2014 NCAA Tournament

[Pat Coleman]

Actually, with the huge advantage of having all of their tournament games to this point at home, it should be no surprise to anyone that both IWU and Amherst are in Salem. In fact, both should have been embarrassed not to have made the Final Four. Particularly Amherst who enjoyed a bye and then 3 unranked opponents. At least IWU faced 2 top 25 (5 & 24) teams, although it was obvious that St. Norbert was really nowhere near a true #5 team.

Its too bad the NCAA can't channel some of the millions and millions ($71 million profit for the 2012 fiscal year increasing year-end assets to more than $566 million according to the NCAA financial statement) in its coffers to put on a true D3 national championship rather than what amounts to just a continuation of the regular season, but with the visiting teams coming from even further away with less fan support than they do during the regular season, especially the conference portion. I guess thats why I liked last year's format that saw not just the final four, but the final 8 teams play in Salem. I realize its an unrealistic dream to run the D3 tournament like the D1 tourney. However, once the D3 version gets down to a final 16, I'd love to see the remaining teams play at neutral sites. I understand that this would present some logistical problems, and of course cost more money, but it would level the field court, and remove the tremendous advantage that is inherent in having a team play 4 home games in a supposed national tournament championship. The NCAA can't deny money is there in the vault, and they're not going to go belly up by spending a little more on the D3 serfs. If not the final 16, at least for the final 8. Seemed to work pretty well last year. JMHO.     

54% of all sectional hosts in this tournament framework have been embarrassed, then. You may not have read this if you have no reason to follow the tourney, but here are the all-time sectional hosts in this tournament structure and a list of who has advanced.
http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2014/sectional-hosts-announced

As for your indignant assertions about the NCAA, as I have said multiple times on this board, the Division III budget is 3.18% of the entire NCAA budget. If you think you can get the NCAA constitution changed, I beg you to go do it. See if enough D-I schools sign off on that division getting less money.

[HOPEful]

Actually, with the huge advantage of having all of their tournament games to this point at home, it should be no surprise to anyone that both IWU and Amherst are in Salem. In fact, both should have been embarrassed not to have made the Final Four. Particularly Amherst who enjoyed a bye and then 3 unranked opponents. At least IWU faced 2 top 25 (5 & 24) teams, although it was obvious that St. Norbert was really nowhere near a true #5 team.

Its too bad the NCAA can't channel some of the millions and millions ($71 million profit for the 2012 fiscal year increasing year-end assets to more than $566 million according to the NCAA financial statement) in its coffers to put on a true D3 national championship rather than what amounts to just a continuation of the regular season, but with the visiting teams coming from even further away with less fan support than they do during the regular season, especially the conference portion. I guess thats why I liked last year's format that saw not just the final four, but the final 8 teams play in Salem. I realize its an unrealistic dream to run the D3 tournament like the D1 tourney. However, once the D3 version gets down to a final 16, I'd love to see the remaining teams play at neutral sites. I understand that this would present some logistical problems, and of course cost more money, but it would level the field court, and remove the tremendous advantage that is inherent in having a team play 4 home games in a supposed national tournament championship. The NCAA can't deny money is there in the vault, and they're not going to go belly up by spending a little more on the D3 serfs. If not the final 16, at least for the final 8. Seemed to work pretty well last year. JMHO.     

54% of all sectional hosts in this tournament framework have been embarrassed, then. You may not have read this if you have no reason to follow the tourney, but here are the all-time sectional hosts in this tournament structure and a list of who has advanced.
http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2014/sectional-hosts-announced

As for your indignant assertions about the NCAA, as I have said multiple times on this board, the Division III budget is 3.18% of the entire NCAA budget. If you think you can get the NCAA constitution changed, I beg you to go do it. See if enough D-I schools sign off on that division getting less money.

Very interesting idea. I like the idea of neutral sites in theory, but I also love the idea of full gyms/arenas... What if neutral D3 arenas hosted the round of 16 and 8? What if instead of IWU hosting Calvin, Dickenson, and Wheaton, you play the games at Wooster, Wittenberg, or Hope? Or maybe a small D1 or D2 school like Butler, Dayton, Grand Valley, Western Michigan, or Valpo. If high school teams can find neutral sites to play games cost-effectively, D3 playoff games should be able to as well.

