WBB: NESCAC

[walzy31]

Bearswatcher,

This is the NESCAC forum not the UAA forum.

PatColeman,

One thing I would like to add that Red1 didn't touch upon is:
You are right in that if NESCAC played a double round robin with home and homes then the seeding would be more accurate. BUT, if NESCAC were to instill that system, then they would also need to instill cutting down the conference tournament field from 8 to 4. Follow the Patriot League's lead in making the regular season worth something. Yeh a regular season title is nice, but a first round exit to the 8 seed would be disasterous and could end their season. What ends up happening in NESCAC now (and what would happen to a more severe degree if we did double round robin), is that a few teams fight for the top seed, and the other teams that are in coast through into the playoffs (often not playing players who have slight injuries but probably could play if the game meant anything). Then once the tourny starts, those 6, 7, and 8 seeds who only had to beat conn and trinity twice each, will play with a rejuvenated roster and make serious waves in the tournament.

Example being Amherst beating Wesleyan last year in quarter finals. Should have ended Wesleyan's season (but luckily it didnt and Wes had a great run in NCAAs).

[Pat Coleman]

If you prefer to cut the tourney down to four, that wouldn't bother me personally. Many conferences have just four teams in their tournament.

Bearswatcher, I guess we can put the UAA on the list of schools we are allegedly biased against. Guess I am wasting my time listening to the UAA games on Fridays and Sundays every week, since I hate them so much.

I don't have a natural dislike for the UAA. Honestly, the UAA has probably been on the front page more in the past six years than anyone else. The advent of prevalent online audio broadcasting has helped the UAA get noticed because it plays games on Fridays and Sundays, when most conferences are off. When Johns Hopkins was still playing a half-league schedule, I would drive through D.C. rush hour traffic every Friday night up to Baltimore to see whomever was in town. I've seen NYU, Rochester, Chicago, Carnegie Mellon and Wash U play in person over the years.

[feces monkey]

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.

The thought of the NESCAC presidents adopting a single round-robin format for its women's (and men's) basketball programs because it somehow provides the conference an advantage over (i.e., "gaming") other conferences is absurd. And, frankly, perpetuates an anti-NESCAC theme.

There was much trepidation by the NESCAC presidents to allow NCAA participation in all sports in 1993, and has a tradition of limiting the amount of class time missed or the potential for athletics to take too great an importance on campus. This is why the conference opted out of the ECAC tournaments. This is why they flirted with the possibility of limiting team participants into the NCAA to just the automatic qualifier (no others would be allowed into an at-large pool). This is why NESCAC teams are not permitted to have non-traditional seasons (coach supervised "fall/spring ball.") in any sport despite it being allowed by the NCAA. This is why coaches are not allowed off-campus recruiting visits/contact with prospective-student athletes -- a practice done by all other conferences. This is why the football team is not allowed to participate in the NCAA tournament.

Do these sound like the practices of conference "gaming" the system? But yet, the single-round robin is some diabolical plan by the presidents to get a monumental advantage? Hey, don't let the facts stand in your way.

The main reason for the single round-robin format is a relatively simple one: cost. This may sound laughable with the endowment sizes of some of the schools (Williams' $billion-plus endowment would be the envy of most conferences), but the reality is very little of that money trickles down to athletics, relative to the amount of students who participate.

For a team like Bowdoin, they will have to pay the travel expenses for a Middlebury/Williams trip once every two years, instead of once a year. When you look at a lot of NESCAC schedules, you will see that a majority of their non-conference games are played close to campus (in Bowdoin's case, UMF, USM, Husson, Maine Maritime, etc.) in order to keep costs low. They will sometimes have longer (both time and distance) trips, but it is rarely a yearly accurance and almost without fail falling on a break from classes.

An important point to understand about the NESCAC is they are not looking to satisfy other's definition of "validity." The conference looks internally for its solutions, not outside, and is often a trendsetter in many facets (for example, the admissions process for a prospective student-athlete).

The NESCAC's athletic success is unmatched (by Director Cup standings), even in the face of tight rein from the conference presidents. The conference's athletic success is a natural by-product of the excellent students who attend and their individual expectations, and are not helped by any logistical (scheduling) machinations.

[Pat Coleman]

Even if you went to divisions and played your more local teams twice and the distant teams once, that would be more legitimate.

And frankly, I don't think the rest of the Division III conferences getting jobbed by the NESCAC or MAC care about whether the presidents or coaches or ADs or boards of trustees or trainers make the call. It affects them negatively. It borders on unsportsmanlike.

[speedy]

There's no rule in the NESCAC against home-and-home series. In fact, it is done in the case of women's hockey. It's not done for men's hockey but primarily because of a desire to preserve long-standing rivalries with non-NESCAC teams. I would think that the NESCAC presidents would strive for more intra-NESCAC competition not less as schedules would be more balanced with a home-and-home schedule.

