MBB: NEWMAC

[Hugenerd]

MIT rebounds by blowing out current NEWMAC #3 85-60.  Bartolotta returns to his true form, going for 39 on 14-19 shooting (6-9 from 3), along with 7 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and 2 blocks. Billy Johnson added 19 and 7.  MIT improves to 6-1 in conference and remains undefeated at home.  They host UMass-Boston on Monday before returning to conference action hosting Springfield on Wednesday.

Also a very big congrats to Jimmy Bartolotta for scoring his 2000th point today in the game against Wheaton.  I unfortunately was unable to make it but I am sure it was nice to get the mark in front of the home crowd.  He now stands at 2009 points for his career.

[Hugenerd]

The front page looks NICE!

[Hugenerd]

A major turning point in the game was when Jimmy Bartolotta (JB) got whistled for a PF and a Tech Foul at 7:39 in the first half.  Similar to the Gordon game, JB gets called for a curious foul away from the ball(?).  I didn't see what happened or what could have justified a T.  The Technical put him at 3 fouls and then at 3:28 he was called for his 4th in the first half.  The game was tied at 27 at that point and JB went to the bench.  It seemed to affect MIT psychologically for the rest of the game.  WPI plays a lot of handchhecking and shirt grabbing that didn't get called as fouls, but that seemed to draw MIT into retaliation/frustration fouls.

I talked to a very reliable source about the game and from what I hear the tech was a the combination of a dive by a WPI player and a homer call.  After Bartolotta was called for the initial foul, the two players were tangled up and when Bartolotta went to stand up, the WPI player acted like Bartolotta had pushed him and went flying. Like I said earlier, Bartolotta has never gotten a T and it sounds like it should have stayed that way.  With that said, WPI still has to play at MIT.

[massd3fan]

"Bartolotta has never gotten a T and it sounds like it should have stayed that way.  With that said, WPI still has to play at MIT."

Actually, he got a T in last year's game with WPI at MIT.

[Hugenerd]

"Bartolotta has never gotten a T and it sounds like it should have stayed that way.  With that said, WPI still has to play at MIT."

Actually, he got a T in last year's game with WPI at MIT.

OK, he has never gotten a T against anyone besides WPI.  Regardless, the one last week was bogus.

[massd3fan]

Hugenerd,

   Sorry about the abuptness of the post, I was on my way to a meeting.  A colleague had attended that game last year and mentioned it to me.  I took a few minutes this morning to check the old box score on it.

   Not surprising really, most guys who play with the intensity that JB does will get a few over a career.

[massd3fan]

Did anyone find any info on the tie breaker procedure that the NEWMAC uses ?

[massd3fan]

Congratulations to Jerome Kirkland on being named NEWMAC Player of the Week

"Kirkland was WPI's top scorer in a week that saw the Engineers win a pair of NEWMAC contests, including a 68-55 victory over fellow conference unbeaten MIT. He averaged 14.5 points per game while connecting on 12-of-20 (60.0%) shots from the floor and draining 50.0% (5-of-10) of his 3-point attempts on the week. Kirkland registered 12 points, three rebounds and a pair of steals against MIT before posting a team-high 17 points in a win against Coast Guard. The senior also anchored a defensive effort that limited opponents to an average of 56 points last week."

[Hugenerd]

Did anyone find any info on the tie breaker procedure that the NEWMAC uses ?

I dont know what it is.  If MIT wins their next 3 conference games, I will find out.  If anyone already knows, feel free to share.

[Hugenerd]

9 minutes into the MIT-UMass Boston game, Bartolotta has 20 points.

[Hugenerd]

MIT wins tonight 87-53, they improve to 15-5 overall.  Bartolotta ended up with 34 after a very hot start (he sat out the last 9 or 10 minutes of the game).  Jamie Karraker added 20 points.  MIT made 17 3s (8 of the by Bartolotta, 5 by Karraker).

This game was never really close.  UMB started off the game in a zone, which MIT just ate up and drilled a bunch of 3s in the first 10 minutes.  MIT continued to play solid and grew the lead to close to 40 points and they were able to rest their big 3 almost the last quarter of the game (Johnson fouled out, but he was still resting).

[massd3fan]

I found this by using the search feature on the NEWMAC website.  From the NEWMAC Handbook Ver. 11.4


C.   TIE-BREAKING/SEEDING

1.  Seeding in the team sports of the following:
Baseball
Basketball
Field Hockey
Lacrosse
Soccer
Softball
Volleyball
Will be based on results of conference competition during the season.

