NCAA Tournament

[Ralph Turner]

Championship by Region -- by conference

1997 NYU -- East -- UAA
1998 Wash U -- Central -- UAA
1999 Wash U -- Central -- UAA
2000 Wash U -- Central -- UAA
2001 Wash U -- Central -- UAA
2002 UWSP   --  Central -- WIAC
2003 Trinity TX -- South -- SCAC
2004 Wilmington -- Great Lakes -- OAC
2005 Millikin -- Central -- CCIW
2006 Hope -- Great Lakes -- MIAA
2007 DePauw -- Great Lakes -- SCAC
2008 Howard Payne -- South -- ASC
2009 George Fox  -- West -- NWC

I also note that the ASC and the NWC were not D-III members before this era.

[gordonmann]

For those who want to get a flavor for yesterday's championship, check out the Daily Dose.  We are centralizing coverage from other outlets and added our own bonus coverage.

Hwbb:

I've certainly noticed the pattern that teams in the Central and Great Lakes regions dominate the list of national champions.  I've said on Hoopsville before that if I voted in the women's poll (I only vote in the men's), I would always have a team from the Central, Great Lakes or WIAC as the No. 1.  That would've been Hope and Wash. U for parts of this year.  Obviously, that regional bias wouldn't always prove correct (see George Fox and Howard Payne) but I do believe those teams are more likely to win a title.

A couple years ago I spoke about this with a coach whom I very much respect and who has a good feel for the Division III game at the national level.  He leads a program on the east coast and has to recruit players to it.  His theory is that the east coast regions split the talent between themselves, Division II and low level Division I (e.g. Ivy, MAAC) programs.  There are more of them in a higher concentration, dividing this talent pool.  This is particularly true among the players who are forwards and centers at the Division III level.  It's unusual to find a team on the east coast that has more than two players over six-foot that play a tough, low post style of play. 

They may have one or sometimes even two players who fit that role (Klimowicz and Gregorak for TCNJ), but not much depth behind them.  I'm also noticing that the guards for the east coast teams that advance in the tournament tend to be a little shorter and smaller than the guards of the championship teams.  You can win with smaller players who thrive on speed, long distance shooting and a transition game.  And you can win tournament games with that recipe.

But at some point in the tournament, you're going to have an off night shooting and not get in transition (like Amherst on Friday).  You're going to need a low post game, to rely on players who can scrap for rebounds and points down low.  And you're going to need depth on your roster at  the forwards or big enough guards who can do that.  And I don't see that on the east coast teams.

For what it's worth here would be my three keys to building a championship roster (and they don't all apply to all teams).  In predicting a champion, I would focus on whether they have these three elements:

* More than two six-foot players who play significant time at the forward position.  You have to have depth here that is proven by actual playing time.

* Most of your guards are at least 5-foot-8 and over.  One of them is a starter and relies on driving and scoring, not creating for other players or shooting threes.  This player can support forwards for those "grind it out" games.

* One "go to" player who can step up and carry a team in a big spot during the tournament.  I'm not a believer in the "we have lots of players who can do that" option.  Too often I see no one step up in those situations or do so once a game is out of reach.

The go-to player isn't always the obvious star, but it often is.  And it's often someone who fits the mold of item one or two above (Kristen Shielee of George Fox, Meia Daniels of Howard Payne, Liz Bondi of DePauw).

For what it's worth, George Fox has several players who fill No. 2 and conceivably No. 3.  But I don't see the obvious answer to No. 1.  That's why I'd take a long look at Hope as my preseason No. 1.

[BruinFan]

For what it's worth, George Fox has several players who fill No. 2 and conceivably No. 3.  But I don't see the obvious answer to No. 1.  That's why I'd take a long look at Hope as my preseason No. 1.

Exactly why I have to remind myself that most polls are for entertainment purposes only, especially preseason polls. The basketball polls begin to reflect actual performance sometime in January.

I think that the season George Fox had this year should increase the optimism for all those programs serious about getting better. The Bruins proved that if you (1) bring in the right mix of recruits (2) have returning players who have been under the radar work very hard to improve and (3) a coach that knows how to make every player better and understand the importance of playing as a team, a special season is possible.

