Pool C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location. 

Dave said on the show he got word they finished #1 in the GL.  They pretty much gave every regional #1 a chance to host, if they could.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I'm more and more impressed with this bracket, as I look at it.  I went through and just added seed numbers in the traditional pattern to each region.  They work out entirely fair with just a few exceptions:

Hendrix and LaGrange are in the wrong spots, but that's entirely geographical.
Neumann and Defiance are in the wrong spots, but again, geography plays a factor there.
The Hopkins pod and the Trinity pod should have been switched.

In the grand scheme of things, those are all pretty understandable.

[KnightSlappy]

I'm more and more impressed with this bracket, as I look at it.  I went through and just added seed numbers in the traditional pattern to each region.  They work out entirely fair with just a few exceptions:

Hendrix and LaGrange are in the wrong spots, but that's entirely geographical.
Neumann and Defiance are in the wrong spots, but again, geography plays a factor there.
The Hopkins pod and the Trinity pod should have been switched.

In the grand scheme of things, those are all pretty understandable.

I think Calvin and Ohio Wesleyan are in the wrong spots as well, but I'm not going to complain. 

[Greek Tragedy]

Pool C teams selected in BLUE. These were the last public regional rankings

WK3	TEAM
Atl#2	Will. Pat. (NJAC)
Atl#4	Brooklyn (CUNYAC)
Atl#5	Rut.-New. (NJAC)
WK3	TEAM
C#3	UWSP (WIAC)
C#4	Wash. U. (UAA)
C#6	IWU (CCIW)
C#7	Elmhurst (CCIW)
C#8	NCC (CCIW)
WK3	TEAM
E#2	Platts. St.  (SUNYAC)
E#3	Hobart (LL)
E#5	NYU (UAA)
E#6	Clarkson (LL)
WK3	TEAM
GL#1	Marietta (OAC)
GL#2	Ohio Wes. (NCAC)
GL#3	Wooster (NCAC)
GL#4	JCU (OAC)
GL#6	PS-Behrend (AMCC)
GL#9	Hope (MIAA)
WK3	TEAM
MA#1	Johns Hop. (CC)
MA#3	Catholic (LAND)
MA#4	Frank. & Marsh. (CC)
MA#6	St. Mary's (Md.) (CAC)
WK3	TEAM
NE#2	Trinity (Ct.) (NESCAC)
NE#3	Amherst (NESCAC)
NE#4	Bates (NESCAC)
NE#5	E. Conn. (LEC)
NE#6	WPI (NEWMAC)
NE#8	Bowdoin (NESCAC)
NE#9	Springfield (NEWMAC)
NE#10	S. Vermont (NECC)
WK3	TEAM
So#3	VWU(ODAC)
So#5	Centre (SAA)
So#6	Hard.-Sim. (ASC)
So#8	MHB (ASC)
WK3	TEAM
W#2	St. Olaf (MIAC)
W#3	Buena Vista (IIAC)
W#4	Whitman (NWC)
W#7	Bethel (MIAC)

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I'm more and more impressed with this bracket, as I look at it.  I went through and just added seed numbers in the traditional pattern to each region.  They work out entirely fair with just a few exceptions:

Hendrix and LaGrange are in the wrong spots, but that's entirely geographical.
Neumann and Defiance are in the wrong spots, but again, geography plays a factor there.
The Hopkins pod and the Trinity pod should have been switched.

In the grand scheme of things, those are all pretty understandable.

I think Calvin and Ohio Wesleyan are in the wrong spots as well, but I'm not going to complain. 

That's a 5 vs a 7?  Hardly something to get worked up about.

[Greek Tragedy]

How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location. 

Dave said on the show he got word they finished #1 in the GL.  They pretty much gave every regional #1 a chance to host, if they could.

That's a pretty big jump.

[bopol]

How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location. 

You're right, of course, I can't make up criteria.  Just looking at the GL region off of KnightSlappy's site, I think Marietta is still a pretty clear #1 and that OWU, Mount Union and Wooster are quite close together.  If you go by the standard criteria of head to head, you've got OWU beating Wooster twice and Wooster beating Mount Union - so by the logic that seems to be applied to the regional rankings, it should have been OWU #2 then Wooster and Mount Union.  I'd say that OWU deserved to host then.

[Pat Coleman]

My speculation on the air about this was that Wooster's loss in the conference tournament must have pushed them far enough away from Mount Union that the head-to-head was no longer enough to keep them above Mount.

[KnightSlappy]

How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location. 

