Pool C

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Well, comparing Bowdoin to Staten Island is tough... because Bowdoin had something like a .530 SOS and Staten Island was near .470 (off the top of my head)... Bowdoin at least played regionally ranked teams... Staten Island didn't. Bowdoin should be in the tournament ahead of Staten Island... and Carthage (as has been told to me by multiple committee and RAC members) suffered because afterall they were 15-9 in the eyes of the NCAA and eventually enough losses will hurt you.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I think it is a nearly unanimous opinion that Bowdoin was one of the most inexplicable choices for a C ever.  And their losing the first game (even if Stockton did then go on to also beat Cabrini) doesn't look very good compared to, say, Carthage, who not only beat 5 teams who made the tourney, but all five won their first game.

[AmherstStudent05]

sac, I agree that this thread has gone off the rails a bit.  It is clear some posters don't like the way the NESCAC handles its business...they just don't seem to be clear on what exactly they don't like.  More on that in a bit.

Gregory, in point of fact, the NESCAC does not recognize any champion on the basis of a round-robin (single, double, triple, hybrid, or any other kind).  Starting with the 2000-01 season, the NESCAC Championship is awarded to the winner of a one-and-done tournament following the conclusion of the regular season.  My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of D3 conferences (and every D1 conference save for the Ivies) follow a similar mechanism.  If you are saying that the UAA (or any other D3 conference that doesn't award its conference title to the winner of a one-and-done tournament) is the only conference to have a definitive champion, you may have the makings of an argument; however, if you are saying that Amherst is a less definitive conference champion than is Wheaton, than I am very much confused.  Amherst finished first in the NESCAC regular season (ahead of Williams on a tiebreaker) and then validated their status by winning the conference tournament (for the third straight time as the #1 seed).  How is this less "definitive" than Wheaton upsetting Illinois Wesleyan for the CCIW title?

As for the "cherry picking" argument, here again I am a little confused.  Some posters seem to say this is an advantage because NESCAC teams schedule top teams against other conferences and others have indicated that NESCAC teams fill up their schedule with weak OOC opponents.  Smedindy, God bless him, seems to singlehandedly be on both sides of this issue [compare: his post on March 6th and 5:55pm -- "We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS"  with his post at 5:28 today noting that the NESCAC has a very weak SOS despite being a highly ranked conference].  So which is it, does the NESCAC schedule "fatten" our SOS or suppress it?

Look, if you guys are saying only that the NESCAC's scheduling arrangements provide more flexibility to its member institutions, then of course I would agree with you.  This is precisely why I like the NESCAC schedule!  In light of the fact that we have 12 open non-conference dates each year (again, our non-conference games with Williams and Wesleyan are effectively set in stone), Amherst has a lot of flexibility to play a variety of teams in its region.  As I said on Friday, does any team have more wins over regionally ranked opponents in their own region than Amherst does?  If not at the top of the list, we have to be pretty close to it.  Isn't that a good thing?

Also, just as a reminder, there are at least TWO critical factors in determining how much flexibility a program has to create a non-conference schedule: (1) the number of times you play your conference opponents, AND (2) the number of teams in your conference.  If the NESCAC adopted a full, double round robin, Amherst would then have 20 regular season commitments each year.  CCIW schools would have 14.  Would CCIW scheduling then be illegitimate or overly manipulative? Indeed, as it stands now, there are many teams that play more than 14 conference games in a regular season.  Do CCIW schools owe these teams some sort of apology?  Look, I want to make very clear, I have absolutely nothing against the CCIW or the WIAC (or any other conference).  They all produce great teams and passionate, knowledgable fans who had immensely to the d3hoops culture.  And, as a practical matter, Amherst basically never plays schools from these conferences, so I can wish them nothing but the best without probing too deeply into how they conduct their affairs.  There are just some elements of the constant criticisms of my conference that simply do not make any sense.

Finally, I must end on a point of personal privilege.  Smedindy, please quote the "false facts about redshirting" I (or any other NESCAC poster) stated.  Good luck.

