Pool C

[K-Mack]

This is not a pool C comment, per se, but this seems to be where the postmortem is.  I'm having trouble with NCC as the overall #4 seed.  I have my suspicions that, believing (quite reasonably) that MUC wll host a semi-final game, the bean-counters, not the committee, put NCC 4th since MUC could host any North champ without a plane ride, but not many likely South or West teams.  Comments?

Yeah, the Post-mortem probably should be at the Potential Seedings thread.

I wondered about NC being No. 4 too. I guess Willamette, NC and Millsaps all compare pretty closely ... maybe NC and Willamette have the OWP/OOWP edge (just guessing, haven't looked lately) and they all have a win over an RRO or two, no? Granted Trinity and Cal Lu missed the field.

I don't see any good reason for that either, but that's third on my list of beefs behind the West switcheroo and the Texas twosome again.

Otherwise they did a nice job.

[labart96]

It's a tough deal either way -

tight budgets vs. "doing the right thing" vis a vis the best teams in the country.

i will agree - in general - with RS that this whole "regional" discussion is a mis-nomer and should be re-clarified in the rule books.

[K-Mack]

Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and . . .

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.  And as soon as you do not designate 8 bids to each region you will have that problem.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

But the way that the committees in all sports have been moving has been to this model.  I don't think that they have violated the spirit of the Handbook with the practical application of the data that the committee has.

Fine.  Then amend the Handbook so that we can distinguish between the "D-III's central philosophy" and "the spirit of the Handbook."  As it stands, picking the top 4 teams regardless of their Region is inconsistent with the emphasis on regional competition.

I think it would be simple enough to say "use the Regional Rankings to gather the 32 teams, then select the top 4 teams nationally and create brackets around each of the top 4."  The travel restrictions will, as a practical matter, force each bracket to retain a regional flavor.

This year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.  And I think that Coach Kaiser was very hesitant to say that MUC would have been moved into the east with a 10-0 Cortland State.  10-0 Cortland State generates a whole new combination of OWP/OOWP and Regional Rankings.  That would have required a different analysis by the Selection Committee.  10-0 Cortland State looks very viable as an East #1 and a creditable team to be considered as one of the four best in the country.  In some ways, MUC moved into the "power vacuum" that existed in the East.

You're absolutely right about the "power vacuum" in the East.

You might be right as to his thinking, but your description inflated Dr. Kaiser's answer a bit.  The most direct answer to the question about a 10-0 Cortland State would be exactly what Bob Gregg has been saying: there's nothing in the Handbook that would permit the Selection Committee even to contemplate importing a team--any team, from out of region as a number one seed over a 10-0 Cortland St. with very good OWP/OOWP numbers, and stellar results v. RROs.

I, for one, am reluctant to tie the hands of the committee with too much designated process and have something that takes the judgment away from conscientious volunteers on the committees to the process.  I know the outgoing Baseball Chair.  He was professionally committed to building the best playoff bracket that he could in 2008.  I do not want to hinder his decades of experience in the process by a mishmash of rules.   

I'm not doubting anyone's allegiance to D-III, and I'm sure you're not suggesting that I am.

Still, I  am reluctant to ask over 200 teams to schedule and play according to a handbook that grants the Selection Committee the power to make decisions that affect those teams based on rules that don't exist, AND that are decided in secret.

That said, Dr. Kaiser was very forthcoming in his interview.   I still would have loved to ask him such questions as whether he understands that the rules require the Selection Committee to attempt to pick a winner based only on the Primary Criteria, before the Committee can look at Secondary Criteria.

But are you beefing just to beef?

I mean, beyond semantics, and the appearance that there are guidelines being followed that aren't specifically laid out in the handbook, even though these are guidelines most of us have come to understand are allowable possibilities by them not being specifically barred by the handbook ... what exactly is the problem you have with how they arrive at the outcome, or the outcome itself?

There doesn't seem to be a real injustice that you're railing against here. Unless I'm missing it, which is entirely possible.

I agree though that there is nowhere that it says MUC would be brought in if Cortland were fine. And there is no common-sense reason to expect that would have happened.

It's probably good to leave a little room for common sense to prevail on the committee, but you don't want it to get too subjective as it sometimes did under the old 16-team system, where there basically wasn't access to the dance for everybody.

Of course, Red, you and I always get into this discussion of how much "art" and how much "science" goes into the decisions that are made.  

[redswarm81]

Redswarm,
Are you arguing just to argue again?

No, of course not.  Why do you ask?   

I don't see where the handbook prevents the building of brackets around No. 1 seeds either.

And I don't see where the handbook permits it (the way Dick Kaiser described it).  It would be a simple matter for the Handbook to say that the REGIONAL rankings need not be relied upon when selecting the number one seed for each bracket, but the Handbook doesn't say that.  It only says that the Primary and Secondary Criteria SHALL be used for ranking and selecting and seeding teams.

I'm guessing that the D-1 basketball tournament handbook says something about selecting the top 4 teams nationally.  The D-III handbook doesn't say a word.

As long as they put the 32 teams in first, then build four brackets ... seems like they're doing something helpful by using whatever wiggle room is allowed in the rules.

