WBB: NESCAC

[feces monkey]

By the way I wouldn't want you working for me.

Good choice. In retrospect, I wouldn't want me as an employee either. But don't tell my boss...

The conference brings a 16, 13 and four 12 win teams into this weekend and  only one would appear to be losing this weekend. I'll take:

Friday
Bates
Bowdoin
Wesleyan
and, um, Colby (?). Home court, I guess.

Saturday
Bowdoin and Tufts are easy...the rest are dicey...
Williams over (at) Midd makes sense, but might not be easy
Guess I gotta take the Lady Jeffs over Colby
Instinct says Bates will beat Wes on the road...no confidence, though

A clean sweep by Wesleyan would most likely mean a 'C' qualifier and the final four in Middletown. It's like Hartford, but without the barbed wire...

[goubears89]

Great piece in today's Boston Globe on Bowdoin. Living in Pittsburgh I really miss seeing the Polar Bears in Morrell Gym. http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/womens_basketball/articles/2006/01/27/polar_express/

[walzy31]

the final four in Middletown. It's like Hartford, but without the barbed wire...

hahaha

FRI

Bates by 32
Bowdoin by 25
Colby by 7
Wesleyan 11

SAT

Bowdoin by 37
Williams 16
Amherst by 5
Tufts by 16
Wesleyan by 3

[walzy31]

FRI

Predicted Bates by 32                 Actual Bates by 18
Predicted Bowdoin by 25            Actual Bowdoin by 30
Predicted Colby by 7                   Actual Colby by 4
Predicted Wesleyan 11               Actual Wesleyan by 12

4 for 4 with 3 of the four predictions within 5 points.

Bowdoin is good...

[Red1]

Bates 69 Wesleyan 58.  Huge win for Bates.  Bates should win out the rest of the Nescac schedule as they're playing 3 weaker teams and all in Lewiston.  Bates will need some help to win the regular season crown, specifically the Polar Bears from Bowdoin will need to defeat Williams on the final weekend, and I gotta like the Polar Bears' chances against anyone.  Todays victory puts an end to the Cardinals' win streak, and gives the Bobcats an excellent shot at the Nescac crown.

Cheers,
Red1

[feces monkey]

"NESCAC folks, just so you know, in most conferences play each two times. You should check it out."

It has arrived at the point where D3hoops.com has started to question the NESCAC's policy of having a single round robin in conference play. D3hoops.com has an established anti-NESCAC bias -- a natural reaction to the success of the conference. I think this topic deserves a logical discussion. I invite other NESCAC types (others please talk amongst yourselves on your respective boards) to debate the topic.

Here are my thoughts:

The current NESCAC schedule has created three NCAA qualifiers for last years -- one Pool A and two Pool Cs.  Why would the conference change the its format when it can get the most qualifiers of any conference in the country? Would a change get the NESCAC anymore qualifiers? Almost certainly not. It would seem the conference has the best structure around.

Another issue is the commitment made by the NESCAC presidents to academics. The conference, unlike others, does not have the luxury of having a Tuesday-Saturday or Thursday-Saturday conference schedule. Classes come first, and rightly so, forcing the conference to go with the back-to-back weekend schedule. Plus, the conference, in an effort to diversify the student-athletes, attempts to schedule as many "other" schools as possible, limiting the number of games in conference.

Obviously, the next question is: is the single round robin somehow "unfair" to the other conferences, since most, if not all, use a double round robin?

From the NESCAC's point of view, the answer is: who cares? Is the NESCAC somehow indebted to the current NCAA format? Absolutely not. The NESCAC has set the standard for academic and athletic excellence, and should be used as a model. Just because there is a certain structure used by most does not make it right. I applaud the NESCAC for setting the new standard -- a standard validated by the NCAA and multiple NCAA bids.

Additionally, the NESCAC was forced to go without NCAA qualification for decades, as they were finally eligible in 1994. Dozens of men's and women's basketball teams were left out of the NCAA mix when many would have been serious contenders, if not national champions, if given the chance. It would seem that the current bids would be an indictment of the other frauds getting NCAA bids in the region and a recognization that the NESCAC is the preeminent women's (and men's) conference in the nation.

