2018 NCAA Tournament

[Pat Coleman]

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.

Hah -- that was a fun night! I sure didn't have much voice left by that time of the night.

[Gregory Sager]

If this year's field had been expanded to 68 under my proposal, this is how that Tuesday play-in night would've looked, using the final regional rankings plus Drew Pasteur's graph on page 515 of the Pool C room to select the four extra Pool C's (East Texas Baptist, Hobart, Loras, and Keene State):

Tuesday, February 27
Keene State @ Springfield
Hobart @ Brockport
East Texas Baptist @ LeTourneau
Loras @ Illinois Wesleyan

Friday, March 2
Keene State/Springfield winner vs. Albright
Hobart/Brockport winner vs. MIT
East Texas Baptist/LeTourneau winner vs. Hanover
Loras/Illinois Wesleyan winner vs. Wooster

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

If this year's field had been expanded to 68 under my proposal, this is how that Tuesday play-in night would've looked, using the final regional rankings plus Drew Pasteur's graph on page 515 of the Pool C room to select the four extra Pool C's (East Texas Baptist, Hobart, Loras, and Keene State):

Tuesday, February 27
Keene State @ Springfield
Hobart @ Brockport
East Texas Baptist @ LeTourneau
Loras @ Illinois Wesleyan

Friday, March 2
Keene State/Springfield winner vs. Albright
Hobart/Brockport winner vs. MIT
East Texas Baptist/LeTourneau winner vs. Hanover
Loras/Illinois Wesleyan winner vs. Wooster

Knowing what I know, ETBU would have hosted LOL - I suspect they still would have required the schools to put in bid rights.

I would also say, I would hope if they could they would avoid regional games... maybe Hobart is playing Springfield. I know the Texas schools may have been unavoidable, but that is also assuming another Texas school would have gotten in (I know the system you were using; I am considering the one we got to).

But yeah... similar thinking. It may require alerting those schools on Sunday night, but then again... let US know on Sunday night so we can make the announcement and then the rest of the tournament could still be announced Monday!

[Gregory Sager]

I would also say, I would hope if they could they would avoid regional games... maybe Hobart is playing Springfield.

I was thinking more in terms of the fact that it would've been scheduled for a Tuesday night, thus making travel time on a school night an important factor. Hobart to Brockport is a little over an hour's drive; Hobart to Springfield is four and a half hours. Keene State to Springfield is a little under two hours; Keene State to Brockport is almost six hours.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I would also say, I would hope if they could they would avoid regional games... maybe Hobart is playing Springfield.

I was thinking more in terms of the fact that it would've been scheduled for a Tuesday night, thus making travel time on a school night an important factor. Hobart to Brockport is a little over an hour's drive; Hobart to Springfield is four and a half hours. Keene State to Springfield is a little under two hours; Keene State to Brockport is almost six hours.

Oh, I get that entirely. That would have to be a factor. I was going a little off the cuff, but even the person I was talking to admitted geography and shorter distances would have to be a factor to be sure... which also means it may not be the last teams in. One may have to play a team that got in halfway through the process because the mileage works.

In other words, the committee would have to make the best decisions possible on what the right teams playing would be and not necessarily based on them being the last in. The last four teams to get in would have to probably prove it against those who got in a lot higher.

[Ralph Turner]

Just some thoughts...

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. [Yeah, let's look at those 1-bid conferences... there is a lot of "chopped liver" in that group /sarcasm off]

LeTourneau beat Hanover  HCAC
CNU beat Lancaster Bible  NEAC
Franklin & Marshall beat Emory and Henry  ODAC
Swarthmore beat NEC  NAC
Hamilton beat Nazareth  E8
Wesleyan beat S. Vermont  NECC
Springfield beat Cabrini   CSAC, but in the 2nd round
Whitman beat Schreiner SCAC and then CMS  SCIAC, but in the 2nd round
Emory beat Berry  SAA
Platteville beat Monmouth  MWC

On the other hand:

Bethany Lutheran UMAC upset St. John's and Union LL 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.

Back to the old comments...

Back in November, every team in D3 knows what it has to do.

We have 21 "do-overs" by teams that failed the first time around.  As for adding a play-in game in mid week, how much would ETBU and LeTourneau  (30 miles apart) would love to play for a 4th time this season, cumulative scores after 120 minutes of basketball being 289 to 289?  As it was, Pool C Emory, the runner-up in the UAA, almost choked on their home court to a lowly LeTourneau, whom most pundits thought was the 20th or 21st team selected and was flown to Atlanta.

We have so much parity in D3, we have to admit that we must draw the line somewhere.  64 works!

[smedindy]

Leave no doubt! Win the conference tourney!

[kiko]

So, two random thoughts on this topic.  And before I tee them up, I should note for the record that I do not support expanding the tournament beyond its current size.  If you do so, though:

- If you expand from 64 to 68, as noted above, you may not be able to set up a bracket so the play-in games are the last eight teams in the field from a school night/travel time standpoint.  Given how much more restricted access to the tournament is in D3 versus in D1, one potential solution for this is to go to 72 rather than 68 teams.  I don't know that there is a dramatic difference between Pool C #25 and Pool C #29, so you're not necessarily watering down the field, but what you are doing is giving yourself more options to make this work geographically.

- One blasphemous solution to the 'how do I fund this?' question for a tournament expansion of any size: have the NCAA pay travel expenses only for teams that got in via Pool A.  You backdoor your way into the tournament?  Congratulations -- you can come to our party, but it is on your dime.  This would free up some funds, which could potentially be used to de-regionalize the brackets a bit more, like the year the committee somehow got permission to spend like drunken sailors and shipped Carthage from Wisconsin to the East Coast.  I doubt this idea would fly (read as: I'm well aware that it is a non-starter) as not too many D3 schools are rolling in money, and being the lucky Pool C team that is shipped to Walla Walla could be a costly endeavor.  But it does protect the A's from this fate, and preserves the equal access philosophy that is a big part of the tournament's DNA.

