MBB: NESCAC

[amh63]

Wow.....a most interesting weekend of D3 basketball around the nation and in the Nescac especially.
First, congrats to the Colby Mules for two "surprising" wins on the road!  Is the home court advantage disappearing in this age of 3-pt offense?
I spent a lot of time this long weekend watching D1 basketball.  In my early years, watched a lot of Hoya and Turtle MBB games live....era of Coach Lefty D. And big John Thompson, both High School player and Head Coach.  Seems the announcers often refer to this as period of the 3 pt shot, especially by the "younger " starters.
To use the term posted by "Old Guy"...I will now make some Nescac MBB "IMPRESSIONS" .
...The majority of the teams are inserting younger players into the games and they are making impacts as the season processes.  It is fortunate that Williams played Wesleyan twice early in the season.  Wes FY Big Guy is starting now.
...Tufts has had an up and down season by using a bunch of new players.  A poster earlier stated that the Jumbos was not a good team...but hey, they beat a ranked Cardinal team on Sat....yes, at home.
...The Nescac is "Compressing " towards the middle....with the outsiders to date being Bowdoin and Conn College.
...Like in football, the better defensive teams allows teams to be competitive longer, especially when key players are not having a good offensive day.
....teams are becoming more aggressive and also relying on the perimeter shots more.  Amherst lost to Colby due to the three ball offense and aggressive style of play...IMO.  The announcer in the Bowdoin vs Amherst game at half time gave some interesting stats.  In the Colby game there were 22 combined fouls called in the first half.  In the Bowdoin game, there were 6 combined fouls called in the first half.  I recall that the refs had to warn a number of players...both sides...on hard fouls, etc.
.... the stats on the Colby game showed both teams were very very similar in TO, RBs, shooting, etc.  Colby made more 3-pt shots and more foul shots.
.....I started to look at the stats of other surprising games, including the upset of ranked Rochester.  The team that made more foul shots and 3 point shots were the winner....even when other offensive and defensive stats are similar.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I think Nescac gets at least four in (three Pool Cs) and has a good shot at five so long as Midd, Amherst and Wesleyan each win at least three more games (which is probable but not certain).  Actually Amherst probably needs at least four given the weak SOS (which will improve quite a bit after that brutal four game stretch to end the season, but still).  Hamilton and Williams are likely locks barring a complete collapse.  Colby has an outside shot but would need a few more upset wins in upcoming weeks (at least two out of three vs Midd, Williams, Wesleyan).   MIT, Gordon and Nichols (at least one of whom and possibly two of whom are likely to get Pool A bids) seem like the only non-Nescac teams from New England to be Pool C worthy, which helps. 

Man, speaking of Colby, looking at this past weekend crazy they lost to Trinity.  If they just miss out on the dance that one is gonna burn

I wouldn't be as confident on the number of NESCAC teams this year. The committee has been told they can't do the SOS to WL% comparison (.030 SOS difference equates to two games in WL) any longer - there could be a lot of reasons why, but it is unknown the exact reason given - and I think that is going to affect the NESCAC a bit. The conference has had, at least for the last five or more years, lofty (gaudy?) SOS numbers that have helped to off-set losses (like at Amherst a few years ago back-dooring into the NCAA tournament). That comparison being removed now exposes WL% a bit more and with already five losses for Wesleyan and Middlebury - and you have to expect one, two, maybe more - I think the NESCAC starts to lose some of the at-large bids to programs with better WL% even if those programs don't have the same gaudy SOS numbers. The vRRO could help some of the NESCACs, but that isn't a slam dunk, either.

[nescac1]

Thanks Dave, I was not aware of any change.  I'm not sure I fully understand - how if at all does SOS factor in now?  Has a new criteria replaced it?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Thanks Dave, I was not aware of any change.  I'm not sure I fully understand - how if at all does SOS factor in now?  Has a new criteria replaced it?

Well... you should listen to Hoopsville more often.

And SOS isn't being removed ... the comparison to the WL% is being removed (which was not part of the criteria).