These are opinions, and I invite other worthwhile input from NESCAC types on the issue. If you are unable to come up with a cogent thought on the issue or are limited intellectually, please refer your comments to boards of the dregs of DIII, such as the UAA or Little East.

[walzy31]

Well put Feces Monkey. One last thing I would like to add...

Even if d3hoops.com has an established anti-NESCAC bias, when the point in the season comes when the RPI comes out each week, the nation's top hoops teams are ranked mathematically with zero bias. Considering that the NCAA selection comittee uses this ranking system and not d3hoops.com polls or posting forums, there is no reason why NESCAC should change. The reason why there have been 2 pool C bids each of the last 3 years is because our conference has had 3 legitamate top 25 teams. In addition to those 3 teams playing eachother once, they also schedule most of the toughest non conference opponents that are within reason of traveling distance.
Also, two and three years ago (but not last year) when Williams and Amherst were two of the three NESCAC teams in, they did play eachother twice as per the Little Three rivalry (and in those 2 years NESCAC was represented with 3 final four teams).

Quit hatin'

[carolina]

The GNAC also play each team only once on the Women's side, not that the GNAC conference matters because it is so weak but the system seems to work, not to mention it provides a team to play more out of conference games to strengthen their schedule. If other conferences and teams are so good it shouldn't matter how many times you play a team!!!! Just win!!!

[Red1]

I'm thinking that Walzy is probably referring to the men's side with the Amherst/Williams thing, but the same holds true on the women's side.  Not only do the little 3 play eachother twice, but so does BBC (Bates/Bowdoin/Colby), and on the women's side Bates and Bowdoin have been the top 2 teams for the last 3 years and Bowdoin has been the best since I've been watching NESCAC (6 years, I was living in upstate, NY and following the then UCAA, now Liberty League, before that).  Bates also routinely plays Williams twice because they play in the Williams holiday tournament.  Before that they played twice with Wesleyan.

I think it quite likely that some Nescac schools (especially Bates, Bowdoin, Williams) play non-conference schedules that are considerably more difficult than a second round of conference play would be.  Bates played Brandeis on the road, Southern Maine on the road, Baldwin Wallace on a neutral court, Simpson on a neutral court, Trinity (TX) on a neutral court, Bowdoin on the road all of these teams are or were at the time in the top 25, Bowdoin, Brandeis, and USM were in the top 5, and B-W was 6 at the time. Bowdoin and Williams have slightly easier schedules, but not much.  Bates also has only 8 home games, far fewer than those with the double round robin because nearly all of the non-conference games are away making it even harder on themselves. 

How many times do we see teams in conferences with double round robins schedule a pansy non-conference schedule?  If this team wins their league then all they've proven is that they're probably better than the other teams in the league, but they've proven nothing beyond that.  They can't even show how good they may or may not be as compared to the other teams in their regions.  This happens more times than I can count each year. 

I love to mention St. John Fisher men's basketball here because they rarely play anyone good (other than Rocherster, who beats them more often than not) and they usually win the Empire 8, have a great regular season record, and get a 1 or 2 seed in the east region of the NCAA tournament.  They rarely get passed the second round (note that they don't play the first with a 1 or 2 seed) and never get past the third round.  They play a pansy non-conference schedule and they win their conference, but they've clearly proven nothing about their abilities on a regional or national level.

NESCAC, on the other hand, plays the toughest non-conference opponents possible in their region.  They prove how they compare, not just with everyone else in the region, but even on a national scale as many of them travel out of region for tough non-conference games.  Very few, if any, can say that.

I'm sorry this post is so long, it's a subject that I'm rather passionate about.

Cheers,
Red1

[carolina]

Well put RED...I agree with you. I think you ought to post this to all the NESCAC haters on the front of D3hoops since they are the ones complaining!!!!!!!

[Pat Coleman]

D3hoops.com has an established anti-NESCAC bias -- a natural reaction to the success of the conference.

That is patently ridiculous, especially since the NESCAC is the only conference in the Northeast and East regions combined that gets anything resembling regular front-page coverage from us.

