MBB: NESCAC

[gordonmann]

But I'd flip WIAC with perennial D3hoops darling CCIW.  All other things being roughly equal, which they are, WIAC's two national titles in two years outweighs NESCAC's one title and one within-one-possession-miss, which outweighs CCIW's one title game appearance which ended in a convincing loss.

Thanks for the feedback. Glad someone read it.

I dropped the WIAC to third because of their uninspiring performance last season. I thought having one bad year out of four was enough of a differentiating factor to slot them behind the NESCAC and CCIW.

[nescac1]

That's fair Gordon.  I just think two straight national titles, from two different programs, in the preceeding two years outweighs one relatively down year for WIAC.  Had Augustana won a national title instead of falling in the semis, perhaps a different story ... but it's all subjective, anyway, right ? 

[gordonmann]

Indeed.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think another factor I know I discussed with Gordon is that the CCIW and NESCAC have shown to have stronger middles and bottoms of their conferences (depth throughout might be a better way to say it) than the WIAC. The WIAC is a very good conference, but usually the bottom few teams and even the middle leave something to be desired. Until last year, it really was a two-horse race and not much else to discuss especially on a national scale. Last year it was a much deeper conference, but only because the top two (UWW and UWSP) came "back to earth," as it where.

[Pat Coleman]

The NESCAC only-plays-each-other once has been the big talking point for years and years among people who attack the conference, it gets a bit tiresome.  Even back when the CCIW was only seven teams, and had no conference tournament, so that top NESCAC teams essentially played as many conference games (sometimes more) than CCIW teams did.  Yes, the CCIW plays a double-round robin, but the NESCAC is a bigger conference, with a bigger conference tourney, and 6/11 NESCAC teams also play each other twice per year in rivalry games.  I think the NESCAC has proven, year in and year out, itself by its tremendous performance in the NCAA tournament. And for Williams and Amherst, at least, they play at least 12, and as many as 15, NESCAC opponents each year.  So it's really not materially different from a smaller league with a double round-robin.  In all events, I think second-place is right for the NESCAC.  WIAC, both by results and by the eye test, usually has two legit national title contenders each year and excellent depth, even if the conference had a relatively off year last year, the incredible success of the three previous years, including two national titles, trumps that.

I don't know what years you're referring to. Which years did the NESCAC have 11 teams and the CCIW not have a conference tournament? You're talking well more than a decade ago, I'm pretty sure. Hamilton didn't play a NESCAC schedule when it was in the LL.

The key differentiating factor here is when the regular season schedule forces you to go play on the opponent's floor every year, which the NESCAC doesn't. Middlebury could win the conference title, in theory, playing in just six gyms instead of all 11. That's a factor, regardless of the size of the conference.

I agree that playing 20 conference games is not the answer, but there is reasonable room for some number in between. (And for all 11 NESCAC programs to have to play two other teams twice, if nothing else.)

[nescac1]

Hamilton has been in and out of NESCAC hoops but yeah I don't recall the exact timeline of when they left, and then returned.  I guess my point is, and always has been, that NESCAC is always attacked for not playing a double round robin but it really is an apples to oranges comparison with a league like CCIW which doesn't (or at least didn't) play as extensive a conference tournament (and used to not have one at all) and has four fewer teams. 

I'd certainly be happy with all NESCAC teams playing a few extra conference games like the Little Three and CBB do.  That's really up to the schools, of course.  Actually I'd love to see Williams play Middlebury twice per year, too.  But I'd also much rather see Williams play, like this year, Hope, Mount Union (probably), Suny Geneseo, Eastern Conn and local / area rivals like Southern Vermont, MCLA, RPI, Springfield, WPI (they usually play 2-3 from that group) than, say, a second game vs. Conn or Hamilton or Colby or some other geographically-distant non-rival.  And there is never going to be a really fair way to apportion things in NESCAC because (a) the league is too big for a full double-round robin without eliminating nealry every non-conference games, (b) with 11 teams there is always going to be some balance, and (c) if there is a partial round-robin, that would be even MORE unbalanced (playing, say, Amherst twice vs. playing Bates twice hardly seems fair) than the current situation.  I think the NESCAC set-up really works pretty well right now.  And if NESCAC teams were going into the tourney and fairing poorly, I think there would be an argument for, hey, we need to prep better by playing more NESCAC games.  But given how successful teams have been in the tourney, playing a mix of regional rivals and really strong non-conference opponets, including chances for kids to travel to different parts of the country, seems to have worked out great. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

As one indication of the strength and depth of the CCIW, IWU has been to Salem in 2006, 2012, and 2014.  Of those, 2014 is the only year IWU won the regular season title, and they have NEVER won the conference tourney (which began in 2006).  With the addition of Carroll this year, the CCIW has become even stronger and deeper in MBB (though so far, at least, a bit weaker in fball).

