Pool C

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

I think missed class time is an old tired excuse.

At least from the NCAA where they allow the d1 basbeall players to essentially miss the whole spring semester.

[Ralph Turner]

The missed class time in determining the qualification to the playoffs must include the entire 18-19 weeks of the season, not just tourney week.

Any changes that we make to the playoffs must be system wide.  The changes that have been implemented in basketball were implemented across all sports.

As the D3hoops.com Quasi-committee members of the  Competition Committee for D3 sports, these changes must work across all of the sports.

[dman]

Guys, you've got to see it to believe it:

A NESCAC poster (dman, 8:42 Weds morning) complaining that Gordon 'gamed the system'! It's true - irony is dead!

sorry for the late response.  i've quietly followed many of your comments this year (along with hoops fan and others) and i let them pass.  you're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine.  it's my opinion that teams like gordon, baruch, and utica had no business in the ncaa tournament.  pool c should be for the best teams that don't automatically qualify for the tournament, not for teams in really weak conferences, who run up gaudy records against inferior competition and yes, game the system.  just for example, check how gordon conveniently dropped its nescac games this year, whereas, in the past they were playing one or two games against nescac.  if you play in new england and don't play nescac, i think you're gaming the system.  i used quotes because these are your terms for nescac scheduling, which has nothing to do with the ncaa's!!!!!   i was glad to see utica beat gordon and wpi, legitimizing their presence, but if you can't beat someone in your own conference, which is notably weak, once in three tries, do you really belong in a national event??? if there is actually a "committee" of decision-makers as to who gets into the tournament, then i believe some teams with really good records should be left out in favor of teams from tougher conferences with slightly worse records.  finally, i would add that the expansion of the tournament is way overdue and is an overwhelming success in spite of my nit-picking around the fringes.....

[Mr. Ypsi]

dman,

I'm sure that the NESCAC single round-robin is not deliberately set up for purposes of 'gaming the system', but, with current selection rules, it sure works out nicely!  If the CCIW played a single round-robin, Elmhurst (with judicious scheduling of top SLIAC, etc., teams) would certainly have joined Augie, IWU, and NCC in the 'Little Dance'.

I don't think anyone is faulting the NESCAC, per se, it's the silly 'regional criteria to select a national tourney' that rankles.  And NESCAC's schedule DOES give it an unfair advantage in pool C bids, regardless of WHY the schedule exists.

[dman]

here are a couple of my thoughts.
1. apparently nescac scheduling really didn't influence the system this year, since they only got two teams in.  obviously, you can't complain about that...

2.  i agree that the nescac schedule gives it an advantage, but why do you think gordon dropped its nescac games this year???  i know for a fact that nescac teams have a hard time scheduling games in new england.  trinity only played 22 games this year.  i don't think that is on purpose.  if the goal is to simply qualify for nationals, then gordon set themselves up nicely to do it, only to be embarassed.  why not accept nescac as the premier conference and "make your season" by beating a nescac team??  then you'll both qualify for the ncaa's and know you might have a prayer of winning a game once you get in....

3.  the "silly regional criteria" were used by gordon (and baruch, utica, et al), since new england is a weak region and there are alot of teams with good records against poor competition.  all you have to do is beat one or two of those teams and your own regional criteria goes to the sky.....

[Mr. Ypsi]

dman,

Agreed.  And being perfectly legal, why wouldn't a scheduler seek to 'game the system'?

What I and others object to is that the NESCAC (as far as I'm aware) if the only CONFERENCE with this advantage.  Again, not an attack on the NESCAC, per se (it's legal, so even IF they did it for tourney advantage, so what?); but in my mind, a conference with a single round-robin is not REALLY a conference - they're a bunch of schools who happen to schedule each other (and who happens to get the key home games may affect the 'title' as much as the quality of performance).  In fb, it is unavoidable; in large, two-division bb conferences, double within division, but single against the other division is unavoidable; but if the NESCAC wants equity for their bballers, I see no reason NOT to have a double round-robin.

[formerbant10]

The reason the NESCAC won't go to a double round robin is because that means there may be some missed classes for the athletes if they have to travel during the week.  That's a big no-no as far as the conference goes.

Ypsi, interesting point about it not being a Conference but rather just a bunch of teams who play each other. 

And I doubt it will change any time soon, unless the NCAA makes a rule about a mandatory number of conference games that must be played in order to gain Pool A bid. 

Even then, they might just go after all the Pool B's.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The reason the NESCAC won't go to a double round robin is because that means there may be some missed classes for the athletes if they have to travel during the week.  That's a big no-no as far as the conference goes.

Ypsi, interesting point about it not being a Conference but rather just a bunch of teams who play each other. 

And I doubt it will change any time soon, unless the NCAA makes a rule about a mandatory number of conference games that must be played in order to gain Pool A bid. 

Even then, they might just go after all the Pool B's.

formerbant,

Your reasoning for the NESCAC decision would make sense except that all the conference teams played AT LEAST 24 games.  Why would playing conference opponents be different from playing non-conference opponents?

[Greek Tragedy]

Time out of the classroom ... something like 84% of d3 schools have a spring break within the D3 men's basketball tournament.  How much class time is REALLY being missed?

C

I think missed class time is an old tired excuse.

