NE Region General Questions

[Hugenerd]

There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates.  He's absolutely integral to what they do.  They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back.  I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates.  He's absolutely integral to what they do.  They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back.  I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.

Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority.  I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.

[GoTech73]

There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates.  He's absolutely integral to what they do.  They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back.  I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.

Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority.  I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.

Just to add a little perspective, most students I've talked to who stay on for a fifth year to get a Masters at MIT after completing their undergrad there tend to assert that their grad year is easier/less stressful/less complicated than the 4 years prior. A particularly rigorous thesis advisor could change that, but the overall opinion is that grad classes are not quite as challenging as undergrad.

My point being, I think if anything they (the two that will be in grad school) might have/make more time for basketball, especially knowing the potential the core group has.

[Hugenerd]

There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates.  He's absolutely integral to what they do.  They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back.  I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.

Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority.  I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.

Just to add a little perspective, most students I've talked to who stay on for a fifth year to get a Masters at MIT after completing their undergrad there tend to assert that their grad year is easier/less stressful/less complicated than the 4 years prior. A particularly rigorous thesis advisor could change that, but the overall opinion is that grad classes are not quite as challenging as undergrad.

My point being, I think if anything they (the two that will be in grad school) might have/make more time for basketball, especially knowing the potential the core group has.

They will not have thesis advisors, I believe both are doing a 1 year, course based masters.  Most of the first year is just graduate level studies that you have already taken at the undergrad level.  So, depending on your grasp of the material beforehand, those courses could be easier or harder than the undergrad years.  I think both of them will be fine, though.

[GoTech73]

There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates.  He's absolutely integral to what they do.  They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back.  I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.

Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority.  I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.

Just to add a little perspective, most students I've talked to who stay on for a fifth year to get a Masters at MIT after completing their undergrad there tend to assert that their grad year is easier/less stressful/less complicated than the 4 years prior. A particularly rigorous thesis advisor could change that, but the overall opinion is that grad classes are not quite as challenging as undergrad.

My point being, I think if anything they (the two that will be in grad school) might have/make more time for basketball, especially knowing the potential the core group has.

They will not have thesis advisors, I believe both are doing a 1 year, course based masters.  Most of the first year is just graduate level studies that you have already taken at the undergrad level.  So, depending on your grasp of the material beforehand, those courses could be easier or harder than the undergrad years.  I think both of them will be fine, though.

Gotcha, yeah I didn't realize there were some course-based only options - I'll admit most of my knowledge is based off the Course 2 MEng which does have a thesis.

[Hugenerd]

My knowledge is based off Course 10 MCEP, which does not have a thesis, so I guess I could be wrong also, but thats what I assumed based on a 1 year program.  Not much you can do in the lab in 1 academic year, unless you are contributing to someone else's project, in my opinion.

[BBallers]

They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

You must be joking.  To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players.  It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above.  This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players.  This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation.  You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team.  I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.

MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period.  You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year).  I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school.  I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season.  You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.

[BBallers]

There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates.  He's absolutely integral to what they do.  They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

If you listened to Hoopsville last night you know that Karraker is definitely coming back.  I also know from first hand conversations that Hollingsworth intends to return.

Oh I don't doubt their intentions, I was just implying that life gets more complicated after undergrad is done; basketball might be less of a priority.  I was just trying to say if the roster in October looks like the roster now, they'll be the preseason #1, I think.

Just to add a little perspective, most students I've talked to who stay on for a fifth year to get a Masters at MIT after completing their undergrad there tend to assert that their grad year is easier/less stressful/less complicated than the 4 years prior. A particularly rigorous thesis advisor could change that, but the overall opinion is that grad classes are not quite as challenging as undergrad.

My point being, I think if anything they (the two that will be in grad school) might have/make more time for basketball, especially knowing the potential the core group has.

They will not have thesis advisors, I believe both are doing a 1 year, course based masters.  Most of the first year is just graduate level studies that you have already taken at the undergrad level.  So, depending on your grasp of the material beforehand, those courses could be easier or harder than the undergrad years.  I think both of them will be fine, though.

Gotcha, yeah I didn't realize there were some course-based only options - I'll admit most of my knowledge is based off the Course 2 MEng which does have a thesis.

Good points.  I'm with the viewpoint of equal less stress in a 5th year Masters program because they may have less classes overall.  I believe both are taking dual undergrad majors that requires a lot more classes.  BTW, both made all conference academic team, so they are smart kids.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

You must be joking.  To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players.  It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above.  This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players.  This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation.  You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team.  I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.

MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period.  You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year).  I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school.  I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season.  You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.

Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament.  I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates.  They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best.  Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game.  I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.

[Hugenerd]

They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

You must be joking.  To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players.  It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above.  This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players.  This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation.  You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team.  I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.

MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period.  You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year).  I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school.  I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season.  You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.

Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament.  I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates.  They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best.  Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game.  I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.

Paul Dawson is a freshman and pretty darn good, just inexperienced. I think with more PT, he will develop into a solid starting PG at MIT, especially with a couple years behind Kates.  It may be too much to say they wouldnt have made the NCAA tourney (they probably still would have had a decent chance), but its probably safe to say they wouldn't have made the Final four with Kates, or Hollingsworth, Tashman, or Karraker for that matter.  With Bender already out essentially the entire tourney (and Jimmy Burke, who has been out the whole season), they really needed those guys to step up, and each has when they have needed to both offensively and defensively.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

You must be joking.  To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players.  It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above.  This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players.  This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation.  You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team.  I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.

MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period.  You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year).  I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school.  I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season.  You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.

Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament.  I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates.  They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best.  Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game.  I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.

Paul Dawson is a freshman and pretty darn good, just inexperienced. I think with more PT, he will develop into a solid starting PG at MIT, especially with a couple years behind Kates.  It may be too much to say they wouldnt have made the NCAA tourney (they probably still would have had a decent chance), but its probably safe to say they wouldn't have made the Final four with Kates, or Hollingsworth, Tashman, or Karraker for that matter.  With Bender already out essentially the entire tourney (and Jimmy Burke, who has been out the whole season), they really needed those guys to step up, and each has when they have needed to both offensively and defensively.

I didn't realize Dawson was a freshman - he's very talented.  I just was shocked by how poorly they handled the press break, it was almost if they weren't prepared for it (I don't know if that was a new wrinkle for CSI or if that was on film prior).  For a team so composed and knowledgable about where they should be on the floor, having trouble with the press was really surprising.

I'm sure they're working on it this week in case they see it again (if they make the final against Cabrini, they almost certainly will).

It just seemed really apparent they would have lost that big lead to CSI if Kates hadn't come back in the game late.  That was the only red flag I saw, but without Kates, it's a big one.  Perhaps having it exposed will help them address it.  They're certainly capable.

[remsleep]

There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates.  He's absolutely integral to what they do.  They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

Basically agree with Hoops Fan on this one.  I think MIT would make the tournament and go out in first round without MK.  People are slowly recognizing how special this kid is.  Third Team Northeast Region?  You've got to be joking.  The kid is a first team All American...period.  Better than Berthiaume ( who is terrific!)....better than Toomey ( who is also terrific).  Wake up everybody....how much more do you need to see? He is the most complete guard in D3.  I know that Kates did not get POY in the NEWMAC...on the other hand, in general we are not talking about a bunch of Einsteins who are doing the selecting either.

[BBallers]

They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

You must be joking.  To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players.  It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above.  This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players.  This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation.  You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team.  I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.

MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period.  You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year).  I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school.  I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season.  You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.

Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament.  I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates.  They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best.  Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game.  I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.

"Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament.  I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates."
This is an excellent point, although WPI losing 7 games and Springfield 10 games contributed to them not making the NCAA tournament.  DMac played point guard in the past as had Bender briefly and Paul Dawson is a talented freshman point, but none of those players are as explosive or talented at point as Kates.  Notwithstanding, any team with 2 of the best 4 players in the conference (i.e., without Kates) should be favored to win the conference and make the tournament.  I can also say that I believe (IMHO) WPI or Springfield would have beaten Skidmore, Farmingdale State and Staten Island in this tournament.

"They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best.  Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game.  I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games."
Great ovservation.  You definitely hit on one of the problems I was worried about.  First of all, you break a press by passing.  MIT's passing in those pressure situations was poor.  Kates took it upon himself and masterfully broke the press basically by himself.  Bender (orbital fracture in first weekend of play) would have helped in press situations, as this was never an issue during the season.  Kates has played great and has been the most valuable player in the tournament.  Without Mitch, I believe MIT would have still won, but maybe not by the 15, 16, and 20 point margins in their last 3 games.

