MBB: NESCAC

[Bucket]

Tony Bennett the head coach of Virginia and his father Dick Bennett were associated with the Division I school, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. Dick Bennett did coach at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point from 1976 through 1985 but his son played for him from 1988-1992 and that was after Dick had moved on to UW-Green Bay. Tony played for his father for 4 years before getting drafted by the Charlotte Hornets. He spent 3 years in the NBA. Dick Bennett went on to coach at the University of Wisconsin after leaving Wisconsin-Green Bay and prior to Bo Ryan becoming the head coach of the Badgers.

Speaking of Bo Ryan he did not coach at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. He was the coach of UW-Platteville. You were correct in that he won national titles. Four of them to be exact, while he was at UW-Plattville....1991-95-98-99.  UW-Stevens Point has won 4 national titles as well (2004-2005-2010-2015), but none of them came under Dick Bennett. When he was the coach at Stevens Point they were associated with the  NAIA and not the NCAA. He did have a runner up finish to the NAIA national championship in 1984.

It's probably a good thing that you corrected amh63, Prestidigitator, given that UW-Whitewater and UW-Platteville are archrivals. Not that WIACers usually hang out in this room, but if any of them did ... hoo boy, the fireworks ...

The 2004 and 2005 national titles for UW-Stevens Point were Bennett family affairs, too. In 1995-96 Dick Bennett's younger brother Jack took over the UWSP program that his brother had in large part built, and as head coach Jack was the architect of those 2004 and 2005 D3 national championship Pointers teams. His son Nick was a standout on those two teams, as he was named the 2004 D3 tourney's Most Outstanding Player and was an All-American in 2005.

Nick decided to follow his father, uncle, and cousin into the family business, and is now an assistant coach at -- wait for it -- UW-Whitewater, which brings the conversation full circle. He is, to the best of my knowledge, the only person who owns national championship rings from two different schools (UWSP as a player, UWW as an assistant coach).

The playing surface at UWSP's Quandt Fieldhouse is named Bennett Court in honor of the two brothers who were head coaches there.

You beat me to it! I was going to follow up with Tony Bennett's extensive family ties to Division III hoops. I had a nice talk with him a couple of years ago about all things hoop, including Division III. When I told him I was from Middlebury, he immediately said how great a basketball conference the NESCAC was and was teasing me a bit about Middlebury being a hockey school. "Not any more," I told him.

Go Hoos!

[Gregory Sager]

One thing for sure, my mistakes are generating scads of info and pages to this board.
Gregory Sager...thanks for my new "label".  I will have a hard time pronouncing it .

No, that's magicman's title. Prestidigitator is a synonym for "magician". (It's where magicians got the magic word, "Presto!" The art of magic is also called prestidigitation.)

[Old Guy]

  Since Ken Howard was a contemporary, I got out the ECAC media guide from our senior year and Howard is listed as one of five returning lettermen on a team that won 4 of 18 the previous season(played Harvard, Army, Holy Cross). 1st game in coming season wasn't until Dec 4.
  Old Guy is listed on Middlebury roster. Their gym capacity listed as 11,000. Is that for indoor football?

I remember playing against Ken Howard. I wish I were back in Middlebury at the moment, as I would go to yearbooks and newspapers and relive that game. I'm in Tucson watching Panther baseball and visiting in-laws (I get points at home for watching baseball in 70 & 80s temps, clear skies: win-win). Back in Midd at the end of the week and I'll do my research on Amherst-Midd, lo these many years ago.

True enough, we weren't allowed to play on variety teams as Frosh.

I had assumed Ken Howard was in the same class as I, '67, as we are the same age. I have a keen memory of playing him and Amherst, my junior year, I think. Amherst was a team we thought we could play with (for half our schedule winning was out of the question - St. Mike's, Northeastern, Springfield, AIC, Williams, et al). We lost to Amherst, but I think it was a game. Maybe not, we didn't win many. I'll check.

I remember guarding Howard (when I was in there), an obvious mismatch. He was a shooter, a finesse player, though 6'6". They had a player underneath that our coach thought was a beast, and our defensive strategy focused on keeping him off the boards. I think his name was Krause (I'll check).

