2012 Division III NCAA Tournament

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

If they have budgeted their allotted number of flights out and can fly just one team to a location... then yes, it is possible for Middlebury or RMC to host (though, Middlebury would have the edge due first and foremost their #1 regional ranking).

If the NCAA has to use more flights then they planned or even "worse case" scenarioed... then someone in the middle would get the chance.

But don't be surprised if a flight is put into this mix depending on who comes out!

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

hoops fan, i was looking at this yesterday.  you could end up with the same scenario between VA Wesleyan and both Amherst and Williams (Norfolk to Amherst or williamstown over 500 miles).  However, barring an upset there would be no place VAW could go to under 500 miles, so that would have to be a flight (making ur RMC/Middlebury meet in the middle scenario even more likely).

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Lusty - again - we don' t know how many flights they have been "given" by the NCAA.

If it is five and your scenario and this scenario are there... along with the fact Whitworth and McMurry have to fly.. that is just four... plus Chapman this weekend... there is your five.

If they have more flights to use... then we are fine... if they have less... there are problems.

However, the committee I know looked at worse case scenarios... so they have a plan already to go with the top seeds... we will see how it plays out.

[7express]

I voted for the Salve Western game in the poll only because I'll be there, but Texas-Dallas and MHB will probably be the best seeing their conference opponents.

[ronk]

Dmac/Pat,
Please bring up with any NCAA chairmen on your hoopsville show Thursday:
   Subject: incorrect NCAA inregion records
    This year the NCAA had incorrect inregion records for both Scranton men(missing a big win) and women(missing a win and 2 losses) for the first regional rankings. Arguably, the men weren't ranked but should have been and the women were ranked but should not have been. The major point is that not only Scranton was affected, but also the teams around them in the ranking and any team that played Scranton(because of the inregion ranked opponent criteria) and carried thru subsequent rankings because of the once ranked, always ranked concept.
   As long as the schools haven't changed conferences and gained or lost inregion games for that reason, there's seemingly no reason for the NCAA to have incorrect inregion records- the schools haven't moved, the distance between them is known before the season starts.
  Recommendation: as part of their seasonal review, the NCAA should release their inregion records a week before they compute the first regional ranking next year so that we have a way to vet and change anything that needs to be corrected before that computation. I think they owe that to the players, coaches, and fans.
  I wanted to get this idea out there after we had discussed selection Monday but before everyone left the board for the offseason as their teams got eliminated.
  Separately, when r the women going to release their final ranking and data?

[Pat Coleman]

I asked the women's liaison that this afternoon -- she didn't realize it hadn't already been released and was going to look into it.

Dave raised your other questions in his first Hoopsville conversation with Dave Martin, so I'm not sure we're going to reiterate that question. However, your suggestion that they release the data a week early is a good one. They might be amenable to that.

Agreed there is no reason for it to be wrong but in the end, it's still human beings who input the games into the NCAA's system. When you have 400 people contributing data, some of it is going to be incorrect.

[nwhoops1903]

Since this board has NCAA smacktalk going.  Here is my rant from Poll C board.

I think some people are forgetting that D3 Championships are about access not necessarily quality. 

Oh, I'm all for access for the Pool A's. If you have a legit conference, you deserve a bid.

The "C"'s though should be quality.

THE NCAA's CORE PURPOSE IS TO govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount. 

Can we somehow hold them to the mission statement in funding the D3 tournaments?  Fairness and equity are not existent in our tourney until the Final Four.   Selecting a team(s) to play 4 home games is competitively UNFAIR and UNEQUITABLE.  The NCAA can and should make an effort to expand ITS OWN CORE PURPOSE from 4 games to at least the final 16 games of the D3 tournaments under new President Mark Emmert. 

He states, "Behaviors that undermine the collegiate model wherever they occur are a threat to those basic values, and we can't tolerate them. If we believe in those values, we need to be ready to defend them, and if we don't, we have to be ready to accept the criticism that comes from not doing so.  During the next few months, I will work with NCAA presidential groups in all three divisions to propose rules that close glaring loopholes and begin to align behaviors with our values."

Neutral site round 3 and 4 games can be planned and located to easily allow four (4) team fan bases to travel instead of the current UNFAIR and UNEQUITABLE three (3) fan bases.  Using the current hosting process, these sites could be announced at the release of the bracket.  This would allow for travel planning to begin much earlier for potential teams, students, and fan bases.  No one can efffectively argue that playing at home has no advantage.  Busing and lodging 4 more teams (16 vs 12) is not a significant increase in expense and the potential for a more lucrative gate and larger venues could offset the 25% added expense.

[ronk]

  Even though our regional perspectives are different(West coast over 500 miles for u and Mid-Atlantic under 200 miles for me), I agree with your sentiments about the minimal consideration of fairness given for schools, fan bases, neutral sites, number of regional rankings based on number of schools in region(women only NE region), etc.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

ronk - in my opinion... something is flat out wrong with the way the women rank their teams and the answers I have gotten off the air and ON the air have not been satisfactory. I hope it is seriously examined in the off-season.

Also... to your point about in-region games being wrong... this is usually the responsibility first and foremost of the regional member from that conference. I know who that is for the men... so I don't know what happened... though, it clearly was fixed down the road.

It didn't affect the men's rankings a bit... since Scranton was ranked in the final ranking so that immediately trickles down to other teams and changes their resume immediately to the committee. The women's... that's another point that could have caused some problems.

