NE Region General Questions

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks for the comments, so far. I hope that others will join in.

Hugenerd's ranking makes sense to me, for the reasons that he has said.  The LEC has had too much at the top to ignore.

What the TCCC shak-out did was to "debulk" an overly large conference.  It is too tough to have a conference of more than 12, for many reasons.  The 6-team divisions usually reflect geographical convenience.  Going from 8 to 12 gives some economies of scale in admin costs.

Regis and ENC will land somewhere soon.

[Gregory Sager]

Further, there is no team in the CCC, or the new NNEAC, that has come close in recent years to what the top LEC teams have done nationally.

"Nationally"?

[Hugenerd]

In terms of rankings and in the NCAA tournament.  Those are the only two national metrics we have.  Several teams in the LEC have received votes in the national poll (I believe at least 4 different LEC teams picked up votes at some point last season) and UMD and RIC have cracked the top 25, and in some cases the top 10, in recent years.  Rarely do you see any TCCC school pick up any votes.  I know those are human polls, but they still are a national-level accomplishment.  Also, I dont remember their exact results, but they have also won a few games in the post-season (not trying to rekindle the debate about the regionality of the first few rounds).  Either way, the LEC has performed better in the northeast and nationally, in my opinion. 

Also, out of that whole post, you just pick out that one word?  Seems a bit petty.  The point of the post was that the LEC is a stronger conference than the TCCC.  Would it have made a huge difference if I had said "in the NE", "in postseason play", or "in the national rankings."  I think the point was pretty clear.

[Gregory Sager]

In terms of rankings and in the NCAA tournament.  Those are the only two national metrics we have.  Several teams in the LEC have received votes in the national poll (I believe at least 4 different LEC teams picked up votes at some point last season) and UMD and RIC have cracked the top 25, and in some cases the top 10, in recent years.  Rarely do you see any TCCC school pick up any votes.  I know those are human polls, but they still are a national-level accomplishment.  Also, I dont remember their exact results, but they have also won a few games in the post-season (not trying to rekindle the debate about the regionality of the first few rounds).  Either way, the LEC has performed better in the northeast and nationally, in my opinion.

The point about the poll is legitimate, although I think your statement would've been better served if you'd simply said that the LEC has done better than the CCC in the poll, since, as you implied with the word "human," the poll is a fallible guesstimate based upon vastly incomplete data regarding nationally-based comparisons.

The point about "the regionality of the first few rounds" speaks for itself, since Rhode Island College's first-round win over Rutgers-Newark this past March marked the first time that the LEC has had a team beat an opponent from outside the East or Northeast regions in the tournament since Western Connecticut beat Johns Hopkins back in 1990. The LEC went 0-6 against non-NE/E teams during that timespan in tournament play, with half of the six losses being blowouts (including Carthage's memorable 90-41 romp over Mass-Dartmouth back in '01). You really can't speak about national success for a league unless you examine how it has done in the tournament against teams from far beyond its own backyard.

Also, out of that whole post, you just pick out that one word?  Seems a bit petty.

Not at all. It was the only word with which I took issue in your post.

The point of the post was that the LEC is a stronger conference than the TCCC.  Would it have made a huge difference if I had said "in the NE", "in postseason play", or "in the national rankings."  I think the point was pretty clear.

Of course it was clear. My interjection had nothing to do with your point about the LEC's superiority over the CCC. I simply took issue with the implication that the LEC has somehow achieved something (polls notwithstanding) on the national level in recent decades. So, yes, if you would've chosen one of those other three wordings I would not have taken issue with it.

[Hugenerd]

I think the LEC has done more on the national stage than the CCC.  All 3 of those wordings would have fit, so I chose a more general term, which is still true.  I wasnt comapring the LEC to WIAC, NESCAC, CCIW, or UAA, just the CCC.  

