MBB: NESCAC

[Pat Coleman]

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. 

Well, we'd have to disagree there, and I think many (if not most) of the voters would disagree with you here.

It's Jan. 6. The voters know they have actual tests coming. So they're waiting.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Massey has Middlebury's schedule at 377 out of 416, Amherst at 332.  Middlebury's schedule is beyond weak.  Their best win is Skidmore at home, a 5-5 squad.  There's nothing impressive here.  I'm guessing 100 teams in the country could do that schedule with no losses.  Middlebury might be among the ten best of those hundred, but they might also be among the ten worst.  We'll know a little more after Plattsburgh, even more as the conference schedule gets underway.

For the record, I don't think Amherst deserves to be ranked either.  There's no NESCAC team out there deserving of votes right now.

[grabtherim]

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


Really?  Amherst has two losses at home by 20 points each to teams with 10 wins.  OK, take them out of the equation and their opponents record is 24-47 which is a .340 winning percentage.  Midd's opponents to date have a .362 winning percentage.  A stretch?  By what standard other than that to justify your choice against your own logic and then to defend it. 


"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."


Your own previously stated logic proves the first statement to be true which definitively proves the absurdity of the second. Just once I would like to see you accept or even acknowledge a point made against you without defending it.  I am happy to do so:  "The Knicks will bounce back this year." "That iPhone thing is just a fad." etc etc.  Boy, was I wrong, so wrong...

[grabtherim]

For the record, I don't think Amherst deserves to be ranked either.  There's no NESCAC team out there deserving of votes right now.

In my opinion, you are 100% correct. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

But I disagree with the point... so why would I agree?

And if you remove the two loses by Amherst... their record would be 34-49 actually... .410 - not sure where you did your math unless you removed tonight's opponent which you would have to do the same for Williams. If that is the case, Amherst would be 24-47 (.338) and Williams would be 26-56 (.325) - considering I am also leaving in the non-Division III team - something I normally don't do since it doesn't really count (yes, I did have it count for something when I moved UWW out of #1 at the beginning of the season, but some others gave valid arguments to me on why I should consider the game - I get the juxtaposition).

[nescac1]

Dave, you note that "I also considered the fact Amherst was picked to win the conference."  What does that refer to?  As far as I'm aware, there is no pre-season poll among NESCAC coaches.  I think Amherst was probably the team most people would have picked once Duncan Robinson transferred (with Robinson, Williams would have been the overwhelming favorite) but I think most people viewed NESCAC as wide-open and very unpredictable this year, with no consensus favorite, and based on early results, that looks to be accurate. 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Per conversations with those in and out of the conference who informally indicated Amherst was the top pick. Also based on conversations on this board.

I would agree it is unpredictable and wide-open this year, but Amherst seems to me to be the one everything thinks the conference goes through this season.

I agree, Robinson comes back... Williams' situation is COMPLETELY different and this conversation would be very different.

[Pat Coleman]

I agree, Robinson comes back... Williams' situation is COMPLETELY different and this conversation would be very different.

As would Williams' record.

[grabtherim]

Dave, you note that "I also considered the fact Amherst was picked to win the conference."  What does that refer to?  As far as I'm aware, there is no pre-season poll among NESCAC coaches.  I think Amherst was probably the team most people would have picked once Duncan Robinson transferred (with Robinson, Williams would have been the overwhelming favorite) but I think most people viewed NESCAC as wide-open and very unpredictable this year, with no consensus favorite, and based on early results, that looks to be accurate.

Good point, but you are missing the bigger point.  In Dave and Pat's world they are never wrong, know more than you,  especially when you keep on getting those cutting edge interviews with Hixon.  Why would you ever upset that?  I'm done with it. Let's play the games.   

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Seriously? You don't listen enough then. I have admitted many a time when I am wrong about a team. Happens all of the time in March. I don't do very well on the "pick 'em" brackets at all. And I blog my Top 25 ballots now for three or more years. When I am wrong about a team, I say it on there all of the time. In fact, I talked about finally joining everyone with how high they had Emory in earlier polls, I pointed out why I was late to the party with Dickinson, and I have talked about missing the boat with a team too high or too low (or not ranked at all) all of the time. I am known for falling my sword far too often in my profession... so keep pretending I do no wrong - heck, I will admit it on Hoopsville!

