All Americans

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

As you said yourself, it's Cupcake Central.

But only if you schedule them.  I don't think its as stacked as the Midwest, of course, but I think it's tougher than most regions, if the top teams would actually play each other.

[Ralph Turner]

How many other players have those types of credentials playing in a region as difficult as the northeast.

"... a region as difficult as the Northeast"?

MIT plays as tough a schedule as anyone in the country.  Very few cupcakes, even in a region full of them.  They are one of the really courageous schedule-makers and it has probably cost them Pool C consideration in the past.

I'm not challenging MIT's schedule. I'm challenging the contention that the Northeast is a difficult region. Sure, it has its share of good teams, but that's mitigated by the fact that it's also by far the most populous region in D3. As you said yourself, it's Cupcake Central.

Good points, GS.

The conferences also have sufficient non-conference opponents within a two hour bus ride to construct schedules that take full advantage of the OWP and the OOWP.

The NESCAC plays 9 conference games.  The 14-team CCC plays single round robin.  The 7-team NEWMAC plays 12 conference games.  The 8-team LEC plays 14 conference games, leaving 11 non-conference games to construct a schedule that works for the team.  The region is positioned to "accentuate the positive".

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

How many other players have those types of credentials playing in a region as difficult as the northeast.

"... a region as difficult as the Northeast"?

MIT plays as tough a schedule as anyone in the country.  Very few cupcakes, even in a region full of them.  They are one of the really courageous schedule-makers and it has probably cost them Pool C consideration in the past.

I'm not challenging MIT's schedule. I'm challenging the contention that the Northeast is a difficult region. Sure, it has its share of good teams, but that's mitigated by the fact that it's also by far the most populous region in D3. As you said yourself, it's Cupcake Central.

Good points, GS.

The conferences also have sufficient non-conference opponents within a two hour bus ride to construct schedules that take full advantage of the OWP and the OOWP.

The NESCAC plays 9 conference games.  The 14-team CCC plays single round robin.  The 7-team NEWMAC plays 12 conference games.  The 8-team LEC plays 14 conference games, leaving 11 non-conference games to construct a schedule that works for the team.  The region is positioned to "accentuate the positive".

Just to point out, while the other conferences don't have an excuse, the CCC thing is probably only a one season interim solution as they adjust to a larger conference.  They generally beat up on each other pretty well.

The big difference really is that the good teams don't have to play each other, like the good teams in other regions.  More teams mean more chances to avoid the tough games outside of conference play.

[Pat Coleman]

MIT may have played a good schedule, but it's not because they were in "... a region as difficult as the Northeast."

[Hugenerd]

MIT may have played a good schedule, but it's not because they were in "... a region as difficult as the Northeast."

I was simply making a reference to the better teams in the region.  You can interpret that comment how you will.  I guess you could read it several different ways, the statement I made was a bit ambiguous, for example, you could read it as " a region as difficult as the northeast, top to bottom" (which is not what I intended), or "a region as difficult as the northeast, in terms of having a high number of very good teams" (which is how I intended the comment).  Depending on how you read it, your reaction obviously would be different, but I was simply trying to make a remark regarding MIT's tough schedule.  Just as a recap: last years national champion was from the northeast, (as I have said previously) 8 of the top 20 OWP teams are from the northeast, the #2 conference rated by Massey in in the northeast (Brandeis is in the #1 massey rated conference), and there are 3 teams in the elite 8 from the northeast.

[Gregory Sager]

How many other players have those types of credentials playing in a region as difficult as the northeast.

"... a region as difficult as the Northeast"?

MIT plays as tough a schedule as anyone in the country.  Very few cupcakes, even in a region full of them.  They are one of the really courageous schedule-makers and it has probably cost them Pool C consideration in the past.

I'm not challenging MIT's schedule. I'm challenging the contention that the Northeast is a difficult region. Sure, it has its share of good teams, but that's mitigated by the fact that it's also by far the most populous region in D3. As you said yourself, it's Cupcake Central.

Good points, GS.

The conferences also have sufficient non-conference opponents within a two hour bus ride to construct schedules that take full advantage of the OWP and the OOWP.

The NESCAC plays 9 conference games.  The 14-team CCC plays single round robin.  The 7-team NEWMAC plays 12 conference games.  The 8-team LEC plays 14 conference games, leaving 11 non-conference games to construct a schedule that works for the team.  The region is positioned to "accentuate the positive".

