MBB: NEWMAC

[BBallers]

Pat and company do an excellent job giving coverage to an area of the sports world that doesn't get much.

I'll take the D3 hoops people's word for it as they are looking at a nationwide picture instead of through the narrow view of one school and one team.

I agree that Pat and company do an excellent job giving coverage to D3 hoops and it is greatly appreciated.  I also don't want to beat a dead horse, but Pat and company provide these message boards for expressing opinions and I'm certain that they do not object to differing opinions on player selections.  IMO, that is part of the fun of selecting teams.

however the incessant posting about first Bartolotta who I think got a lot of press simply because he was from MIT and who took a TON of shots (bad, good and otherwise)

As Hugenerd stated, Bartolotta took a ton of good HIGH PERCENTAGE shots.  Bartolotta currently plays professionally in Europe which should provide undeniable evidence of his skills, unless you believe he developed these skills after graduating from MIT or you believe they are biased towards MIT.  Granted, Europe is not the NBA, but it is professional.  How many of the other players chosen over Bartolotta over the years play professionally?  If given the opportunity, I believe most college basketball players would like to continue doing it professionally.

I see record is important to you. What would Olivet have been without McClary?

What would MIT have been without Hollingsworth?  Did his 20+ ppg (on a very high FG%)and 9 rpg not contribute to more wins?

I also know record is important to you.  Does Aaron Thompson make 3rd-Team with just his numbers from this year if he isnt on WashU? (I am not saying he isnt deserving, but there are a lot of guys who scored 17 ppg this year, he was #118 in the country in scoring through last week, so there is obviously something more)  3 years ago, Bartolotta averaged 21.2 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.9 spg, and 1 bpg, but didnt make AA because he was on a ~.500 team (or was that the year there was a nomination issue?).

MIT and Olivet certainly won the same number of NCAA Tournament games.

Atta way to stir the pot, Pat.     It helps create good posting.  MIT had its share of injuries with several starters nicked up and one starter missing, but that has already been discussed...

[Pat Coleman]

Agreed -- we have no problems with a civilized discussion of just about anything, including our awards.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I've always respected that D3hoops makes its selections on more than numbers.  I think in light of how difficult it is for many of us to see the best players play, either in person or on video, it's admirable that Pat works so hard to make it happen.  I don't have the same luxury, but when I have been able to compare players in person, I've always understood why the decisions were made.

I think Hollingsworth is an exceptional player, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this call simply because of experience.  I doubt I'll ever have the chance to see McClary play.

So you are telling me that Pat saw Hollingsworth play?  I would be surprised if that were true.

I saw Hollingsworth play and I see far fewer games than Pat does.  Granted, online video isn't the same as in person, but it's a lot better than reading a boxscore.

By the way, he'll never admit anything, but you don't know that Pat didn't want Hollingsworth on the AA team - it's not like he does all the awards himself.

[Hugenerd]

I didnt say anything about Pat not wanting Hollingsworth on the team, I was just curious why he wasn't selected. Also, I do not think Pat saw him play, even on video, but that is pure speculation on my part.

[Pat Coleman]

No. If MIT had been able to even make it to the NEWMAC championship game, I would have, but since they couldn't win the semifinals at home, it meant I wasn't able to.

And not like I would let one broadcast on a 400xwhatever screen make my sole determination, either. That wouldn't be fair to David Golembiowski, not to mention the five centers we did select to the All-American team sight unseen.

[Hugenerd]

Thats all I was trying to get at.  The team was not selected based on seeing all these players and judging the best ones, as Hoops Fan suggested.  It is based on perceptions that do not have to do with the numbers and do not have to do with actual observation, in most cases.

[Pat Coleman]

That doesn't make them wrong -- hugenerd, even if I saw the teams play 20 times, I'm not a scout or a coach, so I am not going to see the same things they see.

In addition, hugenerd, if I saw EVERY player play (which I know you did not either), that doesn't mean that I would see them the same way you do. So, sure, emphasize the fact that I didn't have a chance to see your boy play. That doesn't mean I'd have put him on the team. Not everyone is an MIT booster. There are 400 other teams.

[Hugenerd]

I agree with you, my last point was not intended directly at you, it was more towards Hoops Fans original comment explaining your decision.

I never said your decision was wrong either, just that I didn't agree with it, which I think is fine.  I appreciate the time you put into watching the players and the coverage you, and the others involved, bring to DIII basketball.

I apologize if my last post used stronger language then I intended, I should have said "some cases" not "most cases", and this point was not meant to disparage the AA team in any way.  I was just trying to point out, that when it comes down to it, sometimes you have to make decisions based on your opinion (or perception) and that doesnt make your choices wrong, but they can be debated.

Don't tell me that record doesn't matter in some cases and that numbers don't matter in other cases, just say that you think player A impressed you more than player B.  I may not agree, but I will accept that.  Every case is different, and for some players it is there huge numbers (even if the team doesnt have a ton of wins), others it is that they are on a very good team and have played at a high level for some time, and for some it is just a gut call.  What really got me going on this subject was not your original post, Pat, but the other posters saying the reasons they thought you had made those decisions.  If you look at my original post I wasn't flipping out, saying this was a travesty, etc., I just said I was disappointed.  But I did not agree with those posts, as I found them a bit naive.  If you had said, "Hugenerd: sometimes we have to make difficult decisions between equally deserving players, but we can only pick 25 players and therefore not everyone can make it.  Maybe he will have a shot at it next year,"  I would have had zero problem with that.