[Titan Q]

I also agree with nescac1 that the WIAC is a tougher conference to survive than the CCIW, with NO disrespect to the CCIW. 

No disrespect taken...good, healthy debate.

I don't think the statement in bold is accurate in looking at the the period under consideration in the D3hoops.com conference rankings. In the last 4 years, the depth of top talent in the CCIW has been greater.  Here is a look at NCAA tournament teams...

(listed in order of advancement in the tournament)

2016
Augustana (27-5, 13-1, round of 8)
Elmhurst (22-7, 10-4, round of 32)
North Central (19-8, 12-2, lost in 1st round)

UW-Oshkosh (18-10, 9-5, lost in 1st round)


2015
Augustana (27-5, 13-1, national title game)
Illinois Wesleyan (20-9, 10-4, round of 32)
Elmhurst (20-8, 9-5, round of 32)

UW-Stevens Point (27-5, 15-1, national champions)
UW-Whitewater (24-4, 15-1, lost in 1st round)


2014
Illinois Wesleyan (27-5, 12-2, Final 4)
Wheaton (21-9, 10-4, round of 16)
Augustana (20-8, 9-5, round of 32)

UW-Whitewater (29-4, 13-3, national champions)
UW-Stevens Point (28-2, 15-1, round of 16)


2013
North Central (28-4, 11-3, Final 4)
Illinois Wesleyan (23-6, 13-1, round of 16)
Wheaton (21-7, 10-4) round of 32)

UW-Stevens Point (22-6, 14-2, round of 32)
UW-Whitewater (24-5, 13-3, round of 32)


The CCIW vs WIAC debate comes down to how you define "strongest conference."  If it is about depth of talent, the CCIW is your pick.  If by national championships, obviously the WIAC.

All of the leagues at the top of Gordon's list are great, so none of this really matters...but certainly fun to debate.

By the way, great job Gordon...we all appreciate you doing that.

[Titan Q]

Even back when the CCIW was only seven teams, and had no conference tournament, so that top NESCAC teams essentially played as many conference games (sometimes more) than CCIW teams did. 

The CCIW has had 8 teams, not 7...now 9 with Carroll.

[nescac1]

My last comment on CCIW vs. WIAC vs. NESCAC (and there are, as we've seen, lots of ways to look at it) -- if you are looking at depth of talent via performance in the tourney, then NESCAC actually comes out number one. 

2013, NESCAC had three teams in the Elite 8, with Amherst winning the national title
2014, NESCAC had two teams in the Final Four, with Williams losing by two points in the championship game
2015, NESCAC had two teams in the Sweet 16, and one in the Elite 8. 
2016, NESCAC had two teams in the Elite 8, and Amherst in the Final Four

NESCAC has had FIVE different programs represented in the last four Elite 8s (Midd, Amherst, Williams, Tufts, Trinity).  Plus Bates in the Sweet 16 ...

On to this season, Amherst is the pre-season number one.  I would have gone with Christopher Newport or Babson, but Amherst is certainly a top-three team and a very deserving pick given the depth of talent they return:

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2016-17/preseason

The bullseye will be on the F/K/A Jeffs' back but with a loaded and battle-tested senior class, they surely will be ready. 

I have a real issue with Tufts at number 5.  Tom Palleschi is an all-American at center, but their second big-time star Vinny Pace is a question mark coming back from the ACL injury suffered so late in the season.  Tarik Smith is a proven scoring point guard, but after those three guys, the drop-off is pretty steep: Engvall scored 7.6 ppg last year, and no one else returning scored more than 4.  That's a lot of pressure on just three or four proven guys, one of whom is an injury question mark.  Perhaps there is someone coming in that we haven't yet heard about.  And last year's Tufts' frosh class didn't show a lot, so it's not clear who will be stepping up from that group to replace the lost scoring.  I'd be surprised if the Jumbos finished higher than third, more likely fourth, in the NESCAC this year. 

