MBB: NESCAC

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mr. Ypsi, well I guess I'm forced to divulge also.-My SAT's were only a little higher than yours. 1610. I did not go to IWU.

Since at the time I took the SAT, 1600 was the highest possible score, I will have to conclude that you are either pulling my chain, or you had only 1610 out of the currently possible 2400 (not so hot)!

Pick your poison.

[formerbant10]

Ypsi,

Right now all the games are Friday night and Saturday afternoon.  So Trinity could play @ Williams Friday night then travel to Middlebury, stay there and play @ Midd the next day.  While Amherst would play @ Midd on Friday, then travel to Williams for the Saturday game.  Bates/Tufts travel together, Conn/Wes and Colby/Bowdoin.  One group is the odd one out every weekend and they just play each other on Saturday afternoon.  So there would need to be some extra weekends to accomadate those games without missing class time.

Anyone traveling to Maine for a 7 PM game will have to leave around noon time or earlier the day to make it in time.  That usually means some missed class time for those students with classes on Fridays.  This is pretty much unavoidable.  By having the 2nd game Saturday afternoon, the teams avoid having to spend the $ for 2 nights of hotels.  It also lets the teams get back to campus for their night off on Saturday (which is always nice).

Games during the week would be tough outside of the CBB playing each other; Trinity could make it to Conn, Wes and Amherst w/o missing class time.  I'm sure Amherst and Williams could do it as well, same for Conn and Wes.  I don't know the distances for Midd or Tufts, but I assume that they could play at least their travel partners w/o missing class.

If they really wanted it to happen, it would.  But I think the coaches also like playing the top teams in New England regardless of conference to make their teams better.  I'm sure that's the same reason why Amherst and Trinity (and I believe Tufts) have all gone out to California to play Occidental.  

But I still clearly understand the rest of the poster's gripes about the scheduling....just remember that most of the players would love the chance to play everyone twice.  It's not fun when you lose a game on the road to a team you should've beaten and never have the chance to get your revenge on your home court.

[nescachoopsfan]

im sorry if this is getting overkilled, but i often skim the longer posts unless i see something that catches my eye or if i have time to read them, but can someone explain to me why it is a negative to only play teams once.  i really dont understand what the positives are to playing a double round robin or the negatives of it either.  if it has something to do with strength of schedual i know tufts was ranked number 9 in the nation.  if the strength of schedual has something to do with the dispute than i think it is up to the coach to create a schedual they feel fit.  i really dont want to say anything more because i dont know what i am talking about.  thanks

[Gregory Sager]

I've posted about the single round robin topic quite a few times now and the main thing that the posters here need to realize is that the players (or majority of) would love to play a double round robin.  In many ways it is a shame that they don't play it.

That makes total sense, and it also makes sense that as a former NESCAC player you'd be the one to bring it up. College basketball fans love conference rivalries, but I've never met a college basketball player who didn't love them even more. Something about "familiarity breeds contempt," or on- and off-court bragging rights, or whatever -- there's a personal dimension there that just isn't the same with "civilian" fans, especially when you cross paths with a player from a conference rival back home over the summer. Plus, as you later pointed out, it's important to players who lost the first time around that they get a chance to exact revenge in a second game. And to truly foster a basketball rivalry, you have to play a home-and-home every year -- once a year at our place, once a year at yours. NESCAC schools acknowledge that themselves by scheduling the outlier non-conf games within the WAW and CBB triads. That's why DePauw/Wabash is and will always be a primarily football-based rivalry, unless the two schools somehow manage to get back into the same league again.

It's obvious that the conference is not going to change, which is too bad. I've talked to an assistant coach at a UAA team and we discussed this for about an hour. He questioned the same thing citing how their league (which is just as highly academic) travels more and has the double round robin. If the NESCAC really wanted to do it, all they'd have to do is start the conference schedule in the 1st semester. Playing some games in December and early January would enable that.

