Pool C

[nescac1]

bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well. 

[KnightSlappy]

bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well.

Massey has the NESCAC #5.

[David Collinge]

Massey has the NESCAC #5.

Behind the CCIW, UAA, WIAC, and OAC. I don't know what this purports to measure, but I just don't see the OAC being up with these other conferences this year (or with the 6th ranked NCAC, for that matter.) The OAC is fairly well balanced, and the 7th place team is a threat to beat the first place team, which is not necessarily the case in most conferences, but the top of the conference is pretty weak, especially when compared to the tops of the other top 6 conferences (look what WashU did to Wilma last night.) I think, once reasonable metrics have been defined, that we could argue forever about the NESCAC vs. the CCIW, UAA, and/or WIAC, but I don't see any reason to agree that they are behind the OAC in any sense. And that makes me wonder about these conference rankings overall.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well.

I just checked and they're ranked 5th behind CCIW, UAA, WIAC, and OAC

I don't have a dog in this fight as my conference (HCAC) usually isn't fighting in the same weight class as the NESCAC. From what I can tell (and I could be completely wrong), those who are unhappy with the NESCAC are complaining more that the conference seems to play non-conference games against teams that might have a decent record (thus giving them good SOS numbers) but are still weak teams not really in the same class as the NESCAC. I just think some people are frustrated that the NESCAC doesn't challenge themselves more while others are annoyed at all the success they have.

I'll admit that in the Posters Poll I've been one of the lowest voters this season for NESCAC teams because based solely on just this season, I haven't seen them challenged by their schedule (except when they play each other). However I also know that come tournament time it'd be foolish to write them off (and on my bracket I have two in the Final Four).

[Greek Tragedy]

JUST POOL C

GREEN got Pool C bids

#2E Plattsburgh won vs MIT
#3E Geneseo LOST vs #4MA Dickinson (Pool C vs Pool C)

#2GL Hope LOST vs PS-Behrend
#6GL Wittenberg LOST vs Calvin
#7GL Ohio Wesleyan LOST vs St. Norbert

#3MA Wesley won vs Alvernia
#4MA Dickinson won vs #3E Geneseo (Pool C vs Pool C)

#2MW Illinois Wesleyan won vs Webster
#4MW Augustana won vs #3W St. Thomas (Pool C vs Pool C)

#2NE Williams won vs Mitchell
#3NE Babson LOST vs Gordon
#4NE Eastern Connecticut won vs Husson
#5NE WPI LOST vs Albertus Magnus
#6NE Springfield LOST vs Mary Washington
#7NE Bowdoin LOST vs Richard Stockton

#1S Randolph-Macon LOST vs DeSales
#2S Emory vs BYE

#2W Whitewater won Northwestern
#3 St. Thomas LOST vs #4MW Augustana (Pool C vs Pool C)

1st Round record 8-10 (6-8)

