MBB: NESCAC

[walzy31]

NESCAC Semi-Final Lines:

Middlebury -9.5
Vs.
Bowdoin
O/U: 126.0
Prop: O/U Ben Rudin's Points: 24.5
Prop: Will Andrew Locke, getting a 0.5 block handicap, have more blocks himself than the Bowdoin team put together? Yes -125; No -115

Amherst -8.5
Vs. (@ Middlebury)
Williams
O/U: 154.5
Prop: O/U Amherst 3Pt FGA: 19.5
Prop: Will James Wang outscore Glenn Wong by more than 18.5 points? Yes +100; No -120

[Hugenerd]

I am not sure Amherst would be out even with a loss ... the latest Pool C has them at number 10 or something like that so a lot of upsets would have to happen to knock Amherst out of the tourney.  Whatever the tourney implications, you can believe that Williams could not be more pumped for a chance to avenge some of its recent losses to Amherst, and of course it's without a doubt win or go home for the Ephs.  Amherst I'm sure is equally pumped for a chance to avenge the NESCAC tourney loss to Williams as well as the loss from two weeks ago.  Both teams seem to be pretty healthy, only question mark is Geoghegan, and both are playing well.  Should be a war.   I think the quiet may be because the rivalry speaks for itself -- notwithstanding my comments above, this game needs no additional hype in any setting, let alone in a rubber-match, do-or-die, NESCAC tourney semifinal ... in any event, let's go Ephs!

(As for the Trinity story, some sour grapes there from the Ivy coaches -- I mean, they have a HUGE advantage in recruiting considering the only US universities anyone knows abroad are Harvard, Yale and Princeton and maybe a few other ivies -- there is no way Trinity can draw from the same pool of international players without leveling the playing field a little, and Assiante has to get mad props for building a dynasty from scratch, at a school previously unknown to his recruiting targets)

You have to keep in mind two things:  their #10 ranking by pabegg is not official by any account (he says himself that his projections are plus/minus 3 or 4) and also that that rankings does not include another loss.  They could even drop to below Brandeis if they lose again, because of the head to head criteria the NCAA uses that is not taken into account by pabegg.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I am not sure Amherst would be out even with a loss ... the latest Pool C has them at number 10 or something like that so a lot of upsets would have to happen to knock Amherst out of the tourney.  Whatever the tourney implications, you can believe that Williams could not be more pumped for a chance to avenge some of its recent losses to Amherst, and of course it's without a doubt win or go home for the Ephs.  Amherst I'm sure is equally pumped for a chance to avenge the NESCAC tourney loss to Williams as well as the loss from two weeks ago.  Both teams seem to be pretty healthy, only question mark is Geoghegan, and both are playing well.  Should be a war.   I think the quiet may be because the rivalry speaks for itself -- notwithstanding my comments above, this game needs no additional hype in any setting, let alone in a rubber-match, do-or-die, NESCAC tourney semifinal ... in any event, let's go Ephs!

(As for the Trinity story, some sour grapes there from the Ivy coaches -- I mean, they have a HUGE advantage in recruiting considering the only US universities anyone knows abroad are Harvard, Yale and Princeton and maybe a few other ivies -- there is no way Trinity can draw from the same pool of international players without leveling the playing field a little, and Assiante has to get mad props for building a dynasty from scratch, at a school previously unknown to his recruiting targets)

You have to keep in mind two things:  their #10 ranking by pabegg is not official by any account (he says himself that his projections are plus/minus 3 or 4) and also that that rankings does not include another loss.  They could even drop to below Brandeis if they lose again, because of the head to head criteria the NCAA uses that is not taken into account by pabegg.

With the exception of UAA teams, bear in mind that (by definition) EVERY pool C candidate will have another loss (otherwise they'd be pool A).  The relative standings will not be greatly affected (much more affected by how many 'presumed' A's end up competing for C's).

[Hugenerd]

Unfortunately, though, for everyone else, there are 3 UAA teams hanging around that bubble.  CMU is 15 in the pabegg projectiosn (and they have the opportunity to knock Rochester off the bubble next weekend) and Brandeis is ranked #10 in the Northeast, which is relevant for Amhert's hopes.  UNE has already lost (#9) and if Amherst goes down again, it will be a tough decision for the committee which order to rank Amherst and Brandeis.  A whole bunch of Brandeis' losses are against regionally ranked opponents (2 to WashU, 1 to Rochester, 1 to WPI, and UMD) and they have the head to head with Amherst along with another win against a top NE team in RIC.  Should be interesting to see what happens.

[Hugenerd]

Rankings up, Middlebury drops to 14 and Amherst up to 21.  In the region, Elms is 11, RIC 17, UMD 18, and WPI 24, Salem State getting a single vote.

[BornBalla]

Hey, I think Elms should be at #12. they have less points than Capitol. Somehow the system made a mistake? Elms has 353 & Capitol has 381

[nescac1]

I realize Walzy has a pretty good history with his spreads; but not so sure on the prop bets.  James Wang is a fun player, but I think he has scored over 18.5 points once, maybe twice, in his entire CAREER (and his career high came against Tufts, which isn't exactly known for tough D) ... if Wong makes a few shots, say five points, Wang will have to score 24, something he hasn't come within even a few points of ... I'll take the under on that one.  I am also VERY confident that if Wang outscores Wong (by the way, I do like the Wang vs. Wong deal you have going on this one, well played) by 18.5 points, there is no way in hell Williams would ALSO lose by at least 9. 

