 13.4
2. Matt Pepdjonovic - Suffolk - 12.8
3. Mike Russell - Colby - 12.6
4. Juan Alverio - Elms - 11.2
5. Ben Naaktgeboren - Southern Vermont - 11.1
NE Region Leaders in Assists Per Game:
1. John Sanchez - Lesley - 6.6
2. Ryan Birrell - Salve Regina - 6.4
3. DeAngelo Alston - Eastern Nazarene - 6.0
4. Mitchell Kates - MIT - 5.6
5. Billy Harkins - Springfield; Kyle Pierce - Wheelock - 5.4
NESCAC Leaders:
Scoring - Sha Brown (Wesleyan) - 19.9
Rebounding - Mike Russell (Colby) - 12.6
Assists - Randy DeFeo (Bowdoin) - 5.3
LEC Leaders:
Scoring - DaQuan Brooks (West Conn) - 22.4
Rebounding - Pat Joseph (UMB) - 9.3
Assists - Rob Bentil (West Conn) - 4.8
NEWMAC Leaders:
Scoring - Brian Vayda (Clark) - 19.5
Rebounding - Matt Cavalieri (Springfield), Will Tashman (MIT) - 9.0
Assists - Mitchell Kates (MIT) - 5.6
GNAC Leaders:
Scoring - Lamonte Thomas (Johnson & Wales) - 25.8
Rebounding - Ray Askew (Albertus Magnus) - 13.4
Assists - Zach O'Brien (St. Joseph's) - 5.1
NECC Leaders:
Scoring - Lance Spratling (Southern Vermont) - 21.5
Rebounding - Juan Alverio (Elms) - 11.2
Assists - John Sanchez (Lesley) - 6.6
TCCC Leaders:
Scoring - Sedale Jones (Curry) - 20.9
Rebounding - Chima Ezeigbo (Eastern Nazarene) - 10.1
Assists - Ryan Birrell (Salve Regina) - 6.4
NAC Leaders:
Scoring - Jarrad DeVaughn (Thomas) - 19.5
Rebounding - Josh Jones (Husson) - 11.0
Assists - Dom Drake (Maine Maritime) - 5.3
MASCAC Leaders:
Scoring - Brian Clark (Salem) - 18.8
Rebounding - Jon Greenberg (MCLA) - 10.9
Assists - Judah Jackson (Bridgewater), Apollos Wade (Salem) - 3.7
Nice work
Thanks LewLow - that was fun to look at
First Semester All-Norheast Region Team
Just one basketball junkie's opinion...
Player of the Semester:
Troy Whittington - 6'6", Sr., C, Williams - 18.3 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 2.2 apg, 68% FG, 77% FT, 2.7 bpg
Coach of the Semester:
David Hixon - Amherst
Newcomer of the Semester:
Rashad Wright - 6'10", So., C, Keene - 8.3 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 53% FG, 3.1 bpg, 1.1 spg
First Team:
Ray Askew - 6'6", Jr., F, Albertus Magnus - 23.4 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 2.4 apg, 51% FG, 69% FT, 2.8 bpg
DaQuan Brooks - 5'10", Jr., G, West Conn - 22.4 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 4.2 apg, 47% FG, 42% 3FG, 78% FT, 2.0 spg
Mitchell Kates - 6'1", So., G, MIT - 14.5 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 5.3 apg, 50% FG, 33% 3FG, 75% FT, 2.6 spg
James Wang - 6'0", Jr., G, Williams - 18.8 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 4.2 apg, 57% FG, 51% 3FG, 87% FT, 1.4 spg
Troy Whittington - 6'6", Sr., C, Williams - 18.3 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 2.2 apg, 68% FG, 77% FT, 2.7 bpg
Second Team:
Brian Ellis - 6'5", Sr., F, Bates - 19.5 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 3.1 apg, 70% FG, 39% 3FG, 87% FT, 1.5 spg
Corteze Isaac - 6'3", Sr., G, Southern Maine - 20.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 3.3 apg, 44% FG, 38% 3FG, 85% FT, 1.6 spg
Connor Meehan - 6'4", Sr., G, Amherst - 14.6 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 3.9 apg, 49% FG, 36% 3FG, 83% FT, 1.6 spg
Ryan Sharry - 6'8", Jr., F, Middlebury - 13.2 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 2.0 apg, 58% FG, 74% FT, 2.7 bpg
Lamonte Thomas - 6'2", Jr., G, Johnson & Wales - 25.8 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 4.6 apg, 50% FG, 40% 3FG, 83% FT, 1.6 spg
Third Team:
Judah Jackson - 6'2", Sr., G, Bridgewater - 17.1 ppg, 7.3 rpg, 3.7 apg, 52% FG, 1.6 spg
Josh Jones - 6'4", Sr., F, Husson - 14.3 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 4.7 apg, 43% FG, 35% 3FG, 72% FT, 1.1 spg, 1.2 bpg
Vytas Kriskus - 6'6'", Jr., G/F, Brandeis - 16.9 ppg, 4.9 rpg, 43% FG, 43% 3FG, 80% FT
Andrew Locke - 6'10", Sr., C, Middlebury - 13.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 68% FG, 4.3 bpg
Nick Nedwick - 6'1", Jr., G, East Conn - 18.4 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 2.8 apg, 47% FG, 37% 3FG, 2 spg
leelowlang,
Fantastic job putting these names and stats and rankings together!!
A mini d3NEhoops inside a d3hoops
Novelties...
NE Top Gun's
***Most 3-pt Makes***
Jamie Karraker - MIT (36)
Marcus Winn - UNE (31)
James Klemm - Williams (30)
DaQuan Brooks - West Conn (28)
Chris Hanson - Daniel Webster (28)
NE Glass-Eaters
***Most RPG***
Ray Askew - Albertus Magnus (13.4)
Matt Pepdjonovic - Suffolk (12.8)
Juan Alverio - Elms (12.6)
Mike Russell - Colby (12.6)
Josh Jones - Husson (11.0)
NE Pick-Pockets
***Most SPG***
Tyler Kelley - St. Joseph's (ME) (3.9)
Dom Drake - Maine Maritime (3.6)
Billy Harkins - Springfield (3.4)
Calvin Jones - Johnson & Wales (3.1)
Victor Kashouh - Wheelock (3.1)
Javon Williams - Lasell (3.1)
NE Block-Partiers
***Most BPG***
Andrew Locke - Middlebury (4.2)
Ryan Coburn - Springfield (3.3)
Chima Ezeigbo - Eastern Nazarene (3.0)
Ray Askew - Albertus Magnus (2.8)
Juan Alverio - Elms (2.8)
Rashad Wright - Keene State (2.8)
NE Givers
***Most APG***
John Sanchez – Lesley (7.0)
Ryan Birrell – Salve Regina (6.8)
Tyrone Hughes – Brandeis (6.4)
DeAngelo Alston – Eastern Nazarene (5.6)
Billy Harkins – Springfield (5.6)
Same Letter Team
Judah Jackson – Bridgewater State
Jevon James – Coast Guard
Josh Jones – Husson
Nick Nedwick – Eastern Connecticut
Willy Workman – Amherst
The Air-Up-There Squad
Pim Smulders – Norwich (7'0")
Sam Herrick – Wentworth (6'11")
Andrew Locke – Middlebury (6'10")
Rashad Wright – Keene State (6'10")
Marc Zaharchuk – Husson (6'10")
Biggie Smalls
Arsenio Avant – Elms (5'5")
Andy Bousono – Johnson State (5'5")
Layo Medina – Framingham State (5'5")
Justin Nunez – East Conn (5'5")
Lee Vazquez – Westfield State (5'6")
Passport Team
Juan Alverio – Elms (Puerto Rico)
Vytas Kriskus – Brandeis (Lithuania)
Jon Greenberg – MCLA (Belgium)
Shane Hennessey – NEC (England)
James Wang – Williams (Australia)
I to III
Cori Boston – Norwich (Robert Morris)
Sam Herrick – Wentworth (New Hampshire)
Noel Hollingsworth – MIT (Brown)
Greg Hughes – Castleton (Vermont)
Ryan Martin – Keene State (Maine)
Team Crayola
Sha Brown – Wesleyan
Alex Goldfarb - Tufts
Jason Gray – Lyndon
Lance Greene – Endicott
Jason White – Mass.-Boston
Team Presidential
Darius Carter – Framingham State
Brian Ford – Trinity
Jefferson Lora – Albertus Magnus
Taeshon Johnson – Southern Vermont
Eric Taylor – Maine-Farmington
Iron Chef Team
Chris Applegate - Trinity
Nick Bean - Rivier
Eric Rice - Wheelock
Ryan Sharry - Middlebury
Royce Veal - Framingham
Quote from: leelowlang on December 16, 2010, 01:35:14 PM
Biggie Smalls
Arsenio Avant – Elms (5'5")
Andy Bousono – Johnson State (5'5")
Layo Medina – Framingham State (5'5")
Justin Nunez – East Conn (5'5")
Lee Vazquez – Westfield State (5'6")
John Sanchez from Lesley is listed at 5'8", but there is no way he is any taller than 5'3".
Sanchez is the biggest "little man" I have seen. Scary fast and changes the game. Hey, I loved to see the stats. Maybe would should make an all JJ team and give some of the other letters a chance!
Quote from: hugenerd on December 16, 2010, 04:50:24 PM
Quote from: leelowlang on December 16, 2010, 01:35:14 PM
Biggie Smalls
Arsenio Avant – Elms (5'5")
Andy Bousono – Johnson State (5'5")
Layo Medina – Framingham State (5'5")
Justin Nunez – East Conn (5'5")
Lee Vazquez – Westfield State (5'6")
John Sanchez from Lesley is listed at 5'8", but there is no way he is any taller than 5'3".
Earl Boykins (Eastern Michigan and NBA) was initially listed as 5'8". His height gradually declined as his performance rose. His coach was quoted saying "until I knew he was
that good, you think I'm going to risk my job for recruiting a midget?!" According to colleagues who had him in classes, he is actually about 5'3" (though his 'official' height never went below 5'5"). ;)
Raise the baskets to 12 feet and consequently give the little men a chance (most seven footers would have great difficulty scoring against a 12 foot basket).
According to the Top 25, here are the Northeast rankings:
1. Williams (#2 in top 25, 574 points)
2. Middlebury (#5, 506)
3. Brandeis (#15, 270)
4. Amherst (#17, 243)
5. MIT (#19, 187)
6. WPI (#23, 86)
7. West Conn (#25, 39)
8. Keene State (NR, 17)
9. Becker (NR, 13)
10. RIC (NR, 10)
7 teams in the top 25...not bad.
A shot at the start of the year rankings after recent news / results. In 10 days, we'll know a lot more about just how good Williams, Amherst and Middlebury are:
1. Williams -- has really picked up play in last few weeks, blowing out some credible opponents (in one game without Whittington to boot). Another great-shooting Williams team, 50 percent from the field, 40 percent from 3, and an insane 83 percent from the line. And the defense has remained at last year's level despite losing some key guys. Klemm, Emerson, and three impact frosh have stepped in and done a tremendous job replacing a great senior class.
2. Middlebury -- I haven't been overwhelmed by their results to date, but based on the last few years, and still being undefeated, they deserve this spot until they lose. Midd is always going to be a grind it out team, with their region-best defense and tremendous shot-blocking, they can beat anyone, but they can also stagnate at times on offense against a good opponent (see the last few NCAA tourneys). Lack of a elite creator on the perimeter hurts a bit.
3. Amherst -- clearly talented, and has looked totally dominant, but hard to know how for-real they are until they play some legit teams. If they beat Williams at home, instantly go to number one on the list.
4. Brandeis -- 8-0 is 8-0, but this is a young team and they have struggled to beat some mediocre-to-poor opponents (wins over Tufts, Babson, Clark, UMD by a total of 18 points, while Amherst beat Babson alone by 32). Star frosh Derek Retos has been lights-out, but there is no way good teams will allow him to shoot 60 percent from 3.
5. Western Conn -- big wins over WPI and Plattsburgh; the class of the non-undefeateds.
6. Keene State -- extremely deep and talented team that has been explosive but inconsistent. As they adjust to playing together, could become very dangerous. Would not want to play them come tourney time.
7. Bates -- this is contingent on stars Brust and Ellis returning healthy. With them, they are a very dangerous team. Without them, they lost to Husson.
8. WPI -- talented team but losses to Western Conn and Becker could really hurt if they need an at-large bid; still, with MIT's injury woes, now the prohibitive favorite in the NEWMAC
9. MIT -- with Hollingsworth out for the year, they aren't the same team
10. Becker -- gets the nod over RIC by virtue of a 14 point road win vs. the Anchormen.
Top NE Win Percentages (1/9/11)
1. Amherst - 1.000 (12-0)
Middlebury - 1.000 (10-0) Playing Lyndon State right now
Brandeis - 1.000 (10-0)
4. Williams - .929 (13-1)
5. Western Connecticut - .923 (12-1)
6. New England College - .917 (11-1)
7. Becker - .833 (10-2)
8. Bowdoin - .818 (9-2)
9. WPI - .786 (11-3)
10. MCLA - .769 (10-3)
11. Eastern Connecticut - .750 (9-3)
Keene State - .750 (9-3)
13. Rhode Island College - .727 (8-3)
14. MIT - .714 (10-4
15. Roger Williams - .692 (9-4)
16. Elms - .667 (8-4)
Rivier - .667 (6-3)
18. Bridgewater State - .636 (7-4)
Daniel Webster - .636 (7-4)
Husson - .636 (7-4)
21. Bates - .615 (8-5)
Southern Maine - .615 (8-5)
Trinity (Conn.) - .615 (8-5)
24. St. Joseph's (Maine) - .600 (6-4)
I ask:
11-15 Most Likely To End in Top 5?
16-24 Most Likely To End in Top 10?
1-5 Most Likely To End Up 6 or Lower?
6-10 Most Likely to End Up Out of Top 10?
Quote from: leelowlang on January 09, 2011, 08:20:29 PM
Top NE Win Percentages (1/9/11)
1. Amherst - 1.000 (12-0)
Middlebury - 1.000 (10-0) Playing Lyndon State right now
Brandeis - 1.000 (10-0)
4. Williams - .929 (13-1)
5. Western Connecticut - .923 (12-1)
6. New England College - .917 (11-1)
7. Becker - .833 (10-2)
8. Bowdoin - .818 (9-2)
9. WPI - .786 (11-3)
10. MCLA - .769 (10-3)
11. Eastern Connecticut - .750 (9-3)
Keene State - .750 (9-3)
13. Rhode Island College - .727 (8-3)
14. MIT - .714 (10-4
15. Roger Williams - .692 (9-4)
16. Elms - .667 (8-4)
Rivier - .667 (6-3)
18. Bridgewater State - .636 (7-4)
Daniel Webster - .636 (7-4)
Husson - .636 (7-4)
21. Bates - .615 (8-5)
Southern Maine - .615 (8-5)
Trinity (Conn.) - .615 (8-5)
24. St. Joseph's (Maine) - .600 (6-4)
I ask:
11-15 Most Likely To End in Top 5?
16-24 Most Likely To End in Top 10?
1-5 Most Likely To End Up 6 or Lower?
6-10 Most Likely to End Up Out of Top 10?
What do your answers be?
I ask:
11-15 Most Likely To End in Top 5?
Keene State
16-24 Most Likely To End in Top 10?
Bridgewater State
1-5 Most Likely To End Up 6 or Lower?
Brandeis
6-10 Most Likely to End Up Out of Top 10?
New England College
Top NE Win Percentages (1/18/11)
1. Amherst - 1.000 (14-0, 2-0 NESCAC)
Middlebury - 1.000 (13-0, 2-0 NESCAC)
3. Williams - .938 (15-1, 2-0 NESCAC)
4. Becker - .867 (13-2, 5-0 NECC)
Western Connecticut State - .867 (13-2, 4-1 LEC)
6. New England College - .857 (12-2, 2-1 TCCC)
7. Bowdoin - .846 (11-2, 1-0 NESCAC)
Brandeis - .846 (11-2, 1-2 UAA)
9. WPI - .812 (13-3, 3-0 NEWMAC)
10. Eastern Connecticut State - .786 (11-3, 4-1 LEC)
MCLA - .786 (11-3, 2-0 MASCAC)
12. Keene State - .714 (10-4, 4-1 LEC)
13. Husson - .692 (9-4, 2-0 NAC)
St. Joseph's (Maine) - .692 (9-4, 6-1 GNAC)
15. MIT - .688 (11-5, 1-2 NEWMAC)
16. Endicott - . 667 (10-5, 2-1 TCCC)
Roger Williams - .667 (10-5, 2-1 TCCC)
Southern Vermont - .667 (10-5, 4-1 NECC)
19. Bridgewater State - .643 (9-5, 2-1 MASCAC)
Elms - .643 (9-5, 2-1 NECC)
Rhode Island College - .643 (9-5, 4-1 LEC)
22. Johnson & Wales - .615 (8-5, 5-2 GNAC)
Rivier - .615 (8-5, 3-3 GNAC)
24. Regis - .600 (9-6, 2-1 TCCC)
Southern Maine - .600 (9-6, 1-4 LEC)
Springfield - .600 (9-6, 2-1 NEWMAC)
Trinity - . 600 (9-6, 1-1 NESCAC)
NE D3 Matchups This Week/Weekend Featuring Those Teams
Tue., 1/18/11
West Conn at RIC
Wed., 1/19/11
MIT at Springfield
East Conn at Keene State
NEC at Regis
Sat., 1/22/11
Trinity at Amherst
West Conn at Southern Maine
Springfield at WPI
RIC at East Conn
NEC at Roger Williams
Top NE Win Percentages (1/24/11)
1. Amherst - 1.000 (16-0, 3-0 NESCAC)
Middlebury - 1.000 (15-0, 4-0 NESCAC)
3. Williams - .944 (17-1, 4-0 NESCAC)
4. Western Connecticut - .882 (15-2, 6-1 LEC)
5. Becker - .875 (14-2, 6-0 NECC)
6. WPI - .833 (15-3, 5-0 NEWMAC)
7. MCLA - .812 (13-3, 4-0 MASCAC)
New England College - .812 (13-3, 3-2 TCCC)
9. Brandeis - .800 (12-3, 2-3 UAA)
10. Eastern Connecticut - .750 (12-4, 5-2 LEC)
11. Bowdoin - .733 (11-4, 1-2 NESCAC)
Husson - .733 (11-4, 4-0 NAC)
13. MIT - .722 (13-5, 3-2 NESCAC)
14. Keene State - .706 (12-5, 4-3 LEC)
15. Southern Vermont - .688 (11-5, 5-1 NECC)
Elms - .688 (11-5, 4-1 NECC)
17. St. Joseph's (Maine) - .667 (10-5, 7-1 GNAC)
18. Rhode Island College - .647 (11-6, 5-2 LEC
Regis - .647 (11-6, 4-1 TCCC)
Endicott - .647 (11-6, 3-2 TCCC)
Roger Williams - .647 (11-6, 3-2 TCCC)
22. Rivier - .643 (9-5, 4-3 GNAC)
23. Bridgewater State - .625 (10-6, 3-2 MASCAC)
24. Johnson & Wales - .600 (9-6, 6-2 GNAC)
NE D3 Matchups This Week/Weekend Featuring Those Teams
Tue., 1/25/11
West Conn at East Conn
Becker at Southern Vermont
Rivier at St. Joseph's (Maine)
Wed., 1/26/11
MCLA at Bridgewater State
Thu., 1/27/11
Southern Vermont at Middlebury
Roger Williams at Endicott
Sat., 1/29/11
Middlebury at Williams
Bowdoin at Amherst
WPI at MIT
Quote from: leelowlang on January 24, 2011, 03:50:24 PM
Top NE Win Percentages (1/24/11)
1. Amherst - 1.000 (16-0, 3-0 NESCAC)
Middlebury - 1.000 (15-0, 4-0 NESCAC)
3. Williams - .944 (17-1, 4-0 NESCAC)
4. Western Connecticut - .882 (15-2, 6-1 LEC)
5. Becker - .875 (14-2, 6-0 NECC)
6. WPI - .833 (15-3, 5-0 NEWMAC)
7. MCLA - .812 (13-3, 4-0 MASCAC)
New England College - .812 (13-3, 3-2 TCCC)
9. Brandeis - .800 (12-3, 2-3 UAA)
10. Eastern Connecticut - .750 (12-4, 5-2 LEC)
11. Bowdoin - .733 (11-4, 1-2 NESCAC)
Husson - .733 (11-4, 4-0 NAC)
13. MIT - .722 (13-5, 3-2 NESCAC)
14. Keene State - .706 (12-5, 4-3 LEC)
15. Southern Vermont - .688 (11-5, 5-1 NECC)
Elms - .688 (11-5, 4-1 NECC)
17. St. Joseph's (Maine) - .667 (10-5, 7-1 GNAC)
18. Rhode Island College - .647 (11-6, 5-2 LEC
Regis - .647 (11-6, 4-1 TCCC)
Endicott - .647 (11-6, 3-2 TCCC)
Roger Williams - .647 (11-6, 3-2 TCCC)
22. Rivier - .643 (9-5, 4-3 GNAC)
23. Bridgewater State - .625 (10-6, 3-2 MASCAC)
24. Johnson & Wales - .600 (9-6, 6-2 GNAC)
These are overall winning percentages, we have to remember that only in-region winning percentage is considered. I haven't looked through all of them to know which ones change, but surely the real percentages are different.
Both MIT & WPI have a loss against D1 Harvard that I believe does not count as a D3 in-region loss.
Duly noted folks, thank you.
A shot at ranking the New England teams with a few weeks left in the season:
1. Amherst (undefeated, and injuries or no, they beat Williams, and while I'm not sure with both teams at full strength they are necessarily better than the Ephs, Williams has to prove that on the court)
2. Williams
3. Middlebury (the top three are basically a toss-up at this point)
HUGE gap
4. Western Conn
5. WPI (I'm not really sold on WPI, played only one top 25 team, and lost by 15, NEWMAC is really weak this year due to MIT's injuries ... I certainly have them below Western Conn, and I don't think they are the 14th best team in the country)
Big gap
6. Brandeis (dropping like a stone, but no one else in the middle of the New England pack has really stepped up to pass them)
7. Becker (bad loss to a not-terribly-great Salem team drops them a few spots)
8. Keene State (a few more losses than I thought they'd have right now given their talent level, but lots of new players and guys in and out of the lineup, and maybe haven't totally gelled this season)
9. Eastern Conn
10. ??? No one else seems that great, MCLA was knocking on door until yesterday's loss.
I think the top five teams will likely earn Pool C bids, ultimately, if they don't win conference tourneys, barring a catastrophic collapse late in the year. Everyone else is probably a long shot ... (I am assuming Brandeis will lose a few more, certainly to Amherst, if they don't win the UAA).
Top NE Region Overall Win % (2-1-11) *Including all games, not only regional*
1. Amherst - 1.000 (18-0, 5-0 NESCAC)
2. Williams - .950 (19-1, 5-0 NESCAC)
3. Middlebury - .941 (16-1, 4-1 NESCAC)
4. Western Connecticut State - .895 (17-2, 8-1 LEC)
5. WPI - .850 (17-3, 7-0 NEWMAC)
6. Becker - .842 (16-3, 8-0 NECC)
7. New England College - .789 (15-4, 4-3 TCCC)
8. Husson - .778 (14-4, 7-0 NAC)
MCLA - .778 (14-4, 5-1 MASCAC)
10. Brandeis - .765 (13-4, 3-4 UAA)
11. St. Joseph's (Maine) - .736 (14-5, 11-1 GNAC)
12. Eastern Connecticut State - .722 (13-5, 6-3 LEC)
13. Bowdoin - .706 (12-5, 2-3 NESCAC)
14. Keene State - .700 (14-6, 6-3 LEC)
MIT - .700 (14-6, 4-3 NEWMAC)
16. Elms - .684 (13-6, 6-2 NECC)
Endicott - .684 (13-6, 5-2 TCCC)
18. Johnson & Wales - .647 (11-6, 8-2 GNAC)
19. Anna Maria - .632 (12-7, 6-1 TCCC)
Regis - .632 (12-7, 5-2 TCCC)
Rhode Island College - .632 (12-7, 6-3 LEC)
Roger Williams - .632 (12-7, 4-3 TCCC)
23. Salem State - .625 (10-6, 4-1 MASCAC)
24. Castleton State - .611 (11-7, 6-1 NAC)
25. Southern Vermont - .600 (12-8, 6-3 NECC)
Games This Week Featuring Those Teams:
2/1/11:
Amherst at Rhode Island College (POSTPONED)
2/4/11:
Williams at Bowdoin
2/5/11:
Middlebury at Bowdoin
Regis at Endicott
Rhode Island College at Keene State
First Regional Rankings: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/02/ncaas-mens-regional-rankings/
First Regional Rankings: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/02/ncaas-mens-regional-rankings/
Top NE Region Overall Win % (2-7-11) *Including all games, not only regional*
1. Amherst - 1.000 (20-0, 7-0 NESCAC)
2. Williams - .955 (21-1, 7-0 NESCAC)
3. Middlebury - .947 (18-1, 6-1 NESCAC)
4. Western Connecticut State - .905 (19-2, 9-1 LEC)
5. WPI - .857 (18-3, 8-0 NEWMAC)
6. Becker - .850 (17-3, 9-0 NECC)
7. New England College - .762 (16-5, 5-4 TCCC)
8. Husson - .750 (15-5, 8-1 NAC)
9. MCLA - .737 (14-5, 5-2 MASCAC)
10. Elms - .714 (15-6, 8-2 NECC)
MIT - .714 (15-6, 5-3 NEWMAC)
St. Joseph's (Maine) - .714 (15-6, 12-2 GNAC)
13. Eastern Connecticut State - .700 (14-6, 7-3 LEC)
14. Brandeis - .684 (13-6, 3-6 UAA)
Johnson & Wales - .684 (13-6, 10-2 GNAC)
19. Anna Maria - .667 (14-7, 8-1 TCCC)
Endicott - .667 (14-7, 6-3 TCCC)
Keene State - .667 (14-7, 6-4 LEC)
Roger Williams - .667 (14-7, 6-3 TCCC)
Salem State - .667 (12-6, 6-1 MASCAC)
24. Bowdoin - .650 (13-7, 2-5 NESCAC)
Rhode Island College - .650 (13-7, 7-3 LEC)
26. Regis - .619 (13-8, 6-3 TCCC)
Southern Vermont - .619 (13-8, 7-3 NECC)
Springfield - .619 (13-8, 6-3 NEWMAC)
29. Norwich - .611 (11-7, 7-4 GNAC)
30. Bridgewater State - .600 (12-8, 4-4 MASCAC)
Games This Week Featuring Those Teams:
Tuesday, Feb. 8:
Brandeis at Amherst
RIC at West Conn
Bowdoin at Bridgewater State
St. Joseph's (Maine) at Johnson & Wales
Keene State at East Conn
Becker at Elms
Roger Williams at Anna Maria
Thursday, Feb 10:
MCLA at Salem State
Friday, Feb 11:
Amherst at Middlebury
Saturday, Feb 12:
Amherst at Williams
West Conn at Keene State
Johnson & Wales at Norwich
Southern Vermont at Becker
NEC at Anna Maria
Regis at Roger Williams
Week 3 Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/16/ncaa-2011-regional-rankings-week-3/
WPI and MIT already lost tonight.
Final Regional Rankings are out before Selection Sunday: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/
I start this tropic with the purpose of collecting info on one thread
of Div III 2011 commitments in the NE area .
Main source are links
http://www.newenglandrecruitingreport.com/news/article/1805/Commitment-CatchUp.php
http://www.beantownhoops.com/centralmassbasketball.html
http://mass-nh-highschoolbasketballreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/mass-boys-player-rankings-2011.html
http://mass-nh-highschoolbasketballreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-hampshire-boys-player-rankings-2011.html
These sites only cover New England .
I observe a lot of talent and Height coming into the regional leagues
eg .
6'6 " all Boston Globe Joe Mussachia , Amherst
Endicott with Matt Kanece 6'8, Andre Makris 6'8" and Central Mass Player of the year Johm Henault
Babson 6'6"Wickey and Mc Clung
Bowdoin 7' John Swords and Bryan Hurley
MIT with 6'7 " Stobos and 6'9" Acker from Philly
WPI Boston Herald all-stars Coppola and Longwell + 6'5" Michalski . 6'7 Mastacusa
Trinity with A BIG "7 " ...Simpson Spirou 6'5", Seltzer 6'6;Rioux 6'5 plus quality guards in O'laughlin, Trent and Ray
MANY MORE
No word from Williams , Amherst, TCCC, Nescac
I'm new to NE Div III scene .
Many of these kids had Div II opportunities .
Is this considerd a typical recruiting year for NE Div III ?
This seems like a lot of "new "talent joining very good regional Div III teams
Comments , Please .
Then can we call it something that will stick for a while?
Like "Recruiting and Commitments."
This is a good place to keep up on the new players arriving on campuses around the region.
As every follower of the 'CAC knows, every year there is a team that seems to breakout from the lower ranks of the pack (the 7-11 spots) to join the "upper ranks". With key players missing from last years CAC ranks (Troy, Locke, Wholey Ellis, Russel, Van Loenen, MacDougall, etc) there is definitely some room to move up in the NESCAC.
For my money the team thats going to make the leap this year is Wesleyan. They return almost every member of the 2010 team, including all 5 starters, and their record last year was more a byproduct of unfortunate injuries than lack of talent or coaching (Glen Thomas, Greg St Jean, and David Maltz all missed major portions of last season). This upcoming season, with their quick guards and more than enough size with Callaghan and Thomas, I expect to see the Cardinals not only making the playoffs but advancing deep into them
So those are my thoughts... who's your breakout team of 2011?
Ohco....nice input this time of the year. Conference practice starts Nov.1.....so you may get a response to your question soon. Try putting it on the NESCAC board where it should be. This board appears to be a more specific topic board for NE in general. Want NESCAC conference comments in particular go to that board.
JHawk
Like this thread - I will spread the work on the NEWMAC board - there are a couple of very knowledgeable "posters" there who I think could add to your comments - thanks for starting.
Umass Dartmouth has to have one of the top recruiting classes in the country. It looks like six scholarship caliber players join the team this year including Jansy Cruz(division one point guard) and Jeffery Cannon(New Haven) After speaking with coach Baptiste last weekend and reading local newspaper articles he credits his ast coach Sean Floyd for recruiting this talented class.
Here is one of the articles I have found regarding this recruiting class Enjoy!
http://www.umasstorch.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=543%3Afresh-faces-in-the-crowd-umassd-welcomes-new-recruits-this-season&Itemid=262
Some of the top performing teams in the region:
Team Record Big Win Tough Loss
Middlebury 7-0, 0-0 at Ramapo 73-62 None
MIT 12-0, 0-0 vs. Salem 78-66 None
Williams 8-1, 0-0 vs. Wesleyan 83-68 vs. Salem 83-69
Amherst 9-1, 0-0 at Springfield 81-71 at Brandeis 76-61
RIC 9-1, 1-1 vs. WPI 57-47 at East Conn 70-59
WPI 8-1, 0-0 vs. Salem 105-80 at RIC 57-47
East Conn 6-1, 2-0 vs. RIC 70-59 vs. St. Joe (LI) 90-76
Wesleyan 9-1, 0-0 vs. Westfield 61-58 at Williams 83-68
Albertus 7-1, 3-0 vs. West Conn 107-88 vs. Medgar Evers 95-93
West Conn 10-1, 2-0 vs. USM 88-58 at Albertus 107-88
Bowdoin 7-2, 0-0 at Mass Dartmouth 66-61 at USM 80-79
St. Joe (ME) 6-1, 2-1 at Bowdoin 70-68 vs. Albertus 77-72
Salem 6-3, 0-0 at Williams 83-69 vs. Tufts 85-73
Springfield 7-3, 0-0 vs. Keene 85-79 vs. Elms 69-59
Keene 7-3, 2-0 vs. Mass Dartmouth 92-55 at Springfield 85-79
Mass Dartmouth 7-3, 1-1 vs. Brandeis 68-54 at Keene 92-55
Babson 7-3, 0-0 at Roger Williams 72-52 vs. Tufts 54-48
Becker 5-3, 1-0 at Fitchburg 78-70 at Brandeis 77-76
Fitchburg 7-2, 0-0 at Mass Boston 87-81 vs. Becker 78-70
Farmington 4-4, 4-0 at Colby-Sawyer 77-74 at Mt. St. Vincent 77-64
Salve 4-4, 2-0 vs. Endicott 76-64 at Mitchell 65-64
Some top individual performers in the region:
Will Hanley Bowdoin 20.1 ppg, 12. 4 rpg, 3.2 apg
Ray Askew Albertus 23.3 ppg, 8.5 rpg
Noel Hollingsworth MIT 19.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg
DaQuan Brooks West Conn 22.5 ppg, 5.9 apg, 2.4 apg
Shasha Brown Wesleyan 20.1 ppg, 4.5 apg
Matt Carr WPI 15 ppg. 7.4 rpg, 2.2 apg
Aaron Toomey Williams 15.9 ppg, 4.4 apg
Willy Workman Amherst 14.7 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 3.1 apg
Joey Kizel Middlebury 12.4 ppg, 4.4 apg
Alex Berthiaume Springfield 18.3 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 4.2 apg
Mike Akinrola RIC 17.7 ppg, 5.9 rpg
Lance Greene Mass Dartmouth 17.5 ppg, 11.9 rpg
Nick Nedwick East Conn 14.9 ppg, 4.3 apg
Terrence Favors Becker 18 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 2.8 apg
Brian Clark Salem 17.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg
Lee Vazquez Westfield 24.1 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 4.8 apg
Pat Flanagan Roger Williams 21.3 ppg, 8.5 rpg
Matt Pepdjonvic Suffolk 18.3 ppg, 14.6 rpg
Isaac Jenkins Mass Boston 20.9 ppg, 9 rpg
Taeshon Johnson So Vermont 19.4 ppg, 8.1 rpg
Jarred DeVaughn Thomas 18.8 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 2 apg
LLL....thanks for the summary of northeast proceedings up until today. I know it is difficult to know what is going on with all the individual players across many teams but I must make a strong suggestion that I believe you have missed a kid who is, in my opinion, clearly one of the top two or three players in the northeast area...Mitch Kates of MIT. I am very familiar with Hanley, Carr, Brown, Hollingsworth etc and they are really good..but Kates is the engine that makes a strong MIT team go. Truly a great D3 player. Would be a welcome addition on many D-1 teams. Have not seen any D3 player in the past two seasons ( and, of course, I have not seen them all) who is better than Kates. He is really, really good....shame that he might be overlooked when All-American time comes around.
Quote from: leelowlang on December 20, 2011, 10:19:47 PM
Some of the top performing teams in the region:
Team Record Big Win Tough Loss
Middlebury 7-0, 0-0 at Ramapo 73-62 None
MIT 12-0, 0-0 vs. Salem 78-66 None
Williams 8-1, 0-0 vs. Wesleyan 83-68 vs. Salem 83-69
Amherst 9-1, 0-0 at Springfield 81-71 at Brandeis 76-61
RIC 9-1, 1-1 vs. WPI 57-47 at East Conn 70-59
WPI 8-1, 0-0 vs. Salem 105-80 at RIC 57-47
East Conn 6-1, 2-0 vs. RIC 70-59 vs. St. Joe (LI) 90-76
Wesleyan 9-1, 0-0 vs. Westfield 61-58 at Williams 83-68
Albertus 7-1, 3-0 vs. West Conn 107-88 vs. Medgar Evers 95-93
West Conn 10-1, 2-0 vs. USM 88-58 at Albertus 107-88
Bowdoin 7-2, 0-0 at Mass Dartmouth 66-61 at USM 80-79
St. Joe (ME) 6-1, 2-1 at Bowdoin 70-68 vs. Albertus 77-72
Salem 6-3, 0-0 at Williams 83-69 vs. Tufts 85-73
Springfield 7-3, 0-0 vs. Keene 85-79 vs. Elms 69-59
Keene 7-3, 2-0 vs. Mass Dartmouth 92-55 at Springfield 85-79
Mass Dartmouth 7-3, 1-1 vs. Brandeis 68-54 at Keene 92-55
Babson 7-3, 0-0 at Roger Williams 72-52 vs. Tufts 54-48
Becker 5-3, 1-0 at Fitchburg 78-70 at Brandeis 77-76
Fitchburg 7-2, 0-0 at Mass Boston 87-81 vs. Becker 78-70
Farmington 4-4, 4-0 at Colby-Sawyer 77-74 at Mt. St. Vincent 77-64
Salve 4-4, 2-0 vs. Endicott 76-64 at Mitchell 65-64
Some top individual performers in the region:
Will Hanley Bowdoin 20.1 ppg, 12. 4 rpg, 3.2 apg
Ray Askew Albertus 23.3 ppg, 8.5 rpg
Noel Hollingsworth MIT 19.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg
DaQuan Brooks West Conn 22.5 ppg, 5.9 apg, 2.4 apg
Shasha Brown Wesleyan 20.1 ppg, 4.5 apg
Matt Carr WPI 15 ppg. 7.4 rpg, 2.2 apg
Aaron Toomey Williams 15.9 ppg, 4.4 apg
Willy Workman Amherst 14.7 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 3.1 apg
Joey Kizel Middlebury 12.4 ppg, 4.4 apg
Alex Berthiaume Springfield 18.3 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 4.2 apg
Mike Akinrola RIC 17.7 ppg, 5.9 rpg
Lance Greene Mass Dartmouth 17.5 ppg, 11.9 rpg
Nick Nedwick East Conn 14.9 ppg, 4.3 apg
Terrence Favors Becker 18 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 2.8 apg
Brian Clark Salem 17.3 ppg, 5.4 rpg
Lee Vazquez Westfield 24.1 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 4.8 apg
Pat Flanagan Roger Williams 21.3 ppg, 8.5 rpg
Matt Pepdjonvic Suffolk 18.3 ppg, 14.6 rpg
Isaac Jenkins Mass Boston 20.9 ppg, 9 rpg
Taeshon Johnson So Vermont 19.4 ppg, 8.1 rpg
Jarred DeVaughn Thomas 18.8 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 2 apg
Quote from: leelowlang on December 20, 2011, 10:19:47 PM
Aaron Toomey Williams 15.9 ppg, 4.4 apg
Pretty sure that Aaron is still playing for Amherst
Quote from: formerbant10 on December 21, 2011, 12:55:35 AM
Quote from: leelowlang on December 20, 2011, 10:19:47 PM
Aaron Toomey Williams 15.9 ppg, 4.4 apg
Pretty sure that Aaron is still playing for Amherst
You didn't hear about the trade? I think he went over as a part of the Chris Paul deal.
Pat (Stern) Coleman denied that trade as he thought Amherst future may be hurt by it!
LeeLow - thanks for the pre-holiday summary - I think you are right on. As I am in CT - I get to see West Conn often - huge upside but inconsistent. I also think there is an unlimited upside to Albertus Magnus this year - that is a mutli-tourney win type team.
Would def pay to see a Middlebury-MIT game.
All you NEWMAC posters are really behind the scene. The deal with Williams fell through due to future considerations and another player. A straight trade for Wang was not accepted because of concern with his back problems and being a senior. A request for Nate Robertson to sweeten the deal was quickly refused. Midd. was brought in as a third party but it got complicated. Something about a trade for next year's incoming front court players (Amherst's 6'8" for Midd.'s 6'8" C/F, etc.) and a Williams young center.
Keep up the good work guys!
@REMSLEEP...Truth be told Kates is among my favorite DIII players in recent memory and an absolute beast. As I did this quickly last night I was feeling Mr. Carr is usually the 2nd fiddle, is also a tremendous asset to WPI, maybe even underrated, and I wanted to adhere to just one player from a team or I would write all night. THANK YOU for your appreciate for MK. If I am starting a team of active DIII guys, Mitchell Kates is on the short list of guys you consider early. Made sure to rep every league as well. For instance I like the DeVaughn kid at Thomas out of Brockton but I'll take Coppola, Wang, Choice, and the such that I also did not have on that quick overview.
@FORMERBANT10...my bad, a cut and paste from Excel gone wrong...
Leelo great stuff...Thanks for the updates and keeping us informed.
I heard the Nate Robinson deal almost was done, however, he wanted to also be the team's mascot. Negotiations quickly ended.
LLL....thanks for the clarification on absence of MK on your summary.....now I get it
Any new regional rankings?
Quote from: pjunito on January 28, 2012, 09:59:18 PM
Any new regional rankings?
Pat Coleman would know this more, but IIRC the first regional rankings will be getting released sometime this coming Wednesday afternoon.
Thanks 7.
Quote from: 7express on January 28, 2012, 10:13:27 PM
Quote from: pjunito on January 28, 2012, 09:59:18 PM
Any new regional rankings?
Pat Coleman would know this more, but IIRC the first regional rankings will be getting released sometime this coming Wednesday afternoon.
There are only 3 regional rankings this year prior to NCAA selections. The first is not released this Wednesday, but the following Wednesday, February 8.
New rankings out:
http://d3hoops.com/top25/men/2011-12/week10
Midd drops to 2
MIT at 5
Amherst at 6
Keene jumps in at 21
Albertus in at 24
Williams drops out.
Williams, RIC, WPI, East Conn, and Wesleyan all ORV
Regional Rankings will be interesting as well; first one comes out this Wednesday. The teams that play the best in February usually make big runs in Conference Tournaments and beyond... Are there any teams that might be off the radar right know that anyone thinks might have a run left in their respective conferences?
In the GNAC, I think Johnson and Wales could be dangerous. They have a great scorer in Lamont Thomas; they won the conference last year and have the ability to shoot the 3 ball very well.
They're here...
Northeast
1 Amherst 18-2 20-2
2 Middlebury 18-1 20-1
3 Rhode Island College 16-4 16-4
4 Western Connecticut 17-4 17-4
5 WPI 16-4 16-4
6 Eastern Connecticut 17-4 17-4
7 MIT 20-1 20-1
8 Keene State 14-3 17-4
9 Wesleyan (Conn.) 17-4 17-5
10 Tufts 16-6 16-6
11 Becker 16-4 16-4
12 Albertus Magnus 20-1 20-1
I thought the BCS was bad.......
I understand SOS somewhat but to me head to head should always have a say: Middlebury should be number 1 in the region. ???
With age, Why should middlebury be number 1? Amherst and Midd have not played yet this year so there is no head to head data to go by. Amherst's schedule is harder than midds so they get the top slot. If Midd wins at amherst on saturday then you can make that arguement.
Juast as a comparison I ran some weighted OWP numbers comparing MIT and East Conn.
This is what I got through todays games.
MITs weighted OWP for all games: 0.486 (projected at the end of season, with only WPI left: 0.505)
MITs weighted OWP in wins: 0.482 (22 games)
MITs Weighted OWP in losses: 0.571 (1 game)
East Conn's weighted OWP for all games: 0.535 (no projection as they have more than 1 game left)
East Conn's weighted OWP in wins: 0.440 (18 games)
East Conn's weighted OWP in losses: 0.875 (5 games)
So essentially by just showing up for those 5 games, they gained nearly an entire 0.1 in the OWP calculation. I guess scheduling those games (well actually 3 of them are league games, so they didnt really schedule them, they just showed up) really shows how good they are.
I will try running the same calcs for some other NE region ranked teams if I get some time later.
This week games are done!
Lots of great action in all leagues; as we come down to the final week of the regular season for some leagues and preparing for the conference tournament in other leagues.. I thought I would have fun (no more football on Sundays; Go Giants!) and give my predictions for Wednesday's Regional Rankings....
Northeast
1. Amherst
2. MIT
3. Middlebury
4. Albertus Magnus
5. Keene State
6. Western Connecticut
7. Wesleyan
8. Rhode Island College
9. Eastern Connecticut
10. WPI
11. Becker
12. Tufts
Quote from: pjunito on February 12, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
This week games are done!
Lots of great action in all leagues; as we come down to the final week of the regular season for some leagues and preparing for the conference tournament in other leagues.. I thought I would have fun (no more football on Sundays; Go Giants!) and give my predictions for Wednesday's Regional Rankings....
Northeast
1. Amherst
2. MIT
3. Middlebury
4. Albertus Magnus
5. Keene State
6. Western Connecticut
7. Wesleyan
8. Rhode Island College
9. Eastern Connecticut
10. WPI
11. Becker
12. Tufts
I like yours, but wouldn't be overly optimistic of that order based on last weeks rankings.
Here is my guess (may also be overly optimistic):
1. Amherst
2. Middlebury
3. West Conn
4. MIT
5. East Conn
6. RIC
7. Wesleyan
8. Keene St.
9. Albertus Magnus
10. WPI
11. Becker
12. Tufts
As you know nerd; I am an Albertus supporter (and maybe a homer..) lol. So, your probably right with your predictions. I guess we have to wait and see.
Quote from: pjunito on February 12, 2012, 07:11:33 PM
This week games are done!
