2013 Division III NCAA Tournament

[Greek Tragedy]

I'm pretty sure thats what "they" meant...that it was unfair for everyone else. Advantage, bye teams. At least thats how I took it. If it was guaranteed the top two teams got byes, I wouldn't have much problem with it, but it doesn't.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Yeah, you have to do pods the first weekend or the bracket options become might truncated.

[kiko]

Yeah, you have to do pods the first weekend or the bracket options become might truncated.

If you are choosing between the first two weekends, where one gets a pod and one gets a single game, pods are actually more critical in the second weekend.  You can find driveable matchups fairly easily when there are 60 teams playing in the first weekend.  The only constraint is that you need to construct the bracket in such a way that you ensure one of the teams that survives until Round 2 is the midpoint team, geographically speaking.  You of course want to ensure that hosting privileges in the second weekend are not based solely on geography, but the number of options will be fairly decent.

If you were to flip this, and have pods on the first weekend and single games in the round-of-sixteen, it would still be a regional bracket as everything would be constructed so that teams in the same group-of-eight from the original bracket would have to be within 500 miles of one another.  Said differently, it was the need to eliminate flights in the third round single game matchups rather than the first- or second-rounders that drove this year's bracket to be so regional.  The later you have single-game weekends scheduled in a tournament with a 500 mile geography requirement, the more regional the bracket will look.

[gordonmann]

Just Bill:

Thanks for clarifying and correcting. I saw a sign in the Pittsburgh airport that read "Frozen Four - Free admission."  I made too big an assumption based on that sign, I guess.  Maybe the free admission is for something related, like the hockey version of Bracket Town.

Update: Apparently this is what the sign was referencing, not the games.

http://penguins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=664288

Sorry for the mistake.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

My point about the single games in the first weekend is that two teams will have to wait two weeks to play games and I am not exactly sure that is fair... based on the fact that Amherst got a huge amount of time to rest what they admitted was clearly injured players and time to regroup... also, many have said UMHB was a FAR different team than the team that played in the conference tournament and those two weeks certainly allowed them to get things back on track.

If it was the top two teams in the country that were getting byes... it wouldn't be as big deal due to the fact it was determined on merit. But sometimes these byes are based on geography only. There is always a real chance that a team in the northwest and a team in the south get the byes only because of location... not merit (i.e. UMHB). Heck, there is a chance that if UMHB WON their conference title game, Concordia may have missed out on the tournament and UMHB would be playing the first weekend against Trinity... that could have changed their run dramatically. I just don't think it is fair to give teams two weeks off when we have byes in place.

I understand that you get a little truncated with the Sweet 16 in terms of distance... however, I think you have more flexibility in terms of what the bracket is going to create and flights that will be allowed in that round... than you will on the first weekend. Honestly, you are going to be allowed more flights for a single-game Sweet 16 than the opening weekend of games, so both ways you are going to see some squeezing in terms of distance. However, to keep a team from having two weeks off, I will take a slightly squeezed Sweet 16 which in reality won't be nearly as bad as what we were forced into this year.

[kiko]

Sounds like we are starting from different points... you are assuming the NCAA would be more lenient in allowing flights for teams not on geographic islands in the sweet sixteen round.  I am assuming the desire to avoid this expense will override any flexibility, and that if the decision comes down to  (a) investing in a flight and maintaining bracket balance, or (b) saving on that expense and skewing the bracket, then, well, we'll all be skewed. 

From my perspective, the byes certainly helped the two finalists this year, but I hope we treat this as what it is -- a data point.  I don't think we can conclude from one year's results that the teams with the byes have an overwhelming advantage.  They helped this year, but I suspect some teams would not respond well to two weeks off.  (And I don't think you are suggesting that the byes were the major factor in these two schools landing in the final weekend, just that the byes came at a very good time for both of this year's bye teams.)

[Ralph Turner]

Third weekly ranking, before the one that we did not see. Has anyone seen the final ranking?  Here are the results in the final week of the regular season.


South – NCAA data sheet
1 Virginia Wesleyan 16-5 19-6           Enters NCAA as Pool C      18-6/21-7
2 Hampden-Sydney 18-3 22-3         Enters NCAA  as Pool C  19-4/ 23-4
3 Mary Hardin-Baylor 21-4 21-4   Assume that they win the ASC tourney, 24-4/24-4
4 Christopher Newport 17-5 18-5     Enters NCAA as Pool A   20-5/21-5
5 Emory 17-6 17-6                       Finishes reg season Pool C 19-6/19-6
6 Concordia (Texas) 18-4 20-5  Assume they beat UTD & lose to UMHB in the ASC tourney (Pool C?) 20-5/22-6  (Record against RR teams would be 3-3 instead of 4-2.)
7 Texas-Dallas 19-6 19-6          Loses to CTX in second round of ASC; 20-7/20-7 
8 Randolph 14-5 20-5               Enters NCAA as Pool C bid 15-6/ 21-6

How do we know that CTX, with two more "results" versus regionally ranked teams, doesn't get a Pool C bid?  Remember that they also have a win over UWSP!