[bopol]

Well, comparing Bowdoin to Staten Island is tough... because Bowdoin had something like a .530 SOS and Staten Island was near .470 (off the top of my head)... Bowdoin at least played regionally ranked teams... Staten Island didn't. Bowdoin should be in the tournament ahead of Staten Island... and Carthage (as has been told to me by multiple committee and RAC members) suffered because afterall they were 15-9 in the eyes of the NCAA and eventually enough losses will hurt you.

So..vs RRO, vs. everyone else

Carthage 4-7/11-2
Bowdoin 1-3/18-2

And that doesn't take into account that playing a North Central (twice) and a Calvin is probably a little tougher than anything Bowdoin did in their play against non-RRO.

So, the committee rewarded Bowdoin over Staten Island for playing regional ranked teams and punished Carthage for playing too many of them?  That makes sense. 

Since you talk to them, let me ask you: Are they collectively as stupid as you make them sound to be when you talk about them?

[Gregory Sager]

Gregory, in point of fact, the NESCAC does not recognize any champion on the basis of a round-robin (single, double, triple, hybrid, or any other kind).  Starting with the 2000-01 season, the NESCAC Championship is awarded to the winner of a one-and-done tournament following the conclusion of the regular season.  My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of D3 conferences (and every D1 conference save for the Ivies) follow a similar mechanism.  If you are saying that the UAA (or any other D3 conference that doesn't award its conference title to the winner of a one-and-done tournament) is the only conference to have a definitive champion, you may have the makings of an argument; however, if you are saying that Amherst is a less definitive conference champion than is Wheaton, than I am very much confused.  Amherst finished first in the NESCAC regular season (ahead of Williams on a tiebreaker) and then validated their status by winning the conference tournament (for the third straight time as the #1 seed).  How is this less "definitive" than Wheaton upsetting Illinois Wesleyan for the CCIW title?

Wheaton didn't win the CCIW title, AS05. Wheaton isn't the reigning CCIW champion for this season. Wheaton is the reigning CCIW tournament champion. Illinois Wesleyan is the CCIW champion for 2013-14, and the Titans have the trophy to prove it.

But that's largely an issue of nomenclature. Whether the league of your choice refers to the team with the best record at the end of the regular season as its champion, or to the team that wins its postseason tournament as its champion, the point is the same.

The point I was making has nothing to do with postseason tournaments. It has to do with the regular season, and the plain and simple fact of the matter is that playing a double round-robin to determine the top team (whether you call it the league champion or merely the #1 postseason tournament seed) is a more definitive and more balanced way to do it than a single round-robin.

As for the "cherry picking" argument, here again I am a little confused.  Some posters seem to say this is an advantage because NESCAC teams schedule top teams against other conferences and others have indicated that NESCAC teams fill up their schedule with weak OOC opponents.  Smedindy, God bless him, seems to singlehandedly be on both sides of this issue [compare: his post on March 6th and 5:55pm -- "We've always suspected the NESCAC of jimmying their schedule to get "C" bids, since they don't double round robin and then they can pick up a lot of games against other conferences top teams which helps their SOS"  with his post at 5:28 today noting that the NESCAC has a very weak SOS despite being a highly ranked conference].  So which is it, does the NESCAC schedule "fatten" our SOS or suppress it?

That's his argument. I have not looked in-depth into how the various NESCAC teams schedule. But his point today about the NESCAC having a weaker league SOS than one would suspect is, if I'm reading him correctly, a direct result of the lack of a double round-robin. Because the NESCAC is the region's best league, its members tend to beat up on other New England teams in non-conference play. That gives the league a great overall non-con winning percentage, but it detracts somewhat from the SOS as compared to double round-robin power conferences, because the games that might otherwise be devoted to the second NESCAC round-robin are instead spread out among non-con games that tend to not be as shiny and bright from an SOS point of view. (At least, I think that that's the gist of what smeds was saying. He can chime in here if I missed his point.)

