MBB: NESCAC

[Hugenerd]

Obviously, assignments can be due on any day but I'd think that the "workload" factor of an away 'CAC game is neutralized pretty well because they occur on the front side of a weekend.


I haven't looked at the rankings in a couple of years, but it looks like a bunch of 'CAC schools moved up on the list . Good job, 'CAC
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/liberal-arts-search

Just a slight point of clarification, most of the NESCAC schools are only ranked in the "liberal arts" rankings (the exception is Tufts), because they focus on undergrad education (they dont have a focus on research and graduate studies, **notice I said focus, this is US News' definition, this does not mean they have no reasearch or graduate programs**) and they almost exclusively grant liberal arts degrees.  All schools, except for Tufts, are not ranked in the other 3 categories: "National Universities," "Business Programs," and "Engineering Programs."  Top research universities, on the other hand, can be ranked highly in all of the other 3 categories.  I am not trying to take anything away from the liberal arts schools, or start an argument about the rigors of a liberal arts education vs. a math, science, or engineering education, but I just wanted to point out that it is hard to compare these very different types of universities. 

My point is, however, when you say "the rankings" when referring to the liberal arts rankings, it is a bit misleading.

For example, when US News ranked the top Universities in the world (from www.topuniversities.com), there were no liberal arts schools ranked in the top 200 (although they are at a large disadvantage because there are research based critieria, as well as peer and employer review factors, therefore I do not know if the liberal arts schools were not considered at all or they were at such a large disadvantage because of lack of research that they didnt make the list).

[met_fan]

Obviously, assignments can be due on any day but I'd think that the "workload" factor of an away 'CAC game is neutralized pretty well because they occur on the front side of a weekend.


I haven't looked at the rankings in a couple of years, but it looks like a bunch of 'CAC schools moved up on the list . Good job, 'CAC
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/liberal-arts-search

Just a slight point of clarification, most of the NESCAC schools are only ranked in the "liberal arts" rankings (the exception is Tufts), because they focus on undergrad education (they dont have a focus on research and graduate studies, **notice I said focus, this is US News' definition, this does not mean they have no reasearch or graduate programs**) and they almost exclusively grant liberal arts degrees.  All schools, except for Tufts, are not ranked in the other 3 categories: "National Universities," "Business Programs," and "Engineering Programs."  Top research universities, on the other hand, can be ranked highly in all of the other 3 categories.  I am not trying to take anything away from the liberal arts schools, or start an argument about the rigors of a liberal arts education vs. a math, science, or engineering education, but I just wanted to point out that it is hard to compare these very different types of universities. 

My point is, however, when you say "the rankings" when referring to the liberal arts rankings, it is a bit misleading.

For example, when US News ranked the top Universities in the world (from www.topuniversities.com), there were no liberal arts schools ranked in the top 200 (although they are at a large disadvantage because there are research based critieria, as well as peer and employer review factors, therefore I do not know if the liberal arts schools were not considered at all or they were at such a large disadvantage because of lack of research that they didnt make the list).

Yes, but I would say most D-III schools, at least in this part of the country, would be ranked as liberal arts schools.  Obviously, there are exceptions like Tufts, U of Roch., MIT, etc., but it is often the case that D-I schools are universities and D-III schools are liberal arts colleges.  Regardless, this conversation is veering further off topic.

[speedy]

. . .
My point is, however, when you say "the rankings" when referring to the liberal arts rankings, it is a bit misleading.

For example, when US News ranked the top Universities in the world (from www.topuniversities.com), there were no liberal arts schools ranked in the top 200 (although they are at a large disadvantage because there are research based critieria, as well as peer and employer review factors, therefore I do not know if the liberal arts schools were not considered at all or they were at such a large disadvantage because of lack of research that they didnt make the list).

USNWR ranks colleges and universities only within categories and does not include any overall ranking the compares LACs and research universities. So LACs do not make the top list of universities because they are not considered to be universities for USNWR's ranking purposes. You can't use USNWR's rankings to, for example, compare Amherst and Harvard.