Middlebury clocks in at number 25 -- I think Midd looks a lot stronger than Tufts heading into the season, personally, Midd should be a lot stronger than last season.  Triniy, which loses a ton but has a LOT of young talent, is the only other NESCAC squad to earn votes.  They could surprise.  Naturally, I think Williams will also surprise a lot of folks this year but they have to prove it on the court! 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

To be fair, nescac1, as much as I hate trying to compare conferences and tournaments... the NESCAC is able to get more teams into the NCAA tournament based on the fact they don't take as many losses in conference by not playing a double-round-robin. I think Gordon summed that up very well by saying, "I wonder if my alma mater Trinity (Conn.) makes the NCAA tournament last season if the Bantams had to play Amherst, Middlebury and Tufts one more time each in the regular season."

Here is his entire point:
"My only knock on the NESCAC is their teams only play each other once during the conference's regular season, not including the second games between Little Three and CBB rivals that don't count in the NESCAC standings. That minimizes the risk that NESCAC teams will beat up on each other during the regular season. It also gives NESCAC teams have more opportunities to play good opponents from weaker conferences during the regular season, which helps NESCAC teams in the regional rankings. Both factors, plus the large number of Northeast region teams, help the NESCAC routinely put at least three teams in the regional rankings that are the gateway to at-large bids to the NCAA tournament. That's a factor in why the NESCAC has had 30 bids in the last 10 NCAA tournaments, five more than the CCIW and UAA and ten more than the WIAC. For example, I wonder if my alma mater Trinity (Conn.) makes the NCAA tournament last season if the Bantams had to play Amherst, Middlebury and Tufts one more time each in the regular season."

The fact they don't play each other twice and especially, as Pat points out, in each other's gyms each year allows them to avoid pitfalls every other conference has to deal with. It allows some of their numbers to be a bit inflated thanks also to the fact they can play more regionally ranked teams in their schedule than others can - simple math.

I had made the argument to Gordon of putting the NESCAC first over the CCIW (I, too, had the WIAC third) for a lot of good reasons. However as we discussed it, I had trouble avoiding much of what Gordon (who again, is a graduate of a NESCAC school) points out as being the knock on the conference.

And remember this, Gordon based this on the last four years. He didn't go further back than that. Though you have to try and make a comparison of the size of the NESCAC. Stick to the four-years Gordon has stuck to to make the conversation apples to apples. In that case, the NESCAC had 11 teams and the CCIW 8 (always has). And of those two make-ups, the CCIW played more conference regular season games than the NESCAC even if we count the Little Three and the CBB games. There simply isn't any way to argue out of that fact.

[nescac1]

We've been through many, many times the whole double round robin thing.  Sure, I'll grant that NESCAC sometimes gets an extra team in the tourney that it might not have but for being in a different region.  I've never said otherwise.  But that in no way has any bearing on the performance of the top 2-3 teams in NESCAC, who would get into the NCAA tournament from EVERY conference.  And I still think it's unfair to compare an eight team (apologies for the wrong number) league to an eleven team league.  If the NESCAC went to a double-round-robin, thereby playing far MORE conference games than the CCIW, would that suddenly somehow reflect negatively upon the CCIW in my (or anyone's) eyes?  No.  NESCAC teams play between 10 and in some cases as many as 15 games against conference opponents in any given year. The two teams with the biggest tradition of success play at least 12 each year, and in the years they've done well, have almost always played between 14-15.  That is not a dramatic difference as compared to the CCIW schedule, featuring 16-18 games. 

Really, for me it comes down to this: if you want to be considered the best conference, your top teams have to succeed on the biggest stage.  Now, granted, maybe it's not as stark over the past four years, but over the past 20, there is a pretty clear hierchy there.  WIAC teams have won an incredible EIGHT national titles (from three different program) and one second place finish (from a fourth). And lots of those national title WIAC teams had to really fight just to win (or finish in second) in that conference.  NESCAC has won three national titles with four more second place finishes (two of which went down to the final possession) in the same time period.  CCIW?  One national title (20 years ago now) and one second-place finish. 

Whatever you want to say about the 4th NESCAC team to make the NCAA tourney in some years (usually, they are legit teams and acquit themselves well), all those Amherst, Williams and Midd teams making multiple deep NCAA runs PROVED they were legit, and would have been in the NCAA tourney if they played 25 conference games.  If they weren't, they would have gotten owned when they faced other elite teams in the Final 4.  But every time they made the final four, they showed they belonged, and in some cases showed they were the best team there. 