Two huge prohibiting factors. Time and people. Having the game as a home team insures people in the stadium. An empty neutral site is a sad thought. Also, the logistics of organizing 4 neutral site locations in only a couple days time seems like an unlikely endeavor. Without knowing who will be moving on until the weekend before, lining up potential sites any earlier would not allow for 500 mile rule considerations.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Actually, with the huge advantage of having all of their tournament games to this point at home, it should be no surprise to anyone that both IWU and Amherst are in Salem. In fact, both should have been embarrassed not to have made the Final Four. Particularly Amherst who enjoyed a bye and then 3 unranked opponents. At least IWU faced 2 top 25 (5 & 24) teams, although it was obvious that St. Norbert was really nowhere near a true #5 team.

Its too bad the NCAA can't channel some of the millions and millions ($71 million profit for the 2012 fiscal year increasing year-end assets to more than $566 million according to the NCAA financial statement) in its coffers to put on a true D3 national championship rather than what amounts to just a continuation of the regular season, but with the visiting teams coming from even further away with less fan support than they do during the regular season, especially the conference portion. I guess thats why I liked last year's format that saw not just the final four, but the final 8 teams play in Salem. I realize its an unrealistic dream to run the D3 tournament like the D1 tourney. However, once the D3 version gets down to a final 16, I'd love to see the remaining teams play at neutral sites. I understand that this would present some logistical problems, and of course cost more money, but it would level the field court, and remove the tremendous advantage that is inherent in having a team play 4 home games in a supposed national tournament championship. The NCAA can't deny money is there in the vault, and they're not going to go belly up by spending a little more on the D3 serfs. If not the final 16, at least for the final 8. Seemed to work pretty well last year. JMHO.     

54% of all sectional hosts in this tournament framework have been embarrassed, then. You may not have read this if you have no reason to follow the tourney, but here are the all-time sectional hosts in this tournament structure and a list of who has advanced.
http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/men/2014/sectional-hosts-announced

As for your indignant assertions about the NCAA, as I have said multiple times on this board, the Division III budget is 3.18% of the entire NCAA budget. If you think you can get the NCAA constitution changed, I beg you to go do it. See if enough D-I schools sign off on that division getting less money.

Very interesting idea. I like the idea of neutral sites in theory, but I also love the idea of full gyms/arenas... What if neutral D3 arenas hosted the round of 16 and 8? What if instead of IWU hosting Calvin, Dickenson, and Wheaton, you play the games at Wooster, Wittenberg, or Hope? Or maybe a small D1 or D2 school like Butler, Dayton, Grand Valley, Western Michigan, or Valpo. If high school teams can find neutral sites to play games cost-effectively, D3 playoff games should be able to as well.

Two huge prohibiting factors. Time and people. Having the game as a home team insures people in the stadium. An empty neutral site is a sad thought. Also, the logistics of organizing 4 neutral site locations in only a couple days time seems like an unlikely endeavor. Without knowing who will be moving on until the weekend before, lining up potential sites any earlier would not allow for 500 mile rule considerations.

The issue is money.  It costs more to host neutral site games.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

All-Star Rosters are out (ignore the incorrect date on the dateline):

http://www.nabc.org/events/2014_Reese-s_Div_III_MBB_ASG_Rosters_3-18-14.pdf


That should be a fun game.

[HOPEful]

All-Star Rosters are out (ignore the incorrect date on the dateline):

http://www.nabc.org/events/2014_Reese-s_Div_III_MBB_ASG_Rosters_3-18-14.pdf


That should be a fun game.

Obviously East vs. West are not to be taken literally...

[Pat Coleman]

All-Star Rosters are out (ignore the incorrect date on the dateline):

http://www.nabc.org/events/2014_Reese-s_Div_III_MBB_ASG_Rosters_3-18-14.pdf


That should be a fun game.

Posted here yesterday with NCAA broadcast link.
http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2014/03/nabc-names-2014-all-star-rosters

[sac]

D2 holds it tournament with the first 3 rounds at the #1 seed in each reagion.  Lots of neutral site games, almost all of them not involving the #1 seed poorly attended.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Neutral site games are not going to work in Division III... imagine trying to convince an entity that you want to host a set of games there, but you don't know if anyone local will be participating and you don't know the rest of the teams. These decisions have to be made sometimes more than a year in advance... very difficult sell. Then to compound the fact, you have to have a local school(s) or conference take part to do the work surrounding the game. Again, unless they have a real vested interest in doing all the work with no gauruntees their team or conference will be participating, they aren't going to bite. For example, Stevens Point will only host this year and had no interest in bidding for future final fours. The women have seen many schools not re-up on the process (i.e. Hope) because of what it takes. Salem is the extreme exception (and others like Appleton as well). The city is behind the effort along with the ODAC. They make it work because they have a vested interest in making it work. You simply are not going to get many others interested (look at the lack of people interested in hosting the final four in the first place).