[ac08]

My point is, however, when you say "the rankings" when referring to the liberal arts rankings, it is a bit misleading.

Sorry. I only meant that the 'CAC schools moved up in the rankings and ratings of liberal arts colleges. Nothing more.

In other news, PVC MVP Baskauskas had a career high of 30 pts (while taking/making only 2 3-pointers) in the 'Herst's win over Westfield St.  First year, Barise, was named to the All-Tourney team.

[Hugenerd]

Obviously, assignments can be due on any day but I'd think that the "workload" factor of an away 'CAC game is neutralized pretty well because they occur on the front side of a weekend.


I haven't looked at the rankings in a couple of years, but it looks like a bunch of 'CAC schools moved up on the list . Good job, 'CAC
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/college/liberal-arts-search

Just a slight point of clarification, most of the NESCAC schools are only ranked in the "liberal arts" rankings (the exception is Tufts), because they focus on undergrad education (they dont have a focus on research and graduate studies, **notice I said focus, this is US News' definition, this does not mean they have no reasearch or graduate programs**) and they almost exclusively grant liberal arts degrees.  All schools, except for Tufts, are not ranked in the other 3 categories: "National Universities," "Business Programs," and "Engineering Programs."  Top research universities, on the other hand, can be ranked highly in all of the other 3 categories.  I am not trying to take anything away from the liberal arts schools, or start an argument about the rigors of a liberal arts education vs. a math, science, or engineering education, but I just wanted to point out that it is hard to compare these very different types of universities. 

My point is, however, when you say "the rankings" when referring to the liberal arts rankings, it is a bit misleading.

For example, when US News ranked the top Universities in the world (from www.topuniversities.com), there were no liberal arts schools ranked in the top 200 (although they are at a large disadvantage because there are research based critieria, as well as peer and employer review factors, therefore I do not know if the liberal arts schools were not considered at all or they were at such a large disadvantage because of lack of research that they didnt make the list).

Yes, but I would say most D-III schools, at least in this part of the country, would be ranked as liberal arts schools.  Obviously, there are exceptions like Tufts, U of Roch., MIT, etc., but it is often the case that D-I schools are universities and D-III schools are liberal arts colleges.  Regardless, this conversation is veering further off topic.

I would disagree with that generality.  The entire UAA is made up of non-liberal arts schools, which includes some of the top d3 basketball teams in the country.  Also, 5 of the top 15 "national universities" are d3 schools (also 14 of top 50, although 8 of those 14 are the UAA schools).  I think in general, liberal arts schools and d3 schools both tend towards smaller campuses, which is why we see a large number of d3s that are liberal arts schools, but I wouldnt make any large generalizations, because about 1/3-1/4 of the top "national" universities are d3 schools.

[Hugenerd]

. . .
My point is, however, when you say "the rankings" when referring to the liberal arts rankings, it is a bit misleading.

For example, when US News ranked the top Universities in the world (from www.topuniversities.com), there were no liberal arts schools ranked in the top 200 (although they are at a large disadvantage because there are research based critieria, as well as peer and employer review factors, therefore I do not know if the liberal arts schools were not considered at all or they were at such a large disadvantage because of lack of research that they didnt make the list).

USNWR ranks colleges and universities only within categories and does not include any overall ranking the compares LACs and research universities. So LACs do not make the top list of universities because they are not considered to be universities for USNWR's ranking purposes. You can't use USNWR's rankings to, for example, compare Amherst and Harvard.

I am familiar with the USNWR rankings, I was talking about a seperate set of rankings that ranks the top universities in the world (USNWR only ranks US).  I am dropping the subject now, so that we dont further veer off topic, as someone pointed out.  Needless to say, the top universities in any discipline and the more demanding majors will require more of students, compared to schools that give more concessions to athletics or are not traditionally known for their academic work load and rigor.

[speedy]

I am familiar with the USNWR rankings, I was talking about a seperate set of rankings that ranks the top universities in the world (USNWR only ranks US).  I am dropping the subject now, so that we dont further veer off topic, as someone pointed out.  Needless to say, the top universities in any discipline and the more demanding majors will require more of students, compared to schools that give more concessions to athletics or are not traditionally known for their academic work load and rigor.

