D3boards.com

Division III basketball (Posting Up) => Women's Basketball => Multi-Regional Topics => Topic started by: David Collinge on February 23, 2009, 05:35:32 PM

Title: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on February 23, 2009, 05:35:32 PM
This is intended to be a central place to discuss the NCAA tournament, both the 2009 version about to begin as well as overriding issues with the tournament itself.




The NCAA has announced (http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/home?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2009/Division+III/Panel+tackles+championships+selection+concerns+-+2-23-09+-+NCAA+News) that the 2010 and 2011 NCAA tournaments will be hosted by Illinois Wesleyan University and held at the Shirk Center in Bloomington, IL.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on February 23, 2009, 09:59:01 PM
Good facility?  Good choice?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 10:23:56 PM
Quote from: sumfun on February 23, 2009, 09:59:01 PM
Good facility?  Good choice?

NOT the DeVos, but a beautiful facility (though holds only 2,600 - I have no idea whether that is plenty enough for women's Final Four?).  Bloomington-Normal has a metro area larger than Holland's, so I would assume accommodations would be fully adequate.

And IWU sure hopes to be one of the four, so that should ease the accommodation problem (though perhaps not the seating problem :D).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on February 23, 2009, 10:35:45 PM
Illinois Wesleyan has a proud athletic tradition and the Shirk Center is a beautiful facility.  There are photos available at the new IWU athletics site http://www.iwusports.com (http://www.iwusports.com) and also at Titan Q's site for IWU men's basketball, iwuhoops.com (http://iwuhoops.com).  It is possible to put in bleachers in addition to the ones in the photos.

In recent years IWU hosted the NCAA DIII indoor track championships at Shirk, and the women's track team were 2008 national champions in both indoor and outdoor track. 

Bloomington-Normal is home to Illinois State University as well as IWU, and the hotel capacity would be more than adequate for a Final Four.  I'm obviously biased, but I think it will be a terrific site.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on February 23, 2009, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 10:23:56 PM
NOT the DeVos, but a beautiful facility (though holds only 2,600 - I have no idea whether that is plenty enough for women's Final Four?). 

Attendance listed for the games last year at Hope College:
Semifinal--Howard Payne vs. Whitewater: 2372
Semifinal--Messiah vs. Oglethorpe: 2367
Third-place--Whitewater vs. Oglethorpe: 2454
Championship--Howard Payne vs. Messiah: 2621
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 11:13:24 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 23, 2009, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 23, 2009, 10:23:56 PM
NOT the DeVos, but a beautiful facility (though holds only 2,600 - I have no idea whether that is plenty enough for women's Final Four?). 

Attendance listed for the games last year at Hope College:
Semifinal--Howard Payne vs. Whitewater: 2372
Semifinal--Messiah vs. Oglethorpe: 2367
Third-place--Whitewater vs. Oglethorpe: 2454
Championship--Howard Payne vs. Messiah: 2621

The Shirk can handle that.  There is oodles of standing room around the top perimeter.  My understanding is that the fire marshal doesn't get nervous until somewhere well north of 3.000! ;)

[When I was a student we averaged a couple hundred beyond 'capacity' at the old 'Fred Young'. :D]
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: iwumichigander on February 24, 2009, 03:20:02 PM
Quote from: Hoosier Titan on February 23, 2009, 10:35:45 PM
Illinois Wesleyan has a proud athletic tradition and the Shirk Center is a beautiful facility.  There are photos available at the new IWU athletics site http://www.iwusports.com (http://www.iwusports.com) and also at Titan Q's site for IWU men's basketball, iwuhoops.com (http://iwuhoops.com).  It is possible to put in bleachers in addition to the ones in the photos.

In recent years IWU hosted the NCAA DIII indoor track championships at Shirk, and the women's track team were 2008 national champions in both indoor and outdoor track. 

Bloomington-Normal is home to Illinois State University as well as IWU, and the hotel capacity would be more than adequate for a Final Four.  I'm obviously biased, but I think it will be a terrific site.
IWU has hosted several NCAA Men's and Women's Regional and Sectional Basketball Tournament events as well as NCAA Baseball Tournament contests.
Travel is facilitated by:
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WWWRHH on February 24, 2009, 04:13:57 PM
From a geographic and facility standpoint IWU is a great choice.

However, you may want to make reservations now for 2010 since the Illinois Mennoite Relief Sale (Bloomington) and the Illinois State High School Basketball Finals (Peoria) are generally held the same weekend as the NCAA D3 basketball finals and hotel rooms are always scarce that weekend.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on February 25, 2009, 01:01:00 AM
Quote from: WWWRHH on February 24, 2009, 04:13:57 PM
From a geographic and facility standpoint IWU is a great choice.

However, you may want to make reservations now for 2010 since the Illinois Mennoite Relief Sale (Bloomington) and the Illinois State High School Basketball Finals (Peoria) are generally held the same weekend as the NCAA D3 basketball finals and hotel rooms are always scarce that weekend.

You're kidding, right?  I live here and I've never heard of the Illinois Mennonite Relief Sale, nor do lots of people stay here for the basketball tournament in Peoria.  There is plenty of lodging in B-N, and more is under construction.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WWWRHH on February 25, 2009, 09:03:47 AM
Quote from: Hoosier Titan on February 25, 2009, 01:01:00 AM
Quote from: WWWRHH on February 24, 2009, 04:13:57 PM
From a geographic and facility standpoint IWU is a great choice.

However, you may want to make reservations now for 2010 since the Illinois Mennoite Relief Sale (Bloomington) and the Illinois State High School Basketball Finals (Peoria) are generally held the same weekend as the NCAA D3 basketball finals and hotel rooms are always scarce that weekend.

You're kidding, right?  I live here and I've never heard of the Illinois Mennonite Relief Sale, nor do lots of people stay here for the basketball tournament in Peoria.  There is plenty of lodging in B-N, and more is under construction.

I am not kidding about the sale, and only half kidding about booking ahead.

http://www.illinoismccreliefsale.org/

At one time it was held in Peoria - until the high school basketball playoffs found a home at the areana there.  The sale attracts people from all over the midwest - it is surprising how many Mennonites, Amish and related groups there are, plus those wanting to purchase their goods - and it does put demands on hotel space or at least it did until very recently.  It is worth stopping by just for the pies. :)

In no way am I trying to cast dispersions on your community.  The location and good transportation links make your city a destination for events that might fly under the radar for those not affliated with the sponsoring organization, and in my travels I have found it pays to book sooner rather than later.  We have run into problems trying to find lodging when visiting friends in central IL the third weekend in March.

Perhaps the new construction will alleviate some of the bottlenecks.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 01, 2009, 10:03:41 AM
  To ease your bracketing workload, here's the Mid-Atlantic:

@Scranton
  Cabrini/Muhlenberg; Widener/Scranton

@York
  DeSales/Messiah; Moravian/York
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 01, 2009, 04:40:52 PM
Bracket Projections are up: http://www.d3hoops.com/women-final-four/09/projected.htm

Tough break for UW-Stevens Point if that's how it goes down. They win the WIAC regular season and tournament, beat Eau Claire three of four times and the get sent to Wash U. while EC stays at home.  Yikes.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: golden_dome on March 01, 2009, 05:22:42 PM
Pat,
I have a question about the projections. UTD is projected as in but MS College was not one of the teams on the final list of teams looked at?

MC was one spot behind UTD in the final regular season regional rankings, both teams have identical regional records,  we split for the season, we both lost in the first round of the ASC Tournament with MC losing to the much better team, and MC's strength of schedule numbers should be higher.

I don't know why MC wouldn't at least be in the conversation. I know you listed HSU in the final list of teams but we also should have a better strength of schedule, a much better regional record and we beat them.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2009, 05:36:36 PM
Chris, I think that MissCollege was the next Pool C bid on the table.  One more in-region win, as you might have had if you were not playing in the 8-team ASC tourney, but in the finals of the ASC-EAST Conference tourney, might have boosted you.  The loss to HPU knocks you out in this scenario.


Let's split the conference in two.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 05:44:53 PM
Remember we projected in Howard Payne with the very last C bid while that game was still going on. If HPU were on the table and got the last Pool C bid, then MC never saw the table.

Just Bill -- I caught that contradiction and re-submitted the projections a little while after the original.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 05:53:12 PM
So to finish that thought, when we went with the alternate scenario, Howard Payne winning the conference, MC got on the table when UT-Dallas was selected. But at that point there was only one bid left to be handed out.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: golden_dome on March 01, 2009, 06:19:48 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2009, 05:53:12 PM
So to finish that thought, when we went with the alternate scenario, Howard Payne winning the conference, MC got on the table when UT-Dallas was selected. But at that point there was only one bid left to be handed out.

Pat,
Thanks for the info. I think we'll be close, but regardless if it's us or another ASC team, I think we have several women's teams who could win NCAA Tourney games, and I'd hate to see teams from other regions get in with worse regional records just because of OWP and OOWP.

I think the ASC's resume the last three years is as good as any in the country the last three years, and this is a strong year from what I've seen.  I think emphasis on OWP and OOWP is great when dealing with teams in the same region, but it is just not effective when comparing teams in different regions.

I wonder if the national committee takes that into consideration when giving out Pool C bids?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 02, 2009, 01:01:35 PM
Massey rankings for the IWU/Stevens Point/Wash U/St. Benedict quad:
Massey rankings (http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cbw&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6)

#1   IWU
#3   UW-Stevens Point
#4   UW-Eau Claire
#5   UW-Whitewater
#6   Wash U
#9   St. Benedict
#13 Howard Payne
#15 Simpson

Six of the top 10--whoever emerges from this quad will surely be battle-tested.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2009, 01:23:42 PM
Quote from: Hoosier Titan on March 02, 2009, 01:01:35 PM
Massey rankings for the IWU/Stevens Point/Wash U/St. Benedict quad:
Massey rankings (http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cbw&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6)

#1   IWU
#3   UW-Stevens Point
#4   UW-Eau Claire
#5   UW-Whitewater
#6   Wash U
#9   St. Benedict
#13 Howard Payne
#15 Simpson

Six of the top 10--whoever emerges from this quad will surely be battle-tested.

That is one tough bracket!  But the women's committee still beats the hell out of the men's in 'spreading the wealth' - one bracket for the men has Massey's #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11 teams! :o  Whichever team survives that group may find the FF to be their two easiest games!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 02, 2009, 08:40:35 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 02, 2009, 01:23:42 PM
Quote from: Hoosier Titan on March 02, 2009, 01:01:35 PM
Massey rankings for the IWU/Stevens Point/Wash U/St. Benedict quad:
Massey rankings (http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cbw&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6)

#1   IWU
#3   UW-Stevens Point
#4   UW-Eau Claire
#5   UW-Whitewater
#6   Wash U
#9   St. Benedict
#13 Howard Payne
#15 Simpson

Six of the top 10--whoever emerges from this quad will surely be battle-tested.

That is one tough bracket!  But the women's committee still beats the hell out of the men's in 'spreading the wealth' - one bracket for the men has Massey's #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #11 teams! :o  Whichever team survives that group may find the FF to be their two easiest games!

I don't know the Massey rankings but based on the Week 13 D3hoops rankings, this is the section containing WashU.

1 Washington U.
2 UW-Eau Claire
3 Baldwin-Wallace
7 Capital
8 Millikin
13 UW-Oshkosh

We all know how that Final Four turned out.  Eau Claire and Baldwin Wallace should have had a chance to go to the Final Four.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 02, 2009, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 02, 2009, 08:40:35 PM

I don't know the Massey rankings but based on the Week 13 D3hoops rankings, this is the section containing WashU.

1 Washington U.
2 UW-Eau Claire
3 Baldwin-Wallace
7 Capital
8 Millikin
13 UW-Oshkosh

We all know how that Final Four turned out.  Eau Claire and Baldwin Wallace should have had a chance to go to the Final Four.

Mark Reichert,

You can't be talking about this year--what year are you talking about?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 02, 2009, 08:51:47 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 02, 2009, 08:40:35 PM
I don't know the Massey rankings but based on the Week 13 D3hoops rankings, this is the section containing WashU.

1 Washington U.
2 UW-Eau Claire
3 Baldwin-Wallace
7 Capital
8 Millikin
13 UW-Oshkosh

We all know how that Final Four turned out.  Eau Claire and Baldwin Wallace should have had a chance to go to the Final Four.
We might all know how that Final Four turned out, if we all knew you were talking about the 1999-2000 season.  And that year, B-WC lost their first game, to Calvin, so I don't know how having those other top 13 teams in their section kept them from the Final Four.  And as far as I can tell, Millikin didn't even get a bid that year.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: buf on March 02, 2009, 09:07:30 PM
WOW!  I see that all 4 UAA teams that got in are hosting this weekend.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 03, 2009, 12:47:41 PM
Here is what I wrote on the UAA board:

Quote from: Dave "d-mac" McHugh on March 02, 2009, 05:53:37 PM
Quote from: quaj on March 02, 2009, 12:33:23 PM
I was surprised as well about how many UAA schools were hosting but good luck to all the UAA teams this year. I'm looking forward to some great basketball in the Washington University Field House this weekend.

You can thank the fact that it is 2009 - an odd numbered year. Women have priority over the men in the first two rounds for hosting so NYU, Wash U, Brandies, and Rochester all got their opportunities... especially considering the fact all of those teams are in different regions! Four teams, four regions, odd numbered year, hosting chance!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 03, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
Quote from: Hoosier Titan on March 02, 2009, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 02, 2009, 08:40:35 PM

I don't know the Massey rankings but based on the Week 13 D3hoops rankings, this is the section containing WashU.

1 Washington U.
2 UW-Eau Claire
3 Baldwin-Wallace
7 Capital
8 Millikin
13 UW-Oshkosh

We all know how that Final Four turned out.  Eau Claire and Baldwin Wallace should have had a chance to go to the Final Four.

Mark Reichert,

You can't be talking about this year--what year are you talking about?

Sorry, I didn't mean to leave that out.  Mr. Collinge is correct.  I meant the 2000 tournament.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 03, 2009, 05:38:54 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 02, 2009, 08:51:47 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 02, 2009, 08:40:35 PM
I don't know the Massey rankings but based on the Week 13 D3hoops rankings, this is the section containing WashU.

1 Washington U.
2 UW-Eau Claire
3 Baldwin-Wallace
7 Capital
8 Millikin
13 UW-Oshkosh

We all know how that Final Four turned out.  Eau Claire and Baldwin Wallace should have had a chance to go to the Final Four.
We might all know how that Final Four turned out, if we all knew you were talking about the 1999-2000 season.  And that year, B-WC lost their first game, to Calvin, so I don't know how having those other top 13 teams in their section kept them from the Final Four.  And as far as I can tell, Millikin didn't even get a bid that year.

HUHHHH?!?!  ???

Baldwin-Wallace lost to the Bears in the Sectional Championship 86-71.

UW-Eau Claire lost to the Bears in the Sectional Semifinals 81-63.

Millikin lost to UW-Eau Claire in the second round 75-38, so perhaps they shouldn't have gotten a bid. :)

I did do my research before posting even if I did manage to leave out that I was talking about the 2000 Women's Tournament.  As far as the "we all know", I thought more people remembered the biggest Final Four blowout in the history of the tournament (64-30, 79-33), particularly given the talk about this years Salem Final Four perhaps being a blowout.  The games in St. Louis may not have been all that close at the end, but they were hardly blowouts.

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/wncaa00.htm

http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/00/week13.htm
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 03, 2009, 05:57:44 PM
Oops...It seems I was looking at the 1999 tournament bracket, not the 2000 bracket.  Sorry.  :-[
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on March 03, 2009, 06:44:49 PM
On the idea of tough roads. The 2006 Hope championship team beat Denison, then number 10 Capital in the first weekend of the tournament. But in their next four games the Flying Dutch beat the teams ranked 1-4 in the d3hoops poll.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 03, 2009, 09:24:20 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut (recently relocated from DC) on March 03, 2009, 06:44:49 PM
On the idea of tough roads. The 2006 Hope championship team beat Denison, then number 10 Capital in the first weekend of the tournament. But in their next four games the Flying Dutch beat the teams ranked 1-4 in the d3hoops poll.

Except I wasn't talking about tough roads, I was looking at more from the Eau Claire and Baldwin Wallace point of view, and the view of somebody who would have liked a competitive Final Four.   That Bears team wouldn't have had a tough road no matter what Sectional you put them in.   Never mind the verdict of the NCAA 25th anniversary poll or D3hoops 10th Anniversary teams, the bench played a lot of the 79-33 final, because of foul trouble for Fischer and Rodgers in the first, and then probably the score in the second.  I'd know more if I could ever find a box score on the game.

Dragging this back to the present, discussion of this year's women's Illinois Wesleyan team is the first I've seen anything close to this from the Bears Field Guide:
**************
If the entire 1999-2000 season had to be summed up in one
word, that word would be convincing. Washington U. won by
an average of 28.2 points per game and allowed no team to get
closer than 11 points. The Bears never trailed at halftime, and
were behind in the second half just once ... for 17 seconds.
**************

If I had been talking about tough roads, I would have brought up the 1998 Tournament in which WashU won its first Championship, coming out of a Sectional with these teams

Washington U.
Wisconsin-Oshkosh
Austin
Bridgewater
Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Randolph-Macon
Millikin
Christopher Newport
Beloit
Southwestern
Wheaton
Roanoke

Before beating Rowan, and then Southern Maine on its own court.

Since this seems to be before the Top 25 poll, I have no idea what the relative rankings were, but this writeup seemed to think it was tough road:

http://www.d3hoops.com/danbury/wtitle98.htm
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 03, 2009, 11:28:42 PM
P.S. I've been thinking on it, and while I remain convinced that none of the teams since 2000 are as strong as the 2000 Bears, the 1993-94 and 1994-95 Capital teams may have been.

The 1994 Tournament run was certainly "convincing"

Capital 82, Washington (Mo.) 63
Capital 72, Wheaton (Mass.) 54
Capital 89, Defiance 64
Capital 74, NYU 51
Capital 96, Penn State-Behrend 75

and the 1994-95 team went 33-0.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: monsoon on March 04, 2009, 05:17:06 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut (recently relocated from DC) on March 03, 2009, 06:44:49 PM
On the idea of tough roads. The 2006 Hope championship team beat Denison, then number 10 Capital in the first weekend of the tournament. But in their next four games the Flying Dutch beat the teams ranked 1-4 in the d3hoops poll.

And all on the road, to boot!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 04, 2009, 05:24:44 PM
Quote from: monsoon on March 04, 2009, 05:17:06 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut (recently relocated from DC) on March 03, 2009, 06:44:49 PM
On the idea of tough roads. The 2006 Hope championship team beat Denison, then number 10 Capital in the first weekend of the tournament. But in their next four games the Flying Dutch beat the teams ranked 1-4 in the d3hoops poll.

And all on the road, to boot!
"On the road" = "not at Hope"
Four of those games were at neutral locations; only Capital and DePauw were road games.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: monsoon on March 05, 2009, 11:42:11 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 04, 2009, 05:24:44 PM
Quote from: monsoon on March 04, 2009, 05:17:06 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut (recently relocated from DC) on March 03, 2009, 06:44:49 PM
On the idea of tough roads. The 2006 Hope championship team beat Denison, then number 10 Capital in the first weekend of the tournament. But in their next four games the Flying Dutch beat the teams ranked 1-4 in the d3hoops poll.

And all on the road, to boot!
"On the road" = "not at Hope"
Four of those games were at neutral locations; only Capital and DePauw were road games.

Yes - that's what I meant...  Sorry for any confusion.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 05, 2009, 08:37:11 PM
I know that the NCAA uses the "within 500 miles" rule in its pairings and site selection.  What I don't understand is how that is determined.  I have seen some conflicting information, so I figured I would bring it to the master's of the boards.

Is it 500 miles:
- From campus to campus?
- From basketball venue to basketball venue? (ie: those playing away from campus)
- As the crow flies? Or actual driving mileage?
- Is a distance of 501 miles, automatically a flight, or do they fudge it a bit?
- How do they determine the actual distance?

The NCAA Women's Basketball Handbook mentions the number, but doesn't describe it at all.  Any help would be much appreciated.

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 05, 2009, 08:44:12 PM
The NCAA uses this...

https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/TES/exec/miles

It is measured campus to campus, actual driving miles.

500+ miles means the school has the option of flying if they wanted to. I would imagine that if a school was just a little over 500, they might opt to take a bus anyway.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 06, 2009, 01:55:27 AM
Thanks JustBill.  Very helpful!

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: hope1 on March 06, 2009, 09:41:28 PM
the hope girls loooked really good tonight the inside game and the out side they are going to really tough to beat   if they win saturday  night it would be nice to host a another round home
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 06, 2009, 11:28:16 PM
Pat:

I am sorry I finally looked at your NCAA preview.  I can't believe you have Thomas Moore as the Cinderella team.  They are ranked 7th in the current poll, if they don't get to the Sweet 16 it would be a big surprise. I don't think they are much of a Cinderella team.  They would be the team most likely to disappoint if they didn't get out of the 2nd round.

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 07, 2009, 02:51:19 AM
I went a tolerably respectable 24-7 in round one, but have only one eliminated from round two (and none beyond that).  How did others do?

(I confess to following the men more closely, and did worse there - perhaps ignorance IS bliss! :o ;D)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 07, 2009, 11:16:18 AM
   I'm 24-7 with 1(DeSales) eliminated from 3rd round, also. Were u copying? :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 07, 2009, 01:23:47 PM
24-7 through the first round.  Only a long shot, Eastern Connecticut, out from my Sweet 16.  And I knew Messiah would win, but needed an upset somewhere.

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 08, 2009, 03:16:55 AM
I predict that the WashU women will be playing St. Benedict at Stevens Point (and the men will be play Wheaton at Wheaton).

Is it too rude to point out that while only one WIAC team is still playing, five UAA teams are?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 08, 2009, 03:44:18 AM
Anyone know when sectional hosting decisions are announced? 

It appears that the Messiah loss to Thomas More may have cost George Fox the chance to host this week.  From what I can tell, even though a sectional at Thomas More would allow both Hope and Oglethorpe to travel without a flight, their gym is perhaps too small to host (only 1,200).  Is this true? 

If Thomas More isn't in the running, is it safe to assume that Hope wouldn't get to host the sectional in addition to the first/second rounds and the final four?

If that's the case, it looks like the sectional may be at Oglethorpe.  This would mean only two flights would be necessary as opposed to the three needed to get teams to George Fox.  It's too bad that the NCAA doesn't award hosting honors on the most deserving schools, those with the highest seeds.  Wouldn't that be a more appropriate way to do it, instead of basing it on a penny-pinching philosophy?

Either way, the Bruins will be ready next week.  They looked really strong tonight!

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: pabegg on March 08, 2009, 07:40:21 AM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 08, 2009, 03:16:55 AM
I predict that the WashU women will be playing St. Benedict at Stevens Point (and the men will be play Wheaton at Wheaton).

Is it too rude to point out that while only one WIAC team is still playing, five UAA teams are?

Yes, the geography pretty much dictates that the two unbeatens of the midwest (St. Thomas men and Illinois Wesleyan women) are on the road, with the two WashU teams joining them.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Titan Q on March 08, 2009, 10:29:14 AM
Quote from: pabegg on March 08, 2009, 07:40:21 AM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 08, 2009, 03:16:55 AM
I predict that the WashU women will be playing St. Benedict at Stevens Point (and the men will be play Wheaton at Wheaton).

Is it too rude to point out that while only one WIAC team is still playing, five UAA teams are?

Yes, the geography pretty much dictates that the two unbeatens of the midwest (St. Thomas men and Illinois Wesleyan women) are on the road, with the two WashU teams joining them.
But while transportation cost is always huge in the D3 tournament, there are other considerations too...


Quote from: Titan Q on March 08, 2009, 09:02:26 AM
The Championships Committee has prioritized the following site-selection criteria for all championships:

1. Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations;

2. Geographical location (which may include such factors as rotation of sites, weather, accessibility, and transportation costs);

3. Seeding, and;

4. Attendance history and revenue potential, which shall be considered necessary to assure fiscal responsibility.


http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/champ_handbooks/basketball/2009/3_mbasketball_handbook.pdf

(page 7)

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 08, 2009, 12:05:49 PM
IWU Sports Updates (from the SID's office) has sent an update stating that IWU will host.  It came at 10:08 CDT.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 08, 2009, 12:12:59 PM
Do we know others yet?

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 08, 2009, 12:18:09 PM
Thomas More was announced in a Hope release.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 08, 2009, 12:22:23 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 08, 2009, 12:18:09 PM
Thomas More was announced in a Hope release.

Are individual schools notified before the general public? It would be nice to see confirmation of these sites by the NCAA.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 08, 2009, 12:23:17 PM
D3hoops has just announced IWU and Thomas More on Twitter.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 08, 2009, 12:23:54 PM
Rochester and Amherst to host the other two.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 08, 2009, 02:49:12 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 08, 2009, 03:16:55 AM
I predict that the WashU women will be playing St. Benedict at Stevens Point (and the men will be play Wheaton at Wheaton).

I was half right.  St. Benedict is more than 500 miles from IWU, so it must be the seeding overriding.

Well, the Bears will have the St. Benedict game to get reacquainted with Shirk Center, where they last played 11-18-06, but not in a game with IWU, because on 11-17 they had lost their first game of the Tip-Off Classic and the year to Depauw, which made a nice bookend for Depauw come the NCAA Championship.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 14, 2009, 12:22:34 PM
At this point, we all know that Pat's bracket is destroyed (Oglethorpe over George Fox...bah). With only one of his final four teams, left, and neither of the finalists still in it, I think it is safe to say that he won't get this year's bragging rights.  So, how is everyone else doing?

I've got 4 of 8 left, and two Final Four teams out (Whitewater and Rochester).  But both of my finalists are still alive.

Go Bruins...dominate the Dutch.

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 14, 2009, 03:34:51 PM
I've got 6 of 8 still alive, and only Rochester eliminated from the FF.  I have IWU over Hope in the title game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 14, 2009, 04:15:35 PM
  I have 3 of 8 left with only Rochester out of F4 and Hope over IWU in final.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 14, 2009, 10:03:00 PM
With the demise of IWU and Hope tonight, my bracket just went from contender to garbage. :(
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 14, 2009, 11:13:29 PM
With Fox winning I'm doing great!  8-)  And now I get a trip to Holland!  Go Bruins!

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on March 14, 2009, 11:46:41 PM
Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on March 14, 2009, 11:13:29 PM
With Fox winning I'm doing great!  8-)  And now I get a trip to Holland!  Go Bruins!

BlueZoneBruin

I bet he will be really bummed when he finds out he is headed to Michigan and not the foreign country.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 14, 2009, 11:56:00 PM
Well, that Holland would be nice too. But to be honest, I don't really care where I'm going, just that it is the Final Four and the Bruins are in it!

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: hope1 on March 15, 2009, 09:10:07 AM
why can t the ncaa  move the rounds from sweet 8 to the final 4 round to saturday afternoon istead of saturday  night  it is really fun to sit around all day in thomas and moore go shopping for 6 hours before the game starts
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on March 15, 2009, 09:30:47 AM
That quick of a turnaround would be pretty unreasonable for a team to prepare for their next opponent and possibly also hinder the quality of basketball (think the sloppy 4th and 5th overtime of 'Cuse v. UConn)... Remember this game is a lot about the student-athlete.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 15, 2009, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: hope1 on March 15, 2009, 09:10:07 AM
why can t the ncaa  move the rounds from sweet 8 to the final 4 round to saturday afternoon istead of saturday  night  it is really fun to sit around all day in thomas and moore go shopping for 6 hours before the game starts

By the way... it is Thomas More... not Thomas and Moore... sheesh!

As for your idea... Division II does that as a big weekend and I will admit I think the basketball gets worse as they get into the championship game. Also, the championship weekend in D3 features a consolation game that no matter what people say, is actually a pretty decent game (unless a team like the Hampden-Sydney men decide they don't care enough to show up). If you make it an eight-team weekend... it's one and done on a long weekend for four teams. I like the way we do it right now.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 15, 2009, 11:28:37 AM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on March 15, 2009, 09:30:47 AM
That quick of a turnaround would be pretty unreasonable for a team to prepare for their next opponent and possibly also hinder the quality of basketball (think the sloppy 4th and 5th overtime of 'Cuse v. UConn)... Remember this game is a lot about the student-athlete.

Nevermind that this is eactly what the schedule is for the Final Four and Championship game in Holland this week.  The championship game is being broadcast by someone, and as a result, the Championship game will be played at 10 a.m. PDT!  I'm excited that its gonna be on TV, but that is a bit ridiculous!

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: jagluski on March 15, 2009, 11:32:34 AM
Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on March 15, 2009, 11:28:37 AM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on March 15, 2009, 09:30:47 AM
That quick of a turnaround would be pretty unreasonable for a team to prepare for their next opponent and possibly also hinder the quality of basketball (think the sloppy 4th and 5th overtime of 'Cuse v. UConn)... Remember this game is a lot about the student-athlete.

Nevermind that this is eactly what the schedule is for the Final Four and Championship game in Holland this week.  The championship game is being broadcast by someone, and as a result, the Championship game will be played at 10 a.m. PDT!  I'm excited that its gonna be on TV, but that is a bit ridiculous!

BlueZoneBruin



Yes...but the semis are at 12pm and 2pm PDT.  It's almost the same turnaround time that the teams had at sectionals, as opposed to what you were proposing.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 15, 2009, 11:45:09 AM
Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on March 15, 2009, 11:28:37 AM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on March 15, 2009, 09:30:47 AM
That quick of a turnaround would be pretty unreasonable for a team to prepare for their next opponent and possibly also hinder the quality of basketball (think the sloppy 4th and 5th overtime of 'Cuse v. UConn)... Remember this game is a lot about the student-athlete.

Nevermind that this is eactly what the schedule is for the Final Four and Championship game in Holland this week.  The championship game is being broadcast by someone, and as a result, the Championship game will be played at 10 a.m. PDT!  I'm excited that its gonna be on TV, but that is a bit ridiculous!

BlueZoneBruin

Didn't you already say that you're going to be in Holland?  What difference does the time zone make when the teams will have traveled a couple of days earlier?

Your team is in the Final Four.  A lot of other people would like to be in your position.  Don't expect much sympathy.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 15, 2009, 11:38:50 PM
Jagluski and Hoosier Titan,

Not looking for sympathy, at all. I am very excited that our team made it to Holland, and wasn't trying to complain.  I was just trying to add to the previous post.  When I wrote that post, I hadn't been able to find the times for the semifinal games.  The turnaround shouldn't be an issue knowing that.  I was just worried that they would be evening games followed by an early afternoon final.

BlueZoneBruin

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 20, 2009, 07:13:42 PM
When is the last time the men and women teams of the same school played in the championship game?  In Division I, Connecticut played and won both in 2004, but has it happened in Division III? ???
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 20, 2009, 07:26:53 PM
It's never happened in Division III.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sac on March 21, 2009, 06:51:01 AM
Attendance listed at 1569 for game one, 1587 for the second game.  Thats about 700 less than last years games.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: hope1 on March 21, 2009, 07:37:14 AM
you sit  where you wanted to  not even half full
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 21, 2009, 02:59:33 PM
Congatulations GFU!

Final Bruins 60, Bears 53

32-0!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 21, 2009, 03:37:02 PM
Championship by Region --

1998 Wash U -- Central
1999 Wash U -- Central
2000 Wash U -- Central
2001 Wash U -- Central
2002 UWSP   --  Central
2003 Trinity TX -- South
2004 Wilmington -- Great Lakes
2005 Millikin -- Central
2006 Hope -- Great Lakes
2007 DePauw -- Great Lakes
2008 Howard Payne -- South
2009 George Fox  -- West
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sac on March 21, 2009, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 21, 2009, 03:37:02 PM
Championship by Region --

1998 Wash U -- Central
1999 Wash U -- Central
2000 Wash U -- Central
2001 Wash U -- Central
2002 UWSP   --  Central
2003 Trinity TX -- South
2004 Wilmington -- Great Lakes
2005 Millikin -- Central
2006 Hope -- Great Lakes
2007 DePauw -- Great Lakes
2008 Howard Payne -- South
2009 George Fox  -- West

Amazingly the MIAA Champion has been eliminated by 5 of the last 6 National Champions, the sixth was the National Champion, Hope in 06

04 Albion first round
05 Calvin quarterfinal
07 Calvin quarterfinal
08 Hope quarterfinal
09 Hope quarterfinal
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 21, 2009, 05:43:39 PM
Quote from: sac on March 21, 2009, 03:44:49 PM
Amazingly the MIAA Champion has been eliminated by 5 of the last 6 National Champions, the sixth was the National Champion, Hope in 06

04 Albion first round
05 Calvin quarterfinal
07 Calvin quarterfinal
08 Hope quarterfinal
09 Hope quarterfinal


Amazingly the UAA Champion has been eliminated by the national champion in 1994, 1996, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009.  They won 1997-2001.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hwbb on March 22, 2009, 08:52:27 PM
Quote from: sac on March 21, 2009, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 21, 2009, 03:37:02 PM
Championship by Region --

1998 Wash U -- Central
1999 Wash U -- Central
2000 Wash U -- Central
2001 Wash U -- Central
2002 UWSP   --  Central
2003 Trinity TX -- South
2004 Wilmington -- Great Lakes
2005 Millikin -- Central
2006 Hope -- Great Lakes
2007 DePauw -- Great Lakes
2008 Howard Payne -- South
2009 George Fox  -- West

Amazingly the MIAA Champion has been eliminated by 5 of the last 6 National Champions, the sixth was the National Champion, Hope in 06

04 Albion first round
05 Calvin quarterfinal
07 Calvin quarterfinal
08 Hope quarterfinal
09 Hope quarterfinal

Hardly suprising (either Hope or WashU being eliminated by the eventual national champion), since the Great Lakes and Central region have each had 7 champs in the last 20 years.  The South has had 2 in those 20 years, the West now 3. And the four regions on the East Coast combined, just one champ in 20 years. If Pat Coleman or Gordon Mann read this, perhaps they could give a national perspective--is D-3 women's basketball in the Midwest simply that much better than the east, or is there another explanation for this pattern?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 22, 2009, 09:05:06 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 21, 2009, 03:37:02 PM
Championship by Region -- by conference

1997 NYU -- East -- UAA
1998 Wash U -- Central -- UAA
1999 Wash U -- Central -- UAA
2000 Wash U -- Central -- UAA
2001 Wash U -- Central -- UAA
2002 UWSP   --  Central -- WIAC
2003 Trinity TX -- South -- SCAC
2004 Wilmington -- Great Lakes -- OAC
2005 Millikin -- Central -- CCIW
2006 Hope -- Great Lakes -- MIAA
2007 DePauw -- Great Lakes -- SCAC
2008 Howard Payne -- South -- ASC
2009 George Fox  -- West -- NWC
I also note that the ASC and the NWC were not D-III members before this era.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 22, 2009, 09:28:09 PM
For those who want to get a flavor for yesterday's championship, check out the Daily Dose (http://d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2009/03/21/hope-09-whodda-thunk/).  We are centralizing coverage from other outlets and added our own bonus coverage.

Hwbb:

I've certainly noticed the pattern that teams in the Central and Great Lakes regions dominate the list of national champions.  I've said on Hoopsville before that if I voted in the women's poll (I only vote in the men's), I would always have a team from the Central, Great Lakes or WIAC as the No. 1.  That would've been Hope and Wash. U for parts of this year.  Obviously, that regional bias wouldn't always prove correct (see George Fox and Howard Payne) but I do believe those teams are more likely to win a title.

A couple years ago I spoke about this with a coach whom I very much respect and who has a good feel for the Division III game at the national level.  He leads a program on the east coast and has to recruit players to it.  His theory is that the east coast regions split the talent between themselves, Division II and low level Division I (e.g. Ivy, MAAC) programs.  There are more of them in a higher concentration, dividing this talent pool.  This is particularly true among the players who are forwards and centers at the Division III level.  It's unusual to find a team on the east coast that has more than two players over six-foot that play a tough, low post style of play. 

They may have one or sometimes even two players who fit that role (Klimowicz and Gregorak for TCNJ), but not much depth behind them.  I'm also noticing that the guards for the east coast teams that advance in the tournament tend to be a little shorter and smaller than the guards of the championship teams.  You can win with smaller players who thrive on speed, long distance shooting and a transition game.  And you can win tournament games with that recipe.

