With respect to GP losing kids to graduation but continuing to win, keep in mind that in all three cases (St Lawrence, Hamilton and Amherst) he came into programs with mediocre records and, I believe, took every one of them to the NCAA tournament (at least quarter finals?) his first year. That is, he took the former coach's team, a schedule already set and won with them.
I believe at Amherst there was only one new player between the last year before he took over and the first year he coached. I have seen him coach from from the beginning - was there at the first Amherst game he coached and too many since then. I often look at the opposing team and it looks like they have more individual talent, but he still wins. Even this year, after watching Bowdoin and Tufts, I thought as individual players they were more talented than Amherst but as teams they can't beat him.
I really believe that he can beat Team X with his Amherst team, switch teams and after a few days of practice come back and win with Team X against Amherst.

An interesting discussion about the Amherst- Babson game.
When my daughter played in the NESCAC there were sometimes comments posted about how a team shut her down or she was over-rated; Looking back I am grateful I learned then how little we as fans know what is really going on. There were times when medically it was questionable if my daughter would even play. But of course the fans wouldn't know that and no one who knew would say anything because that wouldn't help the team. I have no idea what is going on physically or mentally with the team or anyone on it, but I know better then to speculate as to why a player may be having a good or bad game or a couple of good or bad games.

Much more important to me is the assertion that when the Babson players came out of the locker room after the game (and correct me this is not what was being referred to) the Amherst fans did not acknowledge them. It is not true -every Amherst person stood and applauded them, and some parents (Mrs. Stedman notably) even asked a couple of people sitting and talking to join in the recognition. The applause for the Babson team, since they came out togeather then that for any individual Amherst player when they came out. There was and is great respect among the Amherst fans for the Babson team and the players. The failure to see that, and I mean that in the literal sense of how could you not see everyone standing and applauding, raises serious questions.

I understand the comment about Shannon not being as effective as in past years, but I don't completely agree with it. There is a "movement" at Amherst in which it seems that every recruiting class is better in some ways then the class before. So it would be understandable for newer players to maybe be more talented, but I don't think that is the case here. First, with so much talent Coach can't, and I am sure doesn't want to just play seven deep. All these girls can play and they know it, so the starters have to share the time maybe more then in the past. But more important I think you are underestimating Shannon's leadership abilities. She comes in and everything solidifies, everything calms down and everything runs smoothly. The defensive intensity picks up (and we all know how important that is) and she even contributes with the occasional three (remember the Kean game, I think, when she hit two in a row). And if last night you watched during the timeouts, she was yelling at the girls on the floor, imploring them and I thought inspiring them. I know I did not fully appreciate Shannon the first year and a half so learn from my (many and large) mistakes - she is out there for a reason since GP does not give mercy minutes. In my opinion the reason she is out there is because she the team's leader.

1) -To NE Hoop Guy I think the first year of the Gromacki era they started NCAA play at Bridgewater State against Becker (and then barely won the next game when Bowdoin missed a last second shot from less than eight feet away).
2) I agree that in theory Amherst should do better at home than on the road against teams such as Colby and Bowdoin, but in watching this year's games Amherst's MO is to get a big first half lead and then usually play even for the second half; of course that is aside from those games when Amherst starts slow and then blows the other team out in the second half (which I think covers most of the possibilities). My real point is that they seem to have had trouble concentrating for 40 minutes and when they are playing with a big lead they seem to revert to being nice, polite girls unable to stamp their opponents into the ground. I would point to their foul shooting as additional evidence of this, as I think foul shooting is a matter of concentration. All the girls have made thousands of foul shots and have the mechanics down perfect, which leaves focus as the reason they have left so many points at the line this year.
Finally, while I personally worry about the players' ability to focus for 40 minutes (or heaven forbid 45 or 50) I, along with all Amherst fans, have faith that Coach Gromacki will find a way to impress on the players the mindset needed to win the game.