Precisely. Well stated, Ralph.

MIT may have played a good schedule, but it's not because they were in "... a region as difficult as the Northeast."

I was simply making a reference to the better teams in the region.  You can interpret that comment how you will.  I guess you could read it several different ways, the statement I made was a bit ambiguous, for example, you could read it as " a region as difficult as the northeast, top to bottom" (which is not what I intended), or "a region as difficult as the northeast, in terms of having a high number of very good teams" (which is how I intended the comment). 

Whenever I encounter someone touting a conference or a region as being strong, my first thought is: "Top to bottom?" A conference or a region should always be measured in full, rather than only by its top teams, if you're making a blanket statement about it. After all, you don't lose membership in a conference or a region by being a bad team. You're still there, and you drag down the competitive level of your peers with you.

Intending a blanket statement about a conference or region to only mean its top teams will only lead to confusion, as your post did.

Just as a recap: last years national champion was from the northeast, (as I have said previously) 8 of the top 20 OWP teams are from the northeast, the #2 conference rated by Massey in in the northeast (Brandeis is in the #1 massey rated conference), and there are 3 teams in the elite 8 from the northeast.

The OWP stuff has already been addressed by Ralph. And much of the rest of what you're putting forth here can be easily explained by D3's cost-conscious method of constructing the bracket, which keeps teams close to home and thus benefits teams in the northeastern part of the country. Unlike midwestern, southern, and West Coast teams, the NE-NY-PA-NJ-MD teams can be configured much more easily to balance out seeding, because the four regions east of the Allegheny River and north of the Potomac River are so geographically compact. You can get from Boston to Washington DC within the 500-mile bus limit imposed upon the D3 tournament's selection committee for bracketing purposes, and with fifty miles to spare. It's this geographical compactness that explains how the tournament ended up with two NESCAC teams in the Final Four in '04.

That's not taking anything away from Amherst, or from the great Williams teams that preceded them in NESCAC hegemony. Those teams have proved in the Final Four that they can play with anyone in the country, and I think that everyone agrees that the NESCAC is legit in terms of being a power conference (in spite of its ridiculous refusal to play a double round-robin). But only five non-NESCAC teams from the Northeast Region have ever made the Final Four (Clark in '84, Clark in '87, Southern Maine in '89, Mass-Dartmouth in '93, and Salem State in '00), and none of them ever won the Big Doorstop. Considering the fact that it's the most populous region in the country even without the NESCAC, that's an absolutely deplorable legacy.

[HopeConvert]

.
Whenever I encounter someone touting a conference or a region as being strong, my first thought is: "Top to bottom?" A conference or a region should always be measured in full, rather than only by its top teams, if you're making a blanket statement about it. After all, you don't lose membership in a conference or a region by being a bad team. You're still there, and you drag down the competitive level of your peers with you.

Intending a blanket statement about a conference or region to only mean its top teams will only lead to confusion, as your post did.

Greg, I agree that is true if you are talking about the strength of a conference or region. But it's not necessarily true if you are talking about a particular team within that region. A team that has dispensed with largely inferior competition may still, in fact, be a very good team. I fear sometimes people assume the top team in a conference is weak because the conference itself is not very strong; or, conversely, might think the top team in a good conference is better than it is because of the relative strength of the conference top to bottom. Out of conference play obviously has to be the main measure for determining the relative strength of a conference.

[fpc85]

anyone think fletcher walters has a chance for AA?

[magicman]

anyone think fletcher walters has a chance for AA?

fpc85
I don't know about AA, but I thought he was the best player at the Plattsburgh sectional. He'd get my vote for AA if I had one.

[Gregory Sager]

.
Whenever I encounter someone touting a conference or a region as being strong, my first thought is: "Top to bottom?" A conference or a region should always be measured in full, rather than only by its top teams, if you're making a blanket statement about it. After all, you don't lose membership in a conference or a region by being a bad team. You're still there, and you drag down the competitive level of your peers with you.

Intending a blanket statement about a conference or region to only mean its top teams will only lead to confusion, as your post did.

Greg, I agree that is true if you are talking about the strength of a conference or region. But it's not necessarily true if you are talking about a particular team within that region. A team that has dispensed with largely inferior competition may still, in fact, be a very good team. I fear sometimes people assume the top team in a conference is weak because the conference itself is not very strong; or, conversely, might think the top team in a good conference is better than it is because of the relative strength of the conference top to bottom. Out of conference play obviously has to be the main measure for determining the relative strength of a conference.