But at some point in the tournament, you're going to have an off night shooting and not get in transition (like Amherst on Friday).  You're going to need a low post game, to rely on players who can scrap for rebounds and points down low.  And you're going to need depth on your roster at  the forwards or big enough guards who can do that.  And I don't see that on the east coast teams.

For what it's worth here would be my three keys to building a championship roster (and they don't all apply to all teams).  In predicting a champion, I would focus on whether they have these three elements:

* More than two six-foot players who play significant time at the forward position.  You have to have depth here that is proven by actual playing time.

* Most of your guards are at least 5-foot-8 and over.  One of them is a starter and relies on driving and scoring, not creating for other players or shooting threes.  This player can support forwards for those "grind it out" games.

* One "go to" player who can step up and carry a team in a big spot during the tournament.  I'm not a believer in the "we have lots of players who can do that" option.  Too often I see no one step up in those situations or do so once a game is out of reach.

The go-to player isn't always the obvious star, but it often is.  And it's often someone who fits the mold of item one or two above (Kristen Shielee of George Fox, Meia Daniels of Howard Payne, Liz Bondi of DePauw).

For what it's worth, George Fox has several players who fill No. 2 and conceivably No. 3.  But I don't see the obvious answer to No. 1.  That's why I'd take a long look at Hope as my preseason No. 1.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 22, 2009, 10:31:00 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 22, 2009, 09:28:09 PM

For what it's worth, George Fox has several players who fill No. 2 and conceivably No. 3.  But I don't see the obvious answer to No. 1.  That's why I'd take a long look at Hope as my preseason No. 1.
Exactly why I have to remind myself that most polls are for entertainment purposes only, especially preseason polls. The basketball polls begin to reflect actual performance sometime in January.

I think that the season George Fox had this year should increase the optimism for all those programs serious about getting better. The Bruins proved that if you (1) bring in the right mix of recruits (2) have returning players who have been under the radar work very hard to improve and (3) a coach that knows how to make every player better and understand the importance of playing as a team, a special season is possible.

All the best to the players and coaches across the country in D3. Dream big and work hard as we look forward to next season.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 23, 2009, 08:19:20 AM
I totally agree about the dividing up of the talent on the East Coast.  Kids that are attracted to the Ivys, Williams/Amherst academic-type schools are divided up among a large pool of contenders.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sac on March 23, 2009, 03:41:22 PM
Quote from: sumfun on March 23, 2009, 08:19:20 AM
I totally agree about the dividing up of the talent on the East Coast.  Kids that are attracted to the Ivys, Williams/Amherst academic-type schools are divided up among a large pool of contenders.

Also a much larger population pool.
Title: 2010 NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on February 28, 2010, 06:59:15 PM
This may have already been corrected by the time I post, but Husson is listed twice on the projected bracket by D3hoops.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: petemcb on March 01, 2010, 11:29:48 AM
Maybe their JV team had a stellar season.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 12:46:37 PM
Women's bracket posted: http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/wbkb-bracket2010.pdf
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 01, 2010, 01:29:21 PM
On Pool C's-- Williams and Southern Maine in-- Capital and Gustavus Adolphus out

NESCAC got 5 teams in-- beating the old record of 4 teams set by the UAA last year.

Gary Fifield still goes to the NCAAs with Southern Maine despite losing the Little East title game-- Little East got 2 in.

D3Hoops.com projections mistakenly did not credit Williams's victory over RPI as a victory over a regionally ranked opponent, but correctly took away Williams's victory over Skidmore as a regionally ranked opponent-- RPI's title victory in the Liberty League tournament put RPI in the final secret regional rankings for the East region.

With a record of 3-5 vs regionally ranked opponents, Williams got selected as the 5th team from the NESCAC due to their .750 regional winning percentage and strength of schedule over .600

Williams being picked as a Pool C put Southern Maine on the board from the Northeast next, and Southern Maine got one of the final Pool C picks.   
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 01, 2010, 01:37:54 PM
I know rankings don't matter, so I will leave those out...

But doesn't it seem weird that George Fox gets the #1 seed in their portion of the bracket, hosts, and plays another 2-loss team in Louisiana College, while Puget Sound (who the bruins have beat three times) plays a five-loss team in Redlands?

Thoughts?

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: weiser on March 01, 2010, 07:05:26 PM
If it indeed did come down to Capital and Williams as the last teams in and out I am shocked.

If you look at the resumes.....Williams--18-7 / Tied for 3rd in good conference  /Lost in quarterfinals of league tournament / Lost to Baldwin Wallace

Capital -- 20-8 / OAC regular season champs (outright)(pretty good conference) /  Lost in Conference tournament finals / Beat Baldwin Wallace...TWICE.

And....5 schools from a single conference......WOW.

As i said, if it did indeed come down to these two teams, not sure what the committee was looking at.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 01, 2010, 07:38:08 PM
Given those stats, I'd hate to think it came down to something as simple as one coach knows more people on the committee than the other....but could be.....or the Williams men are having a great season, so let's give the women some recognition.   Who knows, and we'll never know the real reason.  I'm a NESCAC fan and it's a very strong conference made up of the best small colleges in the country, but 5 is a lot.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sunny on March 01, 2010, 08:05:17 PM
Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on March 01, 2010, 01:37:54 PM
I know rankings don't matter, so I will leave those out...

But doesn't it seem weird that George Fox gets the #1 seed in their portion of the bracket, hosts, and plays another 2-loss team in Louisiana College, while Puget Sound (who the bruins have beat three times) plays a five-loss team in Redlands?

Thoughts?

BlueZoneBruin

That is a big head scratcher, especially considering Louisiana College was third in the south regional rankings last week and then Roanoke lost in its conference tournament, which means Louisiana College was, for all intents and purposes second.  UPS took the loss against George Fox, they were likely two or three in the West when the pairings were made.  So, the top team in the West has to play the second team in the south while the second and third best teams in the West get to play each other??  Maybe the committee thinks the time change will sufficiently soften up Louisiana College enough to make them a weaker opponent for George Fox?? :D
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 01, 2010, 08:43:37 PM
Neat videos of the Minnesota-Morris team finding out they're going to the NCAA Tournament. Apparently their coach called them to the gym and many of them didn't know why:

http://www.morris.umn.edu/athletics/View.php?itemID=10003
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 01, 2010, 09:07:52 PM
Quote from: sumfun on March 01, 2010, 07:38:08 PM
Given those stats, I'd hate to think it came down to something as simple as one coach knows more people on the committee than the other....but could be.....
Very few coaches "know more people" or command more respect than Capital's Dixie Jeffers.  I don't know why the committee made the choice they did, but it certainly wasn't for that reason.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 01, 2010, 10:21:03 PM
The great northwest is a beautiful place to live, but stinks when it comes to the distance from the rest of the D3 world. I assume geography is the only reason for the following facts.

These are teams from the same conference and when they would meet each other in the tournament.

Mary Washington/Marymount (Final 4)
McDaniel/Muhlenberg/Gettysburg  (Elite 8 between the MC's and finals against GC)
IWU/Elmhurst (Championship Game)
Messiah/Lebanon Valley  (Championship Game)
Utica/Ithaca  (Elite 8)
Moravian/Scranton (Championship Game)
Western Conn./S. Maine  (Championship Game)
Hope/Calvin  (Elite 8)
Amherst/Bowdoin/Colby/Tufts/Williams  (Sweet 16 or E8 depending schools)
Kean/William Patterson  (Championship Game)
Thomas More/Washington and Jefferson (Sweet 16)
Farmingdale/Mount St. Mary  (Elite 8)
WashU/Chicago/Rochester  (Final 4 or Championship Game)
Whitewater/Stevens Point (Championship Game)

Washington and Lee/Roanoke  (Round 2)
George Fox/Univ. Puget Sound  (Round 2)

OK, so the ODAC is in the same situation this year as the NWC. The difference is that Washington and Lee was not listed in the regional rankings going into the conference tournament. UPS and GFU were ranked #1 and #2 in the west region and the only D3 losses UPS has this year is against George Fox (3 times).

This used to bother me a little, but after listing all the other conferences with multiple entries and noticing that many teams don't see each other until deep in the tournament, it is hard to accept that something can't be done for the Northwest Conference.

My other rant is that none of the other teams in the tournament with 2 losses or less have to play another school with less than 4 losses. I realize that the overall record does not tell the whole story as to a team's strength, but still both George Fox and Louisiana College have to be thinking the first round pairing did not exactly reward them for outstanding seasons.

Thanks for listening.  :-\
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2010, 10:25:00 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 01, 2010, 08:43:37 PM
Neat videos of the Minnesota-Morris team finding out they're going to the NCAA Tournament. Apparently their coach called them to the gym and many of them didn't know why:

http://www.morris.umn.edu/athletics/View.php?itemID=10003
Twice he used the term, "national tournament".
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2010, 10:34:47 PM
Quote from: BruinFan on March 01, 2010, 10:21:03 PM
The great northwest is a beautiful place to live, but stinks when it comes to the distance from the rest of the D3 world. I assume geography is the only reason for the following facts.

These are teams from the same conference and when they would meet each other in the tournament.

Mary Washington/Marymount (Final 4)
McDaniel/Muhlenberg/Gettysburg  (Elite 8 between the MC's and finals against GC)
IWU/Elmhurst (Championship Game)
Messiah/Lebanon Valley  (Championship Game)
Utica/Ithaca  (Elite 8)
Moravian/Scranton (Championship Game)
Western Conn./S. Maine  (Championship Game)
Hope/Calvin  (Elite 8)
Amherst/Bowdoin/Colby/Tufts/Williams  (Sweet 16 or E8 depending schools)
Kean/William Patterson  (Championship Game)
Thomas More/Washington and Jefferson (Sweet 16)
Farmingdale/Mount St. Mary  (Elite 8)
WashU/Chicago/Rochester  (Final 4 or Championship Game)
Whitewater/Stevens Point (Championship Game)

Washington and Lee/Roanoke  (Round 2)
George Fox/Univ. Puget Sound  (Round 2)

OK, so the ODAC is in the same situation this year as the NWC. The difference is that Washington and Lee was not listed in the regional rankings going into the conference tournament. UPS and GFU were ranked #1 and #2 in the west region and the only D3 losses UPS has this year is against George Fox (3 times).

This used to bother me a little, but after listing all the other conferences with multiple entries and noticing that many teams don't see each other until deep in the tournament, it is hard to accept that something can't be done for the Northwest Conference.

My other rant is that none of the other teams in the tournament with 2 losses or less have to play another school with less than 4 losses. I realize that the overall record does not tell the whole story as to a team's strength, but still both George Fox and Louisiana College have to be thinking the first round pairing did not exactly reward them for outstanding seasons.

Thanks for listening.  :-\
I have to believe that part of the reason that the NWC moved to the NCAA was that the Presidents got tired of raising their own money to send teams to the NAIA post-season events.

This discussion about Louisiana College and the failure of the ASC to get a Pool C bid was that the conference was down this season, and that Roanoke was above anyone else in the region.  I heard conjecture that Roanoke sat at the table thru more than 15 rounds.

If GFU makes it to the next round, and the other games fall right, then there is a chance for GFU to host the Sweet 16.  I honestly believe that that is how HPU won its national championship in 2008, by catching Desales and Hope at home in the second weekend.

The national pundits believe that the ASC is down this season, so Lousiana College's record may be a little misleading.  I do not believe that the McMurry team that took LC to OT in the conference playoff finals is nearly as good as the 2007 McMurry team that lost to UPS 59-47 in the first round.

We shall see.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 01, 2010, 10:42:59 PM
George Fox, like many others now, does provide video of their games. So assuming that the technology works OK and there aren't any NCAA restrictions against it, those in the ASC can watch the game online.

Tip-off will be 7 PM PST.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: weiser on March 02, 2010, 07:06:22 AM
I know it is time to move on and start looking at the match-ups but I would love to have someone try to explain to me Williams over Capital.

In doing more research, here is what is true
Williams finished Tied for 3rd in a 10 team conference......however there conference schedule is only 9 games.  AND, they lost in the quarterfinals of their tournament.....to what seemingly was the ONLY team from that conference that did not get a bid.

Capital wins Conference (15-3) and loses to the number 2 seed in the conference finals.  (Mount Union)

Any thoughts or explanations would be much appreciated.   Also....hypothetical question......If Cap wins the OAC tourney.......Does Mount Union 24-4 get an at large???
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 02, 2010, 11:37:43 AM
Weiser--

When considering Pool C bids, the NCAA doesn't care where a team finishes in the conference standings.   The whole resume, both conference and non-conference in region games is taken into account when looking at a tourney resume for Pool C consideration.  All the NCAA cares about those teams is that those teams did not get the automatic bids from their respective conferences.

See the UAA last year on the women's side for an example-- Last year, the second, third, and fifth place teams in the UAA  (Rochester, NYU, Brandeis)  got Pool C bids, while the fourth place team, Chicago, did not.

Update:  In 2008-2009, Rochester went 22-3 in region  (11-3 UAA, 10-0 in region non conference), NYU went 21-4 in region  (10-4 UAA, 11-0 in region non conference),  Brandeis went 17-7 in region  (7-7 UAA, 10-0 in region non conference), and Chicago went 17-8 in region  (8-6 UAA, 9-2 in region non conference).

That being said, here was Capital's tourney resume at the selection process

BTW, the loss to Mt Union in the OAC title game dropped Capital out of the regional rankings in the Great Lakes region and Capital was not regionally ranked when it came time to select Pool C's.

Capital  (Not regionally ranked in Great Lakes)

19-7 in region-- .731 regional percentage

Strength of schedule-- .543 according to the NCAA

Record vs regionally ranked opponents  1-3 (.250)  (NCAA had it at 0-1-- I don't know where they got that number).

Win vs Mt Union

Losses vs Washington and Jefferson (once),  Mt Union (twice)

Compare that to Williams's tourney resume

Williams  18-6 in region  .750 regional percentage  (#5 in Northeast at time of selection)

Strength of schedule-- .619

Record vs regionally ranked opponents is 3-4  (.375)

Wins over Rensselaer  (RPI regionally ranked in the East region-- within 200 miles of Williams), Bowdoin, Tufts

Losses vs W. Connecticut, Colby, Amherst (2 losses)  (Eastern Connecticut dropped out of the final regional rankings as a result of their loss in the Little East tourney).

On primary criteria,  Williams gets the Pool C, and it is not close.

D3Hoops.com erroneously had Williams at 2-5-- still having Eastern Connecticut regionally ranked and dropping Skidmore from the regional rankings.   While the dropping of Skidmore as a regionally ranked win was correct, this meant that RPI got regionally ranked in the East as a result of winning the Liberty League AQ.  Williams played RPI in December and got the victory then.  D3Hoops.com should have credited the Williams win over RPI as a regionally ranked victory, preserving the 3 wins for Williams vs regionally ranked opposition.

Had Williams truly been 2-5 vs regionally ranked opposition, I could have seen going to secondary criteria to make the decision between Williams and Capital.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: saratoga on March 02, 2010, 12:20:54 PM
Not that it makes a difference at this point but, I'm just wondering why Scranton wasn't sent to either Ithaca's or Messiah's site?
Since Desales has a record of 18-9, I could see them being sent to Marymount & the Lady Royals going to the much closer Ithaca site. Or, instead of the first time tourney bound Neumann team getting to be within an hour or so of their campus, send them off to the DC area & put the Lady Royals back in a matchup with the Lady Falcons.
Just wondering what the rationale might have been. I'm sure many teams have similar questions. Good luck to all.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 02, 2010, 12:26:01 PM
As for Mt Union, the fact that the OAC plays 18 conference games would have hurt Mt Union's Pool C chances.

Mt Union did not play any regionally ranked opponents outside of conference, and therefore the only regionally ranked opponent on Mt Union's schedule this season would have been Capital as of the OAC tourney.

Had Mt Union lost to Capital in the OAC final,  Mt Union would have been at 21-5 in region with a strength of schedule just barely over .500 and a 1-2 record vs regionally ranked opposition  (the 1-2 being vs Capital)

In this regard, Mt Union in the Great Lakes would have been just like Babson in the Northeast--  Both teams having a great in region winning percentage, but not a strong one due to the fact that most of the games played on both team schedules were conference games with no regionally ranked opponents in the few non conference games that were played.

In short, only the winner of the OAC tourney would have made it to the NCAAs in my opinion-- and if the OAC were a South region conference, then Mt Union may have made a better case of being in an isolated geographical region in Division III women's hoop.--
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 02, 2010, 03:40:08 PM
Quote from: saratoga on March 02, 2010, 12:20:54 PM
Not that it makes a difference at this point but, I'm just wondering why Scranton wasn't sent to either Ithaca's or Messiah's site?
Since Desales has a record of 18-9, I could see them being sent to Marymount & the Lady Royals going to the much closer Ithaca site. Or, instead of the first time tourney bound Neumann team getting to be within an hour or so of their campus, send them off to the DC area & put the Lady Royals back in a matchup with the Lady Falcons.
Just wondering what the rationale might have been. I'm sure many teams have similar questions. Good luck to all.
They were accommodating me, since I'll only have a 45 min trip, instead of 6 hours ;)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 02, 2010, 03:41:34 PM
Deis -- we would have had to have known the contents of the secret regional ranking at that point in order to do so. Our secret regional ranking had NYU in that spot.

I think when you get to the bottom of Pool C, secondary criteria should always be in play.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: saratoga on March 05, 2010, 03:45:29 PM
Ronk: and to think I believed the selection committee had it wrong. Good for you...enjoy!
From what I hear, you'll need to get there early as the Marymount gym is supposidly a band box.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on March 05, 2010, 06:20:19 PM
Wash U in a much tighter game than I would have expected late.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 06, 2010, 06:46:23 PM
I believed it when I saw the bracket, and nothing happened in the first round to change my mind. I think the championship game will be played between the winners of the bottom brackets.

I just think each of those brackets have 2-3 teams that will prevail over any of the teams that come out of the upper brackets.

I'm looking forward to the many games about to be played tonight. Best of luck to all.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 07, 2010, 06:46:03 AM
Sectionals will be announced today:

Here are the sites that, by seeding, I feel should be most likely to host sectionals-- 3 of them are not even close, but I am not sure if the NCAA will fly 3 teams to the 4th sectional site.

3 of the 4 sectional sites announced today should be Amherst, Kean, and Illinois Wesleyan.

By seeding, the fourth site should be in Oregon at George Fox, since the George Fox Bruins have only lost 1 regional game all season (to Cal Lutheran), while Wash U has lost two in-region games (at Illinois Wesleyan and at Rochester, respectively.)

Question is:  Does the NCAA pay to fly 3 teams to Oregon this year?   In the interests of a competitive bracket, the NCAA should do so--  Giving the 4th sectional site to Wash U may make more sense economically, but it does not make as much sense from a competitive standpoint.

Updated answer as of 11:20 AM Eastern:  NCAA has just notified Wash U that they will be hosting a sectional.   It made more sense to fly 2 teams and bus Carthage than to fly 3 teams to Oregon from an economic standpoint.

Amherst has been notified that they are hosting a sectional as well.

The sectional hosts will probably be Amherst, Kean, Illinois Wesleyan and Wash U.

However, this is bad for George Fox from a competitive standpoint--  Wash U has to be a favorite now to win out next weekend and to go back to the Final Four at Illinois Wesleyan, as it is very hard to defeat the Bears in St Louis even if you are the defending national champion and have a 6-5 freshman center in the paint.

Note:  Edited for clarity.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 07, 2010, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on March 07, 2010, 06:46:03 AM
Sectionals will be announced today:

Here are the sites that, by seeding, I feel should be most likely to host sectionals-- 3 of them are not even close, but I am not sure if the NCAA will fly 3 teams to the 4th sectional site.

3 of the 4 sectional sites announced today should be Amherst, Kean, and Illinois Wesleyan.

By seeding, the fourth site should be in Oregon at George Fox, since the George Fox Bruins have only lost 1 regional game all season (to Cal Lutheran), while Wash U has lost two in-region games (at Illinois Wesleyan and at Rochester, respectively.)

Question is:  Does the NCAA pay to fly 3 teams to Oregon this year?   In the interests of a competitive bracket, the NCAA should do so--  Giving the 4th sectional site to Wash U may make more sense economically, but it does not make as much sense from a competitive standpoint.

Updated answer as of 11:20 AM Eastern:  NCAA has just notified Wash U that they will be hosting a sectional.   It made more sense to fly 2 teams and bus Carthage than to fly 3 teams to Oregon from an economic standpoint.

Amherst has been notified that they are hosting a sectional as well.

The sectional hosts will probably be Amherst, Kean, Illinois Wesleyan and Wash U.

However, this is bad for George Fox from a competitive standpoint--  Wash U has to be a favorite now to go back to the Final Four at Illinois Wesleyan next weekend, as it is very hard to defeat the Bears in St Louis even if you are the defending national champion and have a 6-5 freshman center in the paint.

Deis,
Thanks for the supportive rationale for George Fox hosting a sectional. As long as the current criteria exists with geography and travel considerations, it appears it will take 3 other teams in the sectional being all 500+ miles from each other before they would fly everyone to Oregon.  This is not a reality that those in the Northwest like living with, but what can you do? The common sentiment last night after defeating the University of Puget Sound for the 4th time this year (and 12 out of 15 over the last four years) was that the Bruins would be traveling to St. Louis.

I wonder how much money is saved in the grand scheme of everything between 3 flights versus 2 flights and 1 bus trip?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 07, 2010, 12:27:55 PM
I wish that the ASC would split into 2 conferences so as to throw 2 Pool A teams into the mix.  That might give one more travel orphan, in turn, causing the NCAA to deal with 2 travel orphans to throw into the sectional bracketing.

A "perfect storm" allowed HPU to host in 2008.  If GFU were undefeated against D-3, that might have made a stronger case for GFU to host, when the brackets were being devised.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dothedew on March 07, 2010, 12:46:52 PM
Ill-Wes to also host. So THAT is what it would feel like as a Hope fan if the NCAA had given HOPE a chance to host all the way thru during the 2 years finals were in Holland....grrrr.
Oh well, LET'S GO DUTCH!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: iwumichigander on March 07, 2010, 04:16:42 PM
Quote from: BruinFan on March 07, 2010, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on March 07, 2010, 06:46:03 AM
Sectionals will be announced today:

Here are the sites that, by seeding, I feel should be most likely to host sectionals-- 3 of them are not even close, but I am not sure if the NCAA will fly 3 teams to the 4th sectional site.

3 of the 4 sectional sites announced today should be Amherst, Kean, and Illinois Wesleyan.

By seeding, the fourth site should be in Oregon at George Fox, since the George Fox Bruins have only lost 1 regional game all season (to Cal Lutheran), while Wash U has lost two in-region games (at Illinois Wesleyan and at Rochester, respectively.)

Question is:  Does the NCAA pay to fly 3 teams to Oregon this year?   In the interests of a competitive bracket, the NCAA should do so--  Giving the 4th sectional site to Wash U may make more sense economically, but it does not make as much sense from a competitive standpoint.

Updated answer as of 11:20 AM Eastern:  NCAA has just notified Wash U that they will be hosting a sectional.   It made more sense to fly 2 teams and bus Carthage than to fly 3 teams to Oregon from an economic standpoint.

Amherst has been notified that they are hosting a sectional as well.

The sectional hosts will probably be Amherst, Kean, Illinois Wesleyan and Wash U.

However, this is bad for George Fox from a competitive standpoint--  Wash U has to be a favorite now to go back to the Final Four at Illinois Wesleyan next weekend, as it is very hard to defeat the Bears in St Louis even if you are the defending national champion and have a 6-5 freshman center in the paint.

Deis,
Thanks for the supportive rationale for George Fox hosting a sectional. As long as the current criteria exists with geography and travel considerations, it appears it will take 3 other teams in the sectional being all 500+ miles from each other before they would fly everyone to Oregon.  This is not a reality that those in the Northwest like living with, but what can you do? The common sentiment last night after defeating the University of Puget Sound for the 4th time this year (and 12 out of 15 over the last four years) was that the Bruins would be traveling to St. Louis.

I wonder how much money is saved in the grand scheme of everything between 3 flights versus 2 flights and 1 bus trip?
Savings assuming no group discount fares, leave Thursday and return Sunday on same airline would approximate $ 48,475

Roughly without transportation to and from airport, it worked out to $29,765 to bus Carthage and fly G Fox and Mt Union to Wash U.;  to fly Wash U, Carthage and Mt Union to G Fox in Eugene - $78, 240

In 2008-09 Fiscal Year, the NCAA, net of revenues, absorbed $730, 339 of Division III women's tournament expenses.  From a budget perspective, tournament location is an easy choice - Wash U.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on March 07, 2010, 06:56:20 PM
I realize this will sound like sour grapes coming from a Hope fan but I do believe the NCAA really needs to consider a rule that prevents a team from hosting both the regionals, sectionals and Final Four. It creates a competitive disadvantage to the other teams.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 80sshorts on March 07, 2010, 07:51:32 PM
And it would've been even cheaper to bus two teams to kenosha and fly in George Fox, apparently that never crossed the committee's mind...
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 07, 2010, 07:52:09 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on March 07, 2010, 06:56:20 PM
I realize this will sound like sour grapes coming from a Hope fan but I do believe the NCAA really needs to consider a rule that prevents a team from hosting both the regionals, sectionals and Final Four. It creates a competitive disadvantage to the other teams.

As sac (a Hope fan) just posted on the MIAA board, in 1990 Hope won 'the big doorstop' without ever leaving Holland.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 07, 2010, 08:02:12 PM
Either don't allow to host all three weekends or pick neutral site for the Final Four.  Can't help if it's near a school and one school has many more fans show up, but on the home floor is a huge advantage.  Also can't account for all the spring breaks and which schools will have kids and fans around.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on March 07, 2010, 11:15:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 07, 2010, 07:52:09 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on March 07, 2010, 06:56:20 PM
I realize this will sound like sour grapes coming from a Hope fan but I do believe the NCAA really needs to consider a rule that prevents a team from hosting both the regionals, sectionals and Final Four. It creates a competitive disadvantage to the other teams.

As sac (a Hope fan) just posted on the MIAA board, in 1990 Hope won 'the big doorstop' without ever leaving Holland.

I did not know that as I was far too young to have any real knowledge of Hope, D3 hoops or anything like that in 1990. That really does not change my perception though. Admittedly easier to say 20 years in hindsight but it wasn't really fair in for the other teams in the tourney in 1990 that Hope was able to host all the way through.

My "simple" solution would be that assuming the team hosting the Final Four makes the tournament and would be in a position to host that before the tournament starts they would have to decide which weekend they rather host, 1st or 2nd weekend.  Obviously that requires a lot of questions and gambles but it prevents a team from hosting all three weekends while still giving a team that may be in a position to do so the ability to at least choose the weekend they rather host. If you chose the second weekend, you sure better win the first weekend though.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 07, 2010, 11:24:48 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on March 07, 2010, 11:15:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 07, 2010, 07:52:09 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on March 07, 2010, 06:56:20 PM
I realize this will sound like sour grapes coming from a Hope fan but I do believe the NCAA really needs to consider a rule that prevents a team from hosting both the regionals, sectionals and Final Four. It creates a competitive disadvantage to the other teams.

As sac (a Hope fan) just posted on the MIAA board, in 1990 Hope won 'the big doorstop' without ever leaving Holland.

I did not know that as I was far too young to have any real knowledge of Hope, D3 hoops or anything like that in 1990. That really does not change my perception though. Admittedly easier to say 20 years in hindsight but it wasn't really fair in for the other teams in the tourney in 1990 that Hope was able to host all the way through.

My "simple" solution would be that assuming the team hosting the Final Four makes the tournament and would be in a position to host that before the tournament starts they would have to decide which weekend they rather host, 1st or 2nd weekend.  Obviously that requires a lot of questions and gambles but it prevents a team from hosting all three weekends while still giving a team that may be in a position to do so the ability to at least choose the weekend they rather host. If you chose the second weekend, you sure better win the first weekend though.

I've got no real problem with your suggestion.  Just wanted to note that, from a Hope fan, it WAS (hypocritical) sour grapes! :D

Actually, I hoped the Sectional would be in Holland - I would have been there!  Bloomington is just too far away to go two weekends in a row. :(
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Erm Schmigget on March 08, 2010, 01:42:23 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 07, 2010, 07:52:09 PM
Quote from: ChicagoHopeNut on March 07, 2010, 06:56:20 PM
I realize this will sound like sour grapes coming from a Hope fan but I do believe the NCAA really needs to consider a rule that prevents a team from hosting both the regionals, sectionals and Final Four. It creates a competitive disadvantage to the other teams.

As sac (a Hope fan) just posted on the MIAA board, in 1990 Hope won 'the big doorstop' without ever leaving Holland.

Different era.  Kinda hard to compare.  Under the current system, with pre-determined Final Four sites, the NCAA has an easy task with the rule CHN suggests.  (Hope also played, at that time, on a floor that would be too short for any NCAA Tourney games.)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bearsfan on March 08, 2010, 07:53:41 AM
Quote from: 80sshorts on March 07, 2010, 07:51:32 PM
And it would've been even cheaper to bus two teams to kenosha and fly in George Fox, apparently that never crossed the committee's mind...

I would be fairly certain that it did cross their mind but as earlier posts mention there are 4 criteria of which another major one is seeding. George Fox got eliminated based on the high cost despite being a higher seed but Wash U was above Carthage in the final regional rankings and since cost was probably not drastically different, the committee most likely decided it did not want to send both the teams to Carthage based on the seeding criteria. Would also suspect that "flying into Kenosha" means flying into Chicago and bussing to Kenosha which adds more cost over flying into St. Louis where the airport is less than 10 minutes from the site. The additional cost of the bus trip from Chicago might have made the costs much closer in comparison.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on March 08, 2010, 08:59:47 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 07, 2010, 11:24:48 PM

I've got no real problem with your suggestion.  Just wanted to note that, from a Hope fan, it WAS (hypocritical) sour grapes! :D


I recognize most complaints from Hope fans on this issue will be taken with a grain of salt, which isn't unexpected in light of the circumstances. However, I do feel pretty strongly that this set up is not fair and should not be allowed to happen again in the future. It's going to happen this year, fine. But I really think the NCAA should institute a rule to ensure this is the last time.

I'll try to remember bring it up randomly next year when hopefully everyone will accept it is not in reaction to this coming weekend.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bearsfan on March 08, 2010, 09:54:52 AM
Wasn't part of the original reason for selecting a Final Four site in advance rather than choosing a host school from the four participants to assure that the tournament would be fairer and make sure that one team could not host throughout as was occuring frequently? If so, seems to contradict the original purpose to allow one team to host. I agree with a lot of the other suggestions to make it a rule that if you host the Final Four atleast one weekend has to be on the road. Even the supposedly easier first and second rounds would add a little bit of fairness to the mix. A great team that is deserving of winning playing at home in the sectionals and Final Four should be able to win the first and second round on the road. I have no doubt IWU would have still won their first and second round games this year if they had been on the road, but atleast it would add a little more sense of fairness back into the mix.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Title9Fan on March 08, 2010, 10:11:34 AM
Do we know when they will announce Friday's game times? 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 08, 2010, 12:38:58 PM
I would not worry too much about it Hope College fans.  Illinois Wesleyan is beatable at home in tournament play as evidenced by the last two, or is it three postseasons?

[Please note: the message above is light-hearted trash talk from a fan who is feeling a little blue after the game on Saturday.  Illinois Wesleyan is the favorite, at home, neutral, or away, on the roof of the Beer Nuts factory or in a bombed-out parking lot in downtown Belgrade.  The Titans are the team to beat.]
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 09, 2010, 04:43:26 PM
The games will be played at 5 pm and 7 pm central time.  Hope plays Marymount first.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 09, 2010, 05:17:51 PM
Quote from: WUH on March 08, 2010, 12:38:58 PM
I would not worry too much about it Hope College fans.  Illinois Wesleyan is beatable at home in tournament play as evidenced by the last two, or is it three postseasons?

[Please note: the message above is light-hearted trash talk from a fan who is feeling a little blue after the game on Saturday.  Illinois Wesleyan is the favorite, at home, neutral, or away, on the roof of the Beer Nuts factory or in a bombed-out parking lot in downtown Belgrade.  The Titans are the team to beat.]

Your point about the past two seasons is one I was tempted to make over the past few days, WUH.  (Three years ago the IWU women lost on the road in Iowa in a blizzard).  As Titan Q has pointed out, road wins are often the sweetest.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 11, 2010, 06:23:58 AM
The following women's sectionals are the sectionals whose games will be carried on NCAA TV this weekend.  NCAA TV is the NCAA's official on-line streaming player-- the same player used for the selection announcments last week.   Videocasts coming from these sectionals will be directly produced by the NCAA and most likely staffed by D3Hoops.com personnel for play-by-play and commentary:

(1)  The sectional at Amherst-- Friday's games in that sectional are Babson v Gettysburg and Amherst v Williams, with the winners meeting on Saturday.

(2)  The sectional at Illinois Wesleyan-- Friday's games in that sectional are Hope v Marymount and Illinois Wesleyan v UW-Stevens Point, with the winners meeting on Saturday.

The NCAA player can be found at http://all-access.cbssports.com/player.html?code=ncaa

The other two sectionals will most likely be video streamed as well, but these will be on other video streaming players.

Note:  Post modified to provide direct link to NCAA TV web streaming player.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 11, 2010, 09:35:00 AM
The Washington University sectional will be streaming online through the usual means: http://www.stretchinternet.com/wustlschedule.html

For more information, including links to a preview and live stats, click here: http://bearsports.wustl.edu/releases/2010NCAASectional.html
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 13, 2010, 12:10:07 PM
Quote from: BruinFan on March 06, 2010, 06:46:23 PM
I believed it when I saw the bracket, and nothing happened in the first round to change my mind. I think the championship game will be played between the winners of the bottom brackets.

I just think each of those brackets have 2-3 teams that will prevail over any of the teams that come out of the upper brackets.


I'm still standing by my original statement.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 13, 2010, 12:39:52 PM
Quote from: BruinFan link=topic=6278.msg1189876#msg1189876
I just think each of those brackets have 2-3 teams that will prevail over any of the teams that come out of the upper brackets.


I agree with your prediction and have a prediction of my own: at the end of the weekend, I will have watch two great Women's Basketball games and both will be more enjoyable than most every Men's Basketball games I have watched this year!  Go Women!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dothedew on March 15, 2010, 11:54:13 AM
The Hope website says that Hope is the second game at 7pm CT, 8pm ET???
With the other final 4 at 5pm, 6 ET?

Please advise Pat.

Thanks!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dothedew on March 15, 2010, 01:21:40 PM
I just received conformation that Hope is the SECOND game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 17, 2010, 01:42:15 PM
Quick Question: with Washington University and Rochester on opposite sides of the bracket, and both schools possessing the talent to win on Friday, how often do we find same-conference schools competing in the championship?

This is the first year I have paid close attention to the details, but it seems like the answer would be not very often.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 17, 2010, 01:51:01 PM
It has never happened in D-III women's basketball.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 17, 2010, 02:03:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 17, 2010, 01:51:01 PM
It has never happened in D-III women's basketball.

Thank you!  Very interesting...we will have to wait and see if the UAA can get it done.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on March 17, 2010, 02:55:09 PM
Quote from: WUH on March 17, 2010, 02:03:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 17, 2010, 01:51:01 PM
It has never happened in D-III women's basketball.

Thank you!  Very interesting...we will have to wait and see if the UAA can get it done.

That....would be sweet indeed
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: jagluski on March 18, 2010, 12:40:50 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on March 17, 2010, 02:55:09 PM
Quote from: WUH on March 17, 2010, 02:03:24 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 17, 2010, 01:51:01 PM
It has never happened in D-III women's basketball.

Thank you!  Very interesting...we will have to wait and see if the UAA can get it done.

That....would be sweet indeed

It has happened previously in the semifinals...I remember a Wash U-NYU semifinal a few years back.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Titan Q on March 19, 2010, 08:13:40 AM
Nice Final Four story from the Bloomington Pantagraph...

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_fef8dd2c-3303-11df-b092-001cc4c002e0.html
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Titan Q on March 19, 2010, 08:14:45 AM
And more of a basketball story...

http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/basketball/women/article_e4053ae2-32ef-11df-9fc9-001cc4c002e0.html
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 19, 2010, 08:13:40 AM
Nice Final Four story from the Bloomington Pantagraph...

