I realize this board doesn't get much run these days, but I wanted to take a second to congratulate LaRoche's basketball team tonight.  In what must have been an emotional night they came out with a great win against cross-town foe Carnegie Mellon.  While the importance of winning or losing a basketball game certainly takes a backseat at times like this, they improved to 8-1 and I'm sure played the game in a way that made Coach Lang proud looking down from above.

Congratulations again to the players and coaches of LaRoche for a tremendous effort during these trying times.

Has anyone heard anything about the MMA coaching search?  Krikorkian took the CNU job on June 14th.   The season starts in a little under a month.  Does anyone know what is taking so long?

Just a thought on Brandeis, I have contended that I think they can sneak in with 17 wins due to their strength of schedule for a while.  Obviously they have to win out, but I really think that CMU is going to help them.  Say CMU loses one more, (with two losses I still contend they have a pretty good shot,) and finish 19-6.  They have a better overall record, and a much better region record than Brandeis.  But if they were on the board for consideration at the same time, wouldn't you have a hard time taking Carnegie over Brandeis?  Brandeis will have a better UAA record, which to be fair, I don't know if they look at that at all, but much more importantly Brandeis has beaten CMU twice.  I just don't see how they could keep a 19-6 CMU team out and if they take CMU and Brandeis has worked their way upto the second at-large team in the NE as Hugenerd describes and is on the board, I think they would have to seriously consider Brandeis as well. 

I've said all-along that I think they can get in with 17 and I still think they have a pretty good shot.  Time will tell.

On another note, and I realize I'm stating the obvious, but the East region is really weak.  Despite that, I think Rochester is going to have to win out, and I think they have no shot at that.  So it's down to Carnegie having some work to do, although I think with wins over Wooster and JCU (a win which looks better and better every day,) plus their non-conference loss, I believe, is out of region, so they would only have 6 region losses, so I think they would still get in at 18-7 and Brandeis who has to win out and then sweat it out.  But for all the reasons hugenerd posted above I continue to believe they have a good shot at it.

I watched the CMU-Case game on-line in its entirety tonight (it's nice to see more and more dIII teams, and UAA teams doing this, makes it easier to argue.)  CMU is very good.  Last Sunday O'Rourke took 3 shots (1-3, tonight 1-5) and Anderson took 7 (0-7 0-4 on three's as opposed to 5-9 3-5 on three's all made 3's in the first half when CMU took control.)  So, they were hardly gunning it up in either game.  Tonight they took more shots, Anderson and O'Rourke's willingness to pass is not the difference between tonight's game and last weekend's game.   They were clearly willing to pass in that game as well.

Case packed it in a zone in the first half, and the only difference between tonight and last Sunday is CMU was at home and shot the ball extremely well.  Over 50% from three for the game (and equally importantly a total of 9 as opposed to the 4 they usually make,) Anderson hit 3 3's in the first half and CMU I believe hit eight in the first half.  O'Rourke had 5 assists last Sunday and if CMU had shot the ball as well last Sunday they would have won and he probably would have approached the 11 assists he had tonight, if Case had to get out of their zone and he had been able use his dribble to draw help which he did tonight.  Case couldn't stay in the zone tonight and then CMU had their way with them for the most part.  They were able on 5 or 6 occassions to get the ball out of the net after a made Case basket and get a lay-up at the other end before Case got set.  Suffice it to say, they do a lot of things very well. 

If they shoot the ball as well as they did tonight they are an elite team.  However, I also believe tonight, based on their track record, is a statistical anomoly.  They will come back to earth and shoot around the 31% they have shot all year (especially on the road,) and it will cost them a game somewhere down the road, that's the problem with inconsistent shooting, you don't know when it will show up.  Tonight, like any game would be entirely different if Anderson, who is 29% for the year, was having a bad night shooting, like last Sunday, instead of a very good night, like tonight.  It would've been a much different game

My guess is Anderson's looks from three point range tonight were not very different from the looks last Sunday, tonight he felt good and they went in, last weekend he didn't and they didn't.  This happens.  However, CMU is very solid defensively and if they shoot well, a big if, they will be very hard to handle, because they are very solid at almost everything else. They are certainly capable of a nice tournament run.  As I have said all along, they are having a great year.