You're right, of course, I can't make up criteria.  Just looking at the GL region off of KnightSlappy's site, I think Marietta is still a pretty clear #1 and that OWU, Mount Union and Wooster are quite close together.  If you go by the standard criteria of head to head, you've got OWU beating Wooster twice and Wooster beating Mount Union - so by the logic that seems to be applied to the regional rankings, it should have been OWU #2 then Wooster and Mount Union.  I'd say that OWU deserved to host then.

Mount Union beat Marietta 2-out-of-3 though. You can go round and round on the head-to-head.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location. 

Dave said on the show he got word they finished #1 in the GL.  They pretty much gave every regional #1 a chance to host, if they could.

Beating Marietta on the road in the conference finals gives them a 2-1 advantage - likely settled the head-to-head for the committee.

That's a pretty big jump.

[bopol]

How they played the "last 10 games" has no bearing on the selection.

I'm not debating Mt. Union is good or not, but those two extra vRRO in their tourney must have helped, that or their geographic location. 

You're right, of course, I can't make up criteria.  Just looking at the GL region off of KnightSlappy's site, I think Marietta is still a pretty clear #1 and that OWU, Mount Union and Wooster are quite close together.  If you go by the standard criteria of head to head, you've got OWU beating Wooster twice and Wooster beating Mount Union - so by the logic that seems to be applied to the regional rankings, it should have been OWU #2 then Wooster and Mount Union.  I'd say that OWU deserved to host then.

Mount Union beat Marietta 2-out-of-3 though. You can go round and round on the head-to-head.

Yes, but I think Marietta was clearly ahead of Mount otherwise (3 losses vs. 6 probably doesn't overcome an SOS difference of 0.36, even winning two of three head to head).  That said, it may have been the path the committee went down.  I don't think the regional committee went down a horrible path (like say the West), but I think having Marietta/OWU makes more sense than Mount Union/Marietta.

One advantage I noted of OWU vs. the other possible Ohio team hosts is that Wash U can get there in less than 500 miles.  I thought that might play in because it does solve bracket issues.

That said, I don't consider this to be a terrible error or anything.  You can make reasonable arguments both ways, just one might be slightly better than the other.

[KnightSlappy]

Dave or Pat -- have either of you heard if we're going to see the 63rd bid this next year (a 20th Pool C bid)? I have 413 full members on my spreadsheet which should be more than enough. I know there were NCAA budgetary concerns which may prevent tournament expansion.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Not this year... it is on hold per what I was told last year due to budgetary reasons and a little known rule they usually like to follow: add bids in even numbers.

Let me start with the budget: because things got so tight, adding bids whenever they became eligible started to cause problems. We actually were able to have a 63rd team eligible last season, if memory serves and thus why I was looking into last year. Each new team obvious brings in more per diem, travel, and other expenses. Only a couple of sports added bids, but not in single numbers (four for women's lacrosse if my memory serves right now).

As for the little known rule: there has always been an understanding or rule that the NCAA will add teams in even numbers. However, that was kind of pushed aside when a) there was such rapid growth in sports and b) the budgetary issues weren't a problem. However, when the budget became a problem, clearly the NCAA (i.e. Division III) needed a good enough reason to hold pat - thus the rule you only add in even numbers. (As an aside, I completely understand why you only add in even numbers - helps keep the brackets more balanced then adding one bid one year, another bid another year, etc.)

I don't believe we will be getting a 63rd bid until there are enough teams to just make it an even 64. Again, that is based on a countless conversations I had with several people throughout last season. I of course will follow up, but nothing I have seen or been told indicates an extra team this year.

[Gregory Sager]

Well, if we're currently at 413 participating programs, and if fourth-year provies Houghton, Southern Virginia, and Valley Forge Christian all complete the process and become full members for 2016-17, that would mean that we would reach the 416-participants threshold necessary to get a 64-team bracket for the 2017 D3 tourney, budget willing.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

From what I have been told and from what I have seen with other sports... they will allow the growth to 64 without concern for the budget because at that point everything else will be moot. They are basically using the "add in even numbers" as a tactic to keep from going crazy with growth - which we all can probably admit was happening in the division for a few years. Once all standards are met, the two extra bids will be added. The only catch to that is if the division looks to lower the tournaments to smaller participation numbers... but that isn't on the radar that I am aware of and thus wouldn't even be up for a vote for at least 18 months (not that it would probably pass in the first place barring a major budgetary problem which isn't on the horizon either).

I will double-check much of this in the coming days/weeks just to be sure.