WBB: NESCAC

[amh63]

Sorry about not posting on the games this weekend.  Did not use the college's computers and still was recovering from two last second MBB wins against Williams and Midd.  The write ups of the games are posted on the Amherst website and here is hoping there will be video of both women games as there was an camera person interviewing several players after the Midd. game.
My neglect is in part because the Amherst team was most efficient in basically overpowering both Williams and Midd.  Williams is not the same team after losing their star center to injury and there was never any question about who was in control.  With the strong play of Marcia Voigt and the now dominant play of Meg Robertson, I have no worries about any rematch with the Maine teams or Tufts on any court.  In the Midd. game, Coach G put in a number of players to evaluate the play of particular combinations...with Bridget and Meg both on the floor together.  Senior day came and went and pressure to go undefeated in conf. for two seasons and beat Bowdoin's win records, etc. are done deeds.  Coach G. will have the team with the senior leadership in focus to go forward to reach their goals.  The team is deep enough that I believe there will not be any more close games for awhile.  I spoke with Sumfun during the game with Midd.  I stated that the team on the floor at the time was a preview of next year's starters.....after six seniors and 5 starters have graduated.
Some BB fans/friends watching put it simply...the two teams on the floor playing against Amherst this weekend were "not on the same page" with Amherst.  These former MBB players were amazed at the skill level of the Amherst players and tried to avoid any negative comments  about their opponents level of play.....being elder gentlemen...and maybe not sure who was sitting behind us.

[amh63]

FY Meg Robertson was selected again as the Player of the week in the conf.  She is positioned well to be the ROY in the conference and some speculate that she maybe the best center.  She would have to beat out teammate Lem, IMO.....but both play limited time so as to give more time to other teammates in often blow out games such as happened this weekend. I wonder if the POY be deferred to pick the Amherst team as the Team of the Year....individual stats are not as important as team wins at Amherst.  Many of the starters stats are not as high as others on other teams at a given position....due to less time on the floor in often blow out games.  If Amherst continues to win and heads to another Final Four, etc......I believe individual stats are not important to the starters/seniors, etc.

[Roundball999]

FY Meg Robertson was selected again as the Player of the week in the conf.  She is positioned well to be the ROY in the conference and some speculate that she maybe the best center.  She would have to beat out teammate Lem, IMO.....but both play limited time so as to give more time to other teammates in often blow out games such as happened this weekend. I wonder if the POY be deferred to pick the Amherst team as the Team of the Year....individual stats are not as important as team wins at Amherst.  Many of the starters stats are not as high as others on other teams at a given position....due to less time on the floor in often blow out games.  If Amherst continues to win and heads to another Final Four, etc......I believe individual stats are not important to the starters/seniors, etc.

You're absolutely right, though the team focus, limited minutes for starters and resulting modest stats are not unique to Amherst.  Hope is one of the teams I follow and during the 2009-2011 years when she was a 3-time first team All-American, Carrie Snikkers never averaged more than 21 minutes per game, 15 ppg, or 8 rpg in any of those seasons.  Very nice but not huge numbers, and Hope was 87-7 during that span.  I'm sure there are many other examples.  Perhaps it makes it a bit more of a challenge to make selections for individual accolades, but I think for the most part the voters do a good job of seeing through the numbers to make selections based on more than individual stats.  Look at Stedman; her per-game numbers last year were modest but if I'm not mistaken she was selected as a pre-season first-teamer.  Her numbers are up a bit this year, but mainly in line with an increase in playing time from 23 minutes to 28 minutes per game.  In any case, she is a deserving All-American in my opinion and the voters demonstrated they can look beyond the numbers and see the skill of the player and the importance to the team.

