That is an easy question.  NCAA politics.  Remember when your kids played local sports and a few parents made all the decisions, etc?  This is the same thing, just with big people. (Notice, I did not say adults).   

The fact that Babson has been the indisputable number 2 team in the northeast the last three years, (D3 hoops final rankings, NCAA success) and can make a strong argument for this year and has never hosted is outrageous.  It has not hurt their performance but something stinks when you look at the stats.  Five straight years of NCAA play, first round in a NESCAC gym four times and in western NY the fifth.  Yes they were sent 450 miles to western ny, with a 27-0 record.  Two times in the regional, two NESCAC gyms.  Babson's record over that time 129-19.  NCAA record 7-4, two elite 8's.  Never hosting.  I challenge anyone to find a team with that success that never hosted.

NCAA loves NESCAC of course, and this year it was so obvious that USM would nudge out Babson.  Why?  NCAA politics.

Long answer to an easy question.

I do not think it is all that shocking.   If you look at Amherst,  Tufts and Williams on paper I think it is clear that they are the third best team.  How they avoided losing a game until now is what is shocking to me.  Be nice to see a NESCAC final somewhere else.

There is no way Babson loses at home to MIT.  I assume these posts are just trying to stir it up.  Babson has a major road test Saturday against Smith. It will be a tough game, smith has good players, but Babson is in their head. Rosa Drummond is real good, but Sarah is a tough match up for her, she can't handle it.  I say she will have to wait until next year, and Babson will stay undefeated. Should be a good game.

Williams and Tufts are clearly the class of the NESCAC this year.  Amherst is ranked high, but it is a reputation ranking it seems, as it seems like they "could" lose many games.  Credit to them that they have not yet, but I will be very surprised if they have a winning record in the two Williams and one Tufts games coming up.  They lose at least two of those three games I think.

I agree that Babson has always seemed to draw a bit more attention on here when they lose then when they win.  Probably because during the last three seasons Babson has been the second best team in the Northeast and some of the long time experts on this board hate that.  It is pretty impressive stuff given how many good teams there are and were over that period that a small business small school could zoom past all but one of them and rise to national prominence.  Despite this not being a praise board, the recognition of that  has been a bit lacking, notwithstanding the final polls each of the last three years have confirmed it.

Therefore, I am not sure why people now want to start being critical of Babson players now.  I am sure Babson would like not to have to play 18 NEWMAC games themselves, but they have to.   To win 75 in a row however, is impressive, requires talent and persistence.  I don't see other "good" teams in "weak" leagues (i.e. UNE or Emmanuel) doing such things. The competition may not be strong throughout, and maybe Babson is not quite as explosive  this year,  but there are some good teams and over 75 games not one slip.  That includes ten so far this year and no one else in the conference can seem to make double digits winning streaks ever.  So they still have talent and ability that cant be denied.

It is unfair to suggest that Collins was outplayed by Beacher on Friday night.  First of all I am not sure statistically or visually that was the case.  However, Beacher has an experienced team around her, whereas Collins is essentially alone now, relying on the support of a lot of young players who are good and will get better, but do not yet have the big game experience.  Collins was doubled to tripled by talented experienced players every time she got the ball, a smart move by Williams, yet she still had a decent game.  The bottom line here is both of these kids are elite D-3 players, let's not take anything away from either by suggesting their stats are suspect or one is better than the other.

It was an excellent basketball game and the difference clearly was Munger who Amherst just could not stop, and as someone else pointed out that was not a huge surprise.  That is not a good match-up for them or anyone really, but it works against Amherst's defense strength.  They were shooting hot early and that almost overcame the challenge and they weathered storms a couple of different times during the game.  The one obvious difference this year with past Amherst teams was the depth he was comfortable going to.  Throughout this tournament he has really only been going 6 to 7 deep, which was surprising.  I cant help but wonder what that means for next year.

One thing that is confusing to me, is what happened to the point guard?  She played 10 minutes against Babson, and has barely played since, is there some sort of injury?  It is a different look without her for sure and made the bench even shorter.   

I understand, that is why I wrote "bent" as opposed to "break".  The fact that Amherst men of all people got the bye was because the Women's committee wanted to have Amherst host.  I believe if that was not in place the other considerations for the bye would have come in and Amherst would not have got it.   So "bent" not "break" Pat.

What is amazing, is that the NCAA bent the rules to allow Amherst women to host this past weekend, where they really should not have.  Now they host again, with the weakest group of sweet sixteen teams you could find in a region.  Not one team going to Amherst is in the Top 25 or have even received votes.  Amherst essentially won the sectional last night when they beat back Babson, and all the other hosts lost.  The rich get richer with a little help from the NCAA.  Amherst is potentially vulnerable, but not to this group of teams I do not think,

AMH63--you are really something.  I read these boards and from time to time (too much lately) offer a comment or two.  Your view's are so parochial and myopic that it is hardly worth responding too, but after resisting for a while I am giving in. 

Your comment that it is too bad the Babson trio did not develop their talents in other areas is ludicrous.  What are you talking about?  Do you think they should be playing volleyball also?   Is that what you mean? Surely you are not talking basketball talents, because if you look at the stats you will see that they fill the stat sheet in all categories.  They all regularly shoot from the outside, play tenacious defense (check with C. Stedman)so again what are you talking about?  Stedman was off because of the Babson defense on her, not because of the defense she was playing. 

For all the talk about the Babson lack of depth, and some of it has merit, I notice Stedman put in 40 minutes herself.  That would seem to indicate that the rotation is not quite what it was.  Fiorentino had 20 in the first half and likely would have also gone for 40 save the foul trouble.