The SOS will still be there, but the committees in the last five years or so have used a comparison of .030 SOS difference equating to adjusting WL by two games. Some went higher (.060=4, .090=6) and some didn't. But it gave committees a chance to "compare" what the SOS difference equated to to a WL number. The NCAA has told any committees doing that comparison to stop using it. The argument is that it technically isn't part of the criteria and, in my opinion, they may have discovered that the math isn't holding up as strongly as it once did.

So the SOS is there, BUT a gaudy SOS can't necessarily outweigh a lower WL number like it has in the past. That comparison has been a benefit for NESCAC teams in the past ... basically erasing loses when compared to teams with better WL numbers, but not as strong SOS. We can look at a lot of teams like Amherst a few years ago that it helped get them into the tournament.

I think it will keep teams from getting in this year as the SOS will be hard to gauge when it is further from the mean.

[MiddWatcher]

Agree with d-mac here re: NESCAC and the NCAA selections.....will be tougher for NESCACs to make it this year. Precedent was shown this fall with NCAA DIII Field Hockey. Several outstanding NESCAC FH teams with very fine records ( Trinity 12 - 4 with 11 shutouts, Williams 12 - 5 with a win over eventual NCAA champion Middlebury - who finished 21 - 1 , Bowdoin 11 - 5 and a perennial NCAA contender & three time champion, Amherst 11 - 5 ) all did NOT make it.  Only two were selected. Guess what ?  Middlebury and Tufts ended up playing for National Title anyway ......  Midd defeated a 22 - 0 Rowan team who steamrollered everyone en route to the national semi's and Tufts defeated a strong Johns Hopkins team.  Opinion here is that any one of those aforementioned NESCACs could have made it to a national championship game. But, criteria and even the ' eye test ' have seemingly changed.  Have not been on a NCAA committee for many years, so things have changed - but I would listen to Dave and his inside scoop on basketball to gain a clearer picture.  Would not surprise me to see just two NESCACs, or maybe three.   And there may well be an upset along the way, also, to really gum up the works. Will hope for more, but there are several more losses to be acquired in next two weeks as NESCACs continue to knock one another off.

[NEhoops]

The NESCAC got three at-large bids plus the automatic bid last year. Assuming one of the current top five teams in the league wins the conference tournament I don't see the number of bids being any less this year.

In simple terms, if MIT (NEWMAC), Eastern CT (LEC) and Nichols (CCC) wins their respective leagues I don't see any at-large bids being award to any non-NESCAC Northeast teams.
   

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The NESCAC got three at-large bids plus the automatic bid last year. Assuming one of the current top five teams in the league wins the conference tournament I don't see the number of bids being any less this year.

In simple terms, if MIT (NEWMAC), Eastern CT (LEC) and Nichols (CCC) wins their respective leagues I don't see any at-large bids being award to any non-NESCAC Northeast teams.

You are assuming maybe no more losses? I think you are looking at Middlebury and Wesleyan with six or seven losses ... that's when things get really interesting.

Also, it doesn't matter what the rest of New England does beside whether teams get to the table sooner or later. There are lot of teams around the country who I think will have as strong, if not stronger, resumes and we have seen teams sit at the table the entire Pool C conversation and not get picked.

[NEhoops]

I agree it will be interesting (and fun) in regard to the losses, particularly based on your posts from earlier today.

Some of my projections are based on the strength of the league. When looking across the country isn't the NESCAC one of the premier leagues? I feel that it is, but is that something that is/can be quantified? And is that taken into account when making at-large selections?

Lots of questions for you Dave, or anyone for that matter.

[amh63]

NEhoops....a little cheerful comment on the subject of post season Tourny selections.  Well done and a plus K to you.
Speaking of MIT as top team to win their conference.  In their recent win, the last missing player of note has returned to the team and has made his contribution.  Player with a name starting with "F" was a HS classmate of Folger of Midd, I recall, before Folger went on to prep school.  Course loads at MIT often see players drop out for a period in the upper years....with some returning to play again.  Sort of an " academic injury".
Amherst started its 2nd semester today, so there maybe players with other things on their minds than weekend opponents.  Sharpshooter Jr. guard Mobley was on the bench but not really "dressed" to play.  Any insider Amherst supporter know the reason for his non playing status?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I agree it will be interesting (and fun) in regard to the losses, particularly based on your posts from earlier today.