I don't disagree, but the Handbook doesn't say anything about the Selection Committee having the authority to "do something helpful."  It could, but it doesn't.  It only lists the Selection Criteria.

Not sure I understand what the beef is with the use of regional rankings, beyond a general nitpick.

I have no beef with the USE of Regional rankings.  I do get uncomfortable when they're NOT used, as is the case with the not-described-anywhere-in-the-handbook process of picking the top 4 teams nationally, when the handbook doesn't say that anything other than the Regional rankings may be used.

[Ralph Turner]

This is not a pool C comment, per se, but this seems to be where the postmortem is.  I'm having trouble with NCC as the overall #4 seed.  I have my suspicions that, believing (quite reasonably) that MUC wll host a semi-final game, the bean-counters, not the committee, put NCC 4th since MUC could host any North champ without a plane ride, but not many likely South or West teams.  Comments?

NCC was the #2 team in the North.  They may be stronger than the usual #2, but Millsaps and Willamette have done all that they can do to prove their cases.

Hey, the CCIW got a Pool C bid.  That is a big bone!

And had Cortland State won, I think that we would be seeing NCC meeting MUC a week earlier.  

[redswarm81]

I agree though that there is nowhere that it says MUC would be brought in if Cortland were fine. And there is no common-sense reason to expect that would have happened.

I wish I could agree with you more easily, but Dr. Kaiser's response was not so clear cut.  The way I heard it, he said something like "it would be a difficult decision."  But the way Bob Gregg and I (and you) look at it, it would NOT be a difficult decision: 10-0 Cortland St. gets a no. 1 seed.  Easy.  End of story.

[usee]

Dick Kaiser was really clear on the 4 top seeds. He said they pick the top 4 seeds and then rank them 1-4. Mt Union was the consensus #1 and he said Millsaps was pretty quickly the consensus #2 (answers who is hosting the semis). He said they debated NCC vs Willamette for a while and Willamette finally won. I suppose they decided a #2 from a region can't trump a #1 from another region so NCC is #4. A couple of points with this thinking:

-It pretty conclusively tells you they don't care about the polls
-It also tells you if Cortland was 10-0 they likely would not have moved MUC. I say that because moving MUC was a statement that NCC was a better #1 seed than Cortland and that wouldn't have been the case. I do think NCC would have gone west as a #2 though.

[Ralph Turner]

Dick Kaiser was really clear on the 4 top seeds. He said they pick the top 4 seeds and then rank them 1-4. Mt Union was the consensus #1 and he said Millsaps was pretty quickly the consensus #2 (answers who is hosting the semis). He said they debated NCC vs Willamette for a while and Willamette finally won. I suppose they decided a #2 from a region can't trump a #1 from another region so NCC is #4. A couple of points with this thinking:

-It pretty conclusively tells you they don't care about the polls
-It also tells you if Cortland was 10-0 they likely would not have moved MUC. I say that because moving MUC was a statement that NCC was a better #1 seed than Cortland and that wouldn't have been the case. I do think NCC would have gone west as a #2 though.

? Over a 9-0 Oxy?

As for 10-0 Cortland, they would have gone thru the NJAC undefeated, a respectable accomplishment in its own right, and then to beat your fiercest rival, who was the Pool A bid in its conference, is quite a feat!  (The Cortaca Jug is one of the three to five best rivarly games in all of D-III!    )

I always have trouble not honoring a team that goes undefeated.  That ability to maintain concentration week after week and beat the teams on your schedule is quite an accomplishment for a group of young men.

I cannot denigrate that in any way.

Move the lower seeds around.   

[usee]

Dick Kaiser was really clear on the 4 top seeds. He said they pick the top 4 seeds and then rank them 1-4. Mt Union was the consensus #1 and he said Millsaps was pretty quickly the consensus #2 (answers who is hosting the semis). He said they debated NCC vs Willamette for a while and Willamette finally won. I suppose they decided a #2 from a region can't trump a #1 from another region so NCC is #4. A couple of points with this thinking:

-It pretty conclusively tells you they don't care about the polls
-It also tells you if Cortland was 10-0 they likely would not have moved MUC. I say that because moving MUC was a statement that NCC was a better #1 seed than Cortland and that wouldn't have been the case. I do think NCC would have gone west as a #2 though.

? Over a 9-0 Oxy?

As for 10-0 Cortland, they would have gone thru the NJAC undefeated, a respectable accomplishment in its own right, and then to beat your fiercest rival, who was the Pool A bid in its conference, is quite a feat!  (The Cortaca Jug is one of the three to five best rivarly games in all of D-III!    )

I always have trouble not honoring a team that goes undefeated.  That ability to maintain concentration week after week and beat the teams on your schedule is quite an accomplishment for a group of young men.

I cannot denigrate that in any way.

Move the lower seeds around.   

The move west was my idea (actually Pat's) not the committee.

