2018 NCAA Tournament

[Just Bill]

The current bylaw is the there is one tournament berth for every 6.5 schools that sponsor the sport to a maximum of 64 berths. There has been discussion about lowering the ratio to 1:6 (or possibly some other ratio), but I doubt the 64 team maximum will change.

[HOPEful]

It's also never going to happen.  We're capped at 64 no matter how many schools join d3.

I didn't know that. Is that some kind of bylaw written with blood?

Yep.  The NCAA doesn't want to spend money.  Every tournament in every sport at every level (except the D1 men's tournament, where all the money is made) I believe was formally capped at 64.  Obviously, they could go back and vote to change that, but I doubt it'll ever happen.  It's all about cost control.

I think in the midst of the fun of madness, we tend to lose sight of what the tournament tries to accomplish. The primary objective is to make money crown a national champion. Amherst and Loras may feel slighted being left out this year, but only when comparing themselves to LeTourneau and Brockport. Neither team had reasonable expectations to make it to Salem.

I don't see a need to add more teams. I think there are many reasons why it would actually make the D3 playoffs worse, not better.

1. Someone will always feel slighted. If they set up a play-in game system and add 4 teams, teams left at the table like Ohio Wesleyan, Hobart, Gwynedd Mercy, etc. will still argue they should have been in over ______ school.

2. Would I love a truly fair system that picked each team and seeded them without considering the financial concerns of geography? Sure. But that's not going to happen. We can't even get Whitworth out of the same pool as Whitman! With geography and title 9 (priority for women to host) , there are plenty of times where the host team isn't necessarily the most deserving of the "1 seed". Personally, I prefer a little bit of a "watered down" pool so that the NCAA can be creative when they're forced to send a legitimate top contender on the road, rewarding them with a low end 3 seed rather than a real test in the first round.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

So interesting this whole idea came up because I've been talking to someone who has some sway and this is an idea he has already been mulling over. He wants to bring it to Division III and discuss it at the very least. His example is that D1 has 11 less conferences and nearly 100 less programs, yet have 68-team field that brings in some teams that have no business being there (he is very familiar with D1, he isn't a D3 guy who looks up at the bright lights; he knows the bright lights extensively). He feels this is a bit ridiculous for D1, but sees an advantage for D3. The idea being this: have some of those last at-large teams play each other (not the AQs from small conferences) and make them prove they should be in the tournament to some degree. He fully admits the idea may be a stretch and the travel would be the biggest challenge.

While the NCAA rules do say 64-team field and the idea of expanding and getting a bylaw changed seems like a stretch, I would also remind everyone that the schools are the ones who make the decisions and vote on these things and if enough feel, especially with and expanding division, it is worth doing, they can change their bylaws. It may not happen in the very near future, but as schools and conferences start to see how much more difficult it is to get into the tournament (it is FAR more difficult to qualify for the DIII tournament than the DI), than who knows if they change things.

Yes, money is an issue... but I have stated it before... the division has to start thinking about how to raise its own revenue. The idea recently to return the extra money raised in the higher dues because the division didn't technically need it was one of the worst, short-sighted, and forgetful suggestions I have heard in a long time. Worst case, put the money in a rainy day fund. Best case, start finding ways to bring in more money so bracketing can be more national and/or we can expand tournaments like football accordingly (though, admittedly that one has other challenges like how long the event is taking already).

[Gregory Sager]

If I remember correctly, when the D3 tourney first expanded from 32 teams to 40 back in the late '80s, the initial round  -- which only involved sixteen teams, and was played on the Tuesday before the opening pods (which were called "regionals" back then) -- was not covered by the NCAA in terms of ancillary costs. Schools had to fund their own travel and lodgings; the NCAA only covered the costs involved with the game itself, such as paying the officials and the table staff, which I think is still the setup that the NAIA uses. Perhaps a change in the bylaws to expand the tourney by adding an extra layer of games might be more feasible to the NCAA membership constituency if it was presented with this cost-cutting measure as a part of the proposal.

It would have to involve Pool C teams, since many of the one-bid leagues consist of schools that have fewer financial resources and for whom paying for travel and lodging for that first round might constitute a prohibitive burden. As much as I agree with the SLIAC coach to whom hopefan spoke, who said that putting the AQs from these one-bid leagues into that extra round might give them more of a fighting chance to pick up a tournament win, I think that the bottom line here is cost -- and those teams shouldn't be forced to pay for anything involved in their Pool A berths. Let the costs be borne by the schools from the power conferences that would get those extra berths, since they're more apt to be able to afford it. And if an Ohio Wesleyan or a Hobart or an Amherst or a Loras couldn't or wouldn't pay the extra costs involved, or felt that an extra midweek game at the end of February or beginning of March would mean too much missed class time, they could always decline the bid and it could be given to somebody else.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The first rounds covered by the schools was also something that happened in the late 90s when the division initially went to a 64-team field. That first round was paid for by the schools. It didn't last long, but I don't have any memory as to why - could have been more about all sports having the opportunity and it getting a little out of control. That may have been where the 6.5:1 system came to be.