[nescac1]

Pat, I don't see how the NESCAC "jobs" anyone.  I believe you are affiliated with Catholic -- they play 14 regular season conference games a year, plus I'm not sure how many playoff games.  Williams (who, like Catholic, has won a men's national title)  plays 11 regular season conference games a year, plus 2-3 in the playoffs in good years.  Hardly a material difference.  Do smaller conferences "job" bigger conferences because they have fewer teams in their conference and hence fewer conference games and an easier road to an automatic qualifier?  Why would an extra game a year against Colby or Tufts make Williams more legitimate than playing usually-strong regional rivals Hamilton and Springfield on a regular basis?  NESCAC teams face one of the toughest roads to an automatic qualifier of any conference: they have to emerge from a 10 team conference that regularly includes 3-5 potential top 25 caliber teams on both the women's and men's side.  Compare that to MASCAC, which you deem to be legitmiate because it plays in a round robin fashion -- a much smaller conference with few if any good teams.  Yet they also get an automatic qualifier.  I don't see how Nescac is "jobbing" anyone.  Usually, probably at a higher rate than other conferences in recent years, the best team wins the conference tournament (Williams and Amherst most recent years in men's with Trinity sprinkled in; Bowdoin almost every year in women's), so however the league sees fit to set up its system, it works and works well in terms of establishing who the best team is year in and year out. 

Also, again to take an example, if Williams played 18 games against its conference members, plus its annual games against regional rivals Hamilton, Springfield, and MCLA, that leaves a grand total of three regular season games it has scheduling discretion over -- which would be a lot less fun and interesting for players, who generally are better served via exposure to different venues, styles of play, opponents, etc.  It would mean no more Amherst trips to play Occidental, no more Trinity trips to PA for tourneys, no more interesting tournaments at home, or at least very few.  I just don't see what the benefit is.

In sum: NESCAC teams play as many conference games, in total, as the smaller conferences, the best team usually gets the AQ, the teams face off against their biggest rivals in some cases twice a year, the teams usually face a demanding and fun out of conference slate, and the qualifier has to get through a big, brutal conference to make it to the dance.  How this does not serve NESCAC well, or in any way prejudices any other conference, I still can't fathom.   

[bearswatcher]

Waltzy....good come back

[bearswatcher]

Pat,

Ok I will take you at your word, and never (fingers crossed) accuse you of UAA bias again

[Pat Coleman]

Pat, I don't see how the NESCAC "jobs" anyone.  I believe you are affiliated with Catholic

I am a graduate of Catholic, yes. I am not affiliated with Catholic. I haven't drawn a salary from Catholic since May 1995.

[feces monkey]

Waltzy....good come back

It wasn't a "come back." It was a point of fact, which, clearly, was lost on you. In addition, I'm sure embarassingly simple one-line "zingers" constitute a coherent debate in a UAA classroom, but if you are unable to stay away, at least try to rise to the intellectual level of the discussion. Don't worry, we'll give you points for trying.

There's no rule in the NESCAC against home-and-home series. In fact, it is done in the case of women's hockey. It's not done for men's hockey but primarily because of a desire to preserve long-standing rivalries with non-NESCAC teams. I would think that the NESCAC presidents would strive for more intra-NESCAC competition not less as schedules would be more balanced with a home-and-home schedule.

I never wrote, nor intimated, that the lack of a double round-robin was a conference "rule." It is just what makes more sense, fiscally and academically, for the NESCAC.

Also, women's ice hockey is a poor comparison, considering the paucity of women's ice hockey teams in the region, and the country. There are just not enough competitive women's programs in the same ratio as basketball to allow the conference to move away from the double-round robin format. In time, it likely will. As for men's hockey, the retention of UMass-Boston, Salem State, Southern Maine, etc., in the same league has nothing to do with preserving "long-standing rivalries," but rather, again, the closer geographic locations and subsequent cost savings.

D3hoops.com's distaste for the NESCAC is not an altogether uncommon affliction. Success, which the NESCAC has in abundance, breeds contempt. It's just that most are a tad more subtle in their contempt, or at least try to couch their bias in something other than jealousy.

[speedy]

. .  As for men's hockey, the retention of UMass-Boston, Salem State, Southern Maine, etc., in the same league has nothing to do with preserving "long-standing rivalries," but rather, again, the closer geographic locations and subsequent cost savings.  . .

You're making stuff up. The NESCAC-ECAC East relationship in men's hockey has everything to do with preserving traditional rivalries and nothing to do with saving travel money. The top teams in the NESCAC and the ECAC East all played in the same conference and had been so for some 40 years before the formation of the NESCAC as a playing conference in 1998. The ECAC East was a shrunken relic of iteself and the 2 conferences agreed to continue to play as one during the regular season (but each with its own champion and play-offs) so tthat both leagues would have a strong schedule. And anyway, it would make no difference whatsoever for the NESCAC to move to home-and-home in men's hockey in terms of travel costs as the ECAC East, with 2 Vermont teams and 1 NY team, includes more far-flung teams than the NESCAC.

