Yeah, that is a great question. And I have seen people asked this before and got answers like: They look for the whole person, or there is no minimum, etc.
I think those answers are true but probably won't ease your concern.
I think, as a newly appointed, the best way is to wait for the 2014 class profile published. That will give you a better idea of the SAT's of those who got in this year. I would consider scores higher than the average good scores. Remember, that is good only for an average person. But an average person usually does not exist as you know. You have strength, and maybe some weakness in their eyes.
When I was applying, I wanted to build test scores my strengths. That needed much higher scores than the average. I got ACT 34 which equals to SAT of 2200-2300. This helped me I believe but that was probably my only main strength. I got my appointment only in May. Assuming my other areas really suck (GPA 3.3, etc.), having high test score can work but my case is probably extreme and very risky. Others just wanted to avoid SAT to become their weak point. In that case, you can argue that slightly less than the average (lets say the average is 2000), in the 1900 will still not hurt your application. Then you may want to build some other areas to impress the admissions.
I don't think it is important to be the average person. Instead, build something nice, such as a strong SAT. A score of 100 points or more than the average will be nice. 200 Points higher saved me. Or build strength in other areas but present an acceptable SAT. within 100 point less than the average, such as 1900, shouldn't hurt much when you have other strengths. They must have a way to rank the people on the NWL if you get on there. But I don't know their formula only this opinion to share. Having average scores will not impress or hurt.