I like your idea of pre-posting data. I would almost say they have to start posting that data sooner... but one week isn't bad - but good luck!

[LustyLarryintheToilet]

nw:  i like your idealistic attitude. but lets be honest, would it really make that much of a difference to have neutral site regional games?  Who would host these games?  You would still have these games most likely on campus sites in small gyms, and if thats the case the committee will always regionalize the brackets to make sure the top team gets to play close to home if they make the next round.  In theory your idea is fair, but in practice you'll still get the same problem of a team with a distinct home court/travel advantage.  

Then you run into the "dead atmosphere" problem which you get when a home team loses the first game under the current format.  I'd imagine the players would like playing in a viper's nest than they would a neutral side "dead" game.  Under your system, we might have even more dead games if travel is too far.

[nwhoops1903]

nw:  i like your idealistic attitude. but lets be honest, would it really make that much of a difference to have neutral site regional games?  Who would host these games?  You would still have these games most likely on campus sites in small gyms, and if thats the case the committee will always regionalize the brackets to make sure the top team gets to play close to home if they make the next round.  In theory your idea is fair, but in practice you'll still get the same problem of a team with a distinct home court/travel advantage.  

Then you run into the "dead atmosphere" problem which you get when a home team loses the first game under the current format.  I'd imagine the players would like playing in a viper's nest than they would a neutral side "dead" game.  Under your system, we might have even more dead games if travel is too far.

I think the dead atmosphere situation is actually lowered in neutral game sites.  Ideally the neutral site would be fairly central to the 4 teams (geo orphans aside) and more fans would travel to an elite 8 site from the remaining two schools.  The current dead atmosphere when the host school loses round 1 ripples out to the staff and site.  It is a bad situation.  I think current system has greater downside.
Games would probably be back to back days and some losing fan base might actually stick around because of convenience.

[Just Bill]

You don't want neutral site D-III sectionals. Unless Calvin, Hope, UWSP or IWU is in it, no one will be there. I'll take the risk of the home team losing the first night and having a weak crowd on the second night, rather than having three weak crowds.

If you wanted to make a rule that prohibits hosting both the regional and sectional rounds, I'd be more on board with that.

[ScotsFan]

I also don't think that Randy Mac needs nor deserves a 1st round bye.  

Agreed and agreed.

Well ScotsFan, methinks our paths shall cross.  Will this be the last of our agreeing?  
Glad to see RMC not only NOT get a bye pod but a trip to St. Mary's.  Looks like the ODAC needs Guilford around to get more respect.  Just saying....

Yep.  Looks that way.  I just hope our paths cross in Wooster and not in Spokane!      Although, if it is Spokane, there's not really anything I can argue about as Whitworth is clearly deserving of hosting.  If you read my profile of Wooster on the team profiles page you might understand why I am hoping Wooster gets to host.      

Lusty - again - we don' t know how many flights they have been "given" by the NCAA.

If it is five and your scenario and this scenario are there... along with the fact Whitworth and McMurry have to fly.. that is just four... plus Chapman this weekend... there is your five.

If they have more flights to use... then we are fine... if they have less... there are problems.

However, the committee I know looked at worse case scenarios... so they have a plan already to go with the top seeds... we will see how it plays out.

I think these scenarios Dave laid out may just decrease the probability of Whitworth getting to host the round of sixteen games even further.  If there are flights available, I don't see the NCAA using up three flights for one sectional when there is a possiblity of flights being needed for other sectionals.

You don't want neutral site D-III sectionals. Unless Calvin, Hope, UWSP or IWU is in it, no one will be there. I'll take the risk of the home team losing the first night and having a weak crowd on the second night, rather than having three weak crowds.

If you wanted to make a rule that prohibits hosting both the regional and sectional rounds, I'd be more on board with that.

Hey now, Wooster fans travel pretty darn good too!  

[nwhoops1903]

You don't want neutral site D-III sectionals. Unless Calvin, Hope, UWSP or IWU is in it, no one will be there. I'll take the risk of the home team losing the first night and having a weak crowd on the second night, rather than having three weak crowds.

If you wanted to make a rule that prohibits hosting both the regional and sectional rounds, I'd be more on board with that.

I am so accustomed to fan base support (see Whitworth avg attendance) I am probably naive to the travel fan base suppport outside of NWC.

My biggest thought, as you correctly listed, is 4 home game path seems like an "annointing".  Make a rule D3 presidents. 

[Ralph Turner]

nw:  i like your idealistic attitude. but lets be honest, would it really make that much of a difference to have neutral site regional games?  Who would host these games?  You would still have these games most likely on campus sites in small gyms, and if thats the case the committee will always regionalize the brackets to make sure the top team gets to play close to home if they make the next round.  In theory your idea is fair, but in practice you'll still get the same problem of a team with a distinct home court/travel advantage.  

Then you run into the "dead atmosphere" problem which you get when a home team loses the first game under the current format.  I'd imagine the players would like playing in a viper's nest than they would a neutral side "dead" game.  Under your system, we might have even more dead games if travel is too far.

I remember listening over the Lawrence network (to a very good play-by-play announcer whose name I cannot find today) to the UWSP-Lawrence Elite 8 game in 2004 at UPS.  That game was played before about three hundred (300) fans in the L&C gym, some of whom were disguised as empty seats.  Where was the D3 fan support?  IMHO, that game was as tough as 2004 National Champion UWSP faced.  (I will defer to Point Special.)