Pool C

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · February 28, 2006, 03:40:36 PM

Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 02:17:25 PM
Notice how high up Chapman and Huntingdon are, compared to <cough>Villa Julei</cough> at 150! Argh!

I guess Baruch will be the test, but honestly I don't see much difference between VJC, Chapman and Huntingdon. I was suprised at the pick not because of the calibre of team, but because I didn't think the numbers pointed that way.

smedindy · February 28, 2006, 03:43:55 PM

Baruch is only #90 as well, though. They both have heinous SOS measures.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · February 28, 2006, 03:47:59 PM

Quote from: smedindy on February 28, 2006, 03:43:55 PM
Baruch is only #90 as well, though. They both have heinous SOS measures.

That's what I mean. In my opinion Villa Julie has a shot at Baruch. If it turns into a Baruch blowout, then maybe I have to change my mind about other B teams getting screwed. Right now it seems like a bum deal for Huntingdon, but its not outrageous. If VJC gets wiped off the floor, then we have hindsight.

As it is, I think VJC can hang just fine. I might even pick them to win.

How much would it suck to host the weekend and be done playing Friday night?

Mr. Ypsi · March 01, 2006, 11:49:42 PM

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!

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · March 02, 2006, 09:09:03 AM

Yeah, I saw that. I let it go since it is their board and all, but it just proves no one is ever happy.

Although, they did only get the one Pool C bid, a deserving Tufts squad, so really their "gaming" didn't pay off this year anyway.

diehardfan · March 13, 2006, 03:10:33 AM

I was just looking at a list of the Pool Cs, and having a discussion and would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter:

While I am certainly glad the tournament expanded, all but IWU of the Pool C's got eliminated by at least the game three rounds before the Champion is declared. 1 of 4 in the Final Four isn't bad... it's slightly more than proportional. But 1 of 8 of the Elite 8 teams, IMHO isn't so great.

What exactly was our argument for why we needed more Pool C teams? Wasn't it because they were often Final Four caliber? Or was it something about having more good games early on?

$:-\$

Coach C · March 13, 2006, 10:03:06 AM

diehard -

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

Greek Tragedy · March 13, 2006, 10:05:55 AM

I think you might have to see how many Pool C teams played each other and when...I'll look into it when I have some time later.

dewcrew88 · March 13, 2006, 12:16:21 PM

Quote from: diehardfan on March 13, 2006, 03:10:33 AM

I was just looking at a list of the Pool Cs, and having a discussion and would be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter:

While I am certainly glad the tournament expanded, all but IWU of the Pool C's got eliminated by at least the game three rounds before the Champion is declared. 1 of 4 in the Final Four isn't bad... it's slightly more than proportional. But 1 of 8 of the Elite 8 teams, IMHO isn't so great.

What exactly was our argument for why we needed more Pool C teams? Wasn't it because they were often Final Four caliber? Or was it something about having more good games early on? $:-\$

I know why one pool C bowed out before the Elite 8... Utica played St. John Fisher for the fourth time this season.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · March 13, 2006, 12:37:20 PM

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.

Ralph Turner · March 13, 2006, 01:39:49 PM

Quote from: Coach C on March 13, 2006, 10:03:06 AM
diehard -

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

Coach, some time in the off-season, I invite you to discuss with us how we can improve the system (1) inside the budget that we have now, (2) that acknowledges the key principle of equal access to the playoffs and (3) minimizes the key time in the classroom.

Coach C · March 13, 2006, 02:02:42 PM

Ralph -

One of the problems is that people keep talking about working within the system and the budget. That's just BS. With the NIT added to the D1 NCAA fold, they have even MORE tournament money. Why doesn't that money trickle down to us? I think our travel budget should be larger and it should be adjusted reguarly based ont he D1 tournament(s) revenues.

But ok, if we have to do it in the budget, how about we get rid or the whole regional record thing and the regional SOSI thing? What exactly is that measuring? If you're in the NE region, it's just measuring who well you do against a terrible region. Anyone wondering how York and Willie Pat get to the Final Four? Look at the brackets they came out of.

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

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · March 13, 2006, 02:27:59 PM

Isn't the whole d3 budget based on a percentage of the total NCAA revenue? If that's true, then technically it is adjusted every year depending on what comes in.

Coach C · March 13, 2006, 02:36:19 PM

Hoopsfan -

IIRC that is the old way. The new way, we got a little chink of money when the new TV deal was done and the budget is base don that number each year.

C

sac · March 13, 2006, 02:40:08 PM

I think the losing classroom time argument is getting old.........with the new format this year, we saw more travel for first round games.

For instance UW LaCrosse came across Lake Michigan to Holland, the NCAA allows them a day of practice which means they were in Holland on Thursday, probably left Wednesday. Meaning some of those kids probably missed 3 days of school......... if they'd stayed closer to home and played under the old format? ? ? ?

I think missed class time is an old tired excuse.