Lots of great action in all leagues; as we come down to the final week of the regular season for some leagues and preparing for the conference tournament in other leagues.. I thought I would have fun (no more football on Sundays; Go Giants!) and give my predictions for Wednesday's Regional Rankings....
Northeast
1. Amherst
2. MIT
3. Middlebury
4. Albertus Magnus
5. Keene State
6. Western Connecticut
7. Wesleyan
8. Rhode Island College
9. Eastern Connecticut
10. WPI
11. Becker
12. Tufts
Do you use the formula the committee uses to assess rankings or are you just placing teams where you think they should be?
No formula; just my own opinion.
I think the first 4 are well placed - meaning, that may be who I would bet on if there was a mini-NE tourney to decide how they were ranked. That being said - I can't see how MIT or Magnus could possibly jump that much?
my thoughts:
1) Amherst
2) Middlebury
3) West Conn
4) MIT
5) RIC
6) WPI
7) Keene
8) Wesleyan
9) Eastern
10) Albertus
11) Becker
12) Tufts
No formula, just my opinion.
It used to be that winning percentage was a much higher factor in the rankings (not per statute, but in actuality). This year there seems to be much more wiggle room for including the schedule measurements in the decision.
Personally, I prefer complaining about a good team with a lower winning percentage being left too low than I do trying to justify why a team with a good record against weak competition should be higher.
As much as it breeds some unfairness, I prefer a system in which the teams that win are rewarded.
I have Albertus Magnus at #4 in NE in my current estimation - quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.
The tournament will be interesting, I just hope a poor strength of schedule doesn't keep any deserving teams out of it.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2012, 05:21:22 PM
quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.
I'm not sure a two-point overtime loss at Amherst (or a 1-point loss at Keene, for that matter) is a sign of fatigue.
Coincidentally, both Midd and Albertus had a common opponent last week: Trinity. Albertus beat the Bantams by 12. Midd won by 29. Both games in Hartford.
I spoke with someone this weekend who knows the inner workings of the selection process for Pool C bids. Picture this:
8 region representatives sitting around a table holding 5x7 index cards of all the teams they are hoping to get into the dance from their respective region. They all sort their cards in order. You may ask "well what order are they sorting the cards?" And the answer is "they sort their cards in the order of most likely to get into the tournament to least likely." They are the rep for the region and of course want as many of their own to make it.
Imagine the process like a card game: Each rep puts their top card on the table face down and then all 8 flip them over at once. The committee selects 1 of the 8 for a Pool C. The region that was selected now goes to their second card and the other 7 regions keeps their card from the round before. The process is repeated until all Pool Cs are gone.
Here's the deal, what you don't want is a "blocker" in your region. A blocker would be a team that is on the table for a region but is not going to get picked for a long while.
To use this year's New England region as an example, MIT could be a very likely candidate for being a blocker. The idea is you don't want MIT blocking 3 LEC teams even though they are 22-1. Is MIT going to get into the tournament? Absolutely. Would MIT fans be happy with where they are in the deck? Probably not. The reps have to play the game and SOS is a HUGE component of what the table looks at since that is something that makes sense across the country. Win percentage of teams in the NJAC or NEWMAC are not necessarily indicative of the quality of those teams. Look at WashU...they are 17-5 but playing in the UAA with two games each against the likes of NYU, Rochester, Emory and Brandeis AND played non-conference games against Whitworth, Ohio-Wesleyan, Augustana, and Illinois-Wesleyan. I would vote them in over MIT or 22-1 Birmingham Southern 10 times out of 10.
Amherst jumps to 2 in the new poll, with 1 first place vote. MIT jumps Middlebury to the #3 spot, also with 1 first place vote. Middlebury checks in at #4 in the country.
http://d3hoops.com/top25/men/2011-12/week11
Quote from: Bucket on February 13, 2012, 05:38:25 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2012, 05:21:22 PM
quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.
I'm not sure a two-point overtime loss at Amherst (or a 1-point loss at Keene, for that matter) is a sign of fatigue.
Coincidentally, both Midd and Albertus had a common opponent last week: Trinity. Albertus beat the Bantams by 12. Midd won by 29. Both games in Hartford.
I'm not saying Albertus is better than Middlebury, simply that Albertus seems to be playing better than they did early in the season, while Middlebury doesn't seem to be as strong as they were.
That's why we have playoffs.
Quote from: Bucket on February 13, 2012, 05:38:25 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2012, 05:21:22 PM
quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.
I'm not sure a two-point overtime loss at Amherst (or a 1-point loss at Keene, for that matter) is a sign of fatigue.
Coincidentally, both Midd and Albertus had a common opponent last week: Trinity. Albertus beat the Bantams by 12. Midd won by 29. Both games in Hartford.
They both won by double digits; I don't think it proves that one team is vastly superior over another. I think Midd is a great team. The trinity/Albertus game had no flow to it... Albertus went to the line 44 times. Trinity had no answer for Albertus size and quickness. Albertus could have scored 100 in that game, if not for "smart" fouls by Trinity, preventing fast breaks and easy put backs. Albertus is a very athletic team and I think a lot of teams will not want to see them in the first round of the NCAA if they make it.
Quote from: pjunito on February 14, 2012, 10:33:46 AM
Quote from: Bucket on February 13, 2012, 05:38:25 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 13, 2012, 05:21:22 PM
quite frankly they seem to be getting better down the stretch as teams like MIT and Middlebury are showing signs of fatigue.
I'm not sure a two-point overtime loss at Amherst (or a 1-point loss at Keene, for that matter) is a sign of fatigue.
Coincidentally, both Midd and Albertus had a common opponent last week: Trinity. Albertus beat the Bantams by 12. Midd won by 29. Both games in Hartford.
They both won by double digits; I don't think it proves that one team is vastly superior over another. I think Midd is a great team. The trinity/Albertus game had no flow to it... Albertus went to the line 44 times. Trinity had no answer for Albertus size and quickness. Albertus could have scored 100 in that game, if not for "smart" fouls by Trinity, preventing fast breaks and easy put backs. Albertus is a very athletic team and I think a lot of teams will not want to see them in the first round of the NCAA if they make it.
I agree. That's why I was finding fault with the assertion that one team was rising and the other was showing fatigue.
Walzy - best explanation of the process I have ever read - thanks.
That being said - I can't see MIT being any kind of blocker as described. The number 2 team in the country could not possibly sit on the table for an extended period of time no matter what SOS is supposed to represent in the decision process.
Quote from: walzy31 on February 13, 2012, 09:03:34 PM
I spoke with someone this weekend who knows the inner workings of the selection process for Pool C bids. Picture this:
8 region representatives sitting around a table holding 5x7 index cards of all the teams they are hoping to get into the dance from their respective region. They all sort their cards in order. You may ask "well what order are they sorting the cards?" And the answer is "they sort their cards in the order of most likely to get into the tournament to least likely." They are the rep for the region and of course want as many of their own to make it.
Imagine the process like a card game: Each rep puts their top card on the table face down and then all 8 flip them over at once. The committee selects 1 of the 8 for a Pool C. The region that was selected now goes to their second card and the other 7 regions keeps their card from the round before. The process is repeated until all Pool Cs are gone.
Here's the deal, what you don't want is a "blocker" in your region. A blocker would be a team that is on the table for a region but is not going to get picked for a long while.
To use this year's New England region as an example, MIT could be a very likely candidate for being a blocker. The idea is you don't want MIT blocking 3 LEC teams even though they are 22-1. Is MIT going to get into the tournament? Absolutely. Would MIT fans be happy with where they are in the deck? Probably not. The reps have to play the game and SOS is a HUGE component of what the table looks at since that is something that makes sense across the country. Win percentage of teams in the NJAC or NEWMAC are not necessarily indicative of the quality of those teams. Look at WashU...they are 17-5 but playing in the UAA with two games each against the likes of NYU, Rochester, Emory and Brandeis AND played non-conference games against Whitworth, Ohio-Wesleyan, Augustana, and Illinois-Wesleyan. I would vote them in over MIT or 22-1 Birmingham Southern 10 times out of 10.
Meant to write number 3 - sorry.
Quote from: walzy31 on February 13, 2012, 09:03:34 PM
I spoke with someone this weekend who knows the inner workings of the selection process for Pool C bids. Picture this:
8 region representatives sitting around a table holding 5x7 index cards of all the teams they are hoping to get into the dance from their respective region. They all sort their cards in order. You may ask "well what order are they sorting the cards?" And the answer is "they sort their cards in the order of most likely to get into the tournament to least likely." They are the rep for the region and of course want as many of their own to make it.
Imagine the process like a card game: Each rep puts their top card on the table face down and then all 8 flip them over at once. The committee selects 1 of the 8 for a Pool C. The region that was selected now goes to their second card and the other 7 regions keeps their card from the round before. The process is repeated until all Pool Cs are gone.
Here's the deal, what you don't want is a "blocker" in your region. A blocker would be a team that is on the table for a region but is not going to get picked for a long while.
To use this year's New England region as an example, MIT could be a very likely candidate for being a blocker. The idea is you don't want MIT blocking 3 LEC teams even though they are 22-1. Is MIT going to get into the tournament? Absolutely. Would MIT fans be happy with where they are in the deck? Probably not. The reps have to play the game and SOS is a HUGE component of what the table looks at since that is something that makes sense across the country. Win percentage of teams in the NJAC or NEWMAC are not necessarily indicative of the quality of those teams. Look at WashU...they are 17-5 but playing in the UAA with two games each against the likes of NYU, Rochester, Emory and Brandeis AND played non-conference games against Whitworth, Ohio-Wesleyan, Augustana, and Illinois-Wesleyan. I would vote them in over MIT or 22-1 Birmingham Southern 10 times out of 10.
Just one thing to be mentioned. It's not one person doing the regional rankings. There is a committee with specific criteria - the same way the selection committee has specific criteria. They're not supposed to let personal feelings about how good/bad teams actually are affect the rankings.
This year is incredibly surprising because usually the win/loss record is the major determinitive factor. It just doesn't seem to be that way this year - at least not in the NE.
Win/Loss percentage is an important but can easily be out-weighed by a weak SOS... resulting in those voting to think... sure they have one loss... their SOS is in the bottom half of the region.
Just a thought.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
Win/Loss percentage is an important but can easily be out-weighed by a weak SOS... resulting in those voting to think... sure they have one loss... their SOS is in the bottom half of the region.
Just a thought.
Yeah, but has it really been such a disparity like this year? They'd move some teams aside for a really strong SOS and more losses, but I just don't recall the kind of disparity that we see with MIT and Albertus happening before. I could be wrong.
It's the first regional ranking... we can't make that kind of deduction from that! Plus, we had similar moves last year and the year before... it was actually kind of welcoming instead of based more on W/L that had teams with really easy records ranked a bit too high.
Let's see what happens this week... and then next week before we try and figure out what is getting more weight.
Blindly using an OWP value is just as egregious as blindly using a WP. Is it really enough to play teams with good records and lose (and I say 'play' instead of schedule because the LEC and NESCAC each have multiple ranked teams in their conference, which really boosts their values). For example, one may think that a 17-5 record with a 0.54 OWP is really great, until one realizes that the weighted OWP of the 17 games that team has won is only 0.44. To illustrate this point, in the table below, I have calculated OWP values of each of the NE ranked teams (from last week) in games they have won, as well as their record vs. 0.500 or better teams (where the head-to-head results between teams are not counted. For example, if I were doing a calculation for Amherst, and the team I was considering was Brandeis, the record I would use is 11-9, instead of 12-9, because the head-to-head result would not count).
Team | OWP | OWP in wins | (OWP in wins)-OWP | Record vs. 0.500+ |
Amherst | 0.603 | 0.577 | -0.026 | 12-2 |
Middlebury | 0.571 | 0.522 | -0.049 | 12-2 |
RIC | 0.601 | 0.501 | -0.100 | 11-5 |
West Conn | 0.568 | 0.517 | -0.051 | 10-2 |
WPI | 0.616 | 0.608 | -0.008 | 12-3 |
East Conn | 0.536 | 0.442 | -0.094 | 7-5 |
MIT | 0.486 | 0.482 | -0.004 | 12-1 |
Keene St. | 0.553 | 0.491 | -0.062 | 9-4 |
Wesleyan | 0.501 | 0.447 | -0.054 | 9-3 |
Tufts | 0.548 | 0.470 | -0.078 | 7-5 |
Becker | 0.484 | 0.454 | -0.030 | 8-4 |
Albertus Magnus | 0.433 | 0.434 | +0.001 | 6-1 |
After you take out losses from the weighted OWP calculation, the only 2 numbers that jump out at you, on the high side, are WPI and Amherst. On the low end, you have East Conn, Albertus Magnus, Becker, and Wesleyan. Everyone else, however, is essentially 0.500+-0.200, which, in my opinion, is just noise, and at that point, I think you have to take a strong look at record and other primary criteria. If I were ranking them, which obviously I am not in any official sense, I would put Amherst as a clear number 1. After that, things get a bit less clear, but I would put them in the following groups. In the 3 slots behind Amherst, I would put 2. Middlebury, 3. MIT, and 4. West Conn. MIT and West Conn could be flipped, but I had West Conn below MIT because of their 3 losses to average or sub-par teams. The next group of three I would have is 5. WPI 6. Keene St. and 7. RIC (Keene has the head-to-head win vs. RIC). In the final group, I would put 8. Albertus Magnus, 9. Wesleyan, 10. East Conn, and 11. Becker. I think Tufts will drop out and did not calculate figures for everyone else, so I dont know who would replace them. Again, this is just how I would use the OWP values, and I think it makes sense. Otherwise, as you can see from the table, it is possible to boost your overall OWP ~0.100 (which from what I hear is extremely significant) by losing 4-6 games, without really showing you can beat the types of teams you are losing to.
HN,
I would agree that the first regional rankings weren't perfect. Hopefully they will continue to evolve and the committee members will take a closer look at results vs. common teams and those things to get a better feel for the teams...not that they shouldn't already have that feeling 20 some games into the season. My problem with OWP stems from relying on this "average" number. By taking the average, you really lose valuable information about the difficulty of the games played. Simple example below of 2 different schedules, both with an OWP of 0.500
Sched A: games vs. teams with win % of: 0.8, 0.8, 0.3, 0.3, 0.3
Sched B: games vs. teams with win % of: 0.5, 0.5, 0.5 ,0.5, 0.5
So, if you have 2 teams that went 4-1 versus these different schedule, their "numbers" would look the same but they actually played a schedule of different difficulty (in my opinion). Hopefully that makes some sense and is just one drawback to the OWP/OOWP idea.
Also, to go off something you have alluded to earlier, we seem to make a big deal between SOS values of like 0.52 and 0.48 or something like that. How different are these values really? It would be nice to look at the distribution of these numbers, probably peaked around 0.5 but wonder how tightly they are packed around that number (i.e. standard deviation). Knightslappy?
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 14, 2012, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2012, 04:07:49 PM
Win/Loss percentage is an important but can easily be out-weighed by a weak SOS... resulting in those voting to think... sure they have one loss... their SOS is in the bottom half of the region.
Just a thought.
Yeah, but has it really been such a disparity like this year? They'd move some teams aside for a really strong SOS and more losses, but I just don't recall the kind of disparity that we see with MIT and Albertus happening before. I could be wrong.
Similar thing happened last year when Amherst was 21-0 but had played something like 16 games at home and had a low SOS (Tufts and Wesleyan were down and the RIC game got snowed out) which resulted in them being 5th in the region. The only stand out win was at home over Williams who came in at #2 in the regional rankings with one loss. Amherst's SOS would have been higher if they had player more away games, and this year Amherst is benefiting from more away games and a better Opponents SOS.
Guys who play with numbers.....remember the weighting factors for home and away games were adjusted this year in a more "even" manner. Thus the SOS impact for away and home games will be different between last year and this year.....but your point is well taken Walzy.
The adjustment was slight... certainly closer to one another, but still gives a weight-advantage to away games.
The adjustment was slight compared to last year, but still pretty significant. Away games are weighted 1.25 and home games weighted 0.75. Just as an example, according to that methodology, a win at home vs. a 23-2 team counts LESS, than a win on the road against a 14-11 team. I would not consider that slight. Thats like saying beating a team like Johnson and Wales or Wheelock on the road is about as tough as beating Amherst or Middlebury at home.
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 14, 2012, 08:37:04 PM
Blindly using an OWP value is just as egregious as blindly using a WP. Is it really enough to play teams with good records and lose (and I say 'play' instead of schedule because the LEC and NESCAC each have multiple ranked teams in their conference, which really boosts their values). For example, one may think that a 17-5 record with a 0.54 OWP is really great, until one realizes that the weighted OWP of the 17 games that team has won is only 0.44. To illustrate this point, in the table below, I have calculated OWP values of each of the NE ranked teams (from last week) in games they have won, as well as their record vs. 0.500 or better teams (where the head-to-head results between teams are not counted. For example, if I were doing a calculation for Amherst, and the team I was considering was Brandeis, the record I would use is 11-9, instead of 12-9, because the head-to-head result would not count).
Team | OWP | OWP in wins | (OWP in wins)-OWP | Record vs. 0.500+ |
Amherst | 0.603 | 0.577 | -0.026 | 12-2 |
Middlebury | 0.571 | 0.522 | -0.049 | 12-2 |
RIC | 0.601 | 0.501 | -0.100 | 11-5 |
West Conn | 0.568 | 0.517 | -0.051 | 10-2 |
WPI | 0.616 | 0.608 | -0.008 | 12-3 |
East Conn | 0.536 | 0.442 | -0.094 | 7-5 |
MIT | 0.486 | 0.482 | -0.004 | 12-1 |
Keene St. | 0.553 | 0.491 | -0.062 | 9-4 |
Wesleyan | 0.501 | 0.447 | -0.054 | 9-3 |
Tufts | 0.548 | 0.470 | -0.078 | 7-5 |
Becker | 0.484 | 0.454 | -0.030 | 8-4 |
Albertus Magnus | 0.433 | 0.434 | +0.001 | 6-1 |
After you take out losses from the weighted OWP calculation, the only 2 numbers that jump out at you, on the high side, are WPI and Amherst. On the low end, you have East Conn, Albertus Magnus, Becker, and Wesleyan. Everyone else, however, is essentially 0.500+-0.200, which, in my opinion, is just noise, and at that point, I think you have to take a strong look at record and other primary criteria. If I were ranking them, which obviously I am not in any official sense, I would put Amherst as a clear number 1. After that, things get a bit less clear, but I would put them in the following groups. In the 3 slots behind Amherst, I would put 2. Middlebury, 3. MIT, and 4. West Conn. MIT and West Conn could be flipped, but I had West Conn below MIT because of their 3 losses to average or sub-par teams. The next group of three I would have is 5. WPI 6. Keene St. and 7. RIC (Keene has the head-to-head win vs. RIC). In the final group, I would put 8. Albertus Magnus, 9. Wesleyan, 10. East Conn, and 11. Becker. I think Tufts will drop out and did not calculate figures for everyone else, so I dont know who would replace them. Again, this is just how I would use the OWP values, and I think it makes sense. Otherwise, as you can see from the table, it is possible to boost your overall OWP ~0.100 (which from what I hear is extremely significant) by losing 4-6 games, without really showing you can beat the types of teams you are losing to.
So the new rankings are out and they make a lot more sense. Although I didnt get the exact rankings correct, I got the 4 groups I defined correctly in my post above (1. Amherst, 2-4. Middlebury, West Conn, MIT, 5-7. Keene, RIC, WPI, and 8-11. Wesleyan, East Conn, Albertus, and Becker).
Nerd, you were right...
How far down do you think keene and Western will drop because of their loses yesterday? Albertus will improve their SOS slightly with a win on Saturday. They beat JWU last night, who was 12-12 on the year and host St. Joe's on Saturday who is 17-7. But, it looks like Albertus should take no chances; they need to win the GNAC tournament to ensure a spot in the national tournament.
Quote from: pjunito on February 15, 2012, 04:24:45 PM
Nerd, you were right...
How far down do you think keene and Western will drop because of their loses yesterday? Albertus will improve their SOS slightly with a win on Saturday. They beat JWU last night, who was 12-12 on the year and host St. Joe's on Saturday who is 17-7. But, it looks like Albertus should take no chances; they need to win the GNAC tournament to ensure a spot in the national tournament.
I don't think those losses affect them much at all, as losses don't seem to count for much this year. Those games will only help their OWP value also. I think if MIT wins tonight, it is possible they pass West Conn next week, but I can't see them dropping more than a couple of spots. Maybe RIC jumps up ahead of them also. Albertus may be stuck in that 10 spot, with East Conn's big win, although they are the only team in the region undefeated against regionally ranked opponents. Their low OWP may just be too big a hurdle to overcome under the current criteria.
Thanks for the insight Nerd..
Can someone answer this question for me? I thought I read earlier that the national committee (if there is one) when selecting the B and C teams, don't take the regional rankings into considerations as much as we may think. If a team like Albertus (who is ranked in top 25 but 10th in region) receives the automatic bid, where would they be seeded in the tournament? Would they be a 4 seed because of their poor SOS and low OWP? or could they be at a 3 or 2 seed?
Quote from: pjunito on February 15, 2012, 07:35:59 PM
Thanks for the insight Nerd..
Can someone answer this question for me? I thought I read earlier that the national committee (if there is one) when selecting the B and C teams, don't take the regional rankings into considerations as much as we may think. If a team like Albertus (who is ranked in top 25 but 10th in region) receives the automatic bid, where would they be seeded in the tournament? Would they be a 4 seed because of their poor SOS and low OWP? or could they be at a 3 or 2 seed?
They dont really seed in D3, but it is highly unlikely they would host. Geography would be a higher consideration, but they do try to break up top teams, if possible without causing much additional travel.
OK, so there is no seeding like the D1 or D2 (regionally) tournaments. I know the schools are broken up into 4 team pools. In 2010, Albertus played William Patterson and MIT played DeSales. WP was the 1 and Albertus the 4. I would not expect Albertus to host; not sure if their gym is equipped even if they were in the top of the region. I am looking around the Northeast trying to figure out where Albertus may end up...
I guess I wanted to know how likely would it be that a team like Albertus would face a RIC or East Conn in the first round of the NCAA.
And nerd, you are my go to guy!
They may seed within each pod to determine home/away jerseys, but there is no region seedings like D1 (and I am sure they try to split up top teams from each region as much as possible). And honestly, your guess is as good as mine in terms of Albertus' first round opponent. They dont have to play someone in this region either. They could easily be moved to the middle atlantic region also. They are in a location where it wouldnt be too difficult to move them around to a few different places.
Thanks nerd! Informative as always.
Nerd is right - there are no seedings in the Division III basketball tournaments.
Teams are first selected to the NCAA tournament via Pool A, B, and C (check out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/10/2012-playoff-primer-mind-your-bs-and-cs/ (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/10/2012-playoff-primer-mind-your-bs-and-cs/)). The regional rankings have everything to do with who is selected in Pool C, primarily. No more than just one team from a region can be considered at a time... so essentially 8 teams are brought to the table, one from each region, and using the primary and secondary criteria a team is selected to the tournament. Then the process starts over with a team replacing whoever was picked from that particular reason (while the rest remain the same). They continue this until the 62-team tournament is complete.
Then the committee brackets the teams. This is where they try and separate teams as much as possible like making sure conference opponents don't face off in the first round. The committee is able to move teams to different regions as long as they don't leave a 500 mile distance (driving, not radius). Beyond that distance requires a flight per NCAA rules. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but the NCAA will try and limit this as much as possible per financial reasons.
Depending on how a team like AM finishes the season will determine most likely who they will face or where they will go in the first weekend. I do agree that because of their geographical position, they could easily be shifted to the Atlantic or Mid-Atlantic regions. And even further thought is they could be sent to maybe a Virginia Wesleyan (if they are hosting) since that is 431 miles on the official NCAA mileage program.
However, they also could stay in NE and have to go through a gauntlet like Amherst, Middlebury, or others since they might be considered low or middle of the pack and not "rewarded" with being sent somewhere else - in other words, earn your way out of the region.
Just some thoughts to consider.. we will honestly get a better idea of what might happen following the final regional rankings and when conference tournaments are over... then we know what upsets have changed the landscape and could influence who is getting in and what teams will be coming out of each region before we start talking Pool C.
There's no seeding, but it's not random either. They avoid putting two really strong schools together in the first round unless forced to by geography.
One more ranking today, correct? Anyone know what time?
NorthEast Rankings - 2/22/12
1 Amherst 21-2 23-2
2 Middlebury 21-2 23-2
3 MIT 23-1 23-1
4 Rhode Island College 20-5 20-5
5 Western Connecticut State 20-5 20-5
6 Eastern Connecticut State 20-5 20-5
7 WPI 18-6 18-6
8 Wesleyan (Conn.) 20-4 20-5
9 Albertus Magnus 24-1 24-1
10 Keene State 15-6 18-7
11 Becker 21-4 21-4
12 Salem State 17-7 18-7
Thanks again MD3 - seems like they finally have the top 3 sorted out about right. Tell you what - with these rankings, Magnus better not mess around in their tourney. Would be a shame if they were left out - they can play with anybody.
Little East team beware as well as I just do not see 3 (much less 4) teams getting in...................deserved or not.
If Eastern loses Friday and WPI beats Springfield and loses a heart-breaker to MIT.........well I have seen stranger things happen?
Assuming Wesleyan and WPI lose, I can see Albertus getting to 5 or 6 - which will put them as third or fourth on the Pool C list from the region - that will at least get them on the table.
Is there a "re-ranking" after conference tourneys and before Monday?
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 22, 2012, 03:07:08 PM
Assuming Wesleyan and WPI lose, I can see Albertus getting to 5 or 6 - which will put them as third or fourth on the Pool C list from the region - that will at least get them on the table.
But you're missing a key step. If Albertus has to rely on a Pool C (rather than the automatic A that comes with winning their tournament), then they will have lost, too, which means that they will stay below Wesleyan and WPI if both those teams lose as well. Making matters worse, they will have lost to a far inferior opponent than Wes's or WPI's opponents.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 22, 2012, 03:27:22 PM
Is there a "re-ranking" after conference tourneys and before Monday?
Final rankings are done on Sunday, the last couple of years these have been released. Brackets are released on Monday.
Quote from: Bucket on February 22, 2012, 03:31:18 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 22, 2012, 03:07:08 PM
Assuming Wesleyan and WPI lose, I can see Albertus getting to 5 or 6 - which will put them as third or fourth on the Pool C list from the region - that will at least get them on the table.
But you're missing a key step. If Albertus has to rely on a Pool C (rather than the automatic A that comes with winning their tournament), then they will have lost, too, which means that they will stay below Wesleyan and WPI if both those teams lose as well. Making matters worse, they will have lost to a far inferior opponent than Wes's or WPI's opponents.
True enough. They just need to win.
The final regional rankings are usually released AFTER the brackets are announced.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 22, 2012, 07:55:16 PM
The final regional rankings are usually released AFTER the brackets are announced.
Yep, I didn't mean to confuse anyone with my post. If I remember correctly, its around the typical 3:00 - 4:00 time period when the regional rankings are usually released.
I have an issue with this committee.... I saw this when the rankings first came out. Albertus because of their weak conference schedule and average non-conference schedule was ranked too low to have any opportunity to move up in the regional ranking. The rest of Albertus schedule (except for Trinity; who had a bad year) was conference opponents. Only one of those opponents had a winning record (St. Joe's of Maine). So, Albertus goes 6-0, and moves up 3 spots in the regional rankings. While other teams in the region lost games and they stay ahead of Albertus.
Here is what I do understand from a regional committee perspective: Albertus has a poor SOS and OWP. Albertus plays in a weak conference. Albertus has not been great in recent year (not a traditional power).
Here is what I don't understand from a regional committee perspective: Has anyone on this committee seen Albertus play this year? I doubt it. If they had, there is no way they rank Albertus as the 9th best team in the region. Here is why: Ray Askew is one of the best players in the region. No one talks about him on the boards; but he has been named on the d3hoops 1st team 3 times this year. He has over 2200 pts and 1000 rebounds in his career. He can score at will; can shoot from the outside or drive to the basket. He never gets frustrated. He is a great off the ball defender. He is motivated to win. Reason number 2. Darius Watson. No one knows about this kid. He is a 6'6 swing forward who is shooting 40% from 3 and is second on the team in dunk/lay-ups (behind Askew). He is the best pure scorer in the conference! (yes, this is the same conference that has Lamonte Thomas). Any person who has seen Watson play would agree with that statement. He can flat out score and by the time he is a senior will break all of Askew's scoring record. Reason number three, they can win in the 50's and win in the 90's. They don't panic... 7 games this year they won where they trailed in the second half. Many people forget that Albertus has a target on their backs in the conference. Every team wants to beat a ranked opponent; especially one who is undefeated in the conference. Albertus over the last 3 weeks; has seen the best from each of their opponents and still has been able to win.
24-1 is their record. It might be a soft 24-1 in the eyes of many people. But, I challenge those eyes to watch the team on the court and tell me that they are soft!
pjunto - remember that AM has representation on the committee... Lasell's coach is on the committee... so that is at least one set of eyeballs on AM on the committee.
But have you read the criteria the committees are instructed by the NCAA (and thus the member institutions and championship committees who vote on the criteria)? There is nothing there that says that seeing a team and how they play is allowed to be used. Further more, there are other criteria that hurts AM:
Record: 24-1-0 (0.960)
OWP: 0.459
OOWP: 0.489
SOS 0.469
Results vs.: 2-0
Those OWP, OOWP, and SOS numbers are low... in fact the SOS is 50th out of 70 teams.
While I understand your point of view... understand that the numbers are hurting AM... and their conference especially is hurting them.
( 1.000)
D-Mac, I don't disagree with the numbers. They are low. I cannot defend them........ However, I always go back to this statement. "The best teams should play in the tournament." And regardless of the numbers, they are deserving of playing in the tournament.
As far as the Lasell coach goes; he should know how good Albertus is... His team had a 16 point lead with 13 minutes left the last time they played Albertus. They lost by 3 as Askew scored 52 (18 in the final 10 minutes). And Watson did not play that game. Albertus host Lasell in the semi-finals tomorrow night. Askew and Watson will both play; expect a double digit victory from Albertus.
Well... if they win the conference tournament they will prove, in-part, that they may be one of the best to take part in the NCAA tournament.
And we don't know what Lasell's coach has or hasn't said in meetings and rankings... and remember a number of teams ahead of AM will lose this week... which would arguably move AM up... but they can't afford to trip up - or at least not before the title game.
Unfortunately, unlike D1, the selection committee isn't given as much flexibility in D3. Whether we agree with interpretation of the criteria, specifically SOS, the committee is clearly weighing it heavily. This is evidenced by MIT's rise since week 1, where they had a ~0.48 SOS and were ranked 7, to week 3 where their SOS approached 0.52 and moved to 3 (coupled with their very high WP). For MIT, this happened because most of their conference road games were back loaded in their schedule. I hope that for Albertus they win their conference tourney so it doesn't come to Pool C, but the only way I can see them moving up, based in what we've seen so far from the committee, is if somehow West Conn drops close to them so that their head-to-head result may get them moved up. If I were them, though, I would just concentrate on winning 2 more games and just have to find out where they play on Monday.
"Here is why: Ray Askew is one of the best players in the region. No one talks about him on the boards; but he has been named on the d3hoops 1st team 3 times this year. He has over 2200 pts and 1000 rebounds in his career. He can score at will; can shoot from the outside or drive to the basket. He never gets frustrated. He is a great off the ball defender. He is motivated to win. Reason number 2. Darius Watson. No one knows about this kid. He is a 6'6 swing forward who is shooting 40% from 3 and is second on the team in dunk/lay-ups (behind Askew). He is the best pure scorer in the conference! (yes, this is the same conference that has Lamonte Thomas). Any person who has seen Watson play would agree with that statement. He can flat out score and by the time he is a senior will break all of Askew's scoring record. Reason number three, they can win in the 50's and win in the 90's. They don't panic... 7 games this year they won where they trailed in the second half. Many people forget that Albertus has a target on their backs in the conference. Every team wants to beat a ranked opponent; especially one who is undefeated in the conference. Albertus over the last 3 weeks; has seen the best from each of their opponents and still has been able to win."
Pjunto
Well, after the case you just made, why are you worried? They have to be a good as it ever gets for a lock to win the AQ!
They are ranked where they are because of this....
Non – conference:
8-14
20- 5
9-17
5-18
16-10 L
21- 4
10-14
-----
89-82 -> .520
Conference:
17- 8
5-19
5-20
9-16
5-20
7-18
7-18
12-13
12-13
12-13
12-13
9-16
9-16
12-13
12-13
12-13
12-13
17- 8
-----
186-263 -> .414
Total 275-345 -> .444
5 of 25 over .500
As a comparison.....
MIT
Non-conference:
11-14
9-16
10-14
12-13
9-16
7-18
11-14
11-14
5-20
18-7
16-9
12-13
-----
131-168 -> .438
18- 6 L
18- 6
16- 9
16- 9
13-12
13-12
12-13
12-13
11-13
11-13
8 -14
8 -14
-----
156-134 -> .538
8 of 24 over .500
Total 287-302 -> .487
WPI
Non-conference:
14-11
16- 9
16- 9
18- 7
12-13
21- 4
18- 7
20- 5 L
13-11
20- 5 L
17- 8
10-14
-----
195-103 -> .654
23- 1
23- 1 L
16- 9 L
16- 9
13-12
13-12
12-13
12-13
11-13 L
11-13 L
8-14
8-14
-----
166-124-> .572
Total -> 361-227 -> .613
16 of 24 Vs +.500 teams
These numbers do carry weight with the commitee
I have no doubt if AM had placed up near #10 pre-season the way MIT was, they too would have cracked the top 4. This is how polls work......
Also,
From an ealier post in the NEWMAC forum from Dave McHugh
Also FYI... here is your regional committee... take note:
Dave Lindberg, Worcester State College, chair
Larry Anderson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Paul Culpo, Castleton State College
Tom Devitt, Wentworth Institute of Technology
Travis Farley, Fitchbug State University
Bill Geitner, Eastern Connecticut State University
David Hixon, Amherst College
Aaron Galetta, Lasell College
Ed Sliva, Elms College
So Yes, Someone on the committee HAS seen them play this year!
Sorry, I missed your post on the commitee members, Dave
I have seen Magnus twice this year and if were an "eye test" - they would be a lock. Unfortunately the economics of D3 make it impossible for the members (even in a region) to see all teams "live" and thus the numbers have to be weighted above feel. Simple as that.
Also - if you got a quiet, honest moment with Coach Oliver - he would admit that it takes time - if Magnus stays this competitive (and keeps coach Oliver) for another few years - they will start scheduling NESCAC and NEWMAC etc......and start to be recognized in the pre-season - it is just how it works. WPI went through 10 years of lean times and it took a few years for Barley to make them a an annual contender for the post-season.
PJ - they will take care of business this weekend - have no fear!
The kids on the team as well as the coaching staff aren't looking at becoming a Pool C team. They want to win the conference tournament and the AQ.... I am talking from a fan perspective; which admittedly is always skewed. Every team that is currently ranked above Albertus has better numbers than them. I just think there also has to be some flexibility when it comes to how good a team is.
Albertus is punished because they play in a weak conference (this makes up 2/3 of their schedule). When I see the rankings, the committee is telling me that WPI's 6 losses are better than Albertus's 24 wins. 3 of their losses came to teams not ranked in the region. This, despite the rest of the numbers, is hard to explain. The criteria is telling teams to schedule 7 regional powers – lose all of those games; win 15 of your conference games and we will reward you. Well, how does that make sense? Albertus scheduled an average non conference schedule. But, at the beginning of the year, it looked like a fair schedule.
Coast Guard had a down year; so did trinity (they finish 4th in the NESCAC last year), they had West Conn and Becker on their schedule as well. They were not invited to any tournaments. This is a good team and I hope they get selected in case they get tripped up. They may have to play St. Joe's again in the finals. St. Joe's is very well coached; plays a Princeton style offense. They like to play in the 60's and have big bodies to throw at Albertus.
PS. I do thank everyone for their candid commentary. It helps me learn about how division three basketball works (in regards to regions, national tournaments, scheduling, etc). Anyone who knows me knows that I do not take anything personal. I enjoy reading and learning! Thanks guys..
WPI, I agree with you; it is hard to see every team consistently. Hopefully, they win this weekend and then I can shut up. Lol.
Good luck this weekend for your boys as well! Do they play at 7 tomorrow night?
Mitch Oliver has done a lot with the program since taking over in 2007; his first year he went 3-24. He is understands college basketball and understands it takes time. I am the one who gets fired up. Lol. Coach Oliver probably understand the rankings and would agree (in public) with them. He knows, win the GNAC, and continue playing. That is all he and the players should be focused on.
NEWMAC is Sat/Sun. MIT-Babson at 1 and WPI-Springfiled at 3 @ MIT Sat. Then back at it on Sun at 1 for the winners.
I do find it interesting that MIT plays the early game on Saturday - likely the gym will empty out for the second game. Usually the other way around with it building to the home team's game.....not sure if that was random or MIT's choice?
I guess there is a small advantage to having an extra couple of hours to rest?
If Magnus is good enough to be there as a C pick, they shouldn't lose a game to any team in their conference this year - which means they won't have to worry about Pool C.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 23, 2012, 09:37:35 AM
NEWMAC is Sat/Sun. MIT-Babson at 1 and WPI-Springfiled at 3 @ MIT Sat. Then back at it on Sun at 1 for the winners.
I do find it interesting that MIT plays the early game on Saturday - likely the gym will empty out for the second game. Usually the other way around with it building to the home team's game.....not sure if that was random or MIT's choice?
I guess there is a small advantage to having an extra couple of hours to rest?
I think MIT did that the last time the hosted also. If nothing else, they get a fixed start time (they cant be delayed by the previous game going to OT, etc.), they get an extra 2 hours of rest compared to the team they will play the following day, and players/coaches can watch most of the 2nd game for scouting purposes (you typically wouldnt have your team watch a game right before they play, so the earlier game gives this slight advantage also).
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 23, 2012, 11:33:23 AM
Quote from: WPI89 on February 23, 2012, 09:37:35 AM
NEWMAC is Sat/Sun. MIT-Babson at 1 and WPI-Springfiled at 3 @ MIT Sat. Then back at it on Sun at 1 for the winners.
I do find it interesting that MIT plays the early game on Saturday - likely the gym will empty out for the second game. Usually the other way around with it building to the home team's game.....not sure if that was random or MIT's choice?
I guess there is a small advantage to having an extra couple of hours to rest?
I think MIT did that the last time the hosted also. If nothing else, they get a fixed start time (they cant be delayed by the previous game going to OT, etc.), they get an extra 2 hours of rest compared to the team they will play the following day, and players/coaches can watch most of the 2nd game for scouting purposes (you typically wouldnt have your team watch a game right before they play, so the earlier game gives this slight advantage also).
Maybe my logic is fuzzy, but it seems like people would be more likely to stick around and watch a game with a guaranteed potential opponent than they would to show up early to watch a game that will be "useless" to them if their team loses later. Once you're in the building, you're more likely to stay.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 23, 2012, 11:47:14 AM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 23, 2012, 11:33:23 AM
Quote from: WPI89 on February 23, 2012, 09:37:35 AM
NEWMAC is Sat/Sun. MIT-Babson at 1 and WPI-Springfiled at 3 @ MIT Sat. Then back at it on Sun at 1 for the winners.
I do find it interesting that MIT plays the early game on Saturday - likely the gym will empty out for the second game. Usually the other way around with it building to the home team's game.....not sure if that was random or MIT's choice?
I guess there is a small advantage to having an extra couple of hours to rest?
I think MIT did that the last time the hosted also. If nothing else, they get a fixed start time (they cant be delayed by the previous game going to OT, etc.), they get an extra 2 hours of rest compared to the team they will play the following day, and players/coaches can watch most of the 2nd game for scouting purposes (you typically wouldnt have your team watch a game right before they play, so the earlier game gives this slight advantage also).
Maybe my logic is fuzzy, but it seems like people would be more likely to stick around and watch a game with a guaranteed potential opponent than they would to show up early to watch a game that will be "useless" to them if their team loses later. Once you're in the building, you're more likely to stay.
I dont think they are worried about attendance for the 2nd game. MIT usually doesnt charge for tickets anyway (apparently for the tourney it is $4 for adults, $2 for seniors, $1 for students), and they are giving away free food at the MIT game this Saturday.
WPI, enjoy the games! You can have prime seating if everyone clears out after the MIT game.
Quote from: pjunito on February 23, 2012, 01:25:19 PM
WPI, enjoy the games! You can have prime seating if everyone clears out after the MIT game.
I know i probably have a different opinion, but I'm sticking around for both games. I'll stick around for game 2 if my team/school plays game 1 regardless of whether they win or not, likewise I'll go up early and watch game 1 if we don't play till game 1.
Nice info being provided by the posters.
Free food at the MIT game....that must be a new thing? Thanks HugeNerd.
ECSU is providing dining info for tourney goers to the LEC in Willi.
7Express.....do not really know where you are going to be....know you are a traveler but not a time traveler....basically did not understand your last post....stated with a smile on my face.
Me......still kicking sand, looking at art, and watching my wife shop...in the Sunshine state.....watching online and missing the action....live for now.
Quote from: amh63 on February 23, 2012, 05:14:18 PM
7Express.....do not really know where you are going to be....know you are a traveler but not a time traveler....basically did not understand your last post....stated with a smile on my face.
I think WPI or Nerd stated something about whether people stay for the second game or vice versa. Basically I was saying I'm staying for both games regardless of whether were playing the first or second or won/lost the first.
I.e. If I was a Mid fan, I'm going to the first game even though they won't play until the 2nd game, and likewise if I'm a Bates fan I'm staying for game 2 even if they lose game 1.
Quote from: amh63 on February 23, 2012, 05:14:18 PM
Nice info being provided by the posters.
Free food at the MIT game....that must be a new thing? Thanks HugeNerd.
ECSU is providing dining info for tourney goers to the LEC in Willi.
7Express.....do not really know where you are going to be....know you are a traveler but not a time traveler....basically did not understand your last post....stated with a smile on my face.
Me......still kicking sand, looking at art, and watching my wife shop...in the Sunshine state.....watching online and missing the action....live for now.
Hot dogs will be served from 12:30-01:00 and at halftime of any game MIT plays this weekend.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 10:43:52 PM
Nerd is right - there are no seedings in the Division III basketball tournaments.
Wow -- I would really try to nip this in the bud. There IS seeding, but the NCAA doesn't announce the seeds to anyone anymore.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2012, 06:29:17 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 10:43:52 PM
Nerd is right - there are no seedings in the Division III basketball tournaments.
Wow -- I would really try to nip this in the bud. There IS seeding, but the NCAA doesn't announce the seeds to anyone anymore.
So there is seeding, however it is not announced and it can be outweighed by other factors such as geography and hosting restrictions?
Quote from: amh63 on February 23, 2012, 05:14:18 PM
Nice info being provided by the posters.
Free food at the MIT game....that must be a new thing? Thanks HugeNerd.
ECSU is providing dining info for tourney goers to the LEC in Willi.
7Express.....do not really know where you are going to be....know you are a traveler but not a time traveler....basically did not understand your last post....stated with a smile on my face.
Me......still kicking sand, looking at art, and watching my wife shop...in the Sunshine state.....watching online and missing the action....live for now.
Aaaah South Florida, and the weather has been nice and hot as well. I will be visiting my daughter in LA and going up tp Santa Barbara for some wine sipping, (in April). amh63, have great time and make sure to put the sun block on. Jeffs
will prevail!!!
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 23, 2012, 08:18:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 23, 2012, 06:29:17 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 15, 2012, 10:43:52 PM
Nerd is right - there are no seedings in the Division III basketball tournaments.
Wow -- I would really try to nip this in the bud. There IS seeding, but the NCAA doesn't announce the seeds to anyone anymore.
So there is seeding, however it is not announced and it can be outweighed by other factors such as geography and hosting restrictions?
Yup.
[/quote]
Pjunto
I don't believe AM is being punished as much as other teams are being rewarded. If you are in an extremely weak conference, you can't help that (To make is worse, it eats up 18 games.) But, then agian, if you are in that weak a conference, then you should be putting up 18-0 or 17-1. The advantage however is that if you are that good, you actually have a much easier path to getting an AQ. Especially now that they only real competition for them lost tonight.
Mass, sometimes a computer and 3 hours of free time at work isn't a great thing... At least, I choose to send my time on d3hoops....
Again, I am learning the process and appreciate everyone's insight. Albertus, can receive the AQ if they win on Saturday. Then, the discussion or debates never have to happen.
LOL, its ongoing process that just keeps evolving and morphing. I am not sure anyone ever fully understands it and how these commitees are actually performing their duties. We hear how it should go, or how someone who "knows" explained to too someone and now they post it, etc...
Truth is only the people who really know in any one year are those commitee members. The next year it can go in a completely different way.