Look, if you guys are saying only that the NESCAC's scheduling arrangements provide more flexibility to its member institutions, then of course I would agree with you.  This is precisely why I like the NESCAC schedule!  In light of the fact that we have 12 open non-conference dates each year (again, our non-conference games with Williams and Wesleyan are effectively set in stone), Amherst has a lot of flexibility to play a variety of teams in its region.  As I said on Friday, does any team have more wins over regionally ranked opponents in their own region than Amherst does?  If not at the top of the list, we have to be pretty close to it.  Isn't that a good thing?

Yes, it's a good thing, because Amherst's coach is setting up his schedule strategically. As I said earlier this afternoon, that's something that every coach in D3 ought to do when setting up his team's schedule. But the point is that Amherst and its sister schools have the flexibility to do that in a way that nobody else in D3 has, because of the NESCAC's unique single round-robin philosophy of scheduling.

Also, just as a reminder, there are at least TWO critical factors in determining how much flexibility a program has to create a non-conference schedule: (1) the number of times you play your conference opponents, AND (2) the number of teams in your conference.  If the NESCAC adopted a full, double round robin, Amherst would then have 20 regular season commitments each year.  CCIW schools would have 14.  Would CCIW scheduling then be illegitimate or overly manipulative?

Of course not. A double round-robin is a double round-robin, regardless of league size. The whole point of a double round-robin isn't to eat up as many games from the limit of 25 as possible; it's to guarantee a fair and equitable distribution of league games by forcing every member to visit the gyms of all of the other teams in the league, as well as to host all of the other teams in the league. Nobody gets the benefit of playing the tougher teams only at home, while saving the road trips for the easier teams.

Indeed, as it stands now, there are many teams that play more than 14 conference games in a regular season.  Do CCIW schools owe these teams some sort of apology?

That's just plain silly. A league's size is what it is. Again, it's not about the size of the league; it's about the equity and fairness of having everybody share a common league schedule with regard to road and home games. Plus, it's about the number of league games that a team is required to play. The minimum number of teams that a league is required to field by the NCAA in order to have an automatic qualifier for the tournament is seven, so every double round-robin league plays at least 12 league games. But there are no longer any seven-team leagues in D3, IIRC; they're all now eight teams or larger. So the minimum number of games that any D3 league other than the NESCAC is playing right now is 14. The NESCAC plays 10.

[GnacBballFan]

Well, comparing Bowdoin to Staten Island is tough... because Bowdoin had something like a .530 SOS and Staten Island was near .470 (off the top of my head)... Bowdoin at least played regionally ranked teams... Staten Island didn't. Bowdoin should be in the tournament ahead of Staten Island... and Carthage (as has been told to me by multiple committee and RAC members) suffered because afterall they were 15-9 in the eyes of the NCAA and eventually enough losses will hurt you.

So..vs RRO, vs. everyone else

Carthage 4-7/11-2
Bowdoin 1-3/18-2

And that doesn't take into account that playing a North Central (twice) and a Calvin is probably a little tougher than anything Bowdoin did in their play against non-RRO.

So, the committee rewarded Bowdoin over Staten Island for playing regional ranked teams and punished Carthage for playing too many of them?  That makes sense. 

Since you talk to them, let me ask you: Are they collectively as stupid as you make them sound to be when you talk about them?

LOL

[7express]

If Staten Island wants to improve their chances next year for a Pool C, they should schedule teams in New England.  Purchase, Amherst, WPI, Rhode Island College & Albertus all NCAA teams this year and 4 of the 5 were in the top 25.  All of those schools check in at 200 miles or under so they'd all be regional games for the Dolphins.  Western Connecticut will be one of the better teams in the LEC next year (and finished 16-10 this year) and Vassar will probably challenge for the Liberty League title next year (lost to Hobart by 1 in double overtime).  Granted, not playing Mary Washington really hurt them and Ramapo & Randolph had pretty bad years which obviously didn't help them, but if they take out the second game @ Montclair state and the game vs. Rivier and replace them with let's say Purchase and Albertus Magnus, even if the Dolphins lost both games, they'd be in a lot better shape then they were.

