MBB: NESCAC

[Pat Coleman]

I saw that Midd is STILL not in the Top 25.  Ridiculous, what do they have to do??

They have to play someone. Nothing has really changed since the last time I posted this, but here, once again, is Middlebury's resume. Just haven't played anyone yet. (That changes this week.)

I mean, really, this is brutally bad:


Nov. 15   3:00 PM   Mitchell (1-6) @ Biddeford, Maine •   W, 101-71
Nov. 16   2:00 PM   at University of New England (2-7) •   W, 69-67
Nov. 22   2:00 PM   Medgar Evers (1-10) @ Bridgewater, Mass. •   W, 99-45
Nov. 23   2:00 PM   at Clark (5-6) @ Bridgewater, Mass. •   W, 72-67
Nov. 30   2:00 PM   RPI (3-8) •   W, 87-78
Dec. 2   7:00 PM   at St. Joseph's (Vt.) (1-4 vs. D3)   W, 90-64
Dec. 6   4:15 PM   Skidmore (5-5) •   W, 57-56
Jan. 2   3:00 PM   Salve Regina (3-7) •   W, 94-66
Jan. 6   5:30 PM   at Plattsburgh State (6-2) •   
Jan. 9   7:00 PM   at Bates (8-2) * •   
Jan. 11   2:00 PM   at Tufts (3-6) * •

We saw Clark at the D3hoops.com Classic and they might struggle to finish fifth in the NEWMAC. For that or Skidmore to be the best win so far speaks volumes.

[grabtherim]

I saw that Midd is STILL not in the Top 25.  Ridiculous, what do they have to do??

They have to play someone. Nothing has really changed since the last time I posted this, but here, once again, is Middlebury's resume. Just haven't played anyone yet. (That changes this week.)

I mean, really, this is brutally bad:


Nov. 15   3:00 PM   Mitchell (1-6) @ Biddeford, Maine •   W, 101-71
Nov. 16   2:00 PM   at University of New England (2-7) •   W, 69-67
Nov. 22   2:00 PM   Medgar Evers (1-10) @ Bridgewater, Mass. •   W, 99-45
Nov. 23   2:00 PM   at Clark (5-6) @ Bridgewater, Mass. •   W, 72-67
Nov. 30   2:00 PM   RPI (3-8) •   W, 87-78
Dec. 2   7:00 PM   at St. Joseph's (Vt.) (1-4 vs. D3)   W, 90-64
Dec. 6   4:15 PM   Skidmore (5-5) •   W, 57-56
Jan. 2   3:00 PM   Salve Regina (3-7) •   W, 94-66
Jan. 6   5:30 PM   at Plattsburgh State (6-2) •   
Jan. 9   7:00 PM   at Bates (8-2) * •   
Jan. 11   2:00 PM   at Tufts (3-6) * •

We saw Clark at the D3hoops.com Classic and they might struggle to finish fifth in the NEWMAC. For that or Skidmore to be the best win so far speaks volumes.

I happen to agree that Midd needs to win against better teams to be a legit Top 25 team.  In fact I think this Top 25 stuff is sort of silly before conference play.  That said it strikes me if you call Midd's schedule "brutally bad" with opponents having a .360 winning percentage, why is Amherst sitting at #18 with two losses and an opponents win percentage of .428, skewed by Brandeis gaudy 10-1 record?  The Judges are the only legit team record wise the LJs have played (the rest have 4 or more losses) and they lost to them at home.  Take the Brandeis record out of the equation and Amherst opponents are at .362!  I believe the jury is still out on the Panthers with lots of questions to be answered, but feel the same about the LJs who seem to be getting more than the benefit of the doubt with substantially similar credentials.  Note to the voters: Toomey plays in Spain now, not Lefrak.   

[nescac1]

Pat, I'm not saying they should be a top 10 team.  But undefeated is undefeated, and you can only play the teams on your schedule, and I think beating a medicore team counts for a lot more than a loss to even a good team.  You also have to look at how well they have played in most games, the general traditional strength of the program, and the talent level, and I think they should be penalized for their schedule, but not so much that they aren't somewhere in the bottom 10 of the top 25.   