Quote from: mass_d3fan on February 23, 2012, 10:38:37 PM
LOL, its ongoing process that just keeps evolving and morphing. I am not sure anyone ever fully understands it and how these commitees are actually performing their duties. We hear how it should go, or how someone who "knows" explained to too someone and now they post it, etc...
Truth is only the people who really know in any one year are those commitee members. The next year it can go in a completely different way.
The National Committee is pretty open. The National Committee chair will likely do a video interview after the bracket is released and is usually quite open about the process. It's not a mystery. There is some subjectivity involved, but it's always subjectivity around numbers, not around team play or quality.
The chair will be on Hoopsville Monday night... where you can get a lot of your questions answered.
Dave, I don't know if I'll be able to tune in or not, but could you please ask him the justification for home/away weight factors (.75/1.25) and if they actually did a study to come up with those numbers or were they just 'guessed.' I believe it was knightslappy who actually did a study on this on the Pool C board and found numbers of 0.85/1.15 to be more appropriate for winning teams.
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 24, 2012, 08:54:43 PM
Dave, I don't know if I'll be able to tune in or not, but could you please ask him the justification for home/away weight factors (.75/1.25) and if they actually did a study to come up with those numbers or were they just 'guessed.' I believe it was knightslappy who actually did a study on this on the Pool C board and found numbers of 0.85/1.15 to be more appropriate for winning teams.
Does the committee pick those or does that come from some other committee at the NCAA?
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 24, 2012, 10:29:31 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 24, 2012, 08:54:43 PM
Dave, I don't know if I'll be able to tune in or not, but could you please ask him the justification for home/away weight factors (.75/1.25) and if they actually did a study to come up with those numbers or were they just 'guessed.' I believe it was knightslappy who actually did a study on this on the Pool C board and found numbers of 0.85/1.15 to be more appropriate for winning teams.
Does the committee pick those or does that come from some other committee at the NCAA?
I believe its the committee on random number generation.
The numbers have been a work in progress... this year's numbers have actually be adjusted from the previous which I think where 1.4 and .6 (memory not serving right now).
Remember, the key seems to have been they want to stop rewarding teams who pack their schedules with home games... in a sense giving them an unfair advantage. The previous set-up seemed a bit heavy-handed... I haven't made up my mind on this year's version... though I don't have any negative feelings toward it. As far as knightslappy's numbers... I worry that the closer we get to 1.0... the further away we are from the purpose of the numbers in the first place.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 12:34:42 PM
The numbers have been a work in progress... this year's numbers have actually be adjusted from the previous which I think where 1.4 and .6 (memory not serving right now).
Remember, the key seems to have been they want to stop rewarding teams who pack their schedules with home games... in a sense giving them an unfair advantage. The previous set-up seemed a bit heavy-handed... I haven't made up my mind on this year's version... though I don't have any negative feelings toward it. As far as knightslappy's numbers... I worry that the closer we get to 1.0... the further away we are from the purpose of the numbers in the first place.
Since the adjustment is made to both home and away games, 0.85/1.15 still weighs away games 35% higher than home games. 0.75/1.25 weights away games 67% higher than home games. I don't care what the numbers are, just that they are justified and not pulled from thin air (the previous factors were 0.6/1.4, which weighted away games 133% higher than away games). Rather than just tweeking the numbers every year until people don't complain, it seems alot easier to spend the time looking at what a true home/away advantage is for a good team (a team that would be considered for a pool c spot in a typical year) by compiling data from the last 5-10 years. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
They are justified... I think they used the numbers D2 was using initially... when that didn't seem to work well for D3... they adjusted.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
They are justified... I think they used the numbers D2 was using initially... when that didn't seem to work well for D3... they adjusted.
What did they adjust based on? If they actually did a thorough analysis that justifies their numbers, why not publish them?
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2012, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
They are justified... I think they used the numbers D2 was using initially... when that didn't seem to work well for D3... they adjusted.
What did they adjust based on? If they actually did a thorough analysis that justifies their numbers, why not publish them?
Hugenerd, got a few answers for you here...well maybe not definite answers but what I've "deduced" while studying all these numbers. I think the general thinking is that the original 1.4/0.6 modifier came straight from the Division I RPI calculation. However, the DI RPI uses the modifier on the winning percentage, not the OWP or OOWP. There is very good reason why this is done.
The reason they use the 1.4/0.6 modifier is because historically, the home team wins about 67% of the games. Thus, using the modifier works out to correcting a team's winning percentage for this fact. See example below of 3 teams with actual WP's of 50% but playing 14,10,and 6 home games respectively:
Team # Home Gms Home WP Away WP Predicted WP Actual WP RPI WP
A 14 0.50 0.50 0.57 0.50 0.42
B 10 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
C 6 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.58
So as you can see, Team A was expected to have a better WP because they played more home games and vice versa for Team C. But since Team A "underperformed" the modifier makes up for this with the weighting of the games so that their "RPI WP" is lower than what their true WP is. This makes sense to me, it applies the home/away modifier to something that is easily measureable.
NOTE: Why the RPI doesn't use this adjusted WP when calculating a team's OWP and OOWP is beyond me however. So they still have issues IMHO.
Now, for D1 baseball, they used this same modifier probably without any thought. However, the home team doesn't win quite as often in baseball, closer to 62% I think. So, as of next year, they will use 1.3/0.7 for baseball. So they are adapting, which is nice to see.
Over the past 2 years, my data shows that for D3 mens basketball, that the home team wins about 58-60% of the time. Thus a modifier of 1.2/0.8 would make more sense (this is actually close to what my rough calculations showed last week). Maybe the NCAA realized this and that is why the change was made from 1.4/0.6 to 1.25/0.75 for this season.
But, all this still doesn't explain why our modifier is not used to modify the WP. If you are using WP data to create the modifier then my arguement would be why aren't you applying that modifier to the WP data? Now, I haven't studied it close enough yet to determine if it makes any difference at all but it is slightly baffling why D1 and D3 would apply the modifier differently. I plan to look at it closer after the end of the season. If I find something fun it might be worth writing up and sending it to the statistics gurus at the NCAA, as their emails are listed on the NCAA website.
Quote from: augie_superfan on February 25, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 25, 2012, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 03:58:40 PM
They are justified... I think they used the numbers D2 was using initially... when that didn't seem to work well for D3... they adjusted.
What did they adjust based on? If they actually did a thorough analysis that justifies their numbers, why not publish them?
Hugenerd, got a few answers for you here...well maybe not definite answers but what I've "deduced" while studying all these numbers. I think the general thinking is that the original 1.4/0.6 modifier came straight from the Division I RPI calculation. However, the DI RPI uses the modifier on the winning percentage, not the OWP or OOWP. There is very good reason why this is done.
The reason they use the 1.4/0.6 modifier is because historically, the home team wins about 67% of the games. Thus, using the modifier works out to correcting a team's winning percentage for this fact. See example below of 3 teams with actual WP's of 50% but playing 14,10,and 6 home games respectively:
Team # Home Gms Home WP Away WP Predicted WP Actual WP RPI WP
A 14 0.50 0.50 0.57 0.50 0.42
B 10 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
C 6 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.50 0.58
So as you can see, Team A was expected to have a better WP because they played more home games and vice versa for Team C. But since Team A "underperformed" the modifier makes up for this with the weighting of the games so that their "RPI WP" is lower than what their true WP is. This makes sense to me, it applies the home/away modifier to something that is easily measureable.
NOTE: Why the RPI doesn't use this adjusted WP when calculating a team's OWP and OOWP is beyond me however. So they still have issues IMHO.
Now, for D1 baseball, they used this same modifier probably without any thought. However, the home team doesn't win quite as often in baseball, closer to 62% I think. So, as of next year, they will use 1.3/0.7 for baseball. So they are adapting, which is nice to see.
Over the past 2 years, my data shows that for D3 mens basketball, that the home team wins about 58-60% of the time. Thus a modifier of 1.2/0.8 would make more sense (this is actually close to what my rough calculations showed last week). Maybe the NCAA realized this and that is why the change was made from 1.4/0.6 to 1.25/0.75 for this season.
But, all this still doesn't explain why our modifier is not used to modify the WP. If you are using WP data to create the modifier then my arguement would be why aren't you applying that modifier to the WP data? Now, I haven't studied it close enough yet to determine if it makes any difference at all but it is slightly baffling why D1 and D3 would apply the modifier differently. I plan to look at it closer after the end of the season. If I find something fun it might be worth writing up and sending it to the statistics gurus at the NCAA, as their emails are listed on the NCAA website.
Sorry for not giving the credit you deserve for doing your analysis (I mistakenly said knightslappy). As for the multipliers, I have no problem with whatever numbers they use, as long as they explain why they are using them, how they came up with them, and actually understand their proper use. Thank you for the explanation.
No problem...there is some good info out there on D1 on why they've done what they have but obviously little to none for D3. And that's pretty understandable. It's much different when you have CBS and ESPN staring over your shoulder when doing things as compared to a few people on a message board. And unfortunately, I don't think we can expect that our regional or national committees have those answers because they are just trying to do the best with the info they are given.
The numbers, as shown, were not pulled out of the air... they took a previous model (again, think there was a D2 model there as well). After a couple of years with that model, they found that the numbers did not work. I do believe they looked at different statistical models (though, I have to check in with who told me that in the off-season) to come up with the numbers they are now using.
The reason the numbers were adjusted this year was because they didn't like the numbers they were getting... and felt it was weighted too much... so they did do a stats breakdown and came up with these numbers - that I was told officially.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 10:38:44 PM
The numbers, as shown, were not pulled out of the air... they took a previous model (again, think there was a D2 model there as well). After a couple of years with that model, they found that the numbers did not work. I do believe they looked at different statistical models (though, I have to check in with who told me that in the off-season) to come up with the numbers they are now using.
The reason the numbers were adjusted this year was because they didn't like the numbers they were getting... and felt it was weighted too much... so they did do a stats breakdown and came up with these numbers - that I was told officially.
I still don't understand why they just wouldn't publish their analysis, even if it is just an abstract or bullet point list of the key points in an appendix in the handbook. I'm certain there are publications out there that deal with statistics that would love this stuff because of the readership it would pull (that would be the 'academic' thing to do), or just put it some where in the handbook. It is just the secretive manner in which these things are handled that make people suspicious of the methods used.
In fact, augie superfan, I bet if you put enough time into your database of games and developed thoughtful and rigorous methodology for analyzing this problem, you could get your work published also. I'm not saying it would be a high impact factor journal, but I guarantee you could find a place for it.
Hugenerd and others.........Interesting points but you must sometimes step back and face "reality" a bit before continuing chasing "windmills". Even if I could do all the number crunching to obtain a rational model/equation to apply to Div3 or any division....giving the data base...and offer it to the NCAA free and thereby eliminate the over riding money/funds factor....it won't happen. I will refer to an OLD exercise I went through in a graduate systems course at MIT. We were to take a given data base and come up with the best/optimum transportation system to alleviate the problem for our island state in the Pacific.
New land roads?, water transportation systems?, etc. Though the class came up with many new and novel ideas...the ones that won dealt with new roads...even one around the island. Why?.....bottom line....Money! the US Highway funding that existed at the time, provided the key weighting factor in the exercise. Not always rational, maybe unfair and so forth....but a reality. The teacher was a visiting teacher that had worked in the real world and was political savy.
Look at the mess in big time college football and even in div 1 BB. Yes MONEY is an unwanted blanket in college sports of student-athletics.
Besides, if the answer was here/now....we will have little to post here on this board?
Quote from: amh63 on February 26, 2012, 11:16:34 AM
Hugenerd and others.........Interesting points but you must sometimes step back and face "reality" a bit before continuing chasing "windmills". Even if I could do all the number crunching to obtain a rational model/equation to apply to Div3 or any division....giving the data base...and offer it to the NCAA free and thereby eliminate the over riding money/funds factor....it won't happen. I will refer to an OLD exercise I went through in a graduate systems course at MIT. We were to take a given data base and come up with the best/optimum transportation system to alleviate the problem for our island state in the Pacific.
New land roads?, water transportation systems?, etc. Though the class came up with many new and novel ideas...the ones that won dealt with new roads...even one around the island. Why?.....bottom line....Money! the US Highway funding that existed at the time, provided the key weighting factor in the exercise. Not always rational, maybe unfair and so forth....but a reality. The teacher was a visiting teacher that had worked in the real world and was political savy.
Look at the mess in big time college football and even in div 1 BB. Yes MONEY is an unwanted blanket in college sports of student-athletics.
Besides, if the answer was here/nojIw....we will have little to post here on this board?
Luckily there is no money issue in D3 with regard to big money contacts etc., and I wasnt saying augie's work would be adopted by the NCAA, just that it would be publishable. Also, my other comment was that if the NCAA had already done this analysis, why dont they just make it public?
Last set of rankings today?
Quote from: falcons2010 on February 29, 2012, 01:28:49 PM
Last set of rankings today?
Nope, the NCAA apparently decided they didn't want to release them after all.
Another highly intelligent move by the NCAA. Lol, thats sarcasm by the way.
A month ago, the committee chair was on d3 hoopsville and said the final regional rankings would be published..... On Monday, he denies ever saying that and did an horrible job of explaining himself. I was waiting for him to say he was going to have tacos for dinner!
hahahah a nice reference to the east haven ct mayor pjunito! It makes no sense, but hey, lets just play the games now, throw them rankings out the window, as Byron Reeves did two yrs ago against Willaim Paterson
Great night for the NE teams, going 7-2 and placing 8 teams in the round of 32. One of those losses was Salem State to RIC, so an intra-region loss. The only other loss was Endicott, and they had every opportunity to win, as they were up double-digits in the 2nd half but fell by 1 in OT.
Some interesting NE matchups tomorrow: Middlebury vs. Albertus, MIT gets a neutral court game vs. Farmingdale, East Conn plays Oswego who had all types of problems with Endicott, RIC plays at Staten Island, Becker gets Scranton, West Conn plays at F&M, and Amherst hosts NYU.
Excellent job again HN! Thanks for the updates; the NE region is proving that it is worth having so many at large bids.
Quote from: pjunito on March 02, 2012, 10:02:40 PM
Excellent job again HN! Thanks for the updates; the NE region is proving that it is worth having so many at large bids.
Should have had 2 more. Birmingham Southern lost to Wittenberg and St. Joe's (LI) lost to Albertus. Those should have been WPI and Keene's spots.
Birmingham Southern played very well against Wittenberg... that was a tough game the whole way. Lower end NE teams didn't deserve a bid over BSC.
You were making the opposite argument yourself when it was LEC teams vs. MIT earlier. BSC had an SOS around 0.45 and 3 losses while WPI had an SOS close to 0.60 with 7 losses. MIT's SOS disparity wasnt nearly that great with the LEC teams (~0.03-0.05) in the first couple of regional rankings, with 4 less losses (5 vs. 1 at the time) and you were saying those rankings were justifiable. What gives?
By the way, with regard to your discussion on Hoopsville, despite having some seniors on their roster, the only player MIT is losing to graduation is the currently injured Billy Bender. 3 'seniors' have a year of eligibility remaining because of medical redshirts (Hollingsworth, Karraker, and McCue), plus Kates and Tashman are juniors.
I have been one of the biggest voices complaining about MIT's schedule, but now there is no doubt - The Engineers are the best team in the Northeast Region.
Quote from: mass_d3fan on March 09, 2012, 10:03:05 PM
I have been one of the biggest voices complaining about MIT's schedule, but now there is no doubt - The Engineers are the best team in the Northeast Region.
Not at all true. I went to both games tonight. I was incredibly impressed with the talent and intelligence of the MIT team (Kates is incredible), my frame of reference shifted as soon as the teams came out to warm up for the second game. Both F&M and Amherst were bigger, stronger, deeper, and more athletic.
I'm not saying MIT couldn't hang with either of them or even win, but they're certainly not better. Those were two championship caliber teams; MIT would have to go on a run and get some luck to win the whole thing.
I'll be rooting for MIT tomorrow, but if they win, it will be an upset.
Amherst is still #1 in NE in my book. MIT might have jumped over Middlebury for me tonight; I'll have to think about it.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 10, 2012, 12:11:25 AM
Quote from: mass_d3fan on March 09, 2012, 10:03:05 PM
I have been one of the biggest voices complaining about MIT's schedule, but now there is no doubt - The Engineers are the best team in the Northeast Region.
Not at all true. I went to both games tonight. I was incredibly impressed with the talent and intelligence of the MIT team (Kates is incredible), my frame of reference shifted as soon as the teams came out to warm up for the second game. Both F&M and Amherst were bigger, stronger, deeper, and more athletic.
I'm not saying MIT couldn't hang with either of them or even win, but they're certainly not better. Those were two championship caliber teams; MIT would have to go on a run and get some luck to win the whole thing.
I'll be rooting for MIT tomorrow, but if they win, it will be an upset.
Amherst is still #1 in NE in my book. MIT might have jumped over Middlebury for me tonight; I'll have to think about it.
Looks like you were wrong.
I also don't get how you say that F&M looked 'bigger and stronger' than MIT. Tashman was clearly the biggest and strongest player on the court, and he, Hollingsworth, and MITs main insde sub, Acker, are all taller than anyone F&M has. Deeper and more athletic may be more accurate, but don't underestimate chemistry, leadership, composure, and intelligence.
MIT has won their last 3 games by at least 15 points, and those have all been in the NCAA tourney...pretty impressive.
Quote from: mass_d3fan on March 09, 2012, 10:03:05 PM
I have been one of the biggest voices complaining about MIT's schedule, but now there is no doubt - The Engineers are the best team in the Northeast Region.
I'm going to have to agree with mass' comment.
As a team, they looked bigger and stronger. Obviously, MIT has the two biggest, strongest guys on the floor, but F&M had four or five big dudes to throw at them, plus a number of good sized guards.
I have to give MIT all the credit in the world for that win. They played smart, learned from the night before and got a break with the injury. They earned every bit of it and I was rooting for them. I still think it was an upset and I'm not entirely convinced they're better than Amherst overall.
They're certainly going to get a big test in Whitewater, but I will now be expecting them to figure it out and give Davis fits.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 10, 2012, 12:11:25 AM
Quote from: mass_d3fan on March 09, 2012, 10:03:05 PM
I have been one of the biggest voices complaining about MIT's schedule, but now there is no doubt - The Engineers are the best team in the Northeast Region.
Not at all true. I went to both games tonight. I was incredibly impressed with the talent and intelligence of the MIT team (Kates is incredible), my frame of reference shifted as soon as the teams came out to warm up for the second game. Both F&M and Amherst were bigger, stronger, deeper, and more athletic.
I'm not saying MIT couldn't hang with either of them or even win, but they're certainly not better. Those were two championship caliber teams; MIT would have to go on a run and get some luck to win the whole thing.
I'll be rooting for MIT tomorrow, but if they win, it will be an upset.
Amherst is still #1 in NE in my book. MIT might have jumped over Middlebury for me tonight; I'll have to think about it.
Hoops I hadn't even seen this one before I commented on the NEWMAC site - you are so way off on this - it is silly.
Quote from: WPI89 on March 11, 2012, 11:21:42 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 10, 2012, 12:11:25 AM
Quote from: mass_d3fan on March 09, 2012, 10:03:05 PM
I have been one of the biggest voices complaining about MIT's schedule, but now there is no doubt - The Engineers are the best team in the Northeast Region.
Not at all true. I went to both games tonight. I was incredibly impressed with the talent and intelligence of the MIT team (Kates is incredible), my frame of reference shifted as soon as the teams came out to warm up for the second game. Both F&M and Amherst were bigger, stronger, deeper, and more athletic.
I'm not saying MIT couldn't hang with either of them or even win, but they're certainly not better. Those were two championship caliber teams; MIT would have to go on a run and get some luck to win the whole thing.
I'll be rooting for MIT tomorrow, but if they win, it will be an upset.
Amherst is still #1 in NE in my book. MIT might have jumped over Middlebury for me tonight; I'll have to think about it.
Hoops I hadn't even seen this one before I commented on the NEWMAC site - you are so way off on this - it is silly.
MIT moved up the list for me after Saturday. They're definitely ahead of Middlebury. I'm still debating between them an Amherst. Amherst had real, serious problems adjusting to the level of play by F&M, who was able to use the same post to post cut move for open layups at least ten times during the game. MIT proved more than able to make the needed adjustments. I was worried they'd succumb to foul issues with F&M having so many big bodies, but they put that question to rest as well.
If they handle Chris Davis the same way, they'll definitely jump Amherst - who I still see as having the highest potential of any team in the country. They failed in execution when it mattered most, which is a strike against them. I don't like to make rankings based on one game or even a weekend. The difference is really about perspective. If it's one game in a pressure situation, I'll take MIT, but if we're talking a 100 games, I'm still undecided on who I favor (I think it's close) - usually I use the latter when ranking teams.
The bottom line is that MIT is still playing and thus still proving themselves. That will help in the long run.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 11, 2012, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: WPI89 on March 11, 2012, 11:21:42 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 10, 2012, 12:11:25 AM
Quote from: mass_d3fan on March 09, 2012, 10:03:05 PM
I have been one of the biggest voices complaining about MIT's schedule, but now there is no doubt - The Engineers are the best team in the Northeast Region.
Not at all true. I went to both games tonight. I was incredibly impressed with the talent and intelligence of the MIT team (Kates is incredible), my frame of reference shifted as soon as the teams came out to warm up for the second game. Both F&M and Amherst were bigger, stronger, deeper, and more athletic.
I'm not saying MIT couldn't hang with either of them or even win, but they're certainly not better. Those were two championship caliber teams; MIT would have to go on a run and get some luck to win the whole thing.
I'll be rooting for MIT tomorrow, but if they win, it will be an upset.
Amherst is still #1 in NE in my book. MIT might have jumped over Middlebury for me tonight; I'll have to think about it.
Hoops I hadn't even seen this one before I commented on the NEWMAC site - you are so way off on this - it is silly.
MIT moved up the list for me after Saturday. They're definitely ahead of Middlebury. I'm still debating between them an Amherst. Amherst had real, serious problems adjusting to the level of play by F&M, who was able to use the same post to post cut move for open layups at least ten times during the game. MIT proved more than able to make the needed adjustments. I was worried they'd succumb to foul issues with F&M having so many big bodies, but they put that question to rest as well.
If they handle Chris Davis the same way, they'll definitely jump Amherst - who I still see as having the highest potential of any team in the country. They failed in execution when it mattered most, which is a strike against them. I don't like to make rankings based on one game or even a weekend. The difference is really about perspective. If it's one game in a pressure situation, I'll take MIT, but if we're talking a 100 games, I'm still undecided on who I favor (I think it's close) - usually I use the latter when ranking teams.
The bottom line is that MIT is still playing and thus still proving themselves. That will help in the long run.
"MIT moved up the list for me after Saturday."
Well that was very nice of you. Is it a correct assumption that you did not agree with the D3 Hoops #3 ranking? If you watched any of the NEWMAC conference games, you may have a better opinion of MIT's SOS. IMHO, WPI and Springfield were good enough to be in the NCAA's and probably would have beaten the first 3 opponents MIT faced. They are both much much better than Skidmore.
"I'm still debating between them an Amherst."
Um ... you did say you saw the 2 games at F&M correct? Did you think Amherst just had a off-game against the #1 overall defense in D3 or was it F&M's defense?
"MIT proved more than able to make the needed adjustments. I was worried they'd succumb to foul issues with F&M having so many big bodies, but they put that question to rest as well."
Again, I respectively disagree. I do not believe MIT made any adjustments as I believe they knew they were the better team coming into the game and ran the normal offense/defense. I believe F&M failed to make any needed adjustments. I do agree with you about being concerned about the fouls, especially near the end of the game as MIT does not utilize its bench as much as the other teams. MIT played F&M one starter down in a predominately 6 man rotation and beat them convincingly in their home court.
"They failed in execution when it mattered most, which is a strike against them."
That's putting it mildly. Did you notice how many free throws that F&M missed near the end of the game? They had many more chances than they should have received.
"I don't like to make rankings based on one game or even a weekend. The difference is really about perspective. If it's one game in a pressure situation, I'll take MIT, but if we're talking a 100 games, I'm still undecided on who I favor (I think it's close) - usually I use the latter when ranking teams."
I understand and agree with you to a point. I believe Amherst and MIT are very comparable and it's a shame that Amherst was not able to have their "earned" host. However, I do not believe the result would change, i.e., I believe F&M would still have won. Besides both of these one-game viewpoints on results, i.e., F&M over Amherst and MIT over F&M, do you still believe that Amherst would win more games out of 100, if MIT had their 5th starter in a predominately 6 man rotation?
You had some good points and I also root for the other NEWMAC and NE Region teams (until they play MIT). MIT is playing great basketball at this time and I don't believe there is a better or more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. If MIT doesn't play good and Amherst does, I believe Amherst could win. If they both play well with their full teams, I believe MIT is better, but that's from my MIT orientation, looking as common opponents and watching these NCAA games. Amherst is a great team and has a fantastic program and I believe if they hosted (as they were entitled based on their great season against strong opponents) against some of the other regional sweet 16 teams in the other brackets, I believe they would have made the final 4. I also believe Amherst would have easily beaten Staten Island. Often matchups against certain teams make a big difference, especially good defensive teams.
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 09, 2012, 01:26:17 AM
By the way, with regard to your discussion on Hoopsville, despite having some seniors on their roster, the only player MIT is losing to graduation is the currently injured Billy Bender. 3 'seniors' have a year of eligibility remaining because of medical redshirts (Hollingsworth, Karraker, and McCue), plus Kates and Tashman are juniors.
I totally expect MIT to have the top ranking next season and make another strong showing (if not win it all). From my understanding, I believe McCue did not get into graduate school at MIT (as did Karraker and Holliingsworth). This is really unfortunate because McCue came back from so many injuries. The good news is he is having a great senior year and MIT is still playing great basketball!
Quote from: BBallers on March 11, 2012, 06:44:51 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 09, 2012, 01:26:17 AM
By the way, with regard to your discussion on Hoopsville, despite having some seniors on their roster, the only player MIT is losing to graduation is the currently injured Billy Bender. 3 'seniors' have a year of eligibility remaining because of medical redshirts (Hollingsworth, Karraker, and McCue), plus Kates and Tashman are juniors.
I totally expect MIT to have the top ranking next season and make another strong showing (if not win it all). From my understanding, I believe McCue did not get into graduate school at MIT (as did Karraker and Holliingsworth). This is really unfortunate because McCue came back from so many injuries. The good news is he is having a great senior year and MIT is still playing great basketball!
I hadn't heard about McCue's admissions status yet, that is unfortunate. However, MIT still has some talented players coming back that aren't getting much PT right now, so they should be able to fill in nicely. Still, getting your 4 top scorers back aint bad. I am sure Coach Anderson also has some pretty good recruits coming in, as he has the past few classes.
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back. I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 12, 2012, 01:49:40 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back. I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.
Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority. I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 02:29:54 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 12, 2012, 01:49:40 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back. I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.
Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority. I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.
Just to add a little perspective, most students I've talked to who stay on for a fifth year to get a Masters at MIT after completing their undergrad there tend to assert that their grad year is easier/less stressful/less complicated than the 4 years prior. A particularly rigorous thesis advisor could change that, but the overall opinion is that grad classes are not quite as challenging as undergrad.
My point being, I think if anything they (the two that will be in grad school) might have/make more time for basketball, especially knowing the potential the core group has.
Quote from: GoTech73 on March 12, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 02:29:54 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 12, 2012, 01:49:40 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back. I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.
Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority. I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.
Just to add a little perspective, most students I've talked to who stay on for a fifth year to get a Masters at MIT after completing their undergrad there tend to assert that their grad year is easier/less stressful/less complicated than the 4 years prior. A particularly rigorous thesis advisor could change that, but the overall opinion is that grad classes are not quite as challenging as undergrad.
My point being, I think if anything they (the two that will be in grad school) might have/make more time for basketball, especially knowing the potential the core group has.
They will not have thesis advisors, I believe both are doing a 1 year, course based masters. Most of the first year is just graduate level studies that you have already taken at the undergrad level. So, depending on your grasp of the material beforehand, those courses could be easier or harder than the undergrad years. I think both of them will be fine, though.
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 12, 2012, 03:43:31 PM
Quote from: GoTech73 on March 12, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 02:29:54 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 12, 2012, 01:49:40 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back. I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.
Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority. I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.
Just to add a little perspective, most students I've talked to who stay on for a fifth year to get a Masters at MIT after completing their undergrad there tend to assert that their grad year is easier/less stressful/less complicated than the 4 years prior. A particularly rigorous thesis advisor could change that, but the overall opinion is that grad classes are not quite as challenging as undergrad.
My point being, I think if anything they (the two that will be in grad school) might have/make more time for basketball, especially knowing the potential the core group has.
They will not have thesis advisors, I believe both are doing a 1 year, course based masters. Most of the first year is just graduate level studies that you have already taken at the undergrad level. So, depending on your grasp of the material beforehand, those courses could be easier or harder than the undergrad years. I think both of them will be fine, though.
Gotcha, yeah I didn't realize there were some course-based only options - I'll admit most of my knowledge is based off the Course 2 MEng which does have a thesis.
My knowledge is based off Course 10 MCEP, which does not have a thesis, so I guess I could be wrong also, but thats what I assumed based on a 1 year program. Not much you can do in the lab in 1 academic year, unless you are contributing to someone else's project, in my opinion.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
You must be joking. To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players. It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above. This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players. This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation. You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team. I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.
MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period. You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year). I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school. I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season. You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.
Quote from: GoTech73 on March 12, 2012, 03:49:32 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 12, 2012, 03:43:31 PM
Quote from: GoTech73 on March 12, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 02:29:54 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 12, 2012, 01:49:40 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back. I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.
Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority. I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.
Just to add a little perspective, most students I've talked to who stay on for a fifth year to get a Masters at MIT after completing their undergrad there tend to assert that their grad year is easier/less stressful/less complicated than the 4 years prior. A particularly rigorous thesis advisor could change that, but the overall opinion is that grad classes are not quite as challenging as undergrad.
My point being, I think if anything they (the two that will be in grad school) might have/make more time for basketball, especially knowing the potential the core group has.
They will not have thesis advisors, I believe both are doing a 1 year, course based masters. Most of the first year is just graduate level studies that you have already taken at the undergrad level. So, depending on your grasp of the material beforehand, those courses could be easier or harder than the undergrad years. I think both of them will be fine, though.
Gotcha, yeah I didn't realize there were some course-based only options - I'll admit most of my knowledge is based off the Course 2 MEng which does have a thesis.
Good points. I'm with the viewpoint of equal less stress in a 5th year Masters program because they may have less classes overall. I believe both are taking dual undergrad majors that requires a lot more classes. BTW, both made all conference academic team, so they are smart kids.
Quote from: BBallers on March 13, 2012, 09:33:48 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
You must be joking. To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players. It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above. This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players. This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation. You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team. I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.
MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period. You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year). I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school. I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season. You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.
Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament. I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates. They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best. Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game. I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2012, 10:17:47 AM
Quote from: BBallers on March 13, 2012, 09:33:48 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
You must be joking. To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players. It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above. This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players. This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation. You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team. I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.
MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period. You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year). I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school. I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season. You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.
Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament. I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates. They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best. Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game. I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.
Paul Dawson is a freshman and pretty darn good, just inexperienced. I think with more PT, he will develop into a solid starting PG at MIT, especially with a couple years behind Kates. It may be too much to say they wouldnt have made the NCAA tourney (they probably still would have had a decent chance), but its probably safe to say they wouldn't have made the Final four with Kates, or Hollingsworth, Tashman, or Karraker for that matter. With Bender already out essentially the entire tourney (and Jimmy Burke, who has been out the whole season), they really needed those guys to step up, and each has when they have needed to both offensively and defensively.
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 13, 2012, 11:46:09 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2012, 10:17:47 AM
Quote from: BBallers on March 13, 2012, 09:33:48 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
You must be joking. To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players. It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above. This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players. This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation. You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team. I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.
MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period. You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year). I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school. I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season. You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.
Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament. I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates. They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best. Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game. I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.
Paul Dawson is a freshman and pretty darn good, just inexperienced. I think with more PT, he will develop into a solid starting PG at MIT, especially with a couple years behind Kates. It may be too much to say they wouldnt have made the NCAA tourney (they probably still would have had a decent chance), but its probably safe to say they wouldn't have made the Final four with Kates, or Hollingsworth, Tashman, or Karraker for that matter. With Bender already out essentially the entire tourney (and Jimmy Burke, who has been out the whole season), they really needed those guys to step up, and each has when they have needed to both offensively and defensively.
I didn't realize Dawson was a freshman - he's very talented. I just was shocked by how poorly they handled the press break, it was almost if they weren't prepared for it (I don't know if that was a new wrinkle for CSI or if that was on film prior). For a team so composed and knowledgable about where they should be on the floor, having trouble with the press was really surprising.
I'm sure they're working on it this week in case they see it again (if they make the final against Cabrini, they almost certainly will).
It just seemed really apparent they would have lost that big lead to CSI if Kates hadn't come back in the game late. That was the only red flag I saw, but without Kates, it's a big one. Perhaps having it exposed will help them address it. They're certainly capable.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
Basically agree with Hoops Fan on this one. I think MIT would make the tournament and go out in first round without MK. People are slowly recognizing how special this kid is. Third Team Northeast Region? You've got to be joking. The kid is a first team All American...period. Better than Berthiaume ( who is terrific!)....better than Toomey ( who is also terrific). Wake up everybody....how much more do you need to see? He is the most complete guard in D3. I know that Kates did not get POY in the NEWMAC...on the other hand, in general we are not talking about a bunch of Einsteins who are doing the selecting either.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2012, 10:17:47 AM
Quote from: BBallers on March 13, 2012, 09:33:48 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
You must be joking. To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players. It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above. This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players. This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation. You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team. I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.
MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period. You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year). I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school. I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season. You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.
Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament. I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates. They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best. Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game. I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.
"Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament. I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates."
This is an excellent point, although WPI losing 7 games and Springfield 10 games contributed to them not making the NCAA tournament. DMac played point guard in the past as had Bender briefly and Paul Dawson is a talented freshman point, but none of those players are as explosive or talented at point as Kates. Notwithstanding, any team with 2 of the best 4 players in the conference (i.e., without Kates) should be favored to win the conference and make the tournament. I can also say that I believe (IMHO) WPI or Springfield would have beaten Skidmore, Farmingdale State and Staten Island in this tournament.
"They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best. Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game. I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games."
Great ovservation. You definitely hit on one of the problems I was worried about. First of all, you break a press by passing. MIT's passing in those pressure situations was poor. Kates took it upon himself and masterfully broke the press basically by himself. Bender (orbital fracture in first weekend of play) would have helped in press situations, as this was never an issue during the season. Kates has played great and has been the most valuable player in the tournament. Without Mitch, I believe MIT would have still won, but maybe not by the 15, 16, and 20 point margins in their last 3 games.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2012, 11:54:26 AM
Quote from: Hugenerd on March 13, 2012, 11:46:09 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2012, 10:17:47 AM
Quote from: BBallers on March 13, 2012, 09:33:48 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
You must be joking. To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players. It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above. This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players. This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation. You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team. I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.
MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period. You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year). I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school. I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season. You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.
Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament. I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates. They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best. Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game. I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.
Paul Dawson is a freshman and pretty darn good, just inexperienced. I think with more PT, he will develop into a solid starting PG at MIT, especially with a couple years behind Kates. It may be too much to say they wouldnt have made the NCAA tourney (they probably still would have had a decent chance), but its probably safe to say they wouldn't have made the Final four with Kates, or Hollingsworth, Tashman, or Karraker for that matter. With Bender already out essentially the entire tourney (and Jimmy Burke, who has been out the whole season), they really needed those guys to step up, and each has when they have needed to both offensively and defensively.
I didn't realize Dawson was a freshman - he's very talented. I just was shocked by how poorly they handled the press break, it was almost if they weren't prepared for it (I don't know if that was a new wrinkle for CSI or if that was on film prior). For a team so composed and knowledgable about where they should be on the floor, having trouble with the press was really surprising.
I'm sure they're working on it this week in case they see it again (if they make the final against Cabrini, they almost certainly will).
It just seemed really apparent they would have lost that big lead to CSI if Kates hadn't come back in the game late. That was the only red flag I saw, but without Kates, it's a big one. Perhaps having it exposed will help them address it. They're certainly capable.
All good, justified points and valid concerns that I share. I also worry about transition defense and perimeter defense. CSI is basically a momentum or rhythm team and they started to get on a roll. I was glad Kates got a rest, but more glad when he returned.
You mentioned Cabrini is a pressing team. Do you believe UW-Whitewater (WW)is also a pressing team? What do you believe WW's game plan will be against MIT? Do you know their style of play, strengths and potential weaknesses? Thanks.
Quote from: remsleep on March 13, 2012, 12:34:06 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 12, 2012, 10:05:18 AM
There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates. He's absolutely integral to what they do. They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.
I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters. MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.
Basically agree with Hoops Fan on this one. I think MIT would make the tournament and go out in first round without MK. People are slowly recognizing how special this kid is. Third Team Northeast Region? You've got to be joking. The kid is a first team All American...period. Better than Berthiaume ( who is terrific!)....better than Toomey ( who is also terrific). Wake up everybody....how much more do you need to see? He is the most complete guard in D3. I know that Kates did not get POY in the NEWMAC...on the other hand, in general we are not talking about a bunch of Einsteins who are doing the selecting either.
My primary debate was that I believe MIT would have made the tournament without him. We almost didn't have him if you would have watched the ( ;) un-) intentional foul that a Skidmore player handed him on a breakaway. I agree that Berthiaume is a better scorer and a teriffic player, but I believe Kates is a better point guard along with a better rebounder. I'd choose Kates over him. Kates has actually sacraficed his scoring for the good of the other higher percentage team scoring opportunities. That is what really distinguishes him. The game has slowed down for Mitch. He is definitely playing at an AA level. LOL on the Einstein selectors.
UWW only plays 7 guys typically, so I doubt they are pressing team, although I havent seen them play much. Their bread and butter is All-American Chris Davis (he already won NABC West Region POY this year), who is an 6'6" talented inside player who averages 22 ppg. I am pretty certain Tashman will be matched up with him. Obviously a much different player than AJ Matthews, but if Tashman can be even half as effective as he was with Matthews against Davis, MIT should have a great chance (Matthews came in average 23 ppg and 17 rbg, Tashman held him to 11 and 5).
Yeah, I'd expect pretty similar styles from MIT and WW. Cabrini isn't necessarily a pressing team, but they've got a lot of quickness and a ton of guys - they could and do press when its advantageous. The coach is good - he'll test MIT if he thinks they're vulnerable there.
Getting past Whitewater will be the big task. They're strong and experienced, but man for man, MIT is probably better. I think it will come down to execution and who wins the Tashman - Davis battle.
At this point, I think Davis is likely the frontrunner for national POY, if not he's in the discussion. He'll be the toughest post player they've faced this year.
Like I said earlier, I'm done underestimating MIT. I'm riding that train until it crashes.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2012, 04:53:19 PM
Yeah, I'd expect pretty similar styles from MIT and WW. Cabrini isn't necessarily a pressing team, but they've got a lot of quickness and a ton of guys - they could and do press when its advantageous. The coach is good - he'll test MIT if he thinks they're vulnerable there.
Getting past Whitewater will be the big task. They're strong and experienced, but man for man, MIT is probably better. I think it will come down to execution and who wins the Tashman - Davis battle.
At this point, I think Davis is likely the frontrunner for national POY, if not he's in the discussion. He'll be the toughest post player they've faced this year.
Like I said earlier, I'm done underestimating MIT. I'm riding that train until it crashes.
I think you will see two very different styles. WW is going to be physical, Davis is the go to guy - with balanced scoring otherwise; and, like most WIAC teams, its five guys going for the rebound. I doubt you will see WW press that much. MIT seems to rely on the 3 much more than WW.
I agree that MIT will want Will Tashman to cover Chris Davis. All I know of WW and Davis is from watching the 2nd half of their dominating win over Va Wesleyan (#6, 27-4). Tashman was a key to MIT's win over Farmingdale by completely denying 7-0 Matthews access to the rim and taking Matthews out of his game. Davis is a very different player. He is a natural BB player and an experienced, physical inside scorer. He took the ball right at multiple defenders vs VW and scored on them! Yes, the announcers were calling for him to be player of the year nationally. Tashman had to finish the Farmingdale game playing with 4 fouls and he fouled out vs F&M. Davis will be a tougher challenge to defense. MIT needs to use the old "give 10 fouls" by using Levene (6-7) and Aker (6-8) to cover Davis at times. It will be difficult for MIT to win if Tashman fouls out. I expect they'll try Hollingsworth on Davis too; he did cover Matthews a bit after Tashman wore him down. Matthews did get tired; Davis sure didn't vs VW. WW looked like a strong physical team across the line up.
All this talk about MIT's Kates; what's being overlooked is his excellent defense. He should do fine vs WW. Staying out of foul trouble is key for MIT, as they use the starters for so many minutes. In reality, Paul Dawson is an excellent PG who just hasn't played a lot of minutes. Aker and Levene are good in certain roles, they just don't get PT.
Should be a great game.
Quote from: BBallers on March 13, 2012, 03:43:43 PM
My primary debate was that I believe MIT would have made the tournament without him. We almost didn't have him if you would have watched the ( ;) un-) intentional foul that a Skidmore player handed him on a breakaway. I agree that Berthiaume is a better scorer and a teriffic player, but I believe Kates is a better point guard along with a better rebounder. I'd choose Kates over him. Kates has actually sacraficed his scoring for the good of the other higher percentage team scoring opportunities. That is what really distinguishes him. The game has slowed down for Mitch. He is definitely playing at an AA level. LOL on the Einstein selectors.
Kates can score like nobody's business (24 on Skidmore, 29 on Staten Island, 21 on Franklin and Marshall, 24 on Springfield -- Berthiaume only had 25) when that's needed. But you'll notice that except for Staten Island those were close games (I count F&M as close, despite the final score). He's perfectly capable of taking over the game when that's what's needed. As you note, though, that isn't necessarily what's needed or what's best for the team. But that
ability to score practically at will opens up the court for everyone else and makes the team as a whole incredibly dangerous.
I'm flying down tomorrow morning to catch it.
Quote from: T990 on March 15, 2012, 12:34:51 AM
I agree that MIT will want Will Tashman to cover Chris Davis. All I know of WW and Davis is from watching the 2nd half of their dominating win over Va Wesleyan (#6, 27-4). Tashman was a key to MIT's win over Farmingdale by completely denying 7-0 Matthews access to the rim and taking Matthews out of his game. Davis is a very different player. He is a natural BB player and an experienced, physical inside scorer. He took the ball right at multiple defenders vs VW and scored on them! Yes, the announcers were calling for him to be player of the year nationally. Tashman had to finish the Farmingdale game playing with 4 fouls and he fouled out vs F&M. Davis will be a tougher challenge to defense. MIT needs to use the old "give 10 fouls" by using Levene (6-7) and Aker (6-8) to cover Davis at times. It will be difficult for MIT to win if Tashman fouls out. I expect they'll try Hollingsworth on Davis too; he did cover Matthews a bit after Tashman wore him down. Matthews did get tired; Davis sure didn't vs VW. WW looked like a strong physical team across the line up.
All this talk about MIT's Kates; what's being overlooked is his excellent defense. He should do fine vs WW. Staying out of foul trouble is key for MIT, as they use the starters for so many minutes. In reality, Paul Dawson is an excellent PG who just hasn't played a lot of minutes. Aker and Levene are good in certain roles, they just don't get PT.
Should be a great game.
I am concerned about the matchup with Davis as MIT has had some trouble with athletic physical post players in the past. I agree that Tash will have a much tougher time against Davis than the fantastic job he did against Matthews. Tash is by far the best interior defender on the team and will most likely be a key player in this matchup. MIT may have to double down with a guard to help protect Tash from fouling, but that could leave one of the WW shooters open. Tash staying out of foul trouble and in the game is critical. Good point about Kates defense as he definitely stepped up that part of his game also. MIT's guards will have to hit the boards to counter their "strong physical team across the line up." Appreciate your insights. Thanks.
Things will be a bit different if Bender is back playing as well - I haven't heard anything about his status just yet.
Quote from: rlk on March 15, 2012, 09:18:33 AM
Quote from: BBallers on March 13, 2012, 03:43:43 PM
My primary debate was that I believe MIT would have made the tournament without him. We almost didn't have him if you would have watched the ( ;) un-) intentional foul that a Skidmore player handed him on a breakaway. I agree that Berthiaume is a better scorer and a teriffic player, but I believe Kates is a better point guard along with a better rebounder. I'd choose Kates over him. Kates has actually sacraficed his scoring for the good of the other higher percentage team scoring opportunities. That is what really distinguishes him. The game has slowed down for Mitch. He is definitely playing at an AA level. LOL on the Einstein selectors.