TEAM-ATLANTIC	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
3. Staten Island	24-2, 24-2	CUNYAC	WON vs Hunter 92-74; LOST vs York (N.Y.) 87-84 in Final
4. William Paterson	20-5, 20-5	NJAC	WON vs Rutgers-Newark 75-66; LOST vs Richard Stockton 65-44 in Final
5. Rutgers-Newark	19-7, 19-7	NJAC	LOST at William Paterson 75-66 in semifinal
6. Mt. St. Mary (N.Y.)	20-5, 20-5	SKY	WON vs Farmingdale State 95-75; LOST vs SUNY-Purchase 100-82 in Final
TEAM-EAST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Plattsburgh State	21-4, 21-4	SUNYAC	WON vs Geneseo 73-69; LOST vs Brockport State 57-56 in Final
3. Geneseo State	19-5, 20-5	SUNYAC	WON vs Oneonta State 79-67; LOST vs Plattsburgh St. 73-69 in semifinal
5. NYU	16-8, 16-8	UAA	LOST at Brandeis 92-53
6. Skidmore	16-9, 16-9	LL	LOST to Vassar 66-62 in LL semifinal
TEAM-GREAT-LAKES	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Hope	18-5, 19-6	MIAA	WON vs Trine 65-62 OT; LOST vs Calvin 78-53 in Final
3.Bethany	20-4, 21-4	PAC	LOST vs Geneva 61-59 in quarterfinals
4. Mount Union	20-5, 20-5	OAC	LOST John Carroll 83-81 in semifinal
5. DePauw	17-7, 18-7	NCAC	WON vs Wabash 73-59; LOST vs Wittenberg 63-61 in semifinal 2/28
6. Wittenberg	19-6, 19-6	NCAC	WON vs Denison 64-49; WON vs DePauw 63-61; LOST vs Wooster 71-63 in Final
7. Ohio Wesleyan	19-6, 19-6	NCAC	WON vs Kenyon 78-67; LOST vs Wooster 78-67 in semifinal
TEAM-MIDDLE-ATLANTIC	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
3.Wesley	20-2, 22-2	CAC	LOST vs Christopher Newport 59-54 in semifinal
4. Dickinson	20-5, 20-5	CC	WON vs McDaniel 77-63; LOST vs Johns Hopkins 60-55 in Final
5. Stevenson	18-7, 18-7	MACC	WON vs Hood 83-72; LOST vs Alvernia 70-69 in Final
6. Messiah	19-5, 19-5	MACC	LOST vs Alvernia 81-77 in MACC semifinal
9. St. Mary's (Md.)	15-7, 18-7	CAC	LOST vs Mary Washington 70-65 in semifinal
TEAM-MIDWEST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Illinois Wesleyan	22-3, 22-3	CCIW	WON vs Carthage 76-71; LOST vs Wheaton 87-66 in Final
4. Augustana	19-6, 19-6	CCIW	LOST vs Wheaton (IL) 66-55 in semifinal
6. Carthage	15-8, 16-9	CCIW	LOST at Illinois Wesleyan 76-71 in semifinal
8. Chicago	14-9, 15-9	UAA	LOST vs Washington U. 86-73
TEAM-NORTHEAST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. Williams	21-3, 22-3	NESCAC	WON vs Middlebury 78-75; LOST vs Amherst 93-82 in Final
3. Babson	20-5, 20-5	NEWMAC	LOST vs Springfield 85-77 OTin semifinal
4. Eastern Connecticut	20-5, 20-5	LEC	WON vs Mass-Boston 61-55; WON vs Western Connecticut 88-75; LOST vs RIC 70-61 in Final
5. WPI	22-3, 22-3	NEWMAC	LOST vs MIT 64-46 in semifinal 3/1
6. Springfield	18-6, 19-6	NEWMAC	WON vs Babson 85-77 OT; LOST vs MIT 67-56 in Final
7. Bowdoin	19-5, 19-5	NESCAC	LOST to Trinity (Conn.) 71-67 3OT in semifinal
9. Nichols	20-5, 20-5	CCC	WON vs Western New England 73-54; WON vs Salva Regina 83-80 OT; LOST vs Gordon 69-65 in Final 3/1
11. Middlebury	16-8, 17-8	NESCAC	LOST vs Williams 78-75 in semifinal
TEAM-SOUTH	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
1. Randolph-Macon	20-5, 20-5	ODAC	LOST vs Hampden-Sydney 68-55 in quarterfinal
2. Emory	17-7, 17-7	UAA	LOST at Rochester 97-83
6. Birmingham-Southern	16-9, 16-9	SAA	WON vs Hendrix 77-62; LOST vs Oglethorpe 72-70
7. Guilford	17-8, 17-8	ODAC	LOST vs Washington and Lee 77-70 in quarterfinal
TEAM-WEST	RECORD	CON	SCHEDULE
2. UW-Whitewater	22-3, 22-3	WIAC	WON vs La Crosse 76-73; LOST at Stevens Point 74-57 in Final
3. St. Thomas	21-4, 21-4	MIAC	WON vs Bethel 74-59; LOST vs St. Olaf 63-53 in Final
6. Dubuque	18-4, 21-4	IIAC	LOST vs Luther 87-83 in semifinal
7. C-M-S	17-3, 19-5	SCIAC	LOST vs Cal Lutheran 54-53 in semifinal
8. Pomona-Pitzer	18-5, 18-7	SCIAC	LOST vs Chapman 69-54 in semifinal
9. Augsburg	18-7, 18-7	MIAC	LOST vs Bethel 70-67 in quarterfinal

[/quote]
[/quote]

[bopol]

bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well.

