MBB: NESCAC

[eclinchy]

I'd love to hear more about the MIT-Tufts game from this week.  What was MIT able to do against the Jumbos?

I covered the game, actually.

http://www.tuftsdaily.com/news/2006/12/04/Sports/Mens-Basketball.Jumbos.Prevail.Over.Engineers.In.TripleOvertime.Masterpiece-2519153.shtml

From what I could see, MIT had two major things going in their favor.  One was free throws -- MIT was 22 for 23 from the free throw line, which was absolutely huge.

Also, they didn't let Tufts finish too many possessions on offense.  The Engineers had 32 defensive rebounds, while the Jumbos had just 9 on the offensive end.

[eclinchy]

"i graduated from williams where i was an all-american tennis player"

Is tennis a varsity sport?

Hahahahaha.  Yes.  Of course.

[walzy31]

Mister Tennis Player,

Basketball forum
2006-2007 season
To me, basketball is dunks and near dunks

Anyone have a Brandeis/Elms result from tonight?

[Marty Peretz]

Bro, you played Tennis at Williams. That makes sense since Williams basketball  over the last 5-7 years is notrious for having the most socially awkward ballers in the NESCAC, if not the nation (See: Abba, Bhat, Crotty, Coffin, Kain--Folan and Cole= possible exceptions). Makes sense that they'd kick it with a tennis player. Anyway, I'm new here, but figured I'd make a grand entrance. I'll tell you this much abotu D3 and the NESCAC: Paulsen is a better coach than Hixon but I still generally root for Amherst, The UAA top to bottom is a much better conference than the NESCAC, the top NESCAC teams play **** non conference schedules and Brandeis very well may Hixon and co pay for playing every **** team in the country in nonconference play. Still, the Jeffs will prevail, albeit barely. Amherst 76 Breandeis 70.

[hugenerd]

I'd love to hear more about the MIT-Tufts game from this week.  What was MIT able to do against the Jumbos?  This is the same MIT team that struggled MIGHTILY against Conn College, at least from what I was able to glean from the box score.  And what's the word from New London?  The results don't look too bad, so how is the team coming together this year?  Why does it look like Midd has taken a step backwards in non-conference play?  Is this true?  I'd love some info on what's going on around the league in what others seem to regard as the "second tier."  Who is dangerous and why?

I was at the game.  MIT matched up well against Tufts because Tufts, much like MIT, is a small, guard oriented team (or at least they played that way).  MIT only has one real post player, and that is freshman Eric Bracht, and he completely controlled the middle going for 16 points and 17 boards.  The players that seemed to want to score in the post for Tufts, #50 and #1, scored 1 and 7 points respectively and only had 12 boards between them.  MIT was also able to keep up consistent ball pressure despite only having 6 players with significant minutes.  The pace of the game was controlled by MIT.  It seemed like Tufts wanted to run up and down the court but MIT continually slowed it down and kept the game under control. If they had played at Tufts pace they would have been blown out (they only played 6 players over 7 minutes). Tufts also had alot of turnovers (MIT had quite a few as well).  #2 for Tufts, for example, came in for 4 minutes in the second half, had 2 turnovers and airballed a couple of shots before he hit a jumper and was taken out of the game.  He alone cost Tufts 4 possessions in the second half (which happened to coincide to the time in the game when MIT went up by 10).  I think Tufts will have trouble with bigger teams that can control the pace of the game.  Both Brandeis and RIC are pretty big teams and we all know how Tufts fared against them.

As for particulars with the game, both MIT and Tufts had a chance to win in regulation.  MIT led by as much as 10 in the second half but Tufts tied it with under a minute and had the ball for the last possession.  #31 turned the ball over with 3-4 seconds left, but MIT did not get a shot off even though they called a timeout and diagramed a play.  In the first OT, Tufts took control and was up by 5 with about 35 seconds left and they had the ball.  Tufts was called on an offensive foul on the inbounds as #1 (pierce) elbowed #25 for MIT in the face.  MIT scored and after another turnover, Brad Gampel hit a 3 for MIT to send it to a second OT.  In the second OT, MIT had the ball with 15 seconds left and the score tied.  #25 for MIT made a great move but missed an 8 foot jumper from the baseline as time expired.  In the third OT it was all Tufts.