Kates can score like nobody's business (24 on Skidmore, 29 on Staten Island, 21 on Franklin and Marshall, 24 on Springfield -- Berthiaume only had 25) when that's needed. But you'll notice that except for Staten Island those were close games (I count F&M as close, despite the final score). He's perfectly capable of taking over the game when that's what's needed. As you note, though, that isn't necessarily what's needed or what's best for the team. But that ability to score practically at will opens up the court for everyone else and makes the team as a whole incredibly dangerous.
I'm flying down tomorrow morning to catch it.
Mitch is a frequent one-on-one option if the shot clock is running down. However, what brings his game to another level is his willingness to pass to a teammate with a better look. Looking forward to the game and appreciate the input.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 15, 2012, 09:49:14 AM
Things will be a bit different if Bender is back playing as well - I haven't heard anything about his status just yet.
He has missed 3 tournament games and still attends practice, but may just be shooting around. I believe his eye surgery was postponed until next week. My primary worry is containing Davis. Tash doesn't have to outplay him or shut him down like he did against Matthews, he just needs to make him work a lot and hopefully cause him to make a lower percentage of shots. That along with staying in the game without picking up too many fouls. Does Davis ever foul out or have a propensity for fouling?
Quote from: BBallers on March 15, 2012, 08:59:03 PM
Quote from: rlk on March 15, 2012, 09:18:33 AM
Quote from: BBallers on March 13, 2012, 03:43:43 PM
My primary debate was that I believe MIT would have made the tournament without him. We almost didn't have him if you would have watched the ( ;) un-) intentional foul that a Skidmore player handed him on a breakaway. I agree that Berthiaume is a better scorer and a teriffic player, but I believe Kates is a better point guard along with a better rebounder. I'd choose Kates over him. Kates has actually sacraficed his scoring for the good of the other higher percentage team scoring opportunities. That is what really distinguishes him. The game has slowed down for Mitch. He is definitely playing at an AA level. LOL on the Einstein selectors.
Kates can score like nobody's business (24 on Skidmore, 29 on Staten Island, 21 on Franklin and Marshall, 24 on Springfield -- Berthiaume only had 25) when that's needed. But you'll notice that except for Staten Island those were close games (I count F&M as close, despite the final score). He's perfectly capable of taking over the game when that's what's needed. As you note, though, that isn't necessarily what's needed or what's best for the team. But that ability to score practically at will opens up the court for everyone else and makes the team as a whole incredibly dangerous.
I'm flying down tomorrow morning to catch it.
Mitch is a frequent one-on-one option if the shot clock is running down. However, what brings his game to another level is his willingness to pass to a teammate with a better look. Looking forward to the game and appreciate the input.
Wichita State just lost their first round game because a guy refused to pass to an open teammate under the basket.
Quote from: iwumichigander on March 14, 2012, 11:10:38 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 13, 2012, 04:53:19 PM
Yeah, I'd expect pretty similar styles from MIT and WW. Cabrini isn't necessarily a pressing team, but they've got a lot of quickness and a ton of guys - they could and do press when its advantageous. The coach is good - he'll test MIT if he thinks they're vulnerable there.
Getting past Whitewater will be the big task. They're strong and experienced, but man for man, MIT is probably better. I think it will come down to execution and who wins the Tashman - Davis battle.
At this point, I think Davis is likely the frontrunner for national POY, if not he's in the discussion. He'll be the toughest post player they've faced this year.
Like I said earlier, I'm done underestimating MIT. I'm riding that train until it crashes.
I think you will see two very different styles. WW is going to be physical, Davis is the go to guy - with balanced scoring otherwise; and, like most WIAC teams, its five guys going for the rebound. I doubt you will see WW press that much. MIT seems to rely on the 3 much more than WW.
Despite the last couple of games - especially the Scranton Game - MIT is not really a 3-point team. They can shoot it (obviously) but if UW-W fans think stop the 3 - stop MIT , then they may be in for a HUGE (pun intended for the D3 Board regulars) dose of Hollingsworth tonight. He really is their best player and has had only a mediocre tourney so far. Should be fun...............
"Wichita State just lost their first round game because a guy refused to pass to an open teammate under the basket."
Saw a lot of that this year. Too many guards truly believe that and are taught this from their earlt days, through AAU & HS that it's beeter for them to drive one 2 or 3 and draw contact and tossit up....OR...Shoot the 3 even if a teammate has a better look. Nowadays it is not that do not want to give it up, it really is that they do not see the floor, only the basket!
This is why Kates is so special, he sees it and has no issues giving the ball to a teammate.
His game is what all players should be emulating. Look up the court towards the basket and get the ball to your teammates who are running the floor or who are in good position to score.
The Division II Men's Basketball Championship - Western Washington vs. Montevallo - is being televised on national TV today on CBS at 1PM (eastern). Hey, maybe someone will put the D3 championship on TV someday.
Back on TV. It was on TV until last year.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 24, 2012, 03:54:39 PM
Back on TV. It was on TV until last year.
CSTV doesn't count as TV; how long has it been since it was on CBS?
No idea -- it hasn't been on ESPN or an over-the-air network since we started covering D-III in 1998. I remember having to listen to the 1996 title game on Teamline so it was obviously not on "TV" by that definition either.
I don't understand why ESPN doesn't broadcast some regular season D3 BB games. In 2005, they had Dick Vitale do the Beloit - Grinnell game (regular season); it was great. I haven't heard of them doing any since. They could make an Amherst-MIT match up next season if they wanted to.
I imagine now that the NCAA has a huge contract w/ CBS, it wouldn't make sense to have the D3 championship broadcast on the same weekend as all the 1st and 2nd rounds of D1. There would be dilution of their CBS value if they let another network broadcast D3 BB at the same time. So even though ESPN is relegated to broadcasting garbage sports during that time, there is not much hope that the NCAA would let anyone broadcast the D3 championship game(s), unless maybe it was played at 10AM. ;) The only reason D2 was on is because they could fit it in at 1PM on Elite 8 weekend.
They used to play d2 and d3 championship games in the morning before the d1 games started at noon. I remember watching them growing up - however they may have been previously recorded games. I'm not sure I would have noticed that at 12 years old.
I have a VCR tape of Scranton's championship game in '83 that someone recorded for me from a cable station; I didn't get cable at the time, and I don't remember which one it was.
Since the Executive Editor of ESPN was a Scranton classmate and former Royals broadcaster, possibly he could be prevailed upon to do the D3 championship game in the future. ;)
ESPN doesn't have much of a chance of getting the D3 game... since the basketball contract is tied up with Turner and CBS... could CBS or even Turner put the game on? Absolutely... would they? It doesn't look hopeful to be honest.
That being said, after my experience this past trip in Salem, I plan to make some calls and at least make it a conversation... you can only hope.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
That being said, after my experience this past trip in Salem, I plan to make some calls and at least make it a conversation... you can only hope.
That would be great. Even if they only showed the final, that would at least get D3 basketball some exposure.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
ESPN doesn't have much of a chance of getting the D3 game... since the basketball contract is tied up with Turner and CBS... could CBS or even Turner put the game on? Absolutely... would they? It doesn't look hopeful to be honest.
That being said, after my experience this past trip in Salem, I plan to make some calls and at least make it a conversation... you can only hope.
Dave,
Best of Luck with your phone calls, I suspect you will have to discuss with ESPN/others re the possible ratings implications of the broadcast(s). Are there stats on the viewership of the d3 semifinals/finals on d3hoops that may influence?
I hope to get those numbers... but honestly, my conversations will not be with ESPN... they don't have a hope at the broadcasts. I actually have a high school classmate pretty high up with CBS... but, don't bet on anything... he can be hard to touch base with! :) This may be an all-offseason plan :)
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 24, 2012, 08:11:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 24, 2012, 03:54:39 PM
Back on TV. It was on TV until last year.
CSTV doesn't count as TV; how long has it been since it was on CBS?
I thought I remember watching the 2010 championship game on CBS College Sports.
Quote from: 7express on April 03, 2012, 09:00:58 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 24, 2012, 08:11:02 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 24, 2012, 03:54:39 PM
Back on TV. It was on TV until last year.
CSTV doesn't count as TV; how long has it been since it was on CBS?
I thought I remember watching the 2010 championship game on CBS College Sports.
That used to be CSTV. It's just not that common on any cable provider outside of some delux sports package.
CSTV became CBS College Sports Network... which is now CBS Sports Network.
The games were broadcast there a couple times... with 2010 being the last year. But when the new contract with CBS and Turner was inked... CBS lost interest in doing the games... so it became a Turner streaming thing (that is the short version).
http://bustingbrackets.com/2012/10/14/boston-college-eagles-basketball-season-preview/
I came across this article which indicates that Gabe Moton, a former Boston College schoralship basketball player who even started several games for what admittedly was a pretty bad ACC team, has transferred to Brandeis. If true, that sounds like it could be quite a coup. I can't recall any high major D1 player that got significant minutes transfering to a local New England school.
While he didn't get the minutes at BC like Sr Moten did, Soph Ryan Kilcullen has also transferred out and is at Williams this year.
Almost that time of the yr. any predictions on the northeast rankings?
1) WPI (not saying I would even favor them over the big 3 NESCAC - just saying they belong here until they lose)
2) Midd
3) Williams
4) Amherst
5) MIT
6) RIC
7) Magnus
8) Springfield
9) Tufts
10) Eastern CT
I am certain I left some out..........Southern Maine, Westfield State, Maine-Framington, Salem, Curry, Keene
Based on his formula KS has it this way currently (through 1/27/13 games)
1. WPI
2. Williams
3. Brandeis
4. RIC
5. Midd
6. MIT
7. Springfield
8. Curry
9. EC
10. Wes
11. Amherst
12. Clark
13. Tufts
14. Westfield
15. Salem St.
Interesting that with his formula that Magnus isn't even on the list but Massey has their SOS at 374 so you can't get much lower than that.
Here's my list and I've indicated Y/N on whether I've watched them play... (I think WPI gets ranked #1 in the first go around but I don't think they are as good as Amherst & Williams)
1. Amherst (Y)
2. Williams (Y)
3. WPI (Y)
4. Midd (Y)
5. MIT (Y)
6. RIC (N)
7. Brandeis (N)
8. Springfield (Y)
9. Magnus (N)
10. Tufts (Y)
Basically went head to head matchups for the NESCAC schools. In a head to head matchup I think WPI beats Midd, but I don't think WPI can beat Amherst or Williams. The Tufts pick at the end is more a reward for their recent play. By the end of the year I'm predicting they will win 10 out of their last 11 which is a nice way to end the year after starting out 6-7.
1) WPI
2) Midd
3) Williams
4) Amherst
5) RIC
6) Brandeis
7) MIT
8) Albertus
9) Tufts
10) Eastern CT
My list. You have my permission to kick me when I'm done with the list. I beleive they list 12 NE teams on the men's side, so thats what I'll go with:
1) WPI
2) Williams
3) Middlebury
4) Amherst
5) MIT
6) Brandeis
7) RIC
8) Springfield
9) Tufts
10) Eastern Connecticut
11) Westfield
12) Curry
if I was going 15, Albertus, Clark & USM would round out the 15 in that order.
Couple notes:
I haven't watched many games this year so this is mainly due to records and schedule strength more than anything else, which is why I said it was OK at the top to kick me. With that said, that's why WPI is at the top. I don't think their as good as the big NESCAC 3, but until they lose like the NESCAC 3 have at least once they'll be at the top of my rankings.
The Amherst loss to Babson drops them down below Mid & Williams
Brandeis did lose to RIC, but it was by 2, their first game of the year and the UAA is running circles around the LEC this season, so they get the bump ahead of RIC.
Really 9+ could really go any order between like 10-15 teams have a chance to be in that last 3 to 4 range. Granted, none of them are going to get in as Pool C's, but its good to see your school on the list, especially if you've historically had a bad team like USM, that's what I'm hoping for, hopefully they can crack the top 12 somehow.
They do rank 12 in the Northeast... the ratio is 6.5 teams to 1 ranking spot. So for the Northeast there are 75 teams... thus 12 spots.
Rankings look more or less right.
I think RIC and Tufts are playing good ball now.
Amherst needed that Babson game to wake them up.
For the NESCAC "big three" I would put Williams third since they only get contributions from five players. Each team has key x-factor pairs (Thompson/Kizell, Toomey/Workman, Mayer/Epley), all six of which will all be All-Conference.
Quote from: walzy31 on January 31, 2013, 01:36:27 AM
For the NESCAC "big three" I would put Williams third since they only get contributions from five players. Each team has key x-factor pairs (Thompson/Kizell, Toomey/Workman, Mayer/Epley), all six of which will all be All-Conference.
I went straight head to head matchups on the NESCAC 3 but you bring up a very valid point about the Ephs relying heavily on their starters. However, when I compare Williams and Midd one thing that really concerns me on the Midd side is the scoring. Midd is a better defensive squad but I don't think they have the scoring capability the Ephs do, even though Williams relies on their starters.
If you take a look at the numbers, Midd scoring is way down once the league games started in January (their defense is better too on the positive side) and I think that has to be a concern as we near the tournament. Amherst and Williams have both had a dip as well, but it isn't nearly as large as Midd.
Here's the Points For/Against for Nov/Dec vs Jan, and the Differential.
Midd N/D PF: 89.3 PA: 69.7 Diff: 19.6
Midd J PF: 70.1 PA: 57.6 Diff: 12.5
Change in Differential: -7.1
Amherst N/D PF: 86.7 PA: 69.2 Diff: 17.5
Amherst J PF: 79.7 PA: 66.3 Diff: 13.4
Change in Differential: -4.1
Williams N/D PF: 84.5 PA: 64.7 Diff: 19.8
Williams J PF: 79.3 PA: 63.8 Diff: 15.5
Change in Differential: -4.3
That 19.2 ppg drop for Midd concerns me and makes it hard for me to say they have a better chance than Amherst or Williams to make a run when they start playing tougher competition.
D3hoops.com men's Top 25, Week 10
Through games of Sunday, Feb. 3:
# School (1st votes) Rec Pts Prev.
1 St. Thomas (13) 20-1 608 2
2 WPI (8) 21-0 585 4
3 Whitworth (4) 20-1 568 3
4 Rochester 19-1 521 1
5 Middlebury 19-1 519 6
6 Amherst 20-2 447 10
7 Williams 20-2 424 9
8 Catholic 19-2 405 11
9 Illinois Wesleyan 18-3 401 12
10 Ramapo 20-2 400 13
11 North Central (Ill.) 18-3 399 7
12 St. Mary's (Md.) 19-2 368 14
13 Calvin 19-2 296 17
14 Wooster 18-3 293 8
15 UW-Stevens Point 18-4 280 5
16 UW-Whitewater 17-4 269 15
17 Hampden-Sydney 19-2 256 19
18 Rhode Island College 18-3 183 18
19 Rose-Hulman 19-2 147 23
20 Washington U. 16-4 144 21
21 Christopher Newport 15-3 142 16
22 Wheaton (Ill.) 16-5 69 20
23 MIT 16-4 56 --
24 Cortland State 17-3 52 --
25 Stevens 17-3 45 --
Dropped out: No. 22 Transylvania, No. 24 Wesley, No. 25 Brandeis.
Others receiving votes: Brandeis 40; Transylvania 26; Ohio Wesleyan 26; Wesley 24; Albertus Magnus 23; Albright 23; UW-Stout 22; Augustana 20; Mary Hardin-Baylor 16; St. Norbert 9; Guilford 5; Franklin and Marshall 5; SUNY-Old Westbury 5; Marietta 4.
First Regional Rankings.. No real suprises with the top 7.. Everything after the top 7; just win the your conference and you're in. If not, than it is the ECAC this year.
Northeast
1 WPI 21-0 21-0
2 Amherst 20-2 20-2
3 Williams 18-2 20-2
4 Middlebury 16-1 19-1
5 Rhode Island College 18-3 18-3
6 Brandeis 15-5 15-5
7 MIT 15-4 16-4
8 Curry 15-6 15-6
9 Westfield State 15-4 17-4
10 Springfield 15-7 15-7
11 Eastern Connecticut 14-4 14-7
12 Albertus Magnus 20-2 20-3
I believe that the top six through Brandeis are pretty good bets for Pool C bids provided they do not slip badly with their remaining games. I am not so sure about MIT. They do not have a win over any of the top 6 and only two wins against regionally ranked opponents (Curry #8 and Springfield #10). Three of their losses are against ranked teams (WPI, RIC, and Springfield) with a bad loss against Salem St. What they do have in front of them is a great chance to nail it down with a win aagainst WPI in the regular season finale. Without a win there and anything short of advancing to the tournament final, probably against WPI again, they are IMHO a bubble team at best for a Pool C berth. I do not think consideration should be given to how well they did last year nor how they might have been with two injured players who did not play this year.
My prediction for Week 3 NE Regional Rankings
1 Amherst
2 Williams
3 WPI
4 Rhode Island College
5 MIT (3-0 this week, including win over last week's #1)
6 Middlebury (low SOS, 1-2 against regionally ranked teams, win vs. Plattsburgh who entered East region rankings last week, 0-2 vs NE region ranked teams)
7 Brandeis (big game against WashU tomorrow)
8 Springfield
9 Westfield State
10 Eastern Connecticut
11 Curry (lost to East Naz)
12 Tufts (Their only 5 region losses are to Top 7 region teams, Amherst, Williams, MIT, Middlebury, and Brandeis. They have won 14 of 17, with their 3 losses coming to the Top 3 NESCAC teams)
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 16, 2013, 07:12:13 PM
My prediction for Week 3 NE Regional Rankings
1 Amherst
2 Williams
3 WPI
4 Rhode Island College
5 MIT (3-0 this week, including win over last week's #1)
6 Middlebury (low SOS, 1-2 against regionally ranked teams, win vs. Plattsburgh who entered East region rankings last week, 0-2 vs NE region ranked teams)
7 Brandeis (big game against WashU tomorrow)
8 Springfield
9 Westfield State
10 Eastern Connecticut
11 Curry (lost to East Naz)
12 Tufts (Their only 5 region losses are to Top 7 region teams, Amherst, Williams, MIT, Middlebury, and Brandeis. They have won 14 of 17, with their 3 losses coming to the Top 3 NESCAC teams)
Midd's strength of schedule is actually higher than RIC's, which is why I just do not see Middlebury being ranked below RIC regionally. So, Middlebury has a higher winning percentage and a higher strength of schedule. Against regionally ranked opponents, Midd is 1-2 and RIC is 3-3. (Within the specific region Midd is 0-2, but the losses are to #1 and #3.)
Perhap
That was untrue as of last week, where RIC was at 0.539 and Midd was 0.521. Based on Knightslappy's SOS numbers, those numbers may have changed, but I was basing it on last week's SOS numbers. Midd still doesnt have any wins over anyone ranked in the region, even if Tufts moves into the rankings this week (they only look at previously ranked regional opponents, so if Tufts is ranked it will help them in the final regional rankings).
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 12:49:15 PM
That was untrue as of last week, where RIC was at 0.539 and Midd was 0.521. Based on Knightslappy's SOS numbers, those numbers may have changed, but I was basing it on last week's SOS numbers. Midd still doesnt have any wins over anyone ranked in the region, even if Tufts moves into the rankings this week (they only look at previously ranked regional opponents, so if Tufts is ranked it will help them in the final regional rankings).
Except the criteria is for regionally-ranked opponents, not opponents ranked within the region. Middlebury has a win over Plattsburgh State, which is ranked in the east region.
Quote from: Bucket on February 18, 2013, 12:59:38 PM
Quote from: Hugenerd on February 18, 2013, 12:49:15 PM
That was untrue as of last week, where RIC was at 0.539 and Midd was 0.521. Based on Knightslappy's SOS numbers, those numbers may have changed, but I was basing it on last week's SOS numbers. Midd still doesnt have any wins over anyone ranked in the region, even if Tufts moves into the rankings this week (they only look at previously ranked regional opponents, so if Tufts is ranked it will help them in the final regional rankings).
Except the criteria is for regionally-ranked opponents, not opponents ranked within the region. Middlebury has a win over Plattsburgh State, which is ranked in the east region.
Thats not what I said, I said Midd still doesnt have any wins vs. teams ranked in the region, I was not disputing that their vRRO will be 1-2 this week. However, in head-to-head criteria, it is still hard to place them because they have no wins over teams that have appeared on the NE region rankings. So, although we know they are definitely below Amherst and Williams based on head-to-head results, there is nobody we can say they definitely should be ranked higher than because of a win against one of those teams. That's why its more of a toss-up for them, in my opinion.
If that is not clear, take the example of RIC. They have lost to Amherst and WPI, so they should be ranked below them, but they have wins over MIT and split with ECSU (and lead their conference that ECSU is in). Therefore, a logical place for them to be in the rankings is below Amherst and WPI, but above MIT and ECSU. We don't have that type of information for Middleburry because they havent beat anyone in the NE region rankings.
Northeast – Week 3
1 Amherst 23-2 23-2
2 WPI 23-2 23-2
3 Williams 20-3 22-3
4 Rhode Island College 22-3 22-3
5 Middlebury 19-2 22-2
6 MIT 19-4 20-4
7 Springfield 18-7 18-7
8 Brandeis 17-7 17-7
9 Curry 18-7 18-7
10 Westfield State 19-4 21-4
11 Eastern Connecticut 18-4 18-7
12 Tufts 16-5 17-8
RIC higher than I personally thought but no real surprises..............
We are past mid-January and have a pretty clear idea of who is who now.
After Amherst, who appears they can clobber anyone, who's next, WPI?
Let's get this going!
I think it's a really down year for the region. Even the computer calculations I've seen have us pretty far down the potential Pool C list right now. It's going to be atypical. A lot of teams in the regional rankings will have glaring weaknesses.
Middlebury may still be the 4th or 5th best team in the region and we all know they're not exactly having a banner year.
I agree with Hoops, if I had to do a top 8, it would go like this..
1. Amherst
2. WPI
3. Bowdin
4. Albertus
5. Eastern CT
6. Midd
7. Springfield
8. Babson/MIT
Pj lol no Williams?
1. Amherst
2. WPI
3. Williams
4. Albertus
5. Bowdoin
6. East Conn
That's my quick top 6, I gotta look at some games played for others.
I would say that I left Williams out on purpose to stir up some great debate... but, I just forgot.
1. Amherst
2. WPI
3. Bowdin
4. Albertus
5. Williams
6. Eastern CT
7. Midd
8. Springfield
Bowdoin, as good a season as they are having, should not be ranked ahead of Williams.
Quote from: toad22 on January 25, 2014, 09:45:42 PM
Bowdoin, as good a season as they are having, should not be ranked ahead of Williams.
I don't necessarily buy into that, as they lost a close game AT Williams. If only NESCAC would join virtually every other d3 conference and have a
double -round robin, we could see the result of Williams AT Bowdoin.
I'd go:
1) Amherst
2) WPI
3) Albertus
4) Williams
5) Eastern Connecticut
6) Bowdoin
7) Middlebury
8) Springfield
9) Babson
10) Rhode Island College
11) MIT
12) Mass-Dartmouth/Western Connecticut.
As hoops said, really bad overall. Mid is having a terrible season, yet they'll probably still be top 8 or 9. RIC is also having a terrible season and will probably crack the rankings.
Quote from: toad22 on January 25, 2014, 09:45:42 PM
Bowdoin, as good a season as they are having, should not be ranked ahead of Williams.
I know it was November... but I can't get the image of losing to Southern Vermont out of my head.
I've got:
Amherst
Williams
Albertus
Bowdoin
WPI
EConn
Babson
I'm not really willing to rank anyone beyond that.
I think Hoops Fan is about right with his rankings, although Williams/Albertus is a toss-up. We've seen this story from WPI before -- gaudy record, and equally gaudy ranking, thanks to playing a fairly weak schedule -- no games vs. any teams currently in the top 25, only one difficult road game so far (at Springfield) -- only to flame out early in the NCAA tourney. I think they are a top-25 caliber team, just not a top-5 caliber team. They always play great as a team but without Coppola lack that star scorer to carry them vs. elite competition. Albertus is the toughest to place. They clearly have three absolute star players, and they've dominated virtually everyone except for an impressive three point loss on the road vs. a D1 team. Loaded with transfers so difficult to ascertain their true level. But, their D3 schedule to-date is pretty awful. Their next two tough games will be telling -- if they win both of those, I think they deserve to be ranked no lower than second in New England and certainly above everyone save for Amherst.
Quote from: pjunito on January 25, 2014, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: toad22 on January 25, 2014, 09:45:42 PM
Bowdoin, as good a season as they are having, should not be ranked ahead of Williams.
I know it was November... but I can't get the image of losing to Southern Vermont out of my head.
A game on November 15 will count just as much as a game on February 15.
I would have to agree with nescac1. Don't want to, but the truth is WPI is in the exact same position that MIT was a couple of years back. At that time I took them to task for not stepping up and scheduling the traditional big power teams in the NE. Come on ADs & Coaches, it is time to step up and have some games the whole country will be talking about. how much fun would it be for WPI to play Amherst or Williams. Hell, Springfield played them both a couple of years ago.
WPI has hit the top 5 for the second year in a row. Time to get a game with Amherst, Williams, Middlebury..... I realize it is impossible to predict in any given year when schedules are created who will be one of the top dogs in the region, but let us at least try. The is no real excuse why this cannot happen. If you want to be considered on of the elite programs, then play some elite programs. I mean really, RPI & Newbury? Those were the two new teams the Engineers picked up on their schedule following what was argueably their best regular season and being ranked in the top 6 from Week 7 through 13.
Give Sam Longwell credit in the way he has stepped up to be the scoring threat that was lost when Copolla went down. He has been the top scorer in 10 of the engineer's 17 games (17.8 ppg) and is also leading the team in rebounding (6.2 rpg). Also, Dom Mastascusa has come up with some big games when the team has needed it. Ryan Kolb has been steady playing the PF slot.
The team is winning which is the bottom line, but I have also seen some bad coaching and on court decision making that has helped the Engineers as well. I just beleive that the team would be better prepared for the NCAAs if they tested their mettle against the real elite programs, especially the NESCAC top tier.
What incentive is there for a good WPI team to schedule up?
The way the tournament bids come down, a 23-3 squad with a terrible schedule is still more likely to get a Pool C bid after a first round conference tournament loss than a 20-6 team with a good schedule.
They've already got a reputation. Go 24-1 every year and enjoy your national tournament.
It may not be great for the game or for player development, but it's good for the program to be in the tournament every year.
I want to see them schedule up, but you also have to realize that a team like WPI isn't exactly high on anyone's radar as an opponent either.
First off - everybody slow down with the scheduling up talk. Last year WPI had 7 tourney teams on their schedule. The year before that when they did not get an at large - they had played 9 teams that got in the big tourney and beat 7 of them! This year (I think) 6 teams were in the tournament last year and virtually all of them are having down years (so yes this year the schedule is very very weak). I do not know why WPI and Amherst or Williams or Midd have stopped playing - but I do not think it is a one way street. Until very recently (I'd say the last 2 years) - it was sort of a no win situation for the NESCAC big 3 - one of those - bad if you lose, but expected if you win.
As far as the rankings - be careful about comparing schools to the last 5 years - this is a ranking for this year. While I believe Amherst would likely win a best of 7 series against WPI, that does not mean they should be ranked higher. Neutral site - 7 games - does anyone here really thing Witchita State would beat Kansas 4 out of 7? I sure don't - but I would have them ranked higher right now until proven otherwise.
Hoops Fan - ranking WPI 5 in the Northeast is silly. Watch a game - judge this team (this year). If you are basing it on the Tufts score - remember that was an 18 point game with 5 minutes left - to Tufts credit - they battled back (yes with out their big player I know).
I'd say the most likely outcome of the season is WPI posting a gaudy record, winning 1 NCAA game and then losing a tough second rounder to Dickinson or Magnus or Purchase or someone of that ilk. But until then - I am going to enjoy the ride.
PS - I have to stop writing or someone will mistake this for a NESCAC post ;D
Quote from: WPI89 on January 28, 2014, 09:36:45 AM
First off - everybody slow down with the scheduling up talk. Last year WPI had 7 tourney teams on their schedule. The year before that when they did not get an at large - they had played 9 teams that got in the big tourney and beat 7 of them! This year (I think) 6 teams were in the tournament last year and virtually all of them are having down years (so yes this year the schedule is very very weak). I do not know why WPI and Amherst or Williams or Midd have stopped playing - but I do not think it is a one way street. Until very recently (I'd say the last 2 years) - it was sort of a no win situation for the NESCAC big 3 - one of those - bad if you lose, but expected if you win.
As far as the rankings - be careful about comparing schools to the last 5 years - this is a ranking for this year. While I believe Amherst would likely win a best of 7 series against WPI, that does not mean they should be ranked higher. Neutral site - 7 games - does anyone here really thing Witchita State would beat Kansas 4 out of 7? I sure don't - but I would have them ranked higher right now until proven otherwise.
Hoops Fan - ranking WPI 5 in the Northeast is silly. Watch a game - judge this team (this year). If you are basing it on the Tufts score - remember that was an 18 point game with 5 minutes left - to Tufts credit - they battled back (yes with out their big player I know).
I'd say the most likely outcome of the season is WPI posting a gaudy record, winning 1 NCAA game and then losing a tough second rounder to Dickinson or Magnus or Purchase or someone of that ilk. But until then - I am going to enjoy the ride.
PS - I have to stop writing or someone will mistake this for a NESCAC post ;D
Please be more specific. Lengthy posts are primarily an Amherst thing.
WPI, I completely agree with everything you said.
The best part of college basketball is that it isn't a series.. It is a one game playoff. Anyone can win any game. Winning 20 games is a tough thing to do any year.. so Kudos to WPI for approaching another 20 win year.
I think we are giving the NESCAC a little too much credit this year. I don't think Mid is as good as they were a few years ago. I think Williams is not as good as people think they are. They have one impressive win.
I can't wait until next Wednesday to see what the rankings look like.
PPS: My rankings
1) WPI
2) Amherst (I would be fine with them up 1 but had to make my point)
3) Williams
4) Magnus - saw them in person last week against Elms. Very deep - 9 guys play major minutes - zero defense but on any given night could beat anybody
5) Babson/Bowden
WPI 89 .... Nice to hear from you in your latest post. Some emotions :). Still, should not pick on your elders ;D. Personally, I have moved away from polls of all kind. The final polls, regional ones are the important ones...to determine post season selection and where one goes to play the first NCAA game. I think several of the earlier posters on the subject were really saying that the SOS of WPI may hurt their post season placement.
Me, I am even planning on the possibility of Amherst going to WPI for a game...it happened before.
See some of the my earlier posts on the NEWMAC board. Of course, I expect Amherst to prevail in the game. :)
Middhoops...I think WPI's post was directed at Amherst since Panthernation has left the scene.
WPI.. you are right Albertus plays 0 defense... But I think it is because they are more concerned with scoring at this point... They have the players who can play defense when they want. Interesting to see how their defense is in late February.
Quote from: WPI89 on January 28, 2014, 10:07:14 AM
PPS: My rankings
1) WPI
2) Amherst (I would be fine with them up 1 but had to make my point)
3) Williams
4) Magnus - saw them in person last week against Elms. Very deep - 9 guys play major minutes - zero defense but on any given night could beat anybody
5) Babson/Bowden
WPI, albertus played that elms game without their top player and preseason all American honorable mention Darius Watson. Think they woulda looked a little more impressive had he played
I see I got a couple of dings - that should help my street cred if I breakdown in Worcester and have to walk to Harrington!
Amh63 - funny that when the schedules came out - I took a shot at Amherst's soft schedule and it is going to turn out that WPI's opponents are even softer this year! Will be a fun next 4 weeks and then all the tourneys.
I do believe the time Amherst came to WPI was because of the male/female conflict up at Amherst. You guys were a clear favorite even at our gym. Love to see you this year, but if both team's keep winning - maybe that wouldn't have to be until a 3rd round game?
Lots of hops yet to be played.
GNAC - I am aware and should have mentioned they were playing without Watson - and I was duly impressed - the game was NEVER in doubt and you got the clear impression that Magnus could score at will. I am a Magnus follower as Coach Oliver did some youth AAU coaching that involved my kids. The program is great to watch - they have a very definitive style and will be a nightmare matchup.
Punto - yes they are certainly athletic enough to play excellent D - quite frankly, I really hope they get one of the NESCAC teams in a potential second round game and not WPI.......but that is looking waaaay to far ahead.
WPI...
I don't want to play WPI early.. I like you guys.. lol.
I think this Albertus team will fair better against a NESCAC team (outside of Amherst) then the 2012 team versus Midd. I think it would be fun to play one of them if Albertus makes it to a second round or any round for that matter.
WPI,
Coach Oliver is recruiting your kids at a young age, sendem on over when they graduate high school lol
1. Amherst
2. Albertus Magnus
3. WPI
4. Williams
5. Bowdoin
6. Babson
7. MIT
8. ECSU
9. Springfield/Middlebury
10. Johnson and Wales
WPI89
I did not mean to raise the ire of the group, I was just trying to be fair since I got on MIT a couple of years back where outside the conference they were not scheduling much different than the years when they were doormats. You know I support the Engineers wholeheartedly, but it is time for them to push forward and take that next step. I want to see them break through the second round barrier and go even further. The experience of playing teams that have been consistently getting to the Sweet 16 and beyond can only help. To be honest, how would losing to one of the big 3 or 4 of the NESCAC hurt (as opposed to losing to Castleton)?
While winning 20+ and then bowing out in the 2nd round is still a very good year, the goal now should be to compete for the national title (Bartley has even stated this on the Hoopsville show a couple of times over the past few years), especially when you are being looked at from the eyes of the poll voters as a team that is now in that discussion again. Why would you settle for losing your 2nd game in the tournament?
"What incentive is there for a good WPI team to schedule up?"
The experience of playing these high-caliber programs can only help a team in that is looking to go deep into March. I would say over the last few years that Williams, Amherst & Middlebury have definitely benefited from playing each other.
So I guess my question would be, what is the harm that would come from WPI playing an Amherst,Williams...etc. Williams lost to Amherst the first time and dropped from 5th to 10th, after the second loss they fell from 9th to 11th. These losses have not destroyed the Ephs season. If you fear that losing to another top club in your region is going to damage your chances at getting an at large bid, then I would say you are certainly not serious about contending for a national title.
Even in D1, we see more and of the best teams playing each other. I do realize that the single biggest driving factor is money at that level, but be honest, would you sit down and watch Duke, Kansas, or Michigan St. play Florida Atlantic or Towson? Or would you rather see Duke Vs Michigan St or Kansas Vs Kentucky?
Also before I forget, Congratulations to Sam Longwell for being named NEWMAC Player of the Week. He is the first WPI player to garner the award this season. Sam is having a fantastic season and should be POY if he keeps this up.
I think WPI is probably at a level where it makes sense for Amherst or Williams to play them, although WPI is going to have to make the offer. The NESCAC will not come calling.
At the same time, Pool C selection is a big deal. There are many years where top teams get left out because of freak losses. The difference between D1 and D3 is that they've got 36 at-large bids; we have less than 20, with 100 extra teams to choose from.
It benefits WPI for everyone to assume they're a top two team in the region, rather than knowing they're really 4th or 5th.
I recognize what you've said about contending for the title, and it's always a possibility (I would have had them #1 in the region this year with Coppola), but I think there's still one more step in the process. You've got to show long-term dominance beyond the second round. They need a resume of second weekend play - and beyond just one recruiting class.
Everyone is downright shocked if Amherst doesn't make it out of the first weekend - no matter who they match up with. People might say a first weekend WPI loss is an upset, but they're not yet at the level of perennial power.
I hope they get there; they're very close. The more teams in the region with a national profile the better.
Hoops - I agree with almost all of what you said. Amherst is certainly the exception - being defending national champs. But the difference this year for Williams, Midd, or Bowdoin getting a pool C just might be a win against a team exactly like WPI...................at least 1 if not 2 or 3 of them will wish they came a callin'.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on January 29, 2014, 08:21:19 PM
At the same time, Pool C selection is a big deal. There are many years where top teams get left out because of freak losses. The difference between D1 and D3 is that they've got 36 at-large bids; we have less than 20, with 100 extra teams to choose from.
Why is the D3 tournament 61 or 62 teams, rather than a full 64 team bracket? Those few extra bids would make a big difference to teams on the bubble.
All NCAA tournaments except Division I basketball and maybe one or two others have the bides based on 6.5 teams eligible to 1 bid. Thus Division III women's basketball has 64 bids and men's basketball has 62 because women have more teams.
By the way, once they hit 64... even if the 6.5 ratio indicates adding bids... the NCAA will not. 64 is the max.
Which is stupid as it screws up alot of sports. Hockey for example has 11 bids which is a logistical nightmare. They should be able to go to 12 or 16 to make things easier. Basketball makes more sense at 64. I understand not wanting to water down the field, but they should keep the tournaments to powers of 2 to make it easier all around.
Quote from: jackson5 on January 30, 2014, 11:56:37 PM
Which is stupid as it screws up alot of sports. Hockey for example has 11 bids which is a logistical nightmare. They should be able to go to 12 or 16 to make things easier. Basketball makes more sense at 64. I understand not wanting to water down the field, but they should keep the tournaments to powers of 2 to make it easier all around.
It's all about the money. They run the whole of Division III on about 3.5% of the money raised from the D1 men's basketball tournament - that's not just basketball, but every sport, men and women.
Money matters to the NCAA. One extra team traveling cost more money. A strange, mixed-up schedule is inconvenient, but it doesn't cost them any more.
We'll get to 64 soon, I suspect. There are always more teams in the pipeline.
Just remember the ratio: 6.5 teams to 1 tournament team. It is the ratio used in almost every NCAA tournament in all divisions.
Women are at 64 (and will not get bigger) because they have more teams than the men... men are at 62 and will grow in the next few years to 64.
Thought I heard/read that the first regional rankings were to come out yesterday? Perhaps delayed because of weather?
Anyone have info?
Believe its 2/12 they come out
Gotcha - thanks.
The first ones are 2/12... followed by the 19th and 26th.
Can't wait for the first regional rankings!!!
1 Amherst 20-2 20-3
2 Williams 18-3 19-3
3 Bowdoin 18-3 18-3
4 Babson 16-5 16-5
5 Eastern Connecticut 16-5 16-5
6 WPI 18-3 18-3
7 Springfield 15-5 16-5
8 Albertus Magnus 19-1 19-2
9 Rhode Island 14-7 14-7
10 Nichols 16-5 16-5
11 midd
I totally disagree with albertus being 8. Purchase is one in their regional. Albertus has a higher Massey then everyone in their region after Williams, Amherst, and Bowdoin I believe. It's ok though, that's why they play the games.
Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/12/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-1/
Needless to say I'm pretty shocked Eastern is above both Albertus & WPI. I don't think the LEC is better than the NEWMAC is, and besides sweeping RIC (who are terrible this year) who else have they beaten??
All 3 have gaudy records, but play in bad conferences (both the NEWMAC & LEC are down this year). While Eastern scheduled tough (Purchase, Carthage, Amherst) their 0-3 in marquee games, while AMC (a win over #1 Atlantic Purchase) and WPI (a 4 point home win over #4 NE Babson) have just those wins and nothing else. Granted, the region in general sucks this year (14-7 RIC is 9th????? Really????) and someone has to be ranked 5th, but when there's a significant drop off between 1 & 2 (Amherst & Williams) and the rest of the region, I'd give those spots to teams with winning %, and go from there.
I mean look at Bowdoin who's #3. All they have this year is a win over Babson, as they've failed in their NESCAC matchups (but they'll probably have another chance in the quarters and or semi's). Let's say they play Mid in the 4/5 game and then lose to Amherst in the semifinals. Sure, the Polar Bears have had a nice year and all, but I wouldn't be even remotely confident in the P'Bears making the field in that scenario. I would EASILY take the 3 SUYNAC teams (Geneseo/Brockport & Plattsburgh) before I took anyone else from NE after selecting the Amherst/Williams loser, and that's just 1 region.
7 point on as usual. I'm scratching my head.
You need to take the SOS into consideration.
AMC: .468 (that's bad)
Bowdoin: .541 (good)
Eastern Connecticut: .559 (solid)
WPI: .515 (eh at best)
Also, quality wins and all of the other data. Overall records represent just one part of the criteria.
Regional rankings yet again make little to no sense. These things are useless.
Well they aren't useless... it determines who makes the tournament when the final, fourth regional rankings are complete.
Dave a after a certain point SOS of schedule should only mean so much. No offense to east conn bc their fans are great on the boards and root for them as long as they aren't playing amc. But they've lost most of their games that makes their SOS strong. Including purchase who they lost to easily. A team albertus beat by 7. I understand SOS but at the same time I don't. What about Massey rating? Albertus is higher then most on their region. Better question, what is your northeast regional rankings Dave? We all respect you and your coverage, id love to hear your top 10
Quote from: AllStar on February 12, 2014, 04:33:34 PM
Regional rankings yet again make little to no sense. These things are useless.
Can't say I disagree
The only thing I can think of (and it doesn't include math, numbers, computers, whatever) is that the committee thinks along the lines of, "would a genuine sweet 16 team ever lose to someone like St Joe's of Maine by 20?" They think not obviously and while I'm a believer in AMC, I can't really blame them at this point, especially after a squeaker win over Anna Maria. If Albertus takes care of business I think they'll push up little by little. And like I said previously, this is already the highest they've been ranked in region publicly (don't know where they ended up 2 seasons ago in the final rankings).
First of all, Massey means nothing just like the Top 25 means nothing in the eyes of the NCAA. Massey has his own way of figuring things out and he can't discount non-Division III games in his algorithm.
SOS has just as strong a position as the win/loss percentage. In fact, my source pointed out that the committees are really challenged by dealing with head-to-head versus entire resume questions... along with a gaudy record compared to a really low SOS. It isn't cut and dry, but to ignore the fact a team has a .468 SOS isn't fair to the team that has a .590.
Here is the deal, yes a team who has played a tough SOS and has more losses is probably going to be rewarded more... why? They have played a tougher schedule. If they were playing a weak schedule, they probably wouldn't have the same number of losses. You can't just say the team with a one-loss record by beating nearly every sisters-of-the-poor school is automatically better than a team that plays in a far better conference and challenges themselves out of the conference. That being said, there is a line and a team in the Northeast region with an SOS .578 SOS is not regionally ranked because they have 9 losses!
As for my top ten... I hadn't really thought about it because I wasn't really sure of the SOS numbers, but I probably would go like this:
1 - Amherst
2 - Williams
3 - Bowdoin
4 - Babson
5 - WPI
6 - Springfield
7 - Eastern Connecticut
8 - Albertus Magnus
And so on... of course, I am only doing this quickly and working with WP, SOS and some other basic info I happen to know or can look up quickly.
Dave, I get the SOS argument, but as GNAC said if you lose all the games that pumped up that SOS (Carthage, Amherst & Purchase) what's the point?? I wouldn't cared if Albertus played 10 games against the Kansas school for the blind, 10 games against the Utah school for the deaf, and 5 games against Florida agricultural university, they're 19-1 against division 3 opponents AND have a win over Purchase while Eastern is only 16-5 vs. division 3 opponents and LOST to Purchase. That should count for something.
I think Albertus' VERY narrow road loss to a D1 team should count for SOMETHING -- I know that is not an "official" criteria, but when evaluating the true strength of a team, that, to me, signals that Albertus is more talented than some of the past Albertus teams and when on can probably play with other very good D3 teams. I certainly think they deserved to be ranked a few spots higher ...
It does count for something... but hard to outweigh a .091 different in SOS. That is a MONSTER difference that can't be ignored.
Remember, there isn't a formula that says one piece of data is more important than another... also the regional committees are allowed to consider who the teams are within reason. AMC has a very, very week SOS number. So weak that it screams the fact if they don't win their conference they are not making the NCAA tournament. That can't be ignored.
Remember also, next week vRRO comes into play and that could help AMC with their game against Purchase... or it may not help them at all because it will point out they are not playing anyone of any standing in their conference or their out of conference schedule.
Also remember, these rankings really mean nothing after this week. It will help with vRRO for next week, but after that they are meaningless. It is a base-line for everyone.
By the way, their game against a D1 school actually means NOTHING in the eyes of the NCAA unless we are looking at them for an at-large bid and they are into secondary criteria and then it only adds a loss to their record, nothing more. Playing a D1 team is nice for many reasons, but it means nothing when it comes to the NCAA.
The eye test should be a big factor too. To me it seems these rankings are based on numbers only. Eye test should count for a little something too. Often these rankings never seem all that accurate honestly.
First of all, the eye test is not part of the criteria... but the regional committees are allowed to take into account what they know about the region, if a team is dealing with injuries, etc. if they think a result has something behind it. But again... eye test is not written into the criteria just as it isn't in Division I.
And how do you determine accurate? AMC has one loss on a SOS that would indicate if they were that good they would be undefeated. AMC's SOS would have teams like Amherst, Williams, etc. undefeated, would it not? Their SOS indicates if they played the schedules of any of the teams ahead of them, they would have more losses.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 12, 2014, 04:44:32 PM
First of all, Massey means nothing just like the Top 25 means nothing in the eyes of the NCAA. Massey has his own way of figuring things out and he can't discount non-Division III games in his algorithm.