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_fef8dd2c-3303-11df-b092-001cc4c002e0.html

These are great stories.  Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on March 19, 2010, 06:00:46 PM
Based on the live video it looks like WashU has a decent crowd behind their bench.  Small crowds for Amherst and Rochester. Hope has a large crowd there (compared to the other schools) already despite being the late game.

GO HOPE!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ChicagoHopeNut on March 19, 2010, 06:02:35 PM
And we have a frozen clock so they can't start the first game....hahaha
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 06:22:09 PM
Am I the only one having problems with the All-Access Streaming Video?  Maybe its better that I cannot watch what is going on.  The Bears with the slowest start of the season in the games I have seen this season.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 06:32:11 PM
With 7+ to go in the first half, WashU down, 20-10.  WashU shooting <18% from the floor, and has been outrebounded, 20-9.  So far, it's all Amherst, but I suspect it will tighten up.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 06:38:53 PM
My suspicion was justified even more quickly than I expected, as WashU quickly made it 22-18!  Now 24-18 w/ 2:31 to go.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 06:40:04 PM
26-18. The Bears need to get another stop and finish strong.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 06:46:41 PM
28-18.  So much for finishing strong.  I know one thing, I would not want to be in the Bears locker room right now.  The Bears played much, much better in the second half against Mount Union and George Fox.  We will see what happens in the second.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 07:10:03 PM
The Bears getting outplayed in every way, and getting no love from the officials.  Down 10 points again.  McFarlin has to get going inside, Unruh outside.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 07:27:21 PM
Am I only the only one who thinks that the Shirk Center has an odd buzzer?  Seven Point Game! 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 07:29:35 PM
Bears within 1!  Maybe I need to migrate back to the UAA thread.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 07:35:26 PM
All tied up (at 60) with >4 to go!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 07:37:07 PM
First lead of the night for the Bears!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 07:44:19 PM
Hoover with the worst play ever, bailed out by a traveling Lord Jeff.  4.4 seconds to go with Washington University to take the last shot for the win.  Otherwise, overtime.

Edit: not the worst play ever, but not exactly the quality shot one would have hoped for.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 07:45:38 PM
Overtime!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 07:46:28 PM
Quote from: WUH on March 19, 2010, 07:37:07 PM
First lead of the night for the Bears!

Yeah, on two FTs at the 3:02 mark.

Now tied w/ :04 remaining (at 64).  Now, going to OT!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 07:51:42 PM
Bears starting to assert themselves in a major way, in control in overtime.  McFarlin looking great.  Bears on a 9-0 run.  Oh, how the tables have turned.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 07:58:17 PM
WOW!  With <2 to go, WashU is 12-0 in OT! :o
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 08:02:43 PM
Washington University is about to get it done.  The starters are out.  Amherst falls apart in overtime.  Congratulations Bears!

Rochester...time to get it done tonight against Hope College.  

Yeah, no need for the crowd to cheer "overrated" but the crowd is excited, knowing full well how this game could have gone.

Sounds like the "Na, na, na...you suck" cheer started.  The Bomb Squad must have made the trip.  Sorry Amherst.  Not cool, I know.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 08:07:41 PM
Amherst finally gets two, but the Bears get four more.

Congrats to WashU - with 1:09 to go, this one is in the barn.

WUH, saw your post just before I hit 'post'.  Gonna have to disagree with you on the second game - Go Hope!

And, despite evidence to the contrary, I STILL say IWU was the best team in the country; alas, UWSP won the rematch by one. :(  (But they beat WashU and also beat the only team to beat Hope two out of three times! :D)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 09:28:02 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 08:07:41 PM
Gonna have to disagree with you on the second game - Go Hope!

And, despite evidence to the contrary, I STILL say IWU was the best team in the country; alas, UWSP won the rematch by one.  But they beat WashU and also beat the only team to beat Hope two out of three times!

I understand your passion for Hope.  But, someone has to pull for Rochester.

And, there is loads of evidence that would suggest that Illinois Weslyan is the best team in the nation.  The best team does not always win.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 09:32:21 PM
Quote from: WUH on March 19, 2010, 09:28:02 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 08:07:41 PM
Gonna have to disagree with you on the second game - Go Hope!

And, despite evidence to the contrary, I STILL say IWU was the best team in the country; alas, UWSP won the rematch by one.  But they beat WashU and also beat the only team to beat Hope two out of three times!

I understand your passion for Hope.  But, someone has to pull for Rochester.

And, there is loads of evidence that would suggest that Illinois Weslyan is the best team in the nation.  The best team does not always win.

My passion for Hope is strictly geographic (and knowing some of their fans).  My passion is for IWU.

Your last sentence, alas, is true. :(
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 09:33:37 PM
Hope up 40-30 at the half.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on March 19, 2010, 09:39:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 09:33:37 PM
Hope up 40-30 at the half.

U of R has Hope right where they want them.........
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 09:45:26 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready on March 19, 2010, 09:39:51 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 19, 2010, 09:33:37 PM
Hope up 40-30 at the half.

U of R has Hope right where they want them.........

Will this be in the next edition of "Famous Last Words"? ;D
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WUPHF on March 19, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready link=topic=6278.msg1191999#msg1191999U of R has Hope right where they want them.........

Off the court, experiencing technical difficulties maybe?  What is the deal with the Shirk Center tonight?

OK, Rochester, let's regroup and get this done.

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: HopeConvert on March 19, 2010, 10:06:14 PM
Bank of lights went out. Not making things any easier for this game's winner.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: HopeConvert on March 19, 2010, 10:09:09 PM
Oh great. Now internet trouble.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: HopeConvert on March 19, 2010, 10:29:48 PM
No continuity to this game. Argh.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: HopeConvert on March 19, 2010, 10:54:55 PM
Should be a good one tomorrow. Let's Go Hope!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Titan Q on March 19, 2010, 11:05:36 PM
Final Four-related article...

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_7490d6c0-33cc-11df-9e82-001cc4c03286.html
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sac on March 19, 2010, 11:20:48 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 19, 2010, 11:05:36 PM
Final Four-related article...

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_7490d6c0-33cc-11df-9e82-001cc4c03286.html

Any article with a quote from Arvile is worth a read.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ethelred the Unready on March 19, 2010, 11:34:39 PM
Quote from: WUH on March 19, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Quote from: Ethelred the Unready link=topic=6278.msg1191999#msg1191999U of R has Hope right where they want them.........

Off the court, experiencing technical difficulties maybe?  What is the deal with the Shirk Center tonight?


Egg-xactly
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Titan Q on March 20, 2010, 08:29:41 AM
Game stories...

http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/basketball/women/article_c558a52a-33df-11df-9cf1-001cc4c03286.html
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: HopeConvert on March 20, 2010, 08:58:46 AM
The  Holland Sentinel's story:

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/feature/x427979142/A-bear-of-a-championship-game-Hope-gets-WashU-in-D-III-final
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: HopeConvert on March 20, 2010, 09:28:49 AM
And the Grand Rapids Press' story:

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2010/03/hope_women_one_win_from_ncaa_d.html
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 20, 2010, 12:32:00 PM
Quote from: BruinFan on March 06, 2010, 06:46:23 PM
I believed it when I saw the bracket, and nothing happened in the first round to change my mind. I think the championship game will be played between the winners of the bottom brackets.

I just think each of those brackets have 2-3 teams that will prevail over any of the teams that come out of the upper brackets.


I give credit to Amherst for challenging WashU more than I thought they would. That being said, the bottom half of the bracket on each side did prevail as I thought would be the case when the tournament started.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 20, 2010, 03:12:22 PM
Officials for today's national championship game are all from the Northeast Region:  Leslie Boucher, William Dugan, Maggie Tieman-Montefeltri.     These three officials have a lot of experience calling UAA and NESCAC games. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 20, 2010, 03:55:27 PM
Halftime of title game--

Wash U 24, Hope 20

This is playing a lot like the low scoring game at Brandeis earlier this season.  I'm sure that the Bears would love to win this game by a similar score.

Looks good for Wash U at the moment-- Wash U is undefeated when leading at the half all of this season-- having won their previous 22 games when leading at the half.  (22-0 this season when leading at the break.)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 20, 2010, 05:08:58 PM
Final--

Wash U 65, Hope 59

The UAA captures the women's basketball championship for the first time since 2001.

Wash U gets their fifth national championship after two unsuccessful attempts in 2007 and 2009-- the third try to get the fifth was the charm.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 21, 2010, 02:04:18 PM
True.  To that effect, here's our game story (http://www.d3hoops.com/newsitems.php?item=3044).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dothedew on March 21, 2010, 07:15:04 PM
1. I am glad that a DIII bball game was shown live on TV around the country. Even if it had to be at 3pm, a lot of my friends and family were able to check in and watch the game.
2. I had a great time in bloomington. I love that beer nuts are what paid for the arena. Very cool, although, I could have used a little more leg room.
3. I am choosing to ignore the jacka** making those posts earlier. I'm not sure you are a Hope fan...and I highly doubt you are, but if I know you, send me a message and perhaps you can better explain yourself, b/c right now you are just coming across as ignorant.
4. (Should have been 1)...congrats to coach MO and an amazing Hope program. We are all very lucky to enjoy this AMAZING run over the last 14 years.
5. I don't blame refs. They are doing the best they can in a thankless job....but for a championship game, the NCAA gave us 3 that were not up to the task. I don't know if this is a group, or 3 singles they put together, but they failed on may levels. I don't get as upset over missed calls and such...those happen. But the HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE decison to reset the shot clock as the end of 1st half is WRONG. tipped pass. timout Wash U. Should have been 6 seconds on the shot clock and 32 or so on the game clock....which is what both teams planned for during timeout and TV timeout...then 15 seconds before they put the ball in, one ref went over and had the shot clock reset. COACH MO LOST HIS MIND.....as did myself, fans....you can't do that! What are the rules for resetting a clock? Both teams planned for 6 left on shot clock during timeout and they changed it? Mo just wanted the refs to get together and talk about it...or explain to him the decision. BAD BAD BAD. That play did NOT decide the game, but just an example of refs a bit out of their league....and this is a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!
6. Agian, CONGRATS TO WASH U ON A CHAMPIONSHIP. Congrats to hope on an amazing run....you gave us all a great treat  HOPEfully we can all be back there next year to enjoy another great run by the FLYING DUTCH!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 02, 2011, 03:24:25 PM
First Regional Rankings: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 03, 2011, 10:34:00 AM
I took the regional rankings and the conference leaders to "if the season ended today" determine the field of 64.  The east coast isn't too hard to figure out, but the further south and west you go gets hard, with that 500 mile rule, teams aren't that close together.  I told myself, forget it, let Pat Coleman and his team figure it out :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on February 03, 2011, 03:45:09 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 03, 2011, 10:34:00 AM
I took the regional rankings and the conference leaders to "if the season ended today" determine the field of 64.  The east coast isn't too hard to figure out, but the further south and west you go gets hard, with that 500 mile rule, teams aren't that close together.  I told myself, forget it, let Pat Coleman and his team figure it out :)

Guy,

Are you gonna bless us with what you came up with? It would be great fodder for discussion (and to upset Troutman).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: troutman on February 03, 2011, 04:25:55 PM
Whats a fodder(that does upset me) ;D
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 03, 2011, 04:51:33 PM
Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on February 03, 2011, 03:45:09 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 03, 2011, 10:34:00 AM
I took the regional rankings and the conference leaders to "if the season ended today" determine the field of 64.  The east coast isn't too hard to figure out, but the further south and west you go gets hard, with that 500 mile rule, teams aren't that close together.  I told myself, forget it, let Pat Coleman and his team figure it out :)

Guy,

Are you gonna bless us with what you came up with? It would be great fodder for discussion (and to upset Troutman).

I gave up and deleted it all (Central-Great Lakes region was tough).  I didn't have much of a plan going into it.  I really want to wait to see the SOS numbers before I proceed with at least attempting something serious.

Troutman might get upset.  Gallaudet will probably end up playing one of the top teams in the their bracket in the first round.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 03, 2011, 06:51:25 PM
Well, they would probably play someone with whom they'd be evenly matched in the first round. As a four right now, theoretically they'd play a five in the opening game, then a one. It doesn't always work out because of geography but that's the basics.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: troutman on February 04, 2011, 05:09:57 PM
Pat, If we messed up and lost out conf title game do you think we would still get in the ncaa turny?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 09, 2011, 04:17:51 PM
Where are these regional rankings?  I know the team I support is where they are expected to be still, but there couldn't have been a huge shake-up on women's side for there to be this much of a delay from the men's rankings.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 12, 2011, 12:46:57 PM
Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on February 03, 2011, 03:45:09 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 03, 2011, 10:34:00 AM
I took the regional rankings and the conference leaders to "if the season ended today" determine the field of 64.  The east coast isn't too hard to figure out, but the further south and west you go gets hard, with that 500 mile rule, teams aren't that close together.  I told myself, forget it, let Pat Coleman and his team figure it out :)

Guy,

Are you gonna bless us with what you came up with? It would be great fodder for discussion (and to upset Troutman).


Ok I have put together a bracket of 64 teams based on the last regional rankings.  We wanted fodder for discussion it be coming very shortly.  I did my best to limit my travel under 500 miles.  I think there was maybe 4-5 teams that were affected by it. Mostly those teams out west.

I will post a bracket set of 16 and either edit my post to add other teams or wait a little later to see the debates roll out :)  Then post again.  

First 16 teams

Teams in bold host the 3 teams below.  I will not post seeds, but you should be able to figure it out. (Sounds like the NCAA).  If you want to know i will be glad to give you what you want.  Top 4 seeds are in bold. 

Lebanon
Emmanuel
Galluadet
Messiah
CNU
Scranton
Johns Hopkins
Mary Washington


Greensboro
Maryville
Gettysburg
Bridgewater
Rochester
Neumann
Louisiana College
Western CT


Louisiana College only one that has to travel over 500 miles

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 12, 2011, 01:21:10 PM
ILL Wesleyan
St. Norbert
Denison
U of Chicago
Hope
Mount Union
UW-La Crosse
DePauw


Thomas More
Wis-Luther
UW-Whitewater
Hanover
UW-Stevens
St Thomas
Calvin College
Washington U

Sorry lost track of time....

#3

Amherst
Husson
Cortland St
Richard Stockton
Juanita
Union
William Patterson
Misericordia


Medaile
Daniel Webster
Babson
Ithaca
Bowdoin
Westfield State
Colby
Widener


#4 One with a bunch of travel and seeds playing not exactly the 1v16, 4v13 standard.


Kean
Salve Regina
Williams
Randolph-Macon
Champan
Puget sound
Lewis Clark
Redlands


Coe
Westminster
Simpson
Minn-Morris
Mount St Mary's
Baruch
Genesco st
Wartburg





Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gadk on February 16, 2011, 02:06:54 PM
GuyFormerlyPSBBG,  I will be sure to check how close you come with the NCAA bracket
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 16, 2011, 02:16:17 PM
Well this will be updated each week with the regional rankings coming out and I would like to post newer ones each week until the end of the season. I want to try and get one posted Sunday the night before selection.  Pat Coleman and staff usually have what they think too, before the brackets come out on the d3hoops site.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 16, 2011, 03:33:24 PM
Week 3 Regional Rankings are out: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/16/ncaa-2011-regional-rankings-week-3/
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WLCALUM83 on February 19, 2011, 08:19:19 AM
Let me throw this one out there:  Does Wisconsin Lutheran absolutely have to win out in the NAthCon tournament in order to get into NCAA?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on February 19, 2011, 09:23:06 AM
Quote from: WLCALUM83 on February 19, 2011, 08:19:19 AM
Let me throw this one out there:  Does Wisconsin Lutheran absolutely have to win out in the NAthCon tournament in order to get into NCAA?

I will give a full answer later, but in short, Wisconsin Lutheran should not count on Chicago winning at Wash U on Saturday, Feb. 26.    A Wash U victory over Chicago on Feb. 26 vaults the Bears back into the top 6 in the Central rankings regardless of whether or not Wisconsin Lutheran wins the NathCon tournament.  Count on Wash U winning out their remaining home games vs Brandeis and Chicago-- the Bears rarely lose a UAA game at the Wash U Field House.  

The situation with Wisconsin Lutheran being ranked ahead of Wash U in the Central regional rankings has caused some discussion in the Pool C and UAA forums.....

I'd rather see Wisconsin Lutheran win the NathCon tournament to make the NCAAs-- congratulations on Wisconsin Lutheran's school record for program wins.  

(Afternoon update-- at 5:44 PM Eastern-- after seeing (via on-line video stream, of course) WLC play Dominican (IL) today-- on the road at Dominican-- (battle of the top 2 teams in the conference) and seeing the Warriors put on that come-from-behind gutsy rallying performance led by Erika Laete's career high 50 points-- WLC deserves a spot in the NCAA field....  Wash U will just have to keep on winning....)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 19, 2011, 10:14:24 AM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 19, 2011, 09:23:06 AM
Quote from: WLCALUM83 on February 19, 2011, 08:19:19 AM
Let me throw this one out there:  Does Wisconsin Lutheran absolutely have to win out in the NAthCon tournament in order to get into NCAA?

I will give a full answer later, but in short, Wisconsin Lutheran should not count on Chicago winning at Wash U on Saturday, Feb. 26.    A Wash U victory over Chicago on Feb. 26 vaults the Bears back into the top 6 in the Central rankings regardless of whether or not Wisconsin Lutheran wins the NathCon tournament.  Count on Wash U winning out their remaining home games vs Brandeis and Chicago-- the Bears rarely lose a UAA game at the Wash U Field House. 

The situation with Wisconsin Lutheran being ranked ahead of Wash U in the Central regional rankings has caused some discussion in the Pool C and UAA forums.....

I'd rather see Wisconsin Lutheran win the NathCon tournament to make the NCAAs-- congratulations on Wisconsin Lutheran's school record for program wins. 
WLC will have to lose to get into Pool C.  That loss alone might drop WLC below WashU.

Wash U is not going to have a post-season tourney loss.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2011, 04:27:50 PM
Final Regional Rankings before Selection Sunday: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2011, 03:52:37 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 23, 2011, 04:27:50 PM
Final Regional Rankings before Selection Sunday: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/category/ncaa-stuff/regional-rankings/


Women's rankings

As of Sunday, these are the projections for Pool C.  The leading team in the conference is awarded the Pool A status.  Pool A bids are stricken.  Pool C bids are in bold.  Chapman is the only ranked Pool B team and will get the bid.  (Yes, upsets have already happened.)

Atlantic
1. Kean 19-1 22-3   NJAC
2. Mount Saint Mary (New York) 23-2 23-2  SKY
3. William Paterson 20-3 21-3      NJAC
4. Baruch 20-4 21-5  CUNYAC
5. Gallaudet 21-2 23-2    NEAC
6. Mary Washington 18-5 20-5    CAC

Central
1. Illinois Wesleyan 17-3 20-4   CCIW
2. Wisconsin-Stevens Point 23-2 23-2   WIAC
3. Wisconsin-Whitewater 17-5 20-5   WIAC
4. Wisconsin-La Crosse 18-6 19-6 WIAC
5. Chicago 21-3 21-3   UAA has awarded the  Pool A bid
6. Washington U. St. Louis 17-3 20-4   UAA

East
1. Rochester (New York) 17-5 19-5  UAA
2. SUNY Geneseo 20-2 22-3  SUNYAC
3. Medaille 21-3 21-3   AMCC
4. Ithaca 18-4 19-6    E8
5. Oneonta State 18-5 19-6   SUNYAC
6. Keuka 21-2 22-2    NEAC

Great Lakes
1. Thomas More 24-0 25-0  Pres AC
2. Hope 22-1 24-1  MIAA
3. Denison 23-0 25-0   NCAC
4. Hanover 22-1 23-1  HCAC
5. Calvin 17-1 21-4   MIAA
6. DePauw 19-2 22-3   SCAC

Mid-Atlantic
1. Lebanon Valley 23-2 23-2  MACC
2. Juniata 19-3 19-6  LAND
3. Johns Hopkins 20-4 20-4   CC
4. Messiah 18-5 18-6                MACC
5. Muhlenberg 19-5 19-5  CC
6. Gettysburg 18-6 19-6   CC

Northeast
1. Amherst 24-1 24-1  NESCAC
2. Bowdoin 21-3 21-4   NESCAC
3. Colby 19-4 21-4   NESCAC
4. Williams 19-4 21-4   NESCAC
5. Babson 23-0 25-0   NEWMAC
6. Western Connecticut State 21-3 21-3   LEC
7. Eastern Connecticut State 18-5 18-7    LEC
8. Bates 15-7 17-8       NESCAC
9. Tufts 17-6 18-6        NESCAC  
10. Southern Maine 16-7 16-9    LEC

South
1. Greensboro 23-1 24-1   USAS
2. Louisiana College 21-2 21-1   ASC
3. Christopher Newport 20-3 20-3   USAS
4. Randolph-Macon 19-4 19-3           ODAC
5. Maryville (Tennessee) 21-2 17-6    GSAC
6. Bridgewater (Virginia) 20-3 20-4    ODAC

West
1. Coe 21-3 22-3     IIAC
2. Lewis & Clark 16-3 20-5   NWC
3. George Fox 15-3 20-5  NWC
4. Chapman 14-3 20-5   IND
5. Simpson 18-4 20-5   IIAC
6. Wartburg 20-4 21-4   IIAC


EDITED to correct Denison's league affiliation...dc
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 24, 2011, 03:59:01 PM
Big assumption that the women's tournament schedules are mirroring the men's.


Knightslappy's men's chart is brought forward from the men's boards.



TuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdaySundayPool A Winner
Feb. 22Feb. 23Feb. 24Feb. 25Feb. 26Feb. 27   -
AMCCFirst Round   --SemisFinals--
ASC---QuartersSemisFinals-
CACFirst Round-Semis-Finals--
CC-First Round   --SemisFinals-
CCCQuarters-Semis-Finals--
CCIW---SemisFinals--
CSACSemis--Finals---
CUNYAC-Semis--Finals-
E8---Semis-Finals-
GNACQuarters-Semis-Finals--
GSACQuarters--SemisFinals--
HCAC---First Round   SemisFinals-
IIACFirst Round-Semis-Finals--
LAND-Semis--Finals--
LECQuarters--SemisFinals--
LL---SemisFinals--
MACC-Semis--Finals--
MACF-Semis--Finals--
MASCACFirst Round-Semis-Finals--
MIAA-Quarters-SemisFinals--
MIAC-First Round-Semis-Finals-
MWC---SemisFinals--
NACFirst Round--SemisFinals--
NATHC-Quarters-SemisFinals--
NCACQuarters--SemisFinals--
NEAC---First RoundSemisFinals-
NECCFirst Round--SemisFinals--
NESCAC----SemisFinals-
NEWMAC-First Round--SemisFinals-
NJACSemis--Finals---
NWC--Semis-Finals--
OACQuarters-Semis-Finals--
ODACFirst Round--QuartersSemisFinals-
PrACQuarters-Semis-Finals--
SCAC---QuartersSemisFinals-
SCIAC---SemisFinals--
SKYFirst Round-Semis-Finals--
SLIAC---SemisFinals--
SUNYACQuarters--SemisFinals--
UAA------Chicago
UMAC-Semis--Finals--
USACFirst Round--Semis-Finals-
WIACFirst Round-Semis-Finals--
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 25, 2011, 08:36:15 AM
Ok so what does this mean Ralph?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2011, 09:16:06 AM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 25, 2011, 08:36:15 AM
Ok so what does this mean Ralph?
I tried to give us an idea of when each conference was playing its tournament games.

The 11 finals on Sunday will impact Pool C selections.  The NESCAC is looking like a 3 bid conference.

The ASC may be a Pool C conference, because I think that host HPU is the strongest team in the field.  I think that Lousiana College makes the tourney in Pool C.



The CSAC and NJAC finish tonight.


Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 26, 2011, 08:39:05 PM
Whats everyone thoughts of West Conn hosting the opening round with a 23-3 region record.  I'm thinking something like this (and note I just got back from the LEC final, then went out to dinner so haven't look at conference tournament scores so pardon if I say conference winner when the game is already over):

West Conn vs. the LL winner (William Smith or Vassar)
E-8 winner (Stevens or Ithaca) vs. the CUNY winner (Lehman or Baruch)

If Oneonta ends up winning the SUNY, and William Smith wins the LL you could swap them and send William Smith to Medaile/La Roche/Rochester and Oneonta to Danbury.
Likewise NECC/Northern Atlantic and TCCC winner are candidates for a game as well, but they'd probably go to Amherst/Bowdoin/Colby/Babson.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dahlby on February 26, 2011, 10:14:08 PM
Occidental grabs SCIAC auto bid with a 55-49 home court victory over CMS.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ichouse on February 26, 2011, 10:29:44 PM
what rules are there for hosting?  seating, spring break, etc
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dahlby on February 26, 2011, 10:30:57 PM
Usually highest seed. But, there are numerous other factors. Check NCAA web site for considerations. Teams have to bid to host, so money is a factor. Income versus expense is always a consideration.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on February 26, 2011, 10:38:51 PM
Quote from: ichouse on February 26, 2011, 10:29:44 PM
what rules are there for hosting?  seating, spring break, etc

For the NCAA bean-counters, rule #1 is be centrally enough located that they don't have to fly anyone in!  That outweighs almost anything else!

Beyond that, Dahlby is correct - generally the highest seed of the 'pod'.  There are minimums on the physical plant (must be a regulation floor with a certain capacity - 1,000, I think - but they rule out very few schools).  I'm almost certain they don't consider academic calendars.

Oh, and if a school is fortunate enough to have both men's and women's teams in the tourney, in odd numbered years (like 2011) women have priority the first weekend, men the second.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dahlby on February 26, 2011, 11:46:13 PM
Chapman could, depending on the selection committee, and funding, be in a position to host both men's and women's. That would be really nice if we could. I really enjoy the atmosphere, and it is good for the student body. It really helps with school spirit and bonding.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on February 26, 2011, 11:58:53 PM
Quote from: dahlby on February 26, 2011, 11:46:13 PM
Chapman could, depending on the selection committee, and funding, be in a position to host both men's and women's. That would be really nice if we could. I really enjoy the atmosphere, and it is good for the student body. It really helps with school spirit and bonding.

But that's not going to happen; the NCAA won't put both a men's and women's regional (or first-round game) on the same campus.  We found that out with Stevens Point a few years ago.  Leaving aside the geographic issues, if the Chapman women are in a position to host, then the Chapman men will be heading to Claremont or Redlands for their first-round game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dahlby on February 27, 2011, 12:20:13 AM
Redlands wins against CMS. This should get very interesting, as I don't think Redland's gym holds very many spectators and may not meet NCAA standards. We will just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 27, 2011, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: dahlby on February 27, 2011, 12:20:13 AM
Redlands wins against CMS. This should get very interesting, as I don't think Redland's gym holds very many spectators and may not meet NCAA standards. We will just have to wait and see.
I actually think that George Fox hosts a bracket of 4 with GFU getting Oxy and L&C playing Chapman.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 27, 2011, 04:07:24 PM
I don't think there is much doubt that Greensboro doesn't get in as a pool c team.  When the d3hoops experts put together the mock brackets, don't put them as a host.  I have from a very good reliable source that they did not put into host for various reasons.  I don't think greensboro would have been granted it anyway.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 12:00:09 AM
Oh well, we put it in anyway.

Too bad, because Greensboro hosting saves the NCAA from having to fly Piedmont.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/27/womens-tournament-bracketology/
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 28, 2011, 12:29:50 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 12:00:09 AM
Oh well, we put it in anyway.

Too bad, because Greensboro hosting saves the NCAA from having to fly Piedmont.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/27/womens-tournament-bracketology/


All I want is to avoid Amherst as long as possible.  I'd rather take my chances on upsetting Kean in Harwood Arena (though that matchup will never happen) then to face Amherst @ Amherst.  Hopefully if they put Western on the road, the NCAA sends us up to Bowdoin again (likely won't happen) because that team is beatable this year.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on February 28, 2011, 01:31:02 AM
Pat,

I know y'all are really busy with all the predictions, brackets, and prepping for the big announcements tomorrow, but I'm curious about something and figured I'd ask. Anyone else can jump in if they feel like it.

My question is about why you have Chapman hosting Oxy and the two NWC schools. George Fox has the best in-region winning percentage of the four schools, the best in-region SOS, and the best winning percentage against regionally-ranked teams. The last regional ranking had L&C 2, GFU 3, and Chapman 4. GFU beat two regionally ranked teams (L&C and UPS) in the past three days to increase their SOS, winning percentage vs. regionally ranked teams, and probably bump ahead of #2 L&C. Chapman on the other hand, played two games against teams that are well below .500. I can't imagine they would jump Fox in the rankings, and have a hard time believing that they would jump Lewis & Clark (although SOS and head-to-head may affect that). In addition, you throw in (although not officially) recent history which has the So Cal teams traveling north, and it seems that Fox is the more likely venue. Of course, there is also the fact that Fox has already beat Chapman rather handily (75-57) this year as well.  Thoughts?

I'm not opposed to Dahlby and the Chapman women hosting, but just don't see any reason for that selection.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 03:05:27 AM
Nope, agreed, I misread the last regional rankings and I have since flopped the projection.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2011, 05:06:48 AM
Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2011, 12:29:50 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2011, 12:00:09 AM
Oh well, we put it in anyway.

Too bad, because Greensboro hosting saves the NCAA from having to fly Piedmont.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/02/27/womens-tournament-bracketology/


All I want is to avoid Amherst as long as possible.  I'd rather take my chances on upsetting Kean in Harwood Arena (though that matchup will never happen) then to face Amherst @ Amherst.  Hopefully if they put Western on the road, the NCAA sends us up to Bowdoin again (likely won't happen) because that team is beatable this year.

I would like to see Chicago face Amherst sometime in this NCAA tournament.   Amherst has already played Wash U, Rochester, NYU and Brandeis in previous NCAA tournaments over the past few years.   Chicago has proven that they can play a quality game anywhere in DIII.   It wouldn't happen under current NCAA DIII bracketology, (must have as few plane flights as possible...) but even if Chicago had to go to LeFrak Gym, they would not be scared of playing Amherst there-- since Chicago already won at the Wash U Field House this season....

(Like Wash U in the past, Amherst is tough to beat anywhere, though....)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on February 28, 2011, 09:19:59 AM
Winning at Wash U Fieldhouse is worth about three wins.  I don't know their home record last 15 years, but I know they don't lose their that often. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: jaybird44 on February 28, 2011, 11:59:00 AM
Wash-U is 185-7 in its last 192 home games.  308-24 at home since the 1986-87 season.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dahlby on February 28, 2011, 12:06:37 PM
BlueZoneBriun:

I agree, as I wrote before, that if it is a four team pod hosted by one school, that the NW would host. I only mentioned the possibly of Chapman hosting the first game if the committee only wanted one team to fly up north. And, I really can't imagine the committee haviing the NW schools play each other in the first round. They both are ranked to high with better records and SOS. Unless the $$$$ situation is not good. (Although it would be nice to have Chapman host at least one game, as I donn't have time to fly up north).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 28, 2011, 03:23:30 PM
Richard Stockton???  Really??

Luckily Eastern still made it, otherwise I would've blown a fuse.

Western's draw isn't bad.  Play Messiah at Kean, only about a 90 minute trip for me so I can save the hotel and get there and back Friday and Saturday on 1 tank of gas.  I don't like the matchup with Kean, but if were hitting 3's we can easily advance.

Eastern can by their first round opponent and can easily beat Bowdoin in the second round.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on February 28, 2011, 03:34:36 PM
All four teams in the Hope regional are in the current top 11 in the D3hoops.com poll, and this pod contains three of the five most recent NCAA champions.  :o That's the kind of thing that usually goes on in the men's bracket, not the women's! 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 28, 2011, 03:41:35 PM
Yah, the Hope regional is insane.  Hope vs. Depauw would've been good enough but then you add undefeted Denision against last year's winner Wash U.  What a great Friday that'll be up in Holland, MI
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: troutman on February 28, 2011, 03:46:41 PM
Way to go Gallaudet play hard and enjoy the NCAA turny this year you deserve it. :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2011, 03:47:02 PM
(1) Good news-- Wash U is in the tournament.

Bad news-- Wash U has to play Hope in the second round to advance-- Rematch of tournament at Ohio Wesleyan.    Hope has to be favored over Wash U in second round in Holland, Michigan with the Dew Crew in full battle mode.

7express and David Collinge-- you are right-- this Hope pod is insane!   :o

(2)  Chicago has a tough pod to get to the Sweet 16 as well-- they have to travel to Grand Rapids, Michigan and beat Hope's arch-rival Calvin at Calvin to advance to the Sweet 16.

I'll take Wash U and Chicago winning those first round games over Denison and Hanover on Friday-- but neither Denison nor Hanover is a pushover opponent.

(3)  I like Rochester's pod.  Some intriguing matchups there.   Great story that Daniel Webster won the NECC title, but sorry, Coach Kunzman, Rochester is way better than Lesley and Mitchell.  Kunzman was interviewed on the January 23rd edition of Hoopsville.

In the other game, Williams plays Muhlenberg.   Former Brandeis player Cassie Loftus is an assistant coach at Williams-- Loftus played at the Palestra when she was a freshman before transferring to DII Saint Anselm to conclude the rest of her college playing career.   Brandeis vs Muhlenberg may probably be a one-time affair unless Muhlenberg accepts an invite to a future Brandeis Classic, but Loftus can represent the 'Deis legacy in that game.  I'll be looking to see how the Ephs, including 3 pt shooter Grace Rehnquist, fare against the Mules with Alex Chili.

(4)  As for Amherst's pod-- if Husson can't win at Brandeis, there is no way that Coach Kissy Walker can get her Eagles squad past Amherst.   I smell an Amherst blowout in Round One-- Husson played courageously last year at Colby-- but Amherst is way better than Colby.

Baruch vs Eastern Connecticut is an intriguing game as well in its own right-- but Amherst will solidly beat either team in the second round to advance.

(5)  Reward for Babson finishing undefeated-- a trip to the Geneseo Valley in the Finger Lakes section of New York State to play Medaille in the first round-- Babson would have to win that game and beat SUNY-Geneseo to advance to the Sweet 16.   All things considered, this is not a bad trip for Babson-- it could be much worse.   Babson played well in Las Vegas, and if they had a healthy Sarah Collins, the Beavers would be favored to win the pod-- Babson may still do so, but it won't be easy.

(6)  I don't like Colby's chances at William Paterson, but I think that the Mules have a shot to beat Stevens in the first round to advance.

(7) Kean's pod is intriguing.   I pick Western Connecticut over Messiah--- Melissa Teel is really playing well right now for the Colonials.   W. Conn could upset Kean in the second round as well-- Kean is favored to advance, though.

(8)  Good to see Gallaudet and St. Vincent getting at-large bids-- let's see what they can do....

Just my thoughts right now.....
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 28, 2011, 03:51:57 PM
Kean has a big who plays really well to throw a Teel.  I don't think she'll have a big of a game against Kean as she's had recently.  We need to put on a 3 point barrage to defeat Kean.  Not impossible, but it won't be easy.  We should get past Messiah though in the first round.  Since Friday is my birthday, I'll pray for the best birthday present I can get and hope kean somehow loses to Vassar, that'll make the Messiah/Western winner's second round game a lot easier.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2011, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2011, 03:23:30 PM
Richard Stockton???  Really??

Luckily Eastern still made it, otherwise I would've blown a fuse.

Western's draw isn't bad.  Play Messiah at Kean, only about a 90 minute trip for me so I can save the hotel and get there and back Friday and Saturday on 1 tank of gas.  I don't like the matchup with Kean, but if were hitting 3's we can easily advance.

Eastern can by their first round opponent and can easily beat Bowdoin in the second round.

You mean Emmanuel-- no, you definitely mean Mt. St. Mary.   Mt. St. Mary plays terrific defense, and I would not be surprised to see the Knights win.  Mt. St. Mary played Emmanuel a few years ago at the Emmanuel Invitational tip-off tourney-- it's a natural rivalry between Boston area and close to New York City area Catholic schools.  The winner probably plays Bowdoin to advance-- I would not be surprised to see Mt. St. Mary finally get to the Sweet 16 this year out of this pod.