[nescac hoops]

hey marty,

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH.......HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA.....HHAHAHHAHAHHAHHA - sorry, still laughing about your statement regarding the UAA being stronger than the NESCAC. hahahahhahahha- good laugh, thanks.

about paulsen...i think as a coach during the game and practice he is good - possibly great. however, his inability to not get the recruits he needs on his team is where he is not all that great. sure, there are a number of players nescac coaches would love to have but can't get in due to academic standards but paulsen hasn't really had a big man since coffin (who he didn't recruit himself) and the one big man who he did recruit that was supposed to be "the next coffin" was andrew newton and his "potential" never reached that of coffin. kain was a good recruit - but was not a big man and played out of position his senior year. i just think that as far as recruiting goes, paulsen isn't that stellar. he can be the greatest coach in the world when he has players to work with (his two years of glory) but he hasn't been able to bring in the tlaent that sheehy did.

and no, i wouldn't hang out with crotty if you paid me.

HAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH - still laughing...

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

still laughing about your statement regarding the UAA being stronger than the NESCAC.

Well it was true last year, and possibly this year, but there's a long way to go before anyone can make that judgement.

[nescac1]

First, how exactly was the UAA (one team in the tournament, losing in first round) better than NESCAC last year (one team in final four, a second in sweet 16, and two more barely missing out on making the tourney in Bates and Trinity)?  Arguably, the fourth best team in the NESCAC would have won the UAA last year.   This year, too early to tell. 

As for Paulsen's recruiting, in his defense, he's had incredibly bad luck with the big guys he did have on the roster -- all three Eph post players (Newton, Kuntz and Weisbrot) were hampered by injuries for basically the last two years, and the Ephs had some tough injury luck early this year as well with 4 guys including their top player and most experienced big man missing time or recovering from injuries.  Two of his last three recruiting classes have brought in some size, especially this year.  Other than Amherst, what NESCAC team has more than 1, at most 2, really talented guys over 6'5 on the roster?  There just aren't (again, outside of Amherst's ridiculous junior class) that many talented 6'6-6'8 guys with academics good enough for NESCAC who don't attract interest from the Ivies or Patriot League.  Granted, Williams did have the advantage of the national title to attract recruits over the last few years.  Now that the Ephs finally seem to be totally healthy and have had time to play together, I am hopeful that, even with a young team, they can play at a higher level than they have shown through the first seven games.  The next few games should be a good barometer of where things are headed.   If this group of Ephs does not mature to the point where they are very competitive with anyone in NESCAC by the end of this year, and back to being a contender by next year, then I'll start to wonder more about Paulsen's eye for talent.  The biggest question in my mind comes on defense -- even when Sheehy's teams didn't have a lot of offensive weapons (like around 2000/2001), they always played lock down defense.  Whether that is a function of the type of guy Paulsen recruits or coaching philosophy, I'm not sure.  I'm convinced that the Ephs have too many good shooters now to continue to struggle brutally from outside the way they have -- Snyder and Rose in particular won't end up at 20-25 percent from 3.  I'd like to, however, see them win a game when the shots aren't falling based on pure defense, rebounding and hustle.  They are currently forcing less than 10 turnovers per game which just will not get it done (compare to Bates, which forces nearly double as many).   

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Hey, I'm not saying the UAA is a better conference, historically the NESCAC is really good.  The NESCAC always has the upper hand in my mind unless the UAA sneaks in once in a while.

One team does not a conference make and despite the few close games last year, Amherst has head and shoulders above the rest.  Tufts had quite a run, but that was peaking at the right time.

You can't use tournament record to prove any of this because the talent in the tournament is lopsided.  The UAA, over the course of the whole season had a bunch of good squads with good results.

Ultimately it is a judgement call.  I've made one and you've made one; I'm guessing neither of us is going to change opinions.

[geronimo]

Holy Cow, I saw two posts that were so bad that they forced me to come out of retirement. 

"I played varsity tennis at Williams..."

Uh...okay....

"The UAA is better than the NESCAC..."

Uh...sure...on Pluto. 

These are officially the two worst posts in the history of D3hoops.com, and this milestone will last forever, because you can only be tied, never surpassed. 

"I played varsity tennis at Williams..."?  Are you serious?  That's like Gilligan jumping out of your television while you're watching Nick at Nite and posting "I manned a boat with the skipper..."  Which would actually make sense since, judging by your participation on the Williams tennis team, you and Gilligan probably share a very similar wardrobe.

And are we really talking about who will win the Amherst - Brandeis game?  We should be discussing whether the Jeffs will cover the 20-point spread. 

