MBB: NESCAC

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

here's my non-scientific "eye-test" for qualifying for ncaa's.  Wesleyan beats Marietta; Williams beats Hope;  Williams and Wesleyan split;  Amherst beats Babson; sweeps Williams and is swept by Wesleyan.  It shouldn't matter who loses on Saturday.  Both Amherst and Williams deserve bids....

Problem with the theory of these games as examples... you leave out 90% of the season for these teams. Yes, a single win and a single loss can have a huge impact, but their ENTIRE resume is looked at and just because they have a good win or a bad loss doesn't dictate their chances of getting in.

I think Amherst is in a dangerous spot. Not saying they won't get in, but if they lose to Williams they might be in trouble. I think Williams needs to make a run if they want a shot, but even then I am not sure it will be enough. Right now, I think Williams has to win the AQ to get in. Amherst has to get out of the first round. Making their game coming up an NCAA berth game in my mind. As for the rest... I think Middlebury is safe, Wesleyan is on the bubble depending on how they do in the tournament, and Tufts probably gets in by backing through the door, but they built a solid resume prior.

NESCAC gets four teams max is how I think it will break down right now, but I know that a lot can change in ten days and next week's regional rankings will have far more impact.

[AllStar]

I posted this several days ago, but I figured I'd move it forward again.

[Cards Fan]

Ummm, Cards fan -- that is kind of nuts.  Williams has beaten three top-25 teams: Midd (10), Hope (16) and Wesleyan (24).  Those are certainly all quality wins.  In addition, the Ephs have beaten Eastern Conn on a neutral court, Bates on the road, Oneonta State at home -- those three are quality wins as well, as all have been regionally ranked within the past two weeks (Eastern Conn still is, and Oneonta may well return to the regional rankings).  If "quality wins" are ONLY wins over top 25 teams (which is far too narrow a definition) than Wesleyan only has three as well -- two over Amherst, one over Marietta.  But I would say that Wesleyan's wins over Williams, at Bates, and vs. Trinity are all quality wins as well -- in other words, both Wesleyan and Williams have six quality wins.  Wesleyan's schedule, outside of Marietta and NESCAC games (including non-league games) was extremely weak.  Williams played and beat a few very solid non-conference opponents as well in Mount Union, Springfield and Union, all on the road.  Those three teams, especially on the road, are far from pushovers.

The problem is, Oneonta isn't a very good team in my eyes. Mount Union and Union went 12-10, which is not top notch, nor is Springfield'a 13-11, though Springfield did beat Amherst. So, in my eyes here are quality wins:

Williams:
Eastern
Hope (Totally messed up. At the time they beat them Hope was low ranked and didn't impress me. I see they are higher ranked and I apologize.)
Wesleyan
Middlebury



Wesleyan:
Marietta
Williams
Trinity
Amherst
Amherst (x2)

A decent win in Hartwick as well, who topped Oneonta and Union.



Talk about close calls! Williams only lost to Trinity by 2, Wes only lost to Williams by 2, and only lost to Tufts by 4.

Now for losses, both teams had some crushing ones.

Williams' poor losses:

Bowdoin
Hamilton (Not knocking, but this should've been a win)

Wesleyan's poor losses:

RIC
Hamilton

[toad22]

Ummm, Cards fan -- that is kind of nuts.  Williams has beaten three top-25 teams: Midd (10), Hope (16) and Wesleyan (24).  Those are certainly all quality wins.  In addition, the Ephs have beaten Eastern Conn on a neutral court, Bates on the road, Oneonta State at home -- those three are quality wins as well, as all have been regionally ranked within the past two weeks (Eastern Conn still is, and Oneonta may well return to the regional rankings).  If "quality wins" are ONLY wins over top 25 teams (which is far too narrow a definition) than Wesleyan only has three as well -- two over Amherst, one over Marietta.  But I would say that Wesleyan's wins over Williams, at Bates, and vs. Trinity are all quality wins as well -- in other words, both Wesleyan and Williams have six quality wins.  Wesleyan's schedule, outside of Marietta and NESCAC games (including non-league games) was extremely weak.  Williams played and beat a few very solid non-conference opponents as well in Mount Union, Springfield and Union, all on the road.  Those three teams, especially on the road, are far from pushovers.