OK - sorry - I didn't read your link closely enough. But now I have and see that the listing of top universities is self-selected - that is to say a school is rated only if it submits the requested data to the organization.  Tufts is actually on the list as is Brandeis University and Smith College (in the 201-500 category). I would guess that the other LACs did not submit data . .

[walzy31]

There are other conferences with academic pressures similar to NESCAC. 
The Centennial Conference is an example.   Schools like Haverford, Swarthmore, Johns Hopkins, Ursinus, Franklin & Marshall,  Muhlenberg, Dickinson, Gettysburg etc are not exactly chopped liver.

Who is this Ursinus? I hadn't heard of the school until last March when they appeared in Salem, and now they are getting tossed around in the same sentences as Swarthmore and Johns Hopkins. Am I missing something?

Eyeballing current records and remaining non-conference schedules, I predict Amherst, Bowdoin, and Middlebury to put together records that will impress the NCAA enough to get them into the tourney in March. Unless a 4th team wins the conference tourney, I don't see more than three teams from the NESCAC getting in.

In other news, Amherst is quietly on its way to that 13-0 record heading into the Brandeis game (no offense Emmanuel, Cal Tech, Pomona, Wes x2, Williams, Conn and Babson).

[Hugenerd]

There are other conferences with academic pressures similar to NESCAC. 
The Centennial Conference is an example.   Schools like Haverford, Swarthmore, Johns Hopkins, Ursinus, Franklin & Marshall,  Muhlenberg, Dickinson, Gettysburg etc are not exactly chopped liver.

Who is this Ursinus? I hadn't heard of the school until last March when they appeared in Salem, and now they are getting tossed around in the same sentences as Swarthmore and Johns Hopkins. Am I missing something?

Eyeballing current records and remaining non-conference schedules, I predict Amherst, Bowdoin, and Middlebury to put together records that will impress the NCAA enough to get them into the tourney in March. Unless a 4th team wins the conference tourney, I don't see more than three teams from the NESCAC getting in.

In other news, Amherst is quietly on its way to that 13-0 record heading into the Brandeis game (no offense Emmanuel, Cal Tech, Pomona, Wes x2, Williams, Conn and Babson).

I think this is pretty typical.  Everybody thinks their school (or schools) are tougher than other people think and blah blah blah.  There is no way of settling this agrument.  The players are going to deal with that they have to deal with and that is going to be different for every student in the country (depending on all types of factors like their major, the classes they are taking, how hard they work, how smart they are, whether they have other responsibilities, etc.). So irrespective of all these factors, I think it is best if we just judge the players and their respective teams for what they do on the court and not try to say (note intended humor): "Wowie Zowie, Amherst (or insert other team) is undefeated and they read books and write novels before games, that is so much more spectacular than if they were undefeated and were just listening to music for a couple hours."  In the past I have thought of this argument and I have come to the conclusion that any argument along these lines is futile because nobody cares if you had to write a paper the night before once the ball is thrown up in the air.  I admire and congratulate players who excel in the classroom as well as on the court, but the bottom line is that you still have to produce on the court regardless of everything else.

[nescac1]

Walzy, wow, you are pretty confident just banking on a win on the road against a Williams team that has gone 5-2 (with both losses being very close and one being to a strong Ursinus squad) without its star center, who is projected to be back before the Amherst game.  Ephs have been very banged up (not only Geoghegan out, but three key rotation guys -- Dodson, Whittington, Rubin -- have each missed at least one game and been limited for several others), but if they can finally get healthy with another month to learn Maker's system, they shouldn't be considered a gimme on anyone's schedule, even if Amherst would be favored. 

If you don't believe me, just ask Senator Frost, who I am sure will be able to provide multiple reasons why Amherst's current team is terrible despite blowing out every team they've faced over the last few weeks, several of whom were actually decent opponents . 