I think that Pool "C" CTX goes to Pool A Trinity just as they did.

Does UMHB leap passed VWC or HSC in the regional rankings?

I don't think that UMHB's winning the ASC tourney changes anything.

If anything, UMHB does not go on the road in Round 3.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I did get the final regional rankings and have posted accordingly in the last six-plus weeks... here is how the South Region finished:

Virginia Wesleyan
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Emory
Christopher Newport
Hampden-Sydney
Concordia (TX)
Randolph-Macon
Randolph

IF Concordia had lost, they most likely fall behind RMC and maybe behind Randolph... who was actually, probably the last team into the tournament. So, Concordia could have been sitting on a very fragile bubble with less impressive criteria than Randolph had (off the top of my head) thanks in part to RMC's inclusion in the rankings thus boosting's Randolph's vRRO.

As you can see... UMHB finished second, HSC fell down three spots. I think UMHB's winning the conference could have even given them #1 in the region considering VWC lost in the conference tournament title game and that could have meant Whitworth (who finished fourth in their region) would have come to UMHB... though clearly #2 traveling to #4 did happen per Whitworth having a stronger SOS, I believe.

Per the first round... I am not saying the byes got Amherst and UMHB to the finals... but I think they had a significant affect (or is it effect... crap). Amherst was able to rest Toomey, Workman and others who Coach Hixon has several times admitted were pretty banged up and injured. They don't get an extra week to rest (Hixon kept them out of practice for about five days that bye week) and they may not be as strong and games against RMC could have been closer giving more chance for something to go the other direction.

From what everyone has told me and from what I could see, UMHB was not that solid a team in the conference tournament and the bye week CLEARLY gave them a chance to get back on the same page together. Playing that first week and most likely against Trinity who they barely beat in overtime 57-56 at the beginning of the season (Trinity was a better team late than early as well) could have been a factor and at least kept them less fresh (granted, if Concordia had gotten into the tournament as a Pool C... UMHB would have still gotten a bye).

Also per the first round byes... I am not that comfortable saying to teams that their reward is two weeks off. It didn't happen this year, but it could easily screw up a team and I am not that convinced that is worth the "reward" of not playing the first round. I also heard from several people that while their teams certainly benefited from the byes... neither Amherst or UMHB were all that happy to get the byes - meaning if this comes to a vote of what coaches think... they aren't going to accept having two weeks off between games, even if that means a slight challenge in the Sweet 16 per travel.

(Also, Pat and I saw coming a nasty possibility when Middlebury was still undefeated in late January. If the Panthers were able to stay undefeated through conference play and then were upset in the NESCAC quarterfinals <which take place the final weekend of conference games for everyone else>, they could have easily been rewarded with just one loss a first round bye. THAT would have meant the Panthers would have had the final weekend of the regular season off and then the first weekend of the tournament off - THREE WEEKS BETWEEN GAMES! That is a risky chance that either the committee doesn't reward Middlebury the bye because of the risk of the time off and someone else gets it just because or Middlebury has to figure out what to do with three weeks between games.)

Something else to keep in mind... I don't mind a more geographically base of games in the Sweet 16 if we can avoid some of that in the opening rounds. There is a better chance of some tough match-ups due to lack of teams in a region in the first round than any of us are going to want to see. I don't disagree that the Sweet 16 won't be perfect, but by that point of a tournament we are going to start seeing tough match-ups anyway... why screw up the beginning just for the hope we don't screw up the middle? We can avoid a bracket of death in the opening weekend with pods more than we can eventually with tough match-ups anyway in the Sweet 16. Because of travel and geography and regions we are going to eventually have to tackle these tough match-ups, even with a pod on the second weekend... I say better to avoid them until the Sweet 16 by giving the committee more flexibility in the opening weekend... then risk a tough match-up like St. Norbert/Wheaton or IWU/Transylvania in the first weekend.

Of course... I could change my mind tomorrow... but I also saw avoiding two weeks off for a team is more important to the coaches than avoiding what will probably happen anyway in the Sweet 16.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

A couple of other things to keep in mind for the future that can change a lot of things...

Besides the primary and secondary criteria basically merging with all games count if you play 70% in region, they are doing away with "once ranked always ranked" for vRRO. The regionally ranked teams will only be per who was ranked in the previous ranking (again, the first regional rankings will not have vRRO as always and the second rankings will have a vRRO per who was ranked in Week 1). I suspect this could lead to an extra regional ranking in January since the vRRO won't be flooded with results, but that hasn't been decided.