[Ralph Turner]

The first rounds covered by the schools was also something that happened in the late 90s when the division initially went to a 64-team field. That first round was paid for by the schools. It didn't last long, but I don't have any memory as to why - could have been more about all sports having the opportunity and it getting a little out of control. That may have been where the 6.5:1 system came to be.

I do not recall the early rounds being paid by the university in the early 2000's when the access ratio was 1:7.5.

[Gregory Sager]

The first rounds covered by the schools was also something that happened in the late 90s when the division initially went to a 64-team field. That first round was paid for by the schools. It didn't last long, but I don't have any memory as to why - could have been more about all sports having the opportunity and it getting a little out of control. That may have been where the 6.5:1 system came to be.

Well, that and the fact that, in a 64-team field, the schools were essentially paying for the first two rounds (played Friday/Saturday, same as the current model), rather than just one, with the NCAA carrying the full tab for the second and third weekends. That's why I used the 40-team-field example; it more closely mirrors what the midweek play-in format would look like in this proposed scenario.

[fantastic50]

If midweek preliminary games were going to be added, they would need to be within a much shorter travel radius than 500 miles.  In D-I, nobody bats an eye at basketball players on elite teams missing classes for most of March, with four consecutive weekends of travel, starting on Wednesday, in many cases.  In D-III, missing Tuesday & Wednesday classes for a Tuesday night preliminary round 400 miles away, followed by Thursday afternoon & Friday somewhere else for the winners, isn't going to cut it.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

If midweek preliminary games were going to be added, they would need to be within a much shorter travel radius than 500 miles.  In D-I, nobody bats an eye at basketball players on elite teams missing classes for most of March, with four consecutive weekends of travel, starting on Wednesday, in many cases.  In D-III, missing Tuesday & Wednesday classes for a Tuesday night preliminary round 400 miles away, followed by Thursday afternoon & Friday somewhere else for the winners, isn't going to cut it.

Yep... no one I've had the conversations with dismisses any of that.

[Greek Tragedy]

Yeah. That is a tough sell. Maybe play Tuesday and Friday? I do recall Lawrence fans complaining about the quick turnaround when they had to travel to Buena Vista (it was an IIAC team), on Thursday and then travel to Point for a Saturday game, and that had nothing to do with missed class time.

[Pat Coleman]

The first rounds covered by the schools was also something that happened in the late 90s when the division initially went to a 64-team field. That first round was paid for by the schools. It didn't last long, but I don't have any memory as to why - could have been more about all sports having the opportunity and it getting a little out of control. That may have been where the 6.5:1 system came to be.

Well, that and the fact that, in a 64-team field, the schools were essentially paying for the first two rounds (played Friday/Saturday, same as the current model), rather than just one, with the NCAA carrying the full tab for the second and third weekends. That's why I used the 40-team-field example; it more closely mirrors what the midweek play-in format would look like in this proposed scenario.

The 64-team play-in to the 32-team bracket, as was the mid-1990s format, was Thursday-Saturday, so the NCAA did pick up the second round on the first weekend.

[Greek Tragedy]

I'm thoroughly enjoying this conversation because when I posted my "fun with numbers" post, I didn't think I'd get this much reaction.

My first thought was to have the bottom 8-10 1-bid conferences play each other to open up more "deserving" Pool C teams, for example, Amherst, River Falls, OWU etc. Others countered with having those extra Pool C teams play each other to "prove they deserve" to be in the tourney.

I understand the outcry to have 1-bid conference teams NOT play in these so-called play-in games because they won their conference tourney and "deserve" to be in the NCAAs. For one, I think it's a joke that the conference tourney decides who get the AQ. I suppose it's the conference's decision, but I'm sure 1.) Berry loves the idea and 2.) Centre hates the idea. But, who's to say all because you win your conference tournament, you "deserve" to be in? I think we can all agree if you put in a middle-of-the-table team from a "power conference" they'll do pretty well in a lower level conference year in and year out. This is no disrespect to those leagues, it's just fact.

Instead of the bottom 1-bid conference teams playing each other or the bottom Pool C bid teams playing each other, why not have the bottom 4 from each group play each other. I find it amusing that some have said the Pool C teams need to "prove themselves" when this year's records for Pool C teams have proved they belong.

As initially stated, Pool C teams are 23-12 while 1-bid conference teams are just 9-27.  Taking a closer look...

Pool C teams are 11-2 against 1-bid conference teams.

LeTourneau beat Hanover
CNU beat Lancaster Bible
Franklin & Marshall beat Emory and Henry
Swarthmore beat NEC
Hamilton beat Nazareth
Wesleyan beat S. Vermont
Springfield beat Cabrini in the 2nd round
Whitman beat Schreiner and then CMS
Emory beat Berry
Platteville beat Monmouth

On the other hand:

Bethany Lutheran upset St. John's and Union topped NJCU.

I also pointed out that NINE of those 21 Pool C teams advanced to the Sweet 16 (Swarthmore, F&M, Hamilton, Middlebury, Springfield, Whitman, Emory, Oshkosh and Platteville) while on ONE of the 28 1-bid leagues had a team advance (Nebraska Wesleyan, and they beat 1-bid league teams Maryville and Aurora).

