Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 03:08:47 PM
You have pegged this solely to last year's tournament run, however, which doesn't explain our decade-long pattern of naming CCIW and WIAC players to our All-American team. Your argument just doesn't make sense. If it's a conspiracy, then why did it exist 10 years ago? Those All-American teams from the dawn of our site helped shape this All-Decade Team far more than some conversation you can't even recall correctly and a question that some people didn't want to hear.

A second ago you denied that the conversation even happened, now all of a sudden you have a better recollection of it than I do?? Look, all I'm saying is 1) numerous people besides myself have noticed ill-will from you towards the NESCAC 2) in your voting for the top 25, in your all-decade team, in your not giving Olson a share of POY (even though other major authorities did), there is evidence of a bias against amherst and the NESCAC 3) it is reasonable to conclude that 2 happens because of 1

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 03:01:20 PM
You keep editing your posts. Hard to know what I'm responding to.

You and I laughed about it during the conversation. How is that sour?

Give me a break.

I don't remember any laughing. What you dont understand is that things like the way you responded to our winning are grounds for suspicion. If there was nothing else to back up this suspicion, I would have no problem with it. Unfortunately, insights into your voting record and the strange balance of the all-decade team do a lot to reinforce the suspicion.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 19, 2007, 07:29:35 AM

Quote from: JeffRookie2 on March 18, 2007, 11:10:06 PM
Talked to Pat after the game yesterday, he seemed pretty unhappy that we won.

Dunno why you would think that, except ...

Quote from: JeffRookie2 on March 18, 2007, 11:10:06 PM
He said that we would be insufferable all summer.

Yes, that I did. And so far your fellow fans have done little to disprove that suggestion. But didn't I also tell you that I thought we needed MORE Amherst fans on the board?

Sorry, talked to several Amherst fans over the course of the weekend and it's hard to remember which was which conversation.

Here is your acknowledging, then trying to spin, that conversation. Don't lie, Pat, I hear its grounds for getting kicked off the board.

Your mood after Amherst won was pretty darn sour. There were also some incidents reported about your asking insulting questions to the amherst players at the press conference that I was not there for, but which other posters reported. All of these things are very disturbing from the person who runs a site that is proported to be the authority on division III basketball. I cant imagine how people would react if a bunch of old, curmudeony analysts on espn came out with an all decade team with 1/3 of the players from pac-10 and especially UCLA because they pined for the days of John Wooden. Get with the times, the NESCAC and the UAA have the best talent in Div. III.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 02:44:05 PM

Quote from: JeffRookie2 on February 11, 2008, 02:37:32 PM
In person, you have told me in so many words that you have a grudge against amherst.

Making stuff up gets you bounced from the board. I'd advise you to consider closely what you try to make people believe. The only grudge I might even have would be against crank posters who try to make up crap.

You dont remember my introducing myself to you after the game while you were whining about our winning? I think we have had this conversation before and you acknoledged the conversation. I dont know why people wouldn't believe it. Its pretty common knowledge that I was there, obviously you were there, it makes sense that I would have introduced myself, and any nescac reader would surely believe that you were displeased about the result.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 02:42:10 PM
In the past three pages, eight posters are capable of voting on karma and eight are not. Hardly "very few posters."

Having to go through an up-and-coming conference the past year or so is not the same as being the No. 2 conference and having to face the No. 1 conference before the Final Four year-in and year-out.

How many Final Fours would the NESCAC have been to if it had to go through those teams?

I hope that answers your question. Sweet 16s and Elite 8s mean a lot more when you're playing Midwest and West teams to get there instead of the East and non-NESCAC Northeast teams.