[Onward on, John Carroll]

Is there any leniency on the 500 mile rule? University Heights to Rock Island is 507 on Google maps (I know that's not what the NCAA uses). I just think they'd save a plane full of money by making JCU bus an extra 15 minutes.

No, there isn't. The 500-mile-radius rule is arbitrary -- there's no reason why the NCAA couldn't have set the radius at 510 miles, or 490 miles, when it made the rule -- but there are a lot of rules in life that are arbitrary. The point, however, is to set the marker and keep it there, so that everybody understands it and knows well ahead of time what the rule is. If you make exceptions here and there for the sake of a few miles, then the rule ceases to have any meaning. It stops being a rule altogether, and then you have the anarchy of a team complaining, "Hey, you let Team A fly last year when it was 480 miles from the site ... well, we're only 479 miles from our site, so why do we have to take the bus?"

There's no reason why JCU has to fly. Blue Streaks head coach Pete Moran, or the JCU athletic director, could opt to bus his team to Rock Island instead. It's certainly not unheard-of for teams to take the busing option even when the NCAA offers the team the opportunity to fly on the NCAA's dime. If I remember correctly, Grey Giovanine has elected to have Augustana bus to Salem, for example, for Augie's two Final Four trips over the past three seasons.

However, I don't think the reverse is true. I don't think you're allowed to fly if it's under 500 miles even if you pay for it yourself. I remember Mount getting dinged for that on their first or second Stagg Bowl trip. They flew even thought it was under 500 miles - they chartered a team flight and a fan flight. Of course, maybe the rules changed.

You can pay for your own flight whenever you want, at least in basketball.  The NCAA doesn't care if you spend your own money.  They might not reimburse you for anything if you fly (like they might not give you the bus equivalent), but you can travel however you want if its on your own dime.

Thanks Ryan, for the clarification. It's been 25 years. Maybe a I remember it wrong. That's said, I doubt Carroll will pony up for a charter flight so Coach Moran is going to have start figuring out what he wants to do.

Not to interrupt the tournament expansion discussion, but I wanted to update everyone on a discussion from this weekend.  JCU decided to forego its "right" to a flight and bus to Augustana.

[KnightSlappy]

So, two random thoughts on this topic.  And before I tee them up, I should note for the record that I do not support expanding the tournament beyond its current size.  If you do so, though:

- If you expand from 64 to 68, as noted above, you may not be able to set up a bracket so the play-in games are the last eight teams in the field from a school night/travel time standpoint.  Given how much more restricted access to the tournament is in D3 versus in D1, one potential solution for this is to go to 72 rather than 68 teams.  I don't know that there is a dramatic difference between Pool C #25 and Pool C #29, so you're not necessarily watering down the field, but what you are doing is giving yourself more options to make this work geographically.

I was thinking about this idea yesterday as well. If you did 72 then you could pit the last in vs. first out in every region. I know we like the committee to mix it up as much as possible, but regional play-in games would travel and early bracketing a lot cleaner for the committee. Big downside: My guess is we'd end up with a fair number of conference matchups.

[fantastic50]

This is all fun to dream about, but between funding, logistical issues with travel, and missed class time, I don't think expansion beyond 64 stands a realistic chance of getting approved at the NCAA level.

[John Gleich]

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 was Gustavus Adolphus. Always and forever in St. Peter, Minnesota. And LU fans were just upset they didn't have anywhere to sit in Quandt because they were tailgating until 5 minutes after tip-off and it was a packed house.

As an aside, it's refreshing to have a bracket that's more diverse these days...

02-03 Gustavus Adolphus beat UWSP in the second round
03-04 UWSP beat Gustavus Adolphus in the second round Puget Sound in the Sweet 16 and Lawrence in the Elite 8
04-05 UWSP beat Lawrence (who beat GA in the first round) in the second round, Pugets Sound in the Sweet 16

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Something I'd like to see is for conferences to diminish their conference tournaments. It's a great story to have some low seeded team get hot and make their way in but it diminishes the value of the regular season. If you know your conference is a one bid league then why bother playing the regular season if all that matters is a few games in February?
I'd be all for the UAA model of no tournament but if you had to have one, do something like:
a) 2 vs 5 and 3 vs 4 then the winner of that pod plays the 1 in the final
b) 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 and if the winner is someone other than the 1 they have to play the 1 seed

[Greek Tragedy]

Thanks for the correction, John. I had just remembered it was a long trip for them and they complained a lot about that (I suppose for good reason). And yes, I also recall what horrible hosts we were when we actually had a section roped off just for Lawrence fans, but some of them just wanted to sit wherever they wanted to.

[Greek Tragedy]

I'm definitely not in favor of expanding past 64. I suppose it seemed like that with my "play-in" proposal. As there has been resistance in the bottom 10 conferences playing play-in games or even the bottom Pool C teams doing likewise, why don't we just rotate those play-in games and keep them regional? Even if the CCIW has to play the WIAC one year, In fact, you could almost open up an extra pre-round and have 42 or 44 conferences play another and have 21 or 22 AQs and then pick 42 Pool C's. I think the Pool C teams are generally stronger than half of the AQs, 28 of them this year as 1-bid leagues. My proposal was to simply add more Pool C's because I believe that's where the best teams are. If Augustana beats Platteville in their play-in game, Platteville is probably going to get a Pool C anyway while Greenville beating Monmouth would open up a Pool C slot for a possibly more deserving at-large team.