Pool C -- 2014

[HSCTiger74]

   I haven't seen this discussed yet (maybe I just missed it) but how are all these scenarios affected if Pacific beats Linfield and takes the NWC title? I don't see it happening, but if it did would Linfield still make the field with two losses and what domino effect would that have on everyone else?

[ITH radio]

I don't think so. Would drop LIN into the 7 range in the RRs and Bethel has a better SoS.

[AO]

I have these on the table with two bids left:

Bethel (with losses to Wartburg and the Johnnies), then UW-Oshkosh.
Framingham State  (B/C)
Muhlenberg, then Thomas More (a loss to Wesley and to W&J.)
Carroll, then Chicago.

Shouldn't wins be more important than losses?  Bethel has wins over multiple regionally ranked teams, the losses to good teams help the SOS, but the wins are going to be what gets them in and keeps Thomas More out.

[USee]

Ralph,

Your picks seem plausible except for the North. The first issue is Carroll is considered being in the West region for ranking purposes. Given that North Central and Heidleberg are both ranked ahead of Chicago and Carroll doesn't even appear in the rankings, what makes you think either of those will jump those other 2 loss teams in their regions? I don't see that happening.

[ITH radio]

Yeah I think Pat and Keith started the whole "it's not who you lose to it's who you beat [drinking game] saying a while back".

Bethel has #2 SOS in D3, that plus quality wins says more than losses IMO.

[ExTartanPlayer]

   I haven't seen this discussed yet (maybe I just missed it) but how are all these scenarios affected if Pacific beats Linfield and takes the NWC title? I don't see it happening, but if it did would Linfield still make the field with two losses and what domino effect would that have on everyone else?

I don't think Linfield gets in with two losses.  If Linfield lost (which I don't really expect), there would be an interesting domino effect because now the discussion of who hosts who out West gets interesting.  Does 8-1 Chapman host 7-2 (7-1 in D3) Pacific, does Pacific get the home game by virtue of better result vs. common opponent, or do they both get sent elsewhere with an NCAA gamble that knocking both out early will eliminate the need for second-round flights with those two?

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

   I haven't seen this discussed yet (maybe I just missed it) but how are all these scenarios affected if Pacific beats Linfield and takes the NWC title? I don't see it happening, but if it did would Linfield still make the field with two losses and what domino effect would that have on everyone else?

I don't think Linfield gets in with two losses.  If Linfield lost (which I don't really expect), there would be an interesting domino effect because now the discussion of who hosts who out West gets interesting.  Does 8-1 Chapman host 7-2 (7-1 in D3) Pacific, does Pacific get the home game by virtue of better result vs. common opponent, or do they both get sent elsewhere with an NCAA gamble that knocking both out early will eliminate the need for second-round flights with those two?

I'd probably go Pacific @ Chapman with winner heading to UMHB. Wouldn't be perfect seeding (but nothing egregious) and keeps all the necessary flights in their own little pod.

[Pat Coleman]

Makes sense KM.

The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.

I disagree with the prior statement from KMack in the present bracketing.  The wording in the Manual has seemed to change to forcing a "clustering" of teams by geography, and the only way to create balance in brackets after clustering is to heed the 500-mile rule.  It seems to be a more strict set of sentences than what I previously remember.  The 2011 budget-busting bracketing may have forced more Round 2 and Round 3 flight awareness.

Okay, well Rowan played at UMHB in Round 2 last year, and H-SC played at Linfield, then in Round 2 SJFC went to UMHB and Linfield and Whitewater played. A more flight-conscious arrangement would have put the UMHB/Redlands Round 1 game in the path of the Linfeld/PLU game, and they weren't even in the same quadrant.

So whatever point you're trying to make might be correct, but it doesn't refute my original observation.

I know I am pulling out a post from a couple days ago but I've said this before a couple times: Everything that the NCAA has said suggests this year will be different.

[bman]

Makes sense KM.

The Committee chair admitted to us in our interview last season they take a top 8, take 1&2 in each bracket and then build from there. Seedings are used, just not published since the 500 mile rule may necessitate non-traditional (3v6, 4v5 etc) matchups.

I disagree with the prior statement from KMack in the present bracketing.  The wording in the Manual has seemed to change to forcing a "clustering" of teams by geography, and the only way to create balance in brackets after clustering is to heed the 500-mile rule.  It seems to be a more strict set of sentences than what I previously remember.  The 2011 budget-busting bracketing may have forced more Round 2 and Round 3 flight awareness.

Okay, well Rowan played at UMHB in Round 2 last year, and H-SC played at Linfield, then in Round 2 SJFC went to UMHB and Linfield and Whitewater played. A more flight-conscious arrangement would have put the UMHB/Redlands Round 1 game in the path of the Linfeld/PLU game, and they weren't even in the same quadrant.

So whatever point you're trying to make might be correct, but it doesn't refute my original observation.

I know I am pulling out a post from a couple days ago but I've said this before a couple times: Everything that the NCAA has said suggests this year will be different.

Pat.  Can you elaborate a bit more on what "different" really means.  I see the 1/2 bracketing comments, but would like your thougts on imact of the choices this year.

[Pat Coleman]

When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.

Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.

Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.

This is certainly the mantra people need to follow. The division had a surplus and extra money for a few years, that tide has changed and even the money from the Turner/CBS deal is now getting smaller each year. Plan for no flights and be happy with any.

[AO]

When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing. The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.

Expect brackets to look more like they did a few years ago, with more schools kept within 500 miles of each other beyond the first round.

This is certainly the mantra people need to follow. The division had a surplus and extra money for a few years, that tide has changed and even the money from the Turner/CBS deal is now getting smaller each year. Plan for no flights and be happy with any.

I thought it was just that the rate of annual increase was less than the average annual increase in travel costs?  The new CBS/Turner deal is not back loaded and was a 41% increase.

[kiko]

Lots of folks seem to be using "because they pair nicely with Mary Hardin-Baylor" as a reason for putting TLU in the field.  (Not *the* reason, but *a* reason.)

I seem to remember a selection chair in the past say they pick the field, then start to look at pairings.  In other words, these processes are not interrelated.  Perhaps this is an old wives' tale.  But it would suggest that TLU's geography wouldn't be a consideration when their criteria are assessed as a Pool B or C candidate.

Can any of the poobahs confirm that this is how the selection process works?

[gordonmann]

Yes, that's correct. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

When you say "choices" I just want to make sure to emphasize that it doesn't affect the choosing of teams, just the potential bracketing.  The committees in all sports used to just be required to focus on first-round air flights but now have been told to focus on future rounds as well. The Endicott-Rowan winner going to UMHB last year was a prime example, as was Salisbury and St. John Fisher going to UW-Whitewater and St. Thomas a few years ago.

This is a lot more important to me than who plays who in what round.  I really don't mind the necessary evil of minimizing flights once the 32 teams are selected that much.  If that means any Texas team has to play UMHB, fine.  If that means Husson plays at MIT in the first round this year, even though both teams are low seeds, I'm fine with that, too. 

But as kiko said, including TLU over Centre (for example) because they pair nicely with UMHB is a thing to be avoided.