Yes, we are against the NESCAC gaming the system to gain an advantage over other Division III conferences. The fact that the NESCAC withheld itself from postseason play is no excuse for gaming the system now.

Similarly, we are against the MAC gaming the system to gain two automatic bids by splitting its conferences when convenient, yet combining the conferences to get one automatic bid when neither side qualifies on its own. But that doesn't mean we are biased against the MAC, we simply disapprove of its policy.

We are against the SCIAC limiting football teams to nine games, denying the student-athletes the same 10-game opportunity to compete that other conferences' schools have (NESCAC aside).

The point is not about who schedules tough outside their conference. The point is about determining a valid conference champion. Ten conference games is not a realistic measure.

It's nice that CBB and Little Three play each other twice each, but even that means that only some of your schools play a whole 12 games against conference opponents. And it doesn't go toward determining your conference seeding, so it doesn't help legitimize your championship.

I am surprised that on the women's NESCAC board there is not more support for a double round-robin. Are you happy with the fact that only one team gets homecourt advantage for the Bates/Bowdoin game that counts in the conference standings? Would it not be more fair to your conference institutions to have a home-and-home in the conference standings?

[Red1]

Pat,

I think that by playing some of the toughest non-conference schedules in the country it legitamizes each and every team in Nescac for both men's and women's, and that in itself makes the Nescac champion a legitamate conference champion since that team played better than all the other teams that proved where they placed in the region.

On the other hand, I think the double round robin can make the champion less legitamate.  Take the St. John Fisher men's team.  The double round robin in the very weak empire 8 gives St. John Fisher more home games, more games against weaker teams, and fewer non-conference games to pad, and they do pad their non-conference schedule.  The only team they play that has shown itself to be good is Rochester and Fisher normally loses that game.  This kind of padding consistently gets Fisher ranked very high in both DIII polls, and mathematically earns them a first round bye in the NCAA tournament.  A bye, mind you, that they routinely squander because they aren't remotely close to the best, or 2nd best team in the region.  They never play anyone that makes the east region bracket until they lose to the first one they meet in the tournament. 

Any Nescac team would feel ashamed if they weren't undefeated with Fisher's schedule.  The St. John Fisher style (and they're not the only team that does this, they're just the first to enter my head) of easy scheduling and coasting to the big dance strikes me as less legitamate than a single round robin in conference play where teams play tough non-conference schedules and prove that they belong in the big dance. 

At least you know that whoever comes out of the Nescac has played, and can play with the other teams in the Northeast bracket, and has truly earned their place in the tournament by defeating the other contenders rather than avoiding them.  On the women's side especially, it might be a little easier to have a double round robin, particularly for Bates so that the every other year conference game at Bowdoin doesn't eliminate the Bobcats in week 1.  Yes it's much harder with the single round robin, but making the big dance despite the difficulty is what makes these teams so great, and  I think that is the most legitamate way to earn a selection to the NCAA tournament.

Cheers,
Red1 

[Pat Coleman]

No. It makes the conference champion strong. It does not make the conference champion legitimate.

St. John Fisher is a legitimate champion of the Empire 8 after a double round-robin and a conference tournament. Are they GOOD? No, not necessarily. But the conference was decided in a legitimate manner. You're arguing a separate topic entirely ... and taking a lot of time to do so.

[Pat Coleman]

And if your league is so good, then why isn't it good for you to play these great teams twice?

[bearswatcher]

You guys are clowns. First of all if there is a D3Hoops.com bias it is and has always been against the UAA. I think Pat Colman will agree that he has a natural dilike for the conference. Second, your elitist attitude with regard to the Nescac academics and playing dates policy is laughable. The UAA is easily as academically strong as the NESCAC and frankly, how about traveling 1/2 way across country for Friday/Sunday games. Also, regarding your elitist statments concerning your 3 teams in the NCAA's the last three year, compare your totals over the past 10 years with the UAA and oh how many NESCAC National Champions have there been over that period, you sound like you have had more the the UAA....

But at least you don't play that bush schedule that the LEC does...you know where USM or ECSU beat the crap out of all those power houses they play and then spit the bit.