I agree, but that's tangential to the point that Hugenerd and I were discussing. His claim was that the Northeast Region was "difficult", and I challenged him on that.

[Hugenerd]

.
Whenever I encounter someone touting a conference or a region as being strong, my first thought is: "Top to bottom?" A conference or a region should always be measured in full, rather than only by its top teams, if you're making a blanket statement about it. After all, you don't lose membership in a conference or a region by being a bad team. You're still there, and you drag down the competitive level of your peers with you.

Intending a blanket statement about a conference or region to only mean its top teams will only lead to confusion, as your post did.

Greg, I agree that is true if you are talking about the strength of a conference or region. But it's not necessarily true if you are talking about a particular team within that region. A team that has dispensed with largely inferior competition may still, in fact, be a very good team. I fear sometimes people assume the top team in a conference is weak because the conference itself is not very strong; or, conversely, might think the top team in a good conference is better than it is because of the relative strength of the conference top to bottom. Out of conference play obviously has to be the main measure for determining the relative strength of a conference.

I agree, but that's tangential to the point that Hugenerd and I were discussing. His claim was that the Northeast Region was "difficult", and I challenged him on that.

And my point is that because the region is so populous, there are a lot of good teams (although there are a lot of bad teams as well).  Meaning, the region can be very difficult if you play the top teams. The high number of northeast teams in the OWP top 20 is telling you that many of the top teams in the region are playing eachother.  Which all leads to my originally intended point, which is that MIT played a tough schedule (their OWP is 17). Sorry for the confusion.

[Ralph Turner]

.
Whenever I encounter someone touting a conference or a region as being strong, my first thought is: "Top to bottom?" A conference or a region should always be measured in full, rather than only by its top teams, if you're making a blanket statement about it. After all, you don't lose membership in a conference or a region by being a bad team. You're still there, and you drag down the competitive level of your peers with you.

Intending a blanket statement about a conference or region to only mean its top teams will only lead to confusion, as your post did.

Greg, I agree that is true if you are talking about the strength of a conference or region. But it's not necessarily true if you are talking about a particular team within that region. A team that has dispensed with largely inferior competition may still, in fact, be a very good team. I fear sometimes people assume the top team in a conference is weak because the conference itself is not very strong; or, conversely, might think the top team in a good conference is better than it is because of the relative strength of the conference top to bottom. Out of conference play obviously has to be the main measure for determining the relative strength of a conference.

I agree, but that's tangential to the point that Hugenerd and I were discussing. His claim was that the Northeast Region was "difficult", and I challenged him on that.

And my point is that because the region is so populous, there are a lot of good teams (although there are a lot of bad teams as well).  Meaning, the region can be very difficult if you play the top teams. The high number of northeast teams in the OWP top 20 is telling you that many of the top teams in the region are playing eachother.  Which all leads to my originally intended point, which is that MIT played a tough schedule (their OWP is 17). Sorry for the confusion.

In judging the region, I would like to see the regions scored "top-to-bottom"

In the northeast and the midwest we mathematically assign the teams rankings from alpha to omega. 

We look at the alpha's vs the alpha's, the mu's vs the mu's and the omega's vs the omega's.

Is the 50th %ile Midwest Region team better than the 50th %ile Northeast team?

I know that I am mixing metaphors, but I think that the bottom of the Northeast is not very strong.

Just a topic of perpetual debate...   

[Hugenerd]

First off, Congrats to WashU.

I was just looking over the NABC site; is it me, or does their all-region and all-american teams make very little sense.  I just looked them over briefly, but Troy Ruths did not make any of the 3 all-america teams and fellow UAA big man, Jon Onyiriuka did (he didnt even make 1st team all-conference).

[jagluski]

First off, Congrats to WashU.

I was just looking over the NABC site; is it me, or does their all-region and all-american teams make very little sense.  I just looked them over briefly, but Troy Ruths did not make any of the 3 all-america teams and fellow UAA big man, Jon Onyiriuka did (he didnt even make 1st team all-conference).

You are correct.  I think that proves that the NABC has little idea what's really going on in Division III...

[fcnews]

The National Assoc. of Basketball Coaches has little idea of what's going on in Div. III. Quite a statement considering the number of Div. III coaches that are members. I think it is more the criteria the voters are given.