[NE Hoop Guy]

I also agree what the player does for the team is the most important thing going.  I do think it is naive however to think that players with lesser stats but offering a vital team contribution are regularly considered for All American.  The woman at Hope  a couple of years ago and now Stedman at Amherst are big contributors on very very high profile teams.  In that instance the voters can differentiate and appreciate and they will get the recognition.  Beyond maybe two or three teams that kind of recognition does not happen in D3, it is too big and too many players.  Voters seem to vote the stats, and in almost most instances that translates to points.  I am not sure that it is anyone's fault, but when it comes to getting individual high honors for being a big team contributor it really is not accurate beyond the very top tier.

[Roundball999]

I also agree what the player does for the team is the most important thing going.  I do think it is naive however to think that players with lesser stats but offering a vital team contribution are regularly considered for All American.  The woman at Hope  a couple of years ago and now Stedman at Amherst are big contributors on very very high profile teams.  In that instance the voters can differentiate and appreciate and they will get the recognition.  Beyond maybe two or three teams that kind of recognition does not happen in D3, it is too big and too many players.  Voters seem to vote the stats, and in almost most instances that translates to points.  I am not sure that it is anyone's fault, but when it comes to getting individual high honors for being a big team contributor it really is not accurate beyond the very top tier.

Of course players on high profile teams (read: very successful) have an extra opportunity to be noticed.  In my view, that is deserved.  If you can still be noticed as an individual standout even though you are a member of a team that has success at the national level - so by definition has a bunch of very strong players - then you probably deserve it.  But I might also argue that if you are an All-American caliber player on a lesser team, then you serve your team best by piling up some impressive stats rather than deferring so frequently to your teammates.  Of course it's not so clear cut but the idea is that great players can have modest stats on a great team, or they should have great stats on a modest team.  If they have modest stats on a team with modest success, there would have to be something highly unusual to warrant AA consideration.  So yeah, stats count especially for players NOT on top tier teams.  Just my opinion.  I might be naive.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Just a slight correction on Roundball999's earlier post.  I was a tremendous admirer of Carrie Snikkers (I was really, really hoping for a match-up of her and the other AA CS, Christina Solari of IWU, but, alas, one or both kept losing before their Final Four showdown), but she was NOT a three time first-team AA.  In 2010, she was first-team (and national POY), but she was 'only' fourth-team in both 2009 and 2011 (in 2009, Solari was 3rd team; in 2011, arch-rival Carissa Verkaik of Calvin was 1st team).

[Roundball999]

Just a slight correction on Roundball999's earlier post.  I was a tremendous admirer of Carrie Snikkers (I was really, really hoping for a match-up of her and the other AA CS, Christina Solari of IWU, but, alas, one or both kept losing before their Final Four showdown), but she was NOT a three time first-team AA.  In 2010, she was first-team (and national POY), but she was 'only' fourth-team in both 2009 and 2011 (in 2009, Solari was 3rd team; in 2011, arch-rival Carissa Verkaik of Calvin was 1st team).

My apologies, I made my statement after looking it up on Hope's web site.  They are obviously referring to the WBCA Coaches' All American Team, which just picks ten players and doesn't distinguish a first and second team, Snikkers was on that team in those 3 years.  You obviously are referencing the team picked by D3hoops.com, thanks for the clarification. 

[amh63]

Went to the Regional Rankings of the NCAA...2nd of 3.  As expected, Amherst #1, RIC#3...etc.  What I did not expect is the Un. of New England at #2.  Need some help here.  Does any one on this board know anything about the school, team, etc.?  Hope to get some info on the website.   Do not even know what conference the school plays in.....Maine?

[amh63]

Got my answer in part.....Maine school is a member of the TCCC conference.  Lost early in the season to Williams and Bowdoin and beat Colby in OT and Bates by one point.  Other than the NECAC schools, do not see NEWMAC or LEC schools.  Salve Regina is on the schedule.
Oh well, IMO, the region is one of extreme....Amherst at the top and an "unknown" school who is not well known outside of Maine in the 2nd position.  They seemed to have jumped three spots since the first rankings.  Welcome other opinions on this board.