The problem is, Oneonta isn't a very good team in my eyes. Mount Union and Union went 12-10, which is not top notch, nor is Springfield'a 13-11, though Springfield did beat Amherst. So, in my eyes here are quality wins:

Williams:
Eastern
Hope (Totally messed up. At the time they beat them Hope was low ranked and didn't impress me. I see they are higher ranked and I apologize.)
Wesleyan
Middlebury



Wesleyan:
Marietta
Williams
Trinity
Amherst
Amherst (x2)

A decent win in Hartwick as well, who topped Oneonta and Union.



Talk about close calls! Williams only lost to Trinity by 2, Wes only lost to Williams by 2, and only lost to Tufts by 4.

Now for losses, both teams had some crushing ones.

Williams' poor losses:

Bowdoin
Hamilton (Not knocking, but this should've been a win)

Wesleyan's poor losses:

RIC
Hamilton

Hope was a top 25 team when Williams played them. They lost both games in that tournament and fell out of the top 25. They have moved back into the top 25.

[nescac1]

Dave, I agree completely.  We should look at the entirety of a team's performance, not just a few selective games.  Were only there some statistically-based, objective way to do so.  Oh yeah, there is, and it places five NESCAC teams in the top 15 nationally.  And yes, we know well all the reasons you discount that.  Which is why we have to analyze specific results.  And round and round we go.  You've framed the argument in such a way that NESCAC can never justify itself.  Heads I lose, tails you win. 

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

The reason I think NESCAC deserves at least four, arguably five teams in this year is because NESCAC inarguably has 4-5 of the best 40 teams in the country in the conference.  I'd say 4-5 of the best 30.  I think for the record that WIAC also deserves most years to get more teams in than it does. You harp on double round robin but is it really fair for, say, MIT to get in over a NESCAC team like Williams or Amherst because it has played and won vs a double round robin yet beaten not one regionally ranked team (so far) all season?  Where are all these bubble teams that would post gaudy W-L records if only you switched out their schedules for Williams or Amherst?  I don't see it.  NESCAC is so well positioned this year because the league was collectively so dominant in out of league play -- including three wins over top-15 teams, including a win over number one, none of which even came from the top two teams in the conference. 

One last note: your biggest complaint is that NESCAC RPI is inflated by playing teams with great W-L record from weak New England leagues.  Williams played not one game vs a team like that this year; the Ephs instead played several middle of the road teams from strong leagues, like Mount Union, Springfield or Oneonta, as well as teams like Hope, Amherst, and Wesleyan in non-official-league games. Plus a few bad teams who didn't help statistically.   So your central argument doesn't even apply to Williams (or Amherst for that matter) this year, and those are the two teams on the bubble. 

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think the real difference is the language we use.  It's not inherently "unfair" that the NorthEast is an easier place to play the SOS game, but it is an added geographic benefit - just like having extra regional ranking places to get wins against.  We just have to realize there aren't any ways to make things equal across the board and it's a real positive to have a system with specific criteria applied across the board.

[nescac1]

Looking closely at Knightslappy's rankings, it really does totally disprove Dave's repeated claim that NESCAC teams are trying -- let alone succeeding -- in gaming the system by beating up on mediocre teams with gaudy records atop weak New England conferences. 

The top teams from the weaker New England leagues have played the following number of games vs. NESCAC teams this season:

Endicott: 1
Albertus Magnus: 0
Husson: 3 (the three NESCAC Maine teams, there aren't a lot of schools in Maine to pick from, after all)
Nichols: 0
Roger Williams: 0
Lasell: 1
Castleton: 0
Becker: 0

Not one game vs. Williams or Wesleyan.  Only one total vs. Amherst.  So this totally contradicts that claim that NESCAC coaches are purposefully scheduling to maximize chances at a high RPI number.   If they did so, they would be consistently playing precisely these types of teams, rather than the natural geographic rivals or the LEC and NEWMAC teams who they tend to favor playing against...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Dave, I agree completely.  We should look at the entirety of a team's performance, not just a few selective games.  Were only there some statistically-based, objective way to do so.  Oh yeah, there is, and it places five NESCAC teams in the top 15 nationally.  And yes, we know well all the reasons you discount that.  Which is why we have to analyze specific results.  And round and round we go.  You've framed the argument in such a way that NESCAC can never justify itself.  Heads I lose, tails you win. 

You have totally lost me. What in the world are you refering to? What has 5 NESCAC teams in the Top 15 nationally? And what do I discount? And what are my reasons?

And if you think analyzing specific results is a problem, tell that to the national committee who is doing exactly that. You may not like it, as it sounds, but the committee dives into the data far more than even I am capable of thanks to the computers and programs the NCAA gives them and their own hard work. They don't just look at the criteria and make a decision... not when some criteria reads "results versus regionally ranked opponents." The word results opens up a lot of doors for the committee.