Enough of that, Brandeis and NYU are essentially done after tonight, (NYU has been done,) in terms of pool C.  By done I mean Brandeis has to win on Sunday, and of all the teams that have been disappointing this year, Brandeis certainly takes the cake.  Chicago shoots lights out tonight (17-26 to trump Brandeis's 10-20 from 3 pt. range,) and I don't know if that's Chicago's offense or Brandeis's defense but if you shoot that well you will beat almost anyone, this after putting up 12 points in the first half on Sunday, hard to explain, other than that's basketball.  What a difference a little home cooking and a few days of rest makes.  Rochester holds on for a big win, or they would also have been in big trouble.

So to sum up in terms of pool C which I really think is what everyone cares about.  CMU continues to be in great shape 3-3 should get them in.  Rochester hangs on and still probably needs 4-2, Brandeis is getting into the winout stage at this point.  Tonight's loss is really huge, while we all know that Chicago is certainly dangerous, especially at home, to the rest of the world it is just a loss to a 3-16 team.  I really think at this point even a loss to Wash and winning the last 5 might not be enough for Brandeis.

Finally all 4 home teams played much much better tonight than they did last Sunday, (except maybe Rochester who just played bettet,) against the very same opposition.  My only involvement in the league is that I used to watch my neighbor's kid with him who played for a UAA school. I used to go to the games with him, and he used to tell me all the time how hard the road Sunday games are.  Having watched the league for a long time I agree with that.  I think all four home teams will win Sunday and it will be just like last Sunday. 

Hugenerd I am not going to argue your point, I am sure your math is correct. However there is more to it than that.  CMU has made 76 three pointers they are shooting 31.7% this year and equally importantly 24% of their shots are threes, only two guys on the team have made more than 10.  Richard Stockton has made 156 they shoot 35.6% (I would still argue this is a non-trivial difference,) and 34% of their shots are threes, and Ithaca has made 170+ is shooting 34.5% and 39% of their shots are threes (a big part of their offense.)  You have to play these teams honestly.  Judging by their stats, you don't have to play CMU honestly or at least you can roll the dice against them, and again, I live in Florida, I wasn't at the game, but I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that Case didn't play CMU honestly.  They dared them to shoot it, which it seems is an excellent strategy against them.  There's no guarantee it will get you a win, and I doubt they were the first to try it.  However, I would dare say that you couldn't get away with this against Richard Stockton and Ithaca.  They would run in about 6 out of 8 and you would be back playing them honestly.  CMU was 2-11 against Brandeis and Wash U.  At home they will probably beat Case and Emory this week, that would put them at 16-4.  To beat Wash or Brandeis they will have to make more shots, it will be tough, because they don't shoot it great.  After that I bet they drop one against Chicago, NYU, or Rochester, in a game they don't shoot well.  Carnegie Mellon is MIT's shooting ability away from being really, really good.  I haven't seen MIT but in reading your posts about them it sounds like they shoot it great and are having a very good year, despite lack of size, depth, etc. probably due in large part to their great shooting. 

CMU can be very good without shooting it well, with the lead leading defense etc.  However, CMU will not be an elite team and will be more susceptible to a loss like the one on Sunday where they have a low 3 pt. % combined with a low ft% (tough to overcome,)  because they can't shoot.  So I acquiesce that I should have mentioned the number more than I did and that the % in and of itself doesn't tell the whole story, although there is no debating that 31.7% is very low for a college team, and 76 made threes at this point of the season is exceptionally low for a college team.  I again would be curious to see if there has ever been a top 10 that shoots what CMU shoots in combination with the lack of number that they take/make. 

And with that I am going to bed.  I do have to work tomorrow.  I'm sorry this whole thing got so long, but it was interesting for me anyway.  I will be happy to continue the discussion if you like, but again I stand by my thought that CMU's shooting certainly is a very real deterrant from them being an elite type team and will continue to be so, much more than any other issues that they have.  They are very good, better than anyone thought in the pre-season.  They appear to be big and athletic and play good defense, etc. etc. But the statistics indicate that they are a very poor shooting team and when forced into it even if they are open it is a 50-50 proposition if they will make enough shots to beat really good teams consistently, and they will lose to teams they are more talented than from time to time more than those really good teams we are talking about.

My point is absolutely correct.  Richard Stockton is 35.5% from three significantly better than 31.5% and Ithaca is 34.5% and shoots almost 80% from the FT line (77 somthing to be fair.)  If you want to claim that is the same as 31.5 and 64.5 go ahead but it's not.  And those teams are currently 9 and 10.  If CMU makes 80% of their free throws agains Case they probably win.  CMU can't shoot and it will cost them games upper echelon teams would win because they shoot better.  You are free to believe whatever you like. 