As for the money, I know of schools who have declined to host a pod of games at another site just because their gym isn't big enough... and budget, along with manpower, is usually the first reason cited for declining the opportunity. Neutral site games mean spending the money to rent the facility, then spend the money to have that facilities staff on staff, the money needed to add more people to your own staff to help with what is now a bigger event, and other expenses. Sure, the NCAA tends to foot most of the bill, but part of the paperwork to host in the first place includes a budget for the weekend - the NCAA isn't going to go to a place if the budget is out of control... or they will only foot some of the bill putting the rest on the schools. That is a pretty hard pill to swallow sometimes making the idea of a neutral site weekend games in Division III pretty much a non-starter.

[AndOne]

SAC---

Lets say your team makes the final 8. Would you rather they play in a half empty gym where 50% or so of those in attendance would at least be rooting for your team, or in one they might have to travel several hundred miles to and be faced with 90% of those in attendance rooting for the home (other) team? I'm just trying to even things out a bit. Unrealistic I realize, but can you deny you wouldn't mind the additional support?

DAVE---

Thanks for the detailed explanation. As I said in my post "I understand that this would present some logistical problems, and of course cost more money, but it would level the field court, and remove the tremendous advantage that is inherent in having a team play 4 home games in a supposed national tournament championship."
I'm sure you're correct when you say "you are not going to get many others interested." But wouldn't it be interesting to investigate the possibilities, and wouldn't it make things a little more equitable if it could somehow be made to work out?

PAT---

I understand that through your involvement and experience with the NCAA, you view this as remote of a possibility as your being able to jump over the moon. However, can you deny that you would absolutely love it if the NCAA would appropriate a little more than the 3.18%, which is no doubt burned into your mind, to fund D3 activities?
Additionally, as far as my "indignant assertions" about the NCAA, aren't you at least a bit indignant yourself over that meager 3.18% that said NCAA budgets for D3 that you love so dearly??

You're so fond of, and so used to, criticizing me that you don't see that in reality we're on the same page/team here. I'd like a little more spent on D3, especially in an instance when doing so would level the playing field. Sure, given the current state of affairs, its undoubtedly an unrealistic dream. But, with your love of D3, tell me you've never dreamed of the hallowed NCAA channeling a little more dinero the D3 way. 

[AO]

SAC---

Lets say your team makes the final 8. Would you rather they play in a half empty gym where 50% or so of those in attendance would at least be rooting for your team, or in one they might have to travel several hundred miles to and be faced with 90% of those in attendance rooting for the home (other) team? I'm just trying to even things out a bit. Unrealistic I realize, but can you deny you wouldn't mind the additional support?

DAVE---

Thanks for the detailed explanation. As I said in my post "I understand that this would present some logistical problems, and of course cost more money, but it would level the field court, and remove the tremendous advantage that is inherent in having a team play 4 home games in a supposed national tournament championship."
I'm sure you're correct when you say "you are not going to get many others interested." But wouldn't it be interesting to investigate the possibilities, and wouldn't it make things a little more equitable if it could somehow be made to work out?

PAT---

I understand that through your involvement and experience with the NCAA, you view this as remote of a possibility as your being able to jump over the moon. However, can you deny that you would absolutely love it if the NCAA would appropriate a little more than the 3.18%, which is no doubt burned into your mind, to fund D3 activities?
Additionally, as far as my "indignant assertions" about the NCAA, aren't you at least a bit indignant yourself over that meager 3.18% that said NCAA budgets for D3 that you love so dearly??

You're so fond of, and so used to, criticizing me that you don't see that in reality we're on the same page/team here. I'd like a little more spent on D3, especially in an instance when doing so would level the playing field. Sure, given the current state of affairs, its undoubtedly an unrealistic dream. But, with your love of D3, tell me you've never dreamed of the hallowed NCAA channeling a little more dinero the D3 way. 