[feces monkey]

While there is perhaps a more appropriate board for a debate on the evolution of the NESCAC-ECAC men's ice relationship, I will respond and perhaps make an attempt to keep the discussion somewhat germaine to DIII basketball.

In 1998, when the NESCAC "broke free" and actually used conference standings, it was unfeasible to have strictly a NESCAC schedule in men's hockey. One team, most likely Hamilton, would have been left without a travel partner - a massive disadvantage. As a result, staying within the East/NESCAC framework made sense for competition, as well as cost.

In 2001, when Tufts finally made the jump from the ECAC Northeast to the NESCAC, per se, the league finally could have migrated to an equitable double round-robin format, but chose to stay with the current format. As stated before, they did this for financial reasons. The longer and shorter trips for most schools are staggered on a yearly basis in order to save cost (i.e., if Colby travels to Midd/Williams, it will host Norwich/St. Mike's).

If you believe that the NESCAC presidents somehow are sentimental about the historical significance of the Colby-UMass Boston, Middlebury-Castleton State or Wesleyan-New England College match-ups, you are delusional. Do you think the NESCAC is eager to throw its lot in with St. A's, USM and Norwich? Please name one rival for a NESCAC team out of the current conference? Assuming you conjure up a couple, a NESCAC double round-robin would still leave plenty of games to continue traditional rivalries (for example, Middlebury-Norwich).

As stated previously, the reason basketball does the same is because of cost. I can understand, considering how well the schools are doing financially, how this would be not easily accepted. And I understand it may be a little tough to swallow for hockey fans who think the Skidmore-Trinity game was retained because it makes the NESCAC presidents pine for the classic battles of yesteryear between the Bantams and Greyhounds. The truth is often difficult.

And if you think I'm "making this stuff up," I urge you to further examine the issue, although the conversation is more suited to USCHO.com.

A more appropriate question for this board is: Can Bates stop The Streak in Brunswick?

[feces monkey]

Ugh. I meant "germane."

For this transgression, I'll allow the powers-that-be deduct another "karma" point from my dwindling till...

[Red1]

The answer to the Bowdoin/Bates question is Bowdoin 76-Bates 59.  I don't I've ever seen that high a score on the Bowdoin side in a Bates/Bowdoin matchup.  If Bowdoin beats Williams in the last game of the season (and I think that's a good bet) then Bates will likely host the semifinals and finals of Nescac (barring an insane upset).  The home court will give Bates the best chance they've had of knocking off Bowdoin in the Nescac championship game as they two teams will likely meet in the final for the fourth consecutive year.  Bates' defense will have to improve immensely if the bobcats are going to bring forth the first non-Polar Bear Nescac champion ever.  They've showed inclings of what they need in the conference game against Bowdoin, and the last nine minutes of the game at Wesleyan.  If they can harness that defense, coupled with the home court advantage, look for Bates to finally exercise their nescac championship demons and dethrone the polar bears in Lewiston (that is, unless Williams manages to upset Bowdoin on the last day).

Cheers,
Red1

p.s.  the reason cited by the presidents for the lack of NCAA tournaments for football, and the long tradition of no NCAA tournaments for basketball (followed by only the conference champion being allowed to participate) was that the athletes would spend too much time away from the classroom and their studies.  I believe what they said at the time was along the lines of "The NESCAC's dedication is primarly to academics, and secondarily to athletics."  I'd suggest that this thought process likely continues in their reasoning for having just a single round-robin, and the desire to limit travel when classes are in session for all sports in question.

[speedy]

. .

In 1998, when the NESCAC "broke free" and actually used conference standings, it was unfeasible to have strictly a NESCAC schedule in men's hockey. One team, most likely Hamilton, would have been left without a travel partner - a massive disadvantage. As a result, staying within the East/NESCAC framework made sense for competition, as well as cost.

In 2001, when Tufts finally made the jump from the ECAC Northeast to the NESCAC, per se, the league finally could have migrated to an equitable double round-robin format, but chose to stay with the current format. As stated before, they did this for financial reasons. The longer and shorter trips for most schools are staggered on a yearly basis in order to save cost (i.e., if Colby travels to Midd/Williams, it will host Norwich/St. Mike's).

And if you think I'm "making this stuff up," I urge you to further examine the issue, although the conversation is more suited to USCHO.com.

A more appropriate question for this board is: Can Bates stop The Streak in Brunswick?

There is ZERO cost savings from having the NESCAC-ECAC East interlock. You're off your rocker if you think that there is. The Maine duo end up with just as many long trips because of the interlock as they would without it. And clearly you know nothing about hockey or you would know that Middlebury, Bowdoin, Colby, Williams, etc, have all played Norwich, St Anselm, UMass Boston (when it was Boston State), and Salem State for 30 plus years and Babson for almost as long and have decades of competing with them in the ECAC play-offs.

And the answer to your question about Bates is, of course, no way!!