MBB: NESCAC

[fpc85]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2833517   it's a done deal.
in all fairness to coach hixon, who i believe is a very good coach, paulsen (after winning back-to-back national coach of the year, a national championship, a win against a d1 team that is comparable to an ive league team, and being younger than hixon) was only a finalist at dartmouth and brown

In all fairness to Paulsen, who is a very good coach, Hixon would be a better interview/candidate.

[lemonjello]

Not to mention he has a longer track record of success, and is considered to be a superior recruiter.

[nescac hoops]

In all fairness to Paulsen, who is a very good coach, Hixon would be a better interview/candidate.

why? i would say that the two are both equal canidates with the only difference being that paulsen is younger. i am curious to know why you think hixon would make a better canidate. if your answer is recruiting, keep in mind that at the D1 level, that duty falls primarily with assistant coaches. as far as x's and o's go (the primary duty of head coaches at the d1 level), i think a lot would agree that the two are equal if not a slight edge going to paulsen. and lastly, it has taken hixon 30+ years (salem, national championship) at amherst to do what paulsen did in 4 years at williams.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518075   read the 4th comment on this article ..."If not Amaker, go after Williams College coach Dave Paulsen."

[Pat Coleman]

That's an anonymous commenter on a story in a college newspaper. What weight could that possibly carry?

[nescac1]

Nescac Hoops,

Not 30 years, really 13 since it has only been 13 years since NESCAC schools were eligible.  And I don't think Amherst falling short in its first two attempts make Hixon  any less of a good coach -- I don't think anyone would say Sheehy was a worse coach than either Paulsen or Hixon, even though the Ephs didn't reach the title game in either of their two trips to Salem under Sheehy (at one of which, they ran into the nearly unbeatable Bo Ryan juggernaut).  In fact, I think the 1996 Ephs, which didn't even make it to Salem, may have been better than any of the recent Amherst or Williams teams, they just had the bad fortune of playing a Rowan team with essentially three Div I players, on the road, who they nearly beat in any event.  I doubt the 2003 ephs or 2007 Jeffs would have fared any better on the road against that squad, which I consider the 1996 Kentucky of D-III hoops -- beyond loaded. 

[fpc85]

In all fairness to Paulsen, who is a very good coach, Hixon would be a better interview/candidate.

why? i would say that the two are both equal canidates with the only difference being that paulsen is younger. i am curious to know why you think hixon would make a better canidate. if your answer is recruiting, keep in mind that at the D1 level, that duty falls primarily with assistant coaches. as far as x's and o's go (the primary duty of head coaches at the d1 level), i think a lot would agree that the two are equal if not a slight edge going to paulsen. and lastly, it has taken hixon 30+ years (salem, national championship) at amherst to do what paulsen did in 4 years at williams.

I love Paulsen as a coach. He does a great job. His youth may make him a more attractive candidate for some program but I think that Hixon has shown the ability to attract players to his program. Assistant coaches play a significant role in recruitment but players usually to go to a specific school because of the head coach. I think people split hairs when deciding who is a better coach. I don't think there is a question who is a better recruiter. Yes, Paulsen won a championship in 4 years but weren't the impact players on that team recruited by Sheehy?

[nescac hoops]

Nescac 1,
good point about nescac teams only being eligable for 13 yrs now. admittingly, i forgot about those years. however, when i was at williams in the mid/late 90's, hixon's teams were not real contenders to williams until the end of my time there and not "nationally known", even if they weren't allowed to go to the ncaa's. i can't speak for his teams in the 80s but i THINK that his teams became very good in the late 90's - present. he may have had some strong years along the line but i don't think they were consistantly strong until somewhere in the late 90's....maybe i'm wrong though.

However, my original point (and question to fcp85) was that i don't think that hixon is a better canidate and considering that paulsen wasn't even given the job at a less "renowned" place like brown and dartmouth, i don't think that hixon would ave gotten the job at harvard even if the two coaches are equal. i think paulsen and hixon are two very good coaches but for slightly different reasons (x's and o's vs. recruiting - i think some fail to acknowledge that some do not like the more rural areas and a decision to go to amherst over williams may be based more on geography and not a coach). however, given that recruiting is not a major duty of a d1 head coach and that paulsen is younger than hixon, i think he looks like a slightly better canidate. say what you will about paulsen inheriting players like crotty,etc. to win a natinoal championship, but williams talent-wise had no business beating the teams that they did at the end of this season. i dont think hixon could have done the same with this year's williams team. i saw the tufts conference tourny game and after being handled by the jumbos in the regular season, paulsen came into the game with a plan (1-3-1 half court trap) to nullify the mismatches the jumbos had at basically every position. lastly, many ivy league schools struggle with the same athletics/academic debate that nescac schools do...taking nothing away from hixon's intelligence and an amherst education, but a Phi Beta Kappa member as a coach from the #1 liberal arts school in the nation sits better with ivy league faculty than say... a coach like Bob Huggins.

[fpc85]

Nescac 1,
good point about nescac teams only being eligable for 13 yrs now. admittingly, i forgot about those years. however, when i was at williams in the mid/late 90's, hixon's teams were not real contenders to williams until the end of my time there and not "nationally known", even if they weren't allowed to go to the ncaa's. i can't speak for his teams in the 80s but i THINK that his teams became very good in the late 90's - present. he may have had some strong years along the line but i don't think they were consistantly strong until somewhere in the late 90's....maybe i'm wrong though.

