Wednesday, May 03, 2006

NE Women's Regionals Preview

The seedings and format have been posted here.

I guess it is generally accepted that this is a two-horse race with MIT lurking behind. Based on this season results, this might not be too far off, but we must play the games and there are 13 other teams that will be hanging around.

In order of seeding:

1) Dartmouth- Athletic, smart, well-coached, and experienced. They probably have 10 players that will make All-Region. Big win at Yale Cup has them ramping up for the weekend.
2) Tufts- Fast, well-coached, gritty, and focused. They have some stars as well. As I have mentioned in my previous posts, they were very calm and determined at Sectionals.

I guess I don't need to write anymore.

3) Wellesley- What can I say about my own team? Well, I think we have played well when it counts.
4) MIT- Talented and experienced. Well-coached. No question they will be in the mix on Sunday.
5) Brown- Whenever I have talked to someone about Brown's current season, the comment is the same "Very well coached". There is no doubt that this is true considering the amount of turnover they had this year. That a team in a "rebuilding year" is considered one of the 4 best in the Region says a lot about the program and bodes well for their future.
6) Northeastern- Had a bit of a rough go of it at Yale Cup, but secured a big win over Harvard at Sectionals to avoid a quarters match-up with Tufts or Dartmouth. Coach Adams, in his second year, has some very talented players like Allison, Tooker, and Lindsey.
7) Harvard- Harvard has played well all year and they secured some experienced Graduate students to help the cause. Like many of the teams in the 3-10 range, they probably have an eye on Sunday.
8) Vermont- Won the WNE section. This is a solid team that will do some damage. They do have to contend with a tough quarterfinal match-up if they win their first round match-up against...
9) Hampshire- I haven't seen a Hampshire team play in 10 years, but I am huge fan as I learned the sport on that very campus 30 years ago. Can I be considered an alumni? They had solid results at Sectionals. If the SRT is correct, they have a very small team.
10) Yale- It was clear that Yale had a gut check moment at Yale Cup as they had disappointing results. I think some of it had to do with the fact that they were running a great tournament. This is a talented team with skills and speed. I think they have a very solid chance of beating seed.
11) Williams- Has seen a couple of years of rebuilding. Did not fare well at Yale Cup, but won when it counted at Sectionals.
12) Middlebury- Similar to Williams in that they had a rough time at Yale Cup.
13) Massachusetts- My actual Alma Mater. Lady Zoo is a young team, and they do have talent. They will give some upper seeds a game.....
14) Smith- Their results on the SRT reflect some good wins, but up and down performances at Tournaments. Smith has always played well at Regionals in the past few years.
15) UMF- Their SRT roster indicates an experienced squad. They had a good showing against Dartmouth at Regionals.
16) Colby- Sectionals was their first reported tournament. I am glad to see more ENE teams at Regionals.

I think that there is more parity in the Region overall than in past years. I am really looking forward to the weekend.


beth said...

i'm glad that the rc took my (and whoever else sent in thoughts about seedings) projected seedings seriously. i initially had yale seeded 10 (where they are now), but was disappointed in their finish at yale cup....that's why i put them at 12.

i do agree, though, the teams hanging out at the bottom of the tournament could cause a ruckus this weekend....

see you in hanover! : )

Sam TH said...

Despite the RSD consensus, I wouldn't expect MIT to be much more likely in the game to go than any of the other top teams. They lost to Wellesley at sectionals, after all, and were saved by the hard cap from losing to Harvard. They're certainly a good team, but not obviously better than rest.

Also, why is Colby going in place of Conn College? I would have thought BU to be the better choice (since they certainly appear to be the better team).

Finally, we should have some discussion of All-Region players. My thoughts: Lakshmi (Dartmouth), Meghan Cain (Tufts), Keri Dorko (Yale) and Lindsey Gay (Northeastern) should all be on it. After that, it's less clear.

gcooke said...


Unusual to find RSD and consensus in the same sentence.

The only info I have is that the SNE teams declined bids.


Our seeding suggests were very close to your, so I appreciate as well that the RC seemed to respect input.


Neva said...

I was sort of surprised at the lack of chatter on the predictions, but maybe people don't want to jinx themselves by talking it up. Also women seem to do this a lot less than men.

I will note that my darkhorse in the NW got beat 15-6 by UW in the quarters of the backdoor, so clearly I know nothing.

MIT has been going to Nationals since Tufts stopped making it (i.e. for the past 4 years) so it's hard to count them out. Of course, Brown has been going even longer; in fact the last time they didn't make the big show was 1998, before the Regional redraw.

Maybe Wellesley can knock off Dartmouth in the backdoor game and make it two new faces at Nationals (sorry but I got to root for my girls to take that #1 spot).

gcooke said...


You have earned the right to be Head we just believe what ever you say.


Katie said...

I question whether Yale should really be seeded below Hampshire. Perhaps it is just so that there can be a first round Harvard-Yale matchup for at least the third year in a row. Yale has a better RRI than Hampshire, so what is the justification for putting them behind Hampshire?

Oh, and just to nitpick, Harvard only picked up one experienced grad student. The other new grad student has 4 more years :)

gcooke said...

Hey Katie,

I guess it wasn't that clear that I really don't know what I am talking about. I appreciate the clarification re: Harvard's roster.

In terms of Yale, my initial seedings, as I am sure you recall from my Sectionals post, had them at 9. I know other folks had them as low as 12 based on Yale Cup. I do not know what data the RC used to put them at 10, but the Seeding Guidelines (which were rewritten this past January) as published by the UPA do not actually list RRI as a parameter for seeding.