Bumblin' B's

[CityD3]

Ah... I have to check... but I believe a Pool B bid always exists for schools that do not have access to an automatic bid as an independent.

Please confirm that the Pool B schools are not guaranteed at least one bid regardless how few schools are in Pool B (i. e., fewer Pool B schools than the access ratio determines for a bid). Thanks.

Two years ago, this Chapman team would have been in the mix for Pool B with the SAA schools, so it was not necessarily the SAA's by default.

If it was the case and Pool B gets a bid no matter what, only 4 teams would have to compete for a tourney spot next season???

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The basic idea of Pool B is that it is an opportunity for teams who have no chance at an automatic bid to be considered for the NCAA tournaments. By that definition, I find it hard to believe that it would go away... though, with so few numbers I can see very reasonable argument for why it should be done away with if teams fall below a threshold.

I have started down the path of trying to determine an answer several times only to run out of time or never get to where I needed to be for an answer... I will keep working.

[CityD3]

The basic idea of Pool B is that it is an opportunity for teams who have no chance at an automatic bid to be considered for the NCAA tournaments. By that definition, I find it hard to believe that it would go away... though, with so few numbers I can see very reasonable argument for why it should be done away with if teams fall below a threshold.

I have started down the path of trying to determine an answer several times only to run out of time or never get to where I needed to be for an answer... I will keep working.

Thank you

[KnightSlappy]

I couldn't find anything in the Division III Manual about official rounding rules for Pool B berth allocation, but there were apparently zero Pool B bids awarded in Hockey in 2012-13. I can't find the Pre-Championship Manual for that to confirm, but that seemed to be what D3Hockey.com indicated.

D3soccer.com says they "traditionally round down" to avoid the Pool B access ratio becoming larger than the Pool A ratio.

[Greek Tragedy]

I think in hockey, they just award "at large" bids. Not really Pool C or Pool B. This was the first year the WIAC had its own conference. Eau Claire won the conference tournament championship but Stevens Point got the at-large bid.


http://www.ncaa.com/news/icehockey-men/article/2014-03-09/field-11-announced-2014-division-iii-mens-hockey-tournament

[Pat Coleman]

No, there is a Pool B bid in hockey. The ECAC-West and the new WIAC are Pool B. From D3hockey.com:

http://www.d3hockey.com/ncaatournament/2014/men/ncaa-field-released

[Greek Tragedy]

The ncaa release didnt really distinguish the difference. It just stated 4 at-large bids.

[KnightSlappy]

The ncaa release didnt really distinguish the difference.

This is my shocked face.

[KnightSlappy]

The SAA has achieved full-membership status as a conference, leaving only 8 Pool B members for 2014-15. Consequently, there will not be a Pool B bid awarded this postseason.

[smedindy]

The SAA has achieved full-membership status as a conference, leaving only 8 Pool B members for 2014-15. Consequently, there will not be a Pool B bid awarded this postseason.

I'll believe it when I see it in the Championship Manual, and then after we complain that the manual is screwed up seven ways to Sunday....

[KnightSlappy]

The SAA has achieved full-membership status as a conference, leaving only 8 Pool B members for 2014-15. Consequently, there will not be a Pool B bid awarded this postseason.

I'll believe it when I see it in the Championship Manual, and then after we complain that the manual is screwed up seven ways to Sunday....

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MBasketball_2015_Revised3.pdf

--Confirmed that 500 miles is the new in-region limit (though it calls it a 'radius', which is probably not correct).

--70% of games must be in-region in order to be eligible for at-large selection (unless school obtains a waiver).
(Finlandia, Maine-Presque Isle, and Nebraska Wesleyan have been granted waivers in MBB)

--Lists Presentation (who has been NAIA for a few years now) with the UMAC, but no mention of Northwestern (Minn.)

--Has the OWP example screwed up (Team D's revised record).

--No indication if they've corrected the application of the Home/Away Multiplier in the SOS calculation.

--"Hosting history, attendance history, and revenue potential can be considered for site selection." (This isn't a change from past years but I hadn't noticed it before).

--Recklessly inconsistent with regard to Oxford comma usage.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yes... the SAA is eligible due to the fact they have had the minimum of seven teams each of the two year's it has existed as a conference - unlike football which had five its first year and seven its second which started the AQ clock in its second year, not its first.

As for the math... I need to send you something I have had that will show they aren't changing the math. It is what it is... the NCAA stats guys say this works and its how it will stay.

The revenue potential, you noted, has always been part of the criteria... but from what I gather a lot of the time it is used only if needed. That being said, I can throw this out there... don't bet on women/men dual hosting for school's who have first round byes. We saw this last year with Amherst and it wasn't a "mistake" by either committee. The liaisons and the NCAA decided they are going to avoid these situations from now on simply because they don't feel it works on campuses (providing the practice time, extra locker rooms, etc.). That kind of decision does fall into the criteria you have there especially when it comes to revenue and hosting history.

Remember on that 70% rule... a team can NOT count a game or more of a conference tournament. That 70% has to be your regular season schedule, period.

By the way, the men's committee chair will be my guest, probably in studio, on Hoopsville on Thursday, November 20.

[KnightSlappy]

As for the math... I need to send you something I have had that will show they aren't changing the math. It is what it is... the NCAA stats guys say this works and its how it will stay.

I would love to see that. You know where I stand on the matter.

By the way, the men's committee chair will be my guest, probably in studio, on Hoopsville on Thursday, November 20.

I noticed the Men's Basketball Committee recommended to the National Committee (once again) that the final rankings be released, but they were (once again) turned down.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I asked when I was in Indy about regional rankings being released... I asked multiple people in multiple levels of championships and governance... up to Dan Dutcher... turns out basketball is in the minority in a straw poll on whether they should be released. MBB keeps making their case and people seem to be ignoring them or stat they have problems with their decisions being second guessed. I did seem to make headway with the idea of at least releasing the last set of data... making the case that if we see who is in the tournament, see the last set of data, and know everything we already know about teams winning and such... we can figure out the last regional rankings with maybe one or two mistakes. My argument being that the data is a week old (or older) and people should at least see that information to see what the committee was working with - even if the regional rankings weren't released. There seemed to be at least an agreement that wouldn't be a bad idea from someone I think could make that happen... but not sure how or if it will happen.

[KnightSlappy]

I asked when I was in Indy about regional rankings being released... I asked multiple people in multiple levels of championships and governance... up to Dan Dutcher... turns out basketball is in the minority in a straw poll on whether they should be released. MBB keeps making their case and people seem to be ignoring them or stat they have problems with their decisions being second guessed. I did seem to make headway with the idea of at least releasing the last set of data... making the case that if we see who is in the tournament, see the last set of data, and know everything we already know about teams winning and such... we can figure out the last regional rankings with maybe one or two mistakes. My argument being that the data is a week old (or older) and people should at least see that information to see what the committee was working with - even if the regional rankings weren't released. There seemed to be at least an agreement that wouldn't be a bad idea from someone I think could make that happen... but not sure how or if it will happen.

Which tells me they're either (1) not confident in their ability to select teams or (2) not following the stated criteria.

If one believes in the process, follows the process, and makes defensible choices, she or he shouldn't fear the second guessing.

I'm glad men's basketball is firmly pushing for transparency. I don't always agree with their choices or process come selection time, but I'm glad they're of the mindset that this sort of openness would be a good thing.