Pool C

[nescac1]

If the CCIW schools are so concerned about all this, the solution is simple: just move your campuses to Massachusetts, so you can feast on all the terrible basketball programs out here like Williams, Amherst, MIT, Babson, Brandeis, Rhode Island College, Middlebury, WPI, Albertus Magnus, and so on.  Problem solved, and everyone is happy! 

[nescac1]

Seriously ... Pat, come ON, to suggest that NESCAC doesn't receive, on an annual basis, a special level of criticism / scrutiny here is just laughable.  Every year, around tournament time, we hear the same exact tired arguments about NESCAC.  That doesn't mean that folks aren't critical of other conferences from time to time, but there is not as much hyperbole and belly-aching about all other league policies combined than there has been over the past several years about NESCAC's.  Whether or not there are good reasons for that, it is the reality.

Agreed 100 percent with madzillagd's post.  Or put another way, all of this griping about ONE Pool C team in the last decade (at least) of tournament play from NESCAC that didn't warrant inclusion in the tourney?  Bowdoin has hardly been the only questionable NCAA pick, ever.  Heck, they weren't the only questionable NCAA pick this YEAR (I mean, Emory, with a worse record from a down-this-year UAA, got a first round bye).  And if you noticed, no one from NESCAC has been defending the Bowdoin pick.  The problem with the Bowdoin selection was NOT that the lack of a double round-robin allowed them to get in.  It's that they should not have gotten in based on the NCAA's own criteria.  Totally different complaint. 

Every other NESCAC Pool C in recent years, I promise, would have been in the tourney, and been highly seeded to boot, if there was a double round-robin, or if they had played in the CCIW, or with whatever other constraint you want to impose.  Why am I so sure?  Because Midd, Amherst and Williams have all been top-10 caliber teams who dominated the conference over the past five years, and actually, most of their losses over the past few years have come either from non-NESCAC games, or to each other.  And once they make it into the tournament, they almost invariably do very well.  So maybe playing teams like Stevens, Alvernia, Randolph-Macon, Brandeis, Babson, Emerson, St. Mary's and so on in non-league games isn't a guarantee of more victories than facing Bates, Conn College, or Trinity for a second time, after all. 

So again, this is all much ado about nothing, or next-to-nothing, in terms of ACTUAL IMPACT on the tournament or its seeding.  Remember, the last two borderline Pool C teams from NESCAC, Wesleyan and Colby, both didn't make the cut, when both had credible arguments to get in (both had in the 19-20 win range).  So, the lack of double round robin didn't help them, and simply hasn't had any impact in the real world, other than Bowdoin's inclusion this year.  And again, the issue with that is really something else entirely -- the cryptic and inconsistent application by the NCAA of its own purported criteria. 

[AmherstStudent05]

Smedindy, thanks for quoting what I actually wrote regarding redshirting.  Weren't we supposed to come on this board with the cold hard facts?  For the record, here is the entirety of what I wrote about redshirting: "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)?"

I never stated the "fact" that redshirting took place.  In fact, I explicitly stated that I didn't know if it happened at all.  A poster helpfully informed me that redshirting (for non medical reasons) has been abolished since 2004-05 (my senior year at Amherst).  So apparently the practice did take place for a while (or was, at the very least, permitted) but has been prohibited for almost a decade now.  As I have said from the beginning, I don't really care as this has never been an issue in the NESCAC for as long as I have followed the conference.

Speaking of which, Pat, I am sure there are plenty of great things I could be doing if I had more time.  I have tried to be as upfront as possible in explaining that the overwhelming majority of my interest when it comes to d3hoops is limited to Amherst and the NESCAC.  I have tremendous respect for the posters (you, Gregory Sager, nescac1, and I am sure there are many many others) who take a more comprehensive interest in d3hoops -- but that just isn't me.  Indeed, if this whole discussion had occurred on the CCIW board or some other conference board, it is virtually certain that I would have missed it entirely (perhaps to the appreciation of some of you!).  But, come tournament time, I do tend to look at the Pool C and NCAA Tournament threads (at least in years where Amherst is fortunate enough to have earned an invitation to the Big Dance).  When my conference is discussed, there are occasions where I think I might be able to contribute to the discussion.

