Completely agree with the discussion that most D-1 walk-ons are very similar to the majority of D-3 players.  I remember my roommate freshman year at Colby had a recruit who stayed with him overnight (who from what they told me was nothing special on the court) and is now a walk-on for the BC basketball team.  A lot of the importance for these walk-ons at D-1 programs is competence on the court but really the ability to post a high GPA in order to keep the teams GPA as whole looking better than it truly is.

Colby killed RIC and UMFK who are both tourney teams. I'm just stunned that after all the projections that we were safely but not guaranteed in that we were passed by Anderson and more importantly Wesley (?). I would think beating those two teams along with going 6-7 against Bates Bowdoin Amherst and Trinity would have been enough. If its a mathematical formula based primarily on winning pct. and SOS how did Wesley with a worse winning pct. and I'm guessing much worse SOS beat us out?

Obviously it wouldn't be a crime if Schultz got POY. He's had an incredible season. However to say its clear cut and that choice is 3rd is absolutely absurd.

Choice (conference): 20 ppg 5.7 rpg 2.1 apg 45% from the field 79 % from the line
Schultz (conference): 20.9 ppg 4.2 rpg 1.7 apg 61 % from the field 73 % from the line
Wang (conference): 15.3 ppg 4 rpg 5 apg 51% from the field 96 % from the line

First of all why is Wang in this conversation over Pierce? Also and this is just something confusing to me how does a guy who shoots 60 % and 57 from three shoot 72 from the line? More importantly though, as a biased Colby fan I think Choice's stats are better. Realizing the bias I would think it perfectly understandable for somewhat to say they were even overall. At the end of the day, however, Choice means more to his time and is planned around more by opponents. If this doesn't make you the POY not sure what does. Not to mention he had MVP chants going at the Colby-Amherst game. Also how is Hanley getting one some people's 1st team list but Russell has been universally hated on in that respect?

Finally nescac1 I can't tell you how much the paradigm enjoyed not only that you understood that but that you responded like that. 

Props to Colby on a huge win.

More importantly, I'd just like to say that although the brains and the muscle are gone, three members of the paradigm return next year. Watch out for the looks, the wildcard, and the useless chick (recently back from injury). If adequate replacements can be found they will be scary.

Whittington and Geoghegan combined play 36.6 minutes score 18.5 and rebound 14.2 a game. Russell plays 28.9 minutes a game and averages 14.7 and 10. Play him for 8 more minutes per game and give him the stamina of two people and see how his stats would improve... If you mathematically extended his stats he'd have 18.7 points and 12.8 rebounds a game.

Quote from: toad22 on February 08, 2010, 11:04:22 AM
I believe the entire Geohegan family pronounces it Go'he'gan.

That's fine, but you can't criticize people for having a "heart attack" when they try to pronounce Geoghegan when the guy himself pronounces it in a non-standard way.

Its gay'gan not go'he'gan. Williams guys screwed that up too. Not sure if he mispronounces it himself.

Quote from: CWM_42 on February 06, 2010, 07:36:57 PM
I would also note, as it's been mentioned before on this board that the Middlebury broadcast crew is outstanding.  The Williams broadcast team...well the inanity forced me to turn off the sound.  In the seemingly likely event that Williams hosts the NESCAC Final Four will the Middlebury team still broadcast?

Personally I thought they were both brutal. One of the Williams guys was an alum who had never been to a game before.... The other was a girl whose analysis consisted of saying "Schultz looking cold today" after he missed his first shot. Middlebury better no doubt but still tough. They ended the game by saying that they blew that one out not because Colby was sloppy but because Midd is "just that good...."

By the way when you're told to go under screens against Williams and Midd... not surprising that you give up a lot of 3's.

Quote from: nescac1 on February 06, 2010, 06:33:08 AM
Colby's guards are nothing like Midd's guards, much slower and less aggressive, backing way off at times.  

Less aggressive, true. The past two days the number of open threes by Midd and Williams has been staggering. But i could almost guarantee they're not slower.

Williams and Middlebury, without a doubt the better teams, but anyone who watched those games can't say it wasn't embarrassing how Colby played. If you've watched them all year you know they're better than that. It was like deja vu against Middlebury, after looking great starting out in both games with leads the offense fell apart and the defense soon followed. Bad weekend.