SOS has just as strong a position as the win/loss percentage. In fact, my source pointed out that the committees are really challenged by dealing with head-to-head versus entire resume questions... along with a gaudy record compared to a really low SOS. It isn't cut and dry, but to ignore the fact a team has a .468 SOS isn't fair to the team that has a .590.
Here is the deal, yes a team who has played a tough SOS and has more losses is probably going to be rewarded more... why? They have played a tougher schedule. If they were playing a weak schedule, they probably wouldn't have the same number of losses. You can't just say the team with a one-loss record by beating nearly every sisters-of-the-poor school is automatically better than a team that plays in a far better conference and challenges themselves out of the conference. That being said, there is a line and a team in the Northeast region with an SOS .578 SOS is not regionally ranked because they have 9 losses!
As for my top ten... I hadn't really thought about it because I wasn't really sure of the SOS numbers, but I probably would go like this:
1 - Amherst
2 - Williams
3 - Bowdoin
4 - Babson
5 - WPI
6 - Springfield
7 - Eastern Connecticut
8 - Albertus Magnus
And so on... of course, I am only doing this quickly and working with WP, SOS and some other basic info I happen to know or can look up quickly.
Well first things first, I never said Massey was in the process, nor did I imply. I'm bringing up Massey as a disagreeance with these rankings. As far as your top 10 regional rankings, I'm a little confused I guess. Albertus is ranked lower then teams you have them higher then in your top 25. I know the difference in the two, but wanted your personal rankings based off results and personal opinion. And I'm not trying to come off as an a$$, but I respectfully disagree with your rankings.
I have to say I agree with DMac. It would not be fair to the many other great teams in the northeast that took on challenging opponents to rank Albertus Magnus any higher. Yes they have a fantastic record. But that really means nothing when most of their wins are against the worst teams in the northeast. Now I'm not saying AMC isn't a solid team. They've certainly caught national attention for their clean record. But they're completely untested. If they were really trying to compete in region and make a run, why not schedule a harder non-conference? It's a shame teams like WPI and AMC have taken the easy road in the non-conference padding their record with meaningless wins. You gotta hand it to teams like Amherst, Williams, and Babson for taking on a much harder non-conference and pulling through relatively unscathed (not suggesting Babson is as good as Amherst but their tough schedule sure paid off for them). That's what great teams do. They're not afraid to play great teams because they know they can match up. Shouldn't we reward them for that? Yes E Connecticut is a bit of an outlier, but other than that, I think they've got the top right. And who says the NEWMAC is down this year? Aside from Wheaton and Coast Guard, all had a great non-conference showing. I'd say they're much deeper than years past even though WPI is arguably less strong without Coppola.
Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 12, 2014, 05:39:50 PM
I have to say I agree with DMac. It would not be fair to the many other great teams in the northeast that took on challenging opponents to rank Albertus Magnus any higher. Yes they have a fantastic record. But that really means nothing when most of their wins are against the worst teams in the northeast. Now I'm not saying AMC isn't a solid team. They've certainly caught national attention for their clean record. But they're completely untested. If they were really trying to compete in region and make a run, why not schedule a harder non-conference? It's a shame teams like WPI and AMC have taken the easy road in the non-conference padding their record with meaningless wins. You gotta hand it to teams like Amherst, Williams, and Babson for taking on a much harder non-conference and pulling through relatively unscathed (not suggesting Babson is as good as Amherst but their tough schedule sure paid off for them). That's what great teams do. They're not afraid to play great teams because they know they can match up. Shouldn't we reward them for that? Yes E Connecticut is a bit of an outlier, but other than that, I think they've got the top right. And who says the NEWMAC is down this year? Aside from Wheaton and Coast Guard, all had a great non-conference showing. I'd say they're much deeper than years past even though WPI is arguably less strong without Coppola.
I don't think albertus goes into their schedule looking to pad it. In fact the reason their schedule is so weak is mainly bc their conference which they do not choose if course. Purchase was a top 15 team in the nation, they played Elms, central which is d1. They played an in state tourney to start the yr in which the host is one 1 in their conference. They use to play west conn every yr, not sure why that had stopped. But let's not think albertus pads their schedule. They just simply aren't in a good conference. I'm not saying albertus should be 1, or 2. Heckled is be ok with 5, but 8? I just disagree. And I disagree they pad their schedule as well, that to me is non sense
Awful typos, my apologies
This comes down to the point we've talked about before...What benefit do higher ranked teams get out of playing the likes of WPI and Albertus? If they win, oh they beat a GNAC team big whoop. If they lose it becomes a huge blemish. This is easily Albertus' toughest non conference schedule since I've been paying attention.
There are two ways to get up in the rankings - great tournament performances and stronger SOS. If you can prove in the tournament that you have a solid team despite a weaker SOS, I think you are going to get the benefit of the doubt. If you haven't proven anything with a deep tournament run, then SOS is you only other option to try and gain some leverage. AMC has done neither of those two things to date. I'm surprised by how low they are but I can understand what the logic is at this point. Had they gone deeper over the past few years in the tournament they probably would have gotten more of the benefit of the doubt.
Keep in mind though, of the 7 teams ahead of them at least 4 of them are guaranteed to lose another game. Six of the teams (Am/Wi/Bo - Bab/WPI/Sprin) will be playing in conference tournaments where there can be only one winner. It is possible that if AMC wins out they could pass up a couple of those teams that drop a game.
And like GNAC said, I'm not looking for 1st or 2nd...I actually think they're Ok where they are, but don't say they avoid a tough schedule. You think after getting to the dance 3 out of 5 years they wouldn't want a tougher schedule to A. battle test them and B. If they navigate positively it could help them if they slip up in conference? Coach Oliver was a D1 assistant. I'm sure he's well aware of SOS.
Alas, I'll wait and see how the upcoming ratings turn out!
I finally got in and to my computer. When GNAC texted me that Albertus was 8. I thought he was pulling my leg. I could understand 6. But, no way should Eastern and Springfield be ahead of Albertus. I don't understand why there is a committee, just stick the SOS into the computer and you will get your regional ranking every week and every year. Why bother having a human involved at all? Since they can't use the eye test! I have a few thoughts.. Does the regional committee take out of conference SOS into consideration? Here is why I bring that up. The GNAC is weak..
Albertus GNAC opponents have a 81-113 record.. that might bring a SOS down a bit.... Out of conference, a respectable 75-60, oh by the way, only one of those games was played at home.
Springfield NEWMAC opponents have a 89-63 record... Out of Conference 121-118.. Of course their SOS will be much higher than Albertus... Even a non MIT grad can do that math.
SOS is the most over-rated criteria in making this selection. Albertus lost one game this year, it was at St. Joseph of Maine and was ugly. But, a win at St. Joe's would have actually hurt their SOS therefore not helping their cause to move up in the region. Now tell me, how does that make any sense?
Now Babson has a much better out of conference record - 139-98 but, lost every out of conference game they played agaisnt a very good opponent. Their best win was vs WPI (which everyone is attacking their SOS and of course they lost a few players).
I don't think anyone thinks Albertus should be top 3.. But, I am confused by the process. If Babson losses 2 more games and Albertus wins out in regular season, do they move up? Are wins versus Norwich, Emmanual, and at JWU really that impressive? surely they won't help SOS, since Nowrich is 5-17 and Emmanual 4-18, even though JWU has a respectable 17-5 record.
Someone has to explain this to me...
Since I don't have to work tomorrow, I'll be here all night.
Couple of things:
- Playing games on the road has a weighted advantage of 1.25... thus AMC is being rewarded for playing those games away from home... but , their SOS is .468.
- Playing a D1 team... makes no difference at all. It is secondary criteria at best, but will count as another loss and won't be used when comparing to another D3 team since no one else played Central Connecticut. In other words... it is a non-game.
- Past tournament history actually has no bearing on current regional rankings. It isn't part of the criteria and coaches don't consider it.
- SOS isn't overrated since it is used in all of the NCAA Division III. That is the criteria Division III as a whole has determined to include in all of its sports. You may not like it, but it is a far cry from QOWI or the old boys network.
- There is a lot more criteria than SOS and W/L percentage. Look at the entire body of work and the entire criteria and a lot of your answers will reveal themselves.
- If AMC had beaten St. Joe's they would be undefeated in Division III play and that would probably have moved them up the regional rankings (we see good records outweighing weak SOSs in other regions). In reality, their "result" of losing to St. Joe's is worse for their criteria than their weak SOS.
AMC's SOS will climb by default as they finished conference play and it may climb a little higher after conference tournament action, but to fall back and say they can't schedule better is kidding one's self. Just two games again solid competition would improve their position.
I was asked to give my top ten in the region and I assumed since this was a regional ranking conversation that is what I was being asked to. If you are curious what my overall impression is, you know my Top 25 ballot which gives you the answer you are looking for (look at a few weeks worth if need be).
Beating St. Joe's or losing to St. Joe's has no effect on Albertus' SOS. SJCME's SOS is calculated after removing the Albertus results.
Quote from: madzillagd on February 12, 2014, 05:58:27 PM
There are two ways to get up in the rankings - great tournament performances and stronger SOS. If you can prove in the tournament that you have a solid team despite a weaker SOS, I think you are going to get the benefit of the doubt. If you haven't proven anything with a deep tournament run, then SOS is you only other option to try and gain some leverage. AMC has done neither of those two things to date. I'm surprised by how low they are but I can understand what the logic is at this point. Had they gone deeper over the past few years in the tournament they probably would have gotten more of the benefit of the doubt.
Keep in mind though, of the 7 teams ahead of them at least 4 of them are guaranteed to lose another game. Six of the teams (Am/Wi/Bo - Bab/WPI/Sprin) will be playing in conference tournaments where there can be only one winner. It is possible that if AMC wins out they could pass up a couple of those teams that drop a game.
Why would previous tournaments have to do with this yrs regional rankings? And if that's the case albertus has been to the second round twice in last 4 yrs. mucho retched Springfield, Babson, and ECSU. So not really understanding that one
Quote from: pjunito on February 12, 2014, 11:50:19 PM
I finally got in and to my computer. When GNAC texted me that Albertus was 8. I thought he was pulling my leg. I could understand 6. But, no way should Eastern and Springfield be ahead of Albertus. I don't understand why there is a committee, just stick the SOS into the computer and you will get your regional ranking every week and every year. Why bother having a human involved at all? Since they can't use the eye test! I have a few thoughts.. Does the regional committee take out of conference SOS into consideration? Here is why I bring that up. The GNAC is weak..
Albertus GNAC opponents have a 81-113 record.. that might bring a SOS down a bit.... Out of conference, a respectable 75-60, oh by the way, only one of those games was played at home.
Springfield NEWMAC opponents have a 89-63 record... Out of Conference 121-118.. Of course their SOS will be much higher than Albertus... Even a non MIT grad can do that math.
SOS is the most over-rated criteria in making this selection. Albertus lost one game this year, it was at St. Joseph of Maine and was ugly. But, a win at St. Joe's would have actually hurt their SOS therefore not helping their cause to move up in the region. Now tell me, how does that make any sense?
Now Babson has a much better out of conference record - 139-98 but, lost every out of conference game they played agaisnt a very good opponent. Their best win was vs WPI (which everyone is attacking their SOS and of course they lost a few players).
I don't think anyone thinks Albertus should be top 3.. But, I am confused by the process. If Babson losses 2 more games and Albertus wins out in regular season, do they move up? Are wins versus Norwich, Emmanual, and at JWU really that impressive? surely they won't help SOS, since Nowrich is 5-17 and Emmanual 4-18, even though JWU has a respectable 17-5 record.
Someone has to explain this to me...
Since I don't have to work tomorrow, I'll be here all night.
Great points pj. "Even an non MIT grad can do that math." lol
I appreciate everyone's insight. Some points I don't understand, a I have stated. But either way that is why they play the games. I enjoy the arguments and opinions none the less
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2014, 12:41:01 AM
Couple of things:
- Playing games on the road has a weighted advantage of 1.25... thus AMC is being rewarded for playing those games away from home... but , their SOS is .468.
- Playing a D1 team... makes no difference at all. It is secondary criteria at best, but will count as another loss and won't be used when comparing to another D3 team since no one else played Central Connecticut. In other words... it is a non-game.
- Past tournament history actually has no bearing on current regional rankings. It isn't part of the criteria and coaches don't consider it.
- SOS isn't overrated since it is used in all of the NCAA Division III. That is the criteria Division III as a whole has determined to include in all of its sports. You may not like it, but it is a far cry from QOWI or the old boys network.
- There is a lot more criteria than SOS and W/L percentage. Look at the entire body of work and the entire criteria and a lot of your answers will reveal themselves.
- If AMC had beaten St. Joe's they would be undefeated in Division III play and that would probably have moved them up the regional rankings (we see good records outweighing weak SOSs in other regions). In reality, their "result" of losing to St. Joe's is worse for their criteria than their weak SOS.
AMC's SOS will climb by default as they finished conference play and it may climb a little higher after conference tournament action, but to fall back and say they can't schedule better is kidding one's self. Just two games again solid competition would improve their position.
I was asked to give my top ten in the region and I assumed since this was a regional ranking conversation that is what I was being asked to. If you are curious what my overall impression is, you know my Top 25 ballot which gives you the answer you are looking for (look at a few weeks worth if need be).
I should have read everyone's posting before posting myself. I didn't think past tourney history made any sense at all, so thanks for clearing that up. I was really scratching my head at that point
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2014, 12:41:01 AM
Couple of things:
- Playing games on the road has a weighted advantage of 1.25... thus AMC is being rewarded for playing those games away from home... but , their SOS is .468.
- Playing a D1 team... makes no difference at all. It is secondary criteria at best, but will count as another loss and won't be used when comparing to another D3 team since no one else played Central Connecticut. In other words... it is a non-game.
- Past tournament history actually has no bearing on current regional rankings. It isn't part of the criteria and coaches don't consider it.
- SOS isn't overrated since it is used in all of the NCAA Division III. That is the criteria Division III as a whole has determined to include in all of its sports. You may not like it, but it is a far cry from QOWI or the old boys network.
- There is a lot more criteria than SOS and W/L percentage. Look at the entire body of work and the entire criteria and a lot of your answers will reveal themselves.
- If AMC had beaten St. Joe's they would be undefeated in Division III play and that would probably have moved them up the regional rankings (we see good records outweighing weak SOSs in other regions). In reality, their "result" of losing to St. Joe's is worse for their criteria than their weak SOS.
AMC's SOS will climb by default as they finished conference play and it may climb a little higher after conference tournament action, but to fall back and say they can't schedule better is kidding one's self. Just two games again solid competition would improve their position.
I was asked to give my top ten in the region and I assumed since this was a regional ranking conversation that is what I was being asked to. If you are curious what my overall impression is, you know my Top 25 ballot which gives you the answer you are looking for (look at a few weeks worth if need be).
New Jersey city was on the schedule as well, and after starting off hot have cooled down. Again you can sit here and say we are falling back on the scheduling and that's your opinion. But it's not a fact that albertus chose to play a weak schedule. With elms(make no mistake has been a solid program in new england the last 7 yrs but is having a down yr at 13-11), New Jersey city, purchase, and Mitchell it's not as if we are playing high schools here. So I disagree with your opinion that we are falling back on the schedule. Maybe next time coach Oliver is on hoopsville this question can be asked since it may seem that way to you. I'm sure he would love to answwer that for us.
Quote from: pjunito on February 12, 2014, 11:50:19 PM
I finally got in and to my computer. When GNAC texted me that Albertus was 8. I thought he was pulling my leg. I could understand 6. But, no way should Eastern and Springfield be ahead of Albertus. I don't understand why there is a committee, just stick the SOS into the computer and you will get your regional ranking every week and every year. Why bother having a human involved at all? Since they can't use the eye test! I have a few thoughts.. Does the regional committee take out of conference SOS into consideration? Here is why I bring that up. The GNAC is weak..
Albertus GNAC opponents have a 81-113 record.. that might bring a SOS down a bit.... Out of conference, a respectable 75-60, oh by the way, only one of those games was played at home.
Springfield NEWMAC opponents have a 89-63 record... Out of Conference 121-118.. Of course their SOS will be much higher than Albertus... Even a non MIT grad can do that math.
SOS is the most over-rated criteria in making this selection. Albertus lost one game this year, it was at St. Joseph of Maine and was ugly. But, a win at St. Joe's would have actually hurt their SOS therefore not helping their cause to move up in the region. Now tell me, how does that make any sense?
Now Babson has a much better out of conference record - 139-98 but, lost every out of conference game they played agaisnt a very good opponent. Their best win was vs WPI (which everyone is attacking their SOS and of course they lost a few players).
I don't think anyone thinks Albertus should be top 3.. But, I am confused by the process. If Babson losses 2 more games and Albertus wins out in regular season, do they move up? Are wins versus Norwich, Emmanual, and at JWU really that impressive? surely they won't help SOS, since Nowrich is 5-17 and Emmanual 4-18, even though JWU has a respectable 17-5 record.
Someone has to explain this to me...
Since I don't have to work tomorrow, I'll be here all night.
Now not to be nitpicking but Babson won every out of conference game they played except for Bowdoin (away) and Amherst (who was back for revenge because Babson beat them last year). But they beat many quality teams with strong records. So not really getting your argument. AMC's out of conference does not even compare. Look at the records of both teams opponents.
Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 13, 2014, 09:09:12 AM
Quote from: pjunito on February 12, 2014, 11:50:19 PM
I finally got in and to my computer. When GNAC texted me that Albertus was 8. I thought he was pulling my leg. I could understand 6. But, no way should Eastern and Springfield be ahead of Albertus. I don't understand why there is a committee, just stick the SOS into the computer and you will get your regional ranking every week and every year. Why bother having a human involved at all? Since they can't use the eye test! I have a few thoughts.. Does the regional committee take out of conference SOS into consideration? Here is why I bring that up. The GNAC is weak..
Albertus GNAC opponents have a 81-113 record.. that might bring a SOS down a bit.... Out of conference, a respectable 75-60, oh by the way, only one of those games was played at home.
Springfield NEWMAC opponents have a 89-63 record... Out of Conference 121-118.. Of course their SOS will be much higher than Albertus... Even a non MIT grad can do that math.
SOS is the most over-rated criteria in making this selection. Albertus lost one game this year, it was at St. Joseph of Maine and was ugly. But, a win at St. Joe's would have actually hurt their SOS therefore not helping their cause to move up in the region. Now tell me, how does that make any sense?
Now Babson has a much better out of conference record - 139-98 but, lost every out of conference game they played agaisnt a very good opponent. Their best win was vs WPI (which everyone is attacking their SOS and of course they lost a few players).
I don't think anyone thinks Albertus should be top 3.. But, I am confused by the process. If Babson losses 2 more games and Albertus wins out in regular season, do they move up? Are wins versus Norwich, Emmanual, and at JWU really that impressive? surely they won't help SOS, since Nowrich is 5-17 and Emmanual 4-18, even though JWU has a respectable 17-5 record.
Someone has to explain this to me...
Since I don't have to work tomorrow, I'll be here all night.
Now not to be nitpicking but Babson won every out of conference game they played except for Bowdoin (away) and Amherst (who was back for revenge because Babson beat them last year). But they beat many quality teams with strong records. So not really getting your argument. AMC's out of conference does not even compare. Look at the records of both teams opponents.
11/15 vs. Thomas • W, 93-44 BX RC
11/16 vs. Skidmore • W, 78-60 BX RC
11/19 at Lasell • W, 72-68 BX RC
11/26 at Becker • W, 62-60 BX RC
12/1 at Bowdoin • L, 66-54 BX RC
12/4 at Newbury • W, 82-43 BX RC PH
12/7 at Brandeis • W, 78-47 BX RC
@ Tufts University
12/8 at Salem State • W, 101-87 BX RC
@ Tufts University
12/12 vs. Amherst • L, 90-77 BX RC RC
12/30 vs. Colorado College • W, 93-90 BX RC RC
1/4 vs. Elms •
Only teams that stand out to me are Amherst, Bowdoin, and Colorado College. 1-2 record in these games. 4 point win over lasell, who albertus beat by 31 two nights ago, newbury, and Thomas are not strong non conference games. Skidmore, Brandeis, and Salem state solid I suppose? Not even sure. Brandeis is having a down yr. don't think this schedule is anything special. Babson best win is against wpi, who everyone is also under ranking in my opinion.
I'll try and change the subject in terms of the rankings. Here's a different question. If albertus and WPI finish 6 & 7 in the rankings, and win their conferences, where does this leave them in the Ncaa's? Facing an Amherst or Williams in the second round most likely?
Pat, thanks.. Good point.
GNAC, Thank you for putting Babson's schedule up. You made my point exactly. NEFAN, the point isn't that the SOS is better because you are right it is, the point is that they went 1-2 agaisnt the good teams.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2014, 12:41:01 AM
Couple of things:
- SOS isn't overrated since it is used in all of the NCAA Division III. That is the criteria Division III as a whole has determined to include in all of its sports. You may not like it, but it is a far cry from QOWI or the old boys network.
Now, in fairness, I don't know how Dave feels about SOS. He may hate it and is just relaying accurate information to the boards. But, Dave, just because all sports in NCAA Division 3 uses SOS as a criteria doesn't mean it is not overrated. Do you know how much weight is being given to SOS? If you say 10%, then I agree with you. But, if it is like 40%, then that is way too high. And I agree, the old boys network is the worst way to selection regional rankigs.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2014, 12:41:01 AM
- If AMC had beaten St. Joe's they would be undefeated in Division III play and that would probably have moved them up the regional rankings (we see good records outweighing weak SOSs in other regions). In reality, their "result" of losing to St. Joe's is worse for their criteria than their weak SOS.
Dave, head scratching right now... I understand that 16-5 can be better than 19-1, but Springfield isn't playing in the 2006 Big East. The idea that Springfield, Babson, East Conn, would be undefeated playing the Albertus schedule is laughable at best. There is no way to know that for sure.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2014, 12:41:01 AM
AMC's SOS will climb by default as they finished conference play and it may climb a little higher after conference tournament action, but to fall back and say they can't schedule better is kidding one's self. Just two games again solid competition would improve their position.
Finally, I would love to see Albertus play tougher non conference opponents. Newbury is the only team Albertus scheduled that has a losing record. 75-60 isn't outstanding but isn't horrible. Caluclate that SOS for me Dave. 6 games (4 away, 1 neutral, and 1 at home - SUNY purchase). But, the idea that Albertus is scheduling cupcakes for out of conference is not true. One more thing, Wes, Western CT, Trinity, Conn College, and Coast Guard are not on the Albertus schedule this year. Prior to this year, From 2009-12, 4 seasons, those teams played Albertus a combine 15 times. Between 09 and 10, Albertus was 2-6, since 2010-11 seasons, Albertus is 7-0 agaisnt those teams. I doubt that Coach Oliver said no to scheduling any of those teams this year.
Pj,
Great research on albertus being 7-0 against those teams over last 2-3 yrs. I think that says it all right there. I'm sure they weren't avoided by Oliver. But again, it'd be a great question to ask Oliver on hoopsville if he gets back on. It's a fair question if everyone including Dave is questioning albertus' schedule out of conference. And I'm sure Oliver would love to answer it
Hi, guys,
This is a copy-paste of something I just posted on the NESCAC board. I was hoping to get input from non-CAC people as well, so I figured I'd put this up here as well.
I just wanted to chip in re: out-of-conference scheduling for Amherst. I know their early season schedule isn't terribly gaudy, but I've also noticed that after those first few games (Ken Wright, then small Mass. opponents - like Anna Maria, Westfield St., etc) they tend to schedule a few bruisers before conference play. I'm especially thinking of Brandeis and Babson. Both those schools seem to have somewhat competitive programs - while we don't tend to see either go deep into NCAAs, it seems like they always take Amherst down to the wire. In each of the last few years, one of those two programs has handed Amherst an early-season loss. Now, Bab/Bran aren't national powerhouses, but they match up against Amherst really well. I guess my point is that Hixon knows which programs will play Amherst tough - regardless of whether they'd be considered tough outside of that one particular game - and I feel as though he's more concerned with putting his players through tests against teams who always seem to play Amherst really close, as opposed to scheduling some marquee matchup just for the sake of having a big game on a schedule.
Does anyone agree/disagree strongly with what I've written? I am pretty happy with Amherst's schedulings the past few years - while those first few contests are "eh" competitively, the games between the beginning of the regular season and the beginning of conference play (which is probably what Hixon and co. care most about anyway...) are much tougher; at the same time, they may not be "brand" opponents (pun intended!)
Welcome Ginger!
I don't know too much about Amh scheduling the last few years, but they've been very competitive the last few years, going deep into the tournament and are defending Champions. I think they play a solid out of conference schedule, they always have top tier Little east and NEWMAC teams (on their schedule - modify). Plus, they play in the best league in the region. I think by mid February they will always play challenging games that will make them tough during the NCAA tournament.
Quote from: pjunito on February 13, 2014, 12:36:52 PM
Welcome Ginger!
I don't know too much about Amh scheduling the last few years, but they've been very competitive the last few years, going deep into the tournament and are defending Champions. I think they play a solid out of conference schedule, they always have top tier Little east and NEWMAC teams. Plus, they play in the best league in the region. I think by mid February they will always play challenging games that will make them tough during the NCAA tournament.
They play in the NESCAC?
Yes Charles, unless I'm misting something, they do
Yeah they're clearly talking about Amherst...
My bad I thought they were refering to AMC not AMH.
There is no specific weight given to any of the criteria. Comparisons to teams is different in each "match-up" when positioning. There is no hard and fast rule because what works for the first comparison may not work for the second, the third, etc. A source on the men's committee side of things has told me they are really dealing with two major issues: head-to-head results compared to a team's entire resume (you can see that debate in play in the Midwest where Wash U is #1 ahead of Illinois Wesleyan, despite the fact IWU beat Wash U head to head) and gaudy records compared to weak SOSs (you can see that in a number of places... this happens to be one place with AMC).
I like the SOS because it not only compares a team's schedule of opponents, but also evens the playing field a bit when comparing the opponents' opponents. Say a team beats someone who is 15-2... that seems great until you realize the team who is now 15-2 played 10 teams that haven't won more than five games. It gives you a sense of just how difficult or not difficult a schedule really is so teams who have gaudy records are not unduly rewarded. Is the system perfect? No, it has changed over the years and recently the NCAA has changed how the math is calculated (small difference) and I am not sure it really shows the SOS the way the men's committee wants. However, it is a far cry from the crappy QOWI (Quality of Wins Index) which was so very flawed.
As for AMC's schedule... I have actually talked to Coach Oliver about their out-of-conference schedule and I did this year as well. He pointed out how NJC was one of those games that looked like it would be good on paper, but turned out to be not so great. And we see it all the time where a schedule done 12 to 24 months in advance doesn't work the way you hope. However, there are some simple things you can do to avoid some problems. AMC scheduled Purchase and NJC... but there isn't another team on that schedule that jumps out at me. Furthermore, the NJAC and the Skyline are not exactly the best places to find a boost to your SOS. (By the way, Elms hasn't been a "power" in the Northeast Region in several years: 13-11, 18-10, 18-11. Even their 20-8 year wasn't all that great.)
AMC's schedule features games against the CUNYAC, Skyline, NJAC and the NECC in their out-of-conference play. In fact they triple-dipped in the NECC. No other conferences. And the conferences they choose are not exactly the strongest when it comes to their SOS numbers. In fact, the NECC is pretty weak and AMC has those numbers in their three times. You have to schedule better or at least schedule a team from some mid- to power conferences. One game against a NESCAC team would boost their SOS because even if they didn't play Amherst or Williams they would get the benefit of those teams playing Amherst and Williams. A game against a NEWMAC school would also have the same effect. If they want to travel to different areas, a game against NYU, Brandeis or Rochester would bring in the national scope of the UAA; a game against Merchant Marine or Drew would bring in the Landmark; play a Plattsburgh or someone in the SUNYAC and you are rewarded as well. It doesn't have to be the entire out of conference schedule, but just one or two games in better conferences - and not triple-dipping in a weak conference like the NECC - can make a world of difference... EVEN IF YOU LOSE THE GAME!
AMC can't help their conference except to get on the cases of other coaches to schedule better themselves and to start winning - something that is a topic of conversation in a lot of conferences across the country. However, they can do themselves some favors with their out-of-conference schedule and for most teams that's where the secret is.
As for AMC being a 6th or 7th ranked team... they would be the perfect team to ship somewhere else. The national committee does its best to have as many of the opening weekend pods have as many regions represented as possible (northeast can be a challenge, sometimes two NE teams are in a pod). However, AMC's location allows them to come into the Atlantic, East, Mid-Atlantic and even the South Region (if Randolph-Macon were hosting) and meet up with teams consisting of four different regions. They may get a decent game in the first round, but they will get a very challenging game in the second round. If they rise a little further up, they could be in a hosting position if there are any red-tape problems. If they fall a little lower, they could be considered a sacrificial lamb in a pod and would have to prove the skeptics wrong.
Finally... let's remember this is just one ranking. In two weeks, this ranking will actually mean nothing. It is just a base-line to understand what the committees are thinking and to understand what needs to happen for teams to move up or position themselves for the NCAA tournament. The message to AMC is: you don't have a strong schedule and thus your loss to St. Joe's is not something we will overlook. Keep winning and you will be fine, especially if you win the conference. Loss and you risk not making the tournament and especially not hosting the first weekend.
Good read Dave! It's starting to come together in my mind haha. Maybe Mitch will read that post, especially the part regarding scheduling mid-table power conference teams since they'll get the boost from them playing top teams week in and week out.
And certainly not saying it to imply I'd wanna avoid the Amherst's of the world and keep a weaker schedule, just have to start somewhere! :D
It is amazing to see the "light go off" with coaches and such and see scheduling changes. This SOS has been around for awhile and there have been many coaches with this heads in the sand (I don't think Coach Oliver fits that description - there are others I am thinking about), but when they realize they are doing themselves no favors I notice scheduling changes and I see them interested in tournaments like the Hoopsville Classic and the D3hoops Classic.
Another thing I think is starting to jump coaches in the right direction is this 70% rule. It doesn't necessarily apply in the Northeast... but there are some coaches who refuse to change their scheduling and don't meet the criteria so all of their Division III games can count. This year we have seen some waivers granted and denied... and the message is clear: you have teams within your region and driving distance you can play... you need to play them. And the warning is no waivers next year except for extreme reasons... and that will also be a wake up call.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 13, 2014, 03:40:09 PM
There is no specific weight given to any of the criteria. Comparisons to teams is different in each "match-up" when positioning. There is no hard and fast rule because what works for the first comparison may not work for the second, the third, etc. A source on the men's committee side of things has told me they are really dealing with two major issues: head-to-head results compared to a team's entire resume (you can see that debate in play in the Midwest where Wash U is #1 ahead of Illinois Wesleyan, despite the fact IWU beat Wash U head to head) and gaudy records compared to weak SOSs (you can see that in a number of places... this happens to be one place with AMC).
I like the SOS because it not only compares a team's schedule of opponents, but also evens the playing field a bit when comparing the opponents' opponents. Say a team beats someone who is 15-2... that seems great until you realize the team who is now 15-2 played 10 teams that haven't won more than five games. It gives you a sense of just how difficult or not difficult a schedule really is so teams who have gaudy records are not unduly rewarded. Is the system perfect? No, it has changed over the years and recently the NCAA has changed how the math is calculated (small difference) and I am not sure it really shows the SOS the way the men's committee wants. However, it is a far cry from the crappy QOWI (Quality of Wins Index) which was so very flawed.
As for AMC's schedule... I have actually talked to Coach Oliver about their out-of-conference schedule and I did this year as well. He pointed out how NJC was one of those games that looked like it would be good on paper, but turned out to be not so great. And we see it all the time where a schedule done 12 to 24 months in advance doesn't work the way you hope. However, there are some simple things you can do to avoid some problems. AMC scheduled Purchase and NJC... but there isn't another team on that schedule that jumps out at me. Furthermore, the NJAC and the Skyline are not exactly the best places to find a boost to your SOS. (By the way, Elms hasn't been a "power" in the Northeast Region in several years: 13-11, 18-10, 18-11. Even their 20-8 year wasn't all that great.)
AMC's schedule features games against the CUNYAC, Skyline, NJAC and the NECC in their out-of-conference play. In fact they triple-dipped in the NECC. No other conferences. And the conferences they choose are not exactly the strongest when it comes to their SOS numbers. In fact, the NECC is pretty weak and AMC has those numbers in their three times. You have to schedule better or at least schedule a team from some mid- to power conferences. One game against a NESCAC team would boost their SOS because even if they didn't play Amherst or Williams they would get the benefit of those teams playing Amherst and Williams. A game against a NEWMAC school would also have the same effect. If they want to travel to different areas, a game against NYU, Brandeis or Rochester would bring in the national scope of the UAA; a game against Merchant Marine or Drew would bring in the Landmark; play a Plattsburgh or someone in the SUNYAC and you are rewarded as well. It doesn't have to be the entire out of conference schedule, but just one or two games in better conferences - and not triple-dipping in a weak conference like the NECC - can make a world of difference... EVEN IF YOU LOSE THE GAME!
AMC can't help their conference except to get on the cases of other coaches to schedule better themselves and to start winning - something that is a topic of conversation in a lot of conferences across the country. However, they can do themselves some favors with their out-of-conference schedule and for most teams that's where the secret is.
As for AMC being a 6th or 7th ranked team... they would be the perfect team to ship somewhere else. The national committee does its best to have as many of the opening weekend pods have as many regions represented as possible (northeast can be a challenge, sometimes two NE teams are in a pod). However, AMC's location allows them to come into the Atlantic, East, Mid-Atlantic and even the South Region (if Randolph-Macon were hosting) and meet up with teams consisting of four different regions. They may get a decent game in the first round, but they will get a very challenging game in the second round. If they rise a little further up, they could be in a hosting position if there are any red-tape problems. If they fall a little lower, they could be considered a sacrificial lamb in a pod and would have to prove the skeptics wrong.
Finally... let's remember this is just one ranking. In two weeks, this ranking will actually mean nothing. It is just a base-line to understand what the committees are thinking and to understand what needs to happen for teams to move up or position themselves for the NCAA tournament. The message to AMC is: you don't have a strong schedule and thus your loss to St. Joe's is not something we will overlook. Keep winning and you will be fine, especially if you win the conference. Loss and you risk not making the tournament and especially not hosting the first weekend.
Great post Dave, and great insight. One thing, I never called elms a "power." Nothing close to that, that be a foolish statement if I did. Called them a solid program in the region. 4 20 win seasons
Well... to be fair... Elms hasn't had a 20-win season since 2011... and even when they were really good, couldn't get out of the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. They are another team whose conference has given them the chance to bolster their win total like Mitchell this year.
Elms was very good, though, don't get me wrong... but they also don't have that same coach in charge.
Dave,
That post is the reason why the people respect you. I completely understand how a team like Albertus could be ranked 8 in the their region, even though they have one lost. Thanks for the insight. I do agree that Albertus could have a few LEC and NEWMAC and NESCAC teams on their schedules. Odd that they didn't have one this year, but maybe they get an invite to a few pre-season tournaments to play tougher competition.
Let's see how the rankings look next week.. And as an Albertus fan, hopefully they keep winning!
It was a crazy week in basketball not only on the court, but off it as well. Pat Coleman joins me to talk about two interesting coaching moves and what the last two weeks of the regular season has in store for everyone.
We will also talk to #7 Amherst MBB coach Dave Hixon along with the following guests:
- #25 Texas-Tyler WBB coach Kevin Baker
- Castleton State WBB coach Tim Barrett
- Baptist Bible MBB coach Mike Show
- Rose-Hulman MBB Jim Shaw
- #21 Randolph-Macon MBB coach Nathan Davis
Show starts at 7 PM EST and will run at least 2:30 tonight.
You can tune in here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/feb16 (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/jan12)
You can also follow us on social media
- Twitter (@d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) and #Hoopsville)
- Facebook (www.facebook.com/Hoopsville (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville))
- Email (hoopsville@d3hoops.com)
Thanks and enjoy the show!
I think Johnson and Wales is a top ten team in the region. Go look at their second semester of games. 1 loss to albertus on the road. New team ever since Touze came aboard. 17-5, no reason they shouldn't be a strong consideration for top 10 in the region
If they beat Albertus on Tuesday, they may very well get into the rankings next week, considering Middlebury (#10 lost today), and Rhode Island College (#8) has a very losable game @ UMass-Dartmouth Tuesday night who they only beat by 6 at home.
Hey 7, does the committee look at games play through Tuesday? I thought it was games played through Sunday (today)? So, the JWU/Albertus game won't affect this week's rankings... Please let me know if I am wrong (it happens a lot, just ask GNAC - no Shootout in Olympic hockey, lol)...
But, I agree with GNAC - JWU should be ahead of RIC - they are just better. They beat them at RIC this year and have blown people away since January 1st. They just beat Mt. Ida by 67. Not that isn't a typo!
Interesting week in the region - I think the first two spots remain the same. But, what happens after that. How far does Bowdoin fall after a lost at Tufts? Where does Springfield fall to, are they out of the top 10? Is Midd gone from rankings? Where do Babson, Eastern, WPI, and Albertus sit after this week?
Committee only looks at games through Sunday, that's correct.
Pj, stay off the olympic hockey message boards is all I'll say about that lol good question though, as soon as I read 7's post I was wondering sand thing. Are the regional rankings thru tonight or Tuesday night?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 16, 2014, 09:25:01 PM
Committee only looks at games through Sunday, that's correct.
There we go. Thanks pat, must have posted at same time lol
Hey 7, does the committee look at games play through Tuesday? I thought it was games played through Sunday (today)? So, the JWU/Albertus game won't affect this week's rankings... Please let me know if I am wrong (it happens a lot, just ask GNAC - no Shootout in Olympic hockey, lol)...
PJ, games from Tuesday don't count, so if J&W wins it wouldn't be reflected in this week's rankings, it wouldn't be reflected until the following week the 26.
New RR's. Not much changing for the most part: Bowdoin went from 3-6 and WPI (6th to 5th), Eastern (5th to 4th) and Babson (4th to 3rd) got bumped up 1 line. I don't think anything else changed:
NORTHEAST
Rank School In-Region Record Overall Record
1 Amherst 21-2 21-3
2 Williams 20-3 21-3
3 Babson 18-5 18-5
4 Eastern Connecticut State 18-5 18-5
5 WPI 20-3 20-3
6 Bowdoin 19-4 19-4
7 Springfield 15-6 16-6
8 Albertus Magnus 21-1 21-2
9 Rhode Island College 16-7 16-7
10 Nichols 18-5 18-5
11 Middlebury 15-8 16-8
And the link, with the rest of them:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2014/02/19/2014-ncaa-regional-rankings-week-2/
When's the last time a top 4 from New England didn't make the NCAA's??
Springfield loses and stays in front of albertus who has 1 d3 loss on yr lol can't make this stuff up. I'm done looking at the rankings they seem to be a joke. How is a 15-6 team ranked higher then a 19-2 team? No one Springfield has beaten is better then purchase who albertus beat. I'm sorry I just don't get it, and it makes no sense. Again not asking for albertus to be 1, just don't know how Springfield is ahead of them at this point. Just keep winning falcons
Question to Pat or anyone with the answer. Can someone remind me of the timing of things. ie - conference tourney's take place next weekend - I think most champs are crowned and autobids clinched then (Sunday March 2nd).
My main question is - is there one last regional ranking after the conference tournaments and before the bracket is selected?
I ask because Eastern ahead of WPI scares the hell out of me. I could easily see them winning their last 3 (although winning twice in a couple of days against Western may be tough). So Eastern will stay ahead of WPI and then potentially lose to RIC and completely block WPI from an at large should they trip up to Babson or Springfield. I hope I am wrong but I am just not sure a 21-6 (or close to that) Eastern team gets an at large bid this year?
Quote from: WPI89 on February 19, 2014, 04:27:56 PM
Question to Pat or anyone with the answer. Can someone remind me of the timing of things. ie - conference tourney's take place next weekend - I think most champs are crowned and autobids clinched then (Sunday March 2nd).
My main question is - is there one last regional ranking after the conference tournaments and before the bracket is selected?
I ask because Eastern ahead of WPI scares the hell out of me. I could easily see them winning their last 3 (although winning twice in a couple of days against Western may be tough). So Eastern will stay ahead of WPI and then potentially lose to RIC and completely block WPI from an at large should they trip up to Babson or Springfield. I hope I am wrong but I am just not sure a 21-6 (or close to that) Eastern team gets an at large bid this year?
Yes, there is a final set of rankings. Alas, it is kept secret. >:(
The NCAA apparently
wants to generate conspiracy theories!
Thanks Ypsi - I remember that from years past now that you mention it that way.
So lots of games for the rankings to still sort themselves out.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 19, 2014, 04:27:56 PM
Question to Pat or anyone with the answer. Can someone remind me of the timing of things. ie - conference tourney's take place next weekend - I think most champs are crowned and autobids clinched then (Sunday March 2nd).
My main question is - is there one last regional ranking after the conference tournaments and before the bracket is selected?
I ask because Eastern ahead of WPI scares the hell out of me. I could easily see them winning their last 3 (although winning twice in a couple of days against Western may be tough). So Eastern will stay ahead of WPI and then potentially lose to RIC and completely block WPI from an at large should they trip up to Babson or Springfield. I hope I am wrong but I am just not sure a 21-6 (or close to that) Eastern team gets an at large bid this year?
Yah next week is public ranking. That's the 3rd and final one. The last rankings released, the week of March 2 the one's the NCAA uses for the 19 Pool C teams are the ones that are private. I think Eastern can lose twice this week, tbph. Western is a rivalry game, and then on Saturday they go up to Maine to play Southern Maine. The team is terrible, but the trip is so long that usually they get a game against one of those teams. USM has beaten at least 1 of: Rhode Island, Eastern Conn, or Western Conn at home in 6 of the last 7 years, even though in only 2 of those years they've finished with a winning conference record.
A quote from one of my favorite movies:
"Really, I live in Queens. Did you put that together yourself Einstein? What, do you got a team of monkeys working around the clock on this one?"
Maybe, there really isn't a committee, maybe we have monkeys... Or Maybe the 8 coaches think it would be better to have a computer run numbers. There is no way that 8 basketball men can come up with almost no changes in this week rankings. I look at the other regions, and teams have moved up and down depending on what they are doing.
I do not believe in conspiracy theories (unless we are talking JFK).. but I do believe in blind arrogance. Can someone.. anyone make any sense of these rankings?
Lol +1 for PJ
Remember the National Selection Committee can and often does overrule a regional committee's ranking if they feel it's inappropriate.
Hoops fan - is that true? Following my example - I thought it was impossible for WPI to get an at large before Eastern if they remain below them in the regional rankings?
Huge Nerd used to talk about teams "blocking" other teams.
"Remember the National Selection Committee can and often does overrule a regional committee's ranking if they feel it's inappropriate."
They may be able to, but "often"? Do we have any info on exactly how often? I am sure every year there could be cases made. Perhaps if you are correct this is the biggest reason that last set of regional rankings are not made public.
The national committee made several changes, according to a source, last week... not sure about this week's rankings.
And the men's basketball committee has been a vocal proponent of keeping the final regional rankings public. They are very much against the fact they are required to keep them private... which may be the reason a reliable source leaked the final regional rankings to me last year.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 20, 2014, 09:48:55 AM
Hoops fan - is that true? Following my example - I thought it was impossible for WPI to get an at large before Eastern if they remain below them in the regional rankings?
Huge Nerd used to talk about teams "blocking" other teams.
Right, they can't get a bid over a team ranked ahead of them, but the rankings have to be approved by the national committee. The last ranking is private, so we won't see it, but if they feel WPI should be ahead, they'll move them before accepting the ranking.
Often is a tricky word. I guess what I mean is it happens more often than I would have thought, but in the grand scheme of things 2 or 3 teams moved in a season is not often. Sorry for misleading anyone.
Those interested: The final week of the regular season is upon us and already teams are on the bubble hoping to qualify for the NCAA national championships and that can also mean some upsets. So tonight, we focus on the bubble and who has to get it done this week in conference tournaments. We will be talking to Lyndon State MBB coach Joe Krupinski especially about his out-of-conference scheduling mentality along with the following guests tonight:
- Rhodes WBB coach Matt Dean
- Emory MBB coach Jason Zimmerman
- Wheaton (MA) WBB coach Melissa Hodgdon
- UW-Stevens Point WBB coach Shirley Egner
- Ohio Wesleyan WBB coach Stacey Lobdell off their upset of #1 DePauw
- Baruch WBB coach Machli Joseph
- MSOE MBB coach Brian Miller
We will also feature a special #whyd3 story from York (Pa.) women's basketball you have to see.
Show starts at 7 PM EST and will run until at least 9:30 tonight.