I have NEVER said the NESCAC can't jusitfy itself. That isn't remotely close to what I am talking about. I defend the NESCAC as being a damn good league around the rest of the country. I think the results speak for themselves. However, I think the system has allowed the NESCAC to unfairly get extra teams in. I said the same thing when Randolph got in in 2013 thanks to the vRRO being "once ranked, always ranked" and giving Randolph a ton of results that benefited them. That was adjusted shortly afterward. Just as analyzing the information, SOS, and other stuff was adjusted after the NESCAC got four teams in two years ago.

As for what seems to be a sarcastic agreement with my argument... when we look at the entire team's performance it is best to do it as the NCAA committees see it. Adding other information is pointless because it won't help understand the argument.

http://detroitjockcity.com/division-iii-mens-basketball-regional-rankings-data/

Is this the website or source you are referencing and think I don't like? Because if this is the source, then you don't know or haven't listened to the argument very well. KnightSlappy's work is to measure the SOS based on how the NCAA does the math. I have helped him get his math correct by talking with the NCAA and getting him in direct touch with the stats people in Indianapolis. So, I wouldn't be against this.

Keep in mind that KnightSlappy's work states clearly that he does not account for any of the other criteria. He puts up the SOS and he bases his decisions on his own RPI work. It is good for informational reasons, but if you are sourcing this as to how the NESCAC has five teams in the Top 15... then you are basing it only KnightSlappy's RPI or the NCAA's SOS. That is all well and good. So be it that have top data numbers there, but that doesn't mean there isn't plenty of data and other criteria that the committee is looking at that will argue with that data and criteria and thus why they make different decisions. We can look at Rochester last year. They had a .681 WL% and one of the top SOS numbers in the country (somewhere north of .570, I believe). They were left home. By the way some want to argue, because they had an SOS so high, they should have been in the tournament. My point has been and will continue to be... you HAVE to look at the other criteria and that is why I don't think the NESCAC is in a position to get five teams in.

The reason I think NESCAC deserves at least four, arguably five teams in this year is because NESCAC inarguably has 4-5 of the best 40 teams in the country in the conference.  I'd say 4-5 of the best 30.

For the record, you will not see me anywhere state I don't think the NESCAC will get four teams in. I think that is a real possibility. What I don't think will happen is five teams and certainly don't think six teams will happen (as Ryan suggested at one point with a Trinity win of the AQ against Williams in the title game scenario).

As for the NESCAC "inarguable" having four or the five best 40 teams in the country, that is absolutely arguable. You have your point of view, and that is fine, but it does not make it inarguable. I have voted this year for Amherst, Wesleyan, Tufts, and Middlebury. There are four, but I have never voted for four at the same time (three max, I think - though a recent week could have had all four). However, I haven't considered a fifth and right now a fifth isn't even on my radar in the Top 40. Those four are in the Top 25. There are no NESCAC teams in the ORV meaning none of the Top 25 voters think a fifth team is on their Top 25 and there isn't even a voter with a fifth team being considered. So yes, four teams appear to be in the Top 25... but a fifth is absolutely something we could argue. And best 30? Now we are stretching. Especially this day in age with parity. And if they were 5 in the Top 30... the voters would be voting for a fifth team to at least be in the ORV category.

BTW - we all do realize the Top 25 has no bearing on the NCAA, right? Just as it doesn't in any other tournament conducted by the NCAA in any other division. So when it comes to arguing how many teams should make it to the NCAA, can we leave the Top 25 out?

You harp on double round robin but is it really fair for, say, MIT to get in over a NESCAC team like Williams or Amherst because it has played and won vs a double round robin yet beaten not one regionally ranked team (so far) all season?

No has argued a team should be in the tournament because they played a double-round robin or that someone should not be in the tournament because they did not play a double-round-robin. That isn't even remotely close to the argument. You are twisting it around to try and make some point. The argument is that a conference like the NESCAC's benefits from not playing in a double-round-robin, but that the benefit isn't simply glazed over. It is analyzed. If a team deserves to be in based on all the criteria... so be it. If I think a team deserves to be in... you will hear me say it on Sunday, February 26.

Where are all these bubble teams that would post gaudy W-L records if only you switched out their schedules for Williams or Amherst?  I don't see it.