As a player and fan I'd much rather go to the gym full of opposing fans, rather than the half-empty gym.  I'd rather lose in the first round at a gym with a big time atmosphere than advance to the sweet 16 by winning at a neutral gym with smaller less interested crowds.  In my experience referees can be terrible at home, away or neutral venues.  Home court advantage in many cases is justly earned and is meaningful and fun to overcome.

Accept the fact that D3 does not have a true national tournament.  We don't have the traveling fanbases or television coverage to have a tournament similar to the D1 tournament.  It is also a bit odd to be complaining about the 3% allocated to D3 when you consider D3 didn't earn much of that 3%.  Teams don't move from NAIA to D3 because of the lack of money the NCAA gives to support the D3 tournaments.  We can of course ask for more, but don't be surprised or insulted when the rest of the NCAA isn't feeling charitable.

[David Collinge]

Wow...everything old is new again in Posting Up this spring. First the NESCAC-has-an-easy-path-to-Salem blast from the past, and now the let's-play-sectional-at-neutral-sites deja vu trip. I don't mean to belittle the discussion, I think it great to debate such things, I just wonder if maybe after what, 17 years?, we've finally talked about everything and have been forced to start recycling.

Just to give some perspective to some of the other old-timers, I'm pretty sure I remember discussing this with Barry Robinson, if that helps you carbon date this topic.

[Greek Tragedy]

Wow...everything old is new again in Posting Up this spring. First the NESCAC-has-an-easy-path-to-Salem blast from the past, and now the let's-play-sectional-at-neutral-sites deja vu trip. I don't mean to belittle the discussion, I think it great to debate such things, I just wonder if maybe after what, 17 years?, we've finally talked about everything and have been forced to start recycling.

Just to give some perspective to some of the other old-timers, I'm pretty sure I remember discussing this with Barry Robinson, if that helps you carbon date this topic.

Just like Hollywood, baby! Can't think of new movie ideas, so we'll just have sequels and remakes!

[Gregory Sager]

Wow...everything old is new again in Posting Up this spring. First the NESCAC-has-an-easy-path-to-Salem blast from the past, and now the let's-play-sectional-at-neutral-sites deja vu trip. I don't mean to belittle the discussion, I think it great to debate such things, I just wonder if maybe after what, 17 years?, we've finally talked about everything and have been forced to start recycling.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that we recycle just about every hot topic on d3boards.com on at least a semi-annual basis. In addition to the NESCAC-has-an-easy-path-to-Salem discussion and the let's-play-sectionals-at-neutral-sites discussion, there's:

* the let's-find-a-more-convenient-Final-Four-site-than-Salem discussion;
* the why-does-Pat-corrupt-the-Top-25-poll-by-starting-it-off-in-preseason discussion;
* the MIAA-schools-get-jobbed-by-their-peninsularity discussion;
* the why-can't-West-Coast-teams-host-a-sectional discussion;
* the high-academic-schools-have-a-recruiting-handicap discussion;

and, of course, everyone's favorite:

* the why-the-heck-doesn't-the-WIAC-move-to-D2-where-it-belongs discussion.

I'm as tired as you are of these topics. But I think that we have to keep in mind that we posters don't represent the entirety of the d3boards.com readership. If Pat's clicker numbers are to be believed, there's a great deal of lurker readership on this site. Plus, there's always new posters who've never seen these debates in any of their previous iterations. In other words, what's an old topic for us isn't necessarily an old topic for much of the readership.

Just to give some perspective to some of the other old-timers, I'm pretty sure I remember discussing this with Barry Robinson, if that helps you carbon date this topic.

Thanks for the flashback, Memphis.

[AO]

Should we stop having political discussions because the topics remain the same? 

Over time you might find more support for your ideas.  The national committee and criteria have also changed, making arguments about the NESCAC unique.  The benefit the NESCAC got under the QOWI is different than their OWP SOS advantage.

[David Collinge]

Long, long ago, when I was still active in the ODAC conversation, we recycled hot topics so reliably that we actually numbered the most common opening salvos and subsequent responses to make things more efficient. Thus, rather than "WIAC should be D2" and "they follow the same rules as everyone else," it would simply be "#6" and "#2." Saved everybody a lot of time.

Should we stop having political discussions because the topics remain the same?

Yes, but not for that reason.

Again,

I don't mean to belittle the discussion, I think it great to debate such things,

I realize that the great preponderance of members are not as old as some of us and have not been through these discussions time and time again. I'm glad people care enough to raise these issues and work them through. I just wish they wouldn't do it ON MY LAWN!