Which gym had a capacity of 11.000? Certainly not Midd. Our gym could have had a capacity of 75 and still had empty seats for our games (unless it was a period break at the hockey game next door, when the gym swelled with hockey fans getting out of the cold rink, warming up).

We didn't like the Amherst gym - a basketball court in a field house, hard to get used to, cavernous.

[jumpshot]

Both Ken Howard (rest his soul) and Bob Krause played during the decade in which Williams won 20 consecutive basketball games versus the yet-to-be named hamster.

[ronk]

  Since Ken Howard was a contemporary, I got out the ECAC media guide from our senior year and Howard is listed as one of five returning lettermen on a team that won 4 of 18 the previous season(played Harvard, Army, Holy Cross). 1st game in coming season wasn't until Dec 4.
  Old Guy is listed on Middlebury roster. Their gym capacity listed as 11,000. Is that for indoor football?

I remember playing against Ken Howard. I wish I were back in Middlebury at the moment, as I would go to yearbooks and newspapers and relive that game. I'm in Tucson watching Panther baseball and visiting in-laws (I get points at home for watching baseball in 70 & 80s temps, clear skies: win-win). Back in Midd at the end of the week and I'll do my research on Amherst-Midd, lo these many years ago.

True enough, we weren't allowed to play on variety teams as Frosh.

I had assumed Ken Howard was in the same class as I, '67, as we are the same age. I have a keen memory of playing him and Amherst, my junior year, I think. Amherst was a team we thought we could play with (for half our schedule winning was out of the question - St. Mike's, Northeastern, Springfield, AIC, Williams, et al). We lost to Amherst, but I think it was a game. Maybe not, we didn't win many. I'll check.

I remember guarding Howard (when I was in there), an obvious mismatch. He was a shooter, a finesse player, though 6'6". They had a player underneath that our coach thought was a beast, and our defensive strategy focused on keeping him off the boards. I think his name was Krause (I'll check).

Which gym had a capacity of 11.000? Certainly not Midd. Our gym could have had a capacity of 75 and still had empty seats for our games (unless it was a period break at the hockey game next door, when the gym swelled with hockey fans getting out of the cold rink, warming up).

We didn't like the Amherst gym - a basketball court in a field house, hard to get used to, cavernous.

Middlebury won the Amherst game in '66 61-58, one of 4 victories that season; Amherst won only 3; maybe that's why there's no talk of the good ol days.
Must have been bad info for the capacity of Middlebury's Memorial Fieldhouse because it was changed in the guide the next year to 2,500. Maybe they were listing the hockey arena capacity, instead.

[P'bearfan]

Watched the Villanova - Kansas game last night.  Villanova has a senior guard name Ryan Arcidiacono who was pretty impressive.  His offensive game reminded my a bit of Hausman's game - lots of dribble drives that ended in tough pull up shots.  Nailed a few treys and was great from the FT line.

Great game overall.  Glad there is still some more basketball to watch.

[JEFFFAN]

Both Ken Howard (rest his soul) and Bob Krause played during the decade in which Williams won 20 consecutive basketball games versus the yet-to-be named hamster.

With the D3 hoops season in the rear view mirror, maybe we can have a little (abusive) fun by giving  fans a chance to "Name That Mascot"? for Amherst!  Hamster is a weak start, with all due respect, but be creative and as nasty as you would like, folks. All in good fun.

Me?

They have been - are now - and always will be The Jeffs. No self-righteous collection of current students or administrators will ever change history.  Starting down this road will lead to the ultimate dismantling of Mt Rushmore and the "without sin" leaders of our country's past.

So Jeffs it is!  Your ideas can give us some fun when the ball isn't pounding the boards ...

[jumpshot]

Jefffan:

Recall that "hamster" originated in an article in the hamster's student newspaper that drew rave reviews. Not likely to go away any time soon, as the label has become deep-rooted on campus ....

[grabtherim]

Both Ken Howard (rest his soul) and Bob Krause played during the decade in which Williams won 20 consecutive basketball games versus the yet-to-be named hamster.

