Top 25 talk

[formerbant10]

One would have a very hard time finding any NESCAC player that doesn't want to play each team twice during the regular season.  
But as Mr. Ypsi stated, the NESCAC schedule fits exactly what the NCAA looks for in its rankings.  So I think it would be just as hard finding a Coach or Athletic Director that would even be thinking about playing the double round robin.  
But not having as many conference games does hurt some of the NESCAC teams who often have trouble scheduling so many non-conference in region games b/c many of those teams from the weaker leagues in the NE are not always willing to play the Amherst's and Trinity's.  Trinity doesn't even have a full 24 game regular season this year.  And last year a few teams backed out of facing the Bants before the season began.
Clearly I'm biased in my opinion, but I wouldn't expect the way the NESCAC plays to be changing anytime soon.  And recently, on a national level, they have had multiple teams deserve to be in the tournament.  But so did the "power" conferences from the Midwest.  And it's a shame that some of those deserving teams did not qualify.  
The only way to maybe change the way the NESCAC plays is if the NCAA were to change how it ranked teams, but even that would not be a guarantee....after all look at football.

[sac]

ya know, I have no problem with the NESCAC not playing a full round robin........thats their conferences perrogative

........as long as the NCAA gives equal favoritism to the Witt/Woo  Hope/Albions  IWU/Augustanas and keeps them separate in the NCAA brackets like they did with Amherst and Williams a couple years ago.  That was a travesty.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

That's how Amherst got stuck into the four year home-and-home with Colby Sawyer that resulted in a loss and two games with a margin of victory under ten.  Scary for them in the non-conference.

[smedindy]

The NESCAC beats up on the stronger NE region teams (which would get drilled in many of the conferences in the GL and Midwest region), who make their hay on the dregs of the world. But really, if they used a sensible SOS rating, it wouldn't be a factor.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

It's like if your region had four conferences like the SLIAC.  Just imagine the possibilities.

[formerbant10]

sac, you're right about the Williams/Amherst split.  But at least they held up their end of the bargain by getting to Salem.  But at the same time, it gives the NCAA less incentive to change their thinking as to what they are doing. 
And don't expect that the Midwest teams will get separated too far, because that would cost too much money.  The NCAA will save money by sending a NE team into another bracket because the states are smaller and the travel is less.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I'll just be happy if they move some Great Lakes teams to the Mid Atlantic.  I've said it over and over again, Witt and Woo can both get to the York/Harrisburg area without requiring flights.  It certainly would have made sense last year.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The NESCAC gets more than their share of pool C bids because they DO play the (absurd) NCAA tourney rules just right.  They don't beat each other up, and instead feast on NE teams who are mediocre, but have gaudy records because they play the truly lousy!  For NCAA tourney purposes, it is the CCIW and WIAC who do it wrong.  If top CCIW teams played more games against top SLIAC teams instead of each other, they'd have 4 (or more!) teams in the tourney!

They don't beat up on each other because they only play each other ONCE!  I know what you mean.

OK, so the NESCAC beats up on weak NE teams and then, in turn, have great records, but how does that explain their high (if they do) QOWI if all the teams they beat up on suck?  It's a serious question.  I mean, are they beating up on bad teams that are beating up on really bad teams?  So, does that mean we have to look at the opponents' opponent's records? 

At first thought, I would love just to play the other WIAC teams just once, adding another 8 nonconference in-region games, but then again, I wouldn't change it at all.  I love being able to play the home and home series.  One thing I would probably do is go the MWC route and just have the top four make the conference tourney and having the top seed host a Friday/Saturday tourney.

The Quality of Wins Index currently has little to do with quality of wins!  It only considers your opponent's record - even if their .667+ in-region winning percentage came from beating up on The College of Midgets, it is still a 14 or 15 point win! 

So yes, if you want it to live up to its name, it would need to include opponents' opponents record (and even opponents' opponents' opponents, etc., though there would come a point of diminishing returns)!

I would suspect that formerbant10 has nailed it - the players (and probably most fans) would prefer a double round-robin, but the coaches and ADs do doubt understand that they are playing the NCAA's (absurd) system just right.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Bottom line: none of us would be complaining if our conference was pulling it off.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Hey, we'd still find SOMETHING to complain about - it's who we are!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

no you'd probably be defending yourself against the rest of us complainers.

[sac]

I'd be complaining about only 1 Hope/Calvin matchup per year.

Now THAT would be a travesty!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Amherst and Williams play twice every year, but only one of them counts as a conference game.

[dansand]

The Quality of Wins Index currently has little to do with quality of wins!  It only considers your opponent's record - even if their .667+ in-region winning percentage came from beating up on The College of Midgets, it is still a 14 or 15 point win! 

Ypsi,

The College of Little People!

(There's no emoticon for "chastisement" or I would have used it at the end of that one.)

[Mr. Ypsi]

dansand,

I seriously considered The University of Dwarves, but decided against it!