You don't see which bubble teams would post gaudy WL records if they played Amherst and Williams schedules? Seriously? I could point to probably a dozen bubble programs that would LOVE to have Amherst and Williams' schedule. I mean playing Green Mountain, Anna Maria, Westfield State, Emerson, Brandeis, Lasell, Keystone, Manhattanville, Maine Maritime, Mass College, Union, and Vassar outside of conference while only having to face your conference foes once (except for 2 of the 10) ... do you know how many teams would jump at that chance? Instead they have to go out and put together as challenging a out-of-conference schedule as they can, especially if they are in a mid to weak conference, just to counteract the SOS hit their conference schedule gives them. Amherst and Williams have to focus on the challenge of putting together more non-conference games than most, I will give them that, but they are doing it in the most target rich environment the entire NCAA has. You can't drive more than a few exits on any interstate in New England without seeing a sign for another college or university.

BTW, some that come to mind who would love that schedule, which still seems to give them a hell of an SOS and would probably improve their SOS:
- Augustana
- Ill. Wesleyan
- North Park
- Carthage
- John Carroll
- Wooster
- Ramapo
- Neumann
- Cabrini
- NJCU
- TCNJ
- Benedictine
- SLU
- SJF
- Brockport
- Ohio Nothern
- Lycoming
- Swarthmore
- Scranton
- Concordia
- Guilford (who even plays an unbalanced conf schedule, but still plays more conf games than the NESCAC)
- HSU
- VWC (same argument as Guilford)
- St. Thomas or any MIAC team
- Any SCIAC team

NESCAC is so well positioned this year because the league was collectively so dominant in out of league play -- including three wins over top-15 teams, including a win over number one, none of which even came from the top two teams in the conference.

Please stop it. It isn't that hard to dominant out of league play when there are so many out of league games against teams you should be beating. And three wins over Top 15 opponents out of 11 teams and maybe 125 or so games? Congrats. There are some leagues that have done that with less teams in their conferences and far less games to pull it off (not counting conference opponents being ranked).

One last note: your biggest complaint is that NESCAC RPI is inflated by playing teams with great W-L record from weak New England leagues.  Williams played not one game vs a team like that this year; the Ephs instead played several middle of the road teams from strong leagues, like Mount Union, Springfield or Oneonta, as well as teams like Hope, Amherst, and Wesleyan in non-official-league games. Plus a few bad teams who didn't help statistically.   So your central argument doesn't even apply to Williams (or Amherst for that matter) this year, and those are the two teams on the bubble. 

You are confusing RPI and SOS. I have never made a comment or argument about RPI. And I know RPI comes from the SOS, but I have only referenced the SOS. I do talk about the NESCAC's inflated SOS. It is basically a mathematical fact.

But how this works from what many of us have seen is two ways:

- Have enough opponents at the top or near-top of conferences that are average to below-average thus making sure you get the best WL% from that conference while not being hurt by the rest, but especially the bottom of those conferences because it is only 1/3 of the SOS number.
- Or have enough opponents from the middle of average to above average conferences because those teams will also post respectable WL% and the conference as a whole will be strong from an SOS number helping the 1/3 total of the OOWP.
- Try not to play too many top teams because too many losses will just ruin the WL% which will make the SOS pointless.
- Find the right mixture of that to make it work for you... getting enough wins while also boosting your SOS.

The NESCAC certainly does this and for good reason. They can't do it for every single game, heck no. That's where scheduling becomes a challenge in the NESCAC because you have to fill the holes. We know this.

Amherst out-of-conference schedule:
- Green Mountain = 10-13 in the NAC, not a great conference it is an easy win and won't hurt their SOS
- St. Lawrence = 20-4 in the Liberty, so a top conference team from an average conference that will also help the SOS
- Anna Maria = 4-20 in the GNAC, not a great opponent from an okay conference, so an easy win for the total and will slightly hurt the SOS (why not play Albertus Magnus or Johnson & Wales?)
- Westfield State = 9-14 in the MASCAC, eh type of opponent from an eh kind of conference... so an easy win for the total and slight hurt to the SOS
- Emerson = 6-18 in the NEWMAC, an average opponent that you can earn a win against in a conference with good SOS numbers
- Brandeis = 7-14 in the UAA, an average opponent you can earn a win against in a conference that will give you OUTSTANDING SOS numbers
- Babson = 23-1 in the NEWMAC, you can actually afford to take a loss in this game; got a win, so that is gravy, but the SOS will be a huge benefit especially with another dip in the NEWMAC
- Lasell = 16-8 in the GNAC, so you probably knew you could get the win here and it actually is a boost to the SOS as well
- Springfield = 13-11 in the NEWMAC, another dip in the NEWMAC which helps the SOS while also playing a team that you can probably beat... win-win.
- Keystone = 7-17 in the CSAC, below average team to get an easy win for the total... while not hurting your SOS too badly
- Eastern Connecticut = 16-8 in the LEC... nice dip in a competitive conference against a team you are sure is going to be at the top