You can tune in here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/feb23 (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/jan12)
Don't forget you can ask us or our guests questions via social media:
- Twitter (@d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) and #Hoopsville)
- Facebook (www.facebook.com/Hoopsville (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville))
- Email (hoopsville@d3hoops.com)
Thanks and enjoy the show!
What time will the northeast regional committee take names out of a hat today to determine the regional rankings? Lol I kid, kinda
^ +K
LOL <gives thumbs up>
They took them out of the hat yesterday... right now the national committee is pulling their names to see if the order matches... and that is published later this afternoon - usually at 3pm... but sometimes that time is pulled out of a hat as well! :)
Dave, glad to see you have a good sense of humor about the rankings..
I saw your new top 25... Very interesting things happening. I don't know about you, but I think the tournament will have a lot of interesting match-ups the first weekend.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 26, 2014, 12:11:39 PM
They took them out of the hat yesterday... right now the national committee is pulling their names to see if the order matches... and that is published later this afternoon - usually at 3pm... but sometimes that time is pulled out of a hat as well! :)
LOL can't wait
If I had to guess:
The top 5 are unchanged from last week: Amherst, Williams, Babson, Eastern & WPI. Springfield & Bowdoin swap spots , AMC, RIC & Nichols are still 8-10 and who knows who #11 will be.
The only team that lost was Bowdoin in top 10.. I completely agree 7. Top 5 remain the same, Springfield 6, Bowdoin 7, no changes 8-11. I think Midd stays there.
Quote from: pjunito on February 26, 2014, 02:53:39 PM
The only team that lost was Bowdoin in top 10.. I completely agree 7. Top 5 remain the same, Springfield 6, Bowdoin 7, no changes 8-11. I think Midd stays there.
Next week is where we'll likely have controversy, and it just so happens, the following week is the unpublished rankings, just the way the NCAA like it ;D
Well I have a strong feeling that Albertus Magnus will win their tourney and they are probably the best team with a low chance of getting a pool C bid so my gut instinct is telling me that regardless of these at times bizarre rankings the final outcome will be fair for everyone
Quote from: pjunito on February 26, 2014, 12:36:46 PM
Dave, glad to see you have a good sense of humor about the rankings..
I saw your new top 25... Very interesting things happening. I don't know about you, but I think the tournament will have a lot of interesting match-ups the first weekend.
You have to keep a sense of humor on these things... I have been following this enough and seen far crazier things. Of course, it is 3:30 and the rankings aren't out... so the hat pulling must have been challenging :).
Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 26, 2014, 03:29:13 PM
Well I have a strong feeling that Albertus Magnus will win their tourney and they are probably the best team with a low chance of getting a pool C bid so my gut instinct is telling me that regardless of these at times bizarre rankings the final outcome will be fair for everyone
The way things are stacked up before seeing Week 3 rankings... AMC has to win their conference. If they don't, they are going to get stuck behind a "blocker" ahead of them at the table.
Only changes are Springfield and Bowdoin swapping spots.
Nichols jumped RIC also..
I think that only Amherst and Williams could get a Pool C bid, I think Babson blocks everyone else. So, WPI, Eastern, Nichols, and Albertus, just win your tournament.
Nice picture of Tieron Jackson, freshmen pg at Albertus.
Babson isn't the blocker, per se, I think it is Springfield. Babson could play that role, but I see Springfield really being the problem.
I think Babson will get in at the end of things. I know the region sucks, but it's gonna be pretty difficult to leave the #3 or #4 ranked team in NE off the board. Springfield as Dave said will be the blocker for the rest of the region.
What do you mean by "blocker"?
Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 26, 2014, 07:41:16 PM
What do you mean by "blocker"?
Only one team from each region is considered at any given time. So a team that gets to the table, but is not good enough in comparison to others to get chosen, is 'blocking' all teams below them in the rankings from even getting considered.
There's absolutely no chance the #3 team in the NE would be a blocker. All Amherst Williams and Babson are essentially locks for Pool C if it comes to that. It would be likely a team like Springfield or Bowdoin that end up as blockers but I think both have a decent chance of making the tourney pending no major upsets
Sorry guys; I didn't mean that Babson wouldn't get in.. I just don't think they get the bid before the 17 or 18 round. Their resume isn't that impressive. Their best win is WPI (who everyone kills that they have a bad SOS), and they have a bad lost, at Clark. I just don't think they are an automatic prior to round 17 or 18, which will block teams behind them (even though a 4th NE team can get a Pool C bid, just think it will make it tough).
But, long way to go.. Let's just hope no upsets in other regions.. So, we want Purchase, Cabrini, Scranton, Brockport to win their conferences...
Quote from: pjunito on February 26, 2014, 09:14:54 PM
Sorry guys; I didn't mean that Babson wouldn't get in.. I just don't think they get the bid before the 17 or 18 round. Their resume isn't that impressive. Their best win is WPI (who everyone kills that they have a bad SOS), and they have a bad lost, at Clark. I just don't think they are an automatic prior to round 17 or 18, which will block teams behind them (even though a 4th NE team can get a Pool C bid, just think it will make it tough).
But, long way to go.. Let's just hope no upsets in other regions.. So, we want Purchase, Cabrini, Scranton, Brockport to win their conferences...
The SUNYAC is probably going to get 3 teams in, so as long as someone other than Oswego wins the tournament it shouldn't matter whether Brockport, Plattsburgh, or Geneseo win because I think all 3 will be in. As I've said on the SUNYAC board before after taking the Williams/Amherst loser I would take those 3 teams before I take anyone else from New England.
Babson has the 11th highest RPI in the country. But doesn't matter really, they have a good shot at winning the NEWMAC. I know you're an Albertus fan but I really feel strongly that they'll make it in. And every team from the NE for that matter that we expect to make it.
The difficult part for Albertus is that if they do not win the automatic bid, they will have lost to St. Joe's, Johnson and Wales, or Lasell. I think that loss would be fatal to them getting a Pool C bid.
I think Babson gets in far sooner than 17 or 18 if it comes to that... that means the NE region would only have one or two at-large bids and Babson sits at the table for a VERY long time and by default they are going to get picked over some of the weaker teams that hit the table. They are ranked that high by the regional committee because they look at the criteria and determine that's where they belong... that same criteria is used against others around the country and I can't believe the sixth team from the Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, South, etc. is going to have better criteria that late in the rounds than Babson.
As for the SUNYAC... they get three teams in the tournament I think ONLY if Geneseo wins the title. Geneseo will probably sit for awhile in the East Region which is far weaker than all but maybe the Atlantic region. If they get three, Geneseo is a "last team in" type team.
Just because they haven't been posted here in a while.
1 Amherst 22-2 22-3
2 Williams 21-3 22-3
3 Babson 20-5 20-5
4 Eastern Connecticut 20-5 20-5
5 WPI 22-3 22-3
6 Springfield 18-6 19-6
7 Bowdoin 19-5 19-5
8 Albertus Magnus 23-1 23-2
9 Nichols 20-5 20-5
10 Rhode Island College 17-8 17-8
11 Middlebury 16-8 17-8
I'll continue to kick the preverbial dead horse. I don't understand how Springfield is ahead of albertus with 6 d3 losses compared to albertus 1. I'll even make a case that albertus' 3 point loss to division 1 central is better then anything Springfield has on their resume. Especially with the LEC having a down yr I don't understand. I understand d1 opponents aren't taken into consideration, but just the eye test and common sense I think everyone (including the voters in the d3 poll, as well as the voters in the posters poll) knows albertus should be higher then Springfield. I don't think it's fair to albertus(I'm a homer but if albertus had a few more losses I wouldn't be "whining" like this) that they have to win out after winning 96 percent of their d3 games. So if Springfield loses in it's final tourney game and albertus too, they will be ahead of them with 7 losses. Makes no sense to me I'm sorry. I know the criteria that determines everything I get that, but if it's gonna keep teams like albertus below Springfield I don't agree. Wpi, Williams, Amherst, babson, east conn ahead of albertus? Fine I can live with that. But Bowdoin after their recent stretch and Springfield? No I don't agree.
GNAC
I agree with you and understand your frustration. I have seen Magnus once in person (albeit without their best player) and Springfield on video twice - so I am hardly speaking with an expert eye.
Like you - I believe that based on the body of work this year - Magnus should be ranked ahead of Springfield for sure. That being said - I would be careful with the eye test argument. My eye test tells me, Magnus vs Springfield in a 7 game series goes to game 7 and the home team wins.
That is more of a compliment to Springfield than a knock on Magnus. I think AM would have great games against anybody in the Northeast - including Amhurst, Williams, WPI etc........ As I stated about a month ago - I hope Magnus get Amherst or Williams in a round 2 game and stays away from WPI.
By the way, the eye-test is usually subject to what color lenses someone is looking through ;)
OK... I'll stop joking around :)
If Albertus loses again to a conference opponent, they don't deserve to get in. The GNAC is not good enough this year. Period. They shouldn't have lost at all to begin with. There's no other even borderline tournament worthy team in the conference. J&W is ok, but not great. If Albertus can't win their conference tournament, they probably are not as good right now as they have been at high points during the season.
There's just no good place to argue for a Pool C selection for a 1 loss team in a weak conference. If you're that good, win the game.
(I know this post can come off harsh - I don't mean it to be that way - it's just reality with the way the tournament works).
St. Norbert is in the same boat in the Midwest. I think they're a better team than Albertus and they could miss out the same way.
Win the games.
I have watched both Albertus Magnus and Springfield play and although Magnus on paper looks like a more solid team, I can't help but think Springfield is much better. Not only did Springfield have a strong out of conference showing they play in a conference that is elite and has come out with a win against every team except WPI (who believe me is just about as good as they were last year). I'm sorry but the GNAC does not even compare to the NEWMAC. Good news is that Magnus should have no winning the remaining easy match ups in their tourney.
Other good thing for Magnus is that Springfield will likely lose in the NEWMAC semis and I believe the extra loss will cause them to fall in the final rankings. They will be one of the last teams to make the tournament if they are fortunate enough to make the cut.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2014, 07:43:58 PM
Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 26, 2014, 07:41:16 PM
What do you mean by "blocker"?
Only one team from each region is considered at any given time. So a team that gets to the table, but is not good enough in comparison to others to get chosen, is 'blocking' all teams below them in the rankings from even getting considered.
This is dumb. Sorry.
Yeah that doesn't make sense to me either. I don't think the NCAA looks at things so narrowly
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
If Albertus loses again to a conference opponent, they don't deserve to get in. The GNAC is not good enough this year. Period. They shouldn't have lost at all to begin with. There's no other even borderline tournament worthy team in the conference. J&W is ok, but not great. If Albertus can't win their conference tournament, they probably are not as good right now as they have been at high points during the season.
There's just no good place to argue for a Pool C selection for a 1 loss team in a weak conference. If you're that good, win the game.
(I know this post can come off harsh - I don't mean it to be that way - it's just reality with the way the tournament works).
St. Norbert is in the same boat in the Midwest. I think they're a better team than Albertus and they could miss out the same way.
Win the games.
Agree on Albertus; disagree on SNC. The MWC is hardly elite, but it is several slots above the GNAC. Agree that with a loss Albertus is on the lower end of the bubble; IMO even with a loss SNC is still fairly safely in.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 27, 2014, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
If Albertus loses again to a conference opponent, they don't deserve to get in. The GNAC is not good enough this year. Period. They shouldn't have lost at all to begin with. There's no other even borderline tournament worthy team in the conference. J&W is ok, but not great. If Albertus can't win their conference tournament, they probably are not as good right now as they have been at high points during the season.
There's just no good place to argue for a Pool C selection for a 1 loss team in a weak conference. If you're that good, win the game.
(I know this post can come off harsh - I don't mean it to be that way - it's just reality with the way the tournament works).
St. Norbert is in the same boat in the Midwest. I think they're a better team than Albertus and they could miss out the same way.
Win the games.
Agree on Albertus; disagree on SNC. The MWC is hardly elite, but it is several slots above the GNAC. Agree that with a loss Albertus is on the lower end of the bubble; IMO even with a loss SNC is still fairly safely in.
They may have a better shot, but they're in the same scenario. They're farther down the rankings than they probably deserve, mostly because of schedule - and a loss is going to make them scared all weekend.
Quote from: AllStar on February 27, 2014, 07:47:18 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2014, 07:43:58 PM
Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on February 26, 2014, 07:41:16 PM
What do you mean by "blocker"?
Only one team from each region is considered at any given time. So a team that gets to the table, but is not good enough in comparison to others to get chosen, is 'blocking' all teams below them in the rankings from even getting considered.
This is dumb. Sorry.
This is how it is done in all sports and why there is such thing as regions. You aren't going to lose this aspect since it is a cornerstone of Division III that president's have embraced... and remember they are the ones that ultimately make the decisions.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
If Albertus loses again to a conference opponent, they don't deserve to get in. The GNAC is not good enough this year. Period. They shouldn't have lost at all to begin with. There's no other even borderline tournament worthy team in the conference. J&W is ok, but not great. If Albertus can't win their conference tournament, they probably are not as good right now as they have been at high points during the season.
There's just no good place to argue for a Pool C selection for a 1 loss team in a weak conference. If you're that good, win the game.
(I know this post can come off harsh - I don't mean it to be that way - it's just reality with the way the tournament works).
St. Norbert is in the same boat in the Midwest. I think they're a better team than Albertus and they could miss out the same way.
Win the games.
Then why even play the regular season then, let's just skip to the gnac tourney
Well teams that don't schedule a rigorous out of conference schedule and are in a bad conference kinda might as well...
Like if you're in a conference like the GNAC what did you expect?
Id expect one bad night out of 26 wouldn't keep you from the tourney. No worries, if albertus wins Saturday we'll see what they do in tourney
Quote from: WPI89 on February 27, 2014, 04:23:01 PM
GNAC
I agree with you and understand your frustration. I have seen Magnus once in person (albeit without their best player) and Springfield on video twice - so I am hardly speaking with an expert eye.
Like you - I believe that based on the body of work this year - Magnus should be ranked ahead of Springfield for sure. That being said - I would be careful with the eye test argument. My eye test tells me, Magnus vs Springfield in a 7 game series goes to game 7 and the home team wins.
That is more of a compliment to Springfield than a knock on Magnus. I think AM would have great games against anybody in the Northeast - including Amhurst, Williams, WPI etc........ As I stated about a month ago - I hope Magnus get Amherst or Williams in a round 2 game and stays away from WPI.
Thanks wpi, I know it comes off as crying, but that's not what I'm trying to do here. Albertus did beat a top 25 team in purchase, as well as had some easy games bc of their conference, I get all that. I'll just stop the argument in general, albertus gets a chance the avenge their only d3 loss this yr Saturday. So if their good enough they will get it done
Quote from: GnacBballFan on February 27, 2014, 09:53:39 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
If Albertus loses again to a conference opponent, they don't deserve to get in. The GNAC is not good enough this year. Period. They shouldn't have lost at all to begin with. There's no other even borderline tournament worthy team in the conference. J&W is ok, but not great. If Albertus can't win their conference tournament, they probably are not as good right now as they have been at high points during the season.
There's just no good place to argue for a Pool C selection for a 1 loss team in a weak conference. If you're that good, win the game.
(I know this post can come off harsh - I don't mean it to be that way - it's just reality with the way the tournament works).
St. Norbert is in the same boat in the Midwest. I think they're a better team than Albertus and they could miss out the same way.
Win the games.
Then why even play the regular season then, let's just skip to the gnac tourney
I'm not saying they can't get in or they won't, just that its silly to be trying to make a case for Pool C for a one loss team before they're even out of the Pool A hunt.
But yeah, for a lot of conferences, the tournament is everything, in terms of the NCAAs. That's just how it goes. There's always the catch-22 for small conferences - you can load up your non-con schedule with good teams and risk losing too many games to get in, or you can post a great record and miss out because of one late loss. The balance is somewhere in the middle.
What you really want to hope is that the non-conference teams you did beat do well.
Hoops Fan, you always make good points. At this point, Albertus, Nichols, Springfield have to win their league championships to get in. I can understand that.
My frustration comes from looking at other regions and teams like a Scranton and Purchase are at the top of their regions and they have a weak SOS and play in poor conferences. It seems like the difference between regions is that SOS is weighed much higher in the NE region than an other regions. Where, maybe, just maybe, they compare best wins and worst losses.. they compare home versus away.. they compare who played in the game (i.e. AWM missing games for Cabrini) differently than in NE. That is a bit frustrating.
But, hey... its conference tournament week. If any team ranked lower than 5 in the region doesn't win their tournament, they have to sweat it out. And if Albertus and Nichols don't win their tournaments, they are not making the NCAAs.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2014, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: GnacBballFan on February 27, 2014, 09:53:39 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 27, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
If Albertus loses again to a conference opponent, they don't deserve to get in. The GNAC is not good enough this year. Period. They shouldn't have lost at all to begin with. There's no other even borderline tournament worthy team in the conference. J&W is ok, but not great. If Albertus can't win their conference tournament, they probably are not as good right now as they have been at high points during the season.
There's just no good place to argue for a Pool C selection for a 1 loss team in a weak conference. If you're that good, win the game.
(I know this post can come off harsh - I don't mean it to be that way - it's just reality with the way the tournament works).
St. Norbert is in the same boat in the Midwest. I think they're a better team than Albertus and they could miss out the same way.
Win the games.
Then why even play the regular season then, let's just skip to the gnac tourney
I'm not saying they can't get in or they won't, just that its silly to be trying to make a case for Pool C for a one loss team before they're even out of the Pool A hunt.
But yeah, for a lot of conferences, the tournament is everything, in terms of the NCAAs. That's just how it goes. There's always the catch-22 for small conferences - you can load up your non-con schedule with good teams and risk losing too many games to get in, or you can post a great record and miss out because of one late loss. The balance is somewhere in the middle.
What you really want to hope is that the non-conference teams you did beat do well.
Unfortunately you hit it right on the head. Just frustrates me as albertus has beaten purchase who is ranked 1 in their region, as well as having their best yr ever and being ranked 14 overall. But like you said, just win. They play the only team in d3 to have beaten them this Saturday in the final, so they could not have asked for a better scenario. I'm sure they want revenge after that embarrassing loss
Good luck to all this weekend. I will be rooting for chalk but secretly always like a good upset (outside the NEWMAC please).
My 2 upset predictions are Midd over Williams and then losing a heart breaker to Amherst and the winner of UMASS-Dart/RIC beating Eastern in the LEC final.
WPI- as a WPI fan you better not be rooting against Eastern! Don't you want a little cushion in case you don't win the NEWMAC? You also really don't want a scenario where the NESCAC winner might be someone other than Amhearst/Williams. Upsets were fun up until last week, but not anymore!
Randolph-Macon losing to Hamp-Syd in the ODAC tourney so another likely Pool C spot will go to them.
Quote from: madzillagd on February 28, 2014, 02:44:15 PM
Randolph-Macon losing to Hamp-Syd in the ODAC tourney so another likely Pool C spot will go to them.
I think Virginia Wesleyan was probably going to get in, so as long as they end up winning, it shouldn't matter.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 28, 2014, 02:29:52 PM
Good luck to all this weekend. I will be rooting for chalk but secretly always like a good upset (outside the NEWMAC please).
My 2 upset predictions are Midd over Williams and then losing a heart breaker to Amherst and the winner of UMASS-Dart/RIC beating Eastern in the LEC final.
I wouldn't count out Western beating Eastern though. Much more likely to happen than Dartmouth beating them.
FYI - the national committee has the ultimate say in the regional rankings and I know they have made changes in each region in an effort to remain consistent.
You argue that AMC's win over Purchase doesn't seem to be taken into account... well we also know that Cabrini's win over Randolph-Macon (also #1) hasn't been helping them or they would have never fallen behind Scranton in Week #2.
And the SOS factor is seen around the country... St. Norbert isn't exactly at the top of the Midwest region despite their 1-loss record; Cabrini has waffled in their ranking due to their SOS; Staten Island hasn't been rewarded; Texas-Dallas is low in the rankings. Take a deeper look at the rankings and the numbers and you will see more of a consistent pattern then you may want to believe.
This is article in the Worcester paper highlight to local players on the WPI team.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20140225/COLUMN11/302269952/1009/SPORTS
The article also reveals a couple of disturbing pieces of information for WPI fans. Both Ryan Kolb and Aaron Davis are injured. The article says Davis is questionable for the NEWMC tournament.
This not the same team as last year and is not even the same team that was playing better earlier this season.
If they were to lose to MIT tomorrow, I wonder how much these injuries might impact their final seeding position in the regional rankings. I beleive the NCAA takes injuries into account, but how much weight would it carry? Or am I incorrect about injuries playing a role in the seedings and selection process at the D3 level?
Injuries are not part of the criteria. Certainly the committee can understand how a team is made up and what factors may have been at play when comparing games and such... but WPI isn't going to be left out of the NCAA tournament because the committee feels injuries would play a factor in their performance.
Dave
Thanks for the quick reply. Occassionaly, I like being wrong :)
LOL I have resigned myself that I simply will be wrong at times... nothing I can do about it :)
Dave's interview with the South RAC chair is a must watch for anybody that's been asking ranking questions over the past few weeks. Pretty clear that teams need to get their SOS up in the future if they want to make the tournament as a Pool C.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epVYLfzjhc0&feature=youtu.be
Bold are teams in Pool C consideration, red is Pool A winners, everyone else is still alive for a Pool A bid.
At this point, I'd call Bowdoin the bubble team. No one below them is getting into the tournament - and maybe not even them. If Springfield doesn't win tomorrow, they're the bubble.
1 Amherst 22-2 22-3
2 Williams 21-3 22-3
3 Babson 20-5 20-5
4 Eastern Connecticut 20-5 20-5
5 WPI 22-3 22-3
6 Springfield 18-6 19-6
7 Bowdoin 19-5 19-5
8 Albertus Magnus 23-1 23-2
9 Nichols 20-5 20-5
10 Rhode Island College 17-8 17-8
11 Middlebury 16-8 17-8
Bowdoin may not make it to the table... WPI and possibly Springfield (should they lose) are going to be nasty blockers.
Dave what would you say albertus' chances of hosting are?
Below 50/50... they are so low ranked and can be shipped easily to so many locations. If they were in the top four I would be pretty sure they could host, but being in the second four makes me think they can easily be shipped into the East, Mid-Atlantic, maybe the Atlantic (trying to avoid Purchase) or down South maybe to RMC or VWC.
Appreciate the info Dave!
If Springfield loses to MIT today, I would expect albertus to jump them, Bowdoin. Wpi and east conn lost as well but doubt albertus would jump that far in one week.
The MIT result is interesting, because if MIT were to move into the final regional rankings, it would likely help teams like Babson and WPI, who are 2-0 and 2-1, respectively, against the MIT squad. With the result today, Springfield is 1-2 against MIT, so it likely wont help them so much.
It would help Springfield as it would add three "results" to their vRRO category...
I dont disagree, I just meant that it would help the other two NEWMAC teams more, as they each had two wins against MIT this season.
Well the other two teams were already ahead of them in the rankings... so... :)
Yeah, in terms of relative rankings to eachother, it may not make a difference. But would be interesting to see what happens in some other scenarios, like WPI/East Conn, etc.
Welcome back Hugenerd!
Thanks, today's NEWMAC final was the first game I had a chance to watch all season. Kids and corporate life have drastically cut into my D3 time.
So who's getting a bid from the NE?
Quote from: NEHoopsFan99 on March 02, 2014, 04:38:28 PM
So who's getting a bid from the NE?
I'm not qualified to answer that question. I've watched 1 game this year!
At-large: my guess right now:
- Williams
- Babson
- E. Connecticut
Then it will be WPI or Springfield - probably not both and no one else.
I agree with Dave's assestment.
Interesting to see how the regional and selection committee view Springfield win over Babson (NE 3) when considering those two teams.
If they arent adjacent to eachother in the rankings, I dont think it will matter. So they would have to drop them 3 spots, even though everyone in between Babson and Springfiled also lost.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2014, 05:03:46 PM
At-large: my guess right now:
- Williams
- Babson
- E. Connecticut
Then it will be WPI or Springfield - probably not both and no one else.
I have WPI in pretty comfortably, and Springfield as team #20.
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4232.msg1584769#msg1584769
I've put together some advanced team and player stats for 62 teams participating in this year's NCAA tournament. They are here:
http://www.nationalsportsrankings.com/1314division3
The team stats will show the four factors, pace of play, different shooting pct's, and much more. The player stats show usage, efg%, scoring distribution, various other player metrics and much more.
I thought some may be interested. I did the best I could getting the most recent statistics to calculate all the numbers.
+1
A huge amount of data. Not familiar with many of the acronyms. Will study your glossary of terms tonight and try to digest.
thanks for the effort!
Thanks. If there is a certain team or teams you may have an interest in I can give you my opinion of the team based on the stats. (Or at least what the stats seem to be saying)
I think EFG% is important. It factors 3 pointers into the shooting pct. You'd also like the team to have a lower turnover pct on off than defense. A higher offensive rebound rate than their opponent and a higher free throw rate.
Certain teams that are guard oriented will have a low offensive turnover rate and a high defensive turnover rate (meaning they are forcing more than they turn it over). However being undersized they will most likely have a lower margin when comparing their offensive rebounding rates.
Teams that rely heavily on guards and forwards will usually have a lesser turnover rate and a higher offensive rebounding % difference and a higher free throw rate.
It is a lot to digest. I'll eventually trim it down some once I'm comfortable with the stats that I really think are showing what's happening on the court.
I've put together a 1 click advanced stat page, with an auto-generated scouting report, for every D3 team. (Using last year's stats)
http://nationalsportsrankings.com/index.php?option=com_teamplayer
Once you click a teams name you'll get team and player stats/ratings. Below that is a "scouting report" that is generated solely on each players season numbers.
I thought some would be interested.
On my way to NYC for the 4th annual D3 tournament at Rucker Park. September 6th & 7th (ALL DAY)
Team playing this year:
Brooklyn College
Husson University
Kean University
Purchase College
Springfield College
University of Maine at Farmington
Western Connecticut State University
Bard College
Hunter College
Immaculata University
Lancaster Bible College
Sage College of Albany
St. John Fisher College
University of Southern Maine
I've created advanced stat pages for NCAA Basketball teams. Here's a sample team from this year to look at: Wesleyan (CT)
http://nationalsportsrankings.com/index.php?option=com_teamplayer&task=load_magic&magic=8308
To see all of last year's D3 teams go here and select 2013 and Mens NCAA:
http://nationalsportsrankings.com/index.php?option=com_teamplayer
I'm still inquiring about access to all of the teams stats to do these reports but so far I'm finding little help.
I don't mind adding some D3 teams each week, until the end of the season, if people are interested in a certain teams stats to look at. I'll update 10 or so a week based on user feedback.
If anyone is interested in seeing a team post the team and I'll create the page.
It's the best I can do until I can gain access to a stat feed to run my reports. Doing it manually takes way too long for just 1 team to run every team right now.
Comments, questions, thoughts are welcome.
WOW - lots of work. Thanks for doing this. Would love to see WPI and I am sure you would get a ton of interest from the very active NESCAC posters if you did any of the top NESCAC teams.
Where are you looking to gets 'stat feeds" from. The powers that be here on the board or directly from the schools?
Quote from: WPI89 on December 05, 2014, 10:04:53 AM
WOW - lots of work. Thanks for doing this. Would love to see WPI and I am sure you would get a ton of interest from the very active NESCAC posters if you did any of the top NESCAC teams.
Where are you looking to gets 'stat feeds" from. The powers that be here on the board or directly from the schools?
Thanks. I've just added WPI. The teams are listed alphabetically so they are near the bottom of the main page here:
http://nationalsportsrankings.com/index.php?option=com_teamplayer
I've contacted a bunch of websites, coaches, the NCAA, and stat companies. So far I've received little or no help with adding D3 teams/acquiring the stats. (Either working with another company or purchasing them) I haven't had any success other than adding them myself team by team. Which is impossible to update on a daily basis.
I'm hoping through this forum I can make a few contacts to maybe help with the project going forward. That is if enough people are interested in the team reports.
Check out WPI. I'm always interested in comparing the numbers to people who've actually watched these teams and have their own opinions on the players.
Top 10 Northeast heading into 2015:
1) Albertus Magnus
2) WPI
3) Western CT
4) Middlebury
5) Babson
6) Williams
7) Eastern CT
8) Keene ST
9) Wesleyan/Hamilton
10 Trinity/Bates
I do not have any idea how to separate the NESCAC log jam at this point? Every confidence that Amherst will be back near the top of the heap after league play but can't put them there right now. Also - I struggled some with - "what I think the team is" vs. "what their accomplishments have been" thus far.
I think there is nothing on paper or elsewhere to put AMC at #1. They lost to Richard Stockton who was overrated at #4 who barely survived Lynchburg and needed a chaotic recovery to not get blown out by F&M. I also don't see anything about Western CT to makes me want to put them that high. Babson continues to prove themselves as WPI has as well. Not sure why you left Amherst off the list, despite some close games, they are getting the job done.
Magnus is one of the best teams I've seen this year. I watched them play Stockton. AMC was clearly the better team, even though they played poorly on the day. Stockton is now missing a PG - not sure how much that had to do with this weekend, but I also think F&M and Lynchburg are pretty good teams. I also saw WPI the next weekend in the Hoopsville tournament. They're good, sure, but they weren't better than either AMC or Stockton. They may be better coached or perform better on a given night. I'm so glad we actually have a tournament to work these things out.
If I'm ranking now, based on what I think I can expect from these teams in the moment:
1. Albertus
2. Babson
3. WPI
4. E Conn
5. W Conn
6. Bates
After that, Middlebury, Amherst, Johnson & Wales, and Husson in some order.
The NESCAC teams are going to be able to prove themselves over the course of their season and all that, but right now there's nothing on paper for any of them.
I obviously saw WPI at the Hoopsville Classic... I saw Stockton this past weekend. I saw Amherst as well among others recently.
F&M and Lynchburg are good teams, but Stockton was not a Top 10 team... maybe not Top 15. WPI was better than Stockton and that is considering I saw WPI at the beginning of their season. I just can't buy in to an AMC team that never is as good as advertised, not when Babson stumped on Amherst by 19 (and it could have been worse). Husson may have lost to Bates, but the way Bates is playing right now... Husson is the better team. And the NESCAC is going to beat themselves up this year - two teams coming out of that conference will probably be the max this season.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 05, 2015, 12:02:56 PM
I think there is nothing on paper or elsewhere to put AMC at #1. They lost to Richard Stockton who was overrated at #4 who barely survived Lynchburg and needed a chaotic recovery to not get blown out by F&M. I also don't see anything about Western CT to makes me want to put them that high. Babson continues to prove themselves as WPI has as well. Not sure why you left Amherst off the list, despite some close games, they are getting the job done.
My judgement may be tainted by the fact that I have seen Magnus and Western in person this year. By quality wins - probly WPI should be 1 - but I didn't want to be "that guy". I think if Magnus keeps all their players healthy and together - they are going to be a nightmare this year come tourney time. Western looks the best I have seen them since DaQuan. The beauty of a straw poll in early January is that almost everyone will be wrong. Also saw Dickinson beat York this weekend. They didn't play that well - but they won semi handily. They will win 2 tourney games minimum - provided they survive their tough Centennial Conference. F&M is good and I think Hopkins may be much improved as well.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 05, 2015, 01:40:09 PM
I obviously saw WPI at the Hoopsville Classic... I saw Stockton this past weekend. I saw Amherst as well among others recently.
F&M and Lynchburg are good teams, but Stockton was not a Top 10 team... maybe not Top 15. WPI was better than Stockton and that is considering I saw WPI at the beginning of their season. I just can't buy in to an AMC team that never is as good as advertised, not when Babson stumped on Amherst by 19 (and it could have been worse). Husson may have lost to Bates, but the way Bates is playing right now... Husson is the better team. And the NESCAC is going to beat themselves up this year - two teams coming out of that conference will probably be the max this season.
Did you think Stockton was suffering too much with the backup PG? That is one thing that could really derail them. Stockton relies on crisp passing and I could see them really hurting without a good, low turnover PG.
In my upcoming blog post about my Top 25 ballot, I wrote this about Richard Stockton:
The Osprey were way to highly ranked. I finally got to see Richard Stockton this past weekend and realized that my gut feeling of having them seventh on my last ballot was correct – they were too high. Even if they had beaten Franklin & Marshall on Sunday, they probably would have fallen at least five spots (maybe staying ahead of Ohio Wesleyan). This is a good team with plenty of talent, but they play immaturely, can't keep their emotions in check, don't seem to listen to the coaching staff at times (how else do you get a technical for too many men on the court out of a timeout), and don't have a grasp of the game at other times (you never foul a buzzer beating three point attempt, for example). It is nice to see the Osprey back in the national conversation, but remember this is a very young squad who is probably riding the coattails of last year's success in the eyes of other voters and has already proven can make a lot of mistakes. Oh, and they lost their point guard a while back and are still searching for that leadership on the court.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 05, 2015, 06:34:23 PM
In my upcoming blog post about my Top 25 ballot, I wrote this about Richard Stockton:
The Osprey were way to highly ranked. I finally got to see Richard Stockton this past weekend and realized that my gut feeling of having them seventh on my last ballot was correct – they were too high. Even if they had beaten Franklin & Marshall on Sunday, they probably would have fallen at least five spots (maybe staying ahead of Ohio Wesleyan). This is a good team with plenty of talent, but they play immaturely, can't keep their emotions in check, don't seem to listen to the coaching staff at times (how else do you get a technical for too many men on the court out of a timeout), and don't have a grasp of the game at other times (you never foul a buzzer beating three point attempt, for example). It is nice to see the Osprey back in the national conversation, but remember this is a very young squad who is probably riding the coattails of last year's success in the eyes of other voters and has already proven can make a lot of mistakes. Oh, and they lost their point guard a while back and are still searching for that leadership on the court.
I wonder if the time has actually hurt their on-court chemistry? I saw them in game #2 and Blamon seemed to be keeping all the emotions in check across the board. He wasn't necessarily leading vocally or even on the scoreboard, but he was a calming presence and the team looked to him to set a tone. With all the newcomers, I wonder if they're now being more assertive and it's causing growing pains. Some of my observations early were the exact opposite of what you said here - they were very disciplined and smart for such a green squad. Just another mystery to add to the pile.
My rankings: 1. Albertus, 2. Midd, 3. Babson, 4. Western Conn, 5. Keene, 6. WPI, 7. Eastern Conn, 8. Amherst, 9. Williams, 10. Trinity. Trinity is on a major roll right now, and their upcoming schedule is pretty soft ... if they can beat Williams at Williams, very possible as that is a pretty good match-up for them, they could easily be 16-2 heading into the road match-up with Amherst. I would not sleep on them.
Albertus has the most talent, clearly, but definitely has some "fit" questions since two of their three best players are really ball-dominating penetrating point guards, and they also need to show more discipline out there. Midd, given the history of the program and being undefeated, deserves more respect than they have received. I was not overwhelmed by WPI's talent level, and I thought Williams was a marginally better team overall, but WPI just made more big plays down the stretch. No way that they are a top-10 team nationally, certainly. There will likely be a lot of changes coming soon, lots of big match-ups over the next 8 days: Midd-SUNY, Eastern Conn-Amherst, Williams-Trinity, Williams-Amherst, Babson-Springfield, Babson-WPI, WPI-Springfield, WPI-MIT, RIC-Keene, Western Conn-Keene, perhaps others too.
That's an insanely dense group of games with regional ranking implications. We might get some clarity, but I think, more likely, things only get more muddled, as there is a ton of parity among each of the three best New England conferences this year (NEWMAC, NESCAC, LEC), and I think teams are going to be knocking each other off as soon as it seems like any particular team is gaining momentum. AMC, on the other hand, very likely will not lose again until the post-season, and given the lack of powerhouse teams in New England this year, there is a good chance they get to host for awhile in the NCAA's.
Just for the record... AMC can't host at all. They have too small a gym by NCAA standards. So it won't really matter where they are ranked because outside of a first-round bye, they won't see their gym outside of practices in March.
Ahhh, thanks Dave. That is a tough break for them. I really do think they could beat anyone in D3 on any given night, and in a year where there are no true powerhouse teams in New England, there is a big window to come out of this region. But can they put a sustained stretch of excellence together against quality opponents, all of them on the road or at neutral sites? I'm not so sure ...
Let's remember their past has proven otherwise. They have had a chance to beat anyone in New England and failed. I know this isn't the same team, but I feel they had a better team last year with better inside presence and they got stomped by Williams on neutral court.
And you aren't even sure they can put together a run against good teams if on road and neutral courts. If you can't support that theory, then how can they be the top team in the region? The top team needs to be feared no matter what court and circumstances. Babson has proven they can win on some tough courts and emphatically (Amherst); WPI has won on a neutral court against good competition. AMC has got to start scheduling a little better (the excuses no one will play them is one thing, but not strong when there are plenty of schools to choose from) and when they play a team like Richard Stockton - they need to win. AMC is a bit overrated for what they have proven or not proven... I keep waiting for the proof to be in the pudding.
And I commented about Middlebury on the NESCAC page... but they have got to prove they can beat more than 3-8 teams. This week will prove a lot - maybe.
I thought AMC was downright scary against Williams last year -- and that was a Williams team that was incredibly talented, totally healthy, and just totally locked in at that point. And AMC, after falling behind big, almost gave them a late scare. Their big guy in that game was limited by foul trouble, but he is back and seemingly even better this year -- he is a ridiculously talented center for D3. Tavon Sledge is new to the team and he was a guy who played well at a very high level of D1 ball, and he has been lighting it up, he's made some ridiculous plays. Eian Davis seems to be struggling a bit in his new role, but I know no one on Williams could guard him, he is CRAZY fast with the ball. Those three guys alone are match-up nightmares, which is why I rank them so high. I still think they are figuring some things out, but I'd be stunned if anyone in D3 has a better top three guys.
As for how they can be the top team in the region, normally they would not -- New England, while deep this year, has for the first time in forever, no truly elite, Final Four-caliber team at the forefront. All of the teams are flawed, and I could see ten different teams, at least, finishing atop the region. I saw Babson in last year's NCAA tourney and have seem them a bit this year. They are a solid, physical, disciplined, really well-coached team, with one elite player on the squad. On paper, their resume is better this year than AMC, although I think it's very close. But they scare me a heck of a lot less than AMC, and from a talent perspective, it's not close. If you talk about not proving yourself, well, you have to talk about NEWMAC's total flame-out in last year's NCAA tourney, which is pretty consistent with a lot of years of a lot of highly ranked NEWMAC teams with gaudy records losing in early rounds.
AMC has beaten Western Conn, who by all accounts is very very good this year. Losing to Stockton, a final four contender, in a close game on the road is nothing to be ashamed of. Babson has a very solid resume with lots of good wins over quality NESCAC opponents, and is a deserving top-20 team, but the loss to Bates at home is a lot more significant than a loss to Stockton on the road. The Amherst win, we aren't really sure how meaningful that is, yet ... Amherst has not yet played well, at all. And they also BARELY beat Salem State and Skidmore, who are both just OK. Again, I like Babson, I like the way they play, they are NOT fun to play against for anyone, and their resume is probably the best in New England right now. I just personally think AMC when all is said and done will be better, and since both teams have only one loss, the resumes are close enough that I'd rank AMC first based on the eye test.
And by the way, I think very, very few teams can get to Salem without ever playing a home game. It happens on occasion I'm sure, but it is brutally difficult. So I don't say that as an indictment of AMC, but unless a team is really nationally dominant (which AMC is not), winning five straight on the road against all tourney teams is a very tall task.
Dave, I know we have disagreed on a few things in the past about my Falcons but I agree with the majority of your post.
Only thing I don't agree with is in your first paragraph you mention they had "better inside presence" last season which isn't really true because they literally returned every inside player and Victor L is living up to his preseason All-American nod and in my opinion is a top 3 Big Man in the country.
No question the Falcons need to prove they can win on the road or on a neutral court against an opponent at or above their level. This has plagued the Falcons since the 2011-2012 seasons. I don't think it's right to count the 2009-2010 seasons when they pulled off the biggest shocker of the tourney on a buzzer beater against William Patterson and then got blown out the following night to a very good DeSales team. That team certainly didn't have the expectation that these past 3 post season teams have had.
Last thing Dave I just want your opinion on what the Falcons can do in terms of scheduling better because I know Coach Oliver has tried year in and year out to schedule NESCAC, NEWMAC and LEC opponents and has had no luck? Sure he got games here and there but mostly comes up empty. Oliver is a very intelligent basketball mind, and his knowledge for the game is as good as anyone. He knows what his schedule looks like on paper.....Its crap and we all know that too. Hell a novice can look and see that but what can they do? My only thought is switch conference but obviously that's a bigger move and effects much more for the school then just basketball and it certainly isn't done overnight. It just frustrates me because I really don't see a solution.
I also want to point out that traveling for this team is very hard. An overnight anywhere is damn near out of the question. Its sad really because the school gives ZERO support to the team in terms of funding. The amount of exposure that the basketball team has given this school since Oliver's tenure began is more then they received ever and they repay Coach Oliver and his players with a pat on the back. Nobody would even know Albertus athletics and the school existed if it wasn't for Falcon Basketball. (Sorry for the tangent here but I think this directly affects Oliver when he thinks about his schedule)
Thoughts Dave?
Quote from: nescac1 on January 06, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
I thought AMC was downright scary against Williams last year -- and that was a Williams team that was incredibly talented, totally healthy, and just totally locked in at that point. And AMC, after falling behind big, almost gave them a late scare. Their big guy in that game was limited by foul trouble, but he is back and seemingly even better this year -- he is a ridiculously talented center for D3. Tavon Sledge is new to the team and he was a guy who played well at a very high level of D1 ball, and he has been lighting it up, he's made some ridiculous plays. Eian Davis seems to be struggling a bit in his new role, but I know no one on Williams could guard him, he is CRAZY fast with the ball. Those three guys alone are match-up nightmares, which is why I rank them so high. I still think they are figuring some things out, but I'd be stunned if anyone in D3 has a better top three guys.
AMC was not that scary. Yes, they came back in the second half only when Williams let off the gas, but when the Ephs put their foot back down it was over. AMC had no answer for Williams and were lost the entire game. I was actually looking forward to a really good game and was disappointed in the end.
Quote from: nescac1 on January 06, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
As for how they can be the top team in the region, normally they would not -- New England, while deep this year, has for the first time in forever, no truly elite, Final Four-caliber team at the forefront. All of the teams are flawed, and I could see ten different teams, at least, finishing atop the region. I saw Babson in last year's NCAA tourney and have seem them a bit this year. They are a solid, physical, disciplined, really well-coached team, with one elite player on the squad. On paper, their resume is better this year than AMC, although I think it's very close. But they scare me a heck of a lot less than AMC, and from a talent perspective, it's not close. If you talk about not proving yourself, well, you have to talk about NEWMAC's total flame-out in last year's NCAA tourney, which is pretty consistent with a lot of years of a lot of highly ranked NEWMAC teams with gaudy records losing in early rounds.
Completely agree. New England does not have as fearsome a region as in years past, but I would also say there is more talent at the top. I think Babson, WPI, pick-a-NESCAC, and some others all have real chances to get to Salem this year... but they will have survived versus won their way there (though, I think that will be the case as well around the country). I was disappointed with the NEWMAC's performance last year as well, but at the same time they did get some interesting match-ups that lead to some of those results.
Quote from: nescac1 on January 06, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
AMC has beaten Western Conn, who by all accounts is very very good this year. Losing to Stockton, a final four contender, in a close game on the road is nothing to be ashamed of. Babson has a very solid resume with lots of good wins over quality NESCAC opponents, and is a deserving top-20 team, but the loss to Bates at home is a lot more significant than a loss to Stockton on the road. The Amherst win, we aren't really sure how meaningful that is, yet ... Amherst has not yet played well, at all. And they also BARELY beat Salem State and Skidmore, who are both just OK. Again, I like Babson, I like the way they play, they are NOT fun to play against for anyone, and their resume is probably the best in New England right now. I just personally think AMC when all is said and done will be better, and since both teams have only one loss, the resumes are close enough that I'd rank AMC first based on the eye test.
Calling Stockton a final four contender is pushing it. They aren't going to get there with this team right now. You might want to reconsider that thought process because Stockton might not get passed the Sweet 16 at this point.
Bates isn't that bad a team. Yes, tough run recently, but all accounts are the Bobcats are going to be battling on top of the NESCAC this year. Not sure I can knock Babson for that.
Also remember, AMC's SOS will not be great - it will be better than in the past - but not great when ranking time comes around.
Quote from: nescac1 on January 06, 2015, 12:32:25 PM
And by the way, I think very, very few teams can get to Salem without ever playing a home game. It happens on occasion I'm sure, but it is brutally difficult. So I don't say that as an indictment of AMC, but unless a team is really nationally dominant (which AMC is not), winning five straight on the road against all tourney teams is a very tall task.