Eastern Connecticut is in the Amherst pod, not the Bowdoin pod.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on February 28, 2011, 03:56:05 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2011, 03:51:57 PM
Kean has a big who plays really well to throw a Teel.  I don't think she'll have a big of a game against Kean as she's had recently.  We need to put on a 3 point barrage to defeat Kean.  Not impossible, but it won't be easy.  We should get past Messiah though in the first round.  Since Friday is my birthday, I'll pray for the best birthday present I can get and hope kean somehow loses to Vassar, that'll make the Messiah/Western winner's second round game a lot easier.

After seeing Kean beating Amherst at Harwood Arena (watching the game on video stream) earlier this year, Kean should be favored to get by Western Connecticut.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 28, 2011, 03:57:29 PM
I wonder if even though Greensboro didn't put into host they are the technical #2 seed in that bracket, and therefore the favorites at Juanita.  I don't believe that to be the case, but I wonder if they are the top seed in the Juanita pod.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: martin on February 28, 2011, 04:10:18 PM
It seems that the NCAA paved the road for Illinois Wesleyan to reach the final four - which will be played at IWU.  The biggest obstacle in its way is UWSP.  And if the Pointer men and women both reach the sectionals - the men have hosting priority over the women.  So Sectional again at IWU.

All the power got shoved down into the lower bracket.  I would not be surprised if UWW beats Thomas More.  No way More is undefeated against UWW's schedule.

Lots of respect for Denison.  Go undefeated and get sent on the road to a Pool C team.  I guess the NCAA wants to see how much money it can get out of western Michigan.  That pod could just as easily have been held at Denison.  I don't think there is anything wrong with Denison's facility.  Babson does not get to host because its gym only seats 750.  And more good news for Denison - not only do you get to travel, but you get to play defending National Champion and perennial powerhouse Wash U.  I think Hope is favored because of the home court but I would not be surprised to see any of the four win.

I think Chicago will beat Hanover and stands a good chance against Calvin.  Chicago not only won at Wash U - they won easily.

Why is Juniata hosting?

My Final Four prediction - Kean, Amherst, IWU and whoever survives the "Bracket of Death".
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 28, 2011, 04:15:35 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on February 28, 2011, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 28, 2011, 03:23:30 PM
Richard Stockton???  Really??

Luckily Eastern still made it, otherwise I would've blown a fuse.

Western's draw isn't bad.  Play Messiah at Kean, only about a 90 minute trip for me so I can save the hotel and get there and back Friday and Saturday on 1 tank of gas.  I don't like the matchup with Kean, but if were hitting 3's we can easily advance.

Eastern can by their first round opponent and can easily beat Bowdoin in the second round.

You mean Emmanuel-- no, you definitely mean Mt. St. Mary.   Mt. St. Mary plays terrific defense, and I would not be surprised to see the Knights win.  Mt. St. Mary played Emmanuel a few years ago at the Emmanuel Invitational tip-off tourney-- it's a natural rivalry between Boston area and close to New York City area Catholic schools.  The winner probably plays Bowdoin to advance-- I would not be surprised to see Mt. St. Mary finally get to the Sweet 16 this year out of this pod.

Eastern Connecticut is in the Amherst pod, not the Bowdoin pod.

Yah, for some reason I thought they went to Bowdoin, but then when I looked it was Amherst.  ECSU can defeat Baruch, Amherst is another question.  I think Western has a better chance to defeat Kean then Eastern does at defeating Amherst, but they played earlier this year and Amherst won by 14 so you never know.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on February 28, 2011, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: martin on February 28, 2011, 04:10:18 PM
Why is Juniata hosting?

It might have something to do with certain teams not putting into host. aka Greensboro.  Although I don't think they would have gotten it.

Off Topic:

I know on the Men's bracket a few years ago,  Johns Hopkins, I think was the host but they didn't play at Johns Hopkins.  Am I remembering wrong?


I am disappointed that Greensboro is going to Juanita.  I was planning on taking off work and making the trip, but not to PA.  I don't think there is an airport anywhere near where Greensboro will be.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 28, 2011, 04:30:25 PM
There's nothing anywhere near where Greensboro will be; nobody in the Landmark enjoys that trip. :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: troutman on February 28, 2011, 05:02:34 PM
Ronk, i will be enjoying that trip very much.Wow u guys are vain that a location is (to) out of the way to root for your team.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 28, 2011, 05:34:21 PM
Happy for you, troutman; Juniata supports their team well; Gallaudet beat out our Scranton women among others for a pool C spot. If u can't make it, Juniata videocasts their home games.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: seventiesraider on February 28, 2011, 06:11:29 PM
Poor Denison, win your league, win your tourney and run the table and draw a first round game against Washington U. Sadly to go undefeated and face a probable one and done tournament may not be the nicest thing for Denison.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: augie on February 28, 2011, 07:11:50 PM
How in the world does Rochester women get to host 1st and 2nd rounds i think for the last four years since 2008 and Bowdoin host the last three years how the hell does this work i thought they rotate?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: troutman on February 28, 2011, 07:25:17 PM
Thanks ronk,Gallaudet has had a dream season this year.Voters must have saw the worth in this team this year.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on February 28, 2011, 07:55:44 PM
Augie - I've never had the impression that "hosting" rotates.  You earn the right to host.  In other parts of the country geography may play more of a role, but when so many schools are within a 3 to 5 hour drive of eachother hosting has to do with record, strength of schedule,  etc.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: augie on February 28, 2011, 08:05:12 PM
In the Bowdoin bracket i think Mt St Marys is way more then 5hours my point is no school should host more then two consecutive years never mine 3 or 4 like Bowdoin and Rochester !
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on February 28, 2011, 08:30:23 PM
Quote from: augie on February 28, 2011, 08:05:12 PM
In the Bowdoin bracket i think Mt St Marys is way more then 5hours my point is no school should host more then two consecutive years never mine 3 or 4 like Bowdoin and Rochester !

B.S. that's junior high, everyone gets a ribbon crap.

You win enough games, you rank highly enough, you put in the necessary paperwork, you get to host. Period.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: augie on February 28, 2011, 08:37:14 PM
Just Bill i most of hit a nerve truth hurt!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on February 28, 2011, 10:37:43 PM
Quote from: martin on February 28, 2011, 04:10:18 PM
It seems that the NCAA paved the road for Illinois Wesleyan to reach the final four - which will be played at IWU.  The biggest obstacle in its way is UWSP.  And if the Pointer men and women both reach the sectionals - the men have hosting priority over the women.  So Sectional again at IWU.

The odds most likely say that IWU is seeded higher than Stevens Point anyway.  So the men/women priority would not apply anyway. 

On this note though between UWSP and IWU, what great non-conference rivals. If they play this March, that would be three straight NCAA match-ups and I think they played the last two years as well.  Could be five games in a 24 month period. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dutchfan on February 28, 2011, 11:06:34 PM
Here is how I think the so called "Great Lakes" region should look. I understand the theory behind the drive time, but then NCAA needs to do a better job of assigning regions.

Thomas More (KY)
St. Vincent (PA)
Denison (OH)
Mount Union (OH)

Hope (MI)
Hanover (IN)
DePauw (IN)
Calvin (MI)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2011, 11:17:14 PM
Geographically, how do you break up the 20 teams that are in the Coe, IWU, Thomas More, Hope and Calvin pods?

I see these strong teams in these pods.

Coe (3)
IWU (2)
Thomas More (2)
Hope (4)
Calvin (3).

What do the experts recommend?  Move one team from the Hope pod to the IWU pod?  If so, which one?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: batteredbard on February 28, 2011, 11:17:45 PM
Has anyone posted the by the numbers  for how the Pool C bids got divided by the regions for the men and women?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dutchfan on March 01, 2011, 12:09:22 AM
Quote from: batteredbard on February 28, 2011, 11:17:45 PM
Has anyone posted the by the numbers  for how the Pool C bids got divided by the regions for the men and women?

I think they threw darts at a map.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2011, 12:18:39 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 28, 2011, 11:17:14 PM
Geographically, how do you break up the 20 teams that are in the Coe, IWU, Thomas More, Hope and Calvin pods?

I see these strong teams in these pods.

Coe (3)
IWU (2)
Thomas More (2)
Hope (4)
Calvin (3).

What do the experts recommend?  Move one team from the Hope pod to the IWU pod?  If so, which one?

Since I REALLY like the draw IWU got (in the d3hoops.com poll, 2 teams got one point each; one got none ;)), I'm reluctant to step in here, but that Holland pod is indeed the 'pod of death' (all four teams in the top 11 of the poll).

There are two obvious switches they could have made in terms of geography (and I think you could mix or match the teams): Webster and WashU are essentially the same location geographically (they could have traded pods); also DePauw is a natural fit for IWU (probably less than 60 miles, though I'm too lazy to look it up ;)), while Wis Lu could easily go to Holland (they were in the same conference for awhile, after all).

On the other hand, as a fan I'll just revel in our free passage to the sectional (confident that Mia Smith will NOT let the Titans overlook any team ;)), and let the four teams in Holland grumble and mutter about their misfortune. :P

Boy am I gonna catch hell if the Titans don't advance (and I DO have great respect for UW-LaX)! :o
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:24:34 AM
Thanks.  +1! :)

DePauw to IWU -- 187 miles by NCAA TES.

Your suggestions make sense.  Switching Wash U and Webster would change that to (3) and (3).

I don't see how you could dilute those 14 strong teams (out of 20) any more in the geographic constraints of the budget.

I only saw another 10-15 teams in the other 44 that approached the quality of those teams in the middle of the country.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dutchfan on March 01, 2011, 12:25:52 AM
Does anyone know why the NCAA puts such an emphasis on 'region play' if they aren't going to keep games in region like this?  I understand there are going to be some regional crossover games, but it seems to me that the NCAA didn't even attempt to align the bracket by region.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:29:12 AM
Quote from: Dutchfan on March 01, 2011, 12:25:52 AM
Does anyone know why the NCAA puts such an emphasis on 'region play' if they aren't going to keep games in region like this?  I understand there are going to be some regional crossover games, but it seems to me that the NCAA didn't even attempt to align the bracket by region.
I think that they want to give the tournament a more national feel.

By spreading out the representatives from a region, you can get some different matchups, rather than facing the same old teams in the first two rounds again and again.

Regional play in the regular season is meant: to:

1) not to encourage expensive road trips on D3 budgets.
2) not to encourage missed class time.
3) comply with the general philosophy of D3 athletics.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: martin on March 01, 2011, 12:36:05 AM
I will start off by saying that I know that the top-25 poll is meaningless when it comes to the tournament.  And there are many factors the NCAA looks at when putting together the brackets.  But something when seriously awry when making up the Thomas More bracket.

Using the last top-25 poll (which will change in a day or two) as a proxy for the relative strength of the four sectionals. the More sectional got severely overloaded.  The IWU sectional has 5 top-25 teams with an average rank of 13.2.  The Kean sectional has 4 top-25 teams with an average ranking of 13.5.  The Amherst sectional has 5 top-25 teams with an average ranking of 14.  The More sectional has 11 top-25 teams with an average ranking of 12.3. 

And its not like that had to happen.  The Juniata pod was moved from the east to complete the More sectional.  It has two top-25 teams, #13 Greensboro and #19 St. Vincent.  The emtire right side of the bracket has only one pod with two top-25 teams, #24 Bowdoin and #23 MSM.

This allocation of strong teams is crazy.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2011, 12:38:56 AM
It'll change in the next few hours, in fact.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 01, 2011, 11:06:42 AM
Of note if Greensboro wins the first round game,  it will be the largest turnaround among all 3 divisions.  Currently the overall turnaround record among all 3 divisions is at the d2 level with 18 1/2 games held by Grand Canyon.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: martin on March 01, 2011, 11:12:21 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2011, 12:38:56 AM
It'll change in the next few hours, in fact.
The latest rankings make the lack of balance look even worse.  The Kean and Amherst brackets have four top-25 teams each.  Each pod has only one.  The IWU bracket has 5 top-25 teams.  The UWSP pod has two - UWSP and St. Norbert - who meet in the first round.  # 3 with a 25-2 record meets #14 with a 23-2 record.  Maybe the committee thought symmetry with the men was cool.  Two unranked 21-6 teams meet in the other first round game.  Does Simpson get respect for being renked #5 in the West? (BTW - where are the latest regional rankings?)  St. Norbert is not ranked in the Central - but Simpson also would not be ranked in the Central.

So now the More bracket has 12 top-25 teams.  The Juniata pod has two.  The More and Calvin pods have three and the all four teams in the Hope pod are in the top-25.  LaRoche and Piedmont must be wondering whom they pissed off to get shipped into this maelstrom.

There are a lot of obvious ways to make the brackets more balanced.  Apparently, that was not a concern of the committee.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 01, 2011, 02:51:06 PM
Time for a new committee.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: iwumichigander on March 01, 2011, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:24:34 AM
Thanks.  +1! :)

DePauw to IWU -- 187 miles by NCAA TES.

Your suggestions make sense.  Switching Wash U and Webster would change that to (3) and (3).

I don't see how you could dilute those 14 strong teams (out of 20) any more in the geographic constraints of the budget.

I only saw another 10-15 teams in the other 44 that approached the quality of those teams in the middle of the country.
Re: WashU IWU DePauw - The three teams have faced off each of the last three seasons in non-conference games.  I'm not sure having them face each other in 1st or 2nd rounds competitive.  I might have switched DePauw and Hanover.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dutchfan on March 01, 2011, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on March 01, 2011, 04:54:23 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2011, 12:24:34 AM
Thanks.  +1! :)

DePauw to IWU -- 187 miles by NCAA TES.

Your suggestions make sense.  Switching Wash U and Webster would change that to (3) and (3).

I don't see how you could dilute those 14 strong teams (out of 20) any more in the geographic constraints of the budget.

I only saw another 10-15 teams in the other 44 that approached the quality of those teams in the middle of the country.
Re: WashU IWU DePauw - The three teams have faced off each of the last three seasons in non-conference games.  I'm not sure having them face each other in 1st or 2nd rounds competitive.  I might have switched DePauw and Hanover.

With the exception of Washington U. this is the same exact field that played at Hope lst year in the first two rounds.  Last year...
Friday
Hope 68
Denison 40

DePauw 79
Lakeland46

Saturday
Hope 68
DePauw 54
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: nwhoops1903 on March 01, 2011, 06:47:25 PM
Quick question:  How many teams are outside 500 mile travel circle in rounds 1 and 2?  Thanks!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: seventiesraider on March 01, 2011, 11:58:40 PM
Quote from: Dutchfan on February 28, 2011, 11:06:34 PM
Here is how I think the so called "Great Lakes" region should look. I understand the theory behind the drive time, but then NCAA needs to do a better job of assigning regions.

Thomas More (KY)
St. Vincent (PA)
Denison (OH)
Mount Union (OH)

Hope (MI)
Hanover (IN)
DePauw (IN)
Calvin (MI)

Please apply to work for the NCAA. You and I apparently understand drive time better than they do: Wisconsin Whitewater?? ;)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 02, 2011, 04:05:47 PM
I think Greensboro's game against St. Vincent will be very interesting.  I think on paper these two teams are pretty evenly matched.  Both teams enjoy shooting the ball whether or not they go in the basket :).  I think deciding factor for Greensboro will be their speed and athleticism.  I don't think St. Vincent has seen something like that all year.  The advantage goes to Greensboro with their rebounding and FT shooting, which are very key in women's basketball.  The advantage St. Vincent has they shoot the ball better and do an excellent job of taking care of the basketball.  Also very key in the women's game.  St. Vincent has also played at that gym this year.


I do see this game going into the hands of Greensboro.  Greensboro has a little more NCAA experience than St. Vincent. (2 players have been there before. They are the also the leaders of the Greensboro squad)

I see a possible of 2 scenarios.  They win close 64-60 or they win moderately big, 71-57.   
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 02, 2011, 04:16:49 PM
That Greensboro St. Vincent game will be the first game soneone loses to a team other then its conference winner.  Greensboro has 2 losses, both at the hands of Christopher Newport who won the USA south.  St. Vincent has 3 losses, all 3 to undefeted Thomas More who won the President's.

My fault St. Vincent has 4 losses so they obviously lost to someone other then Thomas More.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 02, 2011, 04:43:25 PM
Quote from: 7express on March 02, 2011, 04:16:49 PM
That Greensboro St. Vincent game will be the first game soneone loses to a team other then its conference winner.  Greensboro has 2 losses, both at the hands of Christopher Newport who won the USA south.  St. Vincent has 3 losses, all 3 to undefeted Thomas More who won the President's.

My fault St. Vincent has 4 losses so they obviously lost to someone other then Thomas More.

Yeah they lost to Juanita.

Greensboro's 2 losses came against CNU. (They also beat CNU)  CNU lost to Thomas More too.  I think Thomas More is overrated at #1 and I expect them to lose to Whitewater in the 2nd round.  What is the furthest Thomas More has reached in the NCAA tournament?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: monsoon on March 02, 2011, 05:00:09 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 02, 2011, 04:43:25 PM
What is the furthest Thomas More has reached in the NCAA tournament?

Thomas More reached the sweet 16 in 2009; lost at home to the George Fox team that went on to win the title.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dutchfan on March 02, 2011, 06:42:15 PM
Quote from: seventiesraider on March 01, 2011, 11:58:40 PM
Quote from: Dutchfan on February 28, 2011, 11:06:34 PM
Here is how I think the so called "Great Lakes" region should look. I understand the theory behind the drive time, but then NCAA needs to do a better job of assigning regions.

Thomas More (KY)
St. Vincent (PA)
Denison (OH)
Mount Union (OH)

Hope (MI)
Hanover (IN)
DePauw (IN)
Calvin (MI)

Please apply to work for the NCAA. You and I apparently understand drive time better than they do: Wisconsin Whitewater?? ;)

As long as I can use you as a reference.   ;)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 03, 2011, 11:59:31 AM
Any first weekend surprizes, final 4 predictions, championship predictions:

I got Illinois Wesleyan vs. Wash U in 1 semifinal, Kean vs. Amherst in the other, with Illinois Wesleyan beating Amherst for the title.
First weekend surprizes for me: Whitewater beating Thomas More, Wash U winning the Hope pod (with DePauw beating Hope.  I know Hope almost never loses at home, but those are 4 really good teams there, any of the 4 can win), Chicago and Greensboro both winning their pods to meet in the Sweet 16 (who would have thought that at the beginning of the season), Medaile beating Babson in the first round (sure Babson is undefeated, but they haven't played anyone.  I think Western would beat them right now if they played today). Muhlenberg over Williams in round 1, Mount St. Mary going 2-0 in Maine to advance to the sweet 16, and Randolph-Macon beating Lebanon Valley.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 03, 2011, 12:23:57 PM
I'll pick IWU,UW-Whitewater, and Juniata to win their pods, and William Paterson to meet Johns Hopkins in the Elite 8.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 03, 2011, 01:22:03 PM
Here are my final 4 picks.  WI-Stevens Point, Hope, Amherst. The final pick is a huge shocker  :o :o :o the Lady Captains of Christopher Newport.  All 5 starters returning from a sweet 16 team. Believe me it was hard to even consider CNU, because I am a supporter of Greensboro.  I think they are peaking again at a very good time.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 03, 2011, 02:46:58 PM
The other team that has all players from last year with two Final Four experiences, as well as two All-mericans is Amherst.  Their All-American from two years ago and injured last year, and their last year All-American, injured earlier in the season,  both are hitting their strides.  That doesn't mention their post player who made the Final Four All-Tournament Team last year.   I'm not picking a winner because I haven't been close to being right in a number of years, but Amherst has experience and depth.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 03, 2011, 02:48:16 PM
QuoteWith the exception of Washington U. this is the same exact field that played at Hope lst year in the first two rounds.  Last year...
Friday
Hope 68
Denison 40

DePauw 79
Lakeland46

Saturday
Hope 68
DePauw 54

Three of the teams may be the same but there are two very big differences between the 2010 and 2011 Hope pod.  

The fourth team was Lakeland last year and Washington U. this year.  Even if the numeric criteria between Lakeland 2010 and Wash U 2011 look the same, it would be hard to argue those two are interchangable.

Second, Denison was 21-7 when they went to Hope last year.  This year they are 28-0.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 03, 2011, 03:44:41 PM
Quote from: sumfun on March 03, 2011, 02:46:58 PM
The other team that has all players from last year with two Final Four experiences, as well as two All-mericans is Amherst.  Their All-American from two years ago and injured last year, and their last year All-American, injured earlier in the season,  both are hitting their strides.  That doesn't mention their post player who made the Final Four All-Tournament Team last year.   I'm not picking a winner because I haven't been close to being right in a number of years, but Amherst has experience and depth.


Amherst's half seems like theirs to lose to be honest.  Really can't see any team comming within 15 points of them until they get to Bloomington.  Rochester is the only one in the half that could potentially give them a game, but since it'll more then likely take place in Amherst I can't see that happening.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 03, 2011, 04:49:53 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 03, 2011, 12:23:57 PM
I'll pick IWU,UW-Whitewater, and Juniata to win their pods, and William Paterson to meet Johns Hopkins in the Elite 8.

John Hopkins in the elite 8 very bold.  Go take a look at how many consecutive games CNU has won at the Freeman Center. :)  If any team beats them there, they deserve a trophy too :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Maine 1 on March 03, 2011, 05:15:26 PM
I don't see anyone coming close to Amherst until the final four.  Amherst has their entire team back from last year, and the team is stronger, as Daigneault was hurt last year, and is playing at an extremely high level. If they play close to their best, they should finally win a national championship, after a tremendous four year run.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: amh63 on March 03, 2011, 07:11:28 PM
Gordon Mann wrote this year's WBB D3hoops projections/predictions for this year.  He also will be at the WBB Final 4 and accepts comments on site wrt his views.  I will hold my comment/concerns with Mr Mann's views until Amherst reaches the Final 4.  It stems from his biases.  Until then, enjoy the games and view the play with open minds/eyes.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 03, 2011, 08:30:40 PM
Thomas More's deepest run is the Sweet 16.  They lost to Hope in 2008 and Wilmington in 2004.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 03, 2011, 08:31:41 PM
Amh63:

Feel free to air out your concerns or disagreement now.  I won't have a problem with it.  Or you can wait until the final four.  I think Amherst will very likely be there.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dutchfan on March 03, 2011, 11:18:16 PM
I have UW-Stevens Point, Hope, Kean, and Babson in the Final Four. Hope beats Kean 85-80 to Win the National Championship.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 04, 2011, 12:53:27 AM
  As  the tourney starts, a couple of consecutive tourney streaks ended this year with the non-appearance of S. Maine and Scranton. Also, their 2 longest streaks in D3 of consecutive 20-win seasons ended at 29 and 19,respectively.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: zander on March 04, 2011, 06:43:48 AM
Quote from: Dutchfan on March 03, 2011, 11:18:16 PM
I have UW-Stevens Point, Hope, Kean, and Babson in the Final Four. Hope beats Kean 85-80 to Win the National Championship.
Do you have the horses to handle Meyer and Case down low?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 08:23:55 AM
Quote from: Dutchfan on March 03, 2011, 11:18:16 PM
I have UW-Stevens Point, Hope, Kean, and Babson in the Final Four. Hope beats Kean 85-80 to Win the National Championship.

I've watched Babson play a few times on video stream.  It is very hard to see them in the Final Four, or even outside the Sweet 16. But heck, I have CNU in the final 4 what do I know. :)


Gordonmann:

I enjoyed reading your NCAA coverage on d3hoops.  I actually agree with most of it.

I find it very difficult to believe that Thomas More comes close to getting to the final four.  Who have they really played on their schedule that is considered among the elite of d3?  I don't really see anyone.  Thomas More's bracket is stacked with some quality teams.  Those quality teams are a little more battle tested than Thomas More.

I saw Greensboro play against Thomas More a few years ago.  I understand it was a few years ago, but I managed to talk with a few of the Thomas More fans/media staff when they played.  They were impressed with the style of Greensboro, and it wasn't something they see on the regular basis.  If Thomas More comes across a team that is athletic and can shoot the ball, they will run into trouble.

I am not 100% sure that they will see that, but that Hope regional will be battle tested and more prepared to play Thomas More.

I believe Thomas More will be the team most likely to disappoint.

I can't remember my other thought, but there was something else.  If I remember I will post it.  :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 08:23:55 AM
Quote from: Dutchfan on March 03, 2011, 11:18:16 PM
I have UW-Stevens Point, Hope, Kean, and Babson in the Final Four. Hope beats Kean 85-80 to Win the National Championship.

I've watched Babson play a few times on video stream.  It is very hard to see them in the Final Four, or even outside the Sweet 16. But heck, I have CNU in the final 4 what do I know. :)


Gordonmann:

I enjoyed reading your NCAA coverage on d3hoops.  I actually agree with most of it.

I find it very difficult to believe that Thomas More comes close to getting to the final four.  Who have they really played on their schedule that is considered among the elite of d3?  I don't really see anyone.  Thomas More's bracket is stacked with some quality teams.  Those quality teams are a little more battle tested than Thomas More.

I saw Greensboro play against Thomas More a few years ago.  I understand it was a few years ago, but I managed to talk with a few of the Thomas More fans/media staff when they played.  They were impressed with the style of Greensboro, and it wasn't something they see on the regular basis.  If Thomas More comes across a team that is athletic and can shoot the ball, they will run into trouble.

I am not 100% sure that they will see that, but that Hope regional will be battle tested and more prepared to play Thomas More.

I believe Thomas More will be the team most likely to disappoint.

I can't remember my other thought, but there was something else.  If I remember I will post it.  :)
Now this is an interesting question. 

Thomas More beat CNU by 10 in Hawai'i in December.

CNU beat Greensboro 2 games to one this season.  My perspective on CNU is that they only led McMurry by 1 pt with about 1:10 left in the game in a 67-59 win in that same tourney on the next day.  My perspective in the South is that HPU is the strongest South Region team.  Louisiana College and CNU are next; then Greensboro, then UTD, then Maryville follow in order.  we get into the big mishmash in the ASC of UMHB, McMurry, HSU and Mississippi College.    :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 09:53:52 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2011, 09:22:03 AM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 08:23:55 AM
Quote from: Dutchfan on March 03, 2011, 11:18:16 PM
I have UW-Stevens Point, Hope, Kean, and Babson in the Final Four. Hope beats Kean 85-80 to Win the National Championship.

I've watched Babson play a few times on video stream.  It is very hard to see them in the Final Four, or even outside the Sweet 16. But heck, I have CNU in the final 4 what do I know. :)


Gordonmann:

I enjoyed reading your NCAA coverage on d3hoops.  I actually agree with most of it.

I find it very difficult to believe that Thomas More comes close to getting to the final four.  Who have they really played on their schedule that is considered among the elite of d3?  I don't really see anyone.  Thomas More's bracket is stacked with some quality teams.  Those quality teams are a little more battle tested than Thomas More.

I saw Greensboro play against Thomas More a few years ago.  I understand it was a few years ago, but I managed to talk with a few of the Thomas More fans/media staff when they played.  They were impressed with the style of Greensboro, and it wasn't something they see on the regular basis.  If Thomas More comes across a team that is athletic and can shoot the ball, they will run into trouble.

I am not 100% sure that they will see that, but that Hope regional will be battle tested and more prepared to play Thomas More.

I believe Thomas More will be the team most likely to disappoint.

I can't remember my other thought, but there was something else.  If I remember I will post it.  :)
Now this is an interesting question. 

Thomas More beat CNU by 10 in Hawai'i in December.

CNU beat Greensboro 2 games to one this season.  My perspective on CNU is that they only led McMurry by 1 pt with about 1:10 left in the game in a 67-59 win in that same tourney on the next day.  My perspective in the South is that HPU is the strongest South Region team.  Louisiana College and CNU are next; then Greensboro, then UTD, then Maryville follow in order.  we get into the big mishmash in the ASC of UMHB, McMurry, HSU and Mississippi College.    :)

I wouldn't consider CNU among the elite in DIII.  I think they are in a region (mostly location) where it is easy for them to do well not mention a state school. (I can't wait to hear the back comments on that :) )  Greensboro won the conference on $30,000 a year per player :)

I think CNU once again is in an easier bracket compared to Greensboro and even Louisiana College.

I agree with your order of ranking teams.  I know Greensboro was ranked #1 in the region, but thought teams below them played better on a consistent basis. (I think they have alot of questions that need to be answered this weekend.  I try not to be critical of Greensboro, but think at times they try to be too much of a half court team.  Which tends to bottle up their speed and athleticism  (I think they can be a half court team. Greensboro does it more than they should  :-\) )  The only team I would take out is Maryville, and move RMC or Bridgewater, then Maryville.



Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 04, 2011, 10:34:20 AM
Guy:

Thanks for following the coverage and the good thoughts.

That was the hardest bracket to pick.  First I thought about Hope and then decided against it for the reasons mentioned in the preview.  Then I thought about Calvin, but couldn't pull the trigger because I'm not confident they'll get past Chicago.  I guess I ended up picking the team that struck me as least likely to get upset in the first couple rounds.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 07:14:06 PM
Gordon:

Looks like one of your cinderalla teams is done  :P  

83-66 Greensboro over St. Vincent.  I thought the game would be closer but Greensboro really came to play.  I really like what I saw out of them tonight. Shooting 55% in the game wow.  You don't see those kind of numbers against and NCAA caliber team very often.

I think this is fuel for my arguement that Thomas More probably won't make it to the final 4.

of note:  Greensboro is now 2-0 in the NCAA tournament against teams from PA  8-)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
I am pretty upset about my bracket challenge.  Somehow my bracket got screwed up after I submitted.  I publicly stated CNU and Amherst on the side of the bracket.  I just looked at it there is stevens and williams.  How did that happen?  My bracket is therefore now "charlie sheened" :) 

Is there a bug in the mix or sabotage :P
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sac on March 04, 2011, 10:33:43 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
I am pretty upset about my bracket challenge.  Somehow my bracket got screwed up after I submitted.  I publicly stated CNU and Amherst on the side of the bracket.  I just looked at it there is stevens and williams.  How did that happen?  My bracket is therefore now "charlie sheened" :) 

Is there a bug in the mix or sabotage :P

I have no idea if mine were submitted.  When I went back to check on them it started me over so who knows.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 04, 2011, 11:34:33 PM
Guy:

Nice showing by the Pride.  Congrats on the win.  I think they'll handle Juniata tomorrow night.  Then again, we both know how good I am at predicting things. :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 04, 2011, 11:35:13 PM
Really scared of Kean tomorrow they'll be extremely tough to beat on their home floor, just ask Amherst.  They were only up 7 at halftime and they completely blitzed Vassar in the second.  Not sure what the final was, but Kean was up 31 when I left.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sunny on March 04, 2011, 11:39:35 PM
Well, I didn't enter the challenge, but take it on faith that I am 26-5 right now (come on Chapman!).

Oddly one of my five misses was Wisconsin Lutheran winning ... which is funny since I was the only voter to vote for them each of the last two weeks.  The lesson - never pick against yourself! The other four were Geneseo, Mount Union, Eastern Connecticut and Williams.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: dahlby on March 05, 2011, 01:13:53 AM
Finals from Chapman University, Orange Ca pod.

In the first game George Fox held on to defeat Occidental College 53-46.
The night cap saw LA College downing Chapman 61-60 in a nail biter.
I will do a little recap in the West Region topic under SCIAC.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 05, 2011, 01:56:07 AM
Quote from: sunny on March 04, 2011, 11:39:35 PM
Well, I didn't enter the challenge, but take it on faith that I am 26-5 right now (come on Chapman!).

Oddly one of my five misses was Wisconsin Lutheran winning ... which is funny since I was the only voter to vote for them each of the last two weeks.  The lesson - never pick against yourself! The other four were Geneseo, Mount Union, Eastern Connecticut and Williams.

Especially odd since UWL tied with Wis LU in the 12th week (I think - for some reason d3hoops gives week 13 , then nothing since week 10 on the Top 25).  Since you couldn't have given a #25 vote to both of them, I wonder who the chicken-hearted voter to UWL might have been?! ;D
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 05, 2011, 03:44:03 AM
Quote from: sunny on March 04, 2011, 11:39:35 PM
Well, I didn't enter the challenge, but take it on faith that I am 26-5 right now (come on Chapman!).

Oddly one of my five misses was Wisconsin Lutheran winning ... which is funny since I was the only voter to vote for them each of the last two weeks.  The lesson - never pick against yourself! The other four were Geneseo, Mount Union, Eastern Connecticut and Williams.

Chapman failed to come on, so you missed six.  So did I, and it makes me feel good that I kept up with a poll voter!  Like you, I missed on La. College, Mt. Union, Muhlenberg, and Wisc Luth's wins, and also lost with Lewis & Clark and my only sentimental pick, Denison.  Mount and Muhlenberg wiped out two of my Sweet Sixteen, and that may hurt.  But I'm okay with 26 out of 32 (my score on the men's bracket as well, I'm all equal opportunity like that!)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 05, 2011, 06:03:15 AM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 04, 2011, 11:34:33 PM
Guy:

Nice showing by the Pride.  Congrats on the win.  I think they'll handle Juniata tomorrow night.  Then again, we both know how good I am at predicting things. :)

Your predictions are good.  I really thought Greensboro would have their hands full last night.  Greensboro has more NCAA tournament experience and coaches that have been there before.  Most of the doubt I had this weekend was that first round game. (That would have helped your story with sweet 16 and St. Vincent)  I think Greensboro wins 73-60 tonight.  Too bad I won't be able to watch it.  I was going off the posted time, but the announcer said 5:30 not 7.  I made plans for that time.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Maine 1 on March 05, 2011, 07:11:54 AM
Another good showing by the NESCAC teams in the first round last night.  3 wins out of 4, and Williams lost to a last second shot.  Amherst ran all over a very weak Husson team, but in their last two games, Amherst is showing that they are ready for a strong run. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: martin on March 05, 2011, 08:52:33 AM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 04, 2011, 11:34:33 PM
Guy:

Nice showing by the Pride.  Congrats on the win.  I think they'll handle Juniata tomorrow night.  Then again, we both know how good I am at predicting things. :)

Gordon,

In addtition to being a D3Hoops guru, are you also an amateur sports broadcaster and a financial disaster doctor?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/03/04/134265471/the-friday-podcast-a-city-throws-in-the-towel

A guy with orange-ish hair and an enormous laugh!!!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 05, 2011, 01:10:24 PM
I was wondering when someone might find that. :)

I'll take amateurish as an, um, compliment?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: martin on March 05, 2011, 01:20:14 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 05, 2011, 01:10:24 PM
I was wondering when someone might find that. :)

D3hoops has an eclectic and well informed following.  I am surprised that it took so long for someone to post on it.

I hope people listen to the Planet Money podcast - and read its blog - for reasons beyond the chance to hear your enormous laugh.  It is great at explaining economics.  The shows it did for "This American Life" on the financial meltdown were outstanding. 
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/contributors/planet-money

I have an MBA and a CPA certificate.  Friends and family were asking me to explain what happened.  I tried - but then just started referring them to those stories. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 05, 2011, 01:31:56 PM
Yeah, they do a nice job turning very technical problems into something you can understand and enjoy.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 05, 2011, 02:14:15 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 05, 2011, 01:10:24 PM
I was wondering when someone might find that. :)

I'll take amateurish as an, um, compliment?

"Amateur," at its root, means someone who does what he does out of love or passion.  Taken that way, it's always a compliment.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 05, 2011, 02:38:37 PM
Well there you go then. :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2011, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
I am pretty upset about my bracket challenge.  Somehow my bracket got screwed up after I submitted.  I publicly stated CNU and Amherst on the side of the bracket.  I just looked at it there is stevens and williams.  How did that happen?  My bracket is therefore now "charlie sheened" :) 

Is there a bug in the mix or sabotage :P

Is this still displaying as such?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 05, 2011, 03:07:30 PM
My definition of amatuer is "doing the things that I would love to do for a career but haven't been able to figure out how to get paid for them... yet."
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 05, 2011, 03:20:57 PM
I am 28-4 on my bracket in the D3Photography.com Bracket Challenge on the women's side through the end of the first round.

I missed on these 4 games:

(1)  Howard Payne over Lewis & Clark-- I picked Lewis & Clark.
(2)  Muhlenberg over Williams-- I picked Williams
(3)  Mt. Union over Wis. Whitewater-- I picked Wis. Whitewater
(4)  Wisconsin Lutheran over Wis. La Crosse-- I picked Wis. La Crosse

4 misses are not bad for the first day-- Let's see what happens today.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 05, 2011, 07:00:34 PM
Quote from: deiscanton on March 05, 2011, 03:20:57 PM
I am 28-4 on my bracket in the D3Photography.com Bracket Challenge on the women's side through the end of the first round.

