Does anyone know if a conference has ever sent three teams to the d3 final fours in the same year. This year it looks like Amherst Women and Middlebury will make it along with the Amherst /Williams winner of course. Yes I know you never know but Babson W and St. Mary's M come from overall lesser leagues, so I think there will be three NESCAC teams in the final four this year.

  No contest for Old Guy-easy decision.

  Rochester is far and your son is playing in Middlebury. So if you go to Rochester your son very well may say to himself,
   'Gee all the parents of the kids who play are here. Maybe if I were better my dad would be here too'. Sounds like you've been going to his games so if that's the case you WILL be missed, even if he doesn't say anything. If you asked him if he'd mind you going to Rochester, he'd probably tell you to go but underneath, hidden from all would be the (inescapable) thought that if he were a better player, you would stay home.
   While you're doing the right thing, it's okay to make a speech to your wife about how wonderful it is to go to your son's games with her and how family comes before the D3 tourney etc., etc,.(if she's been going to games i.e.). That might score you a few points for some other time.

  Muhlenberg won on a last second shot and then they came back from a 17 point halftime deficit. In addition they have one of D3 basketball's great names.
Alexandra Chili-a really good shooter and seemingly one of their two best players.
Example-Mules stomp Bullets as Chili gets hot.    Now what can you do with Bergeron, Shea, Manduca or Stedman?
   I saw them two years ago and I thought Kelly McKeon was a VERY good player. Look at the box score from the Rochester game.

Amherst bottles up Chili, beats Muhlenberg.

  Nothing original to say. Add my name to those who feel Middlebury got robbed.

   Dman-You're absolutely right.

  My opinion is that only the top 4 teams in a conference should be in the playoffs. However, in these times people are in to giving out as many accolades as they can. As far as I'm concerned Trinity 'Won' the game with Middlebury because they get to make a quick one day trip to trip to Amherst. (about 50+ miles).
   Middlebury on the other hand gets to travel about 300 miles to the middle of Maine. I think Middlebury is slightly better than it's record, so Colby had better not take them lightly. Yes, I know, miracles can happen.

  Game of the week.
  Let's assume for a moment that Colby beats both Conn. Coll. and Wesleyan. You never know but most people think they will. Then look at Trinity-Midd. Similar records and the game is at Midd, so Midd would figure to be a slight favorite.
  Let's say they both Trinity and Midd lose their upcoming Friday night game. Then what? If Midd beats Trinity, their reward would be traveling about 300 miles to Colby. If they lose, they travel about 150 miles to Amherst and might not have to sleep over.
  If Trinity wins they have to travel about 280 miles vs about 50 if they lose. To be honest, if I were in that situation, I know what I'd do.

  I think Williams is the second best team in NESCAC. I think they have a chance to beat Amherst AT!! Williams in February. I think Jackson will likely make all conference. She can hit the three or play underneath. She is a very talented player, BUT Wesleyan and Conn. are hardly the stuff that dreams are made of.

  I think you meant to write 06-08. Bedford was class of 06.

   I was watching the Amherst Williams game. It was late in the first half and suddenly Caroline Stedman was on a breakaway. #14 on Williams was behind her and she's a pretty fast runner. (Jennie Harding) Suddenly I had a vision. I pictured #14 putting on a burst of speed and trying to shoove Caroline Stedman from behind, and into the wall.
   Stedman had too big a lead for #14 to stop her clearly, so I braced for a second and I was very happy to see that #14 had no low life ideas in her head. It was Amherst-Williams so there was no doubt about the intensity level on both sides, but #14 drew the line so to speak.
    There are players who would have tried to catch Stedman and shoove her into the wall, but Pat Manning is simply not that kind of coach. 2 points is not worth injuring a player in my opinion, and most likely in Pat Manning's opinion also. Of course the same may be said about #14. Well who knows how these visions enter our heads and who knows why? HOw many assistants does Pat Manning have anyway?