Also, MIT booster or not, I would not be saying a word if I didn't feel he truly deserved it.  And I am sure even you have to admit that his numbers are at the AA level, but, like I said, sometimes you have to make difficult dicisions, which is your right. 

As you said, no problems with a civilized dicussion, and I dont feel that this one has crossed any lines.

[Pat Coleman]

I didn't say those words to you because I didn't think you needed me to. That's fairly boilerplate for me and I am sure you have seen me say it before. Really? You would truly have been placated by that?

I looked at the same players and came to a different decision. That's all there is. Some of the things you seem to think are a factor are not. You didn't like my explanation of Thompson, and that's fine, but that's why I made the decision. You'll note he wasn't on the first team, although if he had played like he did in 2008-09 I think it's fair to say he would have been. So it's not purely Wash U's record -- heck, you could consider Wash U's postseason record a disappointment, so perhaps it's not something that would even be considered a positive.

[Hugenerd]

I didn't say those words to you because I didn't think you needed me to. That's fairly boilerplate for me and I am sure you have seen me say it before. Really? You would truly have been placated by that?

I probably would have been more placated than you giving me a rhetorical question, or if you wouldnt have said anything it probably would have just been forgotten and rolled off the front page eventually.

I wasnt trying to start anything, just seeing if I had missed something that clearly distinguished the two players, or Hollingsworth from other players on the list.  

I know there are a lot of things that go into these decisions, I just don't always like the mentality that Pat (or whomever else) knows best and we will take it at face value.  I knew Thompson was going to make it, just because he has established himself as a top DIII guard over his career and he didnt do too much to hurt himself this year.  He didnt blow you away like he has in years past, but he played to a level similar to what you would expect, so instead of making 1st team and possibly being a POY candidate, he dropped to 3rd.  I know it would have been very difficult for you guys to drop him off completely, because it wouldnt feel right, and I fully understand and accept that. Other guys made it for other reasons, but we dont really need to dissect every decision.  Maybe if Hollingsworth had played DIII last year and put up similarly big numbers, you would have given him the benefit of the doubt this year, but with guys like McClary, or any other player who has been solid for 3 or 4 years now (or even 2), you (and when I say "you" I just mean a hypothetical third person party, not "you" as in Pat) feel more comfortable with that decision and give them the close call.  I understand that also. There is usually a reason you dont see freshman on the AA team, and that is because you really have to prove something to make that team, and Hollingsworth is essentially a freshman in the eyes of DIII.  It is easier to be skeptical when you do it just once, compared to if you do it consistently season after season.  I guess the reason I was "surprised" was because in years past it seemed to me that you usually you gave the benefit of the doubt to players on teams that had better records, and I thought MIT had shown that with their 21-4 D3 record, compared to Olivet's 10-9, but, like I have stated, there are other factors, including post-season results.

I was originally just trying to get a conversation started and seeing what others thought.  That was all.

[emesb]

The best big in the league didn't even get a sniff. Brian Vayda should have been recognized a little bit. On the national stage for what he did in the final week as well as the season. Clark underachieved as a team in the regular season but he didn't. I also have to say the NEWMAC is a tough physical league more than many I think.

[Hugenerd]

The best big in the league didn't even get a sniff. Brian Vayda should have been recognized a little bit. On the national stage for what he did in the final week as well as the season. Clark underachieved as a team in the regular season but he didn't. I also have to say the NEWMAC is a tough physical league more than many I think.

I agree that Vayda is one of the top players in th conference, but I think in this case he was hampered by team success.  When your team finishes tied for second-to-last in the conference in the regular season, you really need to blow people away with your stats to get all-region honors, and although 16 ppg and 7 rpg is very good, and he is definitely a first-team all-conference performer, it wont draw peoples attention from outside the area (those who arent familiar with the NEWMAC).  This comes down to the discussion a bit earlier on this board: in the last 9 seasons, no NEWMAC POY has come from a team finishing worse than #2 in the regular season.  There is usually some level of team success factor in these individual awards, that I have come to accept. If Clark performs better next season, or he puts up 20 and 10, I think he will get noticed next year and likely be in the discussion as an all-region player.

I also agree with you that people underestimate the NEWMAC.  There are a lot of tough teams.  However, it ultimately will come down to how people schedule out-of-conference and then the results of those games.  If the NEWMAC, as a whole, puts up an impressive winning percentage next season out-of-conference, that will be very important in drawing positive attention.  That will also increase the OWP and OOWP of team's in the league and improve credibility.  Scheduling is key in this sense, if you schedule a really tough schedule and cant beat any of your opponents, that is just as bad, or possibly worse, than scheduling a bunch of cupcakes and not being tested.

[BBallers]

No. If MIT had been able to even make it to the NEWMAC championship game, I would have, but since they couldn't win the semifinals at home, it meant I wasn't able to.

Your point of a player not leading a team at a critical point of the season is understood, however, I thought he played great in those games.  IMHO, MIT only lost 3 of its last 4 games because it had some players nicked up and was missing a key starter due to injury, not because Hollingsworth did not step up.  Looking at Hugenerd's stats on both players, it was definitely a close call for anyone to make.  Although I am admittedly a biased MIT fan, I can understand choosing a third-year junior over a first-year sophomore as somewhat of a tie-breaker.  Appreciate your discussion and feedback.  Thanks.

[nescac1]

I just hope MIT and Williams find a way to play next year so we can see Hollingsworth vs. Whittington ... talk about a contrast in styles (I'm not sure that would work out so well for Hollingsworth, actually ). 

[emesb]

I agree with everything you say regardidng Vayda, Clark and the NEWMAC. I just wanted his name out there.