So if you want to bleed Amherst as you do, that is great, but show some respect for the opponent.  That seems to be lacking in Amherst at times in many ways.  Amherst is very good this year, but not quite as good as they were.  They know they faced their toughest threat of the year last night and they got lucky in a couple of ways.  They held off a ferocious challenge and the bracket collapsed around them, so they have much weaker teams coming to Amherst than anticipated.  So I think they go to the final four again, but barring a great recruiting class they come back to the pack in the NESCAC next year, with Tufts the likely winner "IMHO".  So maybe a bit of humility would be helpful and respect for the tremendous talents and efforts of others along with your love for Amherst.  Again, just my opinion.

It is unfortunate that Babson has to play Amherst tonight, for both sides really.  The good news is no matter what happens tonight, I think most fair people realize that Babson is for sure a sweet 16 team, and at worst the 2nd best team in the Northeast as they have proved that consistently over three years now.  However, it has been known for many more than three years that the NCAA is an organization rifled with favoritism and cronyism at all levels.  Therefore the disrespect shown Babson, a new visitor to the NCAA elite, over the last three years is par for the course.  The unjust early round assignment this year, the lack of hosting with a perfect record last year, is what it is and cant be changed.  I am sure Babson will find the same challenges next year and beyond.  So we will just forever have to ponder how Emmanuel gets to go to RIC and Babson has to go to Amherst.  We will never figure out (save the coach's three years on the committee) how UNE gets an at large out of the CCC, and Colby a good team out of the NESCAC, with some senior who will never again get the chance, stays home.  The common denominator is the NCAA and their ethical shortcomings IMHO.

Who else would be coach of the year?  Tufts lost a great point guard, yet became an even better team this year.  That is good coaching.  Assuming I understand your parochial objection as to who should be coach of the year, you should recognize coaches with very good players are expected to win.  Coaches who win almost as much with less talent, they are coach of the year material.  I think it is an excellent choice and to even suggest politics is myopic.

NH Nescac Fan, That is a totally moot point, because it did not happen.  Further had it happened like you said, UNE would have also had two more losses against a ranked opponent and an overall less record, and never would have been considered for an at large.  I appreciate the thought nonetheless, because no one can justify UNE as an at large from the CCC to date.  But I am still waiting.

Colby got totally hosed.  As pointed out their strength of schedule was huge.  UNE is the at large that should not have been in.  There strength of schedule is barely at .50, they have a similar record of ranked teams.  There is just nothing that suggests they should be in, save the fact their coach served on the committee the last three years.  I know that seems petty, but give me another explanation?  Anyone?  Please?   When was the last time the CCC had a Pool C participant?

It does not really suck for Babson, it does suck for NCAA Division III basketball, because it has been and should have been an Elite 8 or Sweet 16 match-up.

The problem with this whole thing, every year, not just this year, is it is politics.  This is just like all youth sports down to Little League, the people in charge keep the exclusive club to themselves.  They get the match-ups that favor them and their friends and the rest, especially those who are threatening to them, get relegated.  They would never put Babson over with Tufts on the other side of the bracket as they know that would likely result in a final four appearance, threatening the exclusive club.  Instead they take one of the the biggest members and give them an early shot to knock out the insurgents.  Bottom line is the NCAA is as bad as all the other youth sports organizations, the only difference is they are bigger and older kids still protecting turf.

To clearly illustrate the above paragraph  you only need look at UNE.  They are in, with a stength of schedule much worse than Babson and a league much worse than Babson, yet they have been ranked ahead.  Why?  And why do they get an at large after losing in their conferenece semi-final......because the coach has been on the committee for three years.  No other reason, no other criteria puts them anywhere near there out of the CCC.  They will not last.  If I were Colby I would be very unhappy with this, as the Colby SOS and wins is much more impressive that UNE.

USM is another example, the coach fits.  They win at home where they own the refs, but not on the road.  But they fit. 

So these things are always a bit sensitive for sure, but this is blatant.  UNE being the poster child.

Obviously debate is being invited here, for the purpose of people being able to throw darts.  Clearly Babson is number 2, but no one is going to admit that and in fact will find all sorts of reasons to suggest otherwise.  First they will say it is the conference, well yes NEWMAC is a bit weak but much better than TCCC, by a long shot.   So conference issues impact Babson, but not UNE. Then the OOC schedules, well Babson is 2-1 versus the NESCAC, which in the past has been a litmus test, but probably not this year since they pass.  Babson has proven they deserve it and can compete at a high level, they have made the Elite 8 two straight years, the only team to do it two years in a row winning every game on the road, and they have the same team nucleus as those two years.  So it is is not like they are untested or unproven outside their conference.   But some will then say they had an easy route to the NCAA's elite 8.  Remember the litmus test, each NCAA trip featured the defeat of the #2 NESCAC team, one of them (Colby) in their own gym, in overtime, with Maine refs.  Quite an accomplishment.  This year they beat the #2 NESCAC team in the regular season on a NESCAC floor.  So clearly Babson is #2 in the region, but it is just as clear no one will ever recognize it.  Not quite sure why because they have passed the highly valued NESCAC litmus test quite convincingly each year, they went to the National Quarterfinals twice in a row, no one else in the northeast (save obviously Amherst) has went at all.  Yet somehow the NCAA likes to bury them, and they have done it again.  But lets face it, being honest based on results and experience we all know who is number 2, there really is no doubt.  And unless the NCAA puts a fork in them by pairing them with Amherst on opening weekend, the chances for similar results this year are very good.  They are a lot like the Patriots, mentally tough, not too respected, but ultimately successful at the highest levels.  So lets talk about who is number 3.