A well-played game befitting the top-ten rankings of both teams...and one that should never have been played this early in the tournament. Congrats to the Flying Dutch on a terrific season.

Quote from: pointlem on March 03, 2014, 10:25:15 PM

Quote from: monsoon on March 03, 2014, 05:18:35 PM
Hope certainly didn't get any favors with this bracket.  The geography could get interesting by the second weekend, too, depending on who survives.

Agree, Monsoon . . . the top five ranked teams are all on Hope's half of the bracket, which forces Whitman, DePauw, Thomas More, Wash U, and Hope to compete against each other (and some other good teams) for the right to play in the national championship game.  This may be a year where the toughest game is before the final game.  If the ratings are right, none of the east coast teams will have to face this level of competition before the final game.

Just another normal bracket for the D3 women's basketball committee, where the most important number seems not to be W-L, SOS, RPI, or national ranking, but bus fare.

Quote from: sac on March 03, 2014, 12:56:59 PM
For the third time Coach Morehouse will take his undefeated Dutch on the road in the NCAA's.

Friday will be the ninth--and hopefully, Saturday the tenth--games the Hope women have played in the NCAA tournament as an undefeated team (2003 and 2008 were the other years they entered the tourney without a loss; both years they were knocked off in the elite eight). Number of those nine/ten games they've played at home: one. 

Quote from: sac on October 29, 2013, 04:31:35 PM
I just noticed our friends from Finlandia open their season at Grinnell on Nov. 15.

What may be even more interesting is when our friends from the College of Faith travel to Grinnell in early January.

Just a little fun fact from over on the NESCAC board, about an Amherst team that has now made five consecutive Final Fours:

Amherst road to the Final 4 over the last five seasons:

Tournament Home Games:  20
Neutral/Away Games:  0

Final Four Record:  3-5

Hmmmmmmm.......

Quote from: Hwbb on February 25, 2013, 03:11:06 PM
Thanks again to Pat Coleman and the folks at d3hoops for a projected bracket that, while sane and hopeful, was again simply wishful thinking in the face of the committee's logic (?). #2, #3, #4, and #7 in the country one quad (using last week's rankings, because the new ones aren't up yet), along with four other ranked teams. #2 vs. #4 in the country in a second-round game. Make perfect non-sense. Are we missing something, pat, or do these folks simply not care?

And while I'm asking unanswerable questions, this one as well: how is it that a committee who stresses regional rankings and success against regional opponents puts together in one part of the bracket the four Great Lakes teams that actually have wins over regionally ranked opponents (Ohio Northern, Hope, Calvin, and Thomas More) and puts together in another part of the bracket the three Great Lakes teams without any wins against regionally ranked opponents (DePauw, LaRoche, and Otterbein).  And then matches the two teams with the most wins against RRO the soonest (second round). Seems to suggest the committee actually put minimal value in  their own regional rankings. I'm confused, Pat and others. What am I missing?

Thanks again to Pat Coleman and the folks at d3hoops for a projected bracket that, while sane and hopeful, was again simply wishful thinking in the face of the committee's logic (?). #2, #3, #4, and #7 in the country one quad (using last week's rankings, because the new ones aren't up yet), along with four other ranked teams. #2 vs. #4 in the country in a second-round game. Make perfect non-sense. Are we missing something, pat, or do these folks simply not care?

If only d3hoops were in charge of brackets instead of the NCAA. Given what we've experienced the past decade from the NCAA, this d3hoops bracket strikes me more as the fantasy bracket we'd like to see rather than the projected bracket we are likely to see. We can hope, I guess...

Quote from: Dark Knight on February 25, 2012, 09:42:05 PM

In the second half, Hope went into dark-alley-mugging mode...

That assessment is as inaccurate as it is unfair to the players of both team. Yes, it was a physical second half, on both ends of the floor. But what team, facing a huge deficit against a superior opponent, sits back passively in a zone? Dark-alley-mugging? Not. even. close. Calvin is a terrific team, national championship caliber this season. They won by playing better. Over a team that fell behind big, but didn't quit playing hard.

Quote from: GoDeacs on March 04, 2011, 11:05:57 AM
With the 2011 D3 basketball "championship" tournament pairings, we once again see the biased pairings that ensure certain teams wind up in the Final Four, and others are deliberately given an unfair shake.

It seems that Denison is one of the latter teams, and it's become a regular occurrance over the last several years. 

This year, Denison set a NCAC and school record by going 28-0.  They also won their league tournament.  And they were ranked in the top 10 for the first time in school history.

One might think that the Big Red would be given a pairing that was reflective of their success.  Not so.  Instead, they are "rewarded" for their remarkable achievements by being plopped into a "pod" where there are 3 previous National Champions.  And they get the privilege of playing the defending National Champions in their first game.   

This is one of only three teams in D3 to go undefeated this year, yet they are penalized. 

It seems to me that a top 10 team would logically be a regional 2 or 3 seed, and would therefore play a lower seed in the first round.  But this is not the case.  For whatever reason, Denison is punished (once again) and forced to play a higher seed.   Not to mention the fact that they are forced to travel to the site of their first-round games, instead of being a host.

