NCAA Tournament

[iwumichigander]

Just heard that the UW-Stevens Point sectional is going to be played in the "smaller gym" (Berg) this weekend and that tickets are going to be limited. D3Hoops says that the Pointers primary facility (Quandt) has space for 2,787. Anyone know how much smaller Berg is? Better yet, can anyone explain why they aren't using their best facility? I bet that Coe wouldn't have stuck the sectional in their JV/intramural gym. Imagine if Hope decided to host the next two Final Fours without using DeVos.

"The Berg Gym is a 1,350 seat gym consists of 1 full basketball court with 4 side baskets and the Quandt Gym is a 2,800 seat gym with 1 full basketball court and 8 side baskets. Source - Central Wisconsin/Stevens Point Area Sports Commission."
UWSP's website undergoing some changes so I fished this info through web search.  Last year, IWU vs. UWSP at Bloomington in NCAA play - attendance shown on stats was 1700.  Berg may be a little tight so a split session possible as being done at Men Sectional at Augustana

[BAK4LVC]

so 6 of the 16, Sweet 16 teams got there by winning 2 games on the road.

3 of the 4 sectional hosts have the best record in their groupings.

I know the question on d3hoops site was mentioning that CNU may have been snubbed for a sectional site.  I don't think so, even though I would be willing to bet CNU has the the best gym of the group.  I do think the LVC probably was the least deserving of the 4 teams.

I was as surprised as anyone that the NCAA awarded the hosting of their sweet sixteen group to LVC.  But I can't disagree with it if they are looking to make the site as fair as possible.  Christopher Newport has the longest ride to any of the three others, but it is only five and a half hours (303 miles) to LVC, while they would have a seven or seven and a half hour ride (386 miles and 407 miles, respectively) to either Kean or William Paterson.  Meanwhile instead of having a major commuting time advantage over their opponents to each other's site, the NJAC teams have a more fair 3 hour trip (144 miles for Kean, 156 for William Paterson) to LVC.  The site makes sense geographically.

In addition, LVC was undoubtedly the #1 ranked team in their region in the final regional rankings.  You cannot assume that for Kean, who lost to Rutgers-Newark after the week 4 rankings were released, or William Paterson, who was #3 in the Atlantic rankings and behind Mt. St. Mary's as well as Kean.  Put these two factors together and the site selection makes a lot of sense.

[Hoosier Titan]

I doubt the politics about this because the NCAA were going to allow IWU host all of their NCAA games year.  I don't know why it would change this year, especially when they didn't make the Final Four last year.  I could see them changing it once it happens, but since it didn't happen there was no need to change it for this year.  I know this wasn't stated in the above post, but I was just replying to one that was stated earlier. 

OOMK,

I think we could triangulate for a long time on why some decisions were made.  At this point, it doesn't matter that much to me.  What we heard about IWU's hosting last year--when we were sure that the sectional would NOT be in Bloomington because of having home court all three weekends had the Titans won--was that the NCAA wanted to do a test run for the Final Four. 

All of this reminds me of Kremlinology back in the Cold War days!

What we know is that four good teams will meet at the Berg Gym.  The Titans are road tested; I'm looking forward to it.

[GuyFormerlyPSBBG]

so 6 of the 16, Sweet 16 teams got there by winning 2 games on the road.

3 of the 4 sectional hosts have the best record in their groupings.

I know the question on d3hoops site was mentioning that CNU may have been snubbed for a sectional site.  I don't think so, even though I would be willing to bet CNU has the the best gym of the group.  I do think the LVC probably was the least deserving of the 4 teams.

I was as surprised as anyone that the NCAA awarded the hosting of their sweet sixteen group to LVC.  But I can't disagree with it if they are looking to make the site as fair as possible.  Christopher Newport has the longest ride to any of the three others, but it is only five and a half hours (303 miles) to LVC, while they would have a seven or seven and a half hour ride (386 miles and 407 miles, respectively) to either Kean or William Paterson.  Meanwhile instead of having a major commuting time advantage over their opponents to each other's site, the NJAC teams have a more fair 3 hour trip (144 miles for Kean, 156 for William Paterson) to LVC.  The site makes sense geographically.