If you want to learn more, tune into my chat with Mike DeWitt during the season finale of Hoopsville: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2012-13/april08

[Ralph Turner]

Thanks, Dave.

Glad that it is over.  Looking forward to some sanity next season.

[Ken Deweese]

First TIME EVER to post  on D III Hoops.  I want to make clear that the experience UMHB Basketball had in Salem was excellent,  The people there were GREAT!  Their organizational structure is extremely effective, they are good, very good, at administering basketball tournaments.  I certainly did not mean to cast any doubt whatsoever on the great job the people of Salem do hosting the D III Final Four by saying that we need to keep the Final 2 playing at the D I Final Four site.  My comments were strictly based on the Final 4 being the grandest of basketball stages and the fact that the UMHB experience was remarkable from the NCAA staff to the Atlanta hosts.  At no point did I mean that Salem should be out of the picture.  I apologize for not making the point clear but the time for the losing coach in the NCAA press conference is not exactly unlimited.

As for being the only Texas team to make it to the final game, it is and will be hard for it to happen very often since we (Texas teams) always play each other in the 1st and 2nd rounds.  Until we are put in different parts of the bracket (eliminate the Texas POD), where Texas teams can advance without eliminating each other so early, it will be a very hard road becasue only 1 can survive for tournament advancement.

[Greek Tragedy]

Not surprisingly, Baylor standout Brittney Griner was taken #1 in the WNBA draft.

I found it more than amusing to hear the national sports people talking about Griner's prospects in the NBA! They were comparing LeBron James to Griner (stats, not talent). Seriously? I don't ever see a woman playing in the NBA, even if there wasn't a WNBA. Griner wouldn't be able to compete in the developmental league. I don't see her putting up solid numbers at the D1 level either. I do believe she could be competitive at the D3 level. She does stand 6'8", if I remember correctly.

This reminds me of the talk about Mia Hamm playing in the MLS. Even she admitted there was no way she could compete.

The physical DNA of a woman is a lot different than a man, obviously.

What do you think?

[hopefan]

Not surprisingly, Baylor standout Brittney Griner was taken #1 in the WNBA draft.

I found it more than amusing to hear the national sports people talking about Griner's prospects in the NBA! They were comparing LeBron James to Griner (stats, not talent). Seriously? I don't ever see a woman playing in the NBA, even if there wasn't a WNBA. Griner wouldn't be able to compete in the developmental league. I don't see her putting up solid numbers at the D1 level either. I do believe she could be competitive at the D3 level. She does stand 6'8", if I remember correctly.

This reminds me of the talk about Mia Hamm playing in the MLS. Even she admitted there was no way she could compete.

The physical DNA of a woman is a lot different than a man, obviously.

What do you think?

What might be more fun to speculate about would be:

liken it to the days of Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King.. how would Brittany Griner fare agains a pro who is 20 years removed from the game... one on one, half court...

or, interesting to these pages... how would she fare against a current D3 men's center... not even an All American D3 men's center, but, for instance, a 6'6", 6'7" kid who starts for a SLIAC team... I'm not sure... I think I'd go with the SLIAC guy...

[sac]

Remember when ESPN used to talk less and show more actual sports highlights.  I do.

[AO]

Not surprisingly, Baylor standout Brittney Griner was taken #1 in the WNBA draft.

I found it more than amusing to hear the national sports people talking about Griner's prospects in the NBA! They were comparing LeBron James to Griner (stats, not talent). Seriously? I don't ever see a woman playing in the NBA, even if there wasn't a WNBA. Griner wouldn't be able to compete in the developmental league. I don't see her putting up solid numbers at the D1 level either. I do believe she could be competitive at the D3 level. She does stand 6'8", if I remember correctly.

This reminds me of the talk about Mia Hamm playing in the MLS. Even she admitted there was no way she could compete.

The physical DNA of a woman is a lot different than a man, obviously.

What do you think?

What might be more fun to speculate about would be:

liken it to the days of Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King.. how would Brittany Griner fare agains a pro who is 20 years removed from the game... one on one, half court...

or, interesting to these pages... how would she fare against a current D3 men's center... not even an All American D3 men's center, but, for instance, a 6'6", 6'7" kid who starts for a SLIAC team... I'm not sure... I think I'd go with the SLIAC guy...

She's slower and weaker than every D3 starting forward I've seen.  It's a silly comparison.  She could play against Men in a pick-up or all star type game without serious defense, but she would not be competitive in a game.   Maybe if she was a 7 footer.