Top 25 talk

[GnacBballFan]

Amherst is the defending natl champion and went toe to toe with a D1 opponent this yr. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't last 10 mins in a conference that hasn't won an ncaa game in quite a bit

Nova Southeastern is a D2 school, for what it's worth.

My apologies, I got ahead of myself

[hplc2222]

again, it is self running machine, when you are ranked high, play lesser teams in the ncaa, you have a better shot

i'm not saying amherst didnt win the champuonships,

i'm saying they never would have got their playing in the NJAC

[sac]

Do the research man

[Pat Coleman]

with the high seeds available Amherst has gotten, it is a self running machine,
in Amhersts conference, the positions would be reversed

Since like they 86 or 87 season Stockton has averaged 19 wins a year,.... put them in Amhersts conference that jumps to 22-23 wins a year in regular season

I think "earned" is a better word there.

I think part of the perception is that the NJAC has gone downhill in the past 15 years, and especially in the past five. Watch the Chuck McBreen interview I mentioned earlier for some thoughts as to why.

again, it is self running machine, when you are ranked high, play lesser teams in the ncaa, you have a better shot

That lasts for about a round, maybe two. The NJAC's eight-game NCAA Tournament losing streak in the past three seasons comes against representatives of the NEAC, USAC, NECC, CSAC, GNAC (twice), ODAC and Little East. The last five in a row are all against reps of lower-level conferences (everything since the ODAC loss to Virginia Wesleyan and the Little East loss to Rhode Island College). Playing yourself into better seeding in the regular season would not have helped.

[hplc2222]

in 10 days from now, When Stockton is standing at 16-2, you'll understand

[Pat Coleman]

in 10 days from now, When Stockton is standing at 16-2, you'll understand

You might want to look at the NJAC's recent track record to do some of that research sac mentioned. Gordon Mann puts together a fantastic resource every year -- worth checking out to get some of that NJAC history post-1987:
http://www.d3hoops.com/guidebook/index

[sac]

First year NESCAC teams were allowed to compete in the post-season (per conference rules) was 1997, since they've had a very steady stream of teams make it to the D3 Final Four

Final Four Teams
1997  Williams 
1998  Williams
1999  Conn. College
2003  Williams--NATIONAL CHAMPION
2004  Williams, Amherst
2006  Amherst
2007  Amherst--NATIONAL CHAMPION
2008  Amherst
2010  Williams
2011  Williams, Middlebury
2013  Amherst--NATIONAL CHAMPION

In the same time frame, the NJAC has had two teams  Stockton State and William Patterson.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

don't just say things to say things, Amherst plays schools with less than 1000 students,... Yeah Stockton lost at montclair by 1 point, they have like 18,000 students, should be a d2 or d1 team

you are not looking at it right

Richard Stockton has 5k students... Amherst managed to win the title last year with a measly 1700.
Duke (which has handled themselves quite well in D1) has about 6500... Butler which made back to back D1 championship games a few years ago has 4k. Central Florida has a whopping 60k and has never won a tournament game (0-4).
Enrollment size doesn't mean anything... Montclair doesn't play with 18000 players, they play with 15 or so like every other school.

[smedindy]

don't just say things to say things, Amherst plays schools with less than 1000 students,... Yeah Stockton lost at montclair by 1 point, they have like 18,000 students, should be a d2 or d1 team

you are not looking at it right

I would think you need to ask Montclair on Why D3? I'm sure they have the proper answer for that.

Too many smaller publics are going to D1 to try to earn a fast buck with tournament revenue or be a punching bag for the majors. I think Montclair is doing it the right way...

[smedindy]

Mind you, Massey has Richard Stockton 19th and Amherst 20th, but that's a really miniscule data point when there are 413 teams rated in D3.

When there 400+ teams to deal with, those ranked in the 26-50 (or so) may be just as capable of handling almost everyone just as a Top 20 team could. There's just so many teams in the universe.
Case in point - yesterday DePauw (48) and Stevenson (50) defeated Wittenberg and Messiah. The DPU game wasn't close after halftime. I don't think those results are necessarily anomalous, unlike the Principia / Millkin game or even when Emerson upset Amherst.

That's why we shouldn't get anything in a bunch until tourney time. Heck, the time to raise cain is during the Regional Rankings process, not Pat's Top 25.

[smedindy]

in 10 days from now, When Stockton is standing at 16-2, you'll understand

Stockton could definitely end the season with only two losses. They're favored in every other game on their schedule. But conference affiliation doesn't help you in the NCAAs.

The UAA, WIAC, and CCIW are meatgrinder conferences and they have a lot of high seeds every year.

Right now the top conferences in Massey:

1. UAA
2. CCIW
3. WIAC
4. OAC
5. MAC

The NESCAC is 10th in Massey (he splits the ASC into two conferences) and the NJAC is 11th. But my perception is that the NESCAC is down with some teams not performing to capability compared to 2013 while the NJAC has many teams tracking better than 2013

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

in 10 days from now, When Stockton is standing at 16-2, you'll understand

If they're 16-2 (which would include a win over Will Pat) then they very well might be ranked. But as you mentioned earlier...

All the games are conference games, where anything can happen.

Which I think was demonstrated best when Montclair St beat Stockton.

It's one thing to be supportive and excited for a team (most of us here are, even if it's not basketball), but you do seem to be rather aggressive about things at times, or at least that's how it seems to me. It's not the free for all of the espn boards (I can't stand to read comments over there ) it's more of a lazy Sunday chat on the porch.

[hplc2222]

those conferences were all stil ranked in2009,, still waiting for a legit explanation on basketball terms why stoclkton would be highly ranked in 2009 and not inj 2013 on an appearant great season working out?

[sac]

those conferences were all stil ranked in2009,, still waiting for a legit explanation on basketball terms why stoclkton would be highly ranked in 2009 and not inj 2013 on an appearant great season working out?

because its 2014 and not 2009?

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

those conferences were all stil ranked in2009,, still waiting for a legit explanation on basketball terms why stoclkton would be highly ranked in 2009 and not inj 2013 on an appearant great season working out?

It could be that in 2009 there were fewer teams that hadn't picked up a few losses therefore making it easier to make the top 25 with just 2 losses.

As of last Sunday (when the latest ballots were made) I counted 45 teams with 2 or fewer losses (and of course sprinkle in a few 3 or 4 loss teams in the discussion as well). I don't have the data for 2009 but if for example only 25-30 teams had 2 or fewer losses then it would be far easier for a 2 loss team to be up in the rankings compared to this year.