With the D3 hoops season in the rear view mirror, maybe we can have a little (abusive) fun by giving  fans a chance to "Name That Mascot"? for Amherst!  Hamster is a weak start, with all due respect, but be creative and as nasty as you would like, folks. All in good fun.

Me?

They have been - are now - and always will be The Jeffs. No self-righteous collection of current students or administrators will ever change history.  Starting down this road will lead to the ultimate dismantling of Mt Rushmore and the "without sin" leaders of our country's past.

So Jeffs it is!  Your ideas can give us some fun when the ball isn't pounding the boards ...

Not sure its going to fly, but Dan Snyder just texted me. His suggestion: The Redskins

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Read 'd-Mac' post wrt to his line of reasoning for supporting Babson.  Walked away from posting a response.  Joined my wife for an important event. Came back, read his post again.  It really needs a response!
First, the point is made that Babson was in a sort  of "rebuilding" period early in the season...adjusting to new players, etc..  The teams that they lost to during that period must have been all set.  Come on, All teams have to adjust to new mixes of players, etc. The teams that beat Babson did NOT have a 1st team all American to build around.
Second, the discount of the lost to Amherst at Tufts was due to the fact Flannery was not at 100 Percent and to support it you have a list of people that can say that Amherst would have lost if the star was 100 percent.  Really?  So when the game started, was Flannery at 95, 90, 80, lower?
Was he at least 90 percent when he fouled and injured himself in the first half?  Do remember he missed a number of shots before warming up later in the half.  How much was he from 100 percent when he came back in...50 percent?  It is always nice to talk with persons that can support your opinion.  In truth, I believe the Head Coach of Babson would not make that guarantee. 
Finally, the health of key players at critical points of the season are part of the game of BB.  Tufts, Colby, Middlebury, etc. all had injuries during the season.  Changes have to be made in lineups for many reasons, all the time...iat all levels of BB.
In contrast to your post, I point to your enjoyable interview with the HC of Tufts who lost the services of Pace.  He stated that he may decide to run with J&W.   I do not have to remind you what happened in that game.  The higher seeded team got blown out.  Anyone of your crowd predicted that outcome?
Enough said.

I'm not going to get into all this and the other post, because we talked about it for weeks. You are welcome to listen to my shows where it was brought up as well. I talked to a number of people not associated with Amherst who gave the opinion that a healthy Flannery has Babson in the final four. I stated it numerous times as my feeling on the show as well. We are rehashing old stuff. If you didn't hear it then, so be it.

I have little idea what to make of this nonsense.  No one doubts that you said numerous times that Babson would certainly have made the Final Four had Flannery been 100% healthy.  The question is whether this opinion makes any sense.  Also, out of curiosity, if Tufts was #2 in the final Regional Rankings, who was number 1?  Was it Babson or was it Amherst?  Or, put another way, who wore the white, home, uniforms in the Amherst-Babson Sweet 16?  If Amherst was the higher seed, why is it so inconceivable that they MIGHT have beaten Babson even with a healthy Flannery?

Final regional rankings for the Northeast were:

Amherst
Tufts
Babson
WPI
Trinity
Johnson and Wales
MIT
E. Connecticut
Middlebury
Southern Vermont
Albertus Magnus

Amherst wore their whites against Babson... but their regional rankings aren't usually an indication of who is the better team, especially who might be playing better at that time. And the rankings are based on NCAA criteria, nothing else. Amherst was #15, Babson #16, Tufts #20 in the national rankings if that matters. The difference between Amherst and Babson was 24 points. Tufts was 108 points behind Babson.

And again, just because Amherst was the higher ranked team doesn't mean the game will play out that way. They were higher ranked in the eyes of the NCAA based on criteria and criteria only. But many people felt the way Flannery was playing and the way the rest of the team played around him, it would be a more likely win for Babson in that game. That is just the feeling people had. I am not sure why you are so up in arms with people feeling differently than the rankings... it happens all of the time!