Let me be clear, in my recent back-and-forth with smedindy (and then also with Gregory Sager), the NESCAC most certainly HAS been singled out!  I don't need to assume anything.  The NESCAC has been the focus of this recent discussion. (By no means am I under the impression that every conference board spends its time discussing the NESCAC.  If I thought that, I might actually start looking at those other boards!)  When smedindy and Gregory Sager said that the number of non-conference slots available to NESCAC teams each year "lend itself to SOS manipulation" I asked whether these gentlemen would be willing to say the same thing about CCIW schedules relative to other schools that have greater conference commitments.  I thought this was a fair and simple point designed to better identify the "principle" folks are really driving at.  Gregory Sager seemed to find this "silly."  I don't know, maybe I didn't phrase it well enough, or maybe it is silly.  But, I have to say, your latest post only adds to my confusion.  You say that "[t]he MIAC has a small non-conference schedule that is also bemoaned."  So, do I have this right: the NESCAC's non-conference schedule is too big and the MIAC's non-conference schedule is too small?  Is there a number of annual, regular season conference games that is just right? Just a wild guess here, but could that magic number possibly be 14?

SAC and David, thanks for trying to identify some common ground here.  It is much appreciated.  To be clear, and to repeat myself, I too was surprised by Bowdoin's inclusion in Pool C.  Nothing against the Polar Bears who are fantastic representatives of our conference (and can't of course be blamed from accepting the NCAA's (overly) generous invitation), but I agree that Bowdoin's non-conference schedule simply wasn't impressive enough to justify an at large bid for a team that finished fourth in the conference -- even if that conference is the NESCAC.

David, you also raise a very interesting point about how the raw number and diversity of teams in the Northeast could affect SOS.  I can't say as I thought about it much, but you could be on to something.  I would definitely concede the (obvious) point that being from New England is a definite advantage come bracketing time as there are enough teams that the NCAA can give the top seeds a true, D1 style progression rather than force us into a group of death right from the outset. (Still also agree with nescac1 though that some posters may still underestimate the depth of the Northeast.  Unfortunately, it can be very hard to tell given that there are not very many cross regional games during the regular season.  Tufts, a fourth place team in the NESCAC last year, did play a very competitive game with Illinois Wesleyan last year, but that is obviously a minuscule sample.  I have lobbied previously for a Big10/ACC style CCIW/NESCAC showdown, but the CCIW probably doesn't have the "flexibility" to pull it off (kidding!).)

[USee]

I may be wrong, but isn't the focus on NESCAC because they are the only "power" conference that does not play a double-round robin? And wouldn't it naturally be a conversation that comes up every year around playoffs because that's when they play other national teams? I don't see this as NESCAC discrimination so much as I see it as a legitimate discussion topic, which is much more fun to debate than much of the inane banter that happens on some of the boards. There seems to be a simple fact that the NESCAC plays a single-round robin and has more teams in their conference than the other power conferences. That works to their advantage. I don't disagree with the idea that some of the other leagues may want to copy the format, even if it's impractical! On the flip side you have NESCAC schools bound by their conference to practice 2 weeks less than other power conferences. That is certainly a competitive disadvantage. Not saying those two wash each other out but those are the circumstances as they currently stand and neither of these issues seem to eminate from a strategic decision by a consortium of NESCAC coaches to overthrow the D3 world. But they are unique and deserve to be highlighted and their relative impacts debated. So be it.

I for one, have been enlightened and entertained by all the conversation. I can understand both sides and, almost like a patron at a good play, am swayed by the various characters and plot lines. The passion is refreshing and the logic mostly sound. I am not sure what the results of the debate will be but it has been well played by all sides so far. Bravo. 

[Pat Coleman]

Seriously ... Pat, come ON, to suggest that NESCAC doesn't receive, on an annual basis, a special level of criticism / scrutiny here is just laughable.

I'm not suggesting that. However, it's not an unfair level of scrutiny, is it? To reiterate what USee said, the NESCAC is the only one doing it this way in men's basketball and it does seem to work to their advantage when it comes to getting postseason bids that everyone else across the country is in competition for.

I get that the NESCAC self-restricts itself to starting practice Nov. 1 and that's why I don't make much note of Amherst starting its season with, say, Brooklyn or Newbury. But that's the conference's choice. Doesn't have a significant affect on how everyone else plays. NESCAC is not alone in restricting games (Midwest Conference) or the start of preseason practice (Centennial).