The fact that early in the season they were ranked I believe as high as 11 is probably a function of poor starts by the top UAA teams Brandeis and Chicago, and a poor start by the GL region teams as you correctly pointed out at the time.

I agree to stop and sorry if the stats were too much, but I am pretty sure I'm right about this, and I've certainly seen you go after people when you believe you are right.  Anyway I appreciate your comments, and as far as I'm concerned that's that.  People are free to form there own opinions.

Finally, I haven't heard anyone else even suggest that CMU is a top 10 team in terms of talent.  They won a bunch of non-conference games, which I pointed out earlier resulted in 20 straight non-conference wins, Wash had a similar streak ended at 20.  NYU also wins a million non-conference games, things get tougher in conference and teams are more apt to exploit your weaknesses.  And CMU seems to have a glaring one.  A team that shoots the ball as poorly as they do is never going to finish in the top 10, I would be surprised if one ever has, and would have to have dominant big men, which I don't believe CMU has, although I don't know that much about Rife. 

So again I go back to my initial statement that I think you are being a bit unrealistic in your expectations.  I think games like the Case game are going to happen from time to time, and I think in games where they face other very talented teams, Brandeis and Washington to name two, they are at a major disadvantage because those teams make an incredibly high % of their three pointers, where CMU makes a very low % of theirs.  Throw in the FT disparity and you are looking at a major disadvantage for CMU which it would seem that they try to make up for with good defense, which apparently they do, and not living by the 3 and getting to the basket, which is a little tougher to do if the other team packs it in the lane.  Again I think CMU is doing even better than I realized considering this major disadvantage.

So that's it I will drop it now too unless you feel I've made an error in my analysis.  Suffice it to say I don't think CMU is a top 10 team, they simply don't shoot the ball well enough, meaning what happened to them on Sunday is much more likely to happen to them than some of the other top teams.  If they had won that game they would be 15-3, with the 3 losses being to really top teams.  I think they are doing fine.   Which is how this all got started.  They are talented but not elite, they are going to lose from time to time, and they will have trouble with equally talented teams that shoot the ball much better than they do.

Case was able to get them to shoot many more three's than usual 22-64 shots were three's CMU made right at their average 7-22, however it accounted for a much higher percentage of their total shots than usual, hence a lower overall FG%.  They also went 12-24 from the FT line. 

It would seem this is a talented but badly flawed team.  What happened to them against Case will probably happen again at some point.  I would assume Case packed it in the lane and wouldn't let them get the ball toward the basket (if anyone was at the game, please chime in.)  I would also assume Bouldin-Johnson's 1-5 and Rife's 2-7 and Anderson's 0-3 on two's was a function of them being heavily guarded around the basket as they attempted to stay away from just gunning up 3's.  However, if Case puts enough big bodies between you and the basket and essentially let's you shoot it, eventually you have to be able to make enough three's to get them out of it, which is what any top 10 team would do.  They can't do that, or at least quite often they can't do that.  I don't believe that is a lack of discipline, I believe that is a function of not being very good shooters.  I'm not sure there is a whole lot they can do about this.  It clearly is an issue and is going to remain an issue in all likelyhood.

Hugenerd, you are mistaking being talented and athletic for being elite (which we I would believe we would agree top 10 teams are.)  I was curious so I did a little research on this.  Carnegie Mellon is shooting 31.5% from 3 point range and 64.5% from the FT line.  I have come to the conclusion, they can't shoot.  If there is a team in the top 10 that shoots as poorly as they do, I will be incredibly surprised.  CMU takes the lowest percentage of three point shots of anyone in the league (compared to total shots,)  Emory is the only other team that is close. And they are close to 30%, CMU is less than 24% so it would appear they know they can't shoot, and have the discipline to not just shoot three's and shoot far fewer of them than the average NCAA team (24% is one of the lowest I have seen.)  The only team in the league that is lower than them from 3 overall is NYU at about 30%, which is probably why they have a hard time winning as well, that offense relies on good shooting.  Wash shoots over 40% and Brandeis makes close to 45% (outrageously high,) this is a massive advantage for these teams.  CMU and NYU would have to be rediculously more talented than these teams to beat them if both teams in the game shot the way they normally do. 