As for your Williams vs. Amherst spread, I'll take the under.  Williams did just beat Amherst by double digits, at Amherst ... without Wheeler yes and that makes a big difference, but still, that would be a 20 point swing in two weeks.  If Geoghegan plays and is close to 100 percent (may be doubtful?) I'd take Williams outright.  Same with Midd-Bowdoin.  Midd is better, but Bowdoin seems to be hot at the right time, sort of like Williams in '07.

[Hugenerd]

Hey, I think Elms should be at #12. they have less points than Capitol. Somehow the system made a mistake? Elms has 353 & Capitol has 381

You are right, I checked the numbers and either they have the votes received inverted or the two lines were switched incorrectly.  (The total number of votes adds up to 8125, which is correct, for a 25 person poll)

[walzy31]

I realize Walzy has a pretty good history with his spreads; but not so sure on the prop bets.  James Wang is a fun player, but I think he has scored over 18.5 points once, maybe twice, in his entire CAREER (and his career high came against Tufts, which isn't exactly known for tough D) ... if Wong makes a few shots, say five points, Wang will have to score 24, something he hasn't come within even a few points of ... I'll take the under on that one.  I am also VERY confident that if Wang outscores Wong (by the way, I do like the Wang vs. Wong deal you have going on this one, well played) by 18.5 points, there is no way in hell Williams would ALSO lose by at least 9. 

As for your Williams vs. Amherst spread, I'll take the under.  Williams did just beat Amherst by double digits, at Amherst ... without Wheeler yes and that makes a big difference, but still, that would be a 20 point swing in two weeks.  If Geoghegan plays and is close to 100 percent (may be doubtful?) I'd take Williams outright.  Same with Midd-Bowdoin.  Midd is better, but Bowdoin seems to be hot at the right time, sort of like Williams in '07.

I thought Texas would easily cover the spread against Ohio State and was wrong. Point being, the oddsmaker knows what he is doing.

I like your reasoning behind your picks and can only hope that for every NESCAC1 who takes the underdog (or as you call it, the "under") in both of Saturday's games, I would hope there is an Old Guy or LeFrakenstein who would take the favorites given the lines and their personal beliefs.

As for Wang/Wong.:
Vegas sees Wang as a recent centerpiece in the Williams office who is going to have a lot of green on Saturday. You may be right on the fact that if he scores 20 Williams will cover the spread...then again, you might be wrong ie. If the Steelers are going to win the Superbowl, it will be a low scoring affair "Under & Steelers," but if the Cardinals win it will be high scoring "Over & Cards." Therein lies the beauty of sports betting.

Plus a projected final score of Amherst winning 82-73, leaves 73 points needing recording by the choir disciples wearing purple and gold. I've got Wang with 21.5 of those 73 and Wong with 3 of the 82.

Pat Coleman would of course appreciate me reminding the board participants and readers that no acutal gambling occurs on this websiteand Walzy's lines are all for fun and entertainment purposes.

I almost forgot. I got a text message on Saturday afternoon from a friend watching the Bates/Williams game webcast. It said, "It's a shame you're not putting together the crazy team...Jimmy O'Keefe is hands down First Team All-Crazy. He just kicked the bench during a timeout and threw his water cup three rows back...and he still looks like a pirate."

[walzy31]

I'd take all the unders, both spreads and prop bets, on those spreads.  Especially the tech foul one -- how many NESCAC games feature technical fouls?  I can't imagine it is that many ...

And since you are missing a prop bet for Williams v. Bates, how many more 3's will Williams ATTEMPT than Bates:  8.0

Although I think the person benhind the cage entering in the bets would want some clarification before handing you a ticket so as to not enter in any incorrect wagers , I believe you would have gone 1-3 on the "unders," picked correctly that there would be no Technical Foul in the Bowdoin/Colby game, and the rest of your picks were incoherent.

I am sure there would be some Amherst fans in Vermont who would give the Ephs the 8.5...

[nescac1]

I need to bone up on my gambling terminology -- but I do believe 2/4 'dogs covered last time (Bowdoin obviously, and Bates ... ).   

Dang, I somehow missed the O'Keefe outburst Saturday ... Dodson may be trying to play his way off the all-crazy team as he failed Saturday to launch one of his patented "25 foot fadeaway 3's with a man in his face."  (To be fair, somehow, he still manages to make 40 percent of his 3's thanks to the open ones he usually nails ...). 

Correction: one of Blake Curry's patented 3's ...

[CCsalive]

You dorks are finally starting to write with some passion! I actually laughed a little. Normally I have to re-read my own posts for a little snicker.

We need some Bowdoin chatter!
Serious question: Who would win, a polar bear or a panther? Probably a polar bear, right?

[Bucket]

Serious question: Who would win, a polar bear or a panther? Probably a polar bear, right?

Polar bears are the fiercer creature, no doubt, but a Panther has quicks! The Polar Bear would have to catch the Panther first.

I know one thing, though: Ephraim Williams and Jeffrey Amherst wouldn't stand a chance against either. 

[walzy31]

You dorks are finally starting to write with some passion! I actually laughed a little. Normally I have to re-read my own posts for a little snicker.

We need some Bowdoin chatter!
Serious question: Who would win, a polar bear or a panther? Probably a polar bear, right?

I would take the Polar Bear over the Panther in a cage match, the Panther over the Polar Bear in a 100 Meter Dash, and Williams and Amherst if weapons were allowed in either scenario.

Nescac1, you would have gone 2-2 on taking the dogs last weekend, not 1-3 as I previously stated.

[nescac1]

The Williams mascot is a purple cow.  Nonethless, not sure it could take down any other NESCAC mascot (pretty sad in a league of pretty unintimidating mascots), perhaps a bantam (that is some sort of bird, right?).  As for Lord Jeff, he'd just infect 'em with smallpox, you wouldn't stand a chance.