True, and you've pointed out yourself in your follow-up post how the NESCAC schools could make a double round-robin work if they made a few relatively minor adjustments.

On the flipside, that would mean that some of the traditional games on teams schedules might have to come off. Some of the teams in the NE have been playing each other forever, but are not part of the same leagues. I know that Amherst plays in the Pioneer Valley Classic along with hosting a Tournament, which would mean that if they played in those 4 games plus the 18 conference games that would leave them with 2 regular season games for other non-conference opponents.

Thing is, that sort of makes an outsider wonder where the priorities of NESCAC members really lie. Is your conference really paramount, or is it those old long-standing non-conf rivalries? The thinking elsewhere is that non-conf games can be fun, and interesting, and either good tuneups for conference or a good way to stack up overall wins if nothing else, but they pale in comparison to conference games both in terms of importance and excitement.

If they really wanted it to happen, it would.  But I think the coaches also like playing the top teams in New England regardless of conference to make their teams better.  I'm sure that's the same reason why Amherst and Trinity (and I believe Tufts) have all gone out to California to play Occidental.

My response is that it's conference games that ought to make your team better, much more so than non-conf games (unless you're Wittenberg and Wooster and you're stuck with playing anywhere from a third to half of your conference games every year against road pylons in baggy shorts). That's especially true of a good league, where your competition is not only tough most (if not all) nights but you have the added drama, meaning, and zest of it being a league game that in a sense counts twice in terms of the W-L record by which your team is measured (overall record, league record). Ask anyone affiliated with the CCIW or the WIAC or the OAC, and they'll tell you right off that what makes their teams so successful in the NCAA tourney is the conference competition that they face. Run the gauntlet twice through in a power conference, and you've really tempered your team in the blast furnace and prepared them for March in a way that non-conference games just can't match.

im sorry if this is getting overkilled, but i often skim the longer posts unless i see something that catches my eye or if i have time to read them, but can someone explain to me why it is a negative to only play teams once. i really dont understand what the positives are to playing a double round robin or the negatives of it either. if it has something to do with strength of schedual i know tufts was ranked number 9 in the nation. if the strength of schedual has something to do with the dispute than i think it is up to the coach to create a schedual they feel fit. i really dont want to say anything more because i dont know what i am talking about. thanks

It has to do with how a league is measured against its peers, especially a strong league such as the NESCAC. The argument is that a league truly proves itself when each team has to make its way through it twice, playing everybody both at home and on the road for the sake of balance, competitiveness, and fairness. Since the NESCAC is by far the best conference in the Northeast Region in terms of overall strength, it's even more important that the league prove itself by playing best-against-best as much as possible.

[thunder32]

Im going to have to agree with nescachoopsfan on this issue.  I know that tufts plays all the top teams from all the leauges in the region.  I think that is better than playing against the bottom half of the nescac for another game.  I also know that at the end of the season Tufts ended up playing Amherst 3 times this year Trinity twice and williams twice.  If tufts had to do a double round robin we may not have had the chance to play Wittenberg this season but instead would have played Mid twice.  So i think as long as the top teams play eachother more than once no one should be complaining. 

[thunder32]

Also I dont think that a leauges should be compared by their conference and out of conference scheduales but how well they do in the tourney.  This year we had two teams in the sweet sixteen and one in the final four.  I think that should show that we do have an elite leauge.

[formerbant10]

My response is that it's conference games that ought to make your team better, much more so than non-conf games (unless you're Wittenberg and Wooster and you're stuck with playing anywhere from a third to half of your conference games every year against road pylons in baggy shorts). That's especially true of a good league, where your competition is not only tough most (if not all) nights but you have the added drama, meaning, and zest of it being a league game that in a sense counts twice in terms of the W-L record by which your team is measured (overall record, league record). Ask anyone affiliated with the CCIW or the WIAC or the OAC, and they'll tell you right off that what makes their teams so successful in the NCAA tourney is the conference competition that they face. Run the gauntlet twice through in a power conference, and you've really tempered your team in the blast furnace and prepared them for March in a way that non-conference games just can't match.