Now, I did have Amherst ranked ahead of Babson going into the tournament, but the first weekend made me think otherwise in how the game would play out.

As for someone's comment about a one-possession spread with Benedictine, while that is an indication that Amherst was close in that game, it was a ugly shooting game for Benedictine and was not their usual game by any stretch of the imagination. If Amherst was the opponent in the Elite 8 versus Benedictine, the game isn't even close.

[AmherstStudent05]

Read 'd-Mac' post wrt to his line of reasoning for supporting Babson.  Walked away from posting a response.  Joined my wife for an important event. Came back, read his post again.  It really needs a response!
First, the point is made that Babson was in a sort  of "rebuilding" period early in the season...adjusting to new players, etc..  The teams that they lost to during that period must have been all set.  Come on, All teams have to adjust to new mixes of players, etc. The teams that beat Babson did NOT have a 1st team all American to build around.
Second, the discount of the lost to Amherst at Tufts was due to the fact Flannery was not at 100 Percent and to support it you have a list of people that can say that Amherst would have lost if the star was 100 percent.  Really?  So when the game started, was Flannery at 95, 90, 80, lower?
Was he at least 90 percent when he fouled and injured himself in the first half?  Do remember he missed a number of shots before warming up later in the half.  How much was he from 100 percent when he came back in...50 percent?  It is always nice to talk with persons that can support your opinion.  In truth, I believe the Head Coach of Babson would not make that guarantee. 
Finally, the health of key players at critical points of the season are part of the game of BB.  Tufts, Colby, Middlebury, etc. all had injuries during the season.  Changes have to be made in lineups for many reasons, all the time...iat all levels of BB.
In contrast to your post, I point to your enjoyable interview with the HC of Tufts who lost the services of Pace.  He stated that he may decide to run with J&W.   I do not have to remind you what happened in that game.  The higher seeded team got blown out.  Anyone of your crowd predicted that outcome?
Enough said.

I'm not going to get into all this and the other post, because we talked about it for weeks. You are welcome to listen to my shows where it was brought up as well. I talked to a number of people not associated with Amherst who gave the opinion that a healthy Flannery has Babson in the final four. I stated it numerous times as my feeling on the show as well. We are rehashing old stuff. If you didn't hear it then, so be it.

I have little idea what to make of this nonsense.  No one doubts that you said numerous times that Babson would certainly have made the Final Four had Flannery been 100% healthy.  The question is whether this opinion makes any sense.  Also, out of curiosity, if Tufts was #2 in the final Regional Rankings, who was number 1?  Was it Babson or was it Amherst?  Or, put another way, who wore the white, home, uniforms in the Amherst-Babson Sweet 16?  If Amherst was the higher seed, why is it so inconceivable that they MIGHT have beaten Babson even with a healthy Flannery?

Final regional rankings for the Northeast were:

Amherst
Tufts
Babson
WPI
Trinity
Johnson and Wales
MIT
E. Connecticut
Middlebury
Southern Vermont
Albertus Magnus

Amherst wore their whites against Babson... but their regional rankings aren't usually an indication of who is the better team, especially who might be playing better at that time. And the rankings are based on NCAA criteria, nothing else. Amherst was #15, Babson #16, Tufts #20 in the national rankings if that matters. The difference between Amherst and Babson was 24 points. Tufts was 108 points behind Babson.

And again, just because Amherst was the higher ranked team doesn't mean the game will play out that way. They were higher ranked in the eyes of the NCAA based on criteria and criteria only. But many people felt the way Flannery was playing and the way the rest of the team played around him, it would be a more likely win for Babson in that game. That is just the feeling people had. I am not sure why you are so up in arms with people feeling differently than the rankings... it happens all of the time!

Now, I did have Amherst ranked ahead of Babson going into the tournament, but the first weekend made me think otherwise in how the game would play out.

As for someone's comment about a one-possession spread with Benedictine, while that is an indication that Amherst was close in that game, it was a ugly shooting game for Benedictine and was not their usual game by any stretch of the imagination. If Amherst was the opponent in the Elite 8 versus Benedictine, the game isn't even close.

