Pool C

[iwumichigander]

Why are there only 10 teams on the Pool C list?

I was wondering the same.  I'm guessing it will be updated.

This must be some kinda new NCAA math  --- or the Grinch really did steal somebody's Christmas

[titanhammer]

It has now been updated.

[pabegg]

They've now finished the list: Utica in, WashU and Trinity CT out

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Right on Utica, wrong on Bates.  Oxy got in instead of Trinity(CT).  Not too bad.

Also, a seven loss team made it; I've been saying that all year and no one believed me.

[Pat Coleman]

I am OK with 16-for-18. Better than 6-for-7.

[Ralph Turner]

...

I think that my reply #596 is almost there.  I think that my 18 Pool C picks are in that list.  Assumng no upsets tomorrow, Keene State, Lakeland and Bates and 2 more are definitely my bubble teams!

My pool B's are Lincoln, Bethany, Huntingdon and Chapman. ...

My differences with Pat Coleman were Utica NY in and Wash StL out.

My Pool B's were Lincoln, Bethany, Huntingdon and Chapman, but I posted the comparison between Chapman and Maryville TN in the Daily Dose and understand his selection.

17 for 18 on Pool C  , but only 2-4 on Pool B.

I hope that I have learned my lesson.  The numbers are the numbers, and there is very little subjective input that I can see.

[John Gleich]

Impressive as usual Pat...  You guys really know your stuff, and I think over-all, we'll have a much better* tournament this year.  Whadda you think?



*by better I mean the number of deserving teams have made it... we'll have to see the brackets to see how the teams are matched, but...

[sac]

On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

[Ralph Turner]

Impressive as usual Pat...  You guys really know your stuff, and I think over-all, we'll have a much better* tournament this year.  Whadda you think?



*by better I mean the number of deserving teams have made it... we'll have to see the brackets to see how the teams are matched, but...

Point, I agree.  The only team that I regret staying home is Huntingdon.  I thought they made a great case for success under the subjective criteria that the national committee has.  I see no one else staying home who seems to be left out.

As for Pool B, the NEAC (and the Villa Julie's, Baptist Bibles, and in the future, Keystone's) get a Pool A next year.

The President's AC gets their Pool A in 2007-08.

I can foresee the northeast region indepedents getting absorbed in the wake of the "Interstate 8".

[Mr. Ypsi]

On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

On a purely numbers basis (and in my case, even on subjective criteria), I agree - I had Bates in, LAX out.  What did sac and I miss?

[Ralph Turner]

On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

On a purely numbers basis (and in my case, even on subjective criteria), I agree - I had Bates in, LAX out.  What did sac and I miss?

Gentlemen, I greatly respect your opinions, so the first thing that I imagine is that Bates was coming up "19th time" around the table.

[Pat Coleman]

On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

On a purely numbers basis (and in my case, even on subjective criteria), I agree - I had Bates in, LAX out.  What did sac and I miss?

Lax 3-4 against regionally ranked opponents is what got them in for us.

[John Gleich]

I haven't checked the Regional Rankings from last week... but is it possible that La Crosse was just "up to bat" sooner than some of the other possible teams?  We don't know where they were ranked in the West... but for me, at least, the fact that the would have been ranked, relative to their regional foes, ahead of particularly Lakeland was the (a?) reason (among others?) why they were picked over the Muskies...  The same may be true about Bates, but like I said, I don't know where Bates was before this week, so the point may be moot.

I think Albion's chances would have been lower than they appeared to be earlier this year... but that may have been their downfall as well (being a lower-ranked team in a stacked region, like Lakeland).

[Mr. Ypsi]

On the contrary Ralph i think there must have been something subjective about LaCrosse getting in ahead of Bates

On a purely numbers basis (and in my case, even on subjective criteria), I agree - I had Bates in, LAX out.  What did sac and I miss?

Lax 3-4 against regionally ranked opponents is what got them in for us.

I hadn't checked those stats - that could do it for me.

Now another conundrum - Oxy in, Chapman not in.  The consensus seemed to be that Oxy was dead-meat, Chapman was highly doubtful.  But if Oxy is suddenly in, there is an obvious 'pod' in SoCal IF Chapman is also in.  Has the NCAA suddenly gone for merit rather than geography?  Since the rules don't allow CMS vs. Oxy in the first round,  is the NCAA going to fly them both to UPS, PLUS whomever else?  Or will UPS get screwed and they plus whomever else will play at CMS?  I guess we find our tomorrow morning.

[Titan Q]

Chuck, the selection committee has never allowed geography to affect selections.  The bracket, yes...selections, no.   They weren't going to put Chapman in just to create a pod.

I expect a Thursday game of Oxy vs C-M-S with the winner going to a bye team - the rules allow two conference teams to play if the geography makes it necessary.  In this case, it's probably the only way to do it.

Personally, I'm volunteering to send Illinois Wesleyan to Occidental Thursday, with the winner to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Saturday.  Win or lose, the weather is a whole lot better.