Maybe the students are worried about missing Spring Break! 

Re:  NESCAC

Didn't we have this debate for about TWO weeks prior to the tourney?  I'm staying out of the 2nd go-around! lol.

[diehardfan]

The arguement is that you want to put the best teams in the country in the tournament and the system does not do that.  In order to ensire that the best teams are in, we needed more C's.  I think the number is right at this point.  Now we just have to fix the travel mess and the selection criteria and then maybe we have a fair representation of the regualr season.
C

Well, that makes more sense, but then I'm left with the theoretical question... How do we know they are the best teams if they don't go very far? Isn't that ultimately the main proof we can get that a team is really all that?

Looking at the Pool C teams:

10 of the 18 teams had to play each other, allowing for only a maximum of 13 teams in the 2nd round.

11 Pool C teams made the second round (Baruch and Trinity, neither of whom was on the bubble, were the losers).

In the second round, three games pitted two Pool C teams against each other, allowing for only a maximum of 8 Pool C teams in the sweet sixteen.

5 teams made the sweet sixteen (the losers were Calvin, Wooster and Occidental). Oxy is the first bubble C to lose to a non-C team, and Oxy was barely on the bubble; I think almost everybody had them in.

In the sweet sixteen, you have Utica and Tufts losing to conference champs from their own conferences. Certainly they couldn't have been expected to win those games. Widener lost to William Paterson, which might be seen as a disappointment, but not necessarily. Augie lost to UPS and IWU beat Lawrence.

There is a case to complain about how many C teams had to face each other in the first round; I think that's valid. And there is legitimacy to the Hope-Calvin second round game. After that, I'm not sure you can complain all that much about the opponents and positions of the C's. Things panned out pretty evenly.

Nice research/summmary Hoops Fan, excellent post! 

[Ralph Turner]

Looking at the Pool C teams:

10 of the 18 teams had to play each other, allowing for only a maximum of 13 teams in the 2nd round.

There is a case to complain about how many C teams had to face each other in the first round; I think that's valid.  And there is legitimacy to the Hope-Calvin second round game.  After that, I'm not sure you can complain all that much about the opponents and positions of the C's.  Things panned out pretty evenly.

The issue of so many Pool C teams playing each other in the first round might be explained by the seedings in the perfect bracket.  The Pool C bids were the 6/11's or 7/10's or 8/9's.  The Pool A bids from the stronger conferences were paired with the Pool A's of the weaker conferences to comprise the 1/16 (Miss Coll vs Maryville MO of the SLIAC), 2/15's, 3/14's and 4/13's.

[iwumichigander]

In the second round, three games pitted two Pool C teams against each other, allowing for only a maximum of 8 Pool C teams in the sweet sixteen. (Hoops Fan Analysis)

Gee, kinda of funny how the first two rounds in an expanded tournament works down to 8 Pool C teams is it not?

I really think the difference or the impact of the expanded tournament is the opportunity for Pool C's to move to the Sweet Sixteen versus what might have been in the past more AQ's.

Is not that what most posters wanted an opportunity for some more Pool C teams to play and advance

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph,

Your scenario would work in a simpler world where the A conferences divide so neatly that ALL the Cs are between the 'good' conference As and the 'bad' conference As, but I doubt it works in THIS world.  And, of course, we musn't forget the Bs.

Though, of course, Cs do TEND to cluster in the middle (just like the at-large bids in d1 - the VERY top are mostly conference winners, the very bottom are largely conference winners from 'bad' conferences....)

Oh, all right.  At the level of meeting each other that Hoops Fan reported, you are probably right!

[Ralph Turner]

The 4 Pool B bids are calculated to be the same access ratio that the 37 Pool A conferences and the members have, 1:9.22.

41 divided by 9.22 = 4 bids.  From those 41 Pool B's we see Lincoln, which made it to the Sectional Finals (Elite 8 ), Maryville TN (round of 32), Villa Julie (Round of 32) and Bethany (first round loser).

Please realize that the NCAA has crafted these playoff criteria for all team sports!  Basketball only behaves this way, because Basketball is essentially the key winter season sport for everyone in D3, except a Wells College or a Macalester Women in the years that they disband.  Swimming and diving fulfill the winter requirement.

In Pool B's in football, the NWC has won the championship twice.  Wesley was a semifinalist in 2005.  In baseball, the Capital AC has 3 Pool B's in some years!

Pool B's work in D3.

One other thing to remember...The 8 current Pool B schools from the NEAC move to Pool A in 2007.  The 7 full members of the Pres AC move to Pool A in 2008.  At least 5 of the 6 NIIC schools will be in Pool A conferences when the dust settles.  Those 41 schools drop to 21.  The total number of Pool B's will fluctuate yearly, because of movement in and out of conferences, provisional becoming full, new conference formation, etc.

I think that there will be some good Pool B's in 2008 when the Interstate 8 begin to form.  NJCU was a Pool B in 2005.   The Bumblers went 5-4 this year.  Pool B will have some good schools in it thru the end of the decade.

[Knightstalker]

And just to make things more interesting, I copied this from the CAC page.

According to the Steven's Tech website, the "Interstate 8" is now the "Interstate 7."

http://www.stevensducks.com/sports/news/release.asp?RELEASE_ID=10331