2.   The team with the best NEWMAC record is seeded #1.  The second best record, # 2, etc. through to the 10th position

3.   Tie-breaking principles, in order of presentation, for the following sports:

      Baseball
      Basketball
      Field Hockey
      Lacrosse
      Softball

      a. Head-to-head competition results. *
      b. Records among teams that are tied. 
      c. Use a comparison against a ranked order, beginning with the top seed until the tie is broken. 
              -   For example: If  2 teams are tied for fourth place, then those 2 teams' results will be compared
                with results against the # 1 seed first, then the # 2 seed, and so on until the tie is broken.
              -   If 3 teams are tied and the tie is broken with 2 teams remaining tied, then the tie is broken by
                head-to-head results.
      d. If necessary, head-to-head competition against common, non-conference opponents of the teams
          that are tied will be used.
              -When using non-conference opponents' results, contests held at home for both (or more)
                institutions or on the road for both (or more) institutions will be used before looking at collective
                records against common opponents.

See individual sports for additional steps that have been added before the final step.

      e. A draw will occur as the final step for all tied teams. 

      * For women's basketball, with regard to seeding tie-breakers between three schools (two in East
        and one in West) disregard head-to-head because there are insufficient playing opportunities to
        support a decision. (Adopted: 06/04/02 effective 10/15/03)

For example:  4 way tie between Wellesley, Wheaton, Babson, and WPI
      - Head-to-head shows that no one team defeated the other three.
      - Win/loss record among tied teams show that Wheaton and Babson are 2-1.  Head-to-head between
        the 2 teams finds that Babson defeated Wheaton; therefore Babson is seeded above Wheaton.
      - Win/loss record between Wellesley and WPI show that they are 1-2.  Head-to-head between the 2
        teams finds that WPI defeated Wellesley; therefore WPI is seeded above Wellesley.
      - The seeds would be Babson, then Wheaton, then WPI, and then Wellesley.

.
.
.
.


6.   Tie Breaking Procedure

   Step 1: Apply the highest priority principle on each tie, starting on the highest seeded tie and traversing
               to the lowest seeded tie, before moving to the next principle.  If more than two teams are
               included within the tie, try to break the entire tie with the given principle.
   Step 2: If the highest priority principle does not break a tie, move to the next principle.
   Step 3: Once a tie is broken using a non-draw method, start the tie-breaking procedure over at Step 1.
   Step 4: Once the draw principle is used on one tie, apply the draw principle to all ties.

Note: This procedure allows for a tie-break between a lower seeded tie to affect the tie-break between a higher seeded tie.  Assume the highest seeded tie could not be broken via head-to-head, but the lower seeded tie could.  The lower seeded tie would be broken before the ranked order comparison is applied to the higher seeded tie, thus affecting which institution you compare results with first.

If someone knows of something more up to date, please post it!


Assuming this is correct.....

IF Both WPI AND MIT finish 11-1 (Assuming each teams single loss occurs on the other's home court.)

a. - No Tie Break - Split the two games
b. - No Tie break - Both teams won every other conference game
c. - No Tie Break -  Both teams won every other conference game
d. -                      - Common Non-Conf. Opponents
                                        Curry (WPI Won on the road 67-51, MIT Won at home 90-63)
                                        Salem St. (WPI Lost on the road 73-69, MIT Lost on the road 75-65)
                                        UMass-Boston (WPI Won at home 84-52, MIT Won at home 87-53)

How the wording is applied here is critical.  Does "When using non-conference opponents' results,
contests held at home for both (or more) institutions or on the road for both (or more) institutions will be used before looking at collective records against common opponents" mean the toal home record against common non-conf. opponents, or does it mean common home games against those teams?

If it is the former, MIT wins the tie break with a 2-0 home record vs WPI's 1-0.

Otherwise its MIT 1-0 at home and WPI 1-0 at home against thier only common non-conf opponent at home (UMass-Boston) and both would remain tied due a common loss at Salem St.  Their combined record Vs Non-conf would still leave them tied at 2-1.  In this case it would fall to that worst of all scenarios....the dreaded draw!!

This is a quick run-through, feel free to point out anything I missed here!

[massd3fan]

Congratulations to Coach Bartley & WPI for jumping back into the D3hoops.com Top 25!  The Engineers are 16-3 and captured 79 votes to take the #22 positon in this weeks poll.

Massey Rankings Thru 2/1/09

WPI -  #43
MIT  -  #83
Wheaton - #160
Babson - #190
Springfield - #227
Coast Guard - #234
Clark - #263

[T990]

      b. Records among teams that are tied. 
     

I guess this is for when there are more than 2 teams tied, using the records against the other tied teams after the head to head taken into account.  Right?

(ie, not using overall records including non-conference games)

[T990]

How the wording is applied here is critical.  Does "When using non-conference opponents' results,
contests held at home for both (or more) institutions or on the road for both (or more) institutions will be used before looking at collective records against common opponents" mean the toal home record against common non-conf. opponents, or does it mean common home games against those teams?

I read it as, to first break the tie, use nonconference games against common opponents that were played on the similar court, ie, if both teams played the same NC Opponent at home, use it; if both teams played the same NCO away, use it.  If the tie is still not broken, then use games against common NCO even if one team played them away and the other played them at home.