I missed on these 4 games:

(1)  Howard Payne over Lewis & Clark-- I picked Lewis & Clark.
(2)  Muhlenberg over Williams-- I picked Williams
(3)  Mt. Union over Wis. Whitewater-- I picked Wis. Whitewater
(4)  Wisconsin Lutheran over Wis. La Crosse-- I picked Wis. La Crosse

4 misses are not bad for the first day-- Let's see what happens today.


Good showing!  I missed those four and, alas, five others - 23-9 will put we down quite a ways (especially since I've already lost out on three games for today (my predicted winners already lost yesterday).

My slight hope for a comeback is that I haven't yet lost any predicted winners for round three or beyond.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 05, 2011, 10:08:42 PM
Kean outplays Western to win 82-64.  Closer then the score indicated but Kean was clearly the better team on the court today.  Its too bad we couldn't have been swapped with Muhlenberg, Mount St. Mary or DeSales because we would've won those 3 pods.  This team had the talent to be playing in the sweet 16 or elite 8, but because of bad pairings their going home earlier then they should be.  Kean started the game with a 30-11 run, and that was the difference.  In the second half we cut it to 3 at 47-44 and then again at 67-61 with 6:15 to play but we only hit 1 field goal and scored 3 points the remainder of the game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 05, 2011, 11:09:42 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 05, 2011, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 04, 2011, 10:13:16 PM
I am pretty upset about my bracket challenge.  Somehow my bracket got screwed up after I submitted.  I publicly stated CNU and Amherst on the side of the bracket.  I just looked at it there is stevens and williams.  How did that happen?  My bracket is therefore now "charlie sheened" :) 

Is there a bug in the mix or sabotage :P

Is this still displaying as such?


No its working now.  It has been a busy day Spring Training baseball games.


deiscanton and Mr Ypsi:

I believe I am probably in the same range.  I haven't checked yet.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 05, 2011, 11:37:19 PM
Thanks in large part to Wash U., my bracket is deader than Julius Caesar.  In fact, I only got one of the four winners in that quarter of the bracket.   :-[
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2011, 12:28:14 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 05, 2011, 11:37:19 PM
Thanks in large part to Wash U., my bracket is deader than Julius Caesar.  In fact, I only got one of the four winners in that quarter of the bracket.   :-[

Since I had Hope (losing) in the title game, I think I'm also kaput.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 06, 2011, 07:06:09 AM
Well I do have 11 of the 16 sweet 16 teams.  Luckily not many of those loses were big loses in later rounds with the exception of Hope, but they were just a final 4 team.


Gordonmann:

You are no longer allowed to pick Greensboro.  The game was closer than it needed to be as a fan.  It might have been this comment that set things in motion. :)

Quote from: gordonmann on March 04, 2011, 11:34:33 PM
I think they'll handle Juniata tomorrow night.


Personally, I think Greensboro's coach should be the d3 national coach of the year.  The team went from 8 wins last season to at least a Sweet 16 appearance.  That is not heard of in many levels of college basketball, especially on the women's side.


Now I am going to complain about brackets.  Thomas More bracket the last 4 teams remaining they are grouped pretty tough.  For Greensboro it will be David meets 3 Goliaths.

Average d3hoops ranking by sectional.

Thomas More: 8.5
Kean: 14
Illinois Wesleyan: 14.75
Amherst 18.

Maybe the national title contender comes out of that Thomas More bracket, or those teams are so beat-up they lose in the final 4 game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 06, 2011, 09:56:21 AM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 06, 2011, 07:06:09 AM
Well I do have 11 of the 16 sweet 16 teams.  Luckily not many of those loses were big loses in later rounds with the exception of Hope, but they were just a final 4 team.


In the interests of full disclosure, I experimented with a "Massey-style" selection system for my picks this year.  I probably would have had more teams right if I had not experimented.

I also have 11 of the 16 sweet 16 teams, and if I went all UAA instead of a Massey system, I would have had 13 of the 16 sweet 16 teams.   However, I don't mind that my bracket only has 11 of the Sweet 16 teams and 3 of the Final 4 teams remaining-- I am just glad that my conference has 2 teams left on the women's side in this tournament (Wash U and Chicago-- which Massey did not pick for the Sweet 16-- stupid Massey system!!!  ;)   My "Massey" bracket may not be pleased with Saturday's results, but I am privately pleased.-- I wished all 3 UAA teams made the Sweet 16.)

11-5 in the second round for my bracket on the women's side-- for a total of 50 points through 2 rounds.  I went 28-4 in the first round.

(Note for the D3Photography.com bracket maintenance guy(s)-- (Is Ryan Coleman running the bracket challenge this year?)-- I noticed that W. Connecticut and E. Connecticut, who I correctly picked to win their first round games-- were incorrectly crossed off my bracket as losing their first round games.   Please correct this.)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sunny on March 06, 2011, 12:27:13 PM
In my non-entered bracket, I have 13 of the final 16 ... Muhlenberg, Wash U, and Thomas More are the party crashers ... seven of my final eight are alive (UW-Stevens Point, Illinois Wesleyan, Chicago, Kean, Lebanon Valley, Amherst, Babson) as are all four of my final four (UW-Stevens Point, Chicago, Kean, Amherst).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 06, 2011, 12:36:44 PM
Since the Stevens Point men aren't hosting, what are the odds the SP women host again for that sectional??
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 06, 2011, 12:42:52 PM
Illinois Wesleyan was ranked in front of them in the last public regional rankings. So my guess is IWU or Coe host. My semi-educated guess is Kean, Amherst and Thomas More are the other three.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BAK4LVC on March 06, 2011, 12:53:04 PM
Just released on Lebanon Valley's website that they will be hosting William Paterson, Christopher Newport, and Kean.   ;D ;D
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 06, 2011, 12:57:21 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 06, 2011, 12:42:52 PM
Illinois Wesleyan was ranked in front of them in the last public regional rankings. So my guess is IWU or Coe host. My semi-educated guess is Kean, Amherst and Thomas More are the other three.


I'd guess IWU, Thomas More, Kean & Amherst are the 4 sites.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 06, 2011, 12:59:44 PM
Quote from: BAK4LVC on March 06, 2011, 12:53:04 PM
Just released on Lebanon Valley's website that they will be hosting William Paterson, Christopher Newport, and Kean.   ;D ;D

Thats surprizing if they do.  I would think the 2 NJAC schools would be first in line.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BAK4LVC on March 06, 2011, 01:20:30 PM
It's a done deal.  LVC was informed about it just about a half an hour ago.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 06, 2011, 01:36:31 PM
Stevens Point, Lebanon Valley, Amherst & Thomas More 4 sectional sites.

I was hoping to go back to Kean next Friday for the CNU Kean and WPU Leb Valley games, but definatly won't be driving 4 hours to see that.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 06, 2011, 01:45:15 PM
Thrilled that UWSP is hosting, but very surprised. Both IWU and Coe were #1 seeds in the last public rankings. UWSP was #2. Could UWSP have jumped IWU in the final ranking that we didn't get to see?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 06, 2011, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 06, 2011, 01:45:15 PM
Thrilled that UWSP is hosting, but very surprised. Both IWU and Coe were #1 seeds in the last public rankings. UWSP was #2. Could UWSP have jumped IWU in the final ranking that we didn't get to see?

That was suggested here earlier.  It would be surprising--both teams won out, winning their conference tournaments, and IWU has already beaten UWSP on SP's court this year.  What would have happened to change the ranking?

Not, of course, what IWU would have preferred, but it will still be a great sectional.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 06, 2011, 02:02:54 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 06, 2011, 01:45:15 PM
Thrilled that UWSP is hosting, but very surprised. Both IWU and Coe were #1 seeds in the last public rankings. UWSP was #2. Could UWSP have jumped IWU in the final ranking that we didn't get to see?

I am not too familiar with the sectional procedure, as Greensboro has never been there, but does the 500 mi rule still have say in the sectional selections?   
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: buf on March 06, 2011, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Hoosier Titan on March 06, 2011, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 06, 2011, 01:45:15 PM
Thrilled that UWSP is hosting, but very surprised. Both IWU and Coe were #1 seeds in the last public rankings. UWSP was #2. Could UWSP have jumped IWU in the final ranking that we didn't get to see?

That was suggested here earlier.  It would be surprising--both teams won out, winning their conference tournaments, and IWU has already beaten UWSP on SP's court this year.  What would have happened to change the ranking?

Not, of course, what IWU would have preferred, but it will still be a great sectional.

Been kind of a weird week for IWU in general.  Everyone was pretty surprised when the men got selected on Monday.  And now the opposite has taken place for the women (that they are not hosting)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 06, 2011, 02:31:12 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 06, 2011, 02:02:54 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 06, 2011, 01:45:15 PM
Thrilled that UWSP is hosting, but very surprised. Both IWU and Coe were #1 seeds in the last public rankings. UWSP was #2. Could UWSP have jumped IWU in the final ranking that we didn't get to see?

I am not too familiar with the sectional procedure, as Greensboro has never been there, but does the 500 mi rule still have say in the sectional selections?   

Absolutely. The NCAA will always work to minimize flights.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: iwumichigander on March 06, 2011, 04:48:17 PM
Quote from: buf on March 06, 2011, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Hoosier Titan on March 06, 2011, 01:55:09 PM
Quote from: Just Bill on March 06, 2011, 01:45:15 PM
Thrilled that UWSP is hosting, but very surprised. Both IWU and Coe were #1 seeds in the last public rankings. UWSP was #2. Could UWSP have jumped IWU in the final ranking that we didn't get to see?

That was suggested here earlier.  It would be surprising--both teams won out, winning their conference tournaments, and IWU has already beaten UWSP on SP's court this year.  What would have happened to change the ranking?

Not, of course, what IWU would have preferred, but it will still be a great sectional.

Been kind of a weird week for IWU in general.  Everyone was pretty surprised when the men got selected on Monday.  And now the opposite has taken place for the women (that they are not hosting)
We just might be witnessing a little NCAA Div III politics.  By sending UWSP men to higher ranked Augustana; you avoid two sectionals in Midwest/Illinois.  And awarding UWSP the sectional eliminates any complaints (we have already had some)  about IWU playing all its rounds on home court (should IWU women prevail in sectional). 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Lovinthe3ball on March 06, 2011, 06:34:36 PM
Pretty sure outside of the who gets prefrence what weekend rule of the NCAA the men's and women's committees do absolutely no consulting with one another on who is hosting and who is not. To say there are "politics" involved in this is crazy. I don't really see how IWU not hosting is such a surprise. A game played back in December could only keep IWU ahead of the UWSP for so long.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 06, 2011, 06:45:20 PM
Quote from: Lovinthe3ball on March 06, 2011, 06:34:36 PM
A game played back in December could only keep IWU ahead of the UWSP for so long.

As has been said previously, both teams won out after the last ranking which had IWU ahead of SP, and IWU's SOS is the third best in the country (and better than UWSPs).  The "game played back in December" was only one reason for thinking IWU had earned the right to host.  I can understand the reasoning that giving IWU all home games might give them too much of an advantage, but that starts to sound like politics.  That's not necessarily bad, but it is surprising.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 06, 2011, 07:10:55 PM
IWU had two more losses than UWSP.  UWSP went undefeated in the top ranked conference according to the Massey Ratings.  CCIW was ranked second I believe.

Where are the records that IWU had a better SOS than Stevens Point?  The final weekend IWU played Augustana (7-18), Carthage (17-9) and Wheaton (19-7).  (Combined 43-34 .558)

SP played River Falls (16-11) and Whitewater (21-6 at the time).  (Combined 37-17 .685) 

This may have pushed SP ahead in the SOS?  I have no clue.  Both teams played great schedules. 

SP had more wins against regionally ranked opponents.  There must have been more involved than we know.  I believe that this was very important to the Board. 

By looking at their records, IWU has made the NCAA tournament the last five seasons, and they have been at home every single game!  That has got to be a record! 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 06, 2011, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 06, 2011, 07:10:55 PM
IWU had two more losses than UWSP.  UWSP went undefeated in the top ranked conference according to the Massey Ratings.  CCIW was ranked second I believe.

Where are the records that IWU had a better SOS than Stevens Point?  The final weekend IWU played Augustana (7-18), Carthage (17-9) and Wheaton (19-7).  (Combined 43-34 .558)

SP played River Falls (16-11) and Whitewater (21-6 at the time).  (Combined 37-17 .685) 

This may have pushed SP ahead in the SOS?  I have no clue.  Both teams played great schedules. 

SP had more wins against regionally ranked opponents.  There must have been more involved than we know.  I believe that this was very important to the Board. 


I'm going from the SOS numbers quoted on the "How They Fared" updates that Darryl Nester has been posting on the Top 25 board here.  As of February 27, IWU's SOS was 0.600 and UWSP's was 0.570.  The only two SOS numbers higher than IWU's were those of Amherst and Bowdoin.  I believe those numbers are for the entire season.  By quoting SOS for the last weekend (involving the conference tournaments) only, it looks to me as though you're introducing a new criterion:  SOS for the team's conference.  I don't think that's on the NCAA's list.  So, yes, clearly there are things going on here that we don't understand.

Quote from: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 06, 2011, 07:10:55 PM

By looking at their records, IWU has made the NCAA tournament the last five seasons, and they have been at home every single game!  That has got to be a record! 


They haven't played every game at home.  In 2006-2007, the first of those five years, they were on the road for the first round.  They have been at home in subsequent years, and there's no question that they haven't made the most of what should be a big advantage!  However, this year they've already beaten UWSP at Stevens Point, Wash U. at DePauw, and Kean at Kean. They can win on the road. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: iwumichigander on March 06, 2011, 11:43:38 PM
Quote from: Hoosier Titan on March 06, 2011, 08:05:52 PM
Quote from: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 06, 2011, 07:10:55 PM
IWU had two more losses than UWSP.  UWSP went undefeated in the top ranked conference according to the Massey Ratings.  CCIW was ranked second I believe.

Where are the records that IWU had a better SOS than Stevens Point?  The final weekend IWU played Augustana (7-18), Carthage (17-9) and Wheaton (19-7).  (Combined 43-34 .558)

SP played River Falls (16-11) and Whitewater (21-6 at the time).  (Combined 37-17 .685) 

This may have pushed SP ahead in the SOS?  I have no clue.  Both teams played great schedules. 

SP had more wins against regionally ranked opponents.  There must have been more involved than we know.  I believe that this was very important to the Board. 


I'm going from the SOS numbers quoted on the "How They Fared" updates that Darryl Nester has been posting on the Top 25 board here.  As of February 27, IWU's SOS was 0.600 and UWSP's was 0.570.  The only two SOS numbers higher than IWU's were those of Amherst and Bowdoin.  I believe those numbers are for the entire season.  By quoting SOS for the last weekend (involving the conference tournaments) only, it looks to me as though you're introducing a new criterion:  SOS for the team's conference.  I don't think that's on the NCAA's list.  So, yes, clearly there are things going on here that we don't understand.

Quote from: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 06, 2011, 07:10:55 PM

By looking at their records, IWU has made the NCAA tournament the last five seasons, and they have been at home every single game!  That has got to be a record! 


They haven't played every game at home.  In 2006-2007, the first of those five years, they were on the road for the first round.  They have been at home in subsequent years, and there's no question that they haven't made the most of what should be a big advantage!  However, this year they've already beaten UWSP at Stevens Point, Wash U. at DePauw, and Kean at Kean. They can win on the road. 
From D3Hoops - "Regional Rankings Week 4
The first record is in-region record, followed by overall record. Through games of Feb. 20.
1. Illinois Wesleyan 17-3 20-4
2. Wisconsin-Stevens Point 23-2 23-2"

The only ranking that takes into consideration the committee's criteria is the one above.  The committee does not consider Massey Ratings nor recent results or records of opponents since last published
rating.

By my count, IWU was 7-2 in region; with only one opponent in conference (Millikin), and wins against WashU, UW-Whitewater, UChgo, Kean, Baruch and Webster.

UW-Stevens Point was 6-1 in region with a 1-1 record outside of WIAC (win over Simpson & loss to IWU). Their 5 in-region wins were over WIAC opponents UW-Whitewater (3) and UW-LaCrosse (2).

IMHO, none of the above had anything to do with determining whether UWSP or IWU got to host the sectional.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 07, 2011, 05:51:35 PM
Just heard that the UW-Stevens Point sectional is going to be played in the "smaller gym" (Berg) this weekend and that tickets are going to be limited. D3Hoops says that the Pointers primary facility (Quandt) has space for 2,787. Anyone know how much smaller Berg is? Better yet, can anyone explain why they aren't using their best facility? I bet that Coe wouldn't have stuck the sectional in their JV/intramural gym. Imagine if Hope decided to host the next two Final Fours without using DeVos.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 07, 2011, 06:05:32 PM
so 6 of the 16, Sweet 16 teams got there by winning 2 games on the road.

3 of the 4 sectional hosts have the best record in their groupings.

I know the question on d3hoops site was mentioning that CNU may have been snubbed for a sectional site.  I don't think so, even though I would be willing to bet CNU has the the best gym of the group.  I do think the LVC probably was the least deserving of the 4 teams.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 07, 2011, 06:17:25 PM
Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on March 07, 2011, 05:51:35 PM
Just heard that the UW-Stevens Point sectional is going to be played in the "smaller gym" (Berg) this weekend and that tickets are going to be limited. D3Hoops says that the Pointers primary facility (Quandt) has space for 2,787. Anyone know how much smaller Berg is? Better yet, can anyone explain why they aren't using their best facility? I bet that Coe wouldn't have stuck the sectional in their JV/intramural gym. Imagine if Hope decided to host the next two Final Fours without using DeVos.

Stevens Point women play their home games in Berg Gym, which is going to be the site for games this weekend.  They have been playing in Berg since it was created and the men have been playing in Quant.  Since they were selected to host they can decide to play games where they would like.  I imagine everyone would rather play games in their gym rather than play games at their men's teams gym where they haven't played the entire year.  It helps with the homecourt advantage.

Which facility is better is open for debate.  A bigger gym does not mean it is better in my opinion.  If that was the case then Devos would never host a Final Four because there are surely bigger gyms in this nation. 

And the seating is limited is also open to debate.  I imagine, just guessing, that many George Fox would not be making the cross country trip on such short notice.  Also am not sure with the fan following of either Coe or Illinois Wesleyan.  If there is not a sell out, then it doesn't matter how big or small the gym is.  I believe that a site must be able to hold at least a 1000 fans, so I am going to assume it holds at least that many or it wouldn't have been selected to host. 

Hope this helps. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 07, 2011, 06:26:33 PM
^  Can't speak for Coe, but IWU always travels extremely well (at least for the men, but my understanding is that over the past few years it has become true for the women as well).  And since the IWU men got knocked out in round two, there won't be that 'conflict of loyalties' issue - expect the Titans to sell out their allotment of tickets (and perhaps try at the door for more).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 07, 2011, 06:33:34 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on March 06, 2011, 11:43:38 PM
From D3Hoops - "Regional Rankings Week 4
The first record is in-region record, followed by overall record. Through games of Feb. 20.
1. Illinois Wesleyan 17-3 20-4
2. Wisconsin-Stevens Point 23-2 23-2"

The only ranking that takes into consideration the committee's criteria is the one above.  The committee does not consider Massey Ratings nor recent results or records of opponents since last published
rating.

By my count, IWU was 7-2 in region; with only one opponent in conference (Millikin), and wins against WashU, UW-Whitewater, UChgo, Kean, Baruch and Webster.

UW-Stevens Point was 6-1 in region with a 1-1 record outside of WIAC (win over Simpson & loss to IWU). Their 5 in-region wins were over WIAC opponents UW-Whitewater (3) and UW-LaCrosse (2).

IMHO, none of the above had anything to do with determining whether UWSP or IWU got to host the sectional.


Couple things I have questions about.  First off, I do not believe that IWU had more regional ranked wins than Stevens Point.  I could be wrong, but Kean and Baruch are not considered part of IWU Regional Ranked wins. They are in a different region and more than 200 miles from IWU.  So these do not count in the primary criteria.  But I do agree they are great wins. 

Also, IWU lost to WW.  WW beat them in November.  And that Webster game does not count since the Regional Rankings were made before the NCAA tournament started.  I do not believe that they re-rank the teams after the first weekend.  I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure they don't. 

I doubt the politics about this because the NCAA were going to allow IWU host all of their NCAA games year.  I don't know why it would change this year, especially when they didn't make the Final Four last year.  I could see them changing it once it happens, but since it didn't happen there was no need to change it for this year.  I know this wasn't stated in the above post, but I was just replying to one that was stated earlier. 

And to Hoosier Titan, my fault for saying they were at home every year.  I was simply looking at their past history on their website and saw they played Carroll College in 2007 and it wasn't at Carroll College.  I neglected to think about it being a neutral court game which it was. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: iwumichigander on March 07, 2011, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on March 07, 2011, 05:51:35 PM
Just heard that the UW-Stevens Point sectional is going to be played in the "smaller gym" (Berg) this weekend and that tickets are going to be limited. D3Hoops says that the Pointers primary facility (Quandt) has space for 2,787. Anyone know how much smaller Berg is? Better yet, can anyone explain why they aren't using their best facility? I bet that Coe wouldn't have stuck the sectional in their JV/intramural gym. Imagine if Hope decided to host the next two Final Fours without using DeVos.
"The Berg Gym is a 1,350 seat gym consists of 1 full basketball court with 4 side baskets and the Quandt Gym is a 2,800 seat gym with 1 full basketball court and 8 side baskets. Source - Central Wisconsin/Stevens Point Area Sports Commission."
UWSP's website undergoing some changes so I fished this info through web search.  Last year, IWU vs. UWSP at Bloomington in NCAA play - attendance shown on stats was 1700.  Berg may be a little tight so a split session possible as being done at Men Sectional at Augustana
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BAK4LVC on March 07, 2011, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 07, 2011, 06:05:32 PM
so 6 of the 16, Sweet 16 teams got there by winning 2 games on the road.

3 of the 4 sectional hosts have the best record in their groupings.

I know the question on d3hoops site was mentioning that CNU may have been snubbed for a sectional site.  I don't think so, even though I would be willing to bet CNU has the the best gym of the group.  I do think the LVC probably was the least deserving of the 4 teams.

I was as surprised as anyone that the NCAA awarded the hosting of their sweet sixteen group to LVC.  But I can't disagree with it if they are looking to make the site as fair as possible.  Christopher Newport has the longest ride to any of the three others, but it is only five and a half hours (303 miles) to LVC, while they would have a seven or seven and a half hour ride (386 miles and 407 miles, respectively) to either Kean or William Paterson.  Meanwhile instead of having a major commuting time advantage over their opponents to each other's site, the NJAC teams have a more fair 3 hour trip (144 miles for Kean, 156 for William Paterson) to LVC.  The site makes sense geographically.

In addition, LVC was undoubtedly the #1 ranked team in their region in the final regional rankings.  You cannot assume that for Kean, who lost to Rutgers-Newark after the week 4 rankings were released, or William Paterson, who was #3 in the Atlantic rankings and behind Mt. St. Mary's as well as Kean.  Put these two factors together and the site selection makes a lot of sense.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 07, 2011, 08:24:03 PM
Quote from: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 07, 2011, 06:33:34 PM

I doubt the politics about this because the NCAA were going to allow IWU host all of their NCAA games year.  I don't know why it would change this year, especially when they didn't make the Final Four last year.  I could see them changing it once it happens, but since it didn't happen there was no need to change it for this year.  I know this wasn't stated in the above post, but I was just replying to one that was stated earlier. 


OOMK,

I think we could triangulate for a long time on why some decisions were made.  At this point, it doesn't matter that much to me.  What we heard about IWU's hosting last year--when we were sure that the sectional would NOT be in Bloomington because of having home court all three weekends had the Titans won--was that the NCAA wanted to do a test run for the Final Four. 

All of this reminds me of Kremlinology back in the Cold War days!

What we know is that four good teams will meet at the Berg Gym.  The Titans are road tested; I'm looking forward to it.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 07, 2011, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: BAK4LVC on March 07, 2011, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 07, 2011, 06:05:32 PM
so 6 of the 16, Sweet 16 teams got there by winning 2 games on the road.

3 of the 4 sectional hosts have the best record in their groupings.

I know the question on d3hoops site was mentioning that CNU may have been snubbed for a sectional site.  I don't think so, even though I would be willing to bet CNU has the the best gym of the group.  I do think the LVC probably was the least deserving of the 4 teams.

I was as surprised as anyone that the NCAA awarded the hosting of their sweet sixteen group to LVC.  But I can't disagree with it if they are looking to make the site as fair as possible.  Christopher Newport has the longest ride to any of the three others, but it is only five and a half hours (303 miles) to LVC, while they would have a seven or seven and a half hour ride (386 miles and 407 miles, respectively) to either Kean or William Paterson.  Meanwhile instead of having a major commuting time advantage over their opponents to each other's site, the NJAC teams have a more fair 3 hour trip (144 miles for Kean, 156 for William Paterson) to LVC.  The site makes sense geographically.

In addition, LVC was undoubtedly the #1 ranked team in their region in the final regional rankings.  You cannot assume that for Kean, who lost to Rutgers-Newark after the week 4 rankings were released, or William Paterson, who was #3 in the Atlantic rankings and behind Mt. St. Mary's as well as Kean.  Put these two factors together and the site selection makes a lot of sense.

I have to agree with everything there.

On the Greensboro side:  I don't know if it is true, but I heard that Greensboro was 11 mi away from getting a flight to Thomas More/(probably would fly into Cincy.) Now they are lucky to get that bus trip.

Believe it or not, I would as Greensboro fan, rather see them play there than Wash U or Chicago.  Especially Chicago (only because it would be a home game for them.)

It was actually the best place for the other 3 teams anyway.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 07, 2011, 09:45:57 PM
I was there in Stevens Point when the women hosted sectionals in both 2002 and 2004. 2002 was in Berg Gym and 2004 was in Quandt. Without a doubt the Berg Gym games had a more electric atmosphere. It was 105% full compared to about 80% full in Quandt two years later.

Whoever compared Berg to a JV/intramural gym was being a bit insulting, since they've likely never been there.  Berg is a better gym than many D-III schools have.  And, really, why shouldn't they play in their own gym, the same gym where they played every other home game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 08, 2011, 10:53:14 AM
Quote from: BAK4LVC on March 07, 2011, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 07, 2011, 06:05:32 PM
so 6 of the 16, Sweet 16 teams got there by winning 2 games on the road.

3 of the 4 sectional hosts have the best record in their groupings.

I know the question on d3hoops site was mentioning that CNU may have been snubbed for a sectional site.  I don't think so, even though I would be willing to bet CNU has the the best gym of the group.  I do think the LVC probably was the least deserving of the 4 teams.

I was as surprised as anyone that the NCAA awarded the hosting of their sweet sixteen group to LVC.  But I can't disagree with it if they are looking to make the site as fair as possible.  Christopher Newport has the longest ride to any of the three others, but it is only five and a half hours (303 miles) to LVC, while they would have a seven or seven and a half hour ride (386 miles and 407 miles, respectively) to either Kean or William Paterson.  Meanwhile instead of having a major commuting time advantage over their opponents to each other's site, the NJAC teams have a more fair 3 hour trip (144 miles for Kean, 156 for William Paterson) to LVC.  The site makes sense geographically.

In addition, LVC was undoubtedly the #1 ranked team in their region in the final regional rankings.  You cannot assume that for Kean, who lost to Rutgers-Newark after the week 4 rankings were released, or William Paterson, who was #3 in the Atlantic rankings and behind Mt. St. Mary's as well as Kean.  Put these two factors together and the site selection makes a lot of sense.

The women did finally provide their regional rankings.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2011/03/01/ncaas-final-regional-ranking/
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 06:29:00 AM
Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on March 09, 2011, 12:49:49 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 06:29:00 AM
Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.

Really interesting post. We saw that with the UWSP and IWU flip in the RRs. I would have to give more thought to SOS ending with the last game of the regular season, but definitely see where you are coming from.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 02:29:17 PM
Quote from: Wydown Blvd. on March 09, 2011, 12:49:49 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 06:29:00 AM
Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.

Really interesting post. We saw that with the UWSP and IWU flip in the RRs. I would have to give more thought to SOS ending with the last game of the regular season, but definitely see where you are coming from.

That idea came to me as I woke up this morning :).  When a team wins their conference they are pretty much stuck playing, at times, the worse of the worse.  In a way this regional ranking system faults them for winning their conference.

Maybe add conference record to primary regional ranking criteria? (I don't know if that is very good solution either.)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 09, 2011, 03:11:51 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 06:29:00 AM
Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.
Or, don't hold the tournament.

I think that the NWC earned a Pool C bid in baseball in 2008, because they did not have a post-season tournament which would inflict another in-region loss or two on any of the participants.  The UAA doesn't have post-season tourney and frequently earns multiple bids.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 09, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 02:29:17 PMWhen a team wins their conference they are pretty much stuck playing, at times, the worse of the worse.  In a way this regional ranking system faults them for winning their conference.

Furthermore, they generally play them at home (hosting the conference tournament), saddling them with the dreaded 0.6 multiplier for a home game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: iwumichigander on March 09, 2011, 05:12:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 09, 2011, 03:11:51 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 06:29:00 AM
Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.
Or, don't hold the tournament.

I think that the NWC earned a Pool C bid in baseball in 2008, because they did not have a post-season tournament which would inflict another in-region loss or two on any of the participants.  The UAA doesn't have post-season tourney and frequently earns multiple bids.
Hum - Not sure UAA best comparison in that its team are the only conference geographically dispersed with the regional rankings.  However, what the UAA does make one consider whether a change needs to be made to more strongly consider "Results vs. ALL Div. III Ranked teams" (presently secondary criteria).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on March 09, 2011, 08:10:57 PM
Quote from: iwumichigander on March 09, 2011, 05:12:33 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 09, 2011, 03:11:51 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 06:29:00 AM
Here is an interesting take on regional rankings.

#1 seeds in conference tournaments are essentially at a disadvantage when it comes to re-ranking teams.  They are supposed to play the #8's #4's etc in the conference tournament.  If two teams from the conference are regionally ranked close to one another, the #2 seed could very well leap frog the #1 seed if they were to meet in conference championship and the #1 seed loses.  This is all based of the idea that their SOS are virtually equal heading into the conference tournament.  #1 seeds are at a disadvantage with SOS heading into the tournament, because they are playing the worse of the worse.  Rarely the above scenario will happen.

How about #2 seed in a tougher conference ranked just below a #1 seed in a weaker conference.  They could very well leapfrog the #1 seed just by winning.  That is more likely.

SOS should end with the last game of the season.  If it does already, then disregard this entire post.
Or, don't hold the tournament.

I think that the NWC earned a Pool C bid in baseball in 2008, because they did not have a post-season tournament which would inflict another in-region loss or two on any of the participants.  The UAA doesn't have post-season tourney and frequently earns multiple bids.
Hum - Not sure UAA best comparison in that its team are the only conference geographically dispersed with the regional rankings.  However, what the UAA does make one consider whether a change needs to be made to more strongly consider "Results vs. ALL Div. III Ranked teams" (presently secondary criteria).

Usually, the UAA would not be the best comparison to make because of the national distribution of the conference. However, this season it would have been really interesting. This is pure speculation, but if WashU had played in a conference tournament and suffered another regional loss to Rochester (UR) or UChicago, I think that would have dropped them out of the RR and I don't believe they would have made the tourney. UR was pretty safe with its #2 ranking in the final RR in the East region, but for WashU, the lack of conference tourny helped them this season.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 10, 2011, 06:33:32 AM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 09, 2011, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 09, 2011, 02:29:17 PMWhen a team wins their conference they are pretty much stuck playing, at times, the worse of the worse.  In a way this regional ranking system faults them for winning their conference.

Furthermore, they generally play them at home (hosting the conference tournament), saddling them with the dreaded 0.6 multiplier for a home game.

The women's committee does not use a multiplier for home/away-- the multiplier was only used for the men's tournament this season.  :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: deiscanton on March 10, 2011, 06:41:50 AM
Errors-- Corrections to be made to the Sectionals at a glance page at  http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/2011-sectionals  (http://www.d3hoops.com/playoffs/2011-sectionals)

(1)-- Stevens Point sectional

Illinois Wesleyan Titans--

 Signature win  should read:  UW-Stevens Point (A)  12/11

Illinois Wesleyan did not play Lewis & Clark this season.

Other significant wins for Illinois Wesleyan:  Wash U (N)  11/20, Chicago (H) 12/4, Kean (A) 12/31.

(2)--  Lebanon Valley sectional

Kean Cougars--

 Road to Lebanon Valley  should read:

Pool C (NJAC)
Def. Vassar
Def. W. Connecticut

Kean women did not play Centre or Wittenberg last weekend.

(3)  Thomas More sectional

Washington U. Bears

Wrong link given for schedule and results -- Link points to Cabrini men's page.

Correct link for schedule and results  should link to:  http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Washington_U./women/2010-11/index  (http://www.d3hoops.com/teams/Washington_U./women/2010-11/index)

(4)  Amherst sectional

Bowdoin Polar Bears

 Record should read:  24-5   (Bowdoin is not 27-1)

Amherst Lord Jeffs

 Record should read:  28-1  (Amherst is not 28-2)

For Amherst, the road to Amherst should read:

NESCAC automatic bid  (Amherst did not need a Pool C as they won the NESCAC tournament)

Def. Husson
Def. Eastern Connecticut

Update:   Thanks for making the corrections.  However, the Kean Cougars still need to be corrected with their road to Lebanon Valley :  it still reads Centre and Wittenberg as opponents that the Kean women defeated-- should read Vassar and Western Connecticut.  (I rechecked the sectionals page approx. 2:30 PM Eastern, Thursday, March 10, 2011.)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 10, 2011, 10:15:41 PM
  The William Paterson significant victory over Scranton was a neutral(N) win @ DeSales, not an away(A).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 12, 2011, 08:18:39 PM
Amazing start for George Fox. 16-0 to open the game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 12, 2011, 08:24:51 PM
Once again Stevens Point live stats are frozen...Third time in three games!  Anyone there want to talk to them?

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 12, 2011, 08:31:22 PM
BlueZone,
Are you on campus watching the video? If so, what is the quality of the feed?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 12, 2011, 08:34:14 PM
25-4 George Fox??  Really looks like this is Amherst's tournament to lose especially if the Titans go down.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: jaybird44 on March 12, 2011, 08:42:20 PM
Don't be too sure about that...Wash-U defeats Chicago 63-58 to return to the Final Four...stopping Chicago's 21-game winning streak...Wash-U defeated 4 teams in the Top 10 to return to Bloomington.

Amherst is a great team, but I don't think it needs to be handed the trophy just yet...
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 12, 2011, 08:43:12 PM
Quote from: BruinFan on March 12, 2011, 08:31:22 PM
BlueZone,
Are you on campus watching the video? If so, what is the quality of the feed?

Bruin,

Very, very poor! Choppy. It looks like we are watching a stop-action broadcast. 8-(
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 12, 2011, 08:47:25 PM
Toughest game for Amherst will likely be in the final and I would not be so quick to call them the favorite.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 09:41:04 PM
IWU launches one of the greatest comebacks ever, and win 61-60!

They trailed 16-0 and 25-4.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sunny on March 12, 2011, 09:42:19 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 09:41:04 PM
IWU launches one of the greatest comebacks ever, and win 61-60!

They trailed 16-0 and 25-4.

What a comeback!!! They only led for the last five seconds on top of that!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 12, 2011, 09:45:16 PM
Congrats to IWU as they never gave up, good luck in the Final 4.  A tough loss for the Bruins, but did play some great basketball this weekend in Wisconsin.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 11:42:09 PM
I was trying to check this, but a lot of the archived info hasn't been moved to the new d3hoops.com yet.  I found that Hope won the national title in 1990 on their home court, but since then will this be the first time a host school remembered to be a gracious host by showing up for their own party?! ;D

Two and three years ago, Hope was expected to do so, but came up just short.  Last year IWU was #1 much of the year but was ousted 'prematurely' by UWSP.  This year they get to be on the court instead of in the stands for the "Shirk Invitational"!! ;D
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 13, 2011, 12:41:23 AM
  After watching IWU come back from a double-digit deficit on Kean's home court earlier in the year, I wasn't surprised that they had what it takes to do it on a neutral court.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GuyFormerlyPSBBG on March 13, 2011, 08:00:06 AM
Wow I can't believe it my shocker pick made it to the final four.  Good job CNU.  Either way Greensboro managed to beat a final 4 team once.