In addition, LVC was undoubtedly the #1 ranked team in their region in the final regional rankings.  You cannot assume that for Kean, who lost to Rutgers-Newark after the week 4 rankings were released, or William Paterson, who was #3 in the Atlantic rankings and behind Mt. St. Mary's as well as Kean.  Put these two factors together and the site selection makes a lot of sense.

I have to agree with everything there.

On the Greensboro side:  I don't know if it is true, but I heard that Greensboro was 11 mi away from getting a flight to Thomas More/(probably would fly into Cincy.) Now they are lucky to get that bus trip.

Believe it or not, I would as Greensboro fan, rather see them play there than Wash U or Chicago.  Especially Chicago (only because it would be a home game for them.)

It was actually the best place for the other 3 teams anyway.

[Just Bill]

I was there in Stevens Point when the women hosted sectionals in both 2002 and 2004. 2002 was in Berg Gym and 2004 was in Quandt. Without a doubt the Berg Gym games had a more electric atmosphere. It was 105% full compared to about 80% full in Quandt two years later.

Whoever compared Berg to a JV/intramural gym was being a bit insulting, since they've likely never been there.  Berg is a better gym than many D-III schools have.  And, really, why shouldn't they play in their own gym, the same gym where they played every other home game.

[Pat Coleman]

so 6 of the 16, Sweet 16 teams got there by winning 2 games on the road.

3 of the 4 sectional hosts have the best record in their groupings.

I know the question on d3hoops site was mentioning that CNU may have been snubbed for a sectional site.  I don't think so, even though I would be willing to bet CNU has the the best gym of the group.  I do think the LVC probably was the least deserving of the 4 teams.

I was as surprised as anyone that the NCAA awarded the hosting of their sweet sixteen group to LVC.  But I can't disagree with it if they are looking to make the site as fair as possible.  Christopher Newport has the longest ride to any of the three others, but it is only five and a half hours (303 miles) to LVC, while they would have a seven or seven and a half hour ride (386 miles and 407 miles, respectively) to either Kean or William Paterson.  Meanwhile instead of having a major commuting time advantage over their opponents to each other's site, the NJAC teams have a more fair 3 hour trip (144 miles for Kean, 156 for William Paterson) to LVC.  The site makes sense geographically.

In addition, LVC was undoubtedly the #1 ranked team in their region in the final regional rankings.  You cannot assume that for Kean, who lost to Rutgers-Newark after the week 4 rankings were released, or William Paterson, who was #3 in the Atlantic rankings and behind Mt. St. Mary's as well as Kean.  Put these two factors together and the site selection makes a lot of sense.

The women did finally provide their regional rankings.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/03/01/ncaas-final-regional-ranking/

[GuyFormerlyPSBBG]

Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.

[Wydown Blvd.]

Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.

Really interesting post. We saw that with the UWSP and IWU flip in the RRs. I would have to give more thought to SOS ending with the last game of the regular season, but definitely see where you are coming from.

[GuyFormerlyPSBBG]

Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.

Really interesting post. We saw that with the UWSP and IWU flip in the RRs. I would have to give more thought to SOS ending with the last game of the regular season, but definitely see where you are coming from.

That idea came to me as I woke up this morning .  When a team wins their conference they are pretty much stuck playing, at times, the worse of the worse.  In a way this regional ranking system faults them for winning their conference.

Maybe add conference record to primary regional ranking criteria? (I don't know if that is very good solution either.)

[Ralph Turner]

Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.

Or, don't hold the tournament.

I think that the NWC earned a Pool C bid in baseball in 2008, because they did not have a post-season tournament which would inflict another in-region loss or two on any of the participants.  The UAA doesn't have post-season tourney and frequently earns multiple bids.

