MBB: NESCAC

[The Historian]

This is a little late-breaking for a man of my profession, but, hey, instant history is still history.

The king is dead.  Long live the king.

Fletcher "Reigning NESCAC Player of the Week" Walters.

I heard he's going to celebrate by watching "The Titanic: based on the true story of the Williams Hoops Program" tonight on cable.

He would otherwise be studying for his finals later this week, but Amherst gave him summa as soon as he set foot on campus.  That's just the kind of guy he is.

As for myself, it's back to my job as the "Hugh Quattlebaum Professor of Truth"

[nescac hoops]

Historian and Friar, you will have to forgive me b/c i am not a history or a movie buff.....
but "sleepless in seattle" and "winless in salem" or "baner-less in amherst" sound kind of alike.

and to thunder, i tried to have your back before when walzy brought up "the shot" but...
"one hit wonder" and tufts basketball 2005-2006 could be synonymous. i won't touch upon safety school and tufts or bring up our favorite doughboy.

[basketball elf]

Just wanted to wish everyone a very special NESCAC Happy Holidays!

http://dancingelf.ca/DancingElf.asp?id=12221

[thunder32]

Wow you are an ass, but that is absolutely hilarious.  Gotta be an Amherst fan.

Nescac hoops,
you are right they need to really prove themselves after their rockey start this year so it doesnt turn out to be a one hit wonder.  And can we get a good one for trinity like "The Departed" - Life without Rhouten. 

[The Historian]

nescac hoops, as my colleague, the John Pavelski Professor of Shakespeare, would say, "Ay, there's the rub."

Yes, Williams has the banner and the wins in Salem.  There's just no getting around that.  And, man, how I envy them that fact.  Every time I walk into their gym—and I've been to every single Amherst-Williams game since 1997—I get that same strange mix of emotion.  To paraphrase another great academic film of our time, I hate them for that banner, but damn it, I respect them for it.  Those were great teams they had.  They took the very, very best Amherst had, and they still came out on top.

But—and it's a big but—those two programs have moved in dramatically different directions over the past three years.  Ever since that last buzzer sounded in their historic matchup down in Salem, Amherst has reloaded and stayed a national powerhouse whereas William has...well, see the proposed thesis titles above.

As a student of history, I am eager to understand why that has happened.  As an Amherst fan, I am eager to avoid the same sort of demise to our program after we (hopefully) can earn our own banner.

Parallels exist throughout the historical record.  The dinosaurs, the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Greeks, the Romans, the Ming Dynasty, the Sahelian kingdoms of Mali and Ghana, the Mongols, the Shoguns, the Holy Roman Empire, the Nez Perce, the Czars, the French, the Ottomans, the Brits, the Germans, the Communists, the Tonight Show, and even ER.

At one time, each of these powers was considered invincible in its own right.  But they all fell away into putrid mediocrity or extinction.  Why?  What commonalities, if any, exist among the reasons for their demises?  And what can Amherst do to avoid this fate?

These are the questions I ponder.  It's a lonely quest, but one which the ivory tower demands.

But for now I will simply take pleasure in Amherst's dominance (and Williams' struggles).  It's a beautiful thing – much like an Erik Kelly raindrop three or a Jamal Wilson step-back jumper.

Stay in school, boys and girls.

[thunder32]

Speaking of invincible powers you forgot the spartans which there is a new movie coming out and it looks sick called "The 300"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wZm52UrkDpA&mode=related&search=

Check it out and tell me that it is not sick

[JeffRookie2]

Historian- I'm pretty sure the Greeks, Aztecs, ER etc failed to continue to bring in top-notch players like Kurt Bennett (hopefully) will be. I'm pretty certain I remember that from my history books, the Greeks fell because they failed to recruit Kurtuseouos Bennettictus.

[nescac hoops]

Historian,

Hixon will never give credit to Williams when it is due - and will probably die on his deathbed still claiming that those Williams teams were not better than his Amherst teams during those years. Don't get me started on that quote of his. While he will never admit it if he doesn't win the the big one himself down in salem, I guarantee he would take winning a national championship over years as (and i intenionally won't use national for reasons explained later in this post) as a regional powerhouse. National championships are the reason we have to painfully watch Brett Farve on Sundays, the reason Stockton and Malone stuck around for as long as they did, etc - they were all in search of a championships b/c they felt just consistantly being a contender and personal accolades were not enough. Sure Hixon and the Amherst teams have a great career records and they may even go to 23489756847 final fours but as it is for any real competitor, "close just isn't good enough" and they can't go to rest until they have the big one.

