MBB: Little East

[mass_d3fan]

Two things -- one, I did not engage in a formal campaign to inform all 25 voters of the lineup change. (Frankly, to do so would be somewhat disingenuous, since I was not in a position to do so for the other 55-60 teams under consideration.) Second, there will always be voters who will hang onto a team until they lose. The fact that a couple of voters switched off MIT before they lost shows there was already some discomfort with them at No. 1, even while unbeaten.

No, of course *I* don't believe they are the best in the nation, but some did. Unfortunately, the preseason information we received indicated those two as returning starters. If we had gotten accurate information, you and I would not be having this discussion right now.

I do understand the situation with information for the preseason poll, but I would like to assume that the 25 voters are at least looking at the box scores even if they are not following the various discusssions here or reading articles such as those written in the Boston & NY papers.  In my view it is their responsibilty to realize that the team they put on the top of the heap is missing two of its biggest stars and then rank them accordingly.  I realize many will say that the week 1 poll is meaningless when it comes to the end of the year.  I just hope that the voters are paying more attention at the end than the beginning.

"If we had gotten accurate information, you and I would not be having this discussion right now." 

That is obviously not the case since they lost only 2 of of 12 1st place votes and their point total went up from 594 to 600 after we were all aware that Hollingsworth & Karraker were not playing.  I understand you can't possibly supply completely accurate data on all 400+ teams.  Just pointing out that even after the fact, many people were apparently still holding them up very high whch just seems strange. 

[ECSUalum]

Two things -- one, I did not engage in a formal campaign to inform all 25 voters of the lineup change. (Frankly, to do so would be somewhat disingenuous, since I was not in a position to do so for the other 55-60 teams under consideration.) Second, there will always be voters who will hang onto a team until they lose. The fact that a couple of voters switched off MIT before they lost shows there was already some discomfort with them at No. 1, even while unbeaten.

No, of course *I* don't believe they are the best in the nation, but some did. Unfortunately, the preseason information we received indicated those two as returning starters. If we had gotten accurate information, you and I would not be having this discussion right now.

I do understand the situation with information for the preseason poll, but I would like to assume that the 25 voters are at least looking at the box scores even if they are not following the various discusssions here or reading articles such as those written in the Boston & NY papers.  In my view it is their responsibilty to realize that the team they put on the top of the heap is missing two of its biggest stars and then rank them accordingly.  I realize many will say that the week 1 poll is meaningless when it comes to the end of the year.  I just hope that the voters are paying more attention at the end than the beginning.

"If we had gotten accurate information, you and I would not be having this discussion right now." 

That is obviously not the case since they lost only 2 of of 12 1st place votes and their point total went up from 594 to 600 after we were all aware that Hollingsworth & Karraker were not playing.  I understand you can't possibly supply completely accurate data on all 400+ teams.  Just pointing out that even after the fact, many people were apparently still holding them up very high whch just seems strange.

mass_d3fan  +1K 

[Pat Coleman]

Two things -- one, I did not engage in a formal campaign to inform all 25 voters of the lineup change. (Frankly, to do so would be somewhat disingenuous, since I was not in a position to do so for the other 55-60 teams under consideration.) Second, there will always be voters who will hang onto a team until they lose. The fact that a couple of voters switched off MIT before they lost shows there was already some discomfort with them at No. 1, even while unbeaten.

No, of course *I* don't believe they are the best in the nation, but some did. Unfortunately, the preseason information we received indicated those two as returning starters. If we had gotten accurate information, you and I would not be having this discussion right now.

I do understand the situation with information for the preseason poll, but I would like to assume that the 25 voters are at least looking at the box scores even if they are not following the various discusssions here or reading articles such as those written in the Boston & NY papers.  In my view it is their responsibilty to realize that the team they put on the top of the heap is missing two of its biggest stars and then rank them accordingly.  I realize many will say that the week 1 poll is meaningless when it comes to the end of the year.  I just hope that the voters are paying more attention at the end than the beginning.

"If we had gotten accurate information, you and I would not be having this discussion right now." 

That is obviously not the case since they lost only 2 of of 12 1st place votes and their point total went up from 594 to 600 after we were all aware that Hollingsworth & Karraker were not playing.  I understand you can't possibly supply completely accurate data on all 400+ teams.  Just pointing out that even after the fact, many people were apparently still holding them up very high whch just seems strange.