Ephoops, heard nothing at all about Maker's recruiting.  Recruiting will always be a challenge given that the standards for athletic recruits are substantially more stringent than they were in the Sheehy era, which happens to be the last era in which Williams was able to recruit an All-American, but Paulsen did bring in some strong talent the last few years (including one guy that ended up not attending after Paulsen quit).  I'd be curious to hear how it is going as well. 

Bowdoin off to a strong start but I'd say their record is a little deceptive.  They've only played two road games, and lost to the only credible opponent they've faced on the road.  They have a stretch of 7/8 on the road upcoming, if they lose 2 or less during that stretch, they will indeed be sitting pretty. 

Still surprised at Trinity's record -- they lost a ton of talent but seemed to have plenty left on hand and a strong recruiting class, anyone who has seen them know the scoop? 

[ILive4This]

So the North East Region Posters' Poll is back, if you are interested in participating, which clearly you are, please submit your polls to either my email or my message box here by 9pm mondays (so for this week tonight, sorry for the short notice).

Thanks

[BankShotCharlie]

In other news, PVC MVP Baskauskas had a career high of 30 pts (while taking/making only 2 3-pointers) in the 'Herst's win over Westfield St.  First year, Barise, was named to the All-Tourney team.

Did anybody at the Amherst vs. Westfield St. game who could explain how Baskauskas scored 30?  He only had 4 Free Throws and 1 Offensive Rebound to go along with his 2 3 pointers.  Since I probably will not get a chance to see them play this year, I'm just curious how Basko lit them up so bad? 

Also, can somebody explain why Taylor Barise was named to the All-Tourney team over Steve Wheeler?  Don't get me wrong, I think its pretty neat to give the honor to a freshman who scores 15 in one of the games, but looking at the numbers of Wheeler and Barise from this weekend tells a whole different story.  Is there some sort of x-factor that I'm just missing?

Vs. Westfield State   FG      3Pt    FT    OR D TOT   PTS A TO B S  MIN
Steven Wheeler...... 4-10   4-9    4-4    0  6  6       16  2  2  0  2  25
Taylor Barrise......    1-3    0-2      0-0    0  2  2       2  1   0   0  0  12

Vs. Springfield
Steven Wheeler......5-8    5-6    1-2      0  1  1       16  0  1    0  0  17
Taylor Barrise......    4-6    4-6    3-3      3  0  3       15  0  1    0  0  14

[BankShotCharlie]

(Sorry, still new to this thing.  The first 2 lines were from Ac08)

Did anybody at the Amherst vs. Westfield St. game who could explain how Baskauskas scored 30?  He only had 4 Free Throws and 1 Offensive Rebound to go along with his 2 3 pointers.  Since I probably will not get a chance to see them play this year, I'm just curious how Basko lit them up so bad?

Also, can somebody explain why Taylor Barise was named to the All-Tourney team over Steve Wheeler?  Don't get me wrong, I think its pretty neat to give the honor to a freshman who scores 15 in one of the games, but looking at the numbers of Wheeler and Barise from this weekend tells a whole different story.  Is there some sort of x-factor that I'm just missing?

Vs. Westfield State   FG      3Pt    FT    OR D TOT   PTS A TO B S  MIN
Steven Wheeler...... 4-10   4-9    4-4    0  6  6       16  2  2  0  2  25
Taylor Barrise......    1-3    0-2      0-0    0  2  2       2  1   0   0  0  12

Vs. Springfield
Steven Wheeler......5-8    5-6    1-2      0  1  1       16  0  1    0  0  17
Taylor Barrise......    4-6    4-6    3-3      3  0  3       15  0  1    0  0  14

[dman]

charlie.
nice work with the stats, but maybe you should start with the fundamentals, like checking your facts before you post....

[ac08]

If you don't believe me, just ask Senator Frost, who I am sure will be able to provide multiple reasons why Amherst's current team is terrible despite blowing out every team they've faced over the last few weeks, several of whom were actually decent opponents . 

Amherst will only win if:

they shoot better than 66% of their three's and IF!!Glenn Wong doesn't miss

and

The frosh are coming along but they're still frosh regardless of potential.