Onto regional/national powerhouses - Amherst is the best team in NE hands down. They may lose one perhaps to a NE team but they are still the best. Sure, they are ranked #2 in the country and they deserve that. But as far as a "national powerhouse" goes, again, they haven't beaten many, if any, good teams out of the region - specifically in salem. They sure have the talent to win in salem and based on their talent are as good as "national powerhouses" and in that repsect are a national powerhouse themselves. However, the reason I believe they falter down in salem is b/c of their weak schedule. I think Hixon is a great coach (despite some of his comments) however where Paulsen falters in recruiting, Hixon falters in scheduling. Brandeis is a very good team - other than that I recognize about 2 names of schools they've played this semester. Going into the NCAA tournament Amherst will have played around 7 real games where they are contested - Brandeis, Trinity, Bates, Tufts, and the semifinals/finals of the NESCAC tournament. Sure Amherst is deep but do you really think that they will play 14 guys if they make it to Salem and that Olsen will not play all but maybe 2 minutes in a championship game. Part of the reason Amherst is so "deep" is b/c they play a rather weak schedule for being a national powerhouse caliber team. Hell, I'm only a measly tennis player but Hixon would have put me into for 20+ minutes against NYCCT (in seriousness, is that actually a college?), Thomas College, or MIT. Don't get me wrong, Amherst is a great team but you can't go down to Salem having only played so few competitive games and expect to win down there. The years Williams won they played a tought schedule, they went to Florida over Xmas break and played two great teams (who i can't remember who right now but one was nationally ranked). The following year they scrimmaged the Globetrotters and played against ex-NBA players and those who couldn't quite make the cut for the NBA and then they played Holy Cross (and won) and not to mention everytime they played they played with a huge bullseye on there back having won the year prior. My point is that they were tested when they arrived at Salem, hence why they went 3-1 down there and why Amherst is 0-4 (they may have won in the "friendship game" or whatever it is called but who really cares - you get my point). If I were Amherst, I would call crosstown college UMASS and have a friendly scrimmage with their team and actually break a sweat.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Um not that I care to get into this debate; I totally don't, but Brett Favre won a championship already; he's running around like a lunatic now because he's close to taking Dan Marino's passing TD record away from him.  Just a point of fact.

[The Historian]

nescac hoops,

First of all, please don't put Hixon's words in my mouth.  I love the coach and would take him over Paulsen in an instant (as would, apparently, all of the top recruits that have considered both schools over the past couple of years – including the previously mentioned, Kurt Bennett).  But I was very careful to give Williams great respect for their national championship team, and I admit that they were the slightly better team 3 out of 4 times in that championship year (each team had one decisive win, and Williams took the other two – one in overtime and the other by 5 in the Final Four; the season point differential between the two teams was, in fact, that same 5 points).

Now, I don't recall exactly the quote you mention, nor do I know the context in which it was said, but if Hixon really did deny that those Williams teams were better than Amherst's, then I would respectfully disagree with him.  I'd argue that they were about as evenly matched as two bitter rivals can be and that those two close games could have easily gone Amherst's way, but they didn't.  And that's why you get to point to the banner, and we don't.

If you can't agree that those two teams were about as equal as two teams can be, then, well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

However, to argue that Amherst is not a national powerhouse is about as silly as a breakaway 'Dolph dunk.

If Amherst is the best team in New England (your words), and New England is one eight national regions (according to the way D3hoops breaks down the posting), then I think it's a fair assumption to think that Amherst at least can be discussed among the top teams in the nation.

After all, you seem to think that Williams was a national powerhouse in its hey-day.  And last time I checked, Williams and Amherst played in the same conference, the same region, and that the vast majority of their schedules are comprised of the same teams.  Granted, as you point out, in general Williams maybe puts together a more difficult non-conference schedule than does Amherst, but that's more of a difference in philosophy than anything.  Perhaps it's the wrong philosophy for Amherst, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that easier November games cost them wins in Salem.  In either case, a few cupcakes early in the season should not invalidate a team from the consideration of the "national powerhouse" label that you seem so worked up over, especially if said team goes on to dominate the rest of its schedule throughout the year, including strong teams over winter break like Trinity (TX) – struggling this year, but they went 16-3 in region last year – and a strong Occidental team in 05-06 that I think some other team from the Northeast is playing this year, if I'm not mistaken.

And, yes, Amherst hasn't won a game in Salem.  But we could have won all four.  Sometimes there's a little think called, for lack of a better word, luck that comes into play.  Amherst has had some tough luck down in Salem.  Amherst had a 6 point lead on Williams with less than 11 to go in their Final Four match-up.  Completely spent, Amherst lost to John Carroll the next day, though they trailed by only 5 with 44 seconds to go.  Then last year, Amherst had an 8 point lead with about 5 minutes to go in the Wittenberg game and missed a 3 in the last seconds to tie.  Amherst also missed a three to tie in the last seconds of the Illinois Wesleyan game – a team that many felt was the strongest team going into the tourney.  Before you accuse me of shoulda, woulda, coulda, yes, Amherst lost them all, and maybe there's a lesson to be learned there, but Amherst was also in each and every one of those games, and I believe could have won any of them with a little luck.