I am not sure that is the correct tack to take in this situation. Instead of telling everyone how much the players like and respect him, which is obvious from their play, maybe we should make everyone think the opposite so he has to stay at Amherst. For example, we could say that it was really Gromacki, not Woody Hayes, who hit the Clemson player in 1978; and we could hint that it was the Amherst girls' basketball coach that suggested to Belichick the idea of stealing other teams signals... We could even hire some political consultant to run a dirty tricks campaign so no one will hire him.  For my money the less people know about what a great coach and person he is, the better off we are.

With respect to Lem's late return, I don't know that you are correct as to the reason but I also don't know if your speculation is incorrect. I think this early in the season the coach is more interested in trying out combinations and forcing new players to work with returning players. So, for instance, Caroline and Shannon were inserted back in the line up fairly late in the Farmingdale game playing with some of the non-starters. This might be considered "garbage time" in other programs but I think with this team whenever one is playing it is for a reason and part of a plan which may not be apparent at least to me. It may be to keep people from being hurt, or to keep players fresh for the next game or to see how the team might function if someone later is injured (bite my tongue) or can't play in a game because of foul trouble.
I may be wrong (or could change that to I usually am wrong) but I doubt if the coach realized that Lem was so close to 1000 points, especially since the season is just starting and she was not in danger of missing that milestone during the year.

Continuing on with that thought, it is always interesting to watch the NESCAC statistical leaders who, at the beginning of the season, can put up 18 points, 8 rebounds and 6 assists (hypothetically) until they start conference play against Bowdoin, Amherst and sometimes Tufts or Williams. Once conference play starts the numbers become more realistic. Conversely, now that conference play is starting, based on previous years experience, you will see the stats for the Amherst girls go up as the starters minutes rise from about 20-23 minutes a game to 27-32 minutes a game.
But, as you said, it is a team game and a testament to the girls that they each give up some individual glory so that as a team they can be as outstanding as possible.

The "one play" referred to above was a thing of beauty. Keene was in a 1-3-1 defense so Amherst's offense set up with two girls on opposite sides of the baseline, one on the foul line and two on top (a 2-1-2); the passing was side to side and baseline to opposite wing, strong passes that didn't "float" forcing the the whole Keene defense to be constantly moving at full speed. The ball never touched the floor and no one held it long enough to let the Keene players stop moving.... until the pass from the right wing to Bridget open on the right block for a layup. It was 7 or 8 passes and happened so quickly that I believe there were still about 10 seconds on the clock.
I would also observe that the improvement in Megan Robertson's defense between last Saturday's Saint Lawrence game and yesterday was what you might expect to see from freshman year to sophomore year, not in just ten days. She had great positioning and worked extremely hard the defensive end, and on this team that is what seems to get you playing time.

That makes me think that Amherst is national.  The LEC teams are much more local in nature.   Smiley


I don't think Amherst, or most of the NESCAC teams, have ever thought of themselves as "local." From the Amherst web-site "Students hail from 39 states, plus D.C., PR, GU and 23 foreign countries" (https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/181593). Without putting words into anyone's mouth I think the idea of the post, and I seem to remember the same "Midwest issue" being justifiably mentioned last year, i.e., that Amherst plays in New England and the style of game and how it is officiated varies from region to region, sometimes markedly.
(One might also note that Washington University out of a roster of twenty, has only four girls from MO, two from KS but also several from NY, NJ and CT as well as one from CA, so it also feels somewhat "national".)
Moreover, there seems to be no getting around the fact that Midwest teams, whether because of a particular style or familiarity with how the games will be called, have been extremely successful at the national level and in winning NCAA championships - I think the post was merely emphasizing that teams that play very few games in the Midwest may be at a disadvantage in March and until they prove themselves the odds favor betting against them.

But the down side--how long can Amherst keep Coach G? I know he likes all that is good with D3/NESCAC basketball but at some point, he will get an offer too good to refuse

There is nothing anyone can say to rain on our, or at least my parade. If he gets an offer next week that he accepts I would wish him all the best and I would bet the ranch on any program he goes to. He gave Amherst four great years, showed us what was possible (even though I can't figure out how he does it) and I am sure he gave the girls something that will stay with them for life. Whatever he chooses to do for personal and/or family reasons can't diminish the fun we've had.