All the best to the players and coaches across the country in D3. Dream big and work hard as we look forward to next season.

[sumfun]

I totally agree about the dividing up of the talent on the East Coast.  Kids that are attracted to the Ivys, Williams/Amherst academic-type schools are divided up among a large pool of contenders.

[sac]

I totally agree about the dividing up of the talent on the East Coast.  Kids that are attracted to the Ivys, Williams/Amherst academic-type schools are divided up among a large pool of contenders.

Also a much larger population pool.

[BruinFan]

This may have already been corrected by the time I post, but Husson is listed twice on the projected bracket by D3hoops.

[petemcb]

Maybe their JV team had a stellar season.

[Pat Coleman]

Women's bracket posted: http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/wbkb-bracket2010.pdf

[deiscanton]

On Pool C's-- Williams and Southern Maine in-- Capital and Gustavus Adolphus out

NESCAC got 5 teams in-- beating the old record of 4 teams set by the UAA last year.

Gary Fifield still goes to the NCAAs with Southern Maine despite losing the Little East title game-- Little East got 2 in.

D3Hoops.com projections mistakenly did not credit Williams's victory over RPI as a victory over a regionally ranked opponent, but correctly took away Williams's victory over Skidmore as a regionally ranked opponent-- RPI's title victory in the Liberty League tournament put RPI in the final secret regional rankings for the East region.

With a record of 3-5 vs regionally ranked opponents, Williams got selected as the 5th team from the NESCAC due to their .750 regional winning percentage and strength of schedule over .600

Williams being picked as a Pool C put Southern Maine on the board from the Northeast next, and Southern Maine got one of the final Pool C picks.   

[BlueZoneBruin]

I know rankings don't matter, so I will leave those out...

But doesn't it seem weird that George Fox gets the #1 seed in their portion of the bracket, hosts, and plays another 2-loss team in Louisiana College, while Puget Sound (who the bruins have beat three times) plays a five-loss team in Redlands?

Thoughts?

BlueZoneBruin

[weiser]

If it indeed did come down to Capital and Williams as the last teams in and out I am shocked.

If you look at the resumes.....Williams--18-7 / Tied for 3rd in good conference  /Lost in quarterfinals of league tournament / Lost to Baldwin Wallace

Capital -- 20-8 / OAC regular season champs (outright)(pretty good conference) /  Lost in Conference tournament finals / Beat Baldwin Wallace...TWICE.

And....5 schools from a single conference......WOW.

As i said, if it did indeed come down to these two teams, not sure what the committee was looking at.

[sumfun]

Given those stats, I'd hate to think it came down to something as simple as one coach knows more people on the committee than the other....but could be.....or the Williams men are having a great season, so let's give the women some recognition.   Who knows, and we'll never know the real reason.  I'm a NESCAC fan and it's a very strong conference made up of the best small colleges in the country, but 5 is a lot.

[sunny]

I know rankings don't matter, so I will leave those out...

But doesn't it seem weird that George Fox gets the #1 seed in their portion of the bracket, hosts, and plays another 2-loss team in Louisiana College, while Puget Sound (who the bruins have beat three times) plays a five-loss team in Redlands?

Thoughts?

BlueZoneBruin

That is a big head scratcher, especially considering Louisiana College was third in the south regional rankings last week and then Roanoke lost in its conference tournament, which means Louisiana College was, for all intents and purposes second.  UPS took the loss against George Fox, they were likely two or three in the West when the pairings were made.  So, the top team in the West has to play the second team in the south while the second and third best teams in the West get to play each other??  Maybe the committee thinks the time change will sufficiently soften up Louisiana College enough to make them a weaker opponent for George Fox??

[Just Bill]

Neat videos of the Minnesota-Morris team finding out they're going to the NCAA Tournament. Apparently their coach called them to the gym and many of them didn't know why:

http://www.morris.umn.edu/athletics/View.php?itemID=10003

[David Collinge]

Given those stats, I'd hate to think it came down to something as simple as one coach knows more people on the committee than the other....but could be.....

Very few coaches "know more people" or command more respect than Capital's Dixie Jeffers.  I don't know why the committee made the choice they did, but it certainly wasn't for that reason.