Furthermore Carnegie Mellon leads the league in FG% defensed, and 3 pt  FG% defensed.  This hardly seems like a team that completely lacks discipline.  They don't shoot many 3's at all, again this seems like a team that realizes its weakness and tries not to play into it.  In order to avoid a rediculously long post I am going to go with a couple of shorter posts.  I think the Case game proves this point really well, which I will get to now.

And what I'm trying to say is that in the Case game Einwag took as many shots as the rest of the starters combined (22, I just looked at the box,) and had a very good game.  They still lost, as the rest of the starters didn't make anything.  Anderson and O'Rourke (1-3) went 1-10 and I have not seen them play but I know that Anderson is certainly considered one of their more talented guys.  He was 0-4 on threes, he only took a couple of twos.  This is not a lot of shots from those two.  As a team they shot more threes than usual, which maybe Case packed it in, I don't know.  You seemed to take exception to this loss, but it doesn't seem that the reasons you feel they don't play well had anything to do with the loss.  CMU on the road on a Sunday didn't shoot very well, (apparently an issue for them,) despite their best player taking over a third of their shots, and Case won.  This happens. 

It just seems you weren't calling them a legit top 25 team before the season and now you want them to win every game.  I'm sorry the first post was so long, but my point was that perhaps Anderson and O'Rourke, and I'm not trying to pick on them either, I think they are both probably very good players, their FG%'s are just a little low, probably should indeed shoot less (and on Sunday they did, Einwag took 3x as many shots as Anderson.)  However, all of the sudden CMU is supposed to win every game and I think that is a little unfair.  They have beaten some very good teams (John Carroll is ranked this week,) and 2 of their 4 losses are to top 10 teams with another being at Brandeis.  You said you wanted them to play upto their potential that they shouldn't be losing to Case, and I was simply trying to point out that however they play they seem to be having a very good year and things like the loss to Case happen to everybody in the league except Wash U (this year, its happened to them in the past as well,) and I don't think CMU is nearly as good as Wash U is.  I think they probably are playing upto their potential or very close.  The other main point in my too long post, was every team has things outside observers think they should do different and if the other teams in the league Brandeis, Rochester, NYU, and Chicago being the most notable were being held under the same light they probably also have flaws and things they should do better that would make them have a better record, no different than your criticisms of CMU feeling that certain players try to do things that they shouldn't, which may well be a valid criticism as again, I have seen them play one half on line and that's it.  That's all.

Anyway I just feel like based simply on results (which seems pretty important, and a decent way to judge things,) that CMU is doing quite well, especially compared to where we thought they'd be, despite a disappointing loss on Sunday. 

Sorry I didn't have to work this morning, and that was longer than I realized I will work to keep it much briefer in the future, so you don't need your lunch break to read it 

Hugenerd, I think you are making my point for me.  I feel that because you played at CMU you are holding them to a higher standard than everyone else, which is certainly your right.  However, I stand by my point that they have one debateable loss.  This seems to upset you, but the same thing happened to Rochester.  Last year Wash U lost at CMU by 35, these things happen from time to time.  Case has played everyone in the league unbelievably tough in the past few weeks.  They let a couple get away, but they had Rochester on the ropes, Brandeis on the ropes and NYU on the ropes, you know as well as I do that road game on Sunday are tough one's.  I don't think Chicago is 35 points worse than Brandeis, (and scoring less than 40 points overall is laughable.)  I don't think Rochester is worse than Emory, and I don't think Wash normally struggles with NYU.  All four things happened on Sunday, it is well known that the Sunday game is tough for the road team.  So CMU losing to Case, while disappointing for CMU fans, happens from time to time, it is what makes the league so tough.

I am not questioning that CMU maybe could be a little better, but I didn't go to CMU.  It seems to me that if we want to break them apart, we are being a little unfair.  Teams have issues, very few play perfectly.  People go to games all the time and say why is team such and such doing this.  Why doesn't this guy play more, or why doesn't this guy shoot more.  It happens all the time.  Brandeis, Rochester, NYU, certainly Chicago all have games and my guess would be overriding issues that an outside observer would say "why is that happening?" 

I would take CMU's season so far over everyone in the league's except Wash U.  They seem to play as well as Brandeis (a reasonable loss at Brandeis, who was also getting smoked at Case for a lot of the game,) who everyone, (or at least everyone else,) seems to think has more talent than CMU.  Rochester just lost at Emory and no one seems to have a huge problem with this.  And NYU just lost four home games in the league in the first trip through, including by 21 to CMU.