In the past 5 NCAA tourneys: RIC made it to the Final 8 in 2007, losing to eventual champion Amherst. They also won a tourney game in 08 and made it to the final 16 in '10. Also, UMD made the final 16 in '09 and Keene made it to the round of 16 in '07.  Meanwhile, in the last 5 tourneys, the CCC has gone 0-6, losing by an average of 18 ppg (they had 2 teams make it in 06).  Also, when UMD was ranked as high as #2 in the 07-8 season, starting 19-0, was pretty impressive (despite finishing the season 25-4), and RIC averaging 24 wins per season the last 4 seasons (being ranked on and off during that time).  I would say that the LEC has definitely done more nationally, with respect to both the NCAA tourney and the d3hoops polls.  There arent really any other national metrics to go by.  

Again, I wasnt trying to compare the LEC to every other conference in the country, just simply the CCC, in terms of national success.  You can say that a conference has been more successful on the national level than another conference, despite the fact that both have not done a whole lot on the national stage.  If I am comparing A and B, there is no need to bring in C-Z.  

As I said earlier, this seems a rather petty splitting of hairs.  Everytime someone uses national success in a comparison, we dont need a reference to the CCIW.

[Gregory Sager]

I think the LEC has done more on the national stage than the CCC.  All 3 of those wordings would have fit, so I chose a more general term, which is still true.  I wasnt comapring the LEC to WIAC, NESCAC, CCIW, or UAA, just the CCC.

Nevertheless, the term "nationally" has an ambiguity to it in this case. An inference can be drawn that the LEC has earned some modicum of national D3 respect, and it really hasn't.

In the past 5 NCAA tourneys: RIC made it to the Final 8 in 2007, losing to eventual champion Amherst. They also won a tourney game in 08 and made it to the final 16 in '10. Also, UMD made the final 16 in '09 and Keene made it to the round of 16 in '07.

In none of those cases, except for the epoch-shattering Rhode Island College win over Rutgers-Newark in March that I've already cited, did the LEC representative defeat a team from outside of New York State or New England, which is the whole point I am making. You're just as familiar as anyone else with the truism that the NE/E quadrant of the bracket is significantly inferior to the other three on an annual basis, aside from the NESCAC representatives and, on occasion, Rochester. The LEC's success within the NE/E bracket quadrant does nothing to establish the league's credentials nationally, because, aside from the NESCAC and the UAA, nobody from New York State or New England has performed well against the greater D3 world in decades.

Meanwhile, in the last 5 tourneys, the CCC has gone 0-6, losing by an average of 18 ppg (they had 2 teams make it in 06).

Not germane, since I have not disputed your original point about the CCC's inferiority to the LEC.

Also, when UMD was ranked as high as #2 in the 07-8 season, starting 19-0, was pretty impressive (despite finishing the season 25-4), and RIC averaging 24 wins per season the last 4 seasons (being ranked on and off during that time).

I addressed the issue of the polls in my previous post. And, as for the impressive records of LEC teams, the inevitable question one has to ask is: Impressive records earned against whom? It's the Chapman debate all over again.

I would say that the LEC has definitely done more nationally, with respect to both the NCAA tourney and the d3hoops polls.  There arent really any other national metrics to go by.

I would say that in this case there are specific aspects within the tourney that provide a much more useful national metric than does the tournament in its entirety. In other words, please don't ask me to be impressed by a Sweet Sixteen run in which the wins were over the likes of Rivier and Salem State. That's why I referenced the LEC's twenty-year tourney performance against teams from south and west of New York State's borders. 

Again, I wasnt trying to compare the LEC to every other conference in the country, just simply the CCC, in terms of national success.  You can say that a conference has been more successful on the national level than another conference, despite the fact that both have not done a whole lot on the national stage.  If I am comparing A and B, there is no need to bring in C-Z.

But how do you honestly justify references to national success unless you're using the entire alphabet (i.e., the entire nation)? Sure, national success is a relative term, but it's misleading to imply that the mediocre has achieved something significant simply because it isn't the incompetent. Again, your implication is that the LEC has attained something noteworthy on the national stage, if by nothing else than by defaulted comparison. It really hasn't. It's a third-rate league, and the argument that it's better than a fourth-rate league in its own neighborhood is not necessarily an endorsement of any kind of national prowess on the part of the third-rate league. As I said, my dispute is with your use of the word "nationally," which I think needs to be hedged in with qualifiers if you're talking about the LEC. 