Honestly though, CNU in my mind had a pretty easy track to the Final Four, which is the reason I picked them to get there.

Of note teams that beat Greensboro are 1-4 in the following round.  Teams are just better off letting them win.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 13, 2011, 03:41:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 11:42:09 PM
This year they get to be on the court instead of in the stands for the "Shirk Invitational"!! ;D

We'll see Friday if it was bad thing that they drew the team that won last year's championship on their court and who plays on their court every third year.  In their favor is that they've beat the Bears four years running and didn't play them the two prior.  They haven't lost to the Bears since Manning and Beehler were juniors.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 13, 2011, 05:08:27 PM
QuoteI was trying to check this, but a lot of the archived info hasn't been moved to the new d3hoops.com yet.  I found that Hope won the national title in 1990 on their home court, but since then will this be the first time a host school remembered to be a gracious host by showing up for their own party?!

The Division III national semifinals moved to a neutral site format in 1999. Before that the championship games were hosted by one of the four participants.  The last team to host and play in a Final Four was Southern Maine in 1998. The Huskies lost to Washington U. in the final and the Bears won three more titles consecutively.  The last team to win a national title on its own court was New York University in 1997. The Violets beat UW-Eau Claire 72-70 in Manhattan.

Here's how the last 10 teams hosting a national championship did.

1998   Southern Maine hosted and lost to Washington U in the final 77-69
1997   NYU hosted and beat UW-Eau Claire in the final 72-70
1996   UW-Oshkosh hosted and beat Mount Union in the final 66-50
1995   Capital hosted and beat UW-Oshkosh in the final 59-55
1994   UW-Eau Claire hosted but did not advance to the final. Capital beat Wash U. 82-63
1993   Central hosted and beat Capital in the final 71-63
1992   Moravian hosted and lost to Alma in the final 79-75
1991   St. Thomas hosted and beat Muskingum in the final 73-55
1990   Hope hosted and beat St. John Fisher in the final 65-63
1989   Centre hosted but did not advance to the final. Elizabethtown beat Cal State-Stanislaus 66-65

So the home team won 6 of 10 national titles.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2011, 05:21:00 PM
Thanks, Gordon.  What have been the results on the pre-set sites - have any host teams made it to the FF before this year?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 13, 2011, 05:48:42 PM
No problem.

No, no host team made it to the Final Four during the preset format before this year. Western Connecticut hosted championship weekend from 1999 - 2001 and the Colonials didn't make the NCAA tournament during that period. Rose-Hulman hosted in 2002 and 2003 and the Engineers have never made the tournament. Virginia Wesleyan hosted in 2004 and 2005 and didn't make the tournament during that period.

Springfield hosted in 2006 and 2007. The Pride made the tournament in 2006 but lost in the first round to Messiah. They didn't make the tournament in 2007.

Hope hosted in 2008 and 2009. As you know, they lost in the national quarterfinals each year (at Howard Payne in 08, versus George Fox at Thomas More in 09). Illinois Wesleyan lost in the Sweet 16 last year.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2011, 06:06:43 PM
Thanks again!  I'm sure Hope will try hard to duplicate the feat the next two years, but I'm not sure of their chances with Carrie Snikkers graduating.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bearsfan on March 13, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 13, 2011, 03:41:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 11:42:09 PM
This year they get to be on the court instead of in the stands for the "Shirk Invitational"!! ;D

We'll see Friday if it was bad thing that they drew the team that won last year's championship on their court and who plays on their court every third year.  In their favor is that they've beat the Bears four years running and didn't play them the two prior.  They haven't lost to the Bears since Manning and Beehler were juniors.

Except when they beat IWU on their home floor in the Elite 8 game in 2009 to make the Final 4.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2011, 10:57:31 PM
Quote from: bearsfan on March 13, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 13, 2011, 03:41:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 11:42:09 PM
This year they get to be on the court instead of in the stands for the "Shirk Invitational"!! ;D

We'll see Friday if it was bad thing that they drew the team that won last year's championship on their court and who plays on their court every third year.  In their favor is that they've beat the Bears four years running and didn't play them the two prior.  They haven't lost to the Bears since Manning and Beehler were juniors.

Except when they beat IWU on their home floor in the Elite 8 game in 2009 to make the Final 4.

Alas, you are correct.  Those Titans were 30-0 going in to that game (including an early win on YOUR home court). :(
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Hoosier Titan on March 14, 2011, 06:05:45 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2011, 10:57:31 PM
Quote from: bearsfan on March 13, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 13, 2011, 03:41:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 11:42:09 PM
This year they get to be on the court instead of in the stands for the "Shirk Invitational"!! ;D

We'll see Friday if it was bad thing that they drew the team that won last year's championship on their court and who plays on their court every third year.  In their favor is that they've beat the Bears four years running and didn't play them the two prior.  They haven't lost to the Bears since Manning and Beehler were juniors.

Except when they beat IWU on their home floor in the Elite 8 game in 2009 to make the Final 4.

Alas, you are correct.  Those Titans were 30-0 going in to that game (including an early win on YOUR home court). :(

I'm not against an undefeated season for the team I support, but now that that's not an option for the Titans this season I don't mind at all.  They have memories this season of losing, and VERY(!) recent memories of being behind and having to come back.  And they know they don't have to have home court advantage to win, as they've shown against Wash U, Kean, and UWSP this season.  Two of their three d3 losses came at Shirk.  So I agree that Wash U probably feels at home at Shirk, as of course do the Titans.  I think "home court" is a non-issue for these two teams.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: realist on March 14, 2011, 10:54:22 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2011, 06:06:43 PM
Thanks again!  I'm sure Hope will try hard to duplicate the feat the next two years, but I'm not sure of their chances with Carrie Snikkers graduating.
Mr. Y.  There was much more to the Hope team than just that one player.  Granted she is a heck of a player, but Hope probably would have been almost as good without her.  Remember she did not win mvp in her conference the last 2 years.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 14, 2011, 11:11:34 AM
Hope has a great program and I think they'll contend for the title again. But I don't know how anyone could say "Hope probably would have been almost as good without her."  She wasn't the conference MVP last season but she was a first team All American and national player of the year.  She's a very special talent and will not be easily replaced.  You don't see many 6-foot players with great footwork in the post who can also step back and shoot the three.  Based on what I've seen of Hope, they are a Top 10 team with Snikkers and (in their current configuration) somewhere in the 15-25 range without her.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 14, 2011, 04:55:28 PM
Quote from: bearsfan on March 13, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
Quote from: mark_reichert on March 13, 2011, 03:41:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 12, 2011, 11:42:09 PM
This year they get to be on the court instead of in the stands for the "Shirk Invitational"!! ;D

We'll see Friday if it was bad thing that they drew the team that won last year's championship on their court and who plays on their court every third year.  In their favor is that they've beat the Bears four years running and didn't play them the two prior.  They haven't lost to the Bears since Manning and Beehler were juniors.

Except when they beat IWU on their home floor in the Elite 8 game in 2009 to make the Final 4.

Arrgh! :-[

I was concentrating so much on the early season games, when looking at the past record, I forgot to check out postseason.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 17, 2011, 05:50:54 PM
Quiet boards for the day before the games begin.  I'm hoping that the refs let the girls play and don't call "touch" fouls.  The refs need to realize the game belongs to the kids, not the refs.  Really don't want to see the refs try to "even" out a lopsided game.  These should be the best NCAA D3 has, so let the games begin!!!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 17, 2011, 10:29:34 PM
If anyone is still prowling about, we tried something new for this year's final four.  We put together five minute profiles on each team that you can listen to and watch on UStream.


Click here for Amherst (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13379120)

Click here for Christopher Newport (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13378546)

Click here for Illinois Wesleyan (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13382880)

Click here for Washington U. (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13388730)

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 17, 2011, 11:41:50 PM
Gordon,
  Good idea on the previews and going the extra mile to enhance the coverage. Probably should have Kean's coach as analyst since she played 3 of the 4 teams.
  When u get a chance after the final weekend, how was the final 4 hosting decided in that 89-98 period? seeding? geographical? 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 18, 2011, 07:29:14 PM
Amherst will be in the final - they lead by 12 with 48 seconds remaining.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 18, 2011, 09:05:19 PM
Incredible second semi game!  At the half, WashU is up 45-42, but the game has been totally back and forth.  Titans have led by 7 twice; Bears by 3 on several occasions.  For a while it looked like BOTH teams might hit triple digits, but tired legs have cut the shooting a bit (at one point, IWU was 75% overall, and 71% from 3, and TRAILED 26-23 :o).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 18, 2011, 09:50:07 PM
IWU cut a 14-point WashU lead all the way to 3, but went cold at the end.  Bears win 87-77.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Wydown Blvd. on March 19, 2011, 02:34:02 AM
A game for the ages. For anyone who think women's basketball is boring, take a look at that game! Every time I looked down, someone was scoring. IWU hitting threes from deep and later pounding it inside for a bit. WashU scoring in what seemed like a million different ways. It was an offensive exhibition.

Excited to see the two different styles of WashU and Amherst collide tomorrow.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Out_Of_My_Kitchen on March 19, 2011, 02:13:07 PM
Wydown Blvd.,

I watched it online and it was great.  Two great teams.  Shame one had to lose.  I have to say this is a pretty balanced Final Four.  Some years there is one dominate team or a team who simply doesn't deserve to be there.  I don't see that with this group. 

And the best thing is the rankings going into the Final Four doesn't represent the top four teams!  Shows how balanced NCAA women's basketball has been this year.  Much like the Mens DI championship. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 19, 2011, 04:23:14 PM
Extremely balanced Final Four.  Couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Gregory Sager on March 19, 2011, 05:31:25 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 13, 2011, 05:21:00 PM
Thanks, Gordon.  What have been the results on the pre-set sites - have any host teams made it to the FF before this year?

As Gordon said, no host team had made it to the D3 women's basketball Final Four in a preset-site format prior to this season. However, it did happen once on the men's side of things. In 1981, Augustana was in its fifth year of hosting the men's Final Four at the Carver Center in Rock Island, IL. Augie made it to the Final Four that year, beat Otterbein in the national semis, 93-81 ... and then lost an overtime heartbreaker in the national championship game to Potsdam State, 67-65. What made it even worse was that the Bears only managed to push the game into overtime because All-American Derrick Rowland -- who would later get a two-game cup of coffee with the Milwaukee Bucks in 1985-86 -- hit a halfcourt heave at the buzzer to tie the game.

Losing a national championship game on your home floor ... in overtime ... because the other team hit a halfcourt shot at the buzzer to tie it at the end of regulation. Can't imagine a worse way to lose.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on February 25, 2012, 11:58:48 AM
UPDATE - Pat's got an up-to-date "Who's In" list at the following link: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/25/whos-in-the-2012-womens-tournament/

I'll keep updating this as well, but will eventually be heading out before the George Fox/LC game. Go Bruins!

Who's in...

Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference - La Roche
American Southwest Conference
Capital Athletic Conference - Mary Washington
Centennial Conference - Muhlenberg
City University of New York Athletic Conference - Baruch
College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin - Illinois Wesleyan
Colonial States Athletic Conference - Gwynedd-Mercy
Commonwealth Coast Conference - Salve Regina
Empire 8 - Ithaca
Great Northeast Athletic Conference - Emmanuel
Great South Athletic Conference - Maryville
Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference
Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - Coe
Landmark Conference - Catholic
Liberty League - Vassar
Little East Conference - Rhode Island College
Massachusetts State College Athletic Conference - Bridgewater State
Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association - Calvin
Middle Atlantic Commonwealth - Lebanon Valley
Middle Atlantic Freedom - Misericordia
Midwest Conference - Monmouth
Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - St. Thomas
New England Collegiate Conference - Elms
New England Small College Athletic Conference
New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference
New Jersey Athletic Conference - William Patterson
North Atlantic Conference - Castleton State
North Coast Athletic Conference - DePauw
North Eastern Athletic Conference
Northern Athletics Conference - Wisconsin Lutheran
Northwest Conference - George Fox
Ohio Athletic Conference - Mount Union
Old Dominion Athletic Conference
Presidents Athletic Conference - Thomas More
St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - Westminster
Skyline Conference - Mount St. Mary
Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
State University of New York Athletic Conference - Oneonta State
University Athletic Association - Chicago
Upper Midwest Athletic Conference - Martin Lutheran
USA South Athletic Conference
Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - UW-Stevens Point
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 12:41:26 PM
Chicago clinched last weekend the UAA title...
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on February 25, 2012, 12:45:52 PM
Thanks, Dave. That's why I wanted to do this, so that no one would miss one...like me.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2012, 12:58:12 PM
Thanks BZB!  +1!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2012, 02:13:41 PM
USM plays @ RIC today at 4:00 PM on littleeast.tv and littleeast.mobi (availible for your smart phone) for the little East title.  I think both make the NCAA tournament anyways; RIC was #3 in New England, USM was #5 in the RR, and USM has wins over RIC, Babson, Bowdoin & Colby (all ranked) which should be enough to put them over the edge even if they lose.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 04:30:41 PM
Catholic wins the Landmark title... Juniata will be a Pool C lock.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2012, 04:53:29 PM
Salve Regina wins the CCC over Endicott
Maryville wins Great South over LaGrange
Emmanuel wins GNAC...again, over St. Joseph's of Maine
Yet again Mount St. Mary wins the Skyline beating Farmingdale state again
Castleton state won North Atlantic conference over Colby-Sawyer
Bridgewater state won MASCAC over MCLA
Elms won NECC over Daniel Webster
La Roche over Medaille to win the AMCC bid
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2012, 05:57:45 PM
RIC beats Southern Maine 50-44 to win the Little East tournament
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on February 25, 2012, 08:10:05 PM
Calvin is up 32-11 at the half over Hope. It's not over, but it's still impressive.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WLCALUM83 on February 25, 2012, 09:44:10 PM
Northern Athletics Conference Final:  WLC 85, Dominican 61.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Backseat Driver on February 25, 2012, 10:14:58 PM
Illinois Wesleyan wins CCIW Final, 68-67 over Carthage.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 25, 2012, 11:01:12 PM
FYI - we are tracking the winners on our Daily Dose... here is the women's link: http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/women/2011-12/schedule (http://www.d3hoops.com/seasons/women/2011-12/schedule)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on February 26, 2012, 01:29:01 AM
As Dave said, check out the official list at: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/25/whos-in-the-2012-womens-tournament/

Who's in...
Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference - La Roche
American Southwest Conference
Capital Athletic Conference - Mary Washington
Centennial Conference - Muhlenberg
City University of New York Athletic Conference - Baruch
College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin - Illinois Wesleyan
Colonial States Athletic Conference - Gwynedd-Mercy
Commonwealth Coast Conference - Salve Regina
Empire 8 - Ithaca
Great Northeast Athletic Conference - Emmanuel
Great South Athletic Conference - Maryville
Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference
Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - Coe
Landmark Conference - Catholic
Liberty League - Vassar
Little East Conference - Rhode Island College
Massachusetts State College Athletic Conference - Bridgewater State
Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association - Calvin
Middle Atlantic Commonwealth - Lebanon Valley
Middle Atlantic Freedom - Misericordia
Midwest Conference - Monmouth
Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - St. Thomas
New England Collegiate Conference - Elms
New England Small College Athletic Conference
New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference
New Jersey Athletic Conference - William Patterson
North Atlantic Conference - Castleton State
North Coast Athletic Conference - DePauw
North Eastern Athletic Conference
Northern Athletics Conference - Wisconsin Lutheran
Northwest Conference - George Fox
Ohio Athletic Conference - Mount Union
Old Dominion Athletic Conference
Presidents Athletic Conference - Thomas More
St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - Westminster
Skyline Conference - Mount St. Mary
Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - Cal Lutheran
Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference
State University of New York Athletic Conference - Oneonta State
University Athletic Association - Chicago
Upper Midwest Athletic Conference - Martin Luther
USA South Athletic Conference
Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - UW-Stevens Point
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 26, 2012, 10:11:23 PM
Thanks BZB

Quote from: BlueZoneBruin on February 26, 2012, 01:29:01 AM
As Dave said, check out the official list at: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2012/02/25/whos-in-the-2012-womens-tournament/

Who's in...
Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference - La Roche
American Southwest Conference - Concordia TX
Capital Athletic Conference - Mary Washington
Centennial Conference - Muhlenberg
City University of New York Athletic Conference - Baruch
College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin - Illinois Wesleyan
Colonial States Athletic Conference - Gwynedd-Mercy
Commonwealth Coast Conference - Salve Regina
Empire 8 - Ithaca
Great Northeast Athletic Conference - Emmanuel
Great South Athletic Conference - Maryville
Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference - Franklin
Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - Coe
Landmark Conference - Catholic
Liberty League - Vassar
Little East Conference - Rhode Island College
Massachusetts State College Athletic Conference - Bridgewater State
Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association - Calvin
Middle Atlantic Commonwealth - Lebanon Valley
Middle Atlantic Freedom - Misericordia
Midwest Conference - Monmouth
Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - St. Thomas
New England Collegiate Conference - Elms
New England Small College Athletic Conference - Amherst
New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference - Babson
New Jersey Athletic Conference - William Patterson
North Atlantic Conference - Castleton State
North Coast Athletic Conference - DePauw
North Eastern Athletic Conference - Keuka
Northern Athletics Conference - Wisconsin Lutheran
Northwest Conference - George Fox
Ohio Athletic Conference - Mount Union
Old Dominion Athletic Conference - Guilford
Presidents Athletic Conference - Thomas More
St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - Westminster
Skyline Conference - Mount St. Mary
Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - Cal Lutheran
Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference - Centre
State University of New York Athletic Conference - Oneonta State
University Athletic Association - Chicago
Upper Midwest Athletic Conference - Martin Luther
USA South Athletic Conference - Ferrum
Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference - UW-Stevens Point
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 10:36:40 AM
I noticed the latest D3Hoops and WCBA national rankings are out.  Hope is #20 and #18 respectively.  Despite being 22-5 and top 20 all year, only team to beat Calvin, win over the top-ranked team from the East region, Hope is the only team from the top 25 in either poll that is not still playing.  I think I understand why, given the nature of the present NCAA selection process, but do feel badly for the Hope girls especially the two seniors. 

One last congratulations to the Hope girls on a fine season.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on February 29, 2012, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 10:36:40 AM
I noticed the latest D3Hoops and WCBA national rankings are out.  Hope is #20 and #18 respectively.  Despite being 22-5 and top 20 all year, only team to beat Calvin, win over the top-ranked team from the East region, Hope is the only team from the top 25 in either poll that is not still playing.  I think I understand why, given the nature of the present NCAA selection process, but do feel badly for the Hope girls especially the two seniors. 

One last congratulations to the Hope girls on a fine season.

The top 25 polls aren't factored into the NCAA selection process.  It looks like there were 10 or 11 upsets in conference tournaments making the Pool C at large bids more competitive.  Hope's SOS and in region record did not help them this year for regional rankings.  The loss to Trine really hurt them.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 12:34:44 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on February 29, 2012, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 10:36:40 AM
I noticed the latest D3Hoops and WCBA national rankings are out.  Hope is #20 and #18 respectively.  Despite being 22-5 and top 20 all year, only team to beat Calvin, win over the top-ranked team from the East region, Hope is the only team from the top 25 in either poll that is not still playing.  I think I understand why, given the nature of the present NCAA selection process, but do feel badly for the Hope girls especially the two seniors. 

One last congratulations to the Hope girls on a fine season.

The top 25 polls aren't factored into the NCAA selection process.  It looks like there were 10 or 11 upsets in conference tournaments making the Pool C at large bids more competitive.  Hope's SOS and in region record did not help them this year for regional rankings.  The loss to Trine really hurt them.

Yes, I understand the regional criteria and why Hope was not selected.  They did not achieve what was necessary for selection under the current selection process. 

I was simply congratulating the Hope girls on a very nice season nonetheless and pointing out that the current selection process left out the only team that is so highly regarded by coaches and by D3hoops.  Such anomolies are useful to consider for fine-tuning the selection process in the future.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on February 29, 2012, 02:12:12 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 12:34:44 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on February 29, 2012, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 10:36:40 AM
I noticed the latest D3Hoops and WCBA national rankings are out.  Hope is #20 and #18 respectively.  Despite being 22-5 and top 20 all year, only team to beat Calvin, win over the top-ranked team from the East region, Hope is the only team from the top 25 in either poll that is not still playing.  I think I understand why, given the nature of the present NCAA selection process, but do feel badly for the Hope girls especially the two seniors. 

One last congratulations to the Hope girls on a fine season.

The top 25 polls aren't factored into the NCAA selection process.  It looks like there were 10 or 11 upsets in conference tournaments making the Pool C at large bids more competitive.  Hope's SOS and in region record did not help them this year for regional rankings.  The loss to Trine really hurt them.

Yes, I understand the regional criteria and why Hope was not selected.  They did not achieve what was necessary for selection under the current selection process. 

I was simply congratulating the Hope girls on a very nice season nonetheless and pointing out that the current selection process left out the only team that is so highly regarded by coaches and by D3hoops.  Such anomolies are useful to consider for fine-tuning the selection process in the future.

I agree that the NCAA tournament selection process has its weaknesses.  Looks like that win for Hope against Ithaca would have been a factor if these new changes get passed by the NCAA.  Check out this link to KnightSlappy's blog that describes them:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/big-changes-coming-for-division-iii.html
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 02:31:36 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on February 29, 2012, 02:12:12 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 12:34:44 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on February 29, 2012, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 10:36:40 AM
I noticed the latest D3Hoops and WCBA national rankings are out.  Hope is #20 and #18 respectively.  Despite being 22-5 and top 20 all year, only team to beat Calvin, win over the top-ranked team from the East region, Hope is the only team from the top 25 in either poll that is not still playing.  I think I understand why, given the nature of the present NCAA selection process, but do feel badly for the Hope girls especially the two seniors. 

One last congratulations to the Hope girls on a fine season.

The top 25 polls aren't factored into the NCAA selection process.  It looks like there were 10 or 11 upsets in conference tournaments making the Pool C at large bids more competitive.  Hope's SOS and in region record did not help them this year for regional rankings.  The loss to Trine really hurt them.

Yes, I understand the regional criteria and why Hope was not selected.  They did not achieve what was necessary for selection under the current selection process. 

I was simply congratulating the Hope girls on a very nice season nonetheless and pointing out that the current selection process left out the only team that is so highly regarded by coaches and by D3hoops.  Such anomolies are useful to consider for fine-tuning the selection process in the future.

I agree that the NCAA tournament selection process has its weaknesses.  Looks like that win for Hope against Ithaca would have been a factor if these new changes get passed by the NCAA.  Check out this link to KnightSlappy's blog that describes them:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/big-changes-coming-for-division-iii.html

Wow, very interesting, thanks for posting.  I would surely support those changes, they seem like a great compromise between maintaining the regional focus and giving a team some credit when they have an opportunity to "step out" and play well against good teams from other regions.  In addition to the Ithaca win, I know that the Hope girls enjoyed the opportunity to get a nice win against a solid Balwin Wallace team over the winter break.  Nice to think that such games may count toward NCAA in the future.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2012, 04:12:16 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on February 29, 2012, 02:12:12 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 12:34:44 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on February 29, 2012, 12:09:24 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 10:36:40 AM
I noticed the latest D3Hoops and WCBA national rankings are out.  Hope is #20 and #18 respectively.  Despite being 22-5 and top 20 all year, only team to beat Calvin, win over the top-ranked team from the East region, Hope is the only team from the top 25 in either poll that is not still playing.  I think I understand why, given the nature of the present NCAA selection process, but do feel badly for the Hope girls especially the two seniors. 

One last congratulations to the Hope girls on a fine season.

The top 25 polls aren't factored into the NCAA selection process.  It looks like there were 10 or 11 upsets in conference tournaments making the Pool C at large bids more competitive.  Hope's SOS and in region record did not help them this year for regional rankings.  The loss to Trine really hurt them.

Yes, I understand the regional criteria and why Hope was not selected.  They did not achieve what was necessary for selection under the current selection process. 

I was simply congratulating the Hope girls on a very nice season nonetheless and pointing out that the current selection process left out the only team that is so highly regarded by coaches and by D3hoops.  Such anomolies are useful to consider for fine-tuning the selection process in the future.

I agree that the NCAA tournament selection process has its weaknesses.  Looks like that win for Hope against Ithaca would have been a factor if these new changes get passed by the NCAA.  Check out this link to KnightSlappy's blog that describes them:

http://tomaroonandgold.blogspot.com/2012/02/big-changes-coming-for-division-iii.html
Would the Ithaca coach have scheduled the game if he knew that the loss would be counted as "primary" criteria?

Sometimes you want a game against a D-III program to show your team what the "next level" looks like without major consequences.  A "non-in-region" game against Hope can do that for you.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 29, 2012, 04:18:01 PM
Ralph,
  A very cogent point.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on February 29, 2012, 05:20:44 PM
Good point and good question.  Without running the numbers to know for sure, my guess is a loss to a very good team doesn't end up hurting much compared to a win against a mediocre team, while the upside of the possibility of a win against a very good team is large.  Not to mention the less quantifiable and longer term benefits to challenging your team, recruiting, and so forth.  I'm sure it depends on the individual, but I'd like to think that many coaches would see the benefits of challenging their team.  Is the goal to make the NCAAs or is it to have a chance to go deep because you've played tournament caliber teams??
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 01, 2012, 12:17:11 PM
QuoteIs the goal to make the NCAAs or is it to have a chance to go deep because you've played tournament caliber teams??

That depends on where how good your program is now and what it's goals are. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 02, 2012, 06:24:48 PM
So much for the Kean upset of Mary Washington as Messiah handles them easily in the first round.  Thanks, Gordon for at least trying to pick an upset or two. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 03, 2012, 10:41:32 PM
Wild night with lots of close games...just as it should be in March Madness.  King's proves they belong.  All 3 NESCAC schools survive close games.  No WIAC schools still in, and a Final Four without Wash U for the first time is at least 3 years.  Can't wait for next weekend!!!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 03, 2012, 11:38:14 PM
QuoteSo much for the Kean upset of Mary Washington as Messiah handles them easily in the first round.  Thanks, Gordon for at least trying to pick an upset or two. 

Yeah. Sure got that right. And Willy P winning on the road.  I should just stay away from the NJAC. :)

I sort of called York's win over Juniata. Sort of.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 04, 2012, 12:20:08 AM
Would love to see that Lewis and Clark shot again.   Too bad replay isn't available at this level.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 04, 2012, 12:22:12 AM
I said the exact same thing. I couldn't tell from the GFU broadcast.  Did you get any kind of look?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 04, 2012, 01:54:09 AM
Sumfun and Gordon...

I've already seen one video shot form the stands that clearly shows the shot was after the buzzer. I'll post it on here when I get home. Amazing game between two great teams. They know each other so well that all four games have been really intense. None more than this one though.

BlueZoneBruin
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 04, 2012, 02:50:08 AM
Wow! It was a crazy game in Miller Gymnasium tonight. The Bruins and Pioneers had one of their most epic battles to date, and they have had many over the past few years. In the end, the Bruins emerged 52-50 after a three-pointer that was shot just after the buzzer banked in.

As someone mentioned already, as soon as the shot left the player's hand, the official closest to the play immediately began waving it off. After a short conference between the three game officials, and the official at the desk, the final call was made. Bruins win! (Cue the crowd.)

Here are two videos of that final moment. The first is from an alumnus high in the stands. You get a pretty good view of the red light illuminating before the ball leaves the Lewis & Clark player's hand. The second is from the student section. The angle isn't as good, but you get a better feel for the intensity and the officials' conference.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAvv13uurNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6ULM2MkYS0

It's hard to see at full speed, but the Lewis & Clark player who took the shot had a fairly flagrant travel as she brought the ball up the court that went uncalled. You can hear plenty of chatter about it in the second video, however. Luckily these two schools are 12 miles away from each other, so no can make a hometown officiating crew argument. In fact, this was an officiating crew that I don't think I have ever seen in the Northwest Confernce before. To be honest, I think both teams would say it was one of the poorest officiated games in recent memory.

Overall, it was an epic finish to a very tough fought game by both teams. I only wish that this game would have happened in the Elite 8 where it belongs. Lewis & Clark is a darn good team, and they would still be playing if it wasn't for a fourth loss to George Fox, the only team to beat them this year.

Go Bruins!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BlueZoneBruin on March 04, 2012, 11:31:36 AM
Hosting decisions are in...George Fox is off to Mary Washington for the sectionals.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 04, 2012, 12:21:53 PM
QuoteLuckily these two schools are 12 miles away from each other, so no can make a hometown officiating crew argument. In fact, this was an officiating crew that I don't think I have ever seen in the Northwest Confernce before.

The NCAA assigns neutral referees to tournament games. NWC refs can't do games with NWC teams.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: NE Hoop Guy on March 04, 2012, 12:53:49 PM
What is amazing, is that the NCAA bent the rules to allow Amherst women to host this past weekend, where they really should not have.  Now they host again, with the weakest group of sweet sixteen teams you could find in a region.  Not one team going to Amherst is in the Top 25 or have even received votes.  Amherst essentially won the sectional last night when they beat back Babson, and all the other hosts lost.  The rich get richer with a little help from the NCAA.  Amherst is potentially vulnerable, but not to this group of teams I do not think,
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Maine 1 on March 04, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Very exciting first round of the NCAA's.  Lots of close games and lots of surprises.  Also, perfect examples of what can happen in a one game tournament.  King's win over William Patterson was fueled by a career night from a player that is a career 33% three point shooter, but hits 9-15.  Not sure that means that King's belonged in the tournament, but they are certainly making the most of the opportunity
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 04, 2012, 02:31:22 PM
Quote from: NE Hoop Guy on March 04, 2012, 12:53:49 PM
What is amazing, is that the NCAA bent the rules to allow Amherst women to host this past weekend, where they really should not have.  Now they host again, with the weakest group of sweet sixteen teams you could find in a region.  Not one team going to Amherst is in the Top 25 or have even received votes.  Amherst essentially won the sectional last night when they beat back Babson, and all the other hosts lost.  The rich get richer with a little help from the NCAA.  Amherst is potentially vulnerable, but not to this group of teams I do not think,


Is it Amherst's fault RIC, Junaita & William Paterson lost to teams worse then they were, 2 of them playing at home??  That's what makes the NCAA tournament so fun there's no tomorrow, you have a bad shooting day and an even worse defensive day your going home.  It probably won't happen, but who's to say Amherst won't shoot 20% in 1 of the 2 games this weekend and the opponent shoots 60+% and they lose??  Just because York, Emmanuel, and King's aren't reciving votes their not gonna roll over and play dead just because they play Amherst, their gonna play just as hard if not harder then the Jeffs are.  I know comparing RIC to Amherst is comparing apple's to orange's, but RIC was undefeated at the Murray Center until Emmanuel came in there and beat them last night.

Also, the NCAA didn't break the rules.  Amherst men got the bye which they rightly deserved and with them not having to play Friday, it allowed them women to play the 2 games on Friday.  It's not like the Amherst men finished 14-13 and won the NESCAC tournament as the 6th seed and were allowed to host.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2012, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: NE Hoop Guy on March 04, 2012, 12:53:49 PM
What is amazing, is that the NCAA bent the rules to allow Amherst women to host this past weekend, where they really should not have.

Not true. The actual rules say you can't have two four-team groups at the same site. Since Amherst men got the first-round bye, they only had two teams and this was not an issue. You could play two games on Friday and two on Saturday.

This used to happen more often but since there are so few byes anymore, it's less common.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: NE Hoop Guy on March 04, 2012, 04:31:55 PM
I understand, that is why I wrote "bent" as opposed to "break".  The fact that Amherst men of all people got the bye was because the Women's committee wanted to have Amherst host.  I believe if that was not in place the other considerations for the bye would have come in and Amherst would not have got it.   So "bent" not "break" Pat.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2012, 04:51:35 PM
Amherst men were the No. 1 team in their region. Perfectly acceptable for them to have a bye and the top team in the Northeast has gotten a bye before.

My point is these are not "bent" rules at all. This is 100% within the rules.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 04, 2012, 07:25:49 PM
  The NCAA bracket indicated that Cabrini should host instead of Middlebury; so why was Middlebury chosen? Isn't seeding the primary criteria and rotation a secondary? And is one year hosting enough to cause rotation and does it continue indefinitely into future hosting decisions. Questions for the NCAA chair.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 04, 2012, 09:49:25 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 04, 2012, 12:21:53 PM
QuoteLuckily these two schools are 12 miles away from each other, so no can make a hometown officiating crew argument. In fact, this was an officiating crew that I don't think I have ever seen in the Northwest Confernce before.

The NCAA assigns neutral referees to tournament games. NWC refs can't do games with NWC teams.


That has not been my experience. I went back and checked box scores. The three referees for the round 1 NCAA game between Lewis and Clark and Concordia (Texas) had all previously done at least one regular season game earlier this year at George Fox. In addition, one of them was on the court for the NWC Championship game and another officiated a NWC semi-final game.

The round 1 game between George Fox and Cal Lutheran had 1 official previously at George Fox. The round 2 thriller between George Fox and Lewis and Clark had one official who had earlier done a conference game at George Fox.

I don't know if this plays a part in it, but at least out West, referees tend to work a variety of levels and conferences. You would have to travel well over 500 miles to find another D3 school outside the 9 NW Conference schools. Some of the officials we see also do D1 and some do high school.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 04, 2012, 10:52:47 PM
It might be different out on the D3 islands, yeah.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: kate on March 05, 2012, 08:19:23 AM
This is addressed to "Maine 1" - Exactly why should any given team "not belong in the tournament"?  Read your post #413 last night & was too tired to respond, but this am i'm still wondering?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 07, 2012, 12:43:05 AM
  Seems like S. Maine and Bowdoin should have played in the Tufts regional against Tufts and UNE, respectively, and Misericordia and Johns Hopkins in the Ithaca regional with the result that 4 schools would have saved multi-100 mile trips and a USM-Bowdoin rematch in the 1st round would have been avoided.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 07, 2012, 01:22:54 AM
Did Misericordia or Johns Hopkins deserve to advance?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 07, 2012, 10:26:07 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 07, 2012, 01:22:54 AM
Did Misericordia or Johns Hopkins deserve to advance?

  They could have played in the Ithaca regional against the other 2 teams and 'deserving to advance' wouldn't have been a factor, but, anyways, they deserved to advance as much as anyone else of the teams involved.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: kate on March 07, 2012, 10:35:53 AM
Ronk, thank you so much for your response.  Each & every team, and members on that team deserve to be in this tournament!   These kids have worked their tails off since last fall (as they all have regardless if they're in the tournament or not).  Good luck to the Scranton men!  If you go to their game, have fun.  I'd love to see the King's game with Emmanuel at Amherst Friday night, but it's a bit far, & we're a little old :)!  Again, good luck to our former MAC team, University of Scranton!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 07, 2012, 11:03:33 AM
Just to clarify, I never said they didn't deserve to be in the tournament.

Ronk: UNE had played Southern Maine and Bowdoin this season, and Bowdoin had played Tufts, so I'm sure they tried to break things up as much as possible. There's a limit as to how far you can send a team out of Maine, so they couldn't easily send Bowdoin and Southern Maine to separate places.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 07, 2012, 11:23:22 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 07, 2012, 11:03:33 AM
Just to clarify, I never said they didn't deserve to be in the tournament.

Ronk: UNE had played Southern Maine and Bowdoin this season, and Bowdoin had played Tufts, so I'm sure they tried to break things up as much as possible. There's a limit as to how far you can send a team out of Maine, so they couldn't easily send Bowdoin and Southern Maine to separate places.

Ok, Tufts-USM and Elms-UNE @ Tufts and Bowdoin to Ithaca w/ JHU and Miseri.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: martin on March 09, 2012, 07:31:52 PM
Just posting but yesterday I ran the Massey projections for this weekend - 2-1 so far.