All I am saying is you seem to look at them through a magnifying glass, which is fine, but you seem like a parent in some ways, and possibly your expectations, much like dblock for NYU, I would argue are a little unrealistic.  You seem to want perfection.  I would say that CMU, picked fourth in the UAA, and I did re-read your posts and you seemed to think that was about right at the time, is exceeding expectation, and now you seem to want them to be 16-2.  It just seems like all of the sudden things have changed.  You seem to feel some of the players take bad shots, etc.  I don't doubt this is true, however if they are as talented as you think, than sometimes teams like that take tougher shots in my opinion.  Looking at their stats certainly their fg% is solid, not great, but not bad either, (right in the middle of the pack for the UAA.)  They don't shoot the three very well, however they also don't take very many (less than 25% of their total shots, which is really low for a college basketball team,) that seems to show some shot discipline anyway.  Also, they are last in FT%, so it strikes me that they probably just don't shoot the ball very well.  Looking at their stats, it seems that Anderson's fg% is a little low (40%, again not great, but he's one of their action guys and 40% isn't god awful, it's a little low, there are teams that shoot 40%. O'Rourke's is dreadful, but he only takes about 5 shots a game in a lot of minutes, so again does he shoot too much, maybe, but it's rare you see someone not shoot at all and he has to keep them honest.  But everyone else is good to very good.  Anyway now I am looking at them with a fine tooth comb too.  Which is what I think is a little unfair.

I certainly don't watch them as much as you, but they're results seem pretty solid.  If simply stating that they seem to win a lot and do better than everyone, (except you,) thinks they should means I don't know what I'm talking about, then so be it.  I think it is unfair to expect me to have the same insight into CMU basketball as you.  To say I don't know basketball seems to be a little arrogant on your part.  I don't follow them as closely as you do, because I didn't go there, but I think that is the problem here.  You having gone there, want them to play better than anyone else thinks is justified, not unusual with parents, alums, etc, in my experience.  My guess is if you followed any other team in the league the same way, (again with the possible exception of Wash U.) you would feel the same way about that team, that there are things they could do better and therefore they aren't playing as well as they possibly could be.  I just feel that looking at the league as a whole, that CMU is doing well, better than I thought they would, the Case loss excluded, but again that happens, just ask Rochester.  Within the context of all the teams Carnegie Mellon is having a very good year.  If you go over them looking for every little flaw, than like the vast majority of teams, you are bound to find some.

My final point is again I was speaking toward your and dblock points.  He doesn't think they are very talented, and he has seen them, so how does he explain the fact they win a lot.  You are convinced they are more talented than their record, which would make them top 10 in the country.  So which is it, are the not very talented and lucky, or are they super talented and performing poorly.  My guess is, in the grand scheme of things, neither.  They probably are within their potential range for this year and toward the high end of that range.  They have been as high as 11th in the country and in the top 25 all year (23rd this week.)  Much better than anyone, including you, thought before the season.  Once again I don't care if CMU is good or not, it just seems like they all of the sudden are being held to a higher standard than everyone else, and I'm not sure why, except you went there.  Which again is fine.  If you think they should be 16-2 and number 8 in the nation, I don't have a problem with that.  But again, nobody, and I mean nobody, thought they should be that good before the season.  People thought Brandeis should be that good before the season.  If before the season someone looked at them, or you, I would bet, and said 18 games in you're 14-4 take it or leave it, they, would have, and my guess is you would have, taken it. 

So I also stand by my point, I think all in all, without going over them with a fine tooth comb, which I'm not doing to anyone else either, they are having a very good season.  Could they be a little bit better?  Maybe, but I think most teams could probably be a little bit better, if everything went perfect.  Could they be a lot worse too, absolutely.  Getting 15 kids on board and playing close to their potential (maybe not their peak absolute top potential, but certainly toward their potential,) which CMU seems to be doing, puts them ahead of a lot, if not most, teams. And, as such, means they are having a very good year, although not upto your standards, which seem a little high in my opinion.  You follow the tournament stuff closer than I do, so I will acquiesce to you on these points.  It seems to me over the past few years (since tournament expansion,) that UAA teams with solid non-conference records get in with 18 wins.  Is this a perfect measure, of course not, just a rule of thumb.  Based on that I think CMU is in with 18 regardless if they are second in the league or not, which I don't think the committee cares a whole lot about due to none of the teams playing in the same region.  Could I be wrong, of course.  But assuming I'm right, once again if you had said before the season, going into the second half of the league all CMU has to do to get in the tournament is go 4-3 most of us wouldn't have believed it, and said wow they must be having a very good year.  Which in my humble opinion they are, not a perfect year, a very good year.  All right this got long.  Hugenerd I hope CMU plays as well as you wish and we see them in the final 8 along with all the other UAA schools, I'm not sure it's realistic, but I hope it happens.  It's a good league with true student-athletes and I like seeing all the teams do well.