Speaking of luck, remind me, how long did Williams lead in their national championship victory?  48 seconds or something?  Or maybe that's not luck?

My only point is that as any one will tell you, at that level, it's anyone's guess as to what will happen.  Any game can go any way.  That's why they play them.

For now, though, I'm just going to stand by my claim that Amherst is a national powerhouse.

#2 in the country this year.

#1 in the country going into the tournament last year.

2 Final Fours in the last 3 years.

3 Elite Eights in the last 4 years.

5 Sweet Sixteens in the last 5 years.

149 – 29 over the past 6 years, not counting this year.  (Williams is, by the way, 137-33 over that same period.  Just because you wanted to know.)

I don't know.  That seems impressive to me.  Probably not too many other teams in the nation can put together a resume like this.  But, then again, I'm admittedly biased.

But whether that makes Amherst a national powerhouse or not, well, I guess that's up to each individual.

nescac hoops, I'll give you an A for passion, a C+ for your writing, a B- for your analysis on schedule strength, an F for common sense, but an A++ for your tennis skillzzz.

Lesson over.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Wow.  That post was simply Sagerian.  Only a real historian could have accomplished that.  Of course, like all of GS's posts, I didn't read it, but the sheer volume was impressive.

[nescac hoops]

historian,
those with COMMON SENSE know that not all regions are created equal which is why williams is the ONLY new england div III team to win a NCAA basketball championship EVER and the second from NE to win a basketball championship with the first being UCONN. if the NE was just as equal as other regions, don't you think they would have at least more than ONE national championship. is there such thing as a giving you an F- for common sense.
yes, the NESCAC is very strong but other than us the rest of the conferences in NE are weak compared to the rest of the nation and considering that NESCAC teams only play each other once, there are not a lot of in-region games that are all that competitve with the exception of NESCAC teams #1-4. so while you may not believe that playng cupcakes in the first semester makes or breaks a team in salem, there are not a lot of opportunities to play competitve teams outside of the single conference games. but hey, if Amherst can win a championship playing NYCCT (in all seriousness, is this really a college? i am not kidding. ill guess that the first two letters stand for new york and after that ill take community for one of the c's and maybe tech for the last letter t. historian, enlighten us as to what the other c might stand for) as a 1st semester game then ill eat my words and you can give me an F.
as for your reading skills, i said amherst was a great team and based on talent they are a "national powerhouse" however they falter on the national stage (salem) because they aren't prepared - Amherst's soft schedule doesn't prepare them for Salem. You can call scheduling different philosophies but what is Hixon's "philosophy" in scheduling "colleges" named NYCCT? If you can honestly say that Amherst gets more out of playing NYCCT or MIT (i know what that one stands for) as they would a more competitive team and that it would be better for them down the road to have cake walks than play competitive games then you're too dumb to even root for Amherst and you will be kicked out of class and will only be allowed in the GNAC forum.

[mrmike88]

A few responses:

NYCCT stands for New York City College of Technology.  Yes, it's a real school.  Whether it is a real basketball team is debatable.

MIT was actually a pretty decent team last year that lost a lot of scoring to graduation and so is not as strong this season.  But before you call them a cupcake team you might want to ask Tufts what they thought about the Engineers.  Last I checked, Tufts was a pretty good regional team.

In terms of in-region games, we've hashed over this many many times, but I don't think there was a single team within 250 miles of Amherst that could have adequately prepared the Lord Jeffs for Wittenberg last year and their two giants.  With that said, an undersized Amherst team could have (and you could say should have) won that game last year.  Do I defend Amherst's non-conference schedule?  No, but I understand the difficulties in finding teams that "prepare" you for the tournament.

[blacklordjeff]

If I'm reading correctly the Historian has already graduated from the 'Herst and is off doing bigger and better things.  

I've been on a bit of a hiatus, but just wanted to add that Salem has nothing to do with the schedule you play in September.  Even if Amherst goes undefeated during the regular season and the Nescac tourney, they still have to make it through a single elimination tournament to get to Salem.  That should be enough to prepare any team for Salem.  The Historian pointed out somethings in his post, no excuses but damn, when someone's last collegiate basketball memory is breaking his foot, while playing against his archrival, in his home state, playing in front of his family for the first time, it really aint about September, its about sucking it up and taking what comes, leaving it on the court, [fill in overused sports analogy here]...

WAR Coffin as one of the best players I've ever played against
WAR Pesky ass Crotty
WAR Cant check me Chucky
WAR Corrigan
WAR DONNO
WAR Aharps
WAR Big Schiel
WAR leaving it on the floor
WAR still losing sleep over NESCAC Ball

[Col. Partridge]

historian,
those with COMMON SENSE know that not all regions are created equal which is why williams is the ONLY new england div III team to win a NCAA basketball championship EVER and the second from NE to win a basketball championship with the first being UCONN.

Bob Cousy led Holy Cross to the D-I title in 1947.