Well, I'm piling on a little bit, which isn't very nice of me, but you are extrapolating the performance of a few teams (Amherst and Williams) to cover an entire conference and I mentioned RPI as well, but you didn't comment on that.  So, let me be clear.

Amherst is great.  Legit Top 5 team and I'd have them #3 right now behind UWSP and Wash U and ahead of IWU and UWW.  Wouldn't surprise me to see them in the Final 4 or win it all.

Williams is very, very good.  Hard to tell if they are great as they got dropped by Amherst three times and played a soft non-conference schedule, but did handle Hampden Syndey, Springfield, Bowdoin and Middlebury.

Bowdoin is probably a second 50 team.  They played a very soft nonconference schedule and did beat a good Babson team, but lost every other game they played against a Top 100 team this year.  I don't think they deserved to be in the tournament and I don't think it was that close.

Middlebury is also probably a second 50 team and played a nonconference schedule I can respect (Alvernia, Stevenson, St. Mary's, Plattsburgh St).

The rest of the conference were not Top 100 teams. 

Now, Massey has the Smalls as the 5th ranked conference, so they are respected, but the fact is that the conference does not challenge themselves in nonconference play.  Consider this

# of games vs. Regional Ranked Teams in Nonconference play
Amherst - 4 (includes 2nd game against Williams)
Williams - 2 (includes 2nd game aganist Amherst)
Bowdoin - 1
Middlebury - 5 (though I really doubt Skidmore remained regional ranked)
Trinity - 1
Tufts - 1
Hamilton - 1
Colby - 0
Wesleyan - 1
Bates - 1 (Bowdoin)
Connecticut - 1

For grins and giggles, let's compare that to the CCIW and their 11 game nonconference schedule
IWU - 4
Wheaton - 5
Augustana - 2
Carthage - 4
North Central - 3
Elmhurst - 0
Millikin - 2
North Park - 2

So, the CCIW played 20 of their possible 88 (23%) games against regionally ranked opponents and the NE Smalls played 18 of their possible 165 games (11%) against regional ranked opponents and 3 of those games were incestuous. 

The problem is that every bit of data shows the same thing (Massey, RPI, tournament history, play against RRO), the top couple of Smalls teams are very good or even great and then there is a big dropoff and you're choosing to ignore that data. 

So, let me ask you a plain question: Do you think Bowdoin deserved the Pool C bid?

[toad22]

I've been watching the disdain for NESCAC teams from the middle of the country for almost 20 years now. At first, I thought it would take winning a national championship to change things, but Williams won in 2003, came .2 seconds from winning in 2004, and nothing changed. Amherst won in 2007, nothing changed, Amherst won in 2013, and nothing has changed. Some posters have a fixed view of the D3 basketball world, that cannot be changed by facts. My observation, with quite a bit of observation to support it, is that there is one great conference in the D3 world:the WIAC. They make everybody else look weak in a majority of years. I just don't think there is much argument by anybody else that will stand up to heavy scrutiny. I do think that there are a lot of great teams, located all over, but there is no dominance, except out of Wisconsin.

Trying to nitpick how other teams and leagues run their programs really means nothing. D3 is a regional sport with a national championship. If the CCIW were as great as some posters believe, they would dominate in national play, but they don't. Several teams are very good over many years, the rest are ok regionally, but almost never rise to the national scene. That goes for for about 8-10 leagues, including the NESCAC. The standout is the WIAC.

[AmherstStudent05]

Thanks for running the numbers, bopol. Interesting stuff.  I will just note though that while I haven't run the numbers myself, I think there may be a few small errors in your post.

First, as of the last publicly-available regional rankings -- and forgive me if you have access to the latest rankings -- I have Amherst playing 5 regionally ranked teams in non conference play (Williams, Babson, Eastern Connecticut, Nichols, RIC).  We also played a DII team as well.