I don't think you're following what I'm saying. If the info provided in October had been accurate, I am sure we would have had no more than a couple of MIT No. 1 votes. I do believe that is the case. I am sure not all 25 voters knew about the lineup situation and I wouldn't expect them to go through a couple hundred box scores a week to compare them against the preseason information form and see if the information provided was true. You were all aware, but not everyone was, and for me to tell them information about one team that I can't do for other teams would unfairly skew the poll. I try very hard not to impose my opinion on the other 24 voters because I don't believe I should try to influence the panel in that way. It's a fine line.

I suspect MIT's vote total went up (less than one quarter of a spot per ballot) because they probably passed 2-2 Hope on a few ballots more than people swapped them with Virginia Wesleyan. Also, as I tried to allude to earlier, voters may have been aware but wanted to see them lose before making a change. (Or, who knows, perhaps they wanted to see what the UWW/IWU game turned out like, etc.)

[Argylebballer]

I will say that yeah they cannot go through all the box scores, but the #1 team in the country they don't look at?
If that is the case any voter that doesn't look at the games of the #1 team should resign from the poll right away.

[Pat Coleman]

Yeah, maybe, definitely if they were struggling. There's only one game like that, though, before last Sunday's vote.

[7express]

Conference schedule tomorrow (all games start at 3:00 PM):

Boston @ Western
Eastern @ USM
Plymouth @ RIC.

Put up time for USM and we'll see how good Boston really is.  Eastern/USM looks to be the best game.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I will say that yeah they cannot go through all the box scores, but the #1 team in the country they don't look at?
If that is the case any voter that doesn't look at the games of the #1 team should resign from the poll right away.

If you thought the team had returned all five starters and they hadn't lost yet, why would you take the time to look at the box scores?

I didn't know Aaron Walton-Moss wasn't back at Cabrini until they lost, then I looked at the boxscore to see why.

[7express]

Dartmouth leads Keene 31-26 at the half. 
Their defense is awful.  And how do you not get a shot off at the end of the first half when you get the ball with 16 seconds to play??  Keene was leading 18-11 at the 9:25 mark, so if my notes are correct, Dartmouth outscored them 20-8 the final 9:25.
Final from Dartmouth as Keene wins 81-76.  Slow paced game more than 2 hours from tip off until the final whistle refs were whistle happy, lots and lots of fouls called.  Dartmouth trailed for the majority of the second half, but they took a brief 71-69 lead with about 90 seconds left to play, Ryan Martin came off a screen, nailed a 3 to put Keene in front 72-71 and that was about all she wrote for Dartmouth.  Eric Fazio had 20 to lead Keene.

Sat predictions:
Boston 71 @ Western 70.
Using some reverse physcology here, hopefully it pays off.  As I said yesterday, Boston can score (and they'll score a lot on us probably) the question is can they stop anyone.  If there's a game for Western to break out in, it's this game.
Eastern 65 @ USM 68.
Eastern is probably better, but that's a long trip and it's put up time for USM if they want to be taken seriously.  Eastern struggled up there last year, and with a not as talented team I think USM gets them.
Plymouth 45 @ RIC 72.
This might be close at the half as RIC steps down from cloud 9, but I expect RIC to pull away at some point in the game (mid first half, late first-early 2nd, mid second) and win by 20-30 points

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

As a voter who has MIT #1 at this moment, let me try and give you a sense of my dilemna.

I had heard in the preseason that there could be injuries... but they were rumors and I can't go into a preseason poll basing my information on rumors. I took the information I was given, compared that to information I normally tabulate, considered the fact there was apparently a good recruiting class coming in, listened to opinions from coaches and others who would have a sense of who teams were heading into the preseason, and lined up my ballot from there.

After the season began and after having Coach Larry Anderson on Hoopsville and after reading other articles that both confirmed but Coach Anderson had said and dove a bit deeper into the injuries, I reevaluated. But then a few other things happened:
- Hope tanked the start of the season
- Virginia Wesleyan didn't beat anyone I considered a threat (I didn't even have Cabrini in my preseason Top 25 because I knew what they had lost)
- Other teams struggled as well that I had high on my ballot
- There were several games coming up that would help me decide what I was looking at (i.e. MIT vs. RIC, UWW vs. IWU)

Take the MIT vs. RIC game. I actually thought about putting RIC into my Top 25 heading into this week; I also considered removing MIT from the #1 spot heading into this week. But, I didn't do either because I had this game to look at and make a decision based on for both teams. Now, instead of feeling like I am just riding an early season wave and reacting too quickly, I will put RIC into my Top 25 - though I don't know where.