I'd certainly take their resume over Illinois Wesleyan's, which is undoubtedly only receiving votes because of the name on the jersey and the history of success (which are points that, if relevant, should help Midd's case just as much).  Yes, two of IWU's losses are to elite teams, but one of them was by quite a large margin, so it is fair to count that against them.  They've lost to one other good and one other mediocre team.  They've beaten no one in the top 25 -- their wins are hardly against a murderer's row -- and have only one win vs. a really good team (Chicago).  Granted, that is one more win than Midd has, but Midd also has zero losses, vs. four for IWU.  I am pretty confident that if some anonymous team from a non-power-league had IWU's resume, they would not even be receiving Top 25 votes.  So if IWU gets the benefit of the doubt because they are IWU (and I know they made the Final Four just last year, but look at the guys they lost ot graduation!), shouldn't MIdd, who has yet to lose, also get the benefit of the doubt??

IWU:

L to 7-5 Benedictine
W vs. 7-4 Buena Vista
W vs. 1-10 Illinois College
W vs. 6-6 Milwaukee Engineering
W vs. 5-6 Austin
W vs. 5-7 Centennary
W vs. 8-3 Chicago
18 point L vs. number 1 Wash U.
W vs. 5-5 Loras
W vs. 4-5 Nazareth
L vs. 7-2 Cal Lutheran
L vs. 11-1 North Central

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Pat, I'm not saying they should be a top 10 team.  But undefeated is undefeated, and you can only play the teams on your schedule, and I think beating a medicore team counts for a lot more than a loss to even a good team.  You also have to look at how well they have played in most games, the general traditional strength of the program, and the talent level, and I think they should be penalized for their schedule, but not so much that they aren't somewhere in the bottom 10 of the top 25.   

I'd certainly take their resume over Illinois Wesleyan's, which is undoubtedly only receiving votes because of the name on the jersey and the history of success (which are points that, if relevant, should help Midd's case just as much).  Yes, two of IWU's losses are to elite teams, but one of them was by quite a large margin, so it is fair to count that against them.  They've lost to one other good and one other mediocre team.  They've beaten no one in the top 25 -- their wins are hardly against a murderer's row -- and have only one win vs. a really good team (Chicago).  Granted, that is one more win than Midd has, but Midd also has zero losses, vs. four for IWU.  I am pretty confident that if some anonymous team from a non-power-league had IWU's resume, they would not even be receiving Top 25 votes.  So if IWU gets the benefit of the doubt because they are IWU (and I know they made the Final Four just last year, but look at the guys they lost ot graduation!), shouldn't MIdd, who has yet to lose, also get the benefit of the doubt??

IWU:

L to 7-5 Benedictine
W vs. 7-4 Buena Vista
W vs. 1-10 Illinois College
W vs. 6-6 Milwaukee Engineering
W vs. 5-6 Austin
W vs. 5-7 Centennary
W vs. 8-3 Chicago
18 point L vs. number 1 Wash U.
W vs. 5-5 Loras
W vs. 4-5 Nazareth
L vs. 7-2 Cal Lutheran
L vs. 11-1 North Central

Not trying to compare apples and oranges, but... Buena Vista picked to win the IIAC (which is far tougher than in years past), they did beat Chicago (as you pointed out), most of those teams are at or just below .500, etc.

And the argument made by another that "you play your schedule" only holds water when it comes to conference play. Coaches schedule and if you schedule what are perenially sub-par teams, you aren't going to get Top 25 attention. Voters understand that you have a gaudy record because you played an easy schedule and thus you aren't going to get votes. We can easily compare other schools out there who have the same schedule and notice they aren't in the Top 25: Dubuque, Elmhurst, etc. In fact, those teams are in the same boat as Middlebury: getting votes, just not enough for the Top 25.

As everyone as said... big week for Middlebury ahead. Get through this unscathed and they probably jump into the Top 25.

[AmherstStudent05]

I think it is usually very difficult to make informed judgments about how a school sets up its schedule.  There are simply so many factors at play: money, logistics, mutual consent, inherited rivalries, and bad luck (opponents turning out to be either much better or much worse than could have reasonably been anticipated at the outset of the season).

Still, if Coach Brown indeed structured his schedule this year with the goal of playing a relatively easy out of conference lineup, I could hardly fault him based on what happened last year.