[Maine 1]

UNE is in the commonwealth Coast conference, which is not a very strong conference.  They have a solid team.  The win over Colby was at Colby. They have historically been a very solid, scrappy, hard nosed team. They will give anyone they play a battle. They don't have a lot of size, but are well coached, and fight hard.  Surprised to see them at number two--but then, hard to say who should be number two, given all of the losses among the top teams.  Maybe you could argue Tufts as number two.

[NE Hoop Guy]

Obviously debate is being invited here, for the purpose of people being able to throw darts.  Clearly Babson is number 2, but no one is going to admit that and in fact will find all sorts of reasons to suggest otherwise.  First they will say it is the conference, well yes NEWMAC is a bit weak but much better than TCCC, by a long shot.   So conference issues impact Babson, but not UNE. Then the OOC schedules, well Babson is 2-1 versus the NESCAC, which in the past has been a litmus test, but probably not this year since they pass.  Babson has proven they deserve it and can compete at a high level, they have made the Elite 8 two straight years, the only team to do it two years in a row winning every game on the road, and they have the same team nucleus as those two years.  So it is is not like they are untested or unproven outside their conference.   But some will then say they had an easy route to the NCAA's elite 8.  Remember the litmus test, each NCAA trip featured the defeat of the #2 NESCAC team, one of them (Colby) in their own gym, in overtime, with Maine refs.  Quite an accomplishment.  This year they beat the #2 NESCAC team in the regular season on a NESCAC floor.  So clearly Babson is #2 in the region, but it is just as clear no one will ever recognize it.  Not quite sure why because they have passed the highly valued NESCAC litmus test quite convincingly each year, they went to the National Quarterfinals twice in a row, no one else in the northeast (save obviously Amherst) has went at all.  Yet somehow the NCAA likes to bury them, and they have done it again.  But lets face it, being honest based on results and experience we all know who is number 2, there really is no doubt.  And unless the NCAA puts a fork in them by pairing them with Amherst on opening weekend, the chances for similar results this year are very good.  They are a lot like the Patriots, mentally tough, not too respected, but ultimately successful at the highest levels.  So lets talk about who is number 3.

[LORENZO123]

As I was writing my post NE HOOP GUY beat me to the punch. He's much more eloquent and factual but I'll add my two cents.


Maine1 - You were at the Colby - Babson game which gives you some cred yet you suggest that Tufts should be #2 rather than Babson. You must have been sitting behind me and to my left. Didn't Babson beat Tufts earlier in the season and Colby Tuesday night? I'll check the schedule. In fact, I'll go back two years ago to see how Colby did against Babson in the second round of the NCAA's.
No one wants to give Babson even a modicum of respect despite what they've accomplished in the past three years. Everyone seems to hold their nose at Babson's qualifying for the NCAA's (three years and counting) yet they've gotten closer to the dance than most other teams in the Northeast. Give these women the respect they deserve. They weren't one and done, they've done it three years in a row. We all have our loyalties but because Babson is in a conference that "sucks," which I take exception to and think is inappropriate, they keep getting it done.

In answer to amh63's request for opinions as to who should should be #2 instead of UNE, be carefui what you ask for. The answer is quite simple, BABSON. They didn't lose a game last week yet went from 3 to 9 with RIC and WILLIAMS losing games and only dropping two positions. I'll also add that amh63's soliloquy about MVP's posts on the NEWMAC blog are amusing. I'd venture to guess that MVP, like myself, is a Babson parent and should be allowed some leeway in their posts as opposed to a loyal fan of many years who has a different level of "skin" in the game. Be assured that Babson is a TEAM, not driven by the front court or any one player but by the coach and the women who make up and are a team. See you in Amherst.