Just to be clear, my point is not, and has never been, that Amherst was destined to beat Babson because Amherst entered the game as the higher seed.  My issue has been with your statement that "there isn't a single person that says Amherst would have won that game with Flannery at 100%."  In my view that statement is rather unfair to Amherst.  In previous posts I have pointed out several factors that, when taken together, explain my position.  To wit:

1. Amherst ended up winning the game in question comfortably.
2. Amherst and Babson were neck-and-neck when Flannery appeared to be fully healthy in the first half of that game (although I realize that he may not have actually been healthy even before he clearly re-aggravated his injury, but he sure did look active in the first half).
3. Amherst beat Babson, with a fully healthy Flannery, at Babson earlier in the season.
4. Babson, with a fully healthy Flannery, went 0-4 against all NESCAC competition this season. 
5. Amherst entered the game as the higher ranked team (both in the regional rankings and the d3hoops rankings)
6. Amherst had a pretty fine team in its own right this year.

Putting these factors together, it is just difficult for me to comprehend how everyone you spoke to believed Amherst would have had no chance of beating Babson with a healthy Flannery.  In light of the list above, I would even have a hard time understanding if everyone you spoke to had Babson as favorites against Amherst.  Surely some people might have favored Babson over Amherst with a healthy Flannery -- perhaps even a majority (though I still maintain that such a view might be hard to square with the "facts on the ground" as they were), but, again, this is a far cry from saying that there was a unanimous opinion that Amherst effectively could not have beaten Babson absent an injury to Babson's best player.  I think such a viewpoint is wildly unfair to Amherst, and that is why I have taken the time to post in response. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

You might not understand it... so be it. All I can tell you is of the maybe ten coaches or others I chatted with, even discussed on the show with, the game... not one picked Amherst. You have your examples, some in hindsight. I am telling you what people thought before the game. You are also looking at it through purple-tinted glasses while the group I chatted with primarily in the week leading up to the game weren't. They included people who played against Babson and Amherst in the last few weeks leading up. They also included people who had seen the teams up close in the same time frame. You may not like their opinion and that is fine... but it doesn't change their opinions. Again, you are making this argument after the game... everyone else made it ahead of the game. The common factor in play... every single of one of them including myself said that if Flannery is 100% Babson wins. Flannery was not 100% when the game began and pretty much finished at 0% after reinjuring his ankle (heard high-ankle sprain at best, but can't remember now). That was the prediction clause... if Flannery was 100%.

[AmherstStudent05]

Again, the issue is not whether I "like" this consensus opinion you are describing -- the issue is whether the unanimity of this opinion makes any sense.  I provided a series of specific reasons why I think it does not.  Reasons 1-5 are, as best as I can tell, 100% factual (no purple-tinted glasses there).  Even Reason 6 ("Amherst had a pretty fine team in its own right this year") can probably be fairly classified as an objectively true statement.  Reasons 3-5 are objective and were all known prior to our Sweet 16 game.

To be clear, the only reason I am making these arguments after the game is because you only made your comment about Babson on this board after the game.  If, prior to the Babson game, you came on this board and wrote something to the effect of "If Joey Flannery is 100%, I, and every knowledgeable person I have spoken to, expects Babson to beat Amherst," I assure you that I would have responded right away.  Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall any such post on the NESCAC board.  For what's its worth, I also don't recall you expressing your opinion that Amherst couldn't beat Babson with a healthy Flannery to Coach Hixon when you interviewed him on Hoopsville right before the Babson game.   