Also, Wesleyan plays both Amherst and Williams in non-conference games and Colby plays Bowdoin.  See, when Gregory Sager says the NESCAC already plays a single round robin, that is not quite right.  Yes, for conference play, the NESCAC plays a single round robin, however, for scheduling purposes (which is the conversation we are having here), there are some "mini" conferences within the NESCAC that do play double round robins each year.  For instance, Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan comprise the "Little III" which long predates the NESCAC.  Out of conference games do not go towards NESCAC standings, but they are used, along with the regular season NESCAC games, to crown a "Little III Champion" each year.  Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby have a similar arrangement that occurs each year without fail.  As far as I know, these are the only double-round robin games in the NESCAC.

I think, as is often the case, the waters have become a bit muddied in this "conversation." As for your most recent, direct question to nescac1, I will agree with you.  I was very surprised that Bowdoin received a Pool C bid and while I have a lot of respect for their program I do not think they were even the third best team in the NESCAC this year.  I have been saying as much for a while now on the NESCAC boards.

My point though, which seems unaddressed is about the interest other conferences take in how the NESCAC conducts its affairs.  I can't speak for other NESCAC posters, but I am pretty sure this interest is not reciprocated. Also, I think for reasons that nescac1 has stated, the idea that the NESCAC has "jimmied" its schedule to improve its odds of making the NCAA Tournament is downright laughable to anyone who knows anything about NESCAC politics.  It was a struggle just to convince the NESCAC presidents to let our teams compete in the NCAA Tournament at all! (and we still don't in football as I am sure many of you know).

Now, if other conferences feel that the NESCAC's hybrid round robin scheduling, or even a straight single round robin schedule, is most conducive to success in the NCAA Tournament, then I encourage them to consider a change!  As long as it is within NCAA guidelines, have at it.  And, if it is uniformity we are after, as an Amherst fan, I would have my own thoughts on this if I actually cared how other conferences conducted their affairs.  Again, how about starting preseason practices two weeks later?  How about abolishing all JV teams?  How about preventing all (non medical) redshirts (not sure if this actually happens, but when I was a student it was rumored to be a practice among some other DIII schools)?

[sac]

Massey has the NESCAC #5.

Behind the CCIW, UAA, WIAC, and OAC. I don't know what this purports to measure, but I just don't see the OAC being up with these other conferences this year (or with the 6th ranked NCAC, for that matter.) The OAC is fairly well balanced, and the 7th place team is a threat to beat the first place team, which is not necessarily the case in most conferences, but the top of the conference is pretty weak, especially when compared to the tops of the other top 6 conferences (look what WashU did to Wilma last night.) I think, once reasonable metrics have been defined, that we could argue forever about the NESCAC vs. the CCIW, UAA, and/or WIAC, but I don't see any reason to agree that they are behind the OAC in any sense. And that makes me wonder about these conference rankings overall.

The OAC has one result that no one else in D3 had this year, a win over a D1.  Not just a D1 but a mid-level conference D1 in Wilmington's win over Miami-Ohio.  That helped skew the OAC's rating all year. 

[John Gleich]

Now, if other conferences feel that the NESCAC's hybrid round robin scheduling, or even a straight single round robin schedule, is most conducive to success in the NCAA Tournament, then I encourage them to consider a change!  As long as it is within NCAA guidelines, have at it.  And, if it is uniformity we are after, as an Amherst fan, I would have my own thoughts on this if I actually cared how other conferences conducted their affairs.  Again, how about starting preseason practices two weeks later?  How about abolishing all JV teams?  How about preventing all (non medical) redshirts (not sure if this actually happens, but when I was a student it was rumored to be a practice among some other DIII schools)?

Redshirting was abolished starting with the 2004-05 season.

[bopol]

AmherstStudent05,

Yeah, I don't care how the NESCAC does their business.  With the great history of so many of those schools, I understand the opportunity to do some pretty unique things and they should.  My only complaint is that Bowdoin didn't belong in the tournament.