And, of the 15 leagues that had more than one bid, SIX advanced their AQ, Augustana, MIT, Ramapo, JCU, Plattsburgh and Stevens Point.

I love the underdogs. It makes the tourney great. But with over 400 teams at 43 AQs, that only leaves 21 Pool Cs. I think it proves that the best teams aren't in the tourney and though that will never be the case, I think things can change to balance out the haves and have-nots while not completely eliminating the have-nots.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Yeah. That is a tough sell. Maybe play Tuesday and Friday? I do recall Lawrence fans complaining about the quick turnaround when they had to travel to Buena Vista (it was an IIAC team), on Thursday and then travel to Point for a Saturday game, and that had nothing to do with missed class time.

"You WANT to play that Thursday game. You NEED to play that Thursday game. You have to show you are capable of winning an NCAA Tournament game!"

One of the better Hoopsville Selection Sunday discussions to be honest. While we didn't do video at the time, I vividly remember the setting and those involved and why the quote came to be.

[Gregory Sager]

The first rounds covered by the schools was also something that happened in the late 90s when the division initially went to a 64-team field. That first round was paid for by the schools. It didn't last long, but I don't have any memory as to why - could have been more about all sports having the opportunity and it getting a little out of control. That may have been where the 6.5:1 system came to be.

Well, that and the fact that, in a 64-team field, the schools were essentially paying for the first two rounds (played Friday/Saturday, same as the current model), rather than just one, with the NCAA carrying the full tab for the second and third weekends. That's why I used the 40-team-field example; it more closely mirrors what the midweek play-in format would look like in this proposed scenario.

The 64-team play-in to the 32-team bracket, as was the mid-1990s format, was Thursday-Saturday, so the NCAA did pick up the second round on the first weekend.

Yeah, now that I think about it, you're right.

Yeah. That is a tough sell. Maybe play Tuesday and Friday? I do recall Lawrence fans complaining about the quick turnaround when they had to travel to Buena Vista (it was an IIAC team), on Thursday and then travel to Point for a Saturday game, and that had nothing to do with missed class time.

It would be Tuesday (field winnowed down to 64), followed by the current Friday/Saturday pod format with the field of 64.

For one, I think it's a joke that the conference tourney decides who get the AQ. I suppose it's the conference's decision, but I'm sure 1.) Berry loves the idea and 2.) Centre hates the idea.

Not necessarily. The people at Centre know full well that next season, or the season after that, or five seasons down the road, it could be the Colonels who are sitting in Berry's situation.

But, who's to say all because you win your conference tournament, you "deserve" to be in?

You answered your own question, two sentences earlier:

I suppose it's the conference's decision

I think we can all agree if you put in a middle-of-the-table team from a "power conference" they'll do pretty well in a lower level conference year in and year out. This is no disrespect to those leagues, it's just fact.

Sure, it's a fact. But it's also not germane to the primary mission of NCAA championships, which is to provide equal access to championship competition to the entire membership -- not to get the 64 best teams in the nation into the bracket.

Instead of the bottom 1-bid conference teams playing each other or the bottom Pool C bid teams playing each other, why not have the bottom 4 from each group play each other. I find it amusing that some have said the Pool C teams need to "prove themselves" when this year's records for Pool C teams have proved they belong.

Sure, they could do it that way. But the reason why I suggested that Pool A's (including the lesser-league Pool A's such as Greenville, Nichols, Yeshiva, Bethany Lutheran, Southern Vermont, etc.) should be exempted from having to participate in the play-in round in an expanded tourney is because in my proposal the play-in round participants would be footing their own bills for transportation and lodging. That's a considerable expense, and a lot of the schools that are in those lesser leagues aren't exactly swimming in dough. Playing all their games on the NCAA's dime should be their reward for qualifying for the tourney, in keeping with the equal-access doctrine, while the Pool C's, which did not qualify for the field by the equal-access standard, should have their bottom teams foot the bills by playing in the play-in round.

I love the underdogs. It makes the tourney great. But with over 400 teams at 43 AQs, that only leaves 21 Pool Cs. I think it proves that the best teams aren't in the tourney and though that will never be the case, I think things can change to balance out the haves and have-nots while not completely eliminating the have-nots.

The best teams are in the tournament, though. Once you get past those 21 Pool C's, you're looking at teams whose capability of cutting down the nets in Salem really isn't there. That's not to say that Ohio Wesleyan, Hobart, Loras, Amherst, etc., couldn't win a game or two and make a good showing for themselves. But they weren't Final Four material. All of the teams that are really capable of winning the national championship are in the field, and that's been true every season since the last non-participating holdout league, the NESCAC, finally started participating in the dance over three decades ago.

As for the "haves and have-nots" business, again, the NCAA model is built around the idea of equal access for everybody. Any configuration of an NCAA championship tournament is going to have to be built with that axiom first in mind.

[HOPEful]

If (REALLY REALLY BIG IF) they could make the geographies work, I'd be all for a play in game with OWU playing Hobart, Brockport playing Amherst, etc.