Geronimo out (until somebody ties y'all for the worst posts of all time - I'll keep you posted).

[eclinchy]

I was at the game.  MIT matched up well against Tufts because Tufts, much like MIT, is a small, guard oriented team (or at least they played that way).

Yes and no.  Tufts is definitely more guard oriented than they were last year, but you have to keep in mind that usually, Jon Pierce (#1) gets off a lot more shots.  The MIT game was different because the Engineers took a big lead in the second half, and most of the Jumbos' shots were from outside.  Pierce spent most of his time in the paint, picking up the slack for Fitzgerald (#50), who had a pretty lousy game.

The Jumbos were 2- and 3-oriented on Saturday, because their two best shooters are Weitzen (#31) and O'Keefe (#20).  Jake was 2 for 4 from beyond the arc, and Ryan was 5 for 8... that was huge.

MIT only has one real post player, and that is freshman Eric Bracht, and he completely controlled the middle going for 16 points and 17 boards.  The players that seemed to want to score in the post for Tufts, #50 and #1, scored 1 and 7 points respectively and only had 12 boards between them.

One thing we can agree on, and that's that Erich Bracht had a huge game.  The most impressive stat on him is his minutes -- amazingly, he played all 55.  Not bad for a freshman!  Even Shepherd, who's considered to be Tufts' workhorse, only played 49 minutes.

But as far as rebounding goes, let's not get carried away.  Bracht was by no means in complete control.  Keep in mind that despite everything Bracht did, you guys got outrebounded overall!  Jake Weitzen had 10 for us, which was really impressive considering he plays the 3 most of the time.  And Pierce, who you lump into the same category with Fitz for some reason, had nine, eight on the defensive end.  Fitz and Pierce were completely different players in that game.  Fitz got his ass kicked, while Pierce was really clutch, in terms of getting crucial rebounds to give the Jumbos the ball back.

MIT was also able to keep up consistent ball pressure despite only having 6 players with significant minutes.  The pace of the game was controlled by MIT.  It seemed like Tufts wanted to run up and down the court but MIT continually slowed it down and kept the game under control. If they had played at Tufts pace they would have been blown out (they only played 6 players over 7 minutes).

That last sentence is incredibly true.  But I don't think you guys "controlled the pace" of the game.  You tried to, but we had a really aggressive full-court press (it helps to have 12 good players on your roster instead of eight).  Jeremy Black (in my opinion, the best defensive player Tufts has) had a huge steal in the second overtime (one of seven on the game for the Jumbos), that put us back in the game.  If you guys had a bit better ball-handling, you would have been in more control.  But in the end, it didn't work. Barnett Koryan was especially terrible for you guys -- he had a really bad game.

Tufts also had alot of turnovers (MIT had quite a few as well).  #2 for Tufts, for example, came in for 4 minutes in the second half, had 2 turnovers and airballed a couple of shots before he hit a jumper and was taken out of the game.  He alone cost Tufts 4 possessions in the second half (which happened to coincide to the time in the game when MIT went up by 10).

Haha.  Congratulations, you managed to find a flaw in our fourth or fifth best guard.

Gallant didn't get much time to develop last season, and he's still playing like a freshman so far.  Give him time, and he'll get better.

I think Tufts will have trouble with bigger teams that can control the pace of the game.  Both Brandeis and RIC are pretty big teams and we all know how Tufts fared against them.

First of all, RIC's two best players are their guards, Kinsey Durgin and Tirrell Hill, and those two guys are both under six feet.  I was there when RIC beat Tufts (and I doubt you were?), and RIC won by out-running the Jumbos, just the Jumbos did to MIT.

And second, when this Tufts offense gets on a fast break, they're very hard to stop.  Between Shepherd, Black and O'Keefe, this team has so many speedy, athletic scoring options that they're hard to stop.  Your best chance of beating them is to try and run with them -- that's what RIC did, and it worked.

[JeffRookie2]

Wow, tufts sounds really good. They must be undefeated no?

[eclinchy]

Wow, tufts sounds really good. They must be undefeated no?

Nice cheap shot?

Your post would be a lot funnier if I hadn't just closed mine with talking about how Tufts lost.

[old_hooper]

Trinity falls 76-72 at Springfield.  MIT lost to WNEC 61-52.  Amherst beat both winners in the Pioneer Classic by wide margins of 36 and 39.

[met_fan]

Wesleyan goes down 79-76 to Hamilton.  It was never much more than a 5 or 6 point lead either way all game.