However, my original point (and question to fcp85) was that i don't think that hixon is a better canidate and considering that paulsen wasn't even given the job at a less "renowned" place like brown and dartmouth, i don't think that hixon would ave gotten the job at harvard even if the two coaches are equal. i think paulsen and hixon are two very good coaches but for slightly different reasons (x's and o's vs. recruiting - i think some fail to acknowledge that some do not like the more rural areas and a decision to go to amherst over williams may be based more on geography and not a coach). however, given that recruiting is not a major duty of a d1 head coach and that paulsen is younger than hixon, i think he looks like a slightly better canidate. say what you will about paulsen inheriting players like crotty,etc. to win a natinoal championship, but williams talent-wise had no business beating the teams that they did at the end of this season. i dont think hixon could have done the same with this year's williams team. i saw the tufts conference tourny game and after being handled by the jumbos in the regular season, paulsen came into the game with a plan (1-3-1 half court trap) to nullify the mismatches the jumbos had at basically every position. lastly, many ivy league schools struggle with the same athletics/academic debate that nescac schools do...taking nothing away from hixon's intelligence and an amherst education, but a Phi Beta Kappa member as a coach from the #1 liberal arts school in the nation sits better with ivy league faculty than say... a coach like Bob Huggins.

Nh, my statement about hixon being a better candidate speaks directly to his ability to communicate to parents, and prospective recruits. that's all. i think all other things are about equal most schools would take the younger guy. i wouldnt think harvard could have gone wrong with either guy. paulsen's team really improved this year and will be tough next year. i hope they continue to improve. it will only make the league better.

also, i wouldn't compare any coach in the NESCAC w/ huggins. seriously though i would hope that being part of the phi beta kappas has nothing to do with coaching and i would hope schools like harvard are aware of that.

[Baller10]

Supposedly Amherst is getting Ill Wesleyan and Brockport St  for the Ken Wright Invitational. I assume Amherst would schedule themselves against a weaker team in the first round. Regardless, nice to see them bring in a little competition.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Supposedly Amherst is getting Ill Wesleyan and Brockport St  for the Ken Wright Invitational. I assume Amherst would schedule themselves against a weaker team in the first round. Regardless, nice to see them bring in a little competition.

I love how a sarcastic comment became rumor and is now looking like solid fact.  THis should win some award.

[nescac1]

I guess Hixon reads this message board after all ...

Amherst / Brockport would be a great match-up, assuming Brockport's underclassmen all return (given the amount of transfers and such into and out of that program, that is no guarantee).  Would be a true size vs. quickness battle (not that Brockport is tiny or Amherst slow, but each has different strengths).  That would pit the pre-season number one (Amherst) against probably number four (other than Wash U. or Stevens Point, not sure who else could be higher-ranked than Brockport going into next season considering the guys Wooster and VWes lose.  Except maybe Guilford with the big guy coming back).  Illinois Wesleyan is not what they've been in the past (losing an all american player from only a so-so team) so that would be the heavy favorite for the winners' bracket match-up.  

Amherst could actually face some regular season competition next year.  Williams, Keene, and Brandeis should all be legit next year (all should be preseason top 20), so a few games against that group plus perhaps RIC again, along with traditional rivals Trinity and Tufts who always give the Herst trouble, plus a game against Brockport would quell any talk of a weak schedule.  

[fpc85]

yeah, that "weak" schedule really hurt the jeffs. this schedule debate gets old.

[nescac hoops]

[also, i wouldn't compare any coach in the NESCAC w/ huggins. seriously though i would hope that being part of the phi beta kappas has nothing to do with coaching and i would hope schools like harvard are aware of that.

that was obviously a joke. however, being Phi beta kappa certainly doesn't hurt when applying for any position. if you went up to 10 "anti-sports" professors/faculty memebers at williams/amherst/harvard/etc. they might like a guy like paulsen for his educational achievements and help to quell the academic vs. athletic debate. obviously, this isn't a real deciding factor but certainly doesn't hurt.

as for scheduling....obviously, amherst won a championship this year so it didn't hurt them. however, the real championship i wanted to see was steven's point and amherst. i'm not saying that steven's point would have beat the herst, but i think they would have given them a better game and the jeffs can thank wash u for "taking care of their dirty work". more so, i just think it's more interesting to see a good team play other good teams instead of 30 pt. blowouts. lastly, i think in the long run it would only help for more pool c bids for nescac/NE teams....if amherst takes down out of region powerhouses it helps to limit the "weak east region" debate when other nescac teams play close with amherst...or in some cases even beat them.

[formerbant10]

I know it was so long ago...but didn't the NESCAC get 3 teams in this past season?  That seems pretty solid to me....guess they don't really need to do much about the scheduling.

As fpc said, the schedule debate gets old.

[fpc85]

as for scheduling....obviously, amherst won a championship this year so it didn't hurt them. however, the real championship i wanted to see was steven's point and amherst. i'm not saying that steven's point would have beat the herst, but i think they would have given them a better game and the jeffs can thank wash u for "taking care of their dirty work". more so, i just think it's more interesting to see a good team play other good teams instead of 30 pt. blowouts. lastly, i think in the long run it would only help for more pool c bids for nescac/NE teams....if amherst takes down out of region powerhouses it helps to limit the "weak east region" debate when other nescac teams play close with amherst...or in some cases even beat them.
[/quote]
yeah it would have been nice to see the jeffs beat the pointers.  it would squash some of the midwest influence. obviously beating wooster didnt do it. the midwest may have more quality teams but the top teams in the NE can compete with any team in the country. i think the NE teams have proved that. much like the best student from a less prestigious being able to compete with a similar student at a more prestigious school in the classroom or workplace, if given the opportunity (dont ask me why i wrote that).