Some of my projections are based on the strength of the league. When looking across the country isn't the NESCAC one of the premier leagues? I feel that it is, but is that something that is/can be quantified? And is that taken into account when making at-large selections?

Lots of questions for you Dave, or anyone for that matter.

Eh - projections tend to be based on historical tendencies and how we see things shaking out now - at least that's how I and others do it. The ODAC has been a top five conference for awhile now, but we all projected one bid for them the last few years. Same with the UAA recently. Being a premiere league and the number of teams in don't go hand-in-hand in Division III - that's a DI thing.

And no... "premiere league" and "eye test" don't get taken into account when at-large selections are made. SOS, WL%, vRRO, head-to-head, common opponents, etc. are used in the primary and secondary criteria. There is no criteria that says "what conference do they come from and where does that conference rank"

[ContinentalDomer]

For those hoping to watch tonight's Hamilton game against Wells, there will be no live feed. Check out Williams v Albertus Mangus or any of the other action instead.

[Old Guy]

I think Nescac gets at least four in (three Pool Cs) and has a good shot at five so long as Midd, Amherst and Wesleyan each win at least three more games (which is probable but not certain).  Actually Amherst probably needs at least four given the weak SOS (which will improve quite a bit after that brutal four game stretch to end the season, but still).  Hamilton and Williams are likely locks barring a complete collapse.  Colby has an outside shot but would need a few more upset wins in upcoming weeks (at least two out of three vs Midd, Williams, Wesleyan).   MIT, Gordon and Nichols (at least one of whom and possibly two of whom are likely to get Pool A bids) seem like the only non-Nescac teams from New England to be Pool C worthy, which helps. 

Man, speaking of Colby, looking at this past weekend crazy they lost to Trinity.  If they just miss out on the dance that one is gonna burn

I wouldn't be as confident on the number of NESCAC teams this year. The committee has been told they can't do the SOS to WL% comparison (.030 SOS difference equates to two games in WL) any longer - there could be a lot of reasons why, but it is unknown the exact reason given - and I think that is going to affect the NESCAC a bit. The conference has had, at least for the last five or more years, lofty (gaudy?) SOS numbers that have helped to off-set losses (like at Amherst a few years ago back-dooring into the NCAA tournament). That comparison being removed now exposes WL% a bit more and with already five losses for Wesleyan and Middlebury - and you have to expect one, two, maybe more - I think the NESCAC starts to lose some of the at-large bids to programs with better WL% even if those programs don't have the same gaudy SOS numbers. The vRRO could help some of the NESCACs, but that isn't a slam dunk, either.

If I understand what is being said, I think it's too bad that SOS is losing importance — and that works against Middlebury, as teams have been reluctant to schedule competitive non-conference games in order to have gaudy W-L records.

Middlebury loses to Tufts; Tufts loses to Bates; Middlebury beats Williams; Tufts beats Wesleyan. Colby loses to Bates and Trinity, beats Amherst and Hamilton on the road. Colby, in preseason analysis, wasn't going to beat anyone. What a year!

Midd has four games left: the Maine trip — Bowdoin & Colby, and then the big weekend against Amherst and Hamilton at home, the weekend that sent Middlebury last year from #1 in NESCAC standings and possible hosting the conference tournament — to #5 and playing on the road. But it ended well enough, with an NCAA berth and a couple of tourney wins.

I'm headed to Maine (weather permitting), home to me (Bates). I'm glad to see Colby's surprising success this year — such a great hoop tradition under Lee Williams (when I was a kid) and then Dick Whittemore. It will be nice if we see a few fans in the Colby gym, for a change. Okay with me if they play well against Midd, in a loss.

No insight here why Tyson chose Colby over Middlebury. It's hardly surprising, however, that a D3 hooper might choose one NESCAC school over another — many appealing choices. It may be that he looked at what Middlebury had in the backcourt in the class ahead of him (this year's outstanding soph guards) and saw a better chance for playing more minutes right away. It may be that Colby showed more interest. I'm glad for his success. There are not a multitude of college players coming out of VT high schools every year. The success of any VT player is cause for excitement.