I can't argue too much with you here.  We always knew that the WIAC teams records were going to be a little deceiving because of their tough conference schedule.

I'd like to agree with Thunder, but this year the rest of the Northeast outside of Amherst and Tufts (and my opinion Trinity also.....beat Amherst, two OT games with Tufts) was pretty weak.  It would've have been a total shame if they both didn't make the Sweet 16.  And there hasn't been anyone that hasn't agreed that both Amherst and Tufts were legit teams nationally, the argument being made sometimes is that top to bottom the NESCAC is not as strong as the CCIW or WIAC.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

This has all been very good.  I do agree that Bates and Tufts and the other top NESCAC squads do their best to play the best competition the NE region has to offer, but even that schedule is not comparable nationally.  If there were more solid teams to choose from it would be easier.  I'm a CCC guy, but I'll admit, even though Colby-Sawyer, Endicott and Gordon are all tough teams, and good games, they shouldn't be cornerstone opponents on a national contender's schedule.  The same goes for Plymouth and Keene and pretty much anyone the other leagues have to offer.  To get national credibility, they need to schedule those teams and then go beyond that and get a few more top tier opponents, even if they have to do it in a holiday tournament.

I know it gets much tougher for the Maine schools, but if each of the NESCAC teams that could, would try to get one NJAC school per year on the schedule, that would go a long way towards helping.  St John Fisher has a decent squad every year, as does Rochester.  While those schools may have their own reasons for avoiding the NESCAC, it doesn't hurt to try.

We shouldn't have to talk about Bates being a contender next year because they get Amherst, Tufts and Trinity at home.  That's the difference the double round-robin makes.  We all know playing at Bates or Bowdoin gives the home team a huge advantage; if they were to also get games at Amherst and Trinity each year, they could prove those home wins were no fluke.

It's not about the level of play in the NESCAC, its about proving the talent level of the teams in tangible ways.

Although it is up to the Presidents and quite frankly there is no reason to change.  They are getting the best of both worlds.  They can say they care more about academics than other leagues because they do it this way and they can maintain a ton of non-conference rivalries.  It's basically the benefits of being an indepedent (lots of scheduling freedom) with the chance at an AQ.  If I were in there shoes, no way would I change anything.

[frank uible]

Hoops: It is not remotely foreseeable that the President's will change or that they will comment on the subject, believing that it is not anybody's business, including the business of their respective alumni and other fans, what their thinking is.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I totally agree.  There is no reason whatsoever for them to change.  I don't know why they would.

[formerbant10]

I totally agree.  There is no reason whatsoever for them to change.  I don't know why they would.

There is no reason to change.  I'm sure the President's rarely if ever check out this website, so there isn't much reason to talk about it.  I know for a fact that Trinity's President very much supports athletics, but never at the price of academics.  That characteristic of the NESCAC is what drew him to the job.  And I know he'll maintain that view as long as he's in office.

[dman]

"The legitimacy of the NESCAC's national contenders is still a bit of an open question. Aside from the two-year Williams run, only one NESCAC team (Conn College in '99) has managed to win a Final Four game, as was pointed out in this room not too long ago by a NESCAC fan. The recent Williams and Amherst teams have certainly enjoyed the respect of those from other regions who saw them in Salem, but a lot of national observers can't help but wonder how the NESCAC teams would fare if they weren't playing East Region and other Northeast Region teams in the first four rounds of the tournament. Again, though, that's wishing for a changed outcome in playing conditions that nobody outside of the D3 circle of school presidents and ADs has the power to change"