[y_jack_lok]

I've been watching the disdain for NESCAC teams from the middle of the country for almost 20 years now. At first, I thought it would take winning a national championship to change things, but Williams won in 2003, came .2 seconds from winning in 2004, and nothing changed. Amherst won in 2007, nothing changed, Amherst won in 2013, and nothing has changed. Some posters have a fixed view of the D3 basketball world, that cannot be changed by facts. My observation, with quite a bit of observation to support it, is that there is one great conference in the D3 world:the WIAC. They make everybody else look weak in a majority of years. I just don't think there is much argument by anybody else that will stand up to heavy scrutiny. I do think that there are a lot of great teams, located all over, but there is no dominance, except out of Wisconsin.

Trying to nitpick how other teams and leagues run their programs really means nothing. D3 is a regional sport with a national championship. If the CCIW were as great as some posters believe, they would dominate in national play, but they don't. Several teams are very good over many years, the rest are ok regionally, but almost never rise to the national scene. That goes for for about 8-10 leagues, including the NESCAC. The standout is the WIAC.

This is a great and, in my view, very accurate observation about the WIAC. And I think part of what makes that possible is that most WIAC schools have significantly larger enrollments than the majority of D3 schools. You can attract quality athletes to successful programs who get to pay public university tuition. Maybe the SUNYAC is in a similar position but without similar athletic success. I don't know for sure. But it seems that a significant majority of D3 schools are private and have higher tuition than their public university D3 counterparts.

[blue_jays]

bopol, I think you saw last night the danger of making larger extrapolations / acting as if you have "won" an argument based on a single data point.  If a foul is not called in the waning seconds to IWU's benefit, or a good look from three goes down at the buzzer vs. Stevens Point, would that have "proven" that those teams / conferences are overrated and didn't belong in the tournament?  Of course not! 

It seems like even winning ANOTHER national championship for NESCAC, in a year in which three NESCAC teams made the elite eight despite being placed into three difference geographic brackets, hasn't ended the perennial bitching and moaning about NESCAC hoops here.  Whether NESCAC teams play a conference tourney or do not, whether the play a double round robin or do not, whether they beat each other to make the Final Four (as Williams has had to do vs. Amherst, several times) or are split up into different geographic regions (like last year, when three NESCAC teams still managed to make the Elite 8, and Amherst of course won), people here are always going to call NESCAC victories illegitimate, claim that NESCAC "cheats" or "jimmies" the system (while ignoring completely all contrary evidence, such as the late start date for NESCAC teams), etc.  It really doesn't matter what NESCAC does or doesn't do, or how well NESCAC teams actually perform,  it will be the same old tired arguments.  At this point, let's just cut and paste these same arguments back and forth next year, when the haters will emerge once again. 

And by the way, proof that whatever Massey is doing, it is not doing well is found in how it treated NESCAC as a league this year -- it was ranked (at least last I heard) REALLY low (like outside the top 10 conferences) by Massey's computer calculations, which is just farcical.  If Massey rated the ACC or the Big 10 as the 12th best conference, folks would laugh at that, as well.

Ugh, enough with this pointless spitting match, every body. NESCAC supporters will always believe they have the superior league that gets no respect. Midwest supporters will always believe they have the superior leagues and that the NESCAC teams get too easy a road in the postseason. It doesn't matter. No one's opinions are going to change. This "debate" is tired and lame. So let's just acquiesce and apologize to the NESCAC: "You guys are the greatest, we totally respect you as the superiors schools, let's burn your likeness into the surface of the moon for all to admire."

[David Collinge]

 

[Pat Coleman]

Now, if other conferences feel that the NESCAC's hybrid round robin scheduling, or even a straight single round robin schedule, is most conducive to success in the NCAA Tournament, then I encourage them to consider a change!  As long as it is within NCAA guidelines, have at it.  And, if it is uniformity we are after, as an Amherst fan, I would have my own thoughts on this if I actually cared how other conferences conducted their affairs.  Again, how about starting preseason practices two weeks later?  How about abolishing all JV teams?  How about preventing all (non medical) redshirts (not sure if this actually happens, but when I was a student it was rumored to be a practice among some other DIII schools)?

Redshirting was abolished starting with the 2004-05 season.

Helpful to learn what other conferences actually do before you complain about what they do.