[AmherstStudent05]

Thanks for the response, as always, Gregory.  I am not sure this "argument" is all about nomenclature, although, again, there are so many different arguments against the NESCAC that its hard to keep track.  This argument started (as far as I can tell) with the claim that the NESCAC's scheduling arrangements put its member institutions in a better position than other D3 schools vis-a-vis NCAA Tournament selection.  So we are talking Pool A and Pool C.  As far as I know, Wheaton was the CCIW's Pool A representative this year.  Amherst got the automatic bid from the NESCAC.  Both have the same level of legitimacy in my eyes.  Now, I don't know why you would care about the "legitimacy" or "definitiveness" of the NESCAC's "regular season champion" (I actually don't know if such a thing is officially recognized anymore, but I certainly recognize it every time Amherst finishes with the best conference record in the regular season).  This "title" is something that would seemingly ONLY have relevance to the member institutions of the NESCAC. 

I do of course agree that there are some years where the NESCAC regular season champion is not so definitive.  For instance, in 2003, Amherst was the top seed after beating Williams in the NESCAC game (played at Amherst) even though Williams beat Amherst in the non-conference regular season game played at Chandler.  Naturally, heading into the conference tournament, both sides felt like they had claim to being the better team.  (Unfortunately), Williams settled matters by beating Amherst in LeFrak for the NESCAC Championship.  Case closed.  Many years, the regular season champion is pretty definitive.  For instance, I am not sure anyone questioned that Amherst earned the top seed heading into this year's conference tournament, and certainly no one could have questioned it last year (when we went undefeated with road wins at the second and third seeds), but no one cared all that much because it still needed to be validated by the conference tournament.  (As an aside, if it is a "definitive" regular season champion you are after, then you must give more credence to the fact that Amherst DOES NOT just play 10 games against NESCAC schools.  That extra game against Williams, while not part of the NESCAC standings, can be huge in establishing legitimacy as Amherst and Williams are so often the top two teams in the NESCAC -- as they have been the past two seasons. We travel to Williamstown every year in the regular season.).

Again, smedindy's post, which you explicitly endorsed, stated that "the ENTIRE issue" was that the NESCAC has "MORE chances to gain SOS points because of the single round robin."  My only point, which I still think is a fair one, is that if smedindy (and you) is so up in arms about the number of out of conference games NESCAC teams have relative to other schools, is he also concerned about the disparity between other conferences?  For instance, CCIW teams have more "flexibility' to schedule out of conference games (and "gain SOS points") than SUNYAC teams (in addition to many others).  Is this also an "issue" that the d3hoops community should get worked up about? Or is it only an affront when the NESCAC is involved?

Also, a league size is no more "what it is" than a conference's round robin policy.  Both can be changed.  In fact, the NESCAC recently changed its composition (welcoming Hamilton for basketball beginning three years ago).  We have not changed on the round robin in quite some time.

[sac]

The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country.

This was my original quote which followed some data I posted previously.   I really intended to raise the 'access to in-region' games angle and how that improves Northeast Region teams chances of landing a 'C bid'.

For me it is very different what a Northeast, Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic team can do with scheduling vs a more isolated South, West or other scattered conferences that don't have another conference in their back yard.


I just want to make sure its understood I think in most cases the NESCAC Pool C's have been legit and the scheduling advantages in no way diminishes my perceptions of NESCAC basketball.  Even if I think not playing a double-round robin schedule is chicken crap.

I was merely trying to show and explain how the criteria really puts the Northeast Region in better position than everyone else.  Scheduling is a beauty contest now and if you don't play the game you'll be left behind, its just easier for others to do that.

[madzillagd]

To be clear, the CCIW plays 14 games against conference teams. That leaves them with 11 games to schedule nonconference opponents to make up a 25 game schedule.

Amh, Will, Wes, Bow, Colby, Bates all play 12 games against conference teams (only 10 of which count toward conference standings).  NESCAC teams are only allowed to play 24 games, which means they get 12 nonconference games to schedule (since 2 are taken up by their mini-conferences).