Still, the idea that more than 1/3 of the top players in the last decade played for 2 or 3 teams is insane. How does the WIAC not get more players? They won 4 championships and had to go through the CCIW to get them.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 02:34:32 PM

Quote from: JeffRookie2 on February 11, 2008, 02:28:19 PM
All I'm saying is this: The CCIW has the same # of all-decade members as the NESCAC, WIAC and ODAC combined. Yet the CCIW has just 4 final four appearances in the last decade with 1 finals appearance and 1 championship (10 years ago), while NESCAC, WIAC, and ODAC have a combined 17 final four appearances, 11 finals appearances and 7 championships!!!

The NESCAC has to go through who to get to the Final Four? What other power conferences? The CCIW has to go through the WIAC and vice versa. No wonder they have trouble.

Maybe I mis-read your article about the Little East and other under-appreciated conferances the other day? And give me a break, about 1/100 of frank's posts are on this board.

Its hard not to have a conspiracy theory when I have seen you openly begrudging Amherst's success in person after the national championship. In person, you have told me in so many words that you have a grudge against amherst. So when Amherst gets no players on the all-decade team despite being one of the most successful teams of the last decade by any measure, or when amherst just barely misses being #1 in the polls after you have said that they were not even in your consideration for #1, I don't think its unreasonable for me to feel that the team isnt getting a fair shake.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 02:33:23 PM
It only takes 200 posts to use karma. Scroll back and do some counting.

Gordon Mann posts under the name Gordon Mann. Mark Simon posts under the name atnwriter and while he hasn't seen Amherst play since Friday night I think he's well-versed.

But you can ding karma multiple times a day. (you have dinged mine 3 times in the last 5 minutes) Just give me an explanation and I'll get off your back.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 11, 2008, 02:29:37 PM
From here on out we will do them by the actual calendar decades, so we'll have an All-2000s team, an All-2010s team, etc. We just weren't around for enough of the 90s to do an All-1990s team.

I think people here would be well off to remember that the NESCAC, while a great conference for most of the D3hoops Decade, is only 10 teams out of 400. And the Hall of Fame posters had no say in the selection of team members (just me and the two New England guys, Gordon and Mark Simon), though we did lean on their recollections of players once they were already selected.

I'm sorry, how many teams out of 400 is the CCIW? I count 10. And how are Gordon and Mark Simon New England guys? I've never seen them post on this board before.

Pat, Gordon, Mark, just tell me how you came to the conclusion that the CCIW has had so many amazing players and yet not had nearly the results of the NESCAC?

Quote from: gordonmann on February 11, 2008, 01:28:21 PM
Jeff Rookie:

Many of the players you brought up were considered.  Anyone who didn't make All-American at least once (Fitzsimmons, Harper, Abba) was not.

http://www.d3hoops.com/tow/allamericans-all.htm

Most of the guys you mentioned were named All-American just once.  It would've taken an incredible season (see Mike Nogelo) to crack the list with one All-American placement.

As for Strong and Olson, I think we need to see how they finish their careers before we can appropriately place them.  If Olson leads his team to another title, that suggests one placement.  If Amherst goes in the tank (and pigs learn to fly), that advises another placement.

And, yes, we were aware of all the players you mentioned.  I even took classes with one of them.

Its funny that you reference your own all-america lists to show that your hands were tied. I would argue that those lists are just as biased. And even your 'affiliations' are very dubious. Even those who are not officially affiliated with the CCIW could still have much more exposure to that league than the NESCAC. Who was the new hall-of-famer last year who we were informed was from the NESCAC board, but whom I've never seen post here? Pat also referenced him as our representitive in top 25 voting, but its pretty clear he is not a fan of the nescac.

All I'm saying is this: The CCIW has the same # of all-decade members as the NESCAC, WIAC and ODAC combined. Yet the CCIW has just 4 final four appearances in the last decade with 1 finals appearance and 1 championship (10 years ago), while NESCAC, WIAC, and ODAC have a combined 17 final four appearances, 11 finals appearances and 7 championships!!! In terms of final four appearances over the last decade, the NESCAC has been by far the most successful conferance, with 8 appearances, double that of the CCIW and nearly as much as the CCIW and WIAC combined. Lets not forget conferences like the MIAA and UAA that have also been very successful, but only got 1 player each. The idea that these results have no relation to the fact that Pat and the other voters are very mid-west oriented to me is very dubious.