As I said earlier, this seems a rather petty splitting of hairs.  Everytime someone uses national success in a comparison, we dont need a reference to the CCIW.

Who's splitting hairs now? I simply brought up the Carthage/UMD game of nine years ago to make a point about the LEC's inability to compete against non-NE/E teams in the tournament for two decades, and you defensively draw Carthage's league affiliation into it as though it was relevant. Fine. If it makes you feel better, delete my reference to the 90-41 Carthage win over UMD in '01 and replace it with a reference to Kean's 105-80 win over UMD in 1991.

[Hugenerd]

This has all the makings of a never-ending debate. The original post was meant to simply state that the LEC is a historically much better league than the CCC.  I am pretty sure you and I are in agreement on that point, so lets just leave it at that.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I guess I was judging by the last decade rather than the last couple of years.

The MASCAC has only been decent the last year or two - before that it was Salem and a bunch of scrubs.

The LEC had a lot of down years and just a recent resurgence.

I think all of the leagues in New England have been improving lately.  The big reason why these teams left the CCC was to continue their development.  I think the new league will be a lot stronger as its made up of teams with the means and will to keep raising the bar athletically.

They might not be the third best conference this year, or even the fourth, but in the long run, I think this puts them there.

[Hugenerd]

Do you really believe that?

Salem and a bunch of scrubs is still better than a bunch of scrubs.  The CCC has not won a single NCAA tourney game in the last decade, and gotten blown out in nearly all of those first round games (check it out yourself).  At least the MASCAC has had some teams win NCAA games, Salem State even made the final four about a decade back.  At this point there is no comparison, the LEC and MASCAC are better conferences than the CCC.  In fact, the CCC is the only conference in the NE that has not won an NCAA game in the past decade (unless I missed something).  Even the NAC and NECC have won an NCAA tourney game in that span.  The CCC may be on the rise (which is also a matter of opinion), but they are not going to be in the top half of NE conferences in the foreseable future.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think we're using different criteria.  I'm trying to judge conferences top to bottom.  The CCC essentially jettisoned some of their poorest teams.  I gladly concede that the top CCC teams have not been competitive with the top teams in New England, but top to bottom it's had better class than most of the NE conferences.

The NESCAC is tops, the NEWMAC is strong.  The LEC is next.  I think the GNAC may be vaulting the CCC, but that's a recent development.

I'm just not going to rank a conference based on its best teams.  I'm fine with you doing so, I just think we're talking passed each other a bit.

[Hugenerd]

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.  There isnt nearly enough quality at the bottom of the CCC (or the new conference) to make up for the lack of results at the top of the conference.  Further, I dont think the bottom of the conference is any stronger than any other middle-of-the-pack northeast conference.  I understand where you are coming from, because I would defend the conferences I back also, but I just dont see it the same way at this point.  Maybe a few more consistent seasons from the top of the CCC and we can rekindle this debate.

[leelowlang]

A look at 2010-11 NE Region:


Pre-Season Top Five:

1.  MIT
2.  Middlebury
3.  West Conn
4.  RIC
5.  Albertus Magnus


Pre-Season All-Region 1st Team:

Noel Hollingsworth, MIT
Ray Askew, Albertus Magnus
James Wang, Williams
Ryan Sherry, Middlebury
Nicholas Motta, Bridgewater State


Teams to Beat:

NESCAC - Middlebury - Led by a frontcourt consisting of Ryan Sharry and Andrew Locke and the rising sophomore backcourt of Jake Wolfin and Nolan Thompson, the Panthers remain on the best in the region. (Runner Up - Williams)

NEWMAC - MIT - With arguably the best 1-2 punch in the region with reigning POY Noel Hollingsworth and Mitchell Kates the Engineers are in good shape to improve on last year's 22-5 campaign. (Runner Up - WPI)