This was confusing to me at first, since I'm more familiar with actual seeding in actual tournaments with actual rules and a semblance of fairness.  But after some research, I understand it now.

There is no 'seeding' in D3!  Instead, all the teams' names are printed on a small strip of paper, the names are thrown into a hat, and then drawn.  Then, the 'committee' then gets to play with them until they're satisfied that their favorites get the best matchups.   That's the way it seems to me.

I suppose the NCAA thinks Denison should be grateful just to get a bid.

No wonder one of the same old teams win the 'championship' (in name only...) year in and year out.  It's all a sham. 

The NCAA should be embarrassed.   But they will stand there with big grins on their faces as another one of their hand-picked group "wins" it all again.

And most importantly, how unfortunate for a group of true student-athletes that they have to be treated so unfairly.  Some life lesson, huh?

-GoDeacs

Three years ago, Hope was wrestling with the same issues Denison is now. That year (2008), its team was undefeated, ranked #1 or #2 in all the polls, yet was sent on the road for all its tourney games (and eventual Elite-8 loss to the other consensus #1-#2 team in their gym.) That team's senior class went 110-10 over its four years of play, including a national title, yet never played a home tournament game, despite its record and ranking. Yes, Hope got the inexplicable nod from the committee this year. But not too long ago, it was on the other end of the committee's work. Doubt that's much consolation to Denison today; it's intended only to be a small window into the mystery that is all-too-often the D3 tourney.

Just a couple of observations on your ongoing and interesting discussion, for what they're worth (and it may be nothing), from a midwesterner who's been listening in:

On recruiting locally or nationally, this additional observation--all of Hope's starters were from high schools and hometowns closer in distance to the Hope campus than any of WashU's starters were to their campus. Advantage or disadvantage? I don't know, except that there is apparently success in both. (And while Hope doesn't compete with Ivy League schools for players, as Amherst does, it competes with the D-2 Director's Cup recipient located 15 miles away and a host of NAIA schools, all of whom offer athletic aid.)

On the "Midwestern" style of play: yes, the Hope-WashU game was, I suppose, typically Midwestern rugged. Ironically, it was officiated, and thus allowed to be rugged, by three referees from the northeast region.

For what it's worth....

Quote from: md241 on March 22, 2010, 06:48:45 AM
As far as I know, they don't coach the game, take the shots, and  play defense., right?

Right. Interesting that you would initiate the phrase "blaming the refs," because I've seen no one else on this board, post-game, lay responsibility for the outcome of the game on the officials. Some have pointed out a few close, disputed, or questionable calls, in the midst of many other broader observations of the actions of the 13 persons on the floor at any given time. That's simply good game analysis.

Quote from: Flying Dutch Fan on March 21, 2010, 05:06:47 PM

Quote from: Hwbb on March 21, 2010, 04:45:36 PM
4. I think there's a benefit to the team that's had at least one of the officials ref at least one of their games already that season. Not because officials are biased—goodness no. But because great coaches (like Nancy Fahey) can game plan around the observed tendencies of the officials—and I suspect she did.

If your point 4 is true, that would violate NCAA rules - since I believe the officials must have not officiated any game with the competing teams this year.

FDF, I don't have a clue if that's the rule or not. But a quick check of box scores shows a Leslie Boucher officiated the WashU-Brandeis game on February 12 and a Leslie Boucher officiated yesterday. So whether it's against the rules or not, it did happen.

In the light of a new day, seven impressions from the Final Four:

1. I think every school uniquely appreciates their players, but if there are two classier people than Hope outgoing seniors Jenny Cowen and Philly Greene, we'd all be better people if we could meet them.  Those two deserve our highest commendation.
2. I think many, not all, schools also appreciate their head coach. We have at Hope this rare combination of great game-planner, teacher, and role model all wrapped up in Brian Morehouse. We are privileged.
3. I think it's harder to win a championship playing the second Friday semifinal game than the first, given the early Saturday start time. Not impossible—goodness no. But harder, one extra hurdle, both from the standpoint of rest and the good look the first-game winning coach gets of the second-game teams.
4. I think there's a benefit to the team that's had at least one of the officials ref at least one of their games already that season. Not because officials are biased—goodness no. But because great coaches (like Nancy Fahey) can game plan around the observed tendencies of the officials—and I suspect she did.
5. I think a really good pep band adds appreciably to the atmosphere of the game. IWU has a great band, and I wish Hope would get a great band for the DeVos.
6. I think it's amazing a thousand people came to support Hope in Bloomington. And I'd like to see more Hope students (yes, Dew Crew—you!) also support the team.
7. I think in the end you gotta make shots to win games.

Quote from: gohope on March 19, 2010, 06:06:45 AM

Quote from: OC_SID on March 18, 2010, 10:40:42 PM
Congrats to Carrie Snikkers:

http://www.wbca.org/releases/2010DIIIPOYPR.html

GREAT achievement for Carrie and the Hope team!!!  Congrats!!

Now let's see if the whole team can bring home a trophy of its own. It's game day! GO HOPE!