[madzillagd]

Usee - well if you come back next year you'll get to relive it all again. And the year after that, and the year after that.....

[nescac1]

Pat, but it hasn't historically "worked to their advantage."  Other than Bowdoin this year, can you point to even ONE example of an unworthy NESCAC team receiving a Pool C bid?  And honestly, I don't think the scheduling worked to Bowdoin's advantage this year.  They ended up having a poor SOS because they played a weak schedule.  Had they played a double round robin, they would have had a better SOS.  They didn't beat a lot of regional teams with good records -- they beat regional teams with bad records.  So the issue, again, is not NESCAC scheduling policies, it is whether the NCAA applies its SELECTION criteria consistently.

It also seems odd to say "that's the conference's choice" to explain away a policy that works to its competitive disadvantage, but then attack something else that is "the conference's choice" and which provides a perceived advantage.  The point is that every conference has their own nuances, their own policies, their own structure, their own quirks, and some might end up benefiting them, and some might end up hurting them.  That doesn't mean those conferences (or NESCAC) are gaming the system.  And in the aggregate, NESCAC's policies end up being at best a wash, or more likely, a slight competitive disadvantage vs. the rest of D3.  So again, I don't really understand why NESCAC is under a uniquely bright microscope, year after year. 

And I do think NESCAC receives an unfair level of scrutiny.  I mean, in football, folks on these boards have attacked NESCAC for how it chooses to schedule, including its choice (which I don't love, but I don't get a vote) to altogether avoid post-season play, which actually HELPS other NCAA schools by opening up a spot in the tourney that would otherwise go to a NESCAC school each year.  But that has not insulated NESCAC from critique.  And in basketball, again, NESCAC's scheduling has in no way prior to this year had any impact on anyone who felt they deserved an NCAA bid but was left out, yet the criticism is hardly new. 

[David Collinge]

Seriously ... Pat, come ON, to suggest that NESCAC doesn't receive, on an annual basis, a special level of criticism / scrutiny here is just laughable.

I'm not suggesting that. However, it's not an unfair level of scrutiny, is it? To reiterate what USee said, the NESCAC is the only one doing it this way in men's basketball and it does seem to work to their advantage when it comes to getting postseason bids that everyone else across the country is in competition for.

I get that the NESCAC self-restricts itself to starting practice Nov. 1 and that's why I don't make much note of Amherst starting its season with, say, Brooklyn or Newbury. But that's the conference's choice. Doesn't have a significant affect on how everyone else plays. NESCAC is not alone in restricting games (Midwest Conference) or the start of preseason practice (Centennial).

Here's where you lose me. I don't have the Pool C history at my fingertips, but I think nescac1 is correct in his assertion that every NESCAC Pool C bid in recent memory has gone to a fully deserving squad (Amherst, Williams, or Middlebury), with the exception of Bowdoin this year, and that was a result of a breakdown of the selection process as much as anything (that is, on paper, they should have been passed over, even with whatever advantage they gained by the schedule.) If that's not so, I'd appreciate having my memory refreshed.

I see that nescac1 has beat me to the punch on this one, but I'm posting it anyway so assuage my vanity.

[USee]

Usee - well if you come back next year you'll get to relive it all again. And the year after that, and the year after that.....

If you want to see the ultimate "groundhog day" in yearly debates, visit the Mt Union or UWW football boards. If NESCAC teams sucked you wouldn't have to worry about any yearly debates because no one would care. You should consider it an honor that other people are taking notice of the conference's success and care enough to engage in a debate of any kind, let alone a repetitive one. As I say to my kids, "Choose Joy".

[toad22]

It has finally dawned on me why there is so much commotion every year directed at the policies of NESCAC. It really has nothing to do with NESCAC at all. Many midwest posters believe the eastern part of the D3 nation is generally less competitive than their area, and begrudge some of the strong teams back east (Williams, Amherst) a perceived easier path to the final four. I get that, but is there anything to be done about it? There isn't even any way to prove that assertion. D3 is almost entirely a regionally contested sport. Unless that fact changes, the complains that things are somehow unfair will rage on forever.