[BBallers]

They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

You must be joking.  To even hint that MIT would not make the NCAA's without Kates is a great disservice to the remaining MIT players.  It also depicts either your lack of knowledge 1) of basketball (doubtful); 2) of the other MIT players' skill-sets (probable); 3) due to being so biased in comparison to Amherst that it clouds your judgement (most likely); or 4) based on some combination of the above.  This is as balanced of a team as I've seen in D3 basketball and I'd like to know who or what position you believe would be the weak link in MIT's starting 5 players.  This balance is the primary reason for the small MIT rotation.  You could have made this point with Jimmy Bartolata (spelling probably wrong) 3 seasons ago, but definitely not with this team.  I've already stated how much I admire Kates and he is on top of his game now and definitely the leader of the team.

MIT has made the NCAA's the last 4 seasons, but I concede to you that Amherst has had a better overall program over a lot longer period.  You should be proud of Amherst, but I believe they lost to a better F&M team (this year, but not next year).  I also believe Amherst is one of the top 4 national programs and root for them when they are not playing MIT or other NEWMAC school.  I agree that MIT will probably be the top ranked team at the beginning of next year, but I think Amherst has their best 2 players returning and they will probably be ranked #2 nationally next season.  You can bank on four of the starting five players returning for MIT, even with 5-year seniors turning down six figure starting salarys with significant bonuses.

Second place in the NEWMAC didn't make the tournament.  I'm not sure they would have beaten WPI without Kates.  They certainly showed some real problems with breaking the press last weekend - outside of Kates the ball handling was shaky at best.  Kates held that team together - he got the ball here it needed to be and he controlled the tempo of the whole game.  I didn't see anyone else on the roster who could have done that well enough to win those games.

Paul Dawson is a freshman and pretty darn good, just inexperienced. I think with more PT, he will develop into a solid starting PG at MIT, especially with a couple years behind Kates.  It may be too much to say they wouldnt have made the NCAA tourney (they probably still would have had a decent chance), but its probably safe to say they wouldn't have made the Final four with Kates, or Hollingsworth, Tashman, or Karraker for that matter.  With Bender already out essentially the entire tourney (and Jimmy Burke, who has been out the whole season), they really needed those guys to step up, and each has when they have needed to both offensively and defensively.

I didn't realize Dawson was a freshman - he's very talented.  I just was shocked by how poorly they handled the press break, it was almost if they weren't prepared for it (I don't know if that was a new wrinkle for CSI or if that was on film prior).  For a team so composed and knowledgable about where they should be on the floor, having trouble with the press was really surprising.

I'm sure they're working on it this week in case they see it again (if they make the final against Cabrini, they almost certainly will).

It just seemed really apparent they would have lost that big lead to CSI if Kates hadn't come back in the game late.  That was the only red flag I saw, but without Kates, it's a big one.  Perhaps having it exposed will help them address it.  They're certainly capable.

All good, justified points and valid concerns that I share.  I also worry about transition defense and perimeter defense.  CSI is basically a momentum or rhythm team and they started to get on a roll.  I was glad Kates got a rest, but more glad when he returned.

You mentioned Cabrini is a pressing team.  Do you believe UW-Whitewater (WW)is also a pressing team?  What do you believe WW's game plan will be against MIT?  Do you know their style of play, strengths and potential weaknesses?  Thanks.

[BBallers]

There's certainly no more valuable player in the tournament than Kates.  He's absolutely integral to what they do.  They wouldn't even be in the tournament without him, let alone the final four.

I do expect they'll be pre-season #1 - typically the pre-season #1 is the team in the final 8 who brings back the most starters.  MIT will fit that bill, assuming everyone does indeed come back.

Basically agree with Hoops Fan on this one.  I think MIT would make the tournament and go out in first round without MK.  People are slowly recognizing how special this kid is.  Third Team Northeast Region?  You've got to be joking.  The kid is a first team All American...period.  Better than Berthiaume ( who is terrific!)....better than Toomey ( who is also terrific).  Wake up everybody....how much more do you need to see? He is the most complete guard in D3.  I know that Kates did not get POY in the NEWMAC...on the other hand, in general we are not talking about a bunch of Einsteins who are doing the selecting either.

My primary debate was that I believe MIT would have made the tournament without him.  We almost didn't have him if you would have watched the ( un-) intentional foul that a Skidmore player handed him on a breakaway.  I agree that Berthiaume is a better scorer and a teriffic player, but I believe Kates is a better point guard along with a better rebounder.  I'd choose Kates over him.  Kates has actually sacraficed his scoring for the good of the other higher percentage team scoring opportunities.  That is what really distinguishes him.  The game has slowed down for Mitch.  He is definitely playing at an AA level.  LOL on the Einstein selectors.