Amherst 66 York 57
Kings 62 Emmanuel 60 (actual - Emm 67 Kings 56 - maybe it could not factor in the Carlin brouhaha)
Amherst 72 Kings 42 - I assume it would project a similar victory over Emmanuel

George Fox 66 Bowdoin 50 (actual GF 71 Bowdoin 55, not bad - even had the spread right)
Mary Washington 52 Lebanon Valley 45
George Fox 55 Mary Washington 43

Carthage 67 Centre 56 (actual Carthage 71 Centre 61 - close)
IWU 74 Mount Union 71
IWU 74 Carthage 65

St. Thomas 53 Tufts 48
Chicago 64 Calvin 61
Chicago 64  St. Thomas 56

Final Four
IWU 73 Chicago 71 (boo, hiss)
Amherst 61 George Fox 56
Amherst 73 IWU 68

Will update after tonights games.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on January 19, 2013, 11:20:25 PM
We have the Pre-Championship Manual for the 2013 NCAA tournament. Here are some key points of interest...

* The breakdown of bids is the same as last year: 43 conference winners + 1 Pool B + 20 Pool C = 64 teams
* The NCAA tournament selections will be announced on Monday via the Internet, like last year
* There are 16 teams eligible for the 1 Pool B bid: Birmingham-Southern, Centre, Finlandia, Hendrix, Maine-Presque Isle, Millsaps, Nebraska Wesleyan, New Rochelle, North Central (Minn.), Oglethorpe, Rhodes, Rust, Sewanee, St. Joseph's (Brooklyn), UC Santa Cruz, Yeshiva
* There are six teams considered provisional that are ineligible for the tournament: Berry, Covenant, Houghton, Southern Virginia, SUNY Canton and Valley Forge Christian
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on January 20, 2013, 01:16:53 PM
So it would appear Nebraska Wesleyan declared for the NCAA Tournament for their women's team and the NAIA Tournament for their men's team. Seems odd? Imagine if by some miracle they both won national titles in separate organizations.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 23, 2013, 12:00:25 PM
Pat,
  Did u find out the missing women's MA regional ranking #8 yet? It has Pool C implications.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on February 24, 2013, 12:00:53 PM
Ronk:

We think the 8th team was King's.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 24, 2013, 08:35:01 PM
 I talked with Dave at the Landmark championships yesterday and he speculated that the listing software couldn't handle an apostrophe(King's) and that's why it's thought to be King's.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2013, 02:05:04 AM
Trying to put together a list of 20 Pool C women's teams and I'm having extreme difficulty since pretty much all the favorites won their conferences.  I currently have 19 and now am stuck for the final spot:
William Paterson
Mary Washington
Wisconsin-Whitewater
Wash U
Wisconsin-Oshkosh
Rochester
Calvin
Illinois Wesleyan
Messiah
Widener
Moravian
Tufts
Williams
Ferrum
Louisiana College
Maryville (TN)
Lewis & Clark
Smith
Scranton


I want to put Concordia-Moorhead and or Castleton state but I don't think the profiles stack up even though both were regionally ranked last week (Moorhead 4th in West, Castleton 8th in the East).  I'd also like to put Whitman in there, but they were 6th in the West, so they'd have to pass Moorhead in the unpublished rankings which I don't see happening.  Western Connecticut has a good record, and the LEC is known for sending multiple teams, but they have some bad losses and once again would have to pass Castleton, and Dartmouth's profile is worse than Western even though they went 2-1, but there's talks of them getting a Pool C.  Vassar is another team with a gaudy record/region record but no real quality wins.  Eastern Mennonite is 21-6 19-4 in region won 16 of 18 to end the year but like Vassar no real quality wins that seperates themselves.  Ahh screw it, I'll put in Eastern Mennonite, so here's my 20 Pool C teams.  Fell free to disagree:
William Paterson
Mary Washington
Wisconsin-Whitewater
Wash U
Wisconsin-Oshkosh
Rochester
Calvin
Illinois Wesleyan
Messiah
Widener
Moravian
Tufts
Williams
Ferrum
Louisiana College
Maryville (TN)
Lewis & Clark
Smith
Scranton
Eastern Mennonite

Last 4 in:
Eastern Mennonite, Scranton, Maryville, Mary Washington
First 4 out:
Castleton, Concordia-Moorhead, Whitman, Vassar
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 25, 2013, 08:21:32 AM
Another name close to the Bubble would be Howard Payne, winner of the ASC-West but lost the UT-D in the tourney.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 25, 2013, 08:49:08 AM
 My projected pods 4 the Mid-Atlantic area:

@ Catholic, Marymount, Widener, Lanc Bible

@ Messiah, Gettysburg, Scranton, FDU

@ Lebanon Valley, Montclair, Moravian, Cabrini
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 25, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
I missed like 7 teams, that was terrible.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sac on February 25, 2013, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 25, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
I missed like 7 teams, that was terrible.

On the other hand, 5 out of 12 makes you the greatest hitter to ever live in baseball.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: northb on February 25, 2013, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2013, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 25, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
I missed like 7 teams, that was terrible.

On the other hand, 5 out of 12 makes you the greatest hitter to ever live in baseball.
Actually, Hugh Duffy hit .440 in 1894
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sac on February 25, 2013, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: northb on February 25, 2013, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2013, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 25, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
I missed like 7 teams, that was terrible.

On the other hand, 5 out of 12 makes you the greatest hitter to ever live in baseball.
Actually, Hugh Duffy hit .440 in 1894
Ok then modern history
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: WLCALUM83 on February 26, 2013, 06:22:02 AM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2013, 11:10:02 PM
Quote from: northb on February 25, 2013, 09:31:03 PM
Quote from: sac on February 25, 2013, 05:55:37 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 25, 2013, 02:49:39 PM
I missed like 7 teams, that was terrible.

On the other hand, 5 out of 12 makes you the greatest hitter to ever live in baseball.
Actually, Hugh Duffy hit .440 in 1894
Ok then modern history

Carl Yastrzemski, George Brett--
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on February 26, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
Do we do a bracket challenge sort of thing for the women? I'll put one up if need be.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 26, 2013, 02:53:57 PM
So looking at the bottom right (Rochester, USM, Emory, Whitman, L&C) who would get hosting privalges in the sectionals should the 4 teams be: Rochester, USM, Emory and L&C??  I doubt Lewis & Clark/Emory get it because that would involve flying 3 teams in compared to just 2, while USM to Rochester barely gets below the 500 mile mark (496 according to that NCAA milage counter) so it's likely to be USM/Rochester.  Who knows how the final regional rankings are with Rochester losing to Emory and USM winning the LEC (I said on the LEC board USM likely jumped Babson in the East up to 3) but does the NCAA reward Rochester for probably having a better profile, or does it go to USM who will have a better record and possibly higher RR??  Also, do they take any consideration on regular season results like Emory sweeping Rochester during the season or is that out the window come tournament time??
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 26, 2013, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on February 26, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
Do we do a bracket challenge sort of thing for the women? I'll put one up if need be.

I thought we would've seen the bracket challenge up on d3hoops.com by now.  I know there's no Thursday games now so we get an extra 22 hours or so, but still.  Are they not doing it this year??
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 26, 2013, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 26, 2013, 02:53:57 PM
So looking at the bottom right (Rochester, USM, Emory, Whitman, L&C) who would get hosting privalges in the sectionals should the 4 teams be: Rochester, USM, Emory and L&C??  I doubt Lewis & Clark/Emory get it because that would involve flying 3 teams in compared to just 2, while USM to Rochester barely gets below the 500 mile mark (496 according to that NCAA milage counter) so it's likely to be USM/Rochester.  Who knows how the final regional rankings are with Rochester losing to Emory and USM winning the LEC (I said on the LEC board USM likely jumped Babson in the East up to 3) but does the NCAA reward Rochester for probably having a better profile, or does it go to USM who will have a better record and possibly higher RR??  Also, do they take any consideration on regular season results like Emory sweeping Rochester during the season or is that out the window come tournament time??

Probably some consideration but not primary since Scranton was 2-0 vs. Rochester and Emmanuel and Williams and didn't get to host. For the sectional hosting, hoping for Scranton to win 2, Ithaca to win its pod, and then Scranton looks like the host because Ithaca can't(gym renovation).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 26, 2013, 09:07:09 PM
Quote from: 7express on February 26, 2013, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: Captain_Joe08 on February 26, 2013, 11:54:07 AM
Do we do a bracket challenge sort of thing for the women? I'll put one up if need be.

I thought we would've seen the bracket challenge up on d3hoops.com by now.  I know there's no Thursday games now so we get an extra 22 hours or so, but still.  Are they not doing it this year??

It's up -- thanks for your patience.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 28, 2013, 03:21:20 PM
From the D3hoops women's preview concerning sectional hosting;

Predicted champion: If Southern Maine advances past Saturday, the Huskies probably host next weekend.   They have the best overall record of all teams in this bracket.  If Rochester advances, it is within driving distance of Scranton as defined by the NCAA (498 miles). And if Rochester loses, the other three teams in Rochester's pod are even closer to Maine. The southern and west coast teams should start looking at flights to Portland. When they get there, they'll find cold weather, a loud gym and a tough opponent. So Southern Maine is the favorite.

  If Scranton and Ferrum win their regionals, then 1 plane trip is saved by having Scranton host instead of USM; the same if USM doesn't win their regional. Just planting the idea!

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on February 28, 2013, 04:27:03 PM
Good point. I hadn't thought about that combination.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on February 28, 2013, 06:02:45 PM
Nice preview writeup Mr. Mann, except that Lady Bears will have to shoot the ball a lot better than they have been to get anywhere in the tournament, and I say that as a confirmed fan.

OTOH, the only reason Depauw won the game in November was the enormous difference in free throw attempts granted.  Perhaps Depauw was just that much better at not being called for a foul, but they got a hell of a lot from their free throws in a 1 point game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on February 28, 2013, 09:50:57 PM
Mark:

Very true. I'm putting a lot of stock in that result and the free throw disparity, and less in the losses at NYU or Case Western.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sumfun on March 02, 2013, 08:19:35 AM
According to Massey Head to Head Ratings, there were 5 upsets yesterday:

Calvin was a 71% to29% favorite, and St. Thomas pulled it out.  Coupled with their Final Four
         experience from last year, St. Thomas could make another run even if they have to go
         through Ohio Northern or Hope.

Otterbein was a 60% to 40% over Maryville, so that's a nice win for Maryville.  Still think
         DePauw will win the next game easily.

La. College was a 90% to 10% predicted winner over Rhodes.  Great, close game, but home
          court does make a difference.  Should be a good game with Wash U. today.

Southern Maine was a 52% to 48% predicted winner over Smith.  Smith blew them out on S.
          Maine's home court.  Big win for Smith and the NEWMAC.


Ferrum was a 92% to 8% predicted winner over Huntingdon.  No one told Huntingdon that they
          were supposed to be on the other end of a blow out.

As they say.....that's why you play the game.   Good luck to all today!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 02, 2013, 09:45:01 AM
That is a big win for Huntingdon women.  I am so glad that they took advantage of this year in the GSAC.  It gets tough again in the USA South.

The other near upset was WashUStL 45, UTD 40.  The biggest margin in that game was UTD by 6, and WUStL hit 2 FT"S in the last 30 secs to ice the game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 02, 2013, 10:38:08 AM
Dave,
  Good interview with the women's chair on Hoopsville. I didn't agree with her answer that Rochester hosted over Williams because they had a higher(in different) regional ranking; all regions are not equal - Rochester's(East) is considerably weaker than Williams'(NE). Williams deserved it.
  On a different topic, I didn't hear you ask her which teams became regionally-ranked for the 1st time in the final(undisclosed) rankings.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 03, 2013, 12:54:00 AM
Amherst, Hope, DePauw & Ithaca SHOULD be hosting the next round, but imo, the host sites are going to be Amherst, DePauw, Williams & Simpson.

Amherst & DePauw almost seem like locks.  All 4 teams are within 500 miles of Amherst, and the way they set the DePauw bracket up their going to have to fly 2 teams somewhere (either Wash U & DePauw out East to CNU OR Montclair/CNU out to DePauw/Wash U).  The other 2 are a little more complicated.
I'd say Hope would be another lock except for 2 things:
1) Since Hope is hosting the semifinals and finals, the NCAA, the past couple years hasn't let that school host the sectionals
2) The NCAA has a lot of flights to pay for the sectionals, at least 4 and possibly even more.  I already mentioned the 2 above, and in the bottom left they have to at least fly Emory north to Williams and Whitman out east to Williams.  St. Thomas to Hope is more then 500 miles which would require an extra flight but Simpson is within 500 miles of all the teams remaining in that half.  I say they get that bracket (but Hope still advances out of it).
In regards to the Williams half: Ithaca can't host because of the gym renovations even though they should.  If they put the teams in Whitman & Emory that would require flying out all 3 teams, but putting the teams in Williamstown only requires 2 flights (Emory & Whitman).

Thoughts??
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 03, 2013, 01:33:20 AM
 I agree wrt Williams; that's why I was hoping 4 Scranton to win the regional so that they'd host the sectional by the same reasoning.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 03, 2013, 01:38:42 PM
Amherst, DePauw, Whitewater, and Williams the 3 hosts for next weekend.  Surprised Whitewater got it over Simpson, not surprised with the other 3.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 03, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 02, 2013, 10:38:08 AM
Dave,
  Good interview with the women's chair on Hoopsville. I didn't agree with her answer that Rochester hosted over Williams because they had a higher(in different) regional ranking; all regions are not equal - Rochester's(East) is considerably weaker than Williams'(NE). Williams deserved it.
  On a different topic, I didn't hear you ask her which teams became regionally-ranked for the 1st time in the final(undisclosed) rankings.

I wasn't getting anywhere with my question about who was the last two teams in... and on other questions... I didn't feel the question was worth asking because I didn't think I would actually get an answer.

As for Rochester vs. Williams hosting... I still don't agree that Williams deserved it. It wasn't like the rankings were close. In the last public rankings... Williams was #6 and Rochester was #2... I highly doubt it would have gotten closer with both teams losing.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 08, 2013, 09:22:11 PM
The geographic D3 island known as the Northwest Conference is proud of Whitman!

Looking at the last 6 seasons (2008 - current) here is what I think is the NWC record in the NCAA Tournament for the sectional weekend
(rounds 3 and 4).

Neutral Floor Games:  5-2
Games vs. Regional Host:  2-1
Total:  7-3

Do any other conferences have that kind of record? It seems that some of the familiar teams that go deep into the tournament are often hosts for either 1 or both weekends leading up to the Final 4. Geography dictates that NWC conference teams regularly travel 1500+ miles for a sectional and currently have yet to host.  The conference has risen to the challenge.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: frank uible on March 09, 2013, 06:27:03 AM
Even we unhealthily backcrossed New Englanders suspect that Walla Walla to Williamstown is a hell of a lot farther than 1500 miles.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 09, 2013, 01:11:44 PM
I prefer to make conservative estimates when making a point and I was quickly taking into account the trips to Missouri (Wash.U) and Texas (Howard Payne). There have also been sectional trips to Kentucky (Thomas More) and Wisconsin (Stevens Point). Upon a closer look, I would have been safe to say at least 1900 miles.

The longest distances were George Fox last year to Virgina to play at Mary Washington and Whitman's trip to Williams - however Whitman has to drive a ways before ever boarding a plane (160 miles).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 09, 2013, 01:12:51 PM
Quote from: frank uible on March 09, 2013, 06:27:03 AM
Even we unhealthily backcrossed New Englanders suspect that Walla Walla to Williamstown is a hell of a lot farther than 1500 miles.

It is indeed.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: frank uible on March 09, 2013, 02:02:45 PM
And it is about an 1 1/4 hour bus ride from the Albany, NY airport to Williamstown (other airports are farther away), provided that the weather is not too inclement - which it was off and on yesterday.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: cciwrabblerouser on March 09, 2013, 08:37:25 PM
i am watching the videocast tonight between hope and uw-whitewater.  uww is the host site.

i always thought that the ncaa rules were very clear about not permitting advertising (except for its corporate partners), but at uww they don't seem to care about the rules.  even though coca-cola is a huge partner of the ncaa, the scorer's table at uww as a very large pepsi sign in front of it.  i noticed this last week as well when uww was hosting and found it strange.

why would the ncaa rep permit this?  most reps are very careful, but whoever is up there apparently doesn't have a backbone.  most schools that have this kind of gym advertising will put some sort of dark sheet or other covering to comply with ncaa rules.  what gives whitewater special privileges?

can anyone help with a reasonable answer? or doesn't whitewater and the ncaa really care????
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 09, 2013, 08:51:11 PM
Quote from: cciwrabblerouser on March 09, 2013, 08:37:25 PM
i am watching the videocast tonight between hope and uw-whitewater.  uww is the host site.

i always thought that the ncaa rules were very clear about not permitting advertising (except for its corporate partners), but at uww they don't seem to care about the rules.  even though coca-cola is a huge partner of the ncaa, the scorer's table at uww as a very large pepsi sign in front of it.  i noticed this last week as well when uww was hosting and found it strange.

why would the ncaa rep permit this?  most reps are very careful, but whoever is up there apparently doesn't have a backbone.  most schools that have this kind of gym advertising will put some sort of dark sheet or other covering to comply with ncaa rules.  what gives whitewater special privileges?

can anyone help with a reasonable answer? or doesn't whitewater and the ncaa really care????

That is different from my experience when George Fox has hosted regionals in the tournament. What you describe surprises me because I'm used to what you said about covering signage and being very careful to follow all the requirements.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: cciwrabblerouser on March 09, 2013, 09:14:21 PM
Quote from: BruinFan on March 09, 2013, 08:51:11 PM
Quote from: cciwrabblerouser on March 09, 2013, 08:37:25 PM
i am watching the videocast tonight between hope and uw-whitewater.  uww is the host site.

i always thought that the ncaa rules were very clear about not permitting advertising (except for its corporate partners), but at uww they don't seem to care about the rules.  even though coca-cola is a huge partner of the ncaa, the scorer's table at uww as a very large pepsi sign in front of it.  i noticed this last week as well when uww was hosting and found it strange.

why would the ncaa rep permit this?  most reps are very careful, but whoever is up there apparently doesn't have a backbone.  most schools that have this kind of gym advertising will put some sort of dark sheet or other covering to comply with ncaa rules.  what gives whitewater special privileges?

can anyone help with a reasonable answer? or doesn't whitewater and the ncaa really care????

That is different from my experience when George Fox has hosted regionals in the tournament. What you describe surprises me because I'm used to what you said about covering signage and being very careful to follow all the requirements.

exactly, BruinFan.  typically d-III hosts do everything they can to follow the clearly-stated ncaa rules because they value the opportunity to host and get home-court advantage.  so what's with whitewater?  unless someone can argue for their decision to keep the pepsi sign so exposed, i believe that the school is thumbing its collective nose at the ncaa.  they should not host in the future until that attitude changes.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2013, 12:46:17 AM
These things completely depend on the rep. Now, I've never seen a school have to cover up an advertising sign in a preliminary round, but maybe that is the case, I don't know. But it's the NCAA's rep on site that has to call that out and make it happen. I wouldn't expect everyone to know all the rules (especially since they make the hosting handbook so hard to find these days).
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: cciwrabblerouser on March 10, 2013, 09:15:45 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2013, 12:46:17 AM
These things completely depend on the rep. Now, I've never seen a school have to cover up an advertising sign in a preliminary round, but maybe that is the case, I don't know. But it's the NCAA's rep on site that has to call that out and make it happen. I wouldn't expect everyone to know all the rules (especially since they make the hosting handbook so hard to find these days).

pat, that is exactly what i said in the post i put up last night at 8:37 p.m.  the rep needs to make sure the host is following the rules -- and, believe me, i KNOW that the advertising rules are for ALL rounds.  it is very clear in the handbook, and it is covered in the early-in-the-week conference call.  ignorance is not an excuse -- and ESPECIALLY when the central region chair is the head coach at whitewater and knows better.  my only conclusion is that whoever was designated as the 'ncaa site rep' must not have backbone enough to tell the regional chair that her institution needs to do something -- they had plenty of time since the rep shows up on campus on thursday for the teams' practices.

like i said, ignorance is not an excuse.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2013, 02:43:42 PM
I hadn't read your rant in every board you posted it on before responding here.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: cciwrabblerouser on March 10, 2013, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2013, 02:43:42 PM
I hadn't read your rant in every board you posted it on before responding here.

pat, point of clarification ... the post i was referring was indeed on THIS board -- scroll back one page to reply #837.   :)

please know that i appreciate your administration of this board and what it means to d-III basketball.  it is an excellent source of information and a wonderful way to not only praise d-III student-athletes but also allows us to raise legitimate questions and concerns.  thanks for maintaining the board.  so, i am sorry if it has come off as a 'rant.' that isn't my intention -- though i will respond when some team supporter gets really subjective because of their passion and belief that 'my school can't do wrong.'  that's the feeling i've gotten from some of the uww peeps.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 10, 2013, 07:37:13 PM
Quote from: cciwrabblerouser on March 10, 2013, 06:42:54 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 10, 2013, 02:43:42 PM
I hadn't read your rant in every board you posted it on before responding here.

pat, point of clarification ... the post i was referring was indeed on THIS board -- scroll back one page to reply #837.   :)

please know that i appreciate your administration of this board and what it means to d-III basketball.  it is an excellent source of information and a wonderful way to not only praise d-III student-athletes but also allows us to raise legitimate questions and concerns.  thanks for maintaining the board.  so, i am sorry if it has come off as a 'rant.' that isn't my intention -- though i will respond when some team supporter gets really subjective because of their passion and belief that 'my school can't do wrong.'  that's the feeling i've gotten from some of the uww peeps.

And the 'feeling' I've gotten is that you must be a lobbyist for Coca Cola. ;D  Why else would you belabor so much a rule that no one else had apparently even noticed the violation of?

BTW, I assume your keyboard has a shift key - try using capitalization! ::)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: frank uible on March 11, 2013, 09:59:33 AM
In the 40s Joe Louis endorsed a soft drink called "Joe Louis Punch". When in that period asked  to identify his favorite beverage, the Brown Bomber replied "Coca-Cola".
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 16, 2013, 10:16:31 PM
Since the 1999-2000 season, Washington University, Depauw and Illinois Wesleyan have held a November Tip-Off Tournament of which each is a rotating host, usually with a fourth invited team to play the host the first day, the winners and losers of day one playing each other on day two.  The exception was 2010 when there wasn't a willing vic...opponent and they played a three way round robin tournament over three days. ;D  The last tournament had DePauw's closest victory this season by one point over WashU.

The last two listed above are the last two champions and the other played in the previous three championship games winning the middle one.  Since Depauw's previous championship was over WashU in 2007, the teams also have won four and participated in six of the last seven.

Has there been a D3hoops write up of the Tournament previously?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on March 17, 2013, 08:27:22 PM
We definitely tend to focus on it in our wrapups of the first weekend because it's such a great group of teams but we haven't been in a position to send anyone.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 18, 2013, 05:41:04 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 17, 2013, 08:27:22 PM
We definitely tend to focus on it in our wrapups of the first weekend because it's such a great group of teams but we haven't been in a position to send anyone.

Thank you.  I hadn't actually been thinking in terms of sending anybody.  I'll look in the archives for previous mentions.

BTW, I hadn't realized until looking at their history just now that it was the DePauw men who lost in Rochester's championship, and by a single point at that.  One more basket and DePauw would have had dual men and women's championships before WashU and Illinois Wesleyan, rather than still be waiting.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 19, 2013, 12:51:21 PM
The tournament led our coverage on Saturday, November 24th.

"November is playoff time for Division III football, but the Illinois Wesleyan women and Christopher Newport men hosted tournaments worthy of the postseason."

http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2012/11/wrapup-nov24

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 19, 2013, 07:37:26 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 19, 2013, 12:51:21 PM
The tournament led our coverage on Saturday, November 24th.

"November is playoff time for Division III football, but the Illinois Wesleyan women and Christopher Newport men hosted tournaments worthy of the postseason."

http://www.d3hoops.com/notables/2012/11/wrapup-nov24

Thanks.  I like the "worthy of the postseason" because except for the early season rust, it certainly was.  The Bears actually regressed after that tournament in terms of shooting the ball.  IMHO, all they have to do to return to the Final Four is find that shooting touch again.

I think I actually saw that wrapup coverage when it came out originally.  What I had in mind was a smaller piece ahead of time reminding anybody who could make it about the tournament.  I'd think it would be particularly warranted this November, though I'm not sure how many can make it to Greencastle, but there will probably be live streaming.

I actually learned more about the history of the tournament from this article, like when it started, which was right before I started following the Bears in earnest.

http://www.thedepauw.com/sports/tigers-and-bears-to-meet-for-the-25th-time-friday-night-1.3007069#.UUjufpFgYdd

Oh, and while DePauw deserves most every accolade for their performance this year and  they have the most successful record, I hope nobody suggests they're the best team in NCAA Division III Women's basketball history.  I've already been a pain stating my case for which team most qualifies for that. ::)  Heck, I think I'd put Capital ahead of this DePauw team.  The 1994 team acted like Sherman's Army in the Tournament and the 1995 team posted the 33-0 record DePauw just broke.  The championship game was surprisingly close, but it was over an Oshkosh team that would go 30-0 in 1996.  I'll change my mind depending on how DePauw does next year.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 19, 2013, 10:52:08 PM
 I've listened to a couple of player interviews during the tourney(Vanessa Hejnas(Widener) on Hoopsvillle and Danny Rainer(Williams) @ the Final 4 and it was refreshing to hear them speak with enthusiasm, coherence, and understanding. They're fine representatives of the student-athletes that we think permeate the D3 environment.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 20, 2013, 09:49:20 AM
QuoteOh, and while DePauw deserves most every accolade for their performance this year and  they have the most successful record, I hope nobody suggests they're the best team in NCAA Division III Women's basketball history.

I started covering Division III women's basketball in 2001. That year's Washington U. team was the best I've seen and I've heard the earlier teams in that run were better.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 20, 2013, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 20, 2013, 09:49:20 AM
QuoteOh, and while DePauw deserves most every accolade for their performance this year and  they have the most successful record, I hope nobody suggests they're the best team in NCAA Division III Women's basketball history.

I started covering Division III women's basketball in 2001. That year's Washington U. team was the best I've seen and I've heard the earlier teams in that run were better.

Well now that YOU bring it up..... ;)

DePauw's 69-51 victory falls one short of the then record margin in the 82-63 capper to Capital's 1994 juggernaut voyage to the championship I mentioned.  Who was that victory over?  The Washington University Bears in their very first trip to the championship game.  What team obliterated that record with margin that may never be broken?  The 1999-2000 Bears in their 79-33 victory over Southern Maine which came after the flattening of Scranton 64-30.  I've always considered the real Final Four to be the sectional victories at the Field House over Baldwin-Wallace(86-71) and Eau-Claire(81-63) who were #2 and #3 in the D3hoops poll (but I forget which was which) but even those games weren't as close as they appear.  To my shame those games and the one over Oshkosh are the only games I ever saw Alia Fischer play, since it was write ups of their campaign for a threepeat that drew me to the games finally.

Prior to the tournament Mark Simon had this to say here:

http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/women/2000/who-can-beat-wash-u

And that 46 point margin came about largely due to the bench because the two best players in WashU women's basketball history[1] got two fouls in the first six minutes and spent at least half  of the first half sitting down.  That's how deep the team was.

You can read my posts, that got me in trouble and my Karma down, in the MIAA section starting March 12, 2006.  That one and one on March 18 were positive if self serving.  Later ones weren't, to which one of them you responded politely.    I didn't end up reacting well to ill-informed statements like this:

I definitely think you'd be hard pressed to find a more difficult road any men's or women's D3 team has taken to a national title.

To which I say this:
http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/women/1998-wbb-title-game-story

Or Hope Fan's trumpeting of Fifield's overly polite comment in the 2006 championship game writeup:

"We got beat by as good a team in Division III as I've seen," said Southern Maine head coach Gary Fifield. "They're athletic, they have great size and great depth. I think they would beat a lot of Division I teams. That's as good a team as I've seen and I've been around for a few years."

The 2000 game was so traumatic he'd wiped it from his memory?

Hope had only beaten the 2006 Bears by three points, and as much as I love Manning and Beehler[2], they weren't Fischer and Rodgers, and the rest of the team wasn't as deep either.

But I won't bring it up again at least not for a good long while.

[1] At WashU that's without argument.  As for Division III history:

http://www.d3hoops.com/awards/all-decade/women/index

The NCAA 25th Anniversary Team for which I have no good link.

[2] Fahey declared Manning her best small forward even though she was listed as a (tall) guard.  She's only WashU player I ever saw who blocked lots of shots, stole them, hit three's, jump shots and layups and play great defense, even if all those 3 point attempts kept her over all shot percentage down.  I pine for Beehler's near automatic layups everytime I see the current players miss an easy one.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2013, 09:11:30 PM
Let's look at the final DePauw margin of victory as a ratio.

They scored 1.3529 times as many points as UWW in the 69-51 game.

Capital only scored 1.3015 times as many point as WUSTL.

I agree about the 1999-2000 Lady Bears. 

Why shucks, those Lady Bears gotta be meaner than any Mama Grizzly that Sarah Palin as ever seen.  LOL

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 20, 2013, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2013, 09:11:30 PM
Let's look at the final DePauw margin of victory as a ratio.

They scored 1.3529 times as many points as UWW in the 69-51 game.

Capital only scored 1.3015 times as many point as WUSTL.

Well, as math major, I'd want to do more analysis of the incremental value of each additional point in higher and lower scoring games to see if that holds up as a valid method. ::)  (I'd have used a nerd smiley if one was available.)

Quote
I agree about the 1999-2000 Lady Bears. 

Why shucks, those Lady Bears gotta be meaner than any Mama Grizzly that Sarah Palin as ever seen.  LOL

Well, if DePauw storms to another championship next year, I'll be happy to give them their due, but I'm not holding my breath.  Among past champions, Amherst returned to the final four semifinal to lose to George Fox, WashU returned the championship game to lose to Amherst, DePauw lost to Whitewater in a sectional final (ha, revenge must have been sweet for some fans this year), Howard Payne and Hope lost in the first round, and the rest didn't make it back to the tournament.

Amherst has been in five consecutive final fours.  Is that a record?  Shall I snark about the difference between the midwest and the northeast in the tournament?

And I was right about that Hope fans shouldn't be messing with their karma by prematurely declaring historical greatness.  The last seven years must have been rough.  WashU fans know the mixed blessing of losing to that year's champion (Hope did 2008-10) all too well, but not having been in any position to host the Final Four, we don't know Hope's particular frustration at all.  They'll have to talk to Illinois Wesleyan about that.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2013, 11:30:33 PM
HPU lost their coach to a D-2 program closer to his home in Iowa after winning the National Championship.

Here is an excerpt from the bio of Coach Kielsmeier at Wayne State (Nebraska).

QuoteThe 2012-13 season marks the fifth year for Chris Kielsmeier as head women's basketball coach at Wayne State College.  In four seasons with the Wildcats, Kielsmeier has guided the team to a 99-25 record, including a 69-15 mark in the Northern Sun Conference, along with two NSIC regular season titles, two NSIC Sanford Health Tournament titles and three straight trips to the NCAA Division II National Tournament.  In his 12 seasons as a head coach, Kielsmeier owns a career record of 278-69 and has advanced to the NCAA Tournament seven times.

The Wildcats recorded the team's most successful season in school history under Kielsmeier in 2011-12, recording a 32-3 overall record while winning a second straight Northern Sun Conference regular season title with a 20-2 league mark.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 20, 2013, 11:34:12 PM
I agree with you about Amherst having an easier run than the rest of the country.  I think that a top seed from that part of the country gets no competition from the #16, #8/#9 winner, then maybe even the #4/#5/#12/#13 winner.

I also believe that there are so few travel restrictions in that part of the country that you do not have the "brackets of death" in the rest of the country.  You can build a bracket that looks seeded "correctly".
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 21, 2013, 10:11:03 PM
Having that many teams nearby definitely makes it easier to pair the top NE teams with a "lower seed" in the first round. Once you get to the second weekend, that advantage disipates a little. Amherst had to beat Tufts who I think would be competitive with the central and great lakes teams. Remember that the Jumbos pushed St. Thomas to the limit last year.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mark_reichert on March 22, 2013, 05:40:02 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 21, 2013, 10:11:03 PM
Having that many teams nearby definitely makes it easier to pair the top NE teams with a "lower seed" in the first round. Once you get to the second weekend, that advantage disipates a little. Amherst had to beat Tufts who I think would be competitive with the central and great lakes teams. Remember that the Jumbos pushed St. Thomas to the limit last year.

Yeah, I've seen Tufts in the Top 25 routinely.  I wasn't implying that Amherst had a cake walk each of the last five years.  For that matter, all of the eastern teams that have made frequent trips to the final four have had to beat some competitive team(s) to get there, I just think it's easier if you don't start running into ranked teams in the second, or maybe even first, round.

And as for rehashing my conflict in the MIAA board, I love their enthusiasm, I'd love to have been part of a rivalry like Hope has with Calvin, but I think their fandom is or was a bit insular.   Even flush with a national championship, keeping some perspective would be nice.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 24, 2013, 09:09:34 PM
QuoteI just think it's easier if you don't start running into ranked teams in the second, or maybe even first, round.

Absolutely.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 25, 2013, 12:16:08 AM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 24, 2013, 09:09:34 PM
QuoteI just think it's easier if you don't start running into ranked teams in the second, or maybe even first, round.

Absolutely.
But with the decline of Southern Maine, the NESCAC is about the only strength in the Northeast.

In the middle of the last decade, you had diverse strength in the Northeast, the Mid-Atlantic (but no one got a national championship), the Great Lakes, the South, the Central and the West.

2001 Washington U.         UAA/Central
2002 UW-Stevens Point   WIAC/ Central 
2003 Trinity, Texas           SCAC/South
2004 Wilmington             OAC/Great Lakes
2005 Millikin                    CCIW/Central
2006 Hope                      MIAA/Great Lakes
2007 DePauw                  SCAC/Great Lakes
2008 Howard Payne         ASC/South
2009 George Fox             NWC/West
2010 Washington U.         UAA/Central
2011 Amherst                  NESCAC/Northeast
2012 Illinois Wesleyan       CCIW/Central
2013 DePauw                   NCAC/Great Lakes

Only one national champion from the Northeast/East/Atlantic/Mid-Atlantic. IMHO, the strength in women's hoops has been west of the Appalachians.   :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 31, 2013, 06:30:57 PM
Meanwhile over at the NAIA tournament...


Westmont (California)  71, Lee (Tennessee) 65,

but the real story is here (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke-westmont-20130331,0,4646232.column?page=1&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20latimes%2Fsports%20%28L.A.%20Times%20-%20Sports%29&utm_source=feedburner&track=rss).

For your reading enjoyment.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on August 27, 2013, 06:44:59 PM
USM hasn't declined that much.  I mean last year they only lost once in the regular season, but unfortunately played by far their worst game of the season in the tournament against Smith.
Tufts being in the East actually hurt them last year, imo.  If they get a Midwest/great lake team (besides DePauw) they get  to the final 4.  Nobody was beating DePauw last year, but if the Jumbos get sent outside of Amherst they would have made a lot further run then they did.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on August 27, 2013, 09:17:13 PM
Quote from: 7express on August 27, 2013, 06:44:59 PM
USM hasn't declined that much.  I mean last year they only lost once in the regular season, but unfortunately played by far their worst game of the season in the tournament against Smith.
Tufts being in the East actually hurt them last year, imo.  If they get a Midwest/great lake team (besides DePauw) they get  to the final 4.  Nobody was beating DePauw last year, but if the Jumbos get sent outside of Amherst they would have made a lot further run then they did.

