Pool C

[Ralph Turner]

I agree with D-Mac.  The system has improved over the last 6-7 years that I have been dissecting the data.

The administrative region and 200-mile radius rules have made big differences.

I don't see any other solutions that we are going to get added into the structure.

The ASC could help itself, if it could add about 3-4 more teams and split into 2 conferences.  I don't see any prospects to move to D3 on the horizon.

The next feature about the playoffs that has emerged is how much deeper into the Pool of quality teams that the extra Pool C bids have tapped.  The 1:6.5 ratio is about right.  Parity in D3 is incredible.

We are extremely unlikely to host a sectional.  HPU women were lucky to get one, even when they were undefeated.

[Titan Q]

Through Sunday, 2/8, here is the Massey Index top 60 by region...

http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6


West (19)
1. St. Thomas
2. UW-Platteville
3. UW-Stevens Point
5. Puget Sound
6. UW-Whitewater
10. Buena Vista
12. Lewis & Clark
14. Whitworth
19. Carleton
21. UW-Oshkosh
24. UW-Eau Claire
31. Bethel
35. UW-La Crosse
41. Augsburg
43. Cornell
44. Loras
50. UW-Superior
55. St. John's
58. Chapman

Midwest (13)
4. Wash U
7. Wheaton
8. Elmhurst
11. Augustana
16. Carthage
18. St. Norbert
20. North Central
25. Millikin
27. Carroll
36. Ill. Wesleyan
39. Transylvania
42. Lawrence
60. Grinnell

South (11)
9. Trinity (Tx)
22. Dallas
30. Guilford
34. McMurry
37. Centre
38. DePauw
46. Randolph-Macon
47. Le Tourneau
52. Mary Hardin-Baylor
54. Mississippi College
59. Roanoke

Great Lakes (9)
15. Capital
28. John Carroll
32. Carnegie Mellon
33. Hope
40. Calvin
49. Ohio Northern
50. Ohio Wesleyan
55. St. Vincent
56. Wooster

East (3)
13. Itaca
51. Rochester
57. Rochester Tech

Mid-Atlantic (2)
17. Franklin & Marshall
45. McDaniel

Northeast (2)
26. Middlebury
29. Mass-Dartmouth

Atlantic (1)
23. Richard Stockton

[golden_dome]

Dave,
  I'm not disagreeing with you on most of this, and that's certainly not "my plan". Like I said, this isn't something I have spent hours thinking about but I was just throwing it out there for discussion.

I agree with Ralph that this is better than the old way overall, but just not for certain regions. My only point is there is still a lot about the process that is not "fair" to areas of the country and the OWP and OOWP hurt us. I'm happy for the CCIW that they are getting more teams in and I also think it's a great league, but they've won one national championship in the last 21 years. Until last year, the UAA had not won a national championship in 17 years.

I'm not knocking those leagues because they do have several Final Fours, but I just think there is a lot of parity in DIII these days, much more than in the past and certainly much more than is reflected by the OWP and OOWP.

[Pat Coleman]

The South has 50 out of 395 teams eligible for the tournament, 12.7%

In a 59-team bracket, 12.7% is 7.47 teams.

The South Region got eight teams in the tournament last year out of 59
The South Region got nine teams in the tournament in 2007.
The South Region got seven teams in the tournament in 2006, right on par.

In a 48-team bracket, 12.7% is 6.06 teams.
The South Region got six teams in the tournament in 2005, right on par.
The South Region got seven teams in the tournament in 2004.

I'm not seeing how the South is hurt by having at-large teams selected nationally. The number of automatic bids in this region has remained consistent: ASC, SCAC, ODAC, USAC.

[golden_dome]

The South has 50 out of 395 teams eligible for the tournament, 12.7%

In a 59-team bracket, 12.7% is 7.47 teams.

The South Region got eight teams in the tournament last year out of 59
The South Region got nine teams in the tournament in 2007.
The South Region got seven teams in the tournament in 2006, right on par.

In a 48-team bracket, 12.7% is 6.06 teams.
The South Region got six teams in the tournament in 2005, right on par.
The South Region got seven teams in the tournament in 2004.

I'm not seeing how the South is hurt by having at-large teams selected nationally. The number of automatic bids in this region has remained consistent: ASC, SCAC, ODAC, USAC.

Pat,
   Thanks for posting that information, maybe the OWP and OOWP are not having much of an impact. The ASC and SCAC are the only conferences in the south really affected, the ODAC and USAC are close enough to DIII's to get games.
   I guess the only time it would be an issue is if you had a northeast or midwest team get into the tourney with more losses than an ASC or SCAC team due to the OWP and OOWP numbers. I haven't looked to see if it's happened or not. But it is an impossible situation with the ASC and SCAC so isolated. The current system is probably pretty close to as good as it gets for the majority of DIII.
   Still, the biggest issue for isolated teams will always be travel. And that will never be fixed unless the NCAA wants to fork over the money for it.

[Pat Coleman]

Or if institutions commit to it. This is still regular-season games we're talking about, right? The NCAA's travel is a different issue that I don't think is part of the OWP/OOWP discussion.

[sac]

   Still, the biggest issue for isolated teams will always be travel. And that will never be fixed unless the NCAA wants to fork over the money for it.

The NCAA is already saying they'll keep D1 teams as close to home as possible.   I'd expect the D3 bracket to have fewer teams moving around this year.   No Wooster to Augustana's.

[Pat Coleman]

Did they reverse course on that? I just saw yesterday they were saying the exact opposite.

[sac]

Did they reverse course on that? I just saw yesterday they were saying the exact opposite.

maybe they reverse, reverse corsed?.........I saw that on Sunday or Monday.  So, don't know I guess.

[Hugenerd]

I heard the same thing, here is an article on it:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cbk/story/9204096/NCAA-will-try-to-keep-tourney-teams-close-to-home

[Pat Coleman]

Ahh, see, I read this and I took it to mean business as usual.

NCCA tournament selection committee chairman Mike Slive said his group still will try to keep teams close to their home fans, as it has in the past, but not if it would result in unfair competition.

They already made some moves toward this a couple years ago and they seem to be saying they'd do more of the same. (BTW, that's AP's typo in the quote.)

[Pat Coleman]

It's a program the committee has used since 2002, and while it can sometimes help the committee decide whether to send a team to, say, Birmingham or Denver, Slive insists travel expenses will not play a more significant role in seeding and bracketing than they have in the past.

[Hugenerd]

At this point,  I am sure the NCAA is going to say what they think they should say right now (with the economic climate), but, as they seem to admit in the article, financial considerations arent going to cause changes in seeding or trump any other basketball-related criteria. Maybe they would switch around some 13-15 seeds to get teams closer to home but I cant see them doing anything controversial with any of the real contenders.

[Hugenerd]

Pat,

I guess ESPN interpreted the NCAA statements the way you did the first time:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3897386

Its funny, because both articles say essentially exactly the same thing, with the same exact quotes, except FOX has the headline "NCAA will try to keep tourney teams close to home" while ESPN writes "Economy won't factor into tournament pairings " and "Economy won't play larger role" as their two headlines for the article.

[Pat Coleman]

ESPN.com probably has people who know college basketball better than Fox does. At ESPN they know this is the way it's been done the past couple years. At Fox they keep wondering what this sport is that North Carolina and Duke are good at.