OK, now I'm really done.  Back to this coming season: anyone else think that Midd should be ranked ahead of Tufts to start the year??

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I did forget to mention one other thing, there is also usually a solid argument that the road through the first few rounds for Northeast teams is easier than Central teams. That is changing a bit, but the Central teams tend to have to go through tougher competition earlier on. That is unavoidable, but factual.

Yes, the NESCAC has won it's fair share of titles. I don't disagree with that and part of that and the recent depth of the NESCAC (which was unheard of even four years ago) gave me cause to argue them to be number one. However, I can't avoid the fact that the CCIW has had more teams at the top of their conference and in the national conversation than the WIAC or NESCAC. Augustana, North Central, Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton (Ill.) and the others are always reappearing in the national conversation in even in the last four years. While the NESCAC has gotten deeper, it still revolves around Amherst and maybe Williams with others playing spoiler once in awhile. I think the NESCAC is moving towards more of a CCIW influence, but we aren't there just yet.

[Pat Coleman]

I did forget to mention one other thing, there is also usually a solid argument that the road through the first few rounds for Northeast teams is easier than Central teams. That is changing a bit, but the Central teams tend to have to go through tougher competition earlier on. That is unavoidable, but factual.

To me, this is far more germane to the discussion than the number of regular-season games vs. conference opponents. Also, not yet mentioned, NESCAC teams tend to get separated better in brackets. There simply isn't much of an opportunity for multiple CCIW teams to get to the Final Four, whereas every year, seemingly, there's a chance for NESCAC teams to do so. And even if NESCAC teams are in brackets with "East" or "Atlantic" teams, it's still an easier road than going through "Central" or "West" or "Great Lakes" teams.

I wish this were a truly national tournament so people didn't have to have this discussion.

[nescac1]

OK, I'll respond again, can't help it (and it's dead here before the start of practices anyway ...).  If the folks largely responsible for creating the "national conversation" are the ones who are always hyping CCIW teams and extolling that league's strength relative to all other leagues, it's kind of a self-reinforcing loop to say "hey, CCIW is the best because they are in the national conversation," isn't it ... In the end, I think the CCIW is a fantastic league, and clearly in the top 3 nationally, so this is all about making fine distinctions.  But maybe, just maybe, some of their teams are overhyped some years, which is responsible for them being at the forefront of the "national conversation"? 

I will also say that its egregiously unfair to say that the NESCAC is just Amherst and Williams, in terms of nationally-relevant teams.  Middlebury is definitely a nationally-prominent program and has been for about a decade now: several NESCAC titles, a Final Four, an Elite 8, has been in the top ten of national polls in several years, and looks very strong this year.  Tufts has now made it to the Elite 8, and it took an incredible play for an Amherst team that (I think) won the title (or maybe they finished second) to knock them off in a Sweet 16 game about a decade ago.  Trinity is a team that has had a lot of great talent and some very strong teams over the years -- the Bantams have also made a Final Four in the 1990s addition to several othersolid tourney runs, and they have been in the Top 25 many different years.   

Like any conference, all of those teams will have some down periods and down years -- it's not like Illinois Wesleyan or Augustana or North Central is relevant every single year, either.  But I think that Amherst, Williams, Midd and Trinity are just as much teams that have been in the "national conversation" as the top half of the CCIW.  Tufts has been more hit-or-miss but has had its moments, certainly.  And Bowdoin is also a consistently strong program, if not a nationally elite one.   

And if you look at at WIAC, you have three programs (Whitewater, Stevens-Point, Plattesville) that have all won at least four national titles.  Eau Clair came close.  And Oshkosh has often been "nationally relevant" as well.  Other teams have had some other good periods as well.  That's that majority of the league that has been in the national conversation or whatever you want to call it during the past few decades.  But in the end, I stand by my claim that if the CCIW wants to stake a claim to being the best conference, all they have to do is start beating those WIAC teams that make their run to the championship game admittedly difficult, instead of losing to them. 

AS for the tourney, yeah, some NESCAC teams have had easier paths some years.  But not always -- Williams for example had to beat stacked Amherst teams twice in Elite 8 games just to make it to Salem.  And I do think some of the nationally-unknown New England teams who the NESCAC teams face in early rounds are a lot better than they are given credit for.  In the end, winning is the best validation, and if you get to Salem and win your share (or more) of games there then really, that is all you can do to prove yourself.