Empire 8

[b4the3isme]

Hey Au pep -I haven't seen him play this year yet but I thought you would mention Stein for the 10 best in the league.  Last time I saw him he looked pretty good and that was two years ago. I know that they own a win over RIT and most the guys seem to be comfortable with Bacon and Zeinfeld on the list.

[AUPepBand]

Stein is a solid player and a great kid. Given AU's present record, however, Pep is hesitant to single out any Saxons. And, to be perfectly honest, Pep hasn't seen an AU game yet this season. Ryan Clemenson is probably AU's most versatile player and arguably the Saxons' best defender. AU's defensive play will be key to any success this season.

[sjfcards]

Its tough to say, sweet 16 for basketball seems pretty far into it where they could have some neutral games, or if your going to give it to the #1 seed it should go to the right team.  Fisher was 28-0 and didnt host, that is absurd.  Especially when 3 of the teams in the semi's were from NY (2 being from Rochester).  It wasn't about seating capacity either, Amherst might hold a hundred more people then fishers gym, very small.  The following year fisher had to go down and play Amherst was more in the right because Amherst had more losses.  Anyways, that is past talk.  Any early predictions on the Fisher Utica game coming up this wkend?

That particular year they could have easily avoided a lot of controversy. I understand that Fisher is not a sexy choice for the NCAA because of the size of the gym. I think one of two possible scenarios should have/could have been done.
1) they could have given the home court to U of R. That allows Fisher to play very close to home against Potsdam, and still gives the NCAA a gym that is a little bit bigger.

2) and this is the one that I think should be used year in and year out. If the NCAA wants a bigger gym but wants to stay away from neutral sites, I think they should give the #1 seed the option. Using that year as an example, If Fisher was the #1 seed, and they obviously were...Give them the chance to Host a game at a gym of their choice within a certain distance to the school. Fisher could choose U of R, they could choose RIT, Roberts, or the war memorial. all big gyms that could allow Fisher to be the host. If Fisher does not choose to move to a bigger gym because they want the home game, then just do what the NCAA did and give the home court to the team that the NCAA wants. This way, no team gets a home game as a 3 or 4 seed. The NCAA still gets the gym size it wants, and the #1 seed gets its "home game".

[Pat Coleman]

Fisher was 28-0 and didnt host, that is absurd. 

Why is it automatic that Fisher was the higher seed? We know this because?

#     Team     W-L     Pts.     Last Week
1    UW-Stevens Point (11)    24-3    601    3
2    Amherst (9)    25-1    597    2
3    St. John Fisher (3)    27-0    541    4
4    Wittenberg    25-3    539    5
5    Wooster    26-2    534    1

The difference in regional record was negligible but the difference in strength of schedule index was staggering.

Amherst     12.083
St. John Fisher    10.957

That is a gigantic difference.

Sorry, man. These are the actual numbers used to select and seed teams.

[fisheralum91]

Pat,
I think that the overall point taking the "homer" attitude out, was that giving Potsdam the home court advantage was out of line.
I understand logistics, but in that case- it seemed that a more regional locale would have sufficed.

[bamm]

Pat,
I think that the overall point taking the "homer" attitude out, was that giving Potsdam the home court advantage was out of line.
I understand logistics, but in that case- it seemed that a more regional locale would have sufficed.

I'm confused, if the game was in Amherst (and I'm pretty sure it was, otherwise it took waaayy too long to get to Potsdam), how did the Bears have a home court advantage?

And the (tiny) stands were filled with Fisher students.

[FisherDynasty]

Pat, I was aware of the Amherst strength of schedule and aware of their #1 seed. However, I still think the team that is undfeated should get the #1 seed in that case, its almost like compared to football in the bcs when an undefeated team doesnt get a shot at the championship because they didnt play as tough of a schedule, it pretty much sucks.  Furthermore, you can take pretty much any team from the east and their strength of schedule will be lower than a team in a tougher conference.  There are too many schools in the east compared to much of the country which makes for a majority weaker overall region.  But that should get taken out on a team that is undefeated. Anyways that is past news, past argument, lets move on...


Bamm im with ya on Potsdam didnt have a home court advantage, it was a neutral court anyway you look at it.

[fisheralum91]

Sorry guys meant Amherst...
My goof.