gregory,
at least in my eyes, you have earned your "hall of fame" status, but i would like to point out that williams did win games in salem in '97 and '98 as well.  they currently own a 5-3 record at the final four.  in '97, williams knocked off then #2 rowan in the regionals and in '98 they won three straight on the road to get to salem....aside from that, one can only blame the "committee" for handing out at-large bids to teams that "qualify", such as gordon and baruch.  you're complaining about nescac's "unproven" record at the final four, but the ccc and cunyac have a hard time winning first-round games (and they're not playing nescac in the first round, either).  a much better bracket could be set up by allowing teams with proven records against national competition into the tournament.  this year, trinity played and beat at least three teams that made nationals.  the same can be said about elmhurst.  it's also a "tough" decision to allow a new england team to host the sectionals.  for example, this year, could carnegie-mellon, transylvania, or some other decent squad from that area, have played in the east regionals with st. john fisher hosting and making amherst travel??  if the real complaint is the easy road nescac has to salem, there seems to me to be a lot of room to maneuver these regions and brackets when setting them up.....

[Gregory Sager]

at least in my eyes, you have earned your "hall of fame" status, but i would like to point out that williams did win games in salem in '97 and '98 as well.  they currently own a 5-3 record at the final four.

Yes, you're right, and I should've caught that. Serves me right for just reading someone's post and going with what he said rather than double-checking it.

aside from that, one can only blame the "committee" for handing out at-large bids to teams that "qualify", such as gordon and baruch.  you're complaining about nescac's "unproven" record at the final four, but the ccc and cunyac have a hard time winning first-round games (and they're not playing nescac in the first round, either).  a much better bracket could be set up by allowing teams with proven records against national competition into the tournament.  this year, trinity played and beat at least three teams that made nationals.  the same can be said about elmhurst.  it's also a "tough" decision to allow a new england team to host the sectionals.  for example, this year, could carnegie-mellon, transylvania, or some other decent squad from that area, have played in the east regionals with st. john fisher hosting and making amherst travel??  if the real complaint is the easy road nescac has to salem, there seems to me to be a lot of room to maneuver these regions and brackets when setting them up.....

You're preaching to the choir, dman. I don't think that anyone who follows D3, whether as a single-minded fan of one particular team or league or as a national observer, is satisfied with the way that the NCAA runs the tournament. There are two major problems with it: 1) the selection process, which judges Pools B and C candidates upon a national basis but using only regionally-based criteria, is a square-pegs-in-a-round-hole slew of nonsense; and 2) the penuriousness with which the tournament is budgeted sharply restricts the ability of the committee to balance the bracket by moving teams any significant distance from their campuses.

These things are no more likely to change than the NESCAC's single round-robin, because the D3 braintrust is just as fixed on their priorities -- minimizing the amount of time student-athletes spend off-campus, and saving money -- as are the NESCAC presidents.

[Jumbos35]

Let me be the one to admit I had to look up "penuriousness." 

That out of the way, as a player I enjoyed getting to play teams from other conferences because of the NESCAC schedule.  We had the opportunity to travel to tournaments once or twice a year and play top teams from other conferences or NCAA/NAIA divisions. 

Now as a H.S. coach I can't stand our schedule because of the size of our league. We never get the opportunity to play out of conference until the state tourney. 

I'm not sure I believe in "scheduling" specifically for the NCAA tourney.  Loading up on cupcakes before getting into conference play never works (see: UCONN).

Finally, in '95 and '97 before the automatic bids/pools (in a 64 team tourney) the NESCAC got 5 teams in both years.  There was a NESCAC rep in both final fours.  The argument could be made that the double round robin format combined with the current selection format would hurt the league more because of exclusions from the tourney. 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

The argument could be made that the double round robin format combined with the current selection format would hurt the league more because of exclusions from the tourney. 

Yeah, that's the whole reason for the NESCAC not to do it and the only reason the other power conferences complain about it.  How many more teams would the CCIW or WIAC get in if they only had to go through their conferences once?  It's the whole argument.