Last year, of course, Midd changed things up and played a very challenging schedule (though, interestingly, still didn't play many OOC games against tough opponents in Region).  Of course, Midd struggled last year and was unable to secure an NCAA bid.

Meanwhile, Bowdoin played what I think has to be described as a pretty easy OOC slate last year (notwithstanding a great win over Babson).  Bowdoin got a Pool C bid despite the fact that (a) Midd beat Bowdoin head to head, (b) Midd finished higher than Bowdoin in the NESCAC regular season standings (due to that head to head win, admittedly), and (c) advanced further in the NESCAC Tournament.

I don't think Midd was robbed last year of a Pool C selection.  They had a bad loss to Bates and they had plenty of opportunities to secure that signature win that could have put them over the top (two significant halftime leads over Williams and a halftime lead over Amherst at LeFrak).  For whatever reason, the Panthers just couldn't get the job done last year.  However, I have little doubt in my mind that if they play Bowdoin's OOC schedule last year, they would have had a much better chance of making the Dance.  Accordingly, I could not blame Coach Brown at all for taking note and adjusting his schedule accordingly (if that is in fact what he has done).

Still, I agree with other posters.  This should all sort itself out in time.  This week being a very strong start.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I have no problem with a coach who schedules a bit easier to give his team confidence and get his team rolling. I have seen it happen often and usually it is a good tactic (unless used year after year after year). I am sure Coach Brown looked for a bit of an easier schedule with a young team to get them off the ground and I can appreciate that idea. The problem comes in when people see an undefeated record against said schedule and automatically assume that because a team is undefeated they should be in the Top 25. Let them prove themselves (as any coach would say) and things will work themselves out. Believe it or not... the Top 25 is not what coaches are aiming for when they schedule.

[grabtherim]

I have no problem with a coach who schedules a bit easier to give his team confidence and get his team rolling. I have seen it happen often and usually it is a good tactic (unless used year after year after year). I am sure Coach Brown looked for a bit of an easier schedule with a young team to get them off the ground and I can appreciate that idea. The problem comes in when people see an undefeated record against said schedule and automatically assume that because a team is undefeated they should be in the Top 25. Let them prove themselves (as any coach would say) and things will work themselves out. Believe it or not... the Top 25 is not what coaches are aiming for when they schedule.

All valid points, and we should know alot more in the next week.  That said, just curious if  based on all the facts, do you think Amherst is deserving at this point of being at #18?  If so, why?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I guess I do, I put them #19 on my ballot: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2015/01/06/daves-top-25-ballot/

"The Lord Jeffs are far younger than I kept reminding myself. Not sure how I ever convinced myself they should have been as high as number two – though, I know I kept telling myself how good a coach Dave Hixon is an how much he gets out of his players. The problem is, Aaron Toomey was just that good and it at least got me spoiled into thinking everyone else was that good, too. Amherst is a very good team with plenty of talent to watch out for, but they are not the same team as they have been the last three or so years. I saw them lose a 16-point second half lead and need a buzzer beating three just to tie Goucher (2-9) and force overtime. They had barely survived against a tough Drew squad before that. And we all remember what happened in their final two home games before the holiday break. Amherst may be the team to beat in the NESCAC, but despite two wins I moved them down because they are not as great a team as I was giving them credit."

[madzillagd]

The part that I find funny though Dave is Midd is playing the same level of opponents as when they were in the Top 5 team a few years ago.  Back then that weak schedule didn't hold them back and they were up near the top despite not having any signature wins.  Now they get back to that weak schedule and it's being held against them.  I just don't see how you can have it both ways.  Either they shouldn't have been a Top 5 team a few years ago with a weak schedule or they should be ranked somewhere now.  Flip flopping on what matters just weakens the value of having a poll.  Pick one way of ranking schedule vs record and stick to it.  I don't care which way people prefer to do it, as long as they stay consistent with it. 

[gordonmann]

You guys are missing the most important point.

Others receiving votes: Chapman 76; St. Olaf 60; Elmhurst 41; Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 40; Cortland State 39; Middlebury 35; Hampden-Sydney 24; Dubuque 17; Chicago 13; Hardin-Simmons 12; Bates 11; Lynchburg 8; Williams 6; Hope 5; Rowan 3; Western Connecticut 3; Johns Hopkins 2; William Paterson 2; Cal Lutheran 1; Christopher Newport 1; Trinity (Conn.) 1.