Add to this only once through against 8 of the NESCAC teams, meaning two things: you don't risk too many losses and your SOS does not take a hit from the extra time through it. Yes, you play Williams and Wesleyan a second time, but that trip through isn't going to hurt the SOS as much as going through the entire conference a second time. When teams go through double-round-robins, the SOS basically is at .500 and the out of conference schedule has to influence it up or down. Some conference will be below .500, the NESCAC would probably be above .500... but not probably higher than .020 which isn't significant.

That's why people look at the NESCAC and roll their eyes at their data. They don't start the SOS conversation at .500 (plus or minus) like everyone else. Then they can add to their SOS from there and they have found a way, intentionally or not, to better their data. Add to that they fact they play a soft schedule to start earning victories when most everyone else has to go out there any actually play tough opponents because they need to improve their SOS position. The NESCAC's don't take that big a hit in the SOS category because they are already starting higher than .500 thanks to the conference schedule.

No one is saying the NESCAC is bad, either. If it was a bad conference, the teams would have to do something completely different to better themselves. They would have to have a very difficult out of conference schedule because it would have to off-set a sub-par SOS the conference is giving them. So there is an appreciation that their SOS number is going to be up anyway. That is why they are in the conversation. The argument is that NESCAC teams can then inflate their SOS further with the types of opponents they play and inflate their WL% at the same time by sprinkling in teams they know they can beat. Add to the fact that they don't have the double-round-robin that would naturally bring down their SOS and others look at it skeptically.

[Bucket]

You can't drive more than a few exits on any interstate in New England without seeing a sign for another college or university.

You haven't spent much time on interstates (we have 2!) in Vermont, then.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

You can't drive more than a few exits on any interstate in New England without seeing a sign for another college or university.

You haven't spent much time on interstates (we have 2!) in Vermont, then.

Spent my fair share of time in New England and on interstates considering where my parents live, where my relatives live, where I went to summer camp, and where I went to high school. Sure, Vermont doesn't have too many... but it is a who's who list almost everywhere else (well, NH is low).

[Old Guy]

" . . . while only having to face your conference foes once (except for 2 of the 10)"

Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby play each other twice.

Don't know anyone who wouldn't like to see more NESCAC league games. I guess only the Presidents. 

[Cards Fan]

" . . . while only having to face your conference foes once (except for 2 of the 10)"

Bates, Bowdoin, and Colby play each other twice.

Don't know anyone who wouldn't like to see more NESCAC league games. I guess only the Presidents.

Maybe some out of conference action early on even. It'd be great to see all the NESCAC teams play eachother again. Or just lengthen the in conference schedule and play out of conference weekdays. No matter what, we would all like to see that I'm sure!

[pinseeking1]

Bates will need to put all of the pieces together today to beat a strong and surging Middlebury team. The Bobcats will need the twins to come up big inside, but unless the 3-point shooting is close to 40%, it will be very difficult to pull off this road game.

[Old Guy]

Bates will need to put all of the pieces together today to beat a strong and surging Middlebury team. The Bobcats will need the twins to come up big inside, but unless the 3-point shooting is close to 40%, it will be very difficult to pull off this road game.

Midd will have to defend Marcus Delpeche down low with bodies (plural) - and Malcolm too. If Bates hits from the outside (which has happened on occasion) and Middlebury doesn't (also happens), it will be a tough game. Colby defended Middlebury well by sacrificing the offensive glass - and racing back on defense and applying some pressure in the backcourt. Williams defended Middlebury well by making hoops and requiring Midd to go the full 90+'. Nothing like baskets to slow down the fast break. Let's see if Jake Brown can go. We've played well without him in the last two games, but he's important and we'd all like to see him in there at something close to full strength.

Taking nothing for granted here in VT!

[grabtherim]

Playoffs are a whole different game in a one and done tournament.  While my alleigance is clear, to me, this league is as prime for a sleeper emerging as it has been in any year of the past ten.  Hope Brown's ankle has gotten the rest it needed to have him go 100%.  He had a heck of a game versus the Bobcats a few weeks back.