LEC - West Conn - With their entire roster slated to be back, including POY DaQuan Brooks, the Colonials will have their hands very full fighting off other veteran rosters in RIC and East Conn. (Runner Up - RIC)

MASCAC - Bridgewater State - POY Nicholas Motta and Judah Jackson, both seniors, lead a team that has went 11-1 in league last season though PG McLaughlin was an underrated player and will be missed. (Runner Up - Salem State)

TCCC - Wentworth - Led by 6'11" Sam Herrick, the Leopards have enough back to over take Gordon due to their loss of dynamic backcourt Aaron Trigg and Brady Bajema. (Runner Up - Gordon)

GNAC - Albertus Magnus - The return of POY Ray Askew and along with rising sophomore big man Jefferson Lora and wing Walden St. Juste make AMC a very scary team in 2010-11 though St. Joseph's may pose a significant hurdle. (Runner Up - St. Joseph's (ME))

NAC - Thomas - A veteran Terrier squad, led by one of the top guards in the region in Andrew Duncanson, return their entire starting five from an 18-8 team. (Runner Up - Castleton)

NECC - Becker - The defending champs return their entire roster and are led by a versatile trio in Rajai Leggett, Terrance Favors, and Trey Jacobs.  ECAC Tournament champs Elms will be hungry to regain their spot at the top of the conference. (Runner Up - Elms)

[Hugenerd]

Williams is still going to be real tough in the NESCAC.  They have arguably the two best players in the conference, in Wang and Whittington.  I would put them above Midd.  Midd does return the most players, but I still think Williams edges them out.  I think those two and maybe Amherst, if they can figure out what they are doing (because they have the talent), will contend for the top of the NESCAC.

MIT should be real good, but its tough to put too high of expectations on such a young team.  I would love to see them atop the region when it is all said and done, but they could start only 1 junior (Hollingsworth), and 4 freshman or sophomores (Karraker will be returning as a redshirt sophomore, also Tashman and Kates, and the other spot is pretty wide open for anyone to win, even a freshman).  With a year under most of those players belts, I hope they handle the pressure a bit better this year (and stay healthy), but they are still young.  There is also a lot of talent returning to other NEWMAC teams, as well as strong recruiting classes by several teams, but I do think MIT returns the strongest group.  I think Kates will emerge as the best point guard in the northeast soon.  He has all the tools and is extremely athletic (check out the recent picture on the MIT basketball blog.  It would be fun to see him and Wang go head-to-head, and hopefully we do get to see that in the NCAAs this year.  Wang is a great player, but I just think Kates can do some things athletically that Wang cannot.  Kates/Hollingsworth and Wang/Whittington are arguably the two best 1-2 combos in the NE.  MIT also has one of the best young power forwards in the region in Will Tashman.

I more or less agree with your other conference picks (only major difference would be the NESCAC).  Tough to gauge some of the teams from other conferences because there has been no official word on any recruits.

[Ole Ollie]

The University of Massachusetts men's basketball team has added an exhibition game for a good cause.
The Minutemen announced Tuesday they will host Division III Brandeis University at 7 p.m. on Nov. 4 at the Mullins Center. The game will benefit The Food Bank of Western Massachusetts.
"For us to give back to The Food Bank is extra special to me," UMass coach Derek Kellogg said in a statement. "We are doing our part for the Pioneer Valley, my home, with this game to benefit The Food Bank."
To gain admission to the game, fans must bring two cans of non-perishable food or a meal to be donated to The Food Bank. All seating will be general admission.

[jhawk]

I few of our  New Hampshire stars went div III
Jake Nelson Nashua South  supposedly went to WPI but he is not on the 16 man roster !
Justin Holjo was at Plymouth State had a monster HS carreer . He is no where to be found . New Coach at Plymouth
Any Word on where these two very good HS  palyers wound up ??

From HS I expected both to be very good Div II players  capable of stong contribution.[