I don't see how it would denigrate anyone in anyway. they ranked the top 4 seeds did they not? is Willamette denigrated because Millsaps is the #2 overall seed? And Oxy is going to Willamette as a #2. Would have been the same anywhere in the bracket. There is no shame in moving a #2 seed. Kaiser did address this and said the process would be the same as it is for the top 4 seeds. That is, if they were moving a #7 (his example) to another region they would compare them with the sitting #7 and make a decision. wouldn't change for a #2 either. NCC would have made sense in the west because of their geography.

[K-Mack]

I agree though that there is nowhere that it says MUC would be brought in if Cortland were fine. And there is no common-sense reason to expect that would have happened.

I wish I could agree with you more easily, but Dr. Kaiser's response was not so clear cut.  The way I heard it, he said something like "it would be a difficult decision."  But the way Bob Gregg and I (and you) look at it, it would NOT be a difficult decision: 10-0 Cortland St. gets a no. 1 seed.  Easy.  End of story.

Maybe he was being diplomatic in his answer ... what would there have been to decide? Especially since the last few posts point out that they had North Central as the least-deserving 1 seed, which makes them the most likely No. 2. Or would it have come down to Cortland vs. NC for the last spot, and therefore having MUC's "region" hang in the balance?

I don't know. No point in discussing it now.

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

[redswarm81]

I agree though that there is nowhere that it says MUC would be brought in if Cortland were fine. And there is no common-sense reason to expect that would have happened.

I wish I could agree with you more easily, but Dr. Kaiser's response was not so clear cut.  The way I heard it, he said something like "it would be a difficult decision."  But the way Bob Gregg and I (and you) look at it, it would NOT be a difficult decision: 10-0 Cortland St. gets a no. 1 seed.  Easy.  End of story.

Maybe he was being diplomatic in his answer ... what would there have been to decide?

My point exactly.  There was nothing to decide.  No need to be "diplomatic."  It was out of the Selection Committee's hands, in effect.

I wish that Dr. Kaiser had pointed out that there was nothing for the committee to decide: 10-0 Cortland is a No. 1 Seed.

I worry that he doesn't understand that there was nothing to decide.  I worry that he thinks the committee can do whatever the handbook doesn't prevent it from doing.

Some consider it a minor point, but I liken it to government:  There's no law preventing the government from arresting you for dressing poorly, but the government can't arrest you for dressing poorly, because no law permits the government to arrest you for dressing poorly.

I get really uncomfortable when governing bodies (e.g. NCAA Selection Committees) are defended for doing things that they're not authorized to do, just because the handbook doesn't prevent them from doing those things.

[redswarm81]

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?

[Pat Coleman]

Yes, Keith, he's arguing just to argue. Nothing new. It's scroll-down territory.

[Ralph Turner]

I agree with Ralph in that I don't like to knock undefeated teams. There isn't anything more you could have asked them to do to prove they deserve a spot, aside from schedule better non-conference games in some cases. Winning all your games, and not having a lapse, as Week 11 reminded us even good teams do, is pretty significant.

Did anyone express that sentiment last year on 11-0 Curry's behalf?

Yes.

Post 913 on last year's East Region Playoff Board comes to bat for Curry!

Good night to all!  It has been fun! 

[K-Mack]

Some consider it a minor point, but I liken it to government:  There's no law preventing the government from arresting you for dressing poorly, but the government can't arrest you for dressing poorly, because no law permits the government to arrest you for dressing poorly.

I get really uncomfortable when governing bodies (e.g. NCAA Selection Committees) are defended for doing things that they're not authorized to do, just because the handbook doesn't prevent them from doing those things.

I guess so.

But your analogy vs. the situation at hand ... technically they seem to fit, but when you take it to a different degree, that's a new variable. Kind of like a $100 ticket for is a deterrent to the crime of speeding, but life in prison isn't really a deterrent to anyone far enough off their rocker to want to kill someone.

Severity of punishment is a deterrent to crime. But then again it isn't. Similar to you analogy of laws of prevention vs. permission.

Why are you against the practical use of common sense even if the common sense scenario hasn't been forecasted and written into the rules?

If you want to go back to talking about law ... if there were a rule in the book for every scenario, we'd be overrun with rules. At some point in law we refer to precedent, and good judgement, no?

In other words, I don't think this is a case of doing "whatever" the handbook doesn't prevent them from doing. That would be making Whitewater and Mount Union play in the first round because it seems like it would be a really good game, and we wanna see a rematch!

I wish that Dr. Kaiser had pointed out that there was nothing for the committee to decide: 10-0 Cortland is a No. 1 Seed.

I worry that he doesn't understand that there was nothing to decide.  I worry that he thinks the committee can do whatever the handbook doesn't prevent it from doing.

Fair wish. And your first worry would be legitimate.

But the second ... what exactly are you "worried" about?

Give me a scenario.

I mean, I wish we didn't have to nitpick about hypotheticals regarding teams who didn't handle business when there are legitimate gripes about the bracket.

I realize playoff brackets = fans complaining. However, in the case of Dick Kaiser, here's someone who's been responsive to the Division III memberships' wishes and takes the time out to talk with us about the process, to unshroud some of the (sometimes necessary) secrecy surrounding it.

So why are we getting on him (as the face of the committee) for a problem that didn't even present itself?