[John McGraw]

Pat, I was aware of the Amherst strength of schedule and aware of their #1 seed. However, I still think the team that is undfeated should get the #1 seed in that case, its almost like compared to football in the bcs when an undefeated team doesnt get a shot at the championship because they didnt play as tough of a schedule, it pretty much sucks.  Furthermore, you can take pretty much any team from the east and their strength of schedule will be lower than a team in a tougher conference.  There are too many schools in the east compared to much of the country which makes for a majority weaker overall region.  But that should get taken out on a team that is undefeated. Anyways that is past news, past argument, lets move on...


Bamm im with ya on Potsdam didnt have a home court advantage, it was a neutral court anyway you look at it.

OK, so you're comparing this to football. Let's say for example that the NEFC champion is undefeated. Using your logic, they should get a home game. Know, we all know that that is not going to happen anytime soon. Just because you're undefeated, does not mean you should be hosting playoff games. And how many teams get to the playoffs with a great record and then get completely destroyed? Why are we even still having this conversation?

[FisherDynasty]

agreed we shouldnt be having this convo anymore. The NEFC conference is a not what i was refurring too, that would almost be like taking an undefeated D3 team and saying they should get home court versus a D1 team that has a loss.  I dont consider the E8 compared to the NESCAC the NEFC of D1 football.  Itd be more comparable to the Pac 10 compared to the ACC or the Big east.

[gobombers15]

George Washington had one loss last year going into the tournament...should they have been a higher seed than a Villanova or UCLA who had more losses. Pat's post pretty much puts the death knell in any pro-Fisher arguments on the subject.

It was pretty obvious that Tufts and Amherst were the two best teams at that Regional last year. A loss or two in that conference is much better than going undefeated in the average E8. Also, that season, do not forget that Fisher ESCAPED in two of their last three games before the NCAA's in games at Utica and at home against Ithaca in the E8 tourney; those were pretty mediocre teams.

Finally, did someone just cite the BCS to support an argument. I'm not even going to go back and check on that. If my understanding is correct, the BCS is not the NCAA; the NCAA has an agreement with the creators of the Bowl Championship Series through a certain year.

[FisherDynasty]

Utica was mediocre? they were a sweet 16 team who hammered WPI that was ranked pretty descent and it was the 3rd time playing a team on their home court.  It wasnt obvious that both of those teams were better, I do think Amherst was better, especially at home.  But toughs I wouldnt say was obviously better if better at all. I was just using the bcs as an indirect example that isnt 100% relevant but gets the point accross. Also with your agrument about G. Washington, having 1 loss and being undefeated is totally different.

[bamm]

I don't understand what the problem is.  Every season the folks involved do an objective analysis of each team in the field that takes into account several factors.  And each of the last several seasons their work in the East region has looked pretty darn good in hindsight. 

Your argument might hold some water if Fisher was ever actually competitive in a game that meant something.  A neutral court isn't going to overcome the 23 point shellacking by Amherst or the embarassing loss to the Bears.

[dmcclintock]

hmmm.....This argument should not even take place until the NCAAS come around again and then everyone can complain...seems like an annual thing...However yes fisher got beat soundly twice by 2 very good teams...I am not saying about the Potsdam game except the fact that they came out hungrier and Fisher was off...(way off)...The Amherst game though, I was there and they did smack Fisher but I do not think anyone could have beaten them that night.  They shot 53% from Three and that number only came down at the end when finally there scrub players missed...They were on fire and fed off the home crowd...On a neutral site it might not make up for the 23 point difference but maybe a couple of those 15+ threes amherst hit might not have rattled in....Hmmm and didnt fisher just get waxed by U of R by 29 on a neutral site however beat them at home earlier...and i guess ncaa games that fisher won to get them there were games that didnt matter...and lastly yeah 2 out of the last 3 games that Fisher played going into the sweet 16 against potsdam were close but keep in mind, 1...Fisher just got sloppy because they were up 20 at half on Ithaca and 2 they beat RIT by 40 who had beaten the same U of R team that went to the finals...Moving on...any predictions for the weekend...looking forwared to Fisher/utica game...this will be Bryants test

[gobombers15]

Utica was mediocre? they were a sweet 16 team who hammered WPI that was ranked pretty descent and it was the 3rd time playing a team on their home court.  It wasnt obvious that both of those teams were better, I do think Amherst was better, especially at home.  But toughs I wouldnt say was obviously better if better at all. I was just using the bcs as an indirect example that isnt 100% relevant but gets the point accross. Also with your agrument about G. Washington, having 1 loss and being undefeated is totally different.

We are talking about the year Fisher went 27-0, no? Yes, Utica was mediocre that year with no Ray Bryant.