Well... they have to win four straight to get to Salem - five straight to get to the title game - six to win it all ;). And it will be a very tall task, but AMC has to start proving they can do it at some point for people to buy in.
nescac1.......guy just gets it!! I love the post.
I read all the boards and I know you have seen many more teams then I have and as an Albertus supporter it's refreshing to see a poster from another conference (especially the NESCAC) give such praise. We may not be the most liked and we certainly play the game harder than most but I spoke to a lovely family from the Williams team before last year's contest at Mary Washington and both parents said the team and even Coach was more worried about playing the Falcons than anyone else on their respected road to the Final Four.
Quote from: D3HoopJunkie on January 06, 2015, 12:50:56 PM
Last thing Dave I just want your opinion on what the Falcons can do in terms of scheduling better because I know Coach Oliver has tried year in and year out to schedule NESCAC, NEWMAC and LEC opponents and has had no luck? Sure he got games here and there but mostly comes up empty. Oliver is a very intelligent basketball mind, and his knowledge for the game is as good as anyone. He knows what his schedule looks like on paper.....Its crap and we all know that too. Hell a novice can look and see that but what can they do? My only thought is switch conference but obviously that's a bigger move and effects much more for the school then just basketball and it certainly isn't done overnight. It just frustrates me because I really don't see a solution.
I also want to point out that traveling for this team is very hard. An overnight anywhere is damn near out of the question. Its sad really because the school gives ZERO support to the team in terms of funding. The amount of exposure that the basketball team has given this school since Oliver's tenure began is more then they received ever and they repay Coach Oliver and his players with a pat on the back. Nobody would even know Albertus athletics and the school existed if it wasn't for Falcon Basketball. (Sorry for the tangent here but I think this directly affects Oliver when he thinks about his schedule)
Thoughts Dave?
I hear this argument and hold a little with it - but not a lot. I understand people have said AMC gets no one to play them. From what I have been told, this is partially true and not true. True because from what I have gathered, people don't like playing the team for the antics that go along with it. Not true, because there are plenty of teams to find that will still help the schedule. They played at Williams or Amherst a few years ago, if memory serves, and haven't been back since. I don't think they made any "friends" for the non-basketball-game stuff (from what I was told in the region, not something I witnessed of course). On the flip side, they have access to plenty of good teams that keep them from having to stay overnight in New York and New England (even Pennsylvania). However, they might need to reexamine the budget if overnights are a challenge. They need to find a way to take a trip to Las Vegas (D3hoops.com Classic) or other locations and participate in a challenging tournament. We invited them to the Hoopsville Classic, but they are unable to attend due to something they do on campus that same weekend - nothing we can do about that, but internal decisions need to be made to combat the challenge.
On one hand, if schools don't want to play you that is on those schools. On the other hand, you need to find a way yourselves to solve that problem. It certainly isn't going to be blame one side or the other, but only blaming others and not adjusting yourselves is never a good solution.
Quote from: D3HoopJunkie on January 06, 2015, 01:00:44 PM
nescac1.......guy just gets it!! I love the post.
I read all the boards and I know you have seen many more teams then I have and as an Albertus supporter it's refreshing to see a poster from another conference (especially the NESCAC) give such praise. We may not be the most liked and we certainly play the game harder than most but I spoke to a lovely family from the Williams team before last year's contest at Mary Washington and both parents said the team and even Coach was more worried about playing the Falcons than anyone else on their respected road to the Final Four.
Williams was absolutely worried about what they would face on the court. That is no secret.
Dave, I dont recall the Falcons playing a regualry season game at Amherst or Williams ever in the Oliver era.
That said I agree with your post and I can only hope that in the coming years this team will be able to schedule better......but for now will just have to prove it to you on the court!!!
I might be thinking NCAA tournament then... brain is jumbled right now. I apologize for the confusion.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 06, 2015, 12:57:14 PM
Calling Stockton a final four contender is pushing it. They aren't going to get there with this team right now. You might want to reconsider that thought process because Stockton might not get passed the Sweet 16 at this point.
Not that I think any team should be called a "contender" right now - but who else do you see coming out of the Eastern part of the country? Amherst, Williams, Albertus, Dickinson - maybe an ODAC team if they do the bracket right. There's a lot of flawed, talented teams in the region, but no one I'd put in a "cut above" Stockton right now.
Oh I would put a couple of ODAC teams above Stockton right now: Randolph-Macon, Virginia Wesleyan, Hampden-Sydney (though, I didn't vote for them in my Top 25 this week). There is also Emory down in Atlanta. F&M just proved they could beat Stockton, though they pretty much blew a 20-point lead. I think Stockton would be surprised if they faced Amherst, Babson, or WPI. I even think the MAC Commonwealth has a couple of teams Stockton would struggle against. They are not anywhere close to a "cut above" anyone on the east coast.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 06, 2015, 01:34:27 PM
Oh I would put a couple of ODAC teams above Stockton right now: Randolph-Macon, Virginia Wesleyan, Hampden-Sydney (though, I didn't vote for them in my Top 25 this week). There is also Emory down in Atlanta. F&M just proved they could beat Stockton, though they pretty much blew a 20-point lead. I think Stockton would be surprised if they faced Amherst, Babson, or WPI. I even think the MAC Commonwealth has a couple of teams Stockton would struggle against. They are not anywhere close to a "cut above" anyone on the east coast.
I just don't think anyone is. Most years there are teams you'd be shocked if they didn't at least make the Final 8. This year I doubt there's one, right? All I'm saying is that Stockton has as good a chance as anyone right now. I think there just isn't a Top Tier at all right now.
I have stated all season that those who get to Salem will have survived, not necessarily been ones we picked. That being said, I have seen Stockton in person as well as F&M, Randolph-Macon, Hampden-Sydney, Amherst, WPI, and a few MAC Commonwealth teams and Stockton is in my poll at 15 right now... and that feels too high.
Not one team in this year's tournament is going to avoid an early-round challenge.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 06, 2015, 01:54:41 PM
I have stated all season that those who get to Salem will have survived, not necessarily been ones we picked. That being said, I have seen Stockton in person as well as F&M, Randolph-Macon, Hampden-Sydney, Amherst, WPI, and a few MAC Commonwealth teams and Stockton is in my poll at 15 right now... and that feels too high.
Not one team in this year's tournament is going to avoid an early-round challenge.
Which is why it's the best tournament there is.
Also, I imagine Whitewater is the only team people don't feel they're overrating when they vote.
No... I think everyone (at least me) thinks teams are too high. Wash U feels strange at #1 to be honest. I have joked before about starting at #10, but that is based on the fact that no one feels like a top ten team.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 06, 2015, 02:01:43 PM
No... I think everyone (at least me) thinks teams are too high. Wash U feels strange at #1 to be honest. I have joked before about starting at #10, but that is based on the fact that no one feels like a top ten team.
That's what I meant, sorry if I implied otherwise. I look at that Top 25 and everyone seems too high. Just a funny year.
I just don't think there are that many great teams this year, as opposed to last year, which I think was very strong at the top --- that was a heck of a Final Four, talent-wise, last season. Which makes polling at this point of the season less reliable than ever.
Teams like Amherst, Williams, IWU, Wash U. (which amazingly has so far not seen an ill-effects), Stevens-Point were just decimated by veteran all-Americans leaving. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many years when D3 in the aggregate lost a better group of players than (in no particular order) Tillema, Toomey, Robinson, Mayer, Suderdley, Peters, Schleigh, Woodmore, Ziemnik, Klimek, Haas and so on. There were not a lot of clearly elite players around heading into this season, and most of the elite guys don't have other remotely elite guys surrounding them. There are going to be massive changes in the polls over the next few weeks as surprise teams emerge and if some of the big-name teams that were hurt by graduation but are still polling well (like Amherst, IWU and Stevens Point) keep struggling relative to reputation. A real opening for a dark horse to make a run. Although most likely, a WIAC team, probably Whitewater which DOES have two elite guys, will still be there in the end ...
It is going to be wide open this year. That is both thrilling and baffling LOL
Hey guys, love reading the posts and opinions. Sorry I haven't been on much, work is kicking my rear.
I think that division 3 coaches have a tough job; they don't offer scholarships, they work with smaller budgets, they usually have part time jobs or part time assistants. It is tough. I applaud all the coaches in division 3 for their hard work in making Division 3 basketball so enjoyable.
I think not having a clear cut top 10 is a good problem. I think this makes for a very fun conference season and a better post season tournament. It would be unfair for me to try to rank teams right now (because I have only seen one play). But, I trust the other posters. I know Albertus is very talented this year (even better than last year's team). But, they have flaws. They play unorganized and undisciplined at times. They are a horrible free throw shooting team. They can get out rebounded at times as well. Over the next 6 weeks, if these things don't improved than I don't know if Albertus can content for an elite 8 spot. Albertus does have 9 seniors, 7 who play. Sometimes having a senior led group can force the team to work on those little areas. Being composed, running the offense, crashing the balls, working on free throws, etc.
I look forward to a great second semester, and lots of debate.
Happy 2015 everyone!
Typical Dave not giving Albertus credit. They beat WPI and purchase on a neutral and away court last yr in the tourney. Then were beaten by the natl runner up, in a game they cut a 22 point deficit down to 7 in the second half. So judging by this they exceeded your expectations last yr since you had them like 8th in New England. I get it, you don't like coach Oliver and the way he goes at refs, or the other stuff as you call it. Last time I checked they were trying to win games not sportsmanship awards. This may come off stand off ish, but I don't intend it to be. It's just how I feel. Sorry if I'm coming off a certain way
Ferraro13......come on over to the GNAC thread. There are a few Falcon fans on the thread and we can always use more!
Judging by your first post here I think you'll fit right in with the group :D
Welcome
F13 - coming out of the box firing!
Hahaha I will def hear on over to the gnac thread lol thank you for the invite. Hahaha WPI just speaking my mind! Hahaha
When do the first rankings come out?
If not different than previous years - the first regional rankings are the second week in February.
Well... it is a little different... depending on how the season ends in February. We have seen first week rankings in the past... this year's will be February 11. I think two years ago it was Feb. 6.
I'm surprised that there is absolutely no talk of MIT in these top 10 conversations. I understand that they have 3 losses and none have been real pretty, but let's not forget that they played the first 10 games of the year without their All-American, Matt Redfield. He is back now and has contributed in all four of MIT's conference wins, including a solid win over WPI where they held that high-powered offense to a season low 46 points. An AA rim protector makes a lot of difference. I wouldn't necessarily put them in the conversation at the top of the region, but I think they deserve to be in the discussion for the top 5-10. They have another chance to show it this week vs. Babson.
It's more that I'm slow to come around on WPI than down on MIT. A win over WPI is not really a world beater at this point. Their losses are pretty bad, in some cases. It'll just take time. With the amount of losses piling up, a three loss record will look better and better as the season goes along.
Quote from: Hugenerd on January 18, 2015, 09:51:16 PM
I'm surprised that there is absolutely no talk of MIT in these top 10 conversations. I understand that they have 3 losses and none have been real pretty, but let's not forget that they played the first 10 games of the year without their All-American, Matt Redfield. He is back now and has contributed in all four of MIT's conference wins, including a solid win over WPI where they held that high-powered offense to a season low 46 points. An AA rim protector makes a lot of difference. I wouldn't necessarily put them in the conversation at the top of the region, but I think they deserve to be in the discussion for the top 5-10. They have another chance to show it this week vs. Babson.
HN - I was the one who threw out a hypothetical early top 10. On Jan 5th. At that point MIT was 7-3 and coming off 2 terrible losses. Didn't know what to expect from them. 4 NEWMAC win's later and they are clearly in the discussion. Big game Wednesday as they host the Beavers.
The under-the-radar team I'm watching is Johnson & Wales. They've only loss one d3 game (at Magnus, by 3) - other losses to d1 Brown (by 10) and at J&W (NC) who is not great, but not terrible. They're destroying the GNAC and their only other single digit game was at Lasell.
I'm not saying they're world beaters, but that's a tough team. It's certainly possible they'll make the regional rankings at some point.
Hoops Fan, as I said in the GNAC thread...even as an AMC supporter I'd like to see JWU get their shot in the region/big dance. Obviously not if it comes at the expense of Albertus (say, they win the GNAC and we didn't get a Pool C bid) but they're a very athletic team (enough to keep up with Albertus) that would surprise some people I think.
Johnson and Wales is a solid team, coming off an ECAC tourney championship last year. they can play with anyone in New England
Quote from: Hugenerd on January 18, 2015, 09:51:16 PM
I'm surprised that there is absolutely no talk of MIT in these top 10 conversations. I understand that they have 3 losses and none have been real pretty, but let's not forget that they played the first 10 games of the year without their All-American, Matt Redfield. He is back now and has contributed in all four of MIT's conference wins, including a solid win over WPI where they held that high-powered offense to a season low 46 points. An AA rim protector makes a lot of difference. I wouldn't necessarily put them in the conversation at the top of the region, but I think they deserve to be in the discussion for the top 5-10. They have another chance to show it this week vs. Babson.
I agree re MIT
Quote from: WPI89 on January 05, 2015, 11:48:38 AM
Top 10 Northeast heading into 2015:
1) Albertus Magnus
2) WPI
3) Western CT
4) Middlebury
5) Babson
6) Williams
7) Eastern CT
8) Keene ST
9) Wesleyan/Hamilton
10 Trinity/Bates
I do not have any idea how to separate the NESCAC log jam at this point? Every confidence that Amherst will be back near the top of the heap after league play but can't put them there right now. Also - I struggled some with - "what I think the team is" vs. "what their accomplishments have been" thus far.
15 days later - shot number 2.........
1) Magnus
2) WPI
3) Babson
4) Eastern
5) RIC
6) MIT
7) Trinity
8) Johnson & Wales
9) Amherst
10) Keene St
Others receiving votes: Southern VT, Middlebury, Williams, Bowdoin, Western, Fitchburg St
Quote from: Corazon on January 20, 2015, 08:55:07 AM
Quote from: Hugenerd on January 18, 2015, 09:51:16 PM
I'm surprised that there is absolutely no talk of MIT in these top 10 conversations. I understand that they have 3 losses and none have been real pretty, but let's not forget that they played the first 10 games of the year without their All-American, Matt Redfield. He is back now and has contributed in all four of MIT's conference wins, including a solid win over WPI where they held that high-powered offense to a season low 46 points. An AA rim protector makes a lot of difference. I wouldn't necessarily put them in the conversation at the top of the region, but I think they deserve to be in the discussion for the top 5-10. They have another chance to show it this week vs. Babson.
I agree re MIT
Two of those losses were also without their other two top players (Andrew Acker and Justin Pedley).
Not 1 NESCAC team rated in the Top 25? How about the North East? Aren't any of them worthy?
No tufts?
Quote from: falcons2010 on January 21, 2015, 09:49:39 PM
No tufts?
Isn't Tufts only like 9-7?? They were horrible in November & December.
Tufts is actually 7-7. Seemed to be huge early struggles but when you look at their losses (think they would like to have Regis back - but Johnson & Wales, MIT, WPI, Babson, Brandeis, and RIC). Not a bad loss there - even Regis really - but they needed to figure out how to win a few of them.
Can't rank them because of that - but I sure would not have to play them in an elimination game.
They have good wins so far in conference (even in a down year). Well see what happens. Can't wait for these two weeks; some great games in the region. Should make things very interesting come February.
Quote from: WPI89 on January 22, 2015, 09:09:15 AM
Tufts is actually 7-7. Seemed to be huge early struggles but when you look at their losses (think they would like to have Regis back - but Johnson & Wales, MIT, WPI, Babson, Brandeis, and RIC). Not a bad loss there - even Regis really - but they needed to figure out how to win a few of them.
Can't rank them because of that - but I sure would not have to play them in an elimination game.
WOW, even worse record than I thought they had!
Less than 2 weeks away from the first regional rankings and I really don't how the top 10 will look. I know there is one more week of games (2-3 games per team) before the committee meets. However, let's start the conversation. I don't know what order, but I think that the best five teams in the region (at least most consistent) have been: Babson, Albertus, WPI, MIT, and Eastern. The next five teams I think Trinty and Bates will be in top 10. Then after that, I don't know.. Do we see teams like Hussion or Nichols, Do we see Keene State or RIC? Does Springfield make the rankings? Will Amherst? I just don't know.
Any thoughts?
To me, you might have to put the NEWMAC teams right on top. Surely Babson is my #1 for the region (although I don't have the SOS numbers in front of me, so I'm not sure what they'll bear out for ranking-wise).
1. Babson
2. Albertus
3. WPI
4. E Conn
5. MIT
6. Bates
After that - Amherst, Trinity, J&W, Nichols, Springfield, RIC - Keene's got a record to be up there, maybe even Southern Vermont, too. You also have to throw Williams, Bowdoin, Middlebury, and maybe Wesleyan into the mix as well.
It'd be a little easier to see once we have solid SOS numbers to compare. We should get better SOS numbers this week.
The NCAA won't release SOS numbers until the Feb. 11 regional rankings.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2015, 10:31:58 AM
The NCAA won't release SOS numbers until the Feb. 11 regional rankings.
No, but hopefully we'll get Matt Snyder's numbers. He does a pretty good job getting close on the raw data.
He's been blogging about them for weeks... and I have him some additional information that may have him close if not right on the numbers the NCAA produces this year.
Here's my take on the top teams in the Northeast - in alphabetical order with regional records.
Albertus Magnus (15-0)
Babson (16-2)
Bates (15-2)
Eastern CT (12-2)
Trinity (12-2)
WPI (13-2)
Quote from: NEhoops on February 04, 2015, 06:16:39 PM
Here's my take on the top teams in the Northeast - in alphabetical order with regional records.
Albertus Magnus (15-0)
Babson (16-2)
Bates (15-2)
Eastern CT (12-2)
Trinity (12-2)
WPI (13-2)
This year all games count as in-region so long as 70% of the total games were played against regional opponents - so Albertus' loss will count against them. Just FYI.
Well to be honest... even by the old rules, the game against Richard Stockton is a regional game. It is within the 200-mile radius and in the same administrative region.
The committee has a tough task this year. Lots of teams could be ranked top 12. Will there be more representation from the conferences within the region?
I have to figure Babson will be #1. Magnus, despite the terrible SOS will probably be #2 - no other team has fewer than 4 losses (except ENC and SVT, which both have comparable SOS numbers).
What's also going to suck is likely RIC will get in, even though they lost tonight because they only count results through Sunday.
Not having everyone at exactly the same number of games throws things off, too. The committee, at least in past years, has tended to look more at overall wins early than they have winning percentage.
I'll take a wild stab - this is not how I'd rank teams, but just a guess at what the committee might do:
1. Babson
2. Albertus
3. Bates
4. Trinity
5. Amherst
6. Eastern Connecticut
7. WPI
8. Bowdoin
9. RIC
10. Springfield
11. Williams
I think perhaps Nichols and Southern Vermont are the other options near the bottom - I'm not confident in anything past #7
Albertus usually seems to be lower then expected. Di t think that's changing. I'm Gonna go with this:
1) Babson
2) bates
3) trinity
4) Albertus
5) East conn
6) wpi
7) Amherst
My own rankings would be
1) bertus
2) Babson
3) Bates
4) wpi
5) east conn
6) trinity
7) amherst
I think they'll be higher this year then they usually are. Outside of Babson, nobody in New England really stands out. I'd be shocked if Albertus ended up lower than 4th. I'd guess:
1) Babson
2) Albertus
3) Bates
4) Trinity
5) Eastern Connecticut
6) Amherst
7) WPI
8) RI College
9) MIT
10) Springfield
11) Williams
12) Nichols
With Southern Vermont & Bowdoin close. I think the top 8 will be on the list somewhere after that it's anyones guess.
I don't see how MIT will be on there. 15-5, SOS isn't nearly as good as some of the other 15 win teams. Just not enough room right now.
Rankings are out:
1 Bates 17-4 17-4
2 Babson 19-2 19-2
3 Amherst 17-5 17-5
4 Eastern Connecticut 17-4 17-4
5 Trinity (Conn.) 17-4 18-5
6 Rhode Island College 15-6 15-6
7 Springfield 15-6 15-6
8 WPI 17-4 17-4
9 Bowdoin 15-6 15-6
10 Albertus Magnus 19-1 19-1
11 Williams 13-8 13-8
Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/11/first-regional-rankings-released-today/ (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/02/11/first-regional-rankings-released-today/)
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2015, 02:29:29 PM
Rankings are out:
1 Bates 17-4 17-4
2 Babson 19-2 19-2
3 Amherst 17-5 17-5
4 Eastern Connecticut 17-4 17-4
5 Trinity (Conn.) 17-4 18-5
6 Rhode Island College 15-6 15-6
7 Springfield 15-6 15-6
8 WPI 17-4 17-4
9 Bowdoin 15-6 15-6
10 Albertus Magnus 19-1 19-1
11 Williams 13-8 13-8
I got all twelve correct, just not always the placement. They really dinged Albertus' SOS and they gave Amherst the benefit of the doubt.
I am usually the first to bow at the altar of NESCAC - I have always referred to them as NEWMACs big brother - but these rankings are waaaaaay biased toward history, rather than the present.
The message is clear WPI - better win the NEWMAC - I see at least 3 "blocks" ahead in this ranking.
Seems to me SOS is broken - can someone explain it to me? Is beating 2 "10-10" teams the same for your SOS as beating a 19-1 team and a 1-19 team?
Trust me having talked with the national committee chair... they aren't talking history... otherwise Bates and Trinity with no history wouldn't be that high. And they are just the first week's numbers... they honestly won't mean much by next week.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 11, 2015, 02:42:04 PM
I am usually the first to bow at the altar of NESCAC - I have always referred to them as NEWMACs big brother - but these rankings are waaaaaay biased toward history, rather than the present.
The message is clear WPI - better win the NEWMAC - I see at least 3 "blocks" ahead in this ranking.
Seems to me SOS is broken - can someone explain it to me? Is beating 2 "10-10" teams the same for your SOS as beating a 19-1 team and a 1-19 team?
It's very complicated and even the trained math guys who spoke with the NCAA stat people over the summer, remain a bit confused. There's a long explanation on the Pool C thread on the Multi-Region Board.
But, what happens is: Opponents' winning percentage counts for 2/3rds of the number and Opponents' Opponents' winning percentage counts the other third. There is also a multiplier added at some point (.75 for home games, 1.25 for road games).
The NESCAC almost always benefits disproportionately because they don't play the double round robin - they both miss out on taking extra losses to good conference teams, but they also miss out on the SOS dropping of playing bad conference teams twice. In addition, they can schedule out of conference games against the likes of RIC and Southern Vermont and Nichols - teams from lesser conferences who will have good records. This also helps to boost the SOS of conference games, since every team can load up on wins out of conference.
It's not unfair, necessarily, since every league could do it, but it does give them an advantage. This is beyond even the inherent advantage NE Region teams have in having so many teams and conferences close by to play. If you look at, like the Great Lakes or Central region, the SOS range is very low, since they pretty much all play each other.
The NESCAC generally benefits from its situation on a lot of levels.
To be fair, though, these are the same numbers (and apparent biases) that got four NEWMAC teams into the tournament last year. No way that would have happened with just the eye test from the committee.
Let's also key on a point there... conferences could change their schedules and play more non-conference games... it is a conference decision.
Also, it isn't like the NESCAC isn't playing double-games... it is just happening with less frequency based on the Little Three and the Maine Three doing it but others not doing it.
Bates 17-4 vs WPI's 17-4
Top wins:
Bates: Babson, Tufts, Williams, Middlebury? (am I missing anyone?)
WPI: Babson, Tufts, Williams, Chicago
Losses:
Bates: Emory, Birmingham Southern, Trinity, Amherst
WPI: Cabrini, MIT, Springfield, Babson
A case could be made for Bates for sure - but #1 vs #8. Not seeing it.
Same for many in between. RIC at 6 is silly. Magnus would beat them right now by 30. And while I am terrified of the Amherst name - just not seeing how this version of the team is 3?
I am done now.......sorry.
They don't compare records, unless there are common opponents or it's against teams they're ranked against.
Ultimately, Bates has a .616 SOS and WPI has a .532. It's a big difference.
I guessed Bates at #3 and WPI at #7 - but the WPI ranking is right, for sure. Wins and SOS make things pretty clear.
Let's remember... vRRO isn't a factor this week. That will change rankings a lot next week.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 11, 2015, 03:05:13 PM
Let's remember... vRRO isn't a factor this week. That will change rankings a lot next week.
Sure, but head-to-head certainly mattered this week. Amherst over EConn and Trinity ahead of Springfield were both clear head-to-head decisions.
Yes... head-to-head did - and should - play a factor when possible.
What a freaking joke, Albertus 10th. Spare me the reasons why. Such a f**ked system
Too many numbers, not enough eye balls for the regional rankings. How can the 6th team in a national poll be 10th in their own region?
(I'm talking/typing out loud. I know WHY, it's just dumb :P)
Quote from: lildave678 on February 11, 2015, 03:21:16 PM
Too many numbers, not enough eye balls for the regional rankings. How can the 6th team in a national poll be 10th in their own region?
(I'm talking/typing out loud. I know WHY, it's just dumb :P)
There are no eye balls. It's designed that way.
Because the national pollsters use whatever criteria they want... and the NCAA committees use specific criteria.
A couple of items per AMC that should be known:
- Their SOS is pretty low
- Their only game of significance (due to bad luck with a couple of other teams) is a loss
- Their conference isn't helping them
- Their vRRO (starting next week) isn't going to help them either
- If they continue to win, they will move up the rankings (because you know a number of the teams ahead of them are going to lose)
- Mitch Oliver is on the Northeast RAC - while he can't take part in discussions about his team... he probably understands what is going on.
I honestly think AMC will move into the Top 5, as long as they keep winning, but the end of the three weeks of rankings - they may be starting a little low, but better to be low and move up then to try and readjust a maybe too lofty a ranking.
Also keep in mind, the rankings are reset each week. Where a team was in the first week has no bearing on where they will be next week. The committees will take a fresh look at everyone and that will only benefit AMC if they keep winning.
Do you think thru are the 10th best team in New England Dave?
That doesn't matter... and isn't part of the criteria... that is the key here. You have to go by the criteria and what I "think" isn't part of that. They have to do something to improve their SOS and we have been saying it for years.
Just looked up the NE Region Committee - Oliver from Albertus Magnus and Bartley from WPI are both on the committee. I doubt a coach can stay in the room while their team is being evaluated, but I'm guessing both teams got all the support possible. It's a numbers game and it went pretty much as it should.
Criteria sucks, Albertus will do what they have to do in March
What were we last season in the last visible rankings, 8th? Do you really think we'll move up to top 5?
No... can't participate in the call when your team is being discussed. Doesn't mean you can't vote later... but you can't discuss (lobby).
Quote from: lildave678 on February 11, 2015, 03:34:55 PM
What were we last season in the last visible rankings, 8th? Do you really think we'll move up to top 5?
Keep winning with the fact those above you lose... yes.
Just for comparison - Husson, Lasell, Curry, Elms, Regis, Mitchell, Salem, and Westfield all managed SOS numbers above .500 despite being in weaker conferences. In all fairness, Albertus did have some better teams scheduled who didn't pan out, but if the school isn't willing to travel (and a lot of small new england schools aren't), then they just have to prove it on the floor.
If they win out, even if they lose in the GNAC final, I think they're still going to get in. There are more rankings to come and they'll move up if they keep winning.
I'm sure this has been asked a bajillion times before but you seem active at the moment Dave haha, has their been discussion of including the Top 25 AT ALL in determining the bracket/Pool C? I get why they don't want "eye balls" in the discussion. The way D3 is constructed you simply don't see enough, if any of every team. But it's not like the national pollsters are a bunch of random schmucks. They were given a vote for a reason (though I know, not FROM the NCAA directly).
Top 25 is not part of the criteria - of course they are aware of it - but even in D1 the Top 25 has no bearing on the NCAA criteria. In fact, not one NCAA championship in any sport in any division has a Top 25 as criteria (though, something tells me there is something in D2 where it does play a roll).
Yeah you're right...I just know in D1 it's rare that a top 25 team misses the tournament whereas the reality seems much more possible in D3, I guess that's more of what I'm getting at. I know it's happened recently to Utah State and a couple MVC teams though.
I guess the Missouri Valley is the GNAC :)
"I'm just here so I don't get fined" :-X :-X
+1 Junkie
Quote from: lildave678 on February 11, 2015, 03:56:56 PM
Yeah you're right...I just know in D1 it's rare that a top 25 team misses the tournament whereas the reality seems much more possible in D3, I guess that's more of what I'm getting at. I know it's happened recently to Utah State and a couple MVC teams though.
I guess the Missouri Valley is the GNAC :)
Well to be honest... the percentage of D1 teams who are in the Top 25 is higher (based on less schools in D1 basketball than D3)... and the Top 25 is dominated by the big conferences who always get way too many teams in the D1 tournament (IMHO).
You are going to get it in D3... when criteria is a factor and a team doesn't get it done when they need to (i.e. AQ at stake), it is going to happen.
Thanks WPI, hate using a football reference on a basketball board but it just seemed to fitting for the conversation!!
Quote from: lildave678 on February 11, 2015, 03:56:56 PM
Yeah you're right...I just know in D1 it's rare that a top 25 team misses the tournament whereas the reality seems much more possible in D3, I guess that's more of what I'm getting at. I know it's happened recently to Utah State and a couple MVC teams though.
I guess the Missouri Valley is the GNAC :)
The LEC is more like the MVC. The GNAC is like the MAAC (which Tavon Sledge should be used to).
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2015, 04:39:54 PM
Quote from: lildave678 on February 11, 2015, 03:56:56 PM
Yeah you're right...I just know in D1 it's rare that a top 25 team misses the tournament whereas the reality seems much more possible in D3, I guess that's more of what I'm getting at. I know it's happened recently to Utah State and a couple MVC teams though.
I guess the Missouri Valley is the GNAC :)
The LEC is more like the MVC. The GNAC is like the MAAC (which Tavon Sledge should be used to).
Hoops Fan's assessment is much more in line with reality.
hoops fan seems to have the most knowledge of d3hoops around here, more so then anyone I see.Def a good assessment of the gnac hoops
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2015, 05:18:35 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 11, 2015, 04:39:54 PM
Quote from: lildave678 on February 11, 2015, 03:56:56 PM
Yeah you're right...I just know in D1 it's rare that a top 25 team misses the tournament whereas the reality seems much more possible in D3, I guess that's more of what I'm getting at. I know it's happened recently to Utah State and a couple MVC teams though.
I guess the Missouri Valley is the GNAC :)
The LEC is more like the MVC. The GNAC is like the MAAC (which Tavon Sledge should be used to).
Hoops Fan's assessment is much more in line with reality.
I have watched over 200 GNAC games in my life.. With all due respect to D1 conferences, the GNAC is like the SWAC. There are a lot of bad teams in the GNAC.
I know it is the first week, but I didn't see the rankings this way. Very surprised that Williams made it, Springfield, Amherst, and RIC higher than expected. However, I can't really complain to much at this point. I only have one question; no one may be able to answer this but....
Is the committee's objective to try to get the most Pool C bids possible? If that is the case, having an Albertus ranked 10 makes perfect sense. On paper their resume does not match up well against anyone. If ranked 3rd in the region and they lose in the conference finals. They will block a lot of other NE teams. I don't know if that would be a reason not to rank them so high, but I could see why it could be done. I would hate to be Babson ranked 4 and blocked by Albertus because their numbers aren't impressive on paper (SOS, quality wins, bad losses, etc).
I agree with Dave's earlier statement (did I just write that??????), there is a lot of bubble teams out there, it will be a very bad year to be a pool C team.
Quote from: falcons2010 on February 11, 2015, 09:31:39 PM
I know it is the first week, but I didn't see the rankings this way. Very surprised that Williams made it, Springfield, Amherst, and RIC higher than expected. However, I can't really complain to much at this point. I only have one question; no one may be able to answer this but....
Is the committee's objective to try to get the most Pool C bids possible? If that is the case, having an Albertus ranked 10 makes perfect sense. On paper their resume does not match up well against anyone. If ranked 3rd in the region and they lose in the conference finals. They will block a lot of other NE teams. I don't know if that would be a reason not to rank them so high, but I could see why it could be done. I would hate to be Babson ranked 4 and blocked by Albertus because their numbers aren't impressive on paper (SOS, quality wins, bad losses, etc).
I agree with Dave's earlier statement (did I just write that??????), there is a lot of bubble teams out there, it will be a very bad year to be a pool C team.
For 2015, sixty-two teams in men's tournament- Pool C limited to 19 at large teams. 43 conference champions automatically qualify (AQ)
Regional Ranking is determined by primary and secondary criteria. So, yes, each regional committee wants to get as many teams into Pool C as possible within the parameters of the criteria guidelines. We will see some movement next week when the vRRO (versus Regionally Ranked Opponents) gets factored into the criteria and the other criteria will have some movement with games played.
RIC's loss to Western last night had no bearing on their placement this week. Next week they could very well be out of the rankings all together.
Quote from: falcons2010 on February 11, 2015, 09:31:39 PM
I know it is the first week, but I didn't see the rankings this way. Very surprised that Williams made it, Springfield, Amherst, and RIC higher than expected. However, I can't really complain to much at this point. I only have one question; no one may be able to answer this but....
Is the committee's objective to try to get the most Pool C bids possible? If that is the case, having an Albertus ranked 10 makes perfect sense. On paper their resume does not match up well against anyone. If ranked 3rd in the region and they lose in the conference finals. They will block a lot of other NE teams. I don't know if that would be a reason not to rank them so high, but I could see why it could be done. I would hate to be Babson ranked 4 and blocked by Albertus because their numbers aren't impressive on paper (SOS, quality wins, bad losses, etc).
I agree with Dave's earlier statement (did I just write that??????), there is a lot of bubble teams out there, it will be a very bad year to be a pool C team.
With each regional ranking, though, the national committee (made up of the regional committee chairs) can and does adjust what they're given sometimes to better have consistency across the country. No one wants to have an entire region blocked because a lesser team ended up higher on the regional rankings than more deserving choices.
There are a lot of bubble teams - and we haven't even started seeing the conference tournament upsets yet. Once that happens, there will be even less slots available. This is not the year to lose in the conference tournament.
Yes... a regional committee should set up their region as best as possible to get as many at-large teams as they can... and we have seen how that works well and how that works miserably. While we never got the final regional rankings last year, it has been fairly well assumed that Staten Island was ahead of William Paterson in the Atlantic Region - a region that got NO at-large teams. You could make an argument that William Paterson might have made the tournament if they hadn't been blocked by Staten Island (though, no guarantees).
I am not sure the committee in week one is thinking about "blocks" per se, but certainly it will be on their minds, I am sure, as they move forward.
Quick note on the national committee making changes: I am told they made some slight changes in a couple of spots, but not a lot of them and nothing of major significance. Also note, the name of the RACs are Regional Advisory Committees... they are tasked with advising the national committee. Ultimately it is up to the national committee to rank teams - but I get a sense early the RACs are somewhat on the same page as the national committee this year (unlike signs of the opposite last year).
Thanks for the update Dave. Lots of good information. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few weeks. Lots of good games coming up.
Take week 1. Wrip it into 48 pieces. Burn the pieces. Use the chared remains to scratch out a new ranking. Ignore that story. Then start over week 2. Honestly nobody knows what the heck to do with the Northeast regional rankings with the NESCAC the way it is this year.
Fun next 2 weeks coming. :)
FYI - Regionally rankings will come out on Thursday next week due to the planned stat computer outage (upgrade) at the NCAA headquarters this weekend. Thus all committee calls pushed back a day and as a result rankings will be posted Thursday this week. Game info still through Sunday's games.
Updated records/game results based on games through 2/15
1 – Bates 18-5 (lost at Bowdoin/won at Colby)
2 – Babson 21-2 (won vs Springfield/won at Clark)
3 – Amherst 18-6 (won vs Lasell/lost at Middlebury)
4 – Eastern Connecticut 19-4 (won vs Keene St/won at Mass-Dartmouth)
5 – Trinity (Conn.) 18-4 (won at Middlebury)
6 – Rhode Island College 16-7 (lost at Western CT/won vs Southern ME)
7 – Springfield 16-7 (lost at Babson/won vs Emerson)
8 – WPI 19-4 (won vs MIT/won at Coast Guard)
9 – Bowdoin 17-6 (won vs Bates/won vs Tufts)
10 – Albertus Magnus 21-1 (won at Mt Ida/won at Johnson and Wales)
11 – Williams 14-9 (won vs Conn College/lost vs Wesleyan)
My rankings: (not what they will be - but what they should be)
1) Babson
2) Magnus
3) WPI
4) Eastern
5) Trnity
6) Bates
7) Bowdoin
8) Southern VT
9) Johnson & Wales
10) Amherst
11) Springfield
I thought Babson would be #1 last week. I feel like they almost have to be this week. The Bates SOS is super good, but Babson's is no slouch.
So here's my prediction:
1. Babson
2. Bates
3. E Conn
4. Amherst
5. Trinity
6. Springfield
7. WPI
8. Bowdoin
9. Albertus Magnus
10. Middlebury
11. Williams
When you bring in the vRRO, things change up a bit, but it will be very hard to tell what's going to happen.
To follow up... the regional rankings will still be released on Thursday this week despite the NCAA stat computers coming back online a day earlier than expected this weekend.
Thanks Dave.
Predictions for this week
1 – Babson
2 – Bates
3 – Eastern CT
4 – Trinity
5 – Amherst
6 – WPI
7 – Bowdoin
8 – Albertus Magnus
Quote from: NEhoops on February 16, 2015, 03:00:21 PM
Predictions for this week
1 – Babson
2 – Bates
3 – Eastern CT
4 – Trinity
5 – Amherst
6 – WPI
7 – Bowdoin
8 – Albertus Magnus
I think Trinity should be ahead of Amherst because of the head-to-head, but the committee didn't see it that way last week. Maybe Trinity's 5-0 vs RRO will help the case, but I'm still a little leery it will happen. We'll see.
Trinity only had the head-to-head really going in their favor. Last week:
- Trinity was 17-4 compared to Amherst's 17-5 (basically a draw).
- Amherst has a .571 compared to Trinity's .531 (Amherst by a long shot).
- Trinity has the 1-0 head-to-head which was a 16 point win.
- There as also common opponents and both teams lost to Tufts (from what I quickly scanned to find).
From that info - I can see why committee gave the nod to Amherst based on their SOS advantage. Consider the .030 SOS to two games... that would have given Amherst arguably a 19-3 on Trinity's schedule and Trinity a 15-6 on Amherst schedule... that would have been how the committee may have read the SOS.
Now the 5-0 vRRO will be HUGE since Amherst doesn't have as good a record based only on losses. However, the committee will also look at the "results" and look at who those wins were against and how they compare to Amherst's wins and losses as well.
Just got eh rankings tweeted:
Babson, Bates, Trinity, Amherst, Eastern, WPI, Bowdoin, Springfield, Albertus, RIC, Southern VT
As I have stated numerous times - I have more respect for the NESCAC than anyone - big brother to all other conferences in the Northeast.
That being said - this year - it is just plain silly to have 3 of the top 4 teams as NESCAC squads - just simply is not the case.
The system by which teams are ranked is broken.
Week 2's regional rankings made an early appearance today: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2630 (http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/?p=2630)
Southern Vermont slipped in - must be the head-to-head over Williams.
They did move Trinity ahead of Amherst, where I thought they should have been all along.
They kept RIC in over Middlebury; I'll have to check the vRRO again on that one.
Middlebury: 16-6 3-4 vRRO .534 SOS
Rhode Island: 16-7 0-3 vRRO .555 SOS
Probably splitting hairs there as WL is a draw, vRRO goes to Middlebury, and SOS goes to RIC. And a quick scan only finds Keene State as a common opponent... (2-0 RIC, 1-0 Middlebury).
1 Babson 23-2 23-2
2 Trinity (Conn.) 19-4 20-5
3 Amherst 19-6 19-6
4 Bates 19-6 19-6
5 Eastern Connecticut 21-4 21-4
6 WPI 21-4 21-4
7 Albertus Magnus 24-1 24-1
8 Bowdoin 18-7 18-7
9 Springfield 18-7 18-7
10 Southern Vermont 21-2 22-3
11 Wesleyan 17-8 17-8
These are silly at this point. Bates still at 4 is just plain not even close. I would have it Babson, Magnus, WPI. But it would be a fair debate with Eastern and Trinity in there wherever you wanted them. Bates at 4 is a joke. Amherst at 3 makes no sense either. And I am a guy that believes Amherst could do major damage the way they are playing now. But as everyone has pointed out - it can't be an eye test.
Bates is done and can't lose again. WPI to need a pool C would have to lose this weekend. So no way for WPI to move ahead of them unless they win the NEWMAC and then it wouldn't matter. So essentially if WPI loses - they can only get in if Bates gets in? Scary!
Listen - I am not going to say it is all about the SOS... but when Bates is a .611 and WPI is a .507... that is a WORLD apart in terms of difference. WPI's is about or slightly below average... Bates' is far above average. You can't ignore that fact and it kind of makes up for the 2 loss difference. Bates is also 3-4 vRRO and WPI 2-2.
WPI has got to work on improving their SOS. They came to the Hoopsville Classic and got two good games... but what about outside of that and the conference? RPI (8-17), Curry (6-19), Worcester State (6-20), Fitchburg State (15-11), Newbury (4-21), Mass College (8-18), FDU-Florham (2-23). Very telling.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 25, 2015, 02:55:24 PM
Bates is done and can't lose again. WPI to need a pool C would have to lose this weekend. So no way for WPI to move ahead of them unless they win the NEWMAC and then it wouldn't matter. So essentially if WPI loses - they can only get in if Bates gets in? Scary!
Dude, barring a really big upset, Bates is likely one of the first teams off the board. 19-6 with the best SOS in the country? They're in almost definitely. You'll also likely have Amherst and/or Trinity ahead of you, too.
I think part of the rankings come down to who has the best regional wins, particularly out of league.
Best non-league regional wins for:
ECSU - Colby/Nichols
WPI - Tufts/Fitchburg St/Williams
Albertus Magnus - WCSU
None of those wins are against teams that are regionally ranked. Either the argument is the NESCAC is the top league in the region or that its "down" and then those wins don't look so good after all.
Quote from: NEhoops on February 25, 2015, 04:29:47 PM
I think part of the rankings come down to who has the best regional wins, particularly out of league.
Best non-league regional wins for:
ECSU - Colby/Nichols
WPI - Tufts/Fitchburg St/Williams
Albertus Magnus - WCSU
None of those wins are against teams that are regionally ranked. Either the argument is the NESCAC is the top league in the region or that its "down" and then those wins don't look so good after all.
Plus, a lot of those teams lost last week, making wins over them look worse.
You guys can quote this SOS crap until the cows come home. Fact is Bates had a really nice season - I would think 1 year ahead of schedule. And they will be a really good team next year. Right now however - they are in the second best 10 teams in the Northeast. Everyone on this board knows that.
Look (again) WPI has been the beneficiary of this more than most............so (again) this is not sour grapes. But having to play a usually decent FDU team in a year they win 1 game is WPI's fault?
You could make a case that if WPI lost by 2 to Williams (instead of winning by 2) and then slammed Salem State - they would be 20-5 instead of 21-4 and a hugely improved SOS (having never played the 24 loss FDU team). Then they would be way up in the rankings.
Does that sound like a system that makes sense?
Quote from: NEhoops on February 25, 2015, 04:29:47 PM
I think part of the rankings come down to who has the best regional wins, particularly out of league.
Best non-league regional wins for:
ECSU - Colby/Nichols
WPI - Tufts/Fitchburg St/Williams
Albertus Magnus - WCSU
None of those wins are against teams that are regionally ranked. Either the argument is the NESCAC is the top league in the region or that its "down" and then those wins don't look so good after all.
My understanding is that non-region count this year?
Bill Mays here for SOS... I feel like I am in an infomercial.
I have to agree with WPI. I don't want to take anything away from Bates and what they accomplished this year. They had a great year and so quality wins. However, Would they beat the other 8 teams in the rankings if they played tomorrow. In my opinion, no. They wouldn't. I know they already beat Babson and beat Bowdon once (both in November by the way); but the other teams are just playing better at this point of the year.
I hope Bates gets in, I think they deserve it, but not over some of the other teams in the region.
Quote from: falcons2010 on February 25, 2015, 08:36:35 PM
Bill Mays here for SOS... I feel like I am in an infomercial.
I have to agree with WPI. I don't want to take anything away from Bates and what they accomplished this year. They had a great year and so quality wins. However, Would they beat the other 8 teams in the rankings if they played tomorrow. In my opinion, no. They wouldn't. I know they already beat Babson and beat Bowdon once (both in November by the way); but the other teams are just playing better at this point of the year.
I hope Bates gets in, I think they deserve it, but not over some of the other teams in the region.
But that's just the point - we really don't know what would happen if they played the other teams tomorrow. I know most of the coach's would rather things be decided by what their teams actually did on the floor, not what they might do.