Also, why on earth have the playoff results from last year STILL not been put up under playoffs??? It is a little weird that NOWHERE on this entire site is there any evidence that Amherst won the national championship last year!!! It's ridiculous!!

Also, the whole 'karma' thing on this site is crap when there are very few posters on this site with enough posts to use karma other than Pat and his cronies. As a result, any criticism of them results in massive loss of karma points that make other readers give less credence to you posts.

Quote from: gordonmann on February 11, 2008, 12:20:56 PM
Jeff Rookie:

Actually there are seven CCIW players.  Not that this will make you happier.

Seriously, if you can make a good case for one of the Amherst guys, I'd be interested in hearing it.  Zieja was an All-American for us once at the honorable mention level.  Very few of the selections -- one of them being Nogelo -- were only All-American once and none at the HM level.

Keep in mind this award was based on our All-American selections, not the NABC or All-conference awards.  Also keep in mind that the decade parameters played a factor in someone like Olson not getting on the list.

I have only been at amherst for 4 years, but there have been some incredible players over the last decade. Fitsimmons, Bedford, Schiel, Wilson, Harper. How about guys at other schools like Ty Rhoten, or Colin Tabb? I just dont see how the NESCAC, with all its success, could have so little recognition for its players. Almost all of the 'hall of fame' posters on this site are fans primarily of the CCIW and WIAC, so it gets a little frustrating.

A lot of Williams fans dont even acknowledge Crotty as the best player on that championship team. How about Coffin or Abba? Have the people who decided the all-decade team even know about these players?

Man, what a ridiculous all-decade team. No Amherst players, and only 2 NESCAC players (both Williams) at all compared to 5 for CCIW. I would be surprised if I didnt know who put the list together. The CCIW won 1 national championship this decade, and that was 10 years ago. I guess the NESCAC has been kicking their asses with inferior players.

Seriously, no Steve Zieja!!?? Unbelievable. This whole site is so WIAC-CCIW central it's absurd.

I dont think the Bedford-Baskauskas comparisons are fair, they are different types of players. Bedford could get his own shot and get into the lane, something we haven't had at Amherst since he graduated. Baskauskas does just about everything well. He scores, rebounds, defends and passes. Definitely an awesome player to watch.

Thanks, new kid, i appreciate the recognition.

Pat, did any NESCAC players make the all-decade team?

[quote author=a big fan link=topic=4491.msg861881#msg861881
This was a persuasive arguement before 1987 (before there was a 3 point shot).   However your arguement does not recognize the reward the game gives to the 3 point shot. 

Would you rather have a 3 point shooter who averages 36% take more shots in a game or an inside the arc player averaging 52% take more shots?   ( The 3 point shooter will score 108 points on 100 shots.  The 52% shooter will score 104 points on 100 shots).

If you take into account the effect of the three point shot and look at scoring efficiency of some of the players mentioned the raw shooting pecentage is a very weak arguement.  (stats as of this morning):

245 points on 261 shots -  93.9 points/100 shots        (Adam Choice)
217 points on 236 shots -  91.9 points/100 shots        (Robert Taylor)
225 points on 231 shots -  97.4 points/100 shots        (Bryan Wholey)
208 points on 215 shots -  96.7 points/100 shots        (Chris Rose)
163 points on 167 shots -  97.6 points/100 shots        (Andrew Harris)

When it comes to putting points on the scoreboard, Chris Rose is certainly as proficent as some of the other players that have been mentioned for all conference honors. 
[/quote]

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this, but your arguement that Rose's rather pedestrian 36.1% from behind the arc (as of today) makes up for his terrible overall % and free throw % is laughable. Maybe you are unfamiliar with penalty shots and the fact that 3-point shooters are rarely fouled? I like how your stats dont include points from foul shooting. Using your own criteria of points per shot, (including points from free throws) here is the ranking of every player in the nescac who has taken 100 shots or more this season:

Points Per Shot:
Jones(Amherst)- 1.67
Baskauskas(Amherst)- 1.62
Sargeantson(Bowdoin)- 1.62
Aaron Gallant(Tufts)- 1.58
Mosley(CC) - 1.56
Hopkins(Amherst)- 1.52
Bernier(CC) - 1.51
Young(CC) - 1.50
Ellis(Bates)- 1.50
Smith(Midd)- 1.49
Edwards(Midd)- 1.47
Martin (Trin) -1.47
Olson(Amherst)- 1.46
Walters(Amherst)- 1.46
Snyder(Williams) - 1.45
Russell(Colby) - 1.44
Fleigel (Bowdoin)1.43
Wheeler(Amherst)- 1.43
Winters(Wesleyan)- 1.42
Geohegan(Williams) - 1.41
Pierce (Tufts) – 1.40
Karis(CC) - 1.40
Cutrone(Colby) - 1.39
Rowe(Trin) - 1.39
Choice(Colby) -1.37
Beyel(Tufts)- 1.36
Coghlan(Midd)- 1.34
Grayson(Wesleyan)- 1.34
Weitzen(Tufts)- 1.33
Jackson(Bowdoin) 1.33
Stone(CC) – 1.32
Shalvoy(Williams) - 1.30
Halloran(Bates)- 1.30
Hippert(Bowdoin)- 1.30
Black(Tufts)- 1.30
Jimmy O'Keefe(Bates) 1.28
Wholey(Bates)- 1.23
Hasiuk(Trin) - 1.23
Ford(Trin) - 1.20
Dudley(Midd)-1.20
Taylor(Trin) - 1.19
Harris(Midd)- 1.19
Pelletier (Wesleyan) - 1.19
Ryan O'Keefe(Tufts) – 1.17
Chris Wilson(Bates)- 1.16
Aaron Westbrooks(Trin) - 1.11
Scura(Wesleyan)- 1.09
Rose(Williams) 1.06
Simpson(Colby) - 1.05
Rudin(Midd)- 1.03
Kaminer(Wesleyan)- .90

As you see, Chris Rose ranks a pathetic 4th to last. Unlike Rudin, he does very little else to contribute to his team. Congrats to Jeremy Kaminer for losing this ranking handily and for being the only player to score less than 1 point per attempt.

In my scenario, if Tufts beats Bowdoin and Williams beats Wesleyan (and no upsets) it would be:

1. Bowdoin (2-1 against top 4, beat Williams)
2. Williams (2-1 against top 4, lost to Bowdoin)
3. Amherst (1-2 against top 4, beat Tufts)
4. Tufts (1-2 against top 4 lost to Amherst)

OR if Tufts beats Bowdoin and Wesleyan beats Williams (and no upsets):

1. Amherst (2-1 against top 4, beat Tufts)
2. Tufts (2-1 against top 4, lost to Amherst)
3. Wesleyan (1-2 against top 4, beat Bowdoin)
4. Bowdoin (1-2 against top 4, lost to Wesleyan)

Did I do that right? Now, if Tufts losses to Bowdoin, I'm still not sure who gets the #2 spot, understanding that it depends on who wins the Wes/Williams matchup.

Quote from: NortheastHoopsGuru on February 10, 2008, 11:33:21 AM
baseball- the move has actually been considered before, not necessarily to the Ivy League but for Amherst to bump up into scholarship level, most likely D-2 on the onset. The main problem they face is their lack of resources in terms of facilities. D-2 standards nowadays require a much larger gymnasium, weight room, training rooms, etc. Amherst has a good thing going right now, being a force in the NESCAC under Hixon, and still essentially getting scholarship level basketball players.

There is also no way amherst would go anywhere without williams and probably even wesleyan.