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but all of this arguing back and forth is about 1 single nonconference game?   That's the massive advantage the NESCAC has is 1 game more to schedule who they want? 

[Greek Tragedy]

On a more important topic...

I really think Richard Stockton should be ranked in the Top 25 in the last poll.

Tghijgsto!

[Mr. Ypsi]

Hey, they are probably #1!!

[David Collinge]

I want to make clear that I don't have a dog in this fight.

I think this is the key point that is being overlooked in this argument.

The NESCAC pool C bids don't bother me, I think they've gathered more than enough evidence of good play in the tournament to support those selections.

I do wonder how many Pool C's they might not have received if they played a true double round robin league schedule.

I also think you might be able to conclude the Northeast is the beneficiary of larger access to regional games and can cherry pick their schedules much better than other parts of the country.

This was my original quote which followed some data I posted previously.   I really intended to raise the 'access to in-region' games angle and how that improves Northeast Region teams chances of landing a 'C bid'.

For me it is very different what a Northeast, Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic team can do with scheduling vs a more isolated South, West or other scattered conferences that don't have another conference in their back yard.


I just want to make sure its understood I think in most cases the NESCAC Pool C's have been legit and the scheduling advantages in no way diminishes my perceptions of NESCAC basketball.  Even if I think not playing a double-round robin schedule is chicken crap.

I was merely trying to show and explain how the criteria really puts the Northeast Region in better position than everyone else.  Scheduling is a beauty contest now and if you don't play the game you'll be left behind, its just easier for others to do that.

To put it simply, I think the complaint goes like this. There's a whole lot of schools in the Northeast, and relative to the rest of D3 they are close together. A coach in the NE has a lot more options within his budget when filling out his schedule than his counterparts to the west. A lot of these schools have basketball teams that aren't very good. Other schools with more mediocre teams feast on these bottom feeders, then schools up the food chain (who, in the NE, tend to be NESCAC teams) feed on them. So School A plays a lot of School Bs and ends up with a record of something like 15-10 which might be more like 10-15 if they were in other regions with less ready access to such plankton. Then School C feasts on the Schools A, giving them not just a nice-looking record but a very strong SOS. If School C is a NESCAC school, it has a lot of open dates to fill with Schools A. That boosts the SOS without making the schedule as difficult as the SOS would suggest to someone from another region.

Whether that's good, bad, or just the way things are is a matter of perspective.

[smedindy]

Playing Colby and Bates non-conference with a single-round robin definitely helps.

FYI, Bowdoin plays Colby and Bates twice as part of their CBB rivalry, similar to the Little Three rivalry between Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan. Those teams would probably play each other regardless of their records.

I know this Gordon. It HELPS, though, it HELPS a great deal if Bates is 11-13 and not 6-18 like they could be with a double round.

PS - AmherstStudent, you said redshirting was allowed. Pat and others called you out. At least I read it like that.

PPS - The argument about some NESCAC schools playing each other twice doesn't hold much water. Not every one does it, it's only a few games, not an entire double round, and they still get to feed on the chum that feeds on the plankton.

Ten games isn't much of a conference test, especially if you miss some of the big dogs on the road. Going back to the NCAC, teams fighting for seeding could have missed Wooster or Wittenberg as a roadie a few years back. That wasn't fair, really to those teams that had to play them on a double round and had their singles with Hiram and Allegheny.

[Pat Coleman]

For instance, CCIW teams have more "flexibility' to schedule out of conference games (and "gain SOS points") than SUNYAC teams (in addition to many others).  Is this also an "issue" that the d3hoops community should get worked up about? Or is it only an affront when the NESCAC is involved?

You should spend more time reading other boards. The small non-conference schedule in the SUNYAC this year was very heavily discussed, as the ASC schedule regularly as along with its impact on SOS. The MIAC has a small non-conference schedule that is also bemoaned.

You're spending a lot of time here assuming the NESCAC is being singled out. Perhaps you should get out a little and see what the rest of the board is talking about.