As for MIT... reasons I didn't move them out of #1 prior to this week were somewhat described above... but also, I didn't feel comfortable taking my #1 position way if they were still winning with the injuries being a factor. Sure, they may not have beaten world-beaters, but they came from behind in one game and showed their defense was still pretty stout. So... I didn't "punish" them until they actually showed me they shouldn't be #1. RIC showed me MIT should move down on my ballot - I don't know to where, right now - and that the Anchormen should move onto my ballot.

I am just one voter, but I hope that gives you a sense of understanding how some of us think. No voter is the same. I may have been the only voter to want to put Catholic in the Top 25 in the preseason, but I was talked out of it - should have gone with my gut. There are some voters who have Wisconsin-Whitewater #1 because they are the defending champs and until they lose, even if they lost the Player of the Year, they are going to be #1 on their ballots. There are some who won't remove a team from #1 until they prove they shouldn't be there - injuries be damned.

There are 25 voters, all of different mindsets and from across the entire country. I only know maybe ten of them and chat with them on occasions, but not often. Pat says he doesn't want to influence the voters... I don't want to be influenced or influence others based on just one person's opinion.

[7express]

Looking at Boston's roster they only have 1 senior who I don't even think plays that much and 10 that are either freshmen or sophomores.  There going to be very good in 2 or 3 years.

[7express]

Boston leads 38-29 at halftime.  No matter what the Beacons do the 2nd half I'm impressed with what their doing so far.  This can definitely be a top 4 or 5 team.  As long as they can cut down on the turnovers and score points I don't think many teams can out score them.  Beacons are playing a 2-3 zone so Western has a lot of offensive rebounds.  Interesting starting 5 with Bridtter, Starks, LaPorte, Setaro and Groski.  Mobilio and Starks had a couple 3's and TreVan Perry playing well.  At least they have a pulse today.  Transition D is killing them again.

[7express]

Boston wins 71-64.  As I said at halftime transition defense and turnovers continue to plague the team, but at least they showed a pulse.  I'm officially on the Boston bandwagon now though.  Their free throw shooting was atrocious (not sure of numbers will post later), but they actually won a somewhat close game something I questioned them on earlier.

Other scores: RIC wins by 14, USM leads Eastern by 2 in overtime.

[AllStar]

Boston wins 71-64.  As I said at halftime transition defense and turnovers continue to plague the team, but at least they showed a pulse.  I'm officially on the Boston bandwagon now though.  Their free throw shooting was atrocious (not sure of numbers will post later), but they actually won a somewhat close game something I questioned them on earlier.

Other scores: RIC wins by 14, USM leads Eastern by 2 in overtime.

We'll know more about UMass-Boston after they play MIT this week.

Southern Maine pulls out an OT win over Eastern Connecticut.  Very tough loss for the Warriors.  Eastern seemed to have led most of the 2nd half until the 1:30 or so.  It is also worth noting that ECSU took 30 threes (making 10), and overall shooting just 33%.

[ECSUalum]

An ugly game in Portland Maine on soo many levels 

Eastern crashed and burned in the second half, after leading by 7 at half and playing reasonably well, (dispite missing numerous bunnys),  turning the ball over multiple times (22 in total) and with very poor shot selection, (shooting 33% for the game).

I have seen a much better referees in my years of watching LEC basketball! (ie questionable calls for both sides)

And then to top it all off the broadcast from Southern Maine was a disaster with the sound inaudible during the second half and a camera person who looked to be distracted by something, (probably test messaging), for most of the game

Southern Maine gets credit for played excellent defense and IMO was the difference, totally confusing an Eastern offense that could execute essentially nothing for the last 30 minutes!!!!!!

[AllStar]

An ugly game in Portland Maine on soo many levels 

Eastern crashed and burned in the second half, after leading by 7 at half and playing reasonably well, (dispite missing numerous bunnys),  turning the ball over multiple times (22 in total) and with very poor shot selection, (shooting 33% for the game).

I have seen a much better referees in my years of watching LEC basketball! (ie questionable calls for both sides)

And then to top it all off the broadcast from Southern Maine was a disaster with the sound inaudible during the second half and a camera person who looked to be distracted by something, (probably test messaging), for most of the game

Southern Maine gets credit for played excellent defense and IMO was the difference, totally confusing an Eastern offense that could execute essentially nothing for the last 30 minutes!!!!!!

Maine refs are known for "homerism".