[JEFFFAN]

Read 'd-Mac' post wrt to his line of reasoning for supporting Babson.  Walked away from posting a response.  Joined my wife for an important event. Came back, read his post again.  It really needs a response!
First, the point is made that Babson was in a sort  of "rebuilding" period early in the season...adjusting to new players, etc..  The teams that they lost to during that period must have been all set.  Come on, All teams have to adjust to new mixes of players, etc. The teams that beat Babson did NOT have a 1st team all American to build around.
Second, the discount of the lost to Amherst at Tufts was due to the fact Flannery was not at 100 Percent and to support it you have a list of people that can say that Amherst would have lost if the star was 100 percent.  Really?  So when the game started, was Flannery at 95, 90, 80, lower?
Was he at least 90 percent when he fouled and injured himself in the first half?  Do remember he missed a number of shots before warming up later in the half.  How much was he from 100 percent when he came back in...50 percent?  It is always nice to talk with persons that can support your opinion.  In truth, I believe the Head Coach of Babson would not make that guarantee. 
Finally, the health of key players at critical points of the season are part of the game of BB.  Tufts, Colby, Middlebury, etc. all had injuries during the season.  Changes have to be made in lineups for many reasons, all the time...iat all levels of BB.
In contrast to your post, I point to your enjoyable interview with the HC of Tufts who lost the services of Pace.  He stated that he may decide to run with J&W.   I do not have to remind you what happened in that game.  The higher seeded team got blown out.  Anyone of your crowd predicted that outcome?
Enough said.

I'm not going to get into all this and the other post, because we talked about it for weeks. You are welcome to listen to my shows where it was brought up as well. I talked to a number of people not associated with Amherst who gave the opinion that a healthy Flannery has Babson in the final four. I stated it numerous times as my feeling on the show as well. We are rehashing old stuff. If you didn't hear it then, so be it.

I have little idea what to make of this nonsense.  No one doubts that you said numerous times that Babson would certainly have made the Final Four had Flannery been 100% healthy.  The question is whether this opinion makes any sense.  Also, out of curiosity, if Tufts was #2 in the final Regional Rankings, who was number 1?  Was it Babson or was it Amherst?  Or, put another way, who wore the white, home, uniforms in the Amherst-Babson Sweet 16?  If Amherst was the higher seed, why is it so inconceivable that they MIGHT have beaten Babson even with a healthy Flannery?

Final regional rankings for the Northeast were:

Amherst
Tufts
Babson
WPI
Trinity
Johnson and Wales
MIT
E. Connecticut
Middlebury
Southern Vermont
Albertus Magnus

Amherst wore their whites against Babson... but their regional rankings aren't usually an indication of who is the better team, especially who might be playing better at that time. And the rankings are based on NCAA criteria, nothing else. Amherst was #15, Babson #16, Tufts #20 in the national rankings if that matters. The difference between Amherst and Babson was 24 points. Tufts was 108 points behind Babson.

And again, just because Amherst was the higher ranked team doesn't mean the game will play out that way. They were higher ranked in the eyes of the NCAA based on criteria and criteria only. But many people felt the way Flannery was playing and the way the rest of the team played around him, it would be a more likely win for Babson in that game. That is just the feeling people had. I am not sure why you are so up in arms with people feeling differently than the rankings... it happens all of the time!

Now, I did have Amherst ranked ahead of Babson going into the tournament, but the first weekend made me think otherwise in how the game would play out.

As for someone's comment about a one-possession spread with Benedictine, while that is an indication that Amherst was close in that game, it was a ugly shooting game for Benedictine and was not their usual game by any stretch of the imagination. If Amherst was the opponent in the Elite 8 versus Benedictine, the game isn't even close.

Why go there?  Neither Benedictine nor Amherst shot the ball very well in the semi finals so can we give some credit to both defenses?  Amherst played great in the Final 8 game, whatever it is called. I just don't get the "the game wouldn't even have been close" comment. That is silly conjecture.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

JEFFFAN - I don't believe the game would have been as close as it was. I went there because that is what I believe. Sorry it hurts your feelings. Just stating what I thought considering what I saw and what I had seen.

AmherstStudent05 - considering how busy I was in the last month of the season... getting on these boards and posting everything I thought and doing it on every board was impossible. I host two Hoopsville shows a week and they average 2 1/2 hours a show in the last few months. I stated numerous times on the Sunday show after the first weekend and the Thursday show prior to the second weekend that I felt Babson would win if Flannery was 100%. While you may not have heard it is certainly a factor, it is NOT something I stated only after the fact. There are plenty of people who heard me state that opinion that can probably attest to you. You are also welcome to go back and hear it for yourself.