  Obviously I was wrong. I would have chosen McBride because I like coaches who come with good W-L records. However, I really thought Black would get it. Colby still looks pretty good for next year what with the tall girls coming back as well as the frosh guards.

  I agree on McBride but I think Debbie Black will get it. She appears to be a better fit. The coach from New Haven is on a downward slide so I'd be really surprised if she got it. I think McBride has done a pretty good job and remember when she first came to Colby she dumped a lot of players, so she started pretty much from scratch.
 

  Geez, I'm logged in all the time. I thought I unclicked. First of all I have no ties to Amherst. I am not an alum. I go to some Trinity games and once in a while some Wesleyan games. I go to more Amherst games because it's a lot closer than Wes. and easier to navigate around, so to speak, than Trinity. In past years I went to a Springfield game or two.
 I had no idea when Wash U or Amherst were founded and I had no idea they were a football school. I thought they were a baseball school because one of the lobbies has a number of old baseballs behind glass. First off I have to say that I have been laughing almost uncontrollably at the reactions to my New England v Midwest nonsense. Psst-here's a secret, I was 90% or so kidding. I say 90% because being perfectly honest,I do have some stereotypical beliefs about some folks in other  parts of the country. (The Hinterlands i.e.) However, for the most part I was kidding. Actually I was somewhat curious to see if people would react the same way that wrestling fans react to almost pure nonsense and lo and behold, some did.
  Now I've been thinking and I see I will not be able to view the tape. However, I asked myself would I have thought the brutal foul was quite as brutal if it had been dished out in a Men's game? In keeping with my policy of nothing but the truth, the answer is probably not. I guess I'm chauvinistic. I guess I don't like to see the women's game take such a turn, where the personal safety of a young girl is disregarded and the win becomes more important than safety-see how I think. I can't help it. I will always believe that it was a really brutal foul but I probably would have forgotten about it five minutes afterwards, if I saw it in a Men's game.
 'Book larnin' cracks me up.

  My my-there doesn't seem to be room for diversity of opinion here. By the way Pat I thought that since D3 hoops announced the game that they would have somehow had the tape/film. So then am I right in assuming that the camera(s) and the film/tape belonged to the NCAA? I would have thought they had their own announcers.

  I don't mean to suggest anyone is a devil or an angel. Wash U and other UAA schools have certain advantages that lets them do things small NESCAC schools can't. However if you like the terms devils and angels go right on using them.
   I thought about it and then realized that the rough play in the midwest is understandable. I am quite sure that at a similar stage of development (about 150 years ago) New England sports were most likely very rough and violent. Remember New England has the oldest universities in the country. They were 'book larnin' while folks in other parts were Baar huntin'.
  As for the foul it was clearly brutal. I saw Wittenberg-consistently very rough from the beginning but nothing that approached the Wash U foul. Perhaps the words fantasy and reality were a bit extreme.
  Through the years I have had a few parents from other schools tell me that they wished their offspring could have gotten into Amherst. At that point I confess, I always ask for scores, but I have never initiated such a conversation. The Amherst parent was proud but irked that his offspring didn't get into Harvard.

    The chancellor response is not all that perusasive. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying 'I know Daddy I did it but Scott did it more and it was his idea.'
Speaking of the Chancellor, would he be the first Chancellor to say violence is great if it brings victory to the cause. There was a very famous Chancellor but the name escapes me. I'll think of him.
   Gromacki is extremely well behaved. I sit behind the bench to the right and near the top. I have never heard him say a word. Soft spoken. I have made too much of this? No one forces you to read what I write or to respond. I feel I have to say something when I read the fantasy (oops) that Wash U defenders write. The foul may(?) have been barely legal, but it put a young woman in jeopardy. That's what I mean by brutal and win at all costs.
   As far as fabulous Coach Fahey-obviously she can coach and recruit. Even if she can really dip, there are plenty of competitors who can do the same, so her success sort of speaks for itself. However, she obviously espouses brutal fouls. (as seen by a New Englander) Just because everybody out there does it, doesn't make it any less brutal to me.  Oh and the fact that she has a great sense of humor is very sweet.