I accidentally hit the enter key, I was going to finish by saying CMU has lost this year to Wash (the defending national champ,) at Brandeis who everyone, including me, thinks is really good, at Richard Stockton who I didn't look at how they are right now, but I know they have been ranked in the top 25 a good chunk of the season, and they're only not so great loss is at Case who has been beating everybody by about 20 at some point over the last couple of weekends on the Sunday game.  I'm not sure how much better you want them to be.  It seems like their results compare fairly favorably with everyone else's, (save Wash,) so if we're going to pick on them, what about Rochester, Brandeis, and NYU, who we seem to want to say are better than them, but seem to be every bit, if not more, inconsistent and in certainly in NYU's  case can't come close to the quality of wins that CMU has produced, (Wooster, JCU, Catholic, Rochester, NYU, etc.)

Again, I don't give a whit if CMU beats NYU, Rochester, or Brandeis, or vice versa, however it seems dblock and hugenerd are taking pot shots at them which the evidence doesn't seem to back up, actually quite the contrary.

Anyway you guys are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, I think their are teams that have a lot bigger problems and a lot more explaining to do than CMU.  I'm not sure how good you want them to be.

Going into the second half of league play and the UAA's pool C chances took a major hit yesterday.  Rochester loses to Emory and CMU loses to Case.  I still believe the UAA has four teams with realistic chances to make the tournament. 
However, they better start winning.  I think Rochester has to go 5-2 down the stretch.  The good news for them is they have five home games the second half of the season.  CMU probably has a little better situation as I think with wins over some of the better teams in the GL (Wooster, John Carroll, etc.) they will be in with 18 wins, so they only need 4-3, however they would be well served to win both games this weekend, (home for Emory and Case.)  Brandeis as I mentioned in my last post also needs at least 5-2 (that would give them 17 and I think that because of their really tough non-conference schedule that might be enough.  However, they have 5 road games so that is going to be easier said than done.  I also agree with the consensus that they are at worst the second best team in the league, so this will make their task a little easier as they will be playing this game with better players.

Finally I think you guys are being a little hard on CMU.  I have zero vested interest in this.  I am not and have never been affiliated with any team in the league.  That said by looking at the last few years at their team page, they have beaten NYU 6 out of 9 over the last 5 years and and 8 out of 13 over the last 7.  NYU has not swept both games in the season over this span, and I think CMU would be a fairly substantial favorite in the game later this year at CMU which if they win would be 7 out of 10, which is fairly one-sided. 

4 for the road teams last night.  I think at this point things are pretty clear.  Wash was and remains clearly the best team.  Brandeis, CMU, and Rochester are in the next tier below them, and are the teams with realistic shots at the NCAA's.  CMU remains in extremely good shape, as I think a 4-4 finish which with their remaining schedule they should get relatively easily should be enough.  Rochester probably needs a 5-3 finish which is a little tougher task but still extremely doable.  Brandeis on the other hand is in some trouble.  They really needed last night's game to give them some breathing room.  If they lose at Wash (a reasonable assumption,) then they are running out of room.  They need to run the table (other than Wash.) to be safe.  Of all the teams they might be the most likely to get in at 17-8, however, to do that they would need to win six out of seven.  To top things off they got 5 home games the first go round.  So they still have games at Rochester, CMU, Chicago, and NYU.   A very tall order for the Judges.  My gut tells me they have the second best team in the league so if anyone can do it they can.  However, they've been plagued by inconsistency and winning all of those games is tough for any team.  So they are now completely up against it.

As for the rest, I would rank Case, Chicago, and NYU in the next group with NYU maybe being a notch above.  Maybe.  Anyway and no disrespect to dblock and his ardent NYU support, but they are, at this point, clearly not as good as the teams mentioned above.  There is no reason to believe they are going to be able to handle Wash at this point.  It's a shame Case can't finish or they might be above these two teams.

As for Emory they seem to be the same as last year, only without Ferdirigos so they can't score, it's hard to see them winning more than a game or two.

All right have a good day.