Nice to see our great VT player, Matt St. Amour, at the Trinity game. He is working in New York, seeing his backcourt mate, Jake Brown, on occasion: Jake is an assistant at Columbia.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The SOS is not losing importance... that isn't what I am saying.

The comparison "math" that was being used is losing it's place because technically, it really isn't a criteria point. The SOS will still be there and be evaluated, but committee members cannot adjust the SOS or the WL based on the comparison "math" they had been using in the past. That has resulted in the past in, arguably, over-inflating SOS numbers or giving teams with gaudy SOS numbers and average, at best, WL% numbers suddenly lofty resumes.

Look at UW-Oshkosh a few years back. They were 17-10 with one of the best SOS numbers in the country. That SOS to WL% comparison adjusted their WL into a number that looked very good. I said then and say now - I don't think UWO should have been in the tournament that year (and yes, I get they won games). Their WL% was below .700 which had been a kind of Mendozza Line for a long time, but their SOS was so incredibly high they got in.

That same thing happened with Amherst two seasons ago.

So the SOS will still have a place, but it will be a bit more "equal" than in the past. The ability to adjust things to make it look stronger is being removed. The SOS and WL% comparison has become the one tool everyone (including us, because we knew how it was being used) used to make at-large selections and everything else seemed to take a backseat.

Compare it to the women who have not used the comparison "math." More teams with solid WL%, good vRRO, and other solid criteria have gotten into the tournament over the years.

[Colby Hoops]

The SOS is not losing importance... that isn't what I am saying.

The comparison "math" that was being used is losing it's place because technically, it really isn't a criteria point. The SOS will still be there and be evaluated, but committee members cannot adjust the SOS or the WL based on the comparison "math" they had been using in the past. That has resulted in the past in, arguably, over-inflating SOS numbers or giving teams with gaudy SOS numbers and average, at best, WL% numbers suddenly lofty resumes.

Look at UW-Oshkosh a few years back. They were 17-10 with one of the best SOS numbers in the country. That SOS to WL% comparison adjusted their WL into a number that looked very good. I said then and say now - I don't think UWO should have been in the tournament that year (and yes, I get they won games). Their WL% was below .700 which had been a kind of Mendozza Line for a long time, but their SOS was so incredibly high they got in.

That same thing happened with Amherst two seasons ago.

So the SOS will still have a place, but it will be a bit more "equal" than in the past. The ability to adjust things to make it look stronger is being removed. The SOS and WL% comparison has become the one tool everyone (including us, because we knew how it was being used) used to make at-large selections and everything else seemed to take a backseat.

Compare it to the women who have not used the comparison "math." More teams with solid WL%, good vRRO, and other solid criteria have gotten into the tournament over the years.

While the SOS isn't technically losing importance based on the criteria, in practice it is. Maybe it's for the better and SOS was being overvalued based on the comparison as Dave notes. I'm very uninformed when it comes to Pool C selection criteria (other than being adamant that the selection process was incorrect in 2010 when Colby missed out ) But, I also agree with OG's sentiment -- a tournament criteria that rewards SOS will result in more competitive non-conference schedules, which is a win for everyone.

Perhaps the current criteria (without the SOS to WL% comparison) already agrees with this, but I think Midd at 15-5 has a more impressive resume than Amherst at 15-3 for example. If the new deemphasis on the comparison changes that (which as I note, maybe it doesn't) I think that's unfortunate.

[Colby Hoops]

On a different note, went to the Williams-Albertus Magnus game. Williams looked very good, could've been an even more lopsided game if Williams shot better on some open looks. Bobby Casey in particular had a bunch of open looks that he normally makes. The Williams defense was outstanding, even the shots that AM made were mostly well-contested and tough makes.

Spencer Spivy got a little bit of time in the first half and made a couple of threes. I still think he should get a longer look from Coach App. Right now there is so much pressure on Casey and Heskett to shoot well from three, as almost every other rotation player isn't too much of a threat from deep.

On a less fun note, it seems that Marc Taylor's injury is serious and he'll miss the rest of the season. Tough blow for a kid who's been playing very well.