As for "cutting edge interviews" ... the goal is to learn more about a team, not hammer at people. I am not sure what you would like to see, but it has worked for 15 years... why would we change it now. That being said, we have had challenging interviews when they warrant it, but I will also admit those are not the best interviews to conduct and sometimes are not taken well by viewers. We will continue to do what we do until we see it not working.

[NothingButNESCAC]

Just to clarify one thing. Not sure why people are saying Brandeis has 10 wins. They are 5-5 right now but undoubtedly are playing better recently (since their big win against Amherst really).

Besides looking at resumes which I think for both Amherst and Middlebury have been proven to be pretty much meaningless, the question of which team is more talented is important for an exercise like rankings. Despite all the talent that Amherst has lost, I think it is safe to say that they have a higher ceiling than Middlebury does. You can give Middlebury the edge in perimeter talent, but the difference down low is much larger. Granted, the amount of talent Amherst possesses has not manifested itself on the court, but rankings even at this point of the year are not just a representation of what has happened but a projection of what you think will happen.

[Pat Coleman]

Dave, you note that "I also considered the fact Amherst was picked to win the conference."  What does that refer to?  As far as I'm aware, there is no pre-season poll among NESCAC coaches.  I think Amherst was probably the team most people would have picked once Duncan Robinson transferred (with Robinson, Williams would have been the overwhelming favorite) but I think most people viewed NESCAC as wide-open and very unpredictable this year, with no consensus favorite, and based on early results, that looks to be accurate.

Good point, but you are missing the bigger point.  In Dave and Pat's world they are never wrong, know more than you,  especially when you keep on getting those cutting edge interviews with Hixon.  Why would you ever upset that?  I'm done with it. Let's play the games.

I don't know what I did to get put in this conversation. All I've done (LITERALLY all I've done) in this discussion is post, verbatim, Middlebury's resume. Just facts.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Just to clarify one thing. Not sure why people are saying Brandeis has 10 wins. They are 5-5 right now but undoubtedly are playing better recently (since their big win against Amherst really).

I'm not sure who you think is giving them ten wins, but I have them down for five and Babson with ten. When I take the 49-55 opponent record for Amherst (including tonight's opponent) and subtract their two losses, they lose 15 wins and 6 losses to be at 34-49. If you remove tonight's opponent, they are at 24-47.

[WPI89]

Wow - I will just be over - all by myself - with my pillow and blanket - waiting for March on my quiet little NEWMAC page..............

[grabtherim]

Dave, you note that "I also considered the fact Amherst was picked to win the conference."  What does that refer to?  As far as I'm aware, there is no pre-season poll among NESCAC coaches.  I think Amherst was probably the team most people would have picked once Duncan Robinson transferred (with Robinson, Williams would have been the overwhelming favorite) but I think most people viewed NESCAC as wide-open and very unpredictable this year, with no consensus favorite, and based on early results, that looks to be accurate.

Good point, but you are missing the bigger point.  In Dave and Pat's world they are never wrong, know more than you,  especially when you keep on getting those cutting edge interviews with Hixon.  Why would you ever upset that?  I'm done with it. Let's play the games.

I don't know what I did to get put in this conversation. All I've done (LITERALLY all I've done) in this discussion is post, verbatim, Middlebury's resume. Just facts.

I was done with this until I read this idiotic post which is a total lie. 

Pat's Quote: "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"

Dave's 1st quote: "As for Middlebury's schedule... it isn't that good. But comparing to Amherst is a stretch."

Fact:  The Panthers' 8 wins have come against teams with a combined record of 26 wins and 45 losses, (.360)

Dave's later quote after pulling two 20 point home losses from the analysis: "Amherst would be 24-47 (.338)"

Pat's most recent quote:  I don't know what I did to get put in this conversation. All I've done (LITERALLY all I've done) in this discussion is post, verbatim, Middlebury's resume. Just facts.

Two simple questions for you guys:

To Pat:  In what world is the critique "brutally bad" "just facts"?

To Dave:  Does a .338 winning percentage of defeated opponents versus Middlebury's .360 of the same together with 2 home losses by a combined 40 points make this statement ring true to you:  "As for Middlebury's schedule... it isn't that good. But comparing to Amherst is a stretch."