Someone made my day by putting them 25th.

[madzillagd]

Yep.  Seeing my Cal Lu Kingsmen get a vote means it must be about time for their annual midseason implosion. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The part that I find funny though Dave is Midd is playing the same level of opponents as when they were in the Top 5 team a few years ago.  Back then that weak schedule didn't hold them back and they were up near the top despite not having any signature wins.  Now they get back to that weak schedule and it's being held against them.  I just don't see how you can have it both ways.  Either they shouldn't have been a Top 5 team a few years ago with a weak schedule or they should be ranked somewhere now.  Flip flopping on what matters just weakens the value of having a poll.  Pick one way of ranking schedule vs record and stick to it.  I don't care which way people prefer to do it, as long as they stay consistent with it.

You are forgetting a few other factors like if expectations are there. No one likes to hear "past results" or riding the wave of the previous year, but if a team was pretty damn good the year before and comes in with the same team (albeit a loss or two of players that don't have a major impact), then voters look at the results of the schedule and make sure they aren't seeing something strange (like barely beating teams they should dominate). Then you have teams where the expectations are really low because they have lost a lot of talent or they simply are coming off a below-average year. They have to prove themselves a bit more and playing a weak schedule doesn't help.

Is that tough on teams? Sure. But there has to be a line in the sand somewhere to try and figure teams out otherwise every single undefeated team in the country would be in the Top 25 and we all know that isn't fair either. And it isn't like this is rare to this division. It is always harder for teams to prove themselves when the expectations were low to begin with and that is true in Division I as much as Division III.

[gordonmann]

Yep.  Seeing my Cal Lu Kingsmen get a vote means it must be about time for their annual midseason implosion. 

Ha. Yeah, Trinity's SOS doesn't instill much hope for a continued appearance in the Top 25. But it's fun while it lasts.

[grabtherim]

but if a team was pretty damn good the year before and comes in with the same team (albeit a loss or two of players that don't have a major impact), then voters look at the results of the schedule

Not sure you are following your own logic.  By any measure the players lost by the LJs have a "major impact"
Other than Brandeis and Babson (who beat the LJs by 20 each Lefrak!) the winning percentage of Midd opponents and those of Amherst are the same.  Do you agree with your colleague's view that Midd's schedule thus far is "brutally bad"?  I guess I take issue with that when Amherst's is substantially similar but somehow worthy of a #19 vote from you.  Ironically, reading your synopsis of Amherst better supports them being dropped from your ballot versus putting them at #19.  You make the argument quite eloquently.  That said, the bottom line is the upcoming games will take care of all of this, and I may be picking pepper out of  fly s^#t, but you guys never give in on a point made against you.  NEVER... 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think you need to read my blog to understand my point of view... I admit I don't know why I was considering Amherst as high as I did. That being said, while they lost some good talent, they also had some good players coming back from a team that made it to Salem for the second year in a row. I took that into consideration. I also considered the fact Amherst was picked to win the conference.

Middlebury on the other hand did not make the tournament and was not nearly as good last year as in years past and they also lost talent from last year's squad. Started further down and harder to climb the ladder.

As for Middlebury's schedule... it isn't that good. But comparing to Amherst is a stretch.

Middlebury's OWP including tonight's opponent: 32-58 (.356). That includes two teams at .500 or above (including tonight's opponent).
Amhert's OWP including tonight's opponent: 49-55 (.471). That includes six teams at .500 or above (including tonight's opponent) and all of them are Division III and they have played one more game.

I would expect Middlebury to have a good winning percentage against those teams. The only one on their record with a decent WP% is tonight's opponent (6-2). The rest including the non-D3 team are at best .500.

Amherst on the other hand will face two teams currently with 10 wins (including tonight's opponent) and have wins over two teams with .500 or better records (and one loss).

Could there be an argument for Amherst to not be in my Top 25 ballot? Yes, but I have to find teams to I think are better than them. Is there an argument for Middlebury to be in my Top 25 ballot? No, not at this time.