Amherst vs Kean   
I haven't seen Kean play before so I can't make a comparison to their other games, and the following is not meant to minimize Kean's accomplishment in any way but I can say that based on how Amherst played, Amherst did not deserve to win. It might have been the emotional let down from the Williams' game or any number of excuses (and we all know about those) but the Amherst team looked completely out of it mentally. Just one example, for the first time in maybe 100 of the Amherst games I've seen, no one boxed out the shooter on a foul shot and they gave up a put back. I know I have missed games and have missed plays at games I've attended, but that mental lapse was a first, going back all the way to 2003. Without getting into details, Amherst's passing was poor, their vision was atrocious and the boxing out for the whole game was mediocre (when it wasn't worse then that). Since shooting comes and goes for everyone at every level I don't consider that a factor in the loss. If Amherst had done everything they usually do this might have been a more interesting game instead of for me, just a frustrating one.
That the game went to overtime is, IMHO, a tribute to how deep and talented the Amherst team is, and not a reflection of how they actually played.

Don't defer too quickly as I am extremely poor at judging relative speed, that is, whether a player is actually fast/quick, or only looks that way because of the competition.
The real reason I doubt they were tired is that virtually every player, prior to last night, was playing in every game for between ten and seventeen minutes, with Jaci averaging eighteen and a couple at nine minutes.
While that reduced playing time "hurts" a player's individual stats, for example for the last two years Amherst has been under-represented if you look at the NESCAC individual leaders list, it has the benefit of keeping the team healthy and at least physically fresh.
In that respect, one might even ask that instead of points, rebound, etc., per game the stats instead be per minute played, because right now Amherst players are getting their points, rebounds, assists, etc. in about half the minutes compared to other schools.

Wow.  Amherst was fortunate to escape tonight with a W.  I watched the first half online before leaving my office,   and the ladies clearly did not have it tonight.  They seemed tired and slow.  Passes weren't crisp, ball handling was erratic, shooting was off.

Clearly Amherst's three point shooting was off (a loss of 9-12 points) but court side to my old and near-sighted eyes the Amherst players did not look tired or slow. The Emmanuel coach was at Sunday's Amherst game scouting and I think he did some things that other coaches haven't done against Amherst, which kept them in the game (and no, I would not like to discuss what I think those tactics were as the season is very young). In addition, Emmanuel always does some things well, such as sending a player long as soon as the ball is shot and in the first half Emmanuel must have scored 8 or more points catching Amherst with no one back. While I am sure that GP warned the team to expect that before the game, the change was made at halftime so in the second half there were no easy baskets given up because of that type of defensive lapse.
I think more then anything else this game shows what a very good coach (Andy) can do against a deeper and more talented team, even one that may be having an off night shooting (Amherst usually shoots 34% from 3-point line instead of 17%)

Sarah Leyman has to be the epitome of the student athlete. I don't think anyone who watched Amherst women's basketball over the last three plus years can cite a single play, much less a half or a game, when Sarah did not give at least 100% effort. There may have been times when she couldn't hit the side of a barn or when you would question a pass or a shot but her work ethic and desire have been undeniable. She is the "Rudy" of the team, always working as hard as possible irrespective of the results, simply because that is how it should be done, out of respect for the game and herself.
I am sure that everyone who played against her hated every minute of it, because I know I sure would have.
(and all that good citizen stuff and pre-med workload and great GPA at an academically pretty decent  college is just fluff to a basketball fan)

"Prior to the present head coach, there was an Amherst player who won Rookie of the year for her play.  The talented player transferred to another NESCAC school in Maine.  She  continued to win honors  both as a player and as a student."

Matia Kostakis was the player and she transferred from Amherst to Bates. I believe Bates had been her first choice since she knew and liked the coach there.

Amherst women #1 for (I am fairly sure) the first time ever. And, as has been pointed out by other posters, they did it without being at full strength - the point guard missed two games, another starter has missed eight games and their first sub in has also missed at least one game.
A real team with many players each one stepping up and making unique contributions when needed.