[David Collinge]

When a team wins their conference they are pretty much stuck playing, at times, the worse of the worse.  In a way this regional ranking system faults them for winning their conference.

Furthermore, they generally play them at home (hosting the conference tournament), saddling them with the dreaded 0.6 multiplier for a home game.

[iwumichigander]

Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.

Or, don't hold the tournament.

I think that the NWC earned a Pool C bid in baseball in 2008, because they did not have a post-season tournament which would inflict another in-region loss or two on any of the participants.  The UAA doesn't have post-season tourney and frequently earns multiple bids.

Hum - Not sure UAA best comparison in that its team are the only conference geographically dispersed with the regional rankings.  However, what the UAA does make one consider whether a change needs to be made to more strongly consider "Results vs. ALL Div. III Ranked teams" (presently secondary criteria).

[Wydown Blvd.]

Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.

Or, don't hold the tournament.

I think that the NWC earned a Pool C bid in baseball in 2008, because they did not have a post-season tournament which would inflict another in-region loss or two on any of the participants.  The UAA doesn't have post-season tourney and frequently earns multiple bids.

Hum - Not sure UAA best comparison in that its team are the only conference geographically dispersed with the regional rankings.  However, what the UAA does make one consider whether a change needs to be made to more strongly consider "Results vs. ALL Div. III Ranked teams" (presently secondary criteria).

Usually, the UAA would not be the best comparison to make because of the national distribution of the conference. However, this season it would have been really interesting. This is pure speculation, but if WashU had played in a conference tournament and suffered another regional loss to Rochester (UR) or UChicago, I think that would have dropped them out of the RR and I don't believe they would have made the tourney. UR was pretty safe with its #2 ranking in the final RR in the East region, but for WashU, the lack of conference tourny helped them this season.

[deiscanton]

When a team wins their conference they are pretty much stuck playing, at times, the worse of the worse.  In a way this regional ranking system faults them for winning their conference.

Furthermore, they generally play them at home (hosting the conference tournament), saddling them with the dreaded 0.6 multiplier for a home game.

The women's committee does not use a multiplier for home/away-- the multiplier was only used for the men's tournament this season. 

[deiscanton]

Errors-- Corrections to be made to the Sectionals at a glance page at http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/2011-sectionals

(1)-- Stevens Point sectional

Illinois Wesleyan Titans--

 Signature win  should read:  UW-Stevens Point (A)  12/11

Illinois Wesleyan did not play Lewis & Clark this season.

Other significant wins for Illinois Wesleyan:  Wash U (N)  11/20, Chicago (H) 12/4, Kean (A) 12/31.

(2)--  Lebanon Valley sectional

Kean Cougars--

 Road to Lebanon Valley  should read:

Pool C (NJAC)
Def. Vassar
Def. W. Connecticut

Kean women did not play Centre or Wittenberg last weekend.

(3)  Thomas More sectional

Washington U. Bears

Wrong link given for schedule and results -- Link points to Cabrini men's page.

Correct link for schedule and results  should link to: http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Washington_U./women/2010-11/index

(4)  Amherst sectional

Bowdoin Polar Bears

 Record should read:  24-5   (Bowdoin is not 27-1)

Amherst Lord Jeffs

 Record should read:  28-1  (Amherst is not 28-2)

For Amherst, the road to Amherst should read:

NESCAC automatic bid  (Amherst did not need a Pool C as they won the NESCAC tournament)

Def. Husson
Def. Eastern Connecticut

Update:   Thanks for making the corrections.  However, the Kean Cougars still need to be corrected with their road to Lebanon Valley :  it still reads Centre and Wittenberg as opponents that the Kean women defeated-- should read Vassar and Western Connecticut.  (I rechecked the sectionals page approx. 2:30 PM Eastern, Thursday, March 10, 2011.)