If Bates had played Albertus' schedule, they'd have a pretty similar record. Yes, the NESCAC gives them an advantage, but they scheduled out of their mind in November and December. They deserve the benefit of the doubt this year.
I'm not sold on WPI, by the way. This team feels weaker then the last couple of seasons to me. I think they'll make the table, though. They'll get considered, which means their real competition is from other regions.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 25, 2015, 07:02:02 PM
You guys can quote this SOS crap until the cows come home. Fact is Bates had a really nice season - I would think 1 year ahead of schedule. And they will be a really good team next year. Right now however - they are in the second best 10 teams in the Northeast. Everyone on this board knows that.
We are going to quote the SOS because Bates has the best SOS in the country with a .704 winning percentage. They are also 3-4 vRRO. NONE of that data says they are going to be left out of the tournament unless something incredible happens. Could they be left out? Sure. Will they be left out? Very unlikely. Bowdoin last year should be the first example of why Bates will be in. Emory from last year will be the second (hosting a bye team thanks in part to the best SOS in the country).
Quote from: WPI89 on February 25, 2015, 07:02:02 PM
Look (again) WPI has been the beneficiary of this more than most............so (again) this is not sour grapes. But having to play a usually decent FDU team in a year they win 1 game is WPI's fault?
Usually decent FDU-Florham squad? Seriously?
2014-15 (2-23, 1-13 MACF)
2013-14 (13-12, 8-6 MACF)
2012-13 (12-14, 7-7 MACF)
2011-12 (13-13, 8-6 MACF)
2010-11 (6-18, 4-10 MACF)
2009-10 (4-21, 2-12 MACF)
2008-09 (8-17, 6-10 MACF)
2007-08 (3-22, 2-10 MACF)
2006-07 (17-10, 9-5 MACF)
They haven't had a legit better than .500 record since 2006-07 and they haven't been better than 8-6 in an average-at-best conference except for that '06-'07 campaign. They are not usually decent. They are usually average to below average.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 25, 2015, 07:02:02 PM
You could make a case that if WPI lost by 2 to Williams (instead of winning by 2) and then slammed Salem State - they would be 20-5 instead of 21-4 and a hugely improved SOS (having never played the 24 loss FDU team). Then they would be way up in the rankings.
Does that sound like a system that makes sense?
First off, the game against your opponent doesn't equate into the SOS so that you aren't punished for winning or rewarded for losing. Yes, their WP% would certainly be better if they won... but that is why there are five primary criteria and then a bunch of other secondary criteria.
But to argue the system doesn't make sense because WPI got a game against 24-loss FDU, if they beat Williams, and if they slammed Salem State... makes no sense. You are making up an argument.
WPI has a below-average SOS - fact
WPI has an okay WL% - fact
WPI needs to win it's conference to make sure they make the tournament - that is all that needs to be discussed.
Listen ... you might hate the fact Bates is going to make the tournament thanks to an incredible SOS... but the fact is they also didn't suck against that schedule. They have wins over Babson (#1 in the region), Husson, Southern Vermont, and Nichols... all finished the top of their conferences. They also have wins in conference against Bowdoin, Williams, Middlebury, and Wesleyan. They don't exactly suck. While it may sting they make the tournament... it isn't like they aren't deserving by winning more than 70% of their games against the countries toughest schedule.
1) I knew I was in trouble when Falcons joined in on my argument! LOL ;D
2) Forgive me - I only went back 3 years with FDU - and they were as you pointed out - exactly .500 in that time frame. I called that decent - you call it average.
3) You missed my point entirely on the Salem State tourney - I did not say beat Williams and then slam S St - what I said was WPI would have been better off losing to Williams. If they did they would have played Salem St instead of FDU. My limited understanding of the system - made me assume that that would have resulted in a dramatically better SOS - albeit with one more loss.
4) The biggest issue I have - is your last statement - Bates has always been one of my favorite Northeast schools. Heck - I had like 19 against them (in a career with less than 100 overall points) in the 80's. Loved the campus, loved the gym (no idea if it is the same one now), students were into the games - even on cold snowy Tuesday afternoons. My one AND ONLY concern is not the sting of them getting in - it would be the sting of them NOT getting in and thus blocking WPI.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 26, 2015, 09:19:14 AM
My one AND ONLY concern is not the sting of them getting in - it would be the sting of them NOT getting in and thus blocking WPI.
I'm not sure I could make up a scenario where that won't happen. I'm not sure there are even 19 teams in the country who would get in ahead of them, let alone all 19 losing in their conference tournaments.
I haven't gone back to look, but I doubt any team with a .600+ SOS and 6 losses has ever not gotten in. Those are pretty impressive numbers for Pool C.
Understood, WPI... I could see where a block of Bates over WPI would hurt. However, if Bates can't get into the tournament... WPI has even less of a chance because of a below-average SOS.
As for the SOS... believe it or not, I can ask a guy to change the WPI game vs. FDU-Florham to Salem State and see the results. To be honest, I don't think it would make that big a difference. What my point was, is not only is FDU on there, but a lot of sub-par teams with below .500 records. We try our best to give the best match-ups possible at the Hoopsville Classic. WPI got some decent games (while Cabrini has struggled, they are rebounding right now). However, you can't then schedule that many below .500 teams (and most are perennial below average teams) and get away with it. WPI's problem for a number of years has been their SOS.
Finally, I'm not sure I said FDU was average... I said that they had been average to below average - I realize I might be splitting hairs... BUT they are in a winnable conference and thus those records could easily be better. The Freedom usually has a decent team or two over the years (DeSales being the most consistent), but there are no world-beaters in that group. FDU has underachieved while their women won a national title and 60 some-odd straight games.
WPI, sorry bro!
I think Bates should have an opportunity to play next weekend. I am not a big numbers guy. I prefer to let me eyes do that evaluating. I wiuld never want a regional committee to follow my preference, however.
I just dont put so much on numbers such as SOS or WAR or any other acronym that tries to tell me what player or team is better.
Call me old fashion or an old guy.
Dave
I can't find any early week losers that would be solid pool C candidates (outside Bates) - are there any yet?
Of course overt the next 3-4 days - that will all change!
Falcons - no problem - I take support anywhere I can get it!
Quote from: WPI89 on February 26, 2015, 02:49:59 PM
Dave
I can't find any early week losers that would be solid pool C candidates (outside Bates) - are there any yet?
Of course overt the next 3-4 days - that will all change!
Falcons - no problem - I take support anywhere I can get it!
Nobody so far. There might be a few after tonight, but I don't think we'll see more than three or four to rival Bates' resume.
Yeah... no one... though really the tougher games start tonight as Hoops Fan points out. We might start seeing some bubble implications starting tonight.
Honestly, even with Bates losing... no bubble pops, yet. Even if Randolph-Macon had lost today it wouldn't have necessarily popped a bubble just yet.
Bates should be fine
If the NESCAC championship turns out to be Trinity vs. Amherst, both of those teams should be fine
Eastern Connecticut should be fine
WPI may have to beat Springfield, but I think they'll be fine. I wouldn't want to lose Saturday if I'm Albertus, but I'd take them. That's assuming nothing drastic happens this weekend.
The ONLY region team that is a sure fire lock no matter what happens elsewhere is Babson. My NE pecking order (with a trinity/Amherst title game and Babson getting the AQ):
1) Whichever team loses the Trinity/Amherst game
2) Bates
3) WPI
4) Albertus
Babson would be #1 and first on the board should they lose to MIT/WPI or Springfield, and I'd slot Eastern between Bates & WPI should they lose to Keene/RIC/UMass-Dartmouth. Where do we slot Bowdoin if they beat Amherst and lose to Trinity/Wesleyan??
7Express.....wrt to your last question in your last post today....not to worry...Amherst got you covered. :)
Can someone provide a list of the AQ from the Northeast by conference.
It seems as though Amherst, Trinity and Bates (I guess in that order) would be the top three potential at large bids from the region.
Regis
Colby Sawyer
Endicott
Wesleyan
Babson
Keene
Albertus
Westfield
I think that's everybody.
As for the Pool C, I think it goes:
Bates
Amherst
E Conn
Trinity
Springfield/Bowdoin (I can't decide between the two)
WPI
I don't think anyone's guaranteed a bid beyond Trinity.
I'm not even sure Trinity is a sure fire lock Hoops fan.
Babson (if they lose today not sure of result)
Amherst
Bates
Eastern would be my order and probably the only locks in the region. Trinity would likely be next in line but I'm not sure they would necessarily get in. I agree however Bowdoin, Springfield (if they lose today) and WPI are in serious trouble.
Quote from: 7express on March 01, 2015, 03:02:48 PM
I'm not even sure Trinity is a sure fire lock Hoops fan.
Babson (if they lose today not sure of result)
Amherst
Bates
Eastern would be my order and probably the only locks in the region. Trinity would likely be next in line but I'm not sure they would necessarily get in. I agree however Bowdoin, Springfield (if they lose today) and WPI are in serious trouble.
There might be a couple teams I didn't put as locks that get in ahead of them (those lower CCIW schools have better SOS), but I think they're easily in. They have a better winning percentage than most of the teams that will be at the table and a comparable SOS to all of them - add in the stellar vRRO number and they're a lock.
Hoops Fan/Dave/other,
Any ideas on hosting based on some of the projections? Babson seems obvious, would there definitely be a second NE team hosting?
Quote from: NEhoops on March 01, 2015, 06:48:45 PM
Hoops Fan/Dave/other,
Any ideas on hosting based on some of the projections? Babson seems obvious, would there definitely be a second NE team hosting?
You almost have to, just by the sheer number of teams, plus no one worthy in the East or Atlantic (outside of Stockton).
I really wish we could be discussing Albertus as a host here but their gym is simply to small. Geographically this would be an excellent host site. So many teams are within the mileage limit of New Haven, CT. Really is a shame and I'm sure if they were able to host it would make things much easier on the Committee when determining the PODS.
Quote from: D3HoopJunkie on March 01, 2015, 07:07:21 PM
I really wish we could be discussing Albertus as a host here but their gym is simply to small. Geographically this would be an excellent host site. So many teams are within the mileage limit of New Haven, CT. Really is a shame and I'm sure if they were able to host it would make things much easier on the Committee when determining the PODS.
They're really not in line to host anyway - they'll give it to a NESCAC team first.
Do you think Hartford (Trinity as a host)?
So Dave and Pat have apparently found out WPI is ahead of Bowdoin - so that definitely improves their chances of getting in.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 10:03:31 PM
So Dave and Pat have apparently found out WPI is ahead of Bowdoin - so that definitely improves their chances of getting in.
I'm pretty sure Dave and Pat are not claiming any insider information. These are simply their predictions of the selections - they rarely (if ever) turn out to perfectly match the selection committee. (And IMO, when they differ, I generally think Dave and Pat's were better!)
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2015, 10:34:42 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2015, 10:03:31 PM
So Dave and Pat have apparently found out WPI is ahead of Bowdoin - so that definitely improves their chances of getting in.
I'm pretty sure Dave and Pat are not claiming any insider information. These are simply their predictions of the selections - they rarely (if ever) turn out to perfectly match the selection committee. (And IMO, when they differ, I generally think Dave and Pat's were better!)
I asked specifically (as they'd been told a bunch of things tonight) and they said it came from insider info. Now, they did make the caveat that the national committee could make some changes. We'll find out.
Sorry for the silence. I dis not end up going to Babson (luckily) Saturday - as I have been knocked off my feet with the worst stomach flu of my life (maybe the first of my adult life?) - trying to watch WPI shoot on Saturday did not calm my stomach. ::)
I still think they deserve a shot, but I understand the position they have left themselves in.
Good luck being placed - to all of you in the dance and good luck getting in - to all that are coveting the pool C.
Albertus up 16 late on Springfield. Making The regional rankings look like a joke that they are
Quote from: Ferraro13 on March 06, 2015, 06:54:06 PM
Albertus up 16 late on Springfield. Making The regional rankings look like a joke that they are
Albertus was ahead of Springfield in the last rankings, I'm pretty sure.
More so how Springfield was ahead of them every other week, and woulda been ahead of them if Albertus lost to JWU in finals hoops
AMC was 7 in the last public rankings... Springfield was 9. Not sure you can automatically assume Springfield would have been ahead of AMC in the final rankings unless Springfield had gotten into the tournament and AMC hadn't with a loss in the conference final. However, those are all "what if's" and we can't prove those scenarios because there are a hundred other scenarios that one loss would have triggered.
For the third consecutive year, Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will air for 12 hours as the regular season enters the final four weeks. Dave McHugh will chat with coaches, administrators, student-athletes, and others involved in Division III basketball from around the country. Other guests will include those who have Division III roots or appreciate the division and the game along with the student-athletes who play the sport.
Hoopsville will air from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. (and maybe later) on Thursday, February 4 live from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can see what guests are scheduled, get more information, and watch the show here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/feb4
You can also read the press release about the show: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/hoopsville-marathon-2016
Here is the guest list as we speak. All times are Eastern and subject to change. Additional guests to be added if and when necessary:
Time | Guest | School |
10:15am | Connie Tilley | St. Norbert (WBB) - WBCA Center Court |
10:40am | Jamie Purdy | Peidmont (WBB) |
11:00am | Keri Carollo | UW-Whitewater (WBB) - Nat'l Committee Chair |
11:20am | Brent Pollari | Saint Mary's (Minn.) (WBB) |
11:40am | Kent Madsen | No. 21 Wheaton (Ill.) (WBB) |
12:00pm | Russell Loyd | Rose-Hulman (MBB) |
12:20pm | Kevin Broderick | Nazareth (MBB) |
12:40pm | Justin Scott | Arcadia (MBB) |
1:00pm | Sam Hargraves | No. 12 Alma (MBB) |
1:20pm | Lenny Reich | Mount Union (SID) |
1:40pm | Maureen Webster | Clarkson (WBB) |
2:00pm | Betsy Witman | York (Pa.) (WBB) |
2:20pm | Sara Lee | Denison (WBB) |
2:40pm | Klay Kneuppel | Wisconsin Lutheran (MBB) |
3:00pm | Brian Van Haaften | Buena Vista (MBB) - Nat'l Committee Chair |
3:30pm | Sydney Moss | No. 1 Thomas More (WBB) |
3:45pm | Aaron Rousell | Bucknell (WBB) - former Chicago coach |
4:00pm | Tim Shanahan | Staten Island (WBB) |
4:20 | Pat Cunningham | Trinity (Texas) (MBB) - NABC Coach's Corner |
4:50pm | Bubba Smith | Sewanee (MBB) |
5:15pm | Ben Strong | Former Guilford All-American |
5:30pm | Kevin Connors | ESPN SportsCenter Anchor - Ithaca alumnus |
6:00pm | Kristen Dowling | Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (WBB) |
6:20pm | Allison Coleman | Sage (WBB) |
6:40pm | Landry Kosmalski | Swarthmore (MBB) |
7:00pm | Dave Niland | No. 23 Penn State-Behrend (MBB) |
7:20pm | Aaron Galletta | Lasell (MBB) |
7:40pm | John Baron | Gwynedd-Mercy (MBB) |
8:00pm | | |
8:20pm | | |
8:40pm | Melissa Hodgdon | Wheaton (Mass.) (WBB) |
9:00pm | G.P. Gromacki | No. 2 Amherst (WBB) |
9:20pm | James Wagner | |
9:40pm | HAPPY HOUR | Free-for-all of calls, tweets, and fun! |
We hope to get at least the full show on a podcast, or several podcast, during the on Friday. You can find it here:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
And a reminder the Hoopsville Fundraising Project has begun yet again. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered. If you can not donate, please don't worry about - we understand. At least share the campaign with anyone you think might be interested: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509
Also, if you know any advertisers interested in promoting their company or products on the show, send them our way: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
Thanks!
Dave/Pat/Gordon: The first set of regional rankings get released later today (Wednesday, February 10) correct?
Quote from: 7express on February 10, 2016, 01:45:34 AM
Dave/Pat/Gordon: The first set of regional rankings get released later today (Wednesday, February 10) correct?
Supposedly. Most of them were late last year.
They are due today... actually the men last year were posted earlier than expected. The women where delayed. Usually the first week's rankings are delayed because a) the committees have more work and the national call takes a little longer and B) Turner isn't necessarily ready to post them and sometimes it has gotten lost in the shuffle. But again, last year the men's were posted far earlier than usual (before 3pm), but I think it was after 5pm on the women's.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 10, 2016, 11:08:56 AM
They are due today... actually the men last year were posted earlier than expected. The women where delayed. Usually the first week's rankings are delayed because a) the committees have more work and the national call takes a little longer and B) Turner isn't necessarily ready to post them and sometimes it has gotten lost in the shuffle. But again, last year the men's were posted far earlier than usual (before 3pm), but I think it was after 5pm on the women's.
Official disclaimer -- I am not the Turner mentioned above. I am waiting just like everyone.
LOL!
Regional Rankings: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/10/first-2016-regional-rankings-released-today/
The final days of the regular season are here. Results of games across the country are affecting other teams not even playing. How will it all shake out and how does one result affect another?
Thursday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh gives you the insight you need to know how the NCAA Tournament brackets are already taking shape. Dave will talk to many coaches around the country who are looking to lock up automatic bids, securing at-large opportunities, or knowingly playing for the postseason lives. Dave will even make sure you better understand the selection criteria and how something like the Strength of Schedule helps or hurts teams.
Hoopsville hits the air at 7pm ET. You can tune in below.
Guests include (in order of appearance)
- Michele Durand, No. 10 Ohio Northern women's coach
- Fred Richter, DeSales women's coach
- Warren Caruso, Husson men's coach
- Zach Frilen, No. 15 Lancaster Bible men's coach
- Todd Raridon, No. 11 North Central (Ill.) men's coach
- Marcus Kahn (Mary Washington) or Andy Sachs (Salisbury), CAC men's semifinal winner
- Matt Snyder, Strength of Schedule/Numbers guru
You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
And the Hoopsville Fundraising project is in it's closing days as well, but we have not met the goal. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509.
Thanks!
Can someone/anyone please explain a little about what a school must go through to transfer to another conference? I know it happens from time to time but I just don't know the criterion that is required to do so. I know it can't be simple because you have to make sure it is beneficial for all sports teams both men and women. As an Albertus supporter it is something that just goes through my head at the conclusion of every basketball season and I think mostly everyone on these boards can understand why that's the case.
Any information would be greatly appreciated! Always looking to learn something new!
Quote from: D3HoopJunkie on February 29, 2016, 09:55:22 AM
Can someone/anyone please explain a little about what a school must go through to transfer to another conference? I know it happens from time to time but I just don't know the criterion that is required to do so. I know it can't be simple because you have to make sure it is beneficial for all sports teams both men and women. As an Albertus supporter it is something that just goes through my head at the conclusion of every basketball season and I think mostly everyone on these boards can understand why that's the case.
Any information would be greatly appreciated! Always looking to learn something new!
You have to apply for membership and be accepted - then do whatever they require of you to get in.
There is certainly "behind closed door" conversations usually that starts these things. But there are two ways a program will change conferences: inquire and then apply to be in another conference; be invited to apply to another conference.
There is usually a presentation to the entire conference, or at least the Presidents of the conference. There are usually site visits and discussions. It is a bit of a drawn out process (which is why it usually leaks that schools are looking to shift).
Now if a team is accepted or looks like they are going to be accepted by the new conference, they also start working with their current, soon-to-be-former conference, to see when they can leave. Most conferences have a two-year opt-out policy that doesn't require any payments - or very small payments for the decision. However, a lot of programs find themselves looking to get out sooner, so there are discussions about paying less than the conference fine for opting out sooner, along with conversations about future schedules (if they are leaving earlier than two years, conference schedules could take a major hit since they are already complete, so some schools will play a significant number of games against their "former" conference as part of the deal).
There are a lot of factors in play also as to why the program is shifting conferences, what sports may already be in the new conference based on affiliation deals or what sports the conference absolutely needs maybe sooner than the others (based on AQ requirements). Also, a departure usually puts another conference in a bind, so some deals are usually worked out.
I am making this sounds not nearly as complicated as some moves have been known to be.
Dave and Hoops,
Thank you very much for the information......Its greatly appreciated.
Dave I am sure it could be much more complicated when talks really start to "heat up" amongst conferences and programs but again the information you provided was insightful and greatly appreciated.
I guess I also asked this question because at Saturday's contest between Johnson and Wales and Albertus I heard a few fans from JWU talking about how the Wildcats were trying to move up to Division 2. Have you or anyone heard anything about this? The school is beautiful, the enrollment is certainly there (not sure how big a factor this is if any) and the Wildcat Center along with all their other facilities are really outstanding and capable in my eyes of making the jump to a higher division.
There are a number of questions that need to be answered when attempting a move to Div 2. Is the school ready to begin offering athletic scholarships? Do they sponsor the number of sports that this division demands? Are all of their sports ready to make the move because they must all move together? Is there a Div 2 conference that might welcome them? Are they willing to work through the provisional process?
Thanks Warriotcat.......Again this was just a rumor I had heard circulating at the game the other day. Whether or not JWU can satisfy all these conditions is beyond my knowledge. I suppose for Albertus sake I hope they don't make the jump because obviously that would be a huge hit to the already less than stellar conference that is the GNAC
Quote from: D3HoopJunkie on March 01, 2016, 07:25:03 AM
Dave and Hoops,
Thank you very much for the information......Its greatly appreciated.
Dave I am sure it could be much more complicated when talks really start to "heat up" amongst conferences and programs but again the information you provided was insightful and greatly appreciated.
I guess I also asked this question because at Saturday's contest between Johnson and Wales and Albertus I heard a few fans from JWU talking about how the Wildcats were trying to move up to Division 2. Have you or anyone heard anything about this? The school is beautiful, the enrollment is certainly there (not sure how big a factor this is if any) and the Wildcat Center along with all their other facilities are really outstanding and capable in my eyes of making the jump to a higher division.
It might make more sense for J&W because I think the other campuses are all D2 schools. I don't know how interconnected they are, but sharing a website probably means very much so. If St A's is really leaving, the NE-10 might want another school - J&W fits the profile pretty well, I think. I don't know the specifics of what sports are offered/needed.
The finances are really the thing. If you're having success, like Albertus is, getting kids in without them, it might not make sense to put that investment into things. I know AMC has been hamstrung on travel because of money; if they're not willing to shell out for buses, I doubt they'll do so for scholarships.
Quote from: warriorcat on March 01, 2016, 07:35:48 AM
There are a number of questions that need to be answered when attempting a move to Div 2. Is the school ready to begin offering athletic scholarships? Do they sponsor the number of sports that this division demands? Are all of their sports ready to make the move because they must all move together? Is there a Div 2 conference that might welcome them? Are they willing to work through the provisional process?
They don't have a choice here... move all of their teams or don't move at all. It is a five year process, I believe.
I've added all 2015-16 D3 Men's advanced stats/ratings to my database. Here's a sample report:
http://nationalsportsrankings.com/index.php?option=com_teamplayer&task=load_magic&magic=7026
If you click a players name you'll get a chart displaying some of their advanced stats/ratings.
Click the projected lineup efficiency rankings tab on top and you'll get a listing of over 250 lineups that the system ranks in order of player/team performance.
To view all of the other teams you'll need to register for a free username and password on the main page of the site: (in red called members area)
http://nationalsportsrankings.com/index.php
On almost any night you can expect there is something to talk about in Division III basketball. From upsets to dominating results, when thousands of games are being played there never is a moment that goes by that shouldn't be discussed.
That's what we hope to do on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) every show.
Sunday night is no different. There are plenty of upsets to discuss along with figuring out just exactly who are the best teams in the country. Sometimes that discussion means talking to those who won, those who lost, and those who are helping determine conference races.
On Sunday's show, Dave talks to several teams who are in the conversation around the country. From a men's team who ended a 72-game conference winnings streak to another men's squad whose undefeated conference run ended. Also, a women's squad who is already having the best season in four years and another being led by a man who has overcome more than most do and trying to lead by examble by staying focused despite his battled with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Dave will also update a few items voted on this week at the NCAA Convention that will affect basketball starting next season.
You can watch Hoopsville live or watch it on Facebook Live (simulcast): http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/jan22. If you missed the show live, you can watch the video On Demand in the same manner or listen to or download the podcast (available when the show concludes).
Don't forget to contribute to the new "Hoopsville Mailbag" segment. Email questions you may have to hoopsville@d3hoops.com. Dave will answer them on air tonight or on a future show.
Guests scheduled to appear (in order of appearance):
- Michael Coppolino, Mount St. Mary women's head coach
- Paul Culpo, Castleton men's coach
- Derek James, MacMurray women's coach - WBCA Center Court
- Ryan Kane, Ripon men's coach
- Tom Palombo, Guilford men's coach
You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Question for the board. Maybe Dave, Pat or Ryan can help out on this as I tried to do some research on my own but had no luck in doing so. I found everything I needed on D1 coaches of course but D3 was much harder to find unfortunately!
Coach Mitch Oliver of Albertus Magnus picked up his 200th career victory the other day in his 10th season with the Falcons. First off, a great accomplishment by a great coach. The complete overhaul and turnaround that this program has made under his leadership is truly hard to believe and when you look at the school, its location and a bunch of other factors, it makes it even more astonishing. We are lucky to have him for sure. And while he is as fiery and competitive as anyone on the court, everyone you talk to and I have had a few conversations with him myself, we all agree that he is simply a really nice, genuine guy who cares deeply for his players and the Albertus Magnus community.
So to my question........Is there any way of finding out whom the fastest coach to 100, 200, 300 wins and so on at the D3 level are? Obviously I geared my search efforts more towards the 200 win total for Oliver's sake but again to no avail. I am not saying he is the fastest cause I simply do not know but I have to think that he must be close? The only thing I am basing this off of is the fact that 200 wins in ten years equates to an average of 20 wins per season (phew that was hard ;D ). To sustain like that over a 10 year span is extremely hard to do and I highly doubt 20 win season averages over that span of time happen often? Maybe I am wrong but I was just curious if there was any information on this?
Thank you in advance to anyone if they can help me out on this!
You could email the NCAA stats dept - they are usually pretty quick to respond. I suspect they have the ability to look these up, but they don't make the Coaching Records Book every year.
Semling from Stevens Point definitely got to 200 faster, maybe Pat Miller at Whitewater, but it's tough to know for the guys who have 500 or more wins without going back and going season by season.
Excellent! Thanks Ryan, I think I will email them and see if they can help me out!
I appreciate the information
I think Bartley went 5-15 and then started his 20 game win streak at WPI - there may have been 1 year in between wich likely would make him wait till year 12 to have 200 wins - but worth looking at - i couldn't find it quickly but will look into at some point.
(click to make it bigger and you can use the scroll bar to move left and right)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3799/32409196570_792c734df0_h.jpg)
Quote from: WPI89 on January 27, 2017, 04:43:59 PM
I think Bartley went 5-15 and then started his 20 game win streak at WPI - there may have been 1 year in between wich likely would make him wait till year 12 to have 200 wins - but worth looking at - i couldn't find it quickly but will look into at some point.
Looks like this might be the end of the Bartley 20 win season streak...
Certainly headed that way. Still hope for magic! It looked like a lock that Wooster and Worcester were both going to stop their streaks - but Wooster has gone from 6-6 to 16-6. Amazing consistency. I do not know enough about them if they had a key player come back or what - but I don;t think anybody would want to play them right now.
Anyone know how/where to find who made themselves eligible for ECAC Tourney and/or when those selections are made?
Quote from: WPI89 on February 27, 2017, 02:06:44 PM
Anyone know how/where to find who made themselves eligible for ECAC Tourney and/or when those selections are made?
I believe only two teams in the whole region put in (Pine Manor and Husson...but Husson won their conference).
http://www.ecacsports.com/documents/2017/2/17//2017_Men_s_Basketball_Declared_Teams5.pdf
These were the declared teams posted as of today on the ECAC site. To access the actual site just google 'ECAC mens basketball' and select the first link. Click on the 'Championships' headline and you should be able to figure it out from there. Doesn't look like the Northeast has received many bids this year.
Yikes - thanks guys
Quote from: D3ball1845 on February 27, 2017, 03:30:23 PM
http://www.ecacsports.com/documents/2017/2/17//2017_Men_s_Basketball_Declared_Teams5.pdf
These were the declared teams posted as of today on the ECAC site. To access the actual site just google 'ECAC mens basketball' and select the first link. Click on the 'Championships' headline and you should be able to figure it out from there. Doesn't look like the Northeast has received many bids this year.
Yes, so only two teams even put their name in. Husson won the NAC, so they aren't in. The ECAC has obviously declined significantly in popularity.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 27, 2017, 03:31:55 PM
Yikes - thanks guys
I'm sorry that WPI didn't get in...but hopefully next year they can get back in. It's very odd to not see them in the field.
Would've been good to see some good non-conference games in this tourney. I was hoping that Roger Williams was going to put in a bid, but it seems like this tournament has lost essentially all its appeal in the NE.
Yeah its funny - seems to me NE is so much deeper than 10 years ago - when the ECAC was quite popular. I could put together 4 very interesting games with teams left out of the big tourney that would be fun to watch. Oh well - there is always next year. Clearly WPI was outside looking in this year - but their women's team got robbed I believe. They had a great year.
Hopefully Bartley and crew have a great class coming in next year and can get the 20-win streak started up again. Good luck to all New England teams in the big dance!
Looking forward to Keene St v Amherst, MIT vs. Eastern, and potentially Wes vs Magnus.
Quote from: WPI89 on February 27, 2017, 04:20:26 PM
Yeah its funny - seems to me NE is so much deeper than 10 years ago - when the ECAC was quite popular. I could put together 4 very interesting games with teams left out of the big tourney that would be fun to watch. Oh well - there is always next year. Clearly WPI was outside looking in this year - but their women's team got robbed I believe. They had a great year.
Hopefully Bartley and crew have a great class coming in next year and can get the 20-win streak started up again. Good luck to all New England teams in the big dance!
Looking forward to Keene St v Amherst, MIT vs. Eastern, and potentially Wes vs Magnus.
Well at least you can still root for a WPI grad in the tournament. ;D
Still baffled how Keene State got in....I guess the SOS really helped them out.
Quote from: D3ball1845 on February 27, 2017, 04:38:11 PM
Still baffled how Keene State got in....I guess the SOS really helped them out.
Endicott got in too (was #10 in last regional ranking), so I guess the line was drawn between 10 and 11 in the region, as UMass-Dartmouth did not get in.
Thank goodness for Amherst's (deserved) reputation - I thought they may be a big ole block at 7 in the NE rankings.
I understand that Endicott was ranked behind them and that it appeared that the committee just took the top 10 from the NE. I think the fact that Keene State was ranked regionally is just as baffling. I understand that their conference is viewed as stronger than the CCC but I have made comparisons in the past with teams such as Roger Williams to make my case. I'm a bit biased as a RWU fan and certainly do not think they deserved a bid with their disappointing end of the season.
Comparatively, Keene State was below .680 WP, with a .576 SOS, in a questionable 2 bid conference, and was 3-4 vRRO. I won't dive in to the common opponents faced by both teams, in which the record heavily favors RWU. Then there is RWU who was .730 WP, a few points below .500 SOS, in a historically one bid conference, and 2-1 vRRO. Hence, my comment about how much pull the SOS must have had in the selection process this year. Again, this isn't me complaining that RWU wasn't selected, rather an attempt to demonstrate why I'm confused why Keene State was selected regionally and for the NCAAs.
Quote from: D3ball1845 on February 27, 2017, 05:03:30 PM
I understand that Endicott was ranked behind them and that it appeared that the committee just took the top 10 from the NE. I think the fact that Keene State was ranked regionally is just as baffling. I understand that their conference is viewed as stronger than the CCC but I have made comparisons in the past with teams such as Roger Williams to make my case. I'm a bit biased as a RWU fan and certainly do not think they deserved a bid with their disappointing end of the season.
Comparatively, Keene State was below .680 WP, with a .576 SOS, in a questionable 2 bid conference, and was 3-4 vRRO. I won't dive in to the common opponents faced by both teams, in which the record heavily favors RWU. Then there is RWU who was .730 WP, a few points below .500 SOS, in a historically one bid conference, and 2-1 vRRO. Hence, my comment about how much pull the SOS must have had in the selection process this year. Again, this isn't me complaining that RWU wasn't selected, rather an attempt to demonstrate why I'm confused why Keene State was selected regionally and for the NCAAs.
You're arguing Roger Williams? Keene's SOS was dominant. If your SOS is below .500, you can't have more than 2 losses to get ranked in the NE. A few years back Albertus was 27-1, I think, and 8th in the region. SOS matters a lot. Below .500 is just unacceptable for national contention.
SOS matters a lot- yes indeed! What is a team to do LIKE ALBERTUS, when everyone is afraid to play them?
Quote from: Falcons 25 on February 27, 2017, 10:07:11 PM
SOS matters a lot- yes indeed! What is a team to do LIKE ALBERTUS, when everyone is afraid to play them?
People are not afraid of Albertus; they are afraid of the terrible SOS in the GNAC. Playing Albertus doesn't help good teams in terms of criteria.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 10:16:40 PM
Quote from: Falcons 25 on February 27, 2017, 10:07:11 PM
SOS matters a lot- yes indeed! What is a team to do LIKE ALBERTUS, when everyone is afraid to play them?
People are not afraid of Albertus; they are afraid of the terrible SOS in the GNAC. Playing Albertus doesn't help good teams in terms of criteria.
But SoS is 2/3 OWP and only 1/3 OOWP. Playing a team like Albertus (almost guaranteed a great WP due to a terrible conference) is EXACTLY who a team trying to 'game the system' wants to play. IF you are fearful of a loss, then it is a toss-up; but it is a no-brainer in terms of SoS.
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 07:58:37 PM
Quote from: D3ball1845 on February 27, 2017, 05:03:30 PM
I understand that Endicott was ranked behind them and that it appeared that the committee just took the top 10 from the NE. I think the fact that Keene State was ranked regionally is just as baffling. I understand that their conference is viewed as stronger than the CCC but I have made comparisons in the past with teams such as Roger Williams to make my case. I'm a bit biased as a RWU fan and certainly do not think they deserved a bid with their disappointing end of the season.
Comparatively, Keene State was below .680 WP, with a .576 SOS, in a questionable 2 bid conference, and was 3-4 vRRO. I won't dive in to the common opponents faced by both teams, in which the record heavily favors RWU. Then there is RWU who was .730 WP, a few points below .500 SOS, in a historically one bid conference, and 2-1 vRRO. Hence, my comment about how much pull the SOS must have had in the selection process this year. Again, this isn't me complaining that RWU wasn't selected, rather an attempt to demonstrate why I'm confused why Keene State was selected regionally and for the NCAAs.
You're arguing Roger Williams? Keene's SOS was dominant. If your SOS is below .500, you can't have more than 2 losses to get ranked in the NE. A few years back Albertus was 27-1, I think, and 8th in the region. SOS matters a lot. Below .500 is just unacceptable for national contention.
I clearly stated I wasn't arguing RWU deserved an at-large NCAA bid. If they however went to the conference finals versus Nichols instead of Endicott, it might be different. I was using them as a comparison with Keene State, whom I don't think deserves to be regionally ranked or in the NCAA tournament. I understand that Keene State's SOS is almost .1 higher than Roger Williams. There is nothing Roger Williams can really do about that due to their weak conference.
However, along with win percentage and vRRO (both favoring RWU), you look at common opponents between these two (RIC, UNE, and uMass Dartmouth). Keene State is 3-3 against these teams, including an abysmal loss to UNE (who is a bottom three team of the CCC that contributes to RWUs low SOS because they play them twice), while RWU is 4-0. How can this not raise some eyebrows? I have stated this many times and no one has had an answer for me. The only thing a team like Keene State has on RWU is their SOS. You could say the same thing for Endicott and Nichols when comparing them with Keene State as well. So, what I'm really trying to get at is is the SOS the primary statistic that the committee looked at when deciding this year? I understand the committee can't delve that deep into the teams and their schedules when selecting but I can't see how I'm not making a legitimate point.
The committees actually do delve that deep into teams to figure it all out... but when an SOS is .100 different we aren't even in the same ballpark when there is a comparison.
To help out... if teams' SOS difference is .030 it equals 2 games. So for the higher SOS team, add two wins and remove two losses and for the lower SOS team, remove two wins and add two losses. If the SOS different is .060 make it four games. But don't go beyond that.
Do that math when comparing Keene State and Roger Williams... you may see why the committees didn't have to go very far to make a decision. Since it was .100 we will only use the .060 = 4 games shift. That is what the committees are doing if they are comparing the two (and they are). That right there is going to end the comparison.
Keene State's 19-9 because 23-6... Roger Williams 19-7 because 15-11 and we still have a large discrepancy here.
I understand you are trying to make a case, but you are trying to ignore a major criteria point that is killing Roger Williams' chances here... and Keene's .576 is damn good.
Quote from: D3ball1845 on February 28, 2017, 12:10:06 AM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on February 27, 2017, 07:58:37 PM
Quote from: D3ball1845 on February 27, 2017, 05:03:30 PM
I understand that Endicott was ranked behind them and that it appeared that the committee just took the top 10 from the NE. I think the fact that Keene State was ranked regionally is just as baffling. I understand that their conference is viewed as stronger than the CCC but I have made comparisons in the past with teams such as Roger Williams to make my case. I'm a bit biased as a RWU fan and certainly do not think they deserved a bid with their disappointing end of the season.
Comparatively, Keene State was below .680 WP, with a .576 SOS, in a questionable 2 bid conference, and was 3-4 vRRO. I won't dive in to the common opponents faced by both teams, in which the record heavily favors RWU. Then there is RWU who was .730 WP, a few points below .500 SOS, in a historically one bid conference, and 2-1 vRRO. Hence, my comment about how much pull the SOS must have had in the selection process this year. Again, this isn't me complaining that RWU wasn't selected, rather an attempt to demonstrate why I'm confused why Keene State was selected regionally and for the NCAAs.
You're arguing Roger Williams? Keene's SOS was dominant. If your SOS is below .500, you can't have more than 2 losses to get ranked in the NE. A few years back Albertus was 27-1, I think, and 8th in the region. SOS matters a lot. Below .500 is just unacceptable for national contention.
I clearly stated I wasn't arguing RWU deserved an at-large NCAA bid. If they however went to the conference finals versus Nichols instead of Endicott, it might be different. I was using them as a comparison with Keene State, whom I don't think deserves to be regionally ranked or in the NCAA tournament. I understand that Keene State's SOS is almost .1 higher than Roger Williams. There is nothing Roger Williams can really do about that due to their weak conference.
However, along with win percentage and vRRO (both favoring RWU), you look at common opponents between these two (RIC, UNE, and uMass Dartmouth). Keene State is 3-3 against these teams, including an abysmal loss to UNE (who is a bottom three team of the CCC that contributes to RWUs low SOS because they play them twice), while RWU is 4-0. How can this not raise some eyebrows? I have stated this many times and no one has had an answer for me. The only thing a team like Keene State has on RWU is their SOS. You could say the same thing for Endicott and Nichols when comparing them with Keene State as well. So, what I'm really trying to get at is is the SOS the primary statistic that the committee looked at when deciding this year? I understand the committee can't delve that deep into the teams and their schedules when selecting but I can't see how I'm not making a legitimate point.
The primary criteria are winning percentage, SOS, and results vs regionally ranked opponents. Having UMass-D get the 11th spot helped Keene's case quite a bit, but the SOS is very strong. The committee uses a .03 difference = 2 wins ration - and sometimes will even go to .06 = 4 wins. They don't get into common opponents until secondary criteria - that is, if the teams are too close to differentiate. I'm just saying that Endicott had a better resume than RWU, even if they lost one extra game, and they were still behind Keene.
Play good teams, win enough games, you're good to go.
Wow, .03 in SOS is a two win difference. It's all making sense now. Thank you Ryan and Dave for the explanation.
Quote from: D3ball1845 on February 28, 2017, 11:08:06 AM
Wow, .03 in SOS is a two win difference. It's all making sense now. Thank you Ryan and Dave for the explanation.
The NCAA statisticians have said that's a very solid comparison. When you get to .06 and 4 wins, it's much less solid - and if you move it to .09 and 6 it's not solid at all - which makes it very hard to compare a team with a .600 and a team with a .505.
This is where you'd see us, in the mock, talk about adding wins to a team with a higher SOS to even things out. Keene and Oshkosh were a great example. Keene had two more wins and one less loss than oshkosh, but an SOS almost exactly .03 below. So once you add the wins to oshkosh (or subtract them from Keene) you have near identical WP and SOS and a much better rVRRO for Oshkosh.
By the numbers, Oshkosh is better - but then you have to have the conversation about how low a WP you're comfortable with. Based on what we know, they took Keene well before Oshkosh - so they did consider the .630 as more negative than just straight criteria, but not as negative as we did on the mock.
It was announced today that the 7th annual D3 at Rucker Park will be held at the iconic Rucker Park oh September 9th and 10th. The two day tournament is sponsored by the ACC All-Stars and Charlotte NC based Sumner Group Marketing. The tournament features 16 D3 teams competing in pool play on Saturday and a championship tournament on Sunday. Ten teams have currently registered and the fee for the tournament is $300 and includes T shirt for all players and a guarantee of 5 games per team and a maximum of eight games. The tournament features top teams from the northeast, mid-west and the New York market. To register contact Pet Sumner form the Sumner Group at 704 804-4771 or email at pet@sumnergroup.com.
This might be fun to put in here... if no one has seen the headlines (just check out @d3hoops on Twitter)... it appears Jim Calhoun is seriously considering a coaching comeback and helping upstart Univ. of St. Joseph's who is starting their program in men's basketball next year.
The big game is over, so now it's time to focus only on basketball. Division III basketball to be exact.
Join Dave and a number of guests on this special Monday edition of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com). There is plenty to talk about including another crazy weekend of results that will have Top 25 voters scratching their heads and maybe pulling hair off their head as well. Plus, the first regional rankings come out later this week. While predictions are hard, there at least will be some reminding of how this all works.
And maybe even a preview of what this evening's Top 25s look like.
Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show starting at 2:00 p.m. ET here: http://bit.ly/2FOQ7hX
If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media.
Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Marc Edwards, No. 2 WashU men's coach
- Chris Harvey, Salem State men's coach
- Bill Fenlon, DePauw men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
- Caitlin Hadzimichalis, King's women's coach
- Cameron Hill, Trinity (Texas), women's coach
If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D3otcl%2F4jqbajxp1927q4lt.jpg&hash=548f21c8fc71f3b507fa66bfd6193b90a937d497)
Men's first regional rankings this season: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-first
The NCAA men's basketball regional advisory committees released their third set of rankings, and as expected, the Atlantic Region was among those getting shuffled. Here's the full list: http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2018/02/men-regional-rankings-third
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D600%2Fmh%3D600%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4ima3%2Fdinflo07zg1qa2ww.jpg&hash=686d8e036c15a7019bc8f4723e2af35008adc158)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D4xipm%2Fzu5evwom5j13laim.jpg&hash=b4e5c35ca6f6238a681a71f413d9bb512cc94cff)
The Division III men's and women's national tournaments are set, teams are where they need to be, and practices underway. Now, it's just a matter of tipping off the games.
But before we tip them off, we need some final thoughts.
Tune in Thursday night to Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) where Dave will talk to a number of guests about their programs and their chances in the NCAA tournament. You can't starting heading down the Road to Rochester or the Road to Salem without getting an idea of who may be joining you, either. Dave will give some insight on how some of the pods just may shake out as well.
Also, earlier in the day, Dave talked with Women's Basketball Nationall Committee chair Bobbi Morgan (also head coach at Haverford) and asked her a lot about the selection process and bracketing for this year's tournament. You can hear that special podcast here: http://bit.ly/2GUbfE0
Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Thursday's edition hits the air at 7:00 p.m. ET. You can tune in live here: http://bit.ly/2HSi9ed.
If you have questions, be sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or interact with the show via the social media avenues.
Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
- Marc Brown & Sam Toney, New Jersey City men's coach and star player
- Nate Davis, Gettysburg women's coach
- Jeff Rogers, Berry men's coach
- Alex Richey, Oglethorpe women's coach (WBCA Center Court)
- Dan Englestad, Southern Vermont men's coach
- Ken Scalmanini, Claremont-Mudd-Scripps men's coach
If you enjoy the show via the podcasts instead, you can get access to them or subscribe one of the three following ways (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Here are the first rankings for the men this season: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-first
FYI - the chances the Northeast Region is broken in half ... are very high now: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-championships-committee-supports-regional-realignment?division=d3
The second week Regional Rankings have been released: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-second
The third public NCAA Division III regional rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2019/02/men-regional-rankings-third
Southern Vermont College is shutting down at the end of the semester.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/03/04/southern-vermont-latest-small-college-close
Hard to believe a school this small (400 enrollment after recent declines) was able to support 13 sports.
The men's first regional rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-first
Week 2's Regional Rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-second
The Week 3 men's regional rankings are out: https://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2020/02/men-regional-rankings-third