[Maine 1]

To the ardent Babson fans ---no disrepect intended when I was explaining who number 2 should be--in fact, I agree that Babson is a legitmate number 2 in the region.  I also think they deserve to be a first round tournament host, based on the body of work over the past three seasons.  The only point I would make is that unlike some of the other teams at the top of the ranking, Babson does not play the consistent strenght of schedule.  I believe a significant part of the rankings is how teams have done against other ranked teams. I would expect that we will see Babson move up in the rankings next week based on their victory over Colby.  Overall Tufts has probably played a tougher schedule.
Good luck to the Beavers--and I hope to see some NCAA games in Wellesley

[MVP]

Babson has not and will not be distracted by the disrespect by the rankings. Nor will their fans or posters be distracted by Amh63 patronizing insults and her threat about bulletin board material for Gromacki reading these boards as she posted  earlier this week on the NEWMAC board.
Amh63  "Having said all that....I think Babson's coach does not want any Babson fan to post such BOLD predictions.  "Amherst's coach does read this board".  What?  Talking about foolish and bold!

That's just silly. Both coaches have better things to do. To consider my prediction that Babson will win NEWMAC and may  have a good shot at defeating Amerst is anything but bold. Babson has won NEWMAC three consecutive years and has made the trip to Amherst three years in a row... to the elite 8 the last two consecutive years. Yet, still get no respect. What other team in the NE save Amherst has accomplished that. Along the way they have beat Colby last year at Colby, Bowdoin at Amherst  in the semi's last year despite Collins suffering from a broken right hand and hitting two huge free throws shooting lefty, a tough Tufts team this year at the William's Little East tournament and Colby again just this week. 
I have talked about the Babson depth repeatedly this year and why I think that makes them a stronger team and tougher matchup . They are well coached and well balanced.
So, again Amh63  saying that as a  Babson fan  I'm  "beating the drum" and "it is getting a little tiring".... your remark is lazy and patronizing. Based on her daily lengthy posts about Amherst ROY and Amherst POY you'd the think the NCAA should just eliminate the sectionals, distribute "player of the year" and "rookie of the year" at LeFrak  and buy them a ticket to the finals in Michigan.  Babson does have one of the best dominating front courts in D3, no debate,  and they now have a much stronger back court which I've been touting all year. They are a strong team all-around. Amherst has a great program, a great team and everyone knows it . Babson should be ranked #2 in the regionals and everyone knows it.
Babson nor it's fans will be discouraged or distracted by the disrespect. We'll soon see how the seedings play out. Amherst has earned the #1 spot. I wish them well in the upcoming NESCAC conference title games. Babson has earned the #2 spot but will again take care of business on the court regardless of the seedings, Babson is used to winning big games on the road.   

[bballfan13]

To the ardent Babson fans ---no disrepect intended when I was explaining who number 2 should be--in fact, I agree that Babson is a legitmate number 2 in the region.  I also think they deserve to be a first round tournament host, based on the body of work over the past three seasons.  The only point I would make is that unlike some of the other teams at the top of the ranking, Babson does not play the consistent strenght of schedule.  I believe a significant part of the rankings is how teams have done against other ranked teams. I would expect that we will see Babson move up in the rankings next week based on their victory over Colby.  Overall Tufts has probably played a tougher schedule.
Good luck to the Beavers--and I hope to see some NCAA games in Wellesley

This statement is what I think is wrong with the NCAA and some people's thinking about the tournament.  The tournament is a stand alone tournament that is held each year and should be viewed that way when seeding comes into play.  Now we all know geography comes into the discussion with D3, so it's a little harder.  But I don't think a team should be considered to host based on their "body of work for the last 3 seasons."  Yes, that team may have all of the same players but most likely they will have different players each year making them a different team.  Teams and players should be rewarded for their work done in the current year, and not the years past.

MVP, please don't take this the wrong way and think I am disrespecting Babson here.  They just happen to be the team mentioned in this thread.  I would say it about any team.  I agree that Babson should be ranked higher in the region than they are this week.  And yes, they should move up next week with the win over Colby.