[David Collinge]

Ah, memories. That particular complaint, toad22, is an oldie but goodie around here that used to rage much more fiercely than it does nowadays. It dates back to the days of much more regional bracketing, even back to when there were guaranteed slots for each region, and back to when only Kings Point knew anything about "SOS." I'm not sure it's related to this particular bellyache.

[AO]

Pat, but it hasn't historically "worked to their advantage."  Other than Bowdoin this year, can you point to even ONE example of an unworthy NESCAC team receiving a Pool C bid?  And honestly, I don't think the scheduling worked to Bowdoin's advantage this year.  They ended up having a poor SOS because they played a weak schedule.  Had they played a double round robin, they would have had a better SOS.  They didn't beat a lot of regional teams with good records -- they beat regional teams with bad records.  So the issue, again, is not NESCAC scheduling policies, it is whether the NCAA applies its SELECTION criteria consistently.

perhaps Knightslappy could run a simulation of a double round robin for the NESCAC, but based on my estimates it would be disastrous for Bowdoin.  You'd lose games against teams near like Maine Farmington, W Connecticut and Bridgewater.  Games against Bates would hurt a lot more as Bates would not be 11-13, they'd be more like 3-21.   Games against the good conference teams like Amherst wouldn't be an additional boost as their record wouldn't change much if at all.

[smedindy]

Pat, but it hasn't historically "worked to their advantage."  Other than Bowdoin this year, can you point to even ONE example of an unworthy NESCAC team receiving a Pool C bid?  And honestly, I don't think the scheduling worked to Bowdoin's advantage this year.  They ended up having a poor SOS because they played a weak schedule.  Had they played a double round robin, they would have had a better SOS.  They didn't beat a lot of regional teams with good records -- they beat regional teams with bad records.  So the issue, again, is not NESCAC scheduling policies, it is whether the NCAA applies its SELECTION criteria consistently.

Scheduling did come to Bowdoin's advantage. If it was a double round, or even a modified double round, then Bates wouldn't have 11 wins. Colby wouldn't be near .500. And Bowdoin probably would have more losses than Carthage. Poof goes the bid.

They also played regional teams with good records - for the region. Those teams, in another region, would have records like North Park or Earlham. Here they had .500 records (or close).

It's not because its the NESCAC, In fact, because of the NESCAC having such good teams the bile is a bit tampered. If the CCC or Little East did a single round and then played all of the .500 and over in the region to fatten up the SOS then there definitely would be hues and cries.

A conference like the OAC (I'll choose them at random) has 10 teams. They play a double round. They also tend to claw at each other with hammers every year. I'd bet that without the double round then they'd have had another bid. But their top teams had to play their dregs twice, and then couldn't go play games against some MIAA, NCAC or HCAC mid tiers that would have given them a better SOS than pounding Muskingum a second time.

(Yes, I'm mentioning the OAC even though they are the sworn enemy of the NCAC...)

All in all, the process is kind of broken in this regard. I have another thought on the "C" mess as well that I'll post after the reply.

[dcahill44]

If everyone could please take a minute to vote for one of my great friends for the D3 All Star Game. Brad Ford Nazareth. He has worked so hard throughout the 4 years and he deserves this! here http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2014/03/nabc-all-star-voting is the link

[smedindy]

Here's another one for the hornet's nest.

Dave said something, which while true, but is also something that needs to be examined and pushed, not parroted. Staten Island didn't play that many RR games. Bowdoin did. Fair enough. Part of the criteria.

But...Bowdoin gets to play all of those games because of their conference.

Would it not be more fair to teams in the lesser leagues to measure NON-CONFERENCE RR results a bit higher? Again, this does hurt the bloated conferences that do a double round (or even modified double round) and don't have much room for NC games. Still, though, I think you're penalizing a team just because of who they fit with academically, regionally, and mission?

I know scheduling is hard - everyone needs games. But I think a little non-conference carrot could be put out there so the teams that fit in with one conference can have a chance and not have  to run the table to get in if a couple of teams go asunder (like Staten Island had this year...)

I've had arguments with some about D-1 and how a team 'doesn't play anyone' when the majors control the scheduling cards and won't play teams in a home-and-home or even a two-for-one and would rather play horrible teams for $$. So I guess I feel the same about trying to help those in D3 that have conference issues but are very worthy have chance. Alas..