MBB: NESCAC

[pinseeking1]

So, I guess the argument is that since "only" 75% (and not 100%) of the Final Four got there by having all home games that it isn't unfair and that we newbies shouldn't question the wisdom of that? To me, this is outrageous.

It would be very easy to simply eliminate the possibility of any sites hosting all four rounds. A potential hosting site would just have to pick one weekend or the other. Would a third or fourth round game at Trinity in Hartford have been such a hardship to Babson, Bates or Hopkins?

[Off Pitch]

So you would reward a lower ranked team in the region with hosting in the name of "fairness".  Now that is outrageous.

I think you are missing the point regarding the 75% of the hosts that advanced.  It is quite likely that they advanced simply because they were the better teams (which is why they were hosting to begin with).  Regular season results and schedule strengths mean something.

[gordonmann]

 We ran a piece on Sunday noting that the teams which host the sectional round only advance to the Final Four something like 50 percent of the time. In the NESCAC, with the single round robin format, it's possible to host most of your hardest regular season games, all your conference tournament games AND all four NCAA tournament games.

Take a look at the Tufts women this year. They hosted their regular season games against Amherst and Bowdoin, all 3 NESCAC games and all four NCAA games. They haven't left Medford in a month and won't play one true road game for the entire playoff stretch. The Amherst women have had the same thing happen.

That's not the fault of the Jumbos, but there are certainly teams outside the NESCAC that see that as unfair and Trinity's experience as pretty typical of what most other teams in D3 experience.

[pinseeking1]

So you would reward a lower ranked team in the region with hosting in the name of "fairness".  Now that is outrageous.

I think you are missing the point regarding the 75% of the hosts that advanced.  It is quite likely that they advanced simply because they were the better teams (which is why they were hosting to begin with).  Regular season results and schedule strengths mean something.

The decision to apply to host either the first two rounds or the second two rounds should be the choice of the site that is applying. They simply shouldn't be able to host both weekends. You don't even address the fact that the ability to host both weekends is not available to some teams because of geography. Middlebury or Colby, for example, will never get the opportunity to host both weekends because they are not centrally located.

[gordonmann]

Teams in Maine have hosted both weekends on the women's side. The distance from Boston to Maine is not significant enough to eliminate those schools from hosting eligibility. There are schools that miss out on hosting opportunities because of geography but not in this conference.

[gordonmann]

Now that I think about Middlebury had a chance all the way through to the final four only four years ago. They lost to Scranton in the Sweet 16 at home.

[pinseeking1]

Now that I think about Middlebury had a chance all the way through to the final four only four years ago. They lost to Scranton in the Sweet 16 at home.

My apologies! You're right about Middlebury. I guess if all teams have an equal opportunity to host all four games it's less unfair. I believe in the year before the Scranton game that Middlebury had earned the right to host, but ended up traveling to Rochester, NY because of geography and how it related to the Sweet 16 group for that particular year.

[Off Pitch]

pinseeking1, perhaps the NESCAC should consider changing the way they conduct postseason tournaments as well.  In basketball, the higher seeded team got to host the quarterfinal games.  Then the highest remaining seed hosted both the semi-finals and finals.  This means the #1 seed could have all their games at home.  You obviously think this to be grossly unfair. 

Maybe the conference should come up with some other criterion for hosting other than regular season results - maybe sportsmanship or admission selectivity.  The current format is unfair to the teams who had poor regular seasons.  You might be on to something.

[pinseeking1]

pinseeking1, perhaps the NESCAC should consider changing the way they conduct postseason tournaments as well.  In basketball, the higher seeded team got to host the quarterfinal games.  Then the highest remaining seed hosted both the semi-finals and finals.  This means the #1 seed could have all their games at home.  You obviously think this to be grossly unfair. 

Maybe the conference should come up with some other criterion for hosting other than regular season results - maybe sportsmanship or admission selectivity.  Any other criterion would clearly be more "fair" than actual regular season results.  You might be on to something.

I think you're confusing conference games with NCAA tournament games. The home court "advantage" of the D3 tournament doesn't exist in D1 or D2. The home court advantage does apply to many conference tournaments. They're different, obviously.

[Off Pitch]

Actually the first two rounds of the D2 tournament are played in the gym of the top seed.

[pinseeking1]

Off Pitch, if you're defending the teams that had the four home games this year, I have no problem with them. They played by the rules and played where the NCAA told them to go.

It just seems to me that a system that allows this to happen needs to be adjusted a little. The fact that it seems to happen 50% of the time seems a little weird for an NCAA tournament. I have no problem with the D2 method as you describe it. But, in the end, I'm just someone expressing an opinion on an opinion board.   

[Off Pitch]

I am defending the format, not the teams.  Suggesting that a lower seeded team should be given the opportunity to host in the name of "fairness" is simply ludicrous.  One could reasonably argue that games should be played at a neutral site, but this is the NCAA and it is D3.  Money is always going to be an issue.

Also, in D2 the top seed actually hosts the first 3 rounds.  The elite 8 then is played at a neutral site.

[pinseeking1]

I'm not sure it's really "ludicrous" to suggest that some teams, like Babson, have the opportunity to play all home games until the Final Four, but others (like Middlebury, see above example re: Rochester) might only get that advantage only if the teams participating in that particular year happen to work out correctly. How do you reconcile that fact?

But we seem to have different opinions...

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

If it's a neutral site, not only will it cost more for extra travel, but you're going to be playing in front of largely empty gyms.  Very few teams travel well enough to fill the stands.  Atmosphere matters, plus the cost savings of having one team host.  The Final Four is neutral - and even then sometimes those games are played to very few fans.

[Bucket]

Magicman, unbelievable! Do you mean that the entire tournament is one game shy of having a Final Four who played all home games on their "roads" to the Final Four? Isn't it obvious that this type of thing has to end? It takes a lot of the fairness out of the whole thing...

It would perhaps be OK if this type of thing were related to  the luck of the draw, but the teams from the outer edges of their regions (i.e., Maine, Vermont, etc) will never get this opportunity.

I'm modifying my response, as I've just read the further discussions on this topic.

Middlebury has twice hosted on back-to-back weekends: in 2012, we lost to Scranton on a buzzer-beater in the Sweet Sixteen at home, though had the opportunity to play through to Salem. (The other teams that weekend were Cabrini and Eastern Connecticut.) In 2013, we also hosted a Sweet Sixteen game on the second weekend, beating Ithaca. That year, though, the Elite 8 game was played in Salem the following weekend, along with the semi-final. That was the year that the championship game was played on the DI Final Four weekend.

You are correct that we were shipped to Rochester in 2011, even though we were a "higher seed." St. Mary's of Maryland was the reason, as they were driving distance to Rochester, but not to Middlebury. (I believe they were 50 miles or so outside of the limit.) I was one of the Midd partisans who was fiery mad about this "injustice." However, to Pat's point, that was the year that we won two games and advanced to our only Final Four. And that trip is one of my fondest memories as a Middlebury fan. Winning on the road is more fun than losing at home.