As a follower of Hope, Calvin, Whitewater and a few other Midwest/Great Lakes teams, I'd have to disagree that Tufts was a shoo-in to be a Final Four team had they been outside the Northeast.  There are a lot of great teams outside the Northeast that battle night in and night out with very strong schedules.  It serves them well come tournament time, where the SoS really gets the teams ready to go deep in the tournament.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 03, 2014, 02:06:55 AM
My final Pool C picks.  I think last year I got 7 or 8 wrong, so hopefully I can do a tad better this year:

Teams that are locks:
1) Amherst
2) Whitewater
3) Bowdoin
4) Whitworth
5) St. Mary's (MN)

Teams that should be in:
6) Hartwick
7) Christopher Newport
8) George Fox
9) Williams

Teams that probably get in:
10) Concordia-Moorhead
1) Maryville (TN)
12) Eastern Mennonite
13) Illinois Wesleyan
14) Baldwin Wallace
15) John Carroll
16) Catholic

Last 4 in, not necessarily in this order
17) Moravian
18) Ohio Northern
19) NYU
20) Olivet

First 4 out, not necessarily in this order:
21) Roger Williams
22) Wheaton (IL)
23) Cornell
24) Lebanon Valley

I really wanted to put Cornell in the field, but it looks like Wheaton is going to be the blocker in that region.  NYU is in good shape as they'll be the second East rep on the board after Hartwick and I think Hartwick will get taken in the top 10, so NYU should be on the board for quite a while.  I think the divider does come down somewhere between Olivet/Roger Williams/and NYU.  I wouldn't be totally shocked if RWU replaced 1 of those 2 teams in the field.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 09, 2014, 03:10:00 AM
Here's my predictions for the 4 hosts for next weekend:

Upper left: Montclair State.  I think they have slightly better numbers than Scranton & Florham.
Bottom left: Tufts.  Like Scranton, I think they have slightly better numbers than Ithaca, and went 2-0 vs. Amherst this year, won the NESCAC regular season & conference title, so that should give the Jumbos the advantage over the Jeffs.
Upper right: DePauw.  Carthage & Whitewater can make compelling cases, but DePauw was the best team for most of the season, and they'll get the edge.
Bottom right: Whitman.  What an absolute mess this turned out to be.  Had the favorites Ferrum & Rhodes won, it would've been at Thomas More easily since Rhodes & Ferrum both checked in at under 500 miles to Thomas More, and the NCAA would've only had to fly Whitman east.  As it stands now, NONE of the 4 teams remaining in this half are within 500 miles of each other, so no matter which site they go to, the NCAA will have to pay for 3 flights regardless.  So, why not go out West??  The NWC has been very underrated this year, and since you have to fly all 3 teams regardless (Newport to Thomas More is 582 miles), why not give the West coast some love and give them a regional semifinal and final??  Even though they finished undefeated, Thomas More was only 3rd in the Great Lakes rankings, while Whitman checked in at #1 in the West,
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: d3wbbfan on March 09, 2014, 06:46:12 AM
7express, I just watched the Whitman post-game NCAA presser. Coach Michelle Ferenz said that Whitman already knows that there is absolutely no chance that they will be hosting games next weekend. Since Whitman WBB also advanced to the Sweet 16 last year, she said she expects to be told where they will be heading to, in just a couple of hours, however. Since they are out west, she said the NCAA already knew who the other 15 advancing teams were, by the time their game vs Whitworth had even tipped off. Therefore, phone calls/arrangements were already being made, as to establishing the 4 Sweet 16/Elite 8 host sites, while their game was in progress. And that the winner of their pod (which we now know to be Whitman) would just be plugged in, as "the last domino", as it were. Ferenz said that last year she was told privately that her team was going out to Williams (MA) only a few hours after they won at Lewis & Clark last March. And she doesn't see any reason why it wouldn't be playing out that way for her again this season, even though a formal NCAA announcement may not come until Monday. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 09, 2014, 09:36:04 AM
 Was hoping that Baldwin-Wallace was 500+ miles to Montclair St, so that Scranton would be the STRONG geographical choice to hold their sectional, but it's approximately 450 miles, so the NCAA can still hold it in Northern NJ. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 15, 2014, 09:57:21 PM
Quote from: d3wbbfan on March 09, 2014, 06:46:12 AM
7express, I just watched the Whitman post-game NCAA presser. Coach Michelle Ferenz said that Whitman already knows that there is absolutely no chance that they will be hosting games next weekend. Since Whitman WBB also advanced to the Sweet 16 last year, she said she expects to be told where they will be heading to, in just a couple of hours, however. Since they are out west, she said the NCAA already knew who the other 15 advancing teams were, by the time their game vs Whitworth had even tipped off. Therefore, phone calls/arrangements were already being made, as to establishing the 4 Sweet 16/Elite 8 host sites, while their game was in progress. And that the winner of their pod (which we now know to be Whitman) would just be plugged in, as "the last domino", as it were. Ferenz said that last year she was told privately that her team was going out to Williams (MA) only a few hours after they won at Lewis & Clark last March. And she doesn't see any reason why it wouldn't be playing out that way for her again this season, even though a formal NCAA announcement may not come until Monday.

So glad Coach Ferenz was wrong on not getting to host.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 15, 2014, 11:42:30 PM
I stepped away during the first half of Whitman vs. TM.
Where is Moss?  Injured?
I like to see teams playing at full strength with so much on the line.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 16, 2014, 12:04:24 AM
She got injured with about 8 minutes left in the first, and her knee was wrapped in an ice pack for the entire second half.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 16, 2014, 06:12:25 PM
Tonight on Hoopsville we will recap the sectional weekend of basketball action and start previewing the championship weekend in Salem, Vir. and Stevens Point, Wis. Here are the guests you will hear from tonight:

- Williams head coach Mike Maker and senior center Mike Mayer
- Illinois Wesleyan head coach Ron Rose
- UW-Whitewater siblings Alex and Mary Merg
- Tufts senior forward Liz Moynihan

Pat Coleman will also join us to talk about what he saw this weekend and the tournament so far and we will announce the All-Region teams!

Show starts at 7 PM ET and will run until about 9:00 tonight.

You can tune in here: www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/mar16 (http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2013-14/jan12)

Don't forget you can ask us or our guests questions via social media:
- Twitter (@d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) and #Hoopsville)
- Facebook (www.facebook.com/Hoopsville (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville))
- Email (hoopsville@d3hoops.com)

Thanks and enjoy the show!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 21, 2014, 08:42:54 PM
I think the winner of the Whitman - Whitewater game will win the championship. Those teams represent conferences and regions that have been consistently strong in D3 women's hoops once we get to the Final Four.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 21, 2014, 09:43:20 PM
I think I recall that, at Stevens Point, the women and the men each have their own gym for varsity games. If that is so, which one is being used for the Final Four games this weekend? I see that the court is named for Dick and Jack Bennett, which suggests to me that it is the men's gym (I confess I don't know who Jack Bennett was, apart from being Dick's brother), but I don't know that for sure.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 21, 2014, 10:02:31 PM
Yep, you got it. Quandt Gymnasium is the home for the men and Berg is the home for the women. It's a nice gym, but smaller than I thought it would be.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 21, 2014, 10:20:48 PM
Devils vs. Missionaries, and the Devils are unbeaten. Classic.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 21, 2014, 10:22:38 PM
Congrats to Whitman. The Northwest Conference has now had a team in the championship game 3 times in the last 6 years.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 21, 2014, 10:29:13 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on March 21, 2014, 10:20:48 PM
Devils vs. Missionaries, and the Devils are unbeaten. Classic.

Cue Charlie Daniels' The Devil Went Down to Georgia(Stevens Point)'
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 26, 2014, 03:03:39 PM
Credit where credit is due. FDU-Florham was the better team on Saturday - congrats to them.
Whitman had a great season. I can't wait to see which teams in the Northwest Conference will rise to the top next year.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 28, 2015, 02:10:21 PM
Baruch wins the CUNYAC
Bridgewater upsets Westfield state in the MASCAC, sends Westfield (#6 in Northeast) likely to the wrong side of the bubble and looks like they'll be a blocker for the rest of the region which doesn't bode well for UMass-Dartmouth (#7) or Springfield (#8) should either of those teams lose in semifinals or finals.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: mailsy on February 28, 2015, 09:01:45 PM
With Cabrini winning the conference what are the chances they host the first weekend?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 01, 2015, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: mailsy on February 28, 2015, 09:01:45 PM
With Cabrini winning the conference what are the chances they host the first weekend?

Despite being the #3 team in a strong regional, Cabrini has a decent chance of hosting by taking a nearby regional's 2nd hosting spot(thinking East, South, or Mid-Atlantic.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 01, 2015, 10:24:56 PM
I'll try to run down through the 21 selections, first record is overall record, second is record vs. D-3 opponents:

Round 1:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: DePauw (24-2, 24-2)
MA: Scranton (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Bowdoin (23-4, 22-4)
S: Texas-Tyler (26-2, 26-2)
W: Puget Sound (23-4, 21-4)

Round 2:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: Transylvania (25-2, 24-2)
MA: Scranton (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Bowdoin (23-4, 22-4)
S: Texas-Tyler (26-2, 26-2)
W: Puget Sound (23-4, 21-4)

Round 3:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: Transylvania (25-2, 24-2)
MA: Scranton (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Amherst (23-3, 23-3)
S: Texas-Tyler (26-2, 26-2)
W: Puget Sound (23-4, 21-4)

Round 4:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: Transylvania (25-2, 24-2)
MA: Scranton (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Texas-Tyler (26-2, 26-2)
W: Puget Sound (23-4, 21-4)

Round 5:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: Transylvania (25-2, 24-2)
MA: Scranton (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Eastern Mennonite (22-4, 22-4)
W: Puget Sound (23-4, 21-4)

Round 6:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: Transylvania (25-2, 24-2)
MA: McDaniel (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Eastern Mennonite (22-4, 22-4)
W: Puget Sound (23-4, 21-4)

Round 7:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: Transylvania (25-2, 24-2)
MA: McDaniel (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Eastern Mennonite (22-4, 22-4)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 8:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: Transylvania (25-2, 24-2)
MA: McDaniel (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Maryville (TN) (25-3, 25-3)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 9:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: Transylvania (25-2, 24-2)
MA: McDaniel (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Randolph-Macon (20-5, 20-4)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 10:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: NYU (21-4, 21-4)
GL: John Carroll (22-4, 22-4)
MA: McDaniel (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Randolph-Macon (20-5, 20-4)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 11:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: Ithaca (22-5, 22-5)
GL: John Carroll (22-4, 22-4)
MA: McDaniel (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Randolph-Macon (20-5, 20-4)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 12:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: Ithaca (22-5, 22-5)
GL: John Carroll (22-4, 22-4)
MA: McDaniel (24-3, 24-3)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 13:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: Ithaca (22-5, 22-5)
GL: John Carroll (22-4, 22-4)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 14:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: Ithaca (22-5, 22-5)
GL: Hope (23-4, 23-4)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 15:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: North Central (IL) (22-5, 21-5)
E: Ithaca (22-5, 22-5)
GL: Ohio Northern (20-6, 20-6)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 16:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: Chicago (18-7, 17-7)
E: Ithaca (22-5, 22-5)
GL: Ohio Northern (20-6, 20-6)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Williams (20-6, 20-6)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 17:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: Chicago (18-7, 17-7)
E: Ithaca (22-5, 22-5)
GL: Ohio Northern (20-6, 20-6)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Westfield State (22-5, 22-5)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Whitworth (21-5, 15-5)

Round 18:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: Chicago (18-7, 17-7)
E: Ithaca (22-5, 22-5)
GL: Ohio Northern (20-6, 20-6)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Westfield State (22-5, 22-5)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Bethel (21-6, 21-6)

Round 19:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: Chicago (18-7, 17-7)
E: Stevens (22-4, 22-4)
GL: Ohio Northern (20-6, 20-6)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Westfield State (22-5, 22-5)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Bethel (21-6, 21-6)

Round 20:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: Superior (19-8, 19-7)
E: Stevens (22-4, 22-4)
GL: Ohio Northern (20-6, 20-6)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Westfield State (22-5, 22-5)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Bethel (21-6, 21-6)

Round 21:
A: Richard Stockton (21-6, 21-6)
C: Superior (19-8, 19-7)
E: Cortland (21-6, 21-6)
GL: Ohio Northern (20-6, 20-6)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Westfield State (22-5, 22-5)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Bethel (21-6, 21-6)

Left at the table:
A: Eastern (22-5, 20-5)
C: Superior (19-8, 19-7)
E: Cortland (21-6, 21-6)
GL: Ohio Northern (20-6, 20-6)
MA: Albright (20-7, 20-7)
NE: Westfield State (22-5, 22-5)
S: Trinity (TX) (22-6, 21-6)
W: Bethel (21-6, 21-6)

Notes:  Not that it matters because both teams are easily in the field, but I think with the 2-0 series head-to-head record plus advancing further in the NESCAC tournament, Bowdoin will jump Amherst and therefore be selected before Amherst is.
Eastern matches up better against the field than Stockton does, but since both teams lost in their conference championship games and Stockton won the head-to-head matchup, I believe Stockton will remain in front therefore blocking the rest of the teams in the region.
In the East, I doubt it will happen since Ithaca won the season series 2-0 but could it be possible Stevens jumps Ithaca based on them being 2-1 against SJF who Ithaca lost in the finals too??  If that's the case, Ithaca's on thin ice.
Back to the Northeast where order will definitely be important will being in a better conference and losing to a better team on a neutral court make up for a worse record and losing in the finals and get Dartmouth pushed over Westfield for potential the first bid in the Northeast??  Dartmouth only has a 19-8 record and would have a below average winning percentage but they'd have a lot of games played against regionally ranked opponents (and even more if Norwich stays in the ranks and Johnson & Wales can join them) and would've played a very tough schedule to at least give them a chance to be selected.
My last pick came down to Stockton vs. Ohio Northern. I really wanted to pick Ohio Northern but I think Stockton being on the table since round 1 would've been enough to get them over the edge and that last spot.
My first 4 out: Ohio Northern, Westfield, Cortland, Bethel
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on March 02, 2015, 11:30:07 AM
Here is my shot at it.  Sorry it's a little messy, but you can see who I picked..  Just a copy paste from Excel and didn't have time to clean up.  I included the SOS listed on D3hoops and also the Results VS Regionally Ranked Opponents (vRRO).  These are mostly up to date but could be a little off.

Round 1      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Stockton   21-6        0.778   0.608   3-6
GL   DePauw   24-2        0.923   0.523   2-0
South   Texas-Tyler   26-2   0.929   0.536   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   Scranton   24-3   0.889   0.572   3-1
West   Puget Sound   22-4   0.846   0.584   5-4
East   NYU   21-4   0.84   0.572   3-3
NE   Bowdoin   22-4   0.846   0.590   3-4
               
               
Round 2      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Stockton   21-6   0.778   0.608   3-6
GL   DePauw   24-2   0.923   0.523   2-0
South   Texas-Tyler   26-2   0.929   0.536   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   Scranton   24-3   0.889   0.572   3-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   NYU   21-4   0.84   0.572   3-3
NE   Bowdoin   22-4   0.846   0.590   3-4
               
               
Round 3      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Stockton   21-6   0.778   0.608   3-6
GL   DePauw   24-2   0.923   0.523   2-0
South   Texas-Tyler   26-2   0.929   0.536   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   Scranton   24-3   0.889   0.572   3-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   NYU   21-4   0.84   0.572   3-3
NE   Amherst   23-3   0.885   0.605   5-3
               
               
Round 4      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Stockton   21-6   0.778   0.608   3-6
GL   DePauw   24-2   0.923   0.523   2-0
South   Texas-Tyler   26-2   0.929   0.536   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   NYU   21-4   0.84   0.572   3-3
NE   Amherst   23-3   0.885   0.605   5-3
               
               
Round 5      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Stockton   21-6   0.778   0.608   3-6
GL   John Carroll   22-4   0.846   0.523   4-2
South   Texas-Tyler   26-2   0.929   0.536   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   NYU   21-4   0.84   0.572   3-3
NE   Amherst   23-3   0.885   0.605   5-3
               
               
Round 6      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Stockton   21-6   0.778   0.608   3-6
GL   John Carroll   22-4   0.846   0.523   4-2
South   Texas-Tyler   26-2   0.929   0.536   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   NYU   21-4   0.84   0.572   3-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 7      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Stockton   21-6   0.778   0.608   3-6
GL   John Carroll   22-4   0.846   0.523   4-2
South   Eastern Mennonite   21-3   0.875   0.527   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   NYU   21-4   0.84   0.572   3-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 8      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Stockton   21-6   0.778   0.608   3-6
GL   John Carroll   22-4   0.846   0.523   4-2
South   Eastern Mennonite   21-3   0.875   0.527   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   Ithaca   22-5   0.815   0.546   5-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 9      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Eastern   20-5   0.8   0.580   3-4
GL   John Carroll   22-4   0.846   0.523   4-2
South   Eastern Mennonite   21-3   0.875   0.527   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   Ithaca   22-5   0.815   0.546   5-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 10      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Eastern   20-5   0.8   0.580   3-4
GL   Hope   23-4   0.852   0.562   1-4
South   Eastern Mennonite   21-3   0.875   0.527   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   Ithaca   22-5   0.815   0.546   5-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 11      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Eastern   20-5   0.8   0.580   3-4
GL   Hope   23-4   0.852   0.562   1-4
South   Eastern Mennonite   21-3   0.875   0.527   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   Stevens   22-4   0.846   0.543   4-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 12      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Eastern   20-5   0.8   0.580   3-4
GL   Hope   23-4   0.852   0.562   1-4
South   Maryville   25-3   0.893   0.519   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   Stevens   22-4   0.846   0.543   4-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 13      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Eastern   20-5   0.8   0.580   3-4
GL   Hope   23-4   0.852   0.562   1-4
South   Maryville   25-3   0.893   0.519   3-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   SUNY Cortland   21-6   0.778   0.521   1-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 14      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Eastern   20-5   0.8   0.580   3-4
GL   Hope   23-4   0.852   0.562   1-4
South   Randolph-Macon   20-4   0.833   0.538   2-2
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   SUNY Cortland   21-6   0.778   0.521   1-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 15      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Eastern   20-5   0.8   0.580   3-4
GL   Transylvania   24-2   0.923   0.499   1-1
South   Randolph-Macon   20-4   0.833   0.538   2-2
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   SUNY Cortland   21-6   0.778   0.521   1-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 16      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Brooklyn   20-7   741   0.513   0-5
GL   Transylvania   24-2   0.923   0.499   1-1
South   Randolph-Macon   20-4   0.833   0.538   2-2
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   SUNY Cortland   21-6   0.778   0.521   1-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 17      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Brooklyn   20-7   741   0.513   0-5
GL   Transylvania   24-2   0.923   0.499   1-1
South   Trinity (TX)   20-6   0.769   0.507   1-1
Central   North Central   21-5   0.808   0.575   0-3
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   SUNY Cortland   21-6   0.778   0.521   1-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 18      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Brooklyn   20-7   741   0.513   0-5
GL   Transylvania   24-2   0.923   0.499   1-1
South   Trinity (TX)   20-6   0.769   0.507   1-1
Central   Chicago   16-7   0.696   0.613   3-4
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   SUNY Cortland   21-6   0.778   0.521   1-3
NE   Williams   20-6   0.769   0.634   5-6
               
               
Round 19      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Brooklyn   20-7   741   0.513   0-5
GL   Transylvania   24-2   0.923   0.499   1-1
South   Trinity (TX)   20-6   0.769   0.507   1-1
Central   Chicago   16-7   0.696   0.613   3-4
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Whitworth   15-5   0.75   0.584   2-5
East   SUNY Cortland   21-6   0.778   0.521   1-3
NE   Westfield State   22-5   0.815   0.51   1-0
               
               
Round 20      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
AT   Brooklyn   20-7   741   0.513   0-5
GL   Transylvania   24-2   0.923   0.499   1-1
South   Trinity (TX)   20-6   0.769   0.507   1-1
Central   Chicago   16-7   0.696   0.613   3-4
Mid AT   McDaniel   24-3   0.889   0.485   1-1
West   Bether (MN)   21-5   0.808   0.527   0-2
East   SUNY Cortland   21-6   0.778   0.521   1-3
NE   Westfield State   22-5   0.815   0.51   1-0
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 02, 2015, 10:03:43 PM
Bethel must have jumped over Whitworth in the final rankings for the West region. Otherwise, I can't explain why Bethel was selected and Whitworth was left out.

The last published rankings had Whitworth at #5 and Bethel at #7. Seems a bit harsh for Bethel to jump over Whitworth on the basis of a semi-final conference playoff loss to Puget Sound on the road. Oh well, the committee would have just put them in the same pod as Puget Sound and George Fox.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 13, 2015, 10:43:29 PM
 Inferior camera location from the Calvin sectional - probably 70 feet above the court; players look like miniatures; doesn't bode well for the Final 4.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on March 14, 2015, 12:36:50 AM
Quote from: ronk on March 13, 2015, 10:43:29 PM
Inferior camera location from the Calvin sectional - probably 70 feet above the court; players look like miniatures; doesn't bode well for the Final 4.

Turner Sports does the Final Four video so it will be different. Calvins camera is mounted at the top of the arena on a side and controlled from a video room. When the guys play Hope they bring in the local TV crew and setup at a great spot like a normal arena TV broadcast. I'm guessing that's what it will be for the Final Four. Should be really nice.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 14, 2015, 12:52:13 AM
Quote from: bballfan13 on March 14, 2015, 12:36:50 AM
Quote from: ronk on March 13, 2015, 10:43:29 PM
Inferior camera location from the Calvin sectional - probably 70 feet above the court; players look like miniatures; doesn't bode well for the Final 4.

Turner Sports does the Final Four video so it will be different. Calvins camera is mounted at the top of the arena on a side and controlled from a video room. When the guys play Hope they bring in the local TV crew and setup at a great spot like a normal arena TV broadcast. I'm guessing that's what it will be for the Final Four. Should be really nice.

Hope so - thanks
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 14, 2015, 01:30:00 AM
Yeah, Turner doesn't cover the Final Four (or at least they haven't in the past) but it's a very strong contractor with a really impressive video set up: Multiple cameras, professional broadcasters, etc.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2016, 02:44:52 PM
Alright, folks -- the NCAA's first women's basketball regional rankings are posted. Check out the full list from D3hoops.com:
http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/02/10/first-2016-regional-rankings-released-today/
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on February 19, 2016, 09:21:01 AM
Anyone know dates for this years NCAA WBB first round?  I assume March 4,5 but can't find confirmation of that.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2016, 10:29:27 AM
Yes - first weekend of March. 4th and 5th.

And to clarify since this is a different season:
- 1st Weekend - March 4 & 5 - 1st and 2nd Rounds (school hosts)
- 2nd Weekend - March 11 & 12 - Sweet 16/Quarters (school hosts)
- 3rd Weekend - March 19 - Semifinals (Capital University)
- 4th "Weekend" - Championship - Monday, April 4 - Bankers Life Fieldhouse, Indianapolis
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on February 19, 2016, 01:59:15 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2016, 10:29:27 AM
Yes - first weekend of March. 4th and 5th.

And to clarify since this is a different season:
- 1st Weekend - March 4 & 5 - 1st and 2nd Rounds (school hosts)
- 2nd Weekend - March 11 & 12 - Sweet 16/Quarters (school hosts)
- 3rd Weekend - March 19 - Semifinals (Capital University)
- 4th "Weekend" - Championship - Monday, April 4 - Bankers Life Fieldhouse, Indianapolis

Thank you Dave
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on February 20, 2016, 02:16:15 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 19, 2016, 10:29:27 AM
Yes - first weekend of March. 4th and 5th.

And to clarify since this is a different season:
- 1st Weekend - March 4 & 5 - 1st and 2nd Rounds (school hosts)
- 2nd Weekend - March 11 & 12 - Sweet 16/Quarters (school hosts)
- 3rd Weekend - March 19 - Semifinals (Capital University)
- 4th "Weekend" - Championship - Monday, April 4 - Bankers Life Fieldhouse, Indianapolis

Why have the 2 week break in between the semifinals and championship game??  I think playing the division 2 & division 3 championship games at the site of the division 1 final 4 is stupid (and on a Monday no less which happens to be MLB's opening day!  Who thought up this genius idea??), but if you are going that route why not take the men's approach from a couple years ago where they played 1 round each weekend so at least you still have teams playing weekly instead of 2 teams sitting around for 2 weeks doing nothing, and because of it, the championship game ends up being a 42-40 brickfest because the 2 teams playing in the game haven't played a competitive game in 16 days.

JMO, but whoever thought of this should be fired!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 24, 2016, 01:48:22 AM
Well 7express.. there are a few things in your argument that aren't true this time around.

First off, the women are doing this because the men did it in 2013. It is only fair. You can complain all you want that is is on opening day, but since when did that stop the Division I men from playing that same day? It happens more times than it doesn't. Also, the DII and DIII women have no choice but to play on that Monday since the D1 women play Sunday/Tuesday. Sure there could be an argument made for the women to play Friday/Sunday... but we aren't in control of those TV contracts and scheduling.

Also, the DII and DIII women could easily say they aren't interested in such an idea. And in fact, the DII women did indicate they were not interested until about an year ago or less. But all parties, including the presidents that actually do run things in the NCAA, approved and here we are allowing the women to have the same experience the men had. I don't understand why you would be against that.

To your point that it is a dumb idea, you might be surprised to find yourself in the minority. A vast majority of people came out of 2013 praising the idea of playing on the same weekend as the D1 Final Four (the only allowed use of the words Final Four, by the way) despite the challenges. They have actually been working hard to do it again, but there are plenty of hurdles and challenges to overcome to repeat the experience. However, there isn't a conversation I have with coaches, ADs, commissioners, etc. who don't talk about that experience and the conversation about doing it again.

Now to the comparison to the men's tournament... you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare the two schedules. Let's start with the fact that NO ONE liked the schedule the men were forced to play with. In fact, Amherst and UMHB both ended up having two weeks between games in that schedule TWICE. Once to start and once to finish. One of the BIGGEST hurdles to keep from having the Final Four experience repeated is the scheduled. The presidents hated it because of how long it made the season and how much more time students missed of school (even if it was two out of 419 teams) and since they control most of the decisions, especially one that big, it isn't going anywhere.

The other problem is it created a horrible men's bracket. We had single-round games for three weeks leading up to the round of eight and semifinals in Salem. Because the committee couldn't create pods with schools coming to one site... it created all kinds of travel problems that cut down on creativity and created a ton of "bracket of death" scenarios. We had top teams facing each other in those first two weeks that normally would not be forced to play one another in a normal pod. When you can't send three different teams from 500 miles or less away to a site, but rather can only look at two teams and make sure they are with 500 miles of each other - your ability to be creative is gone. No one liked the bracket in that design and the women tried to avoid it at all costs so they could have as fair a bracket as possible.

But here is where things are different between 2013 and now. In 2013, there was some quirk with the calendar. I believe it was the Masters that caused the quirk by scheduling their event a week later than it usually would reside in April. One could argue it wasn't exactly a week later, but it was slightly later than normal. Because CBS likes to have the Final Four be the week prior to the Masters, they moved (because they can) the Final Four a week later in the calendar. Basically, it was the first FULL weekend of April versus the prior weekend which split March and April. That resulted in a strange SIX week time frame between when the D3 tournament started and what would have been the Final Four.

Let me give you another comparison. Every year the D3 final four is the same weekend of the opening weekend for the D1 tournament. That results in the D3 title decided the first weekend, the D2 title the second weekend, and the D1 title decided the third weekend. Works nicely. HOWEVER in 2013 if the schedule had never been changed to accommodate the Final Four, the D3 title weekend would have been conference championship weekend in Division I - they would have started the NCAA tournament the following weekend.

That resulted in an extra week D3 had to adjust to especially since the Final Four plan was finalized far too late to adjust the regular season accordingly (start later than Nov. 15, etc.). If they had played two games the opening weekend... what would they have done with four more rounds and five weeks? So they played a single round, single round, single round, elite eight and final four at Salem (who was lucky enough to be able to move the venue availability a week later than normal - that place is very busy, believe it or not) to respect the fact Salem was losing the title game despite what their awarded bid indicated... which left them 15 days for the two teams left.

This year... there is the normal FIVE weeks between the start of the D3 tournament and the D1 title weekend. It is a normal year. To avoid the problems that plagued the men's tournament... and to allow a better bracket and a situation the presidents rather have... they are playing 2, 2, and 1... with just two teams waiting 16 days between games. Remember, Amherst and UMHB waited 14 days at the beginning of the season between their conference tournament title games and their second round games (first round byes) and then waited 15 days between the semis and the championship.

By the way, the 14 days at the beginning and the 15 days at the end did not hurt Amherst and UMHB's shooting performances in their second round or championship games. You have nothing to prove the D3 game will be a brick-fest. That is just conjecture and spin.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: fantastic50 on February 26, 2016, 09:54:30 PM
I was asked to post some bubble info, like I have on the men's Pool C board.  After a couple of hours behind a spreadsheet, I am finding it much harder than for the men's tournament, because of inconsistent WP vs SOS comparisons across regions, and huge depth disparities across regions.  For example, the NESCAC has a half-dozen teams that are at least arguably deserving, but several are unranked.

It's tough to even try to figure out who MIGHT be in consideration, so my hat's off to Dave, Hugh, etc.  Here's what I could get...

Seemingly locks (18)
Tufts 22-2 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.917/0.619, NE#1
Scranton 26-0 (LAND, Pool A) 1.000/0.570, MA#1
Amherst 24-1 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.960/0.580, NE#2
Washington U. 20-4 (UAA, Pool A) 0.833/0.612, CE#1
St. Thomas 23-3 (MIAC, Pool A) 0.885/0.581, WE#2
George Fox 25-0 (NWC, Pool A) 1.000/0.535, WE#1
Rochester 19-5 (UAA, Pool C) 0.792/0.610, EA#1
New York University 17-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.739/0.615, EA#2
Thomas More 24-0 (PrAC, Pool A) 1.000/0.511, GL#1
Texas-Tyler 21-1 (ASC, Pool A) 0.955/0.523, SO#1
Muhlenberg 22-2 (CC, Pool A) 0.917/0.525, MA#2
Albright 24-2 (MACC, Pool A) 0.923/0.571, MA#3
Marymount 22-4 (CAC, Pool A) 0.846/0.548, MA#4
UW-River Falls 21-4 (WIAC, Pool A) 0.840/0.550, CE#2
University of New England 24-3 (CCC, Pool A) 0.889/0.527, NE#3
Stockton 21-6 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.778/0.567, AT#1
Bowdoin 20-5 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.625, NE#4
Hope 23-1 (MIAA, Pool A) 0.958/0.456, GL#2

Likely in (13)
Ohio Northern 22-4 (OAC, Pool C) 0.846/0.542, GL#3
Denison 23-3 (NCAC, Pool A) 0.885/0.534, GL#4
Montclair State 20-6 (NJAC, Pool A) 0.769/0.563, AT#2
Eastern Connecticut 21-6 (LE, Pool A) 0.778/0.580, NE#6
Rowan 22-4 (NJAC, Pool C) 0.846/0.548, AT#3
UW-Stevens Point 20-7 (WIAC, Pool C) 0.741/0.574, CE#3
DeSales 20-6 (MAFC, Pool A) 0.769/0.559, AT#4
Wheaton (Ill.) 19-5 (CCIW, Pool A) 0.792/0.546, CE#6
Maryville (Tenn.) 22-3 (USAC, Pool A) 0.880/0.528, SO#4
Carnegie Mellon 18-6 (UAA, Pool C) 0.750/0.576, GL#5
UW-Oshkosh 20-5 (WIAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.547, CE#4
Stevens 19-6 (E8, Pool A) 0.760/0.561, EA#3
Keene State 22-4 (LE, Pool C) 0.846/0.529, NE#7

Bubble teams (8)
Christopher Newport 22-4 (CAC, Pool C) 0.846/0.514, MA#5
SUNY Geneseo 20-5 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.800/0.536, EA#4
Moravian 19-7 (LAND, Pool C) 0.731/0.588, MA#6
Mary Washington 23-4 (CAC, Pool C) 0.852/0.517, MA#7
Babson 20-5 (NEWMAC, Pool A) 0.800/0.537, NE#8
Lynchburg 22-4 (ODAC, Pool A) 0.846/0.522, SO#3
Emmanuel 21-6 (GNAC, Pool C) 0.778/0.556, NE#9
St. John Fisher 22-2 (E8, Pool C) 0.917/0.491, EA#5

Longshots for Pool C (in no particular order)
Williams 17-8 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.680/0.607, #UNR
Connecticut College 17-6 (NESCAC, Pool A) 0.739/0.577, #UNR
Messiah 19-7 (MACC, Pool A) 0.731/0.573, #UNR
Johnson and Wales 23-3 (GNAC, Pool C) 0.885/0.499, NE#5
St. Joseph's (Maine) 21-5 (GNAC, Pool A) 0.808/0.527, NE#11
Chicago 13-9 (UAA, Pool C) 0.591/0.607, #UNR
Elizabethtown 15-8 (LAND, Pool A) 0.652/0.584, #UNR
Washington and Jefferson 21-4 (PrAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.513, #UNR
Birmingham-Southern 21-3 (SAA, Pool C) 0.875/0.497, SO#5
UW-Whitewater 16-7 (WIAC, Pool C) 0.696/0.564, CE#5
Puget Sound 17-7 (NWC, Pool C) 0.708/0.559, #UNR
Susquehanna 16-8 (LAND, Pool C) 0.667/0.572, #UNR
Mass-Dartmouth 18-9 (LE, Pool C) 0.667/0.571, #UNR
SUNY New Paltz 19-6 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.760/0.536, EA#6
Catholic 17-8 (LAND, Pool A) 0.680/0.566, #UNR
St. Norbert 19-4 (MWC, Pool C) 0.826/0.511, CE#9
Colby 14-9 (NESCAC, Pool C) 0.609/0.592, #UNR
Rochester Tech 20-6 (LL, Pool C) 0.769/0.530, #UNR
Guilford 20-4 (ODAC, Pool C) 0.833/0.505, SO#2
Gustavus Adolphus 19-7 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.543, WE#7
Loras 18-7 (IIAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.546, #UNR
Mount Union 19-7 (OAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.541, #UNR
Rose-Hulman 20-3 (HCAC, Pool C) 0.870/0.487, GL#8
St. Mary's (Minn.) 21-5 (MIAC, Pool C) 0.808/0.510, WE#5
Concordia (Wis.) 20-5 (NACC, Pool C) 0.800/0.513, CE#7
Wartburg 17-7 (IIAC, Pool C) 0.708/0.547, WE#3
Luther 18-6 (IIAC, Pool C) 0.750/0.531, WE#6
Bluffton 21-2 (HCAC, Pool C) 0.913/0.468, GL#6
Clarkson 21-5 (LL, Pool A) 0.808/0.506, EA#7
Regis (Mass.) 22-3 (NECC, Pool C) 0.880/0.478, NE#10
La Roche 22-3 (AMCC, Pool C) 0.880/0.477, GL#9
Husson 20-6 (NAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.515, NE#12
Capital 19-7 (OAC, Pool C) 0.731/0.529, GL#7
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 21-4 (SCIAC, Pool C) 0.840/0.488, WE#4
Westminster (Mo.) 19-2 (SLIAC, Pool C) 0.905/0.463, CE#8
UW-Superior 23-3 (UMAC, Pool C) 0.885/0.466, WE#8
Hendrix 19-6 (SAA, Pool C) 0.760/0.510, SO#7
Gwynedd Mercy 20-6 (CSAC, Pool C) 0.769/0.506, AT#8
Fredonia 18-8 (SUNYAC, Pool C) 0.692/0.533, EA#8
Trinity (Texas) 17-4 (SCAC, Pool C) 0.810/0.488, SO#6
Gettysburg 19-5 (, Pool C) 0.792/0.485, MA#8
FDU-Florham 19-6 (, Pool C) 0.760/0.490, AT#5
Austin 18-7 (SCAC, Pool C) 0.720/0.504, SO#8
Manhattanville 18-8 (, Pool C) 0.692/0.508, AT#6
Emory and Henry 19-7 (, Pool C) 0.731/0.489, SO#9
Marywood 17-7 (CSAC, Pool A) 0.708/0.480, AT#7

Clearly, I'm not the person to be predicting this bracket!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 26, 2016, 11:09:20 PM
Fantastic50,
  Appreciate the effort; very nice to have all this in one place. My 1st +1 to you!!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: pg04 on February 27, 2016, 12:43:29 AM
I agree. +k for even making the effort. Well done.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on February 27, 2016, 05:15:15 PM
Here is the current list of Pool A Qualifiers with overall record and their seeding within their conference Tournament in parentheses.

Automatic Qualifiers

AMCC:
ASC: Texas-Tyler 27-1 (#1)
CAC: Mary Washington 24-4 (#3)
Centennial: Muhlenburg 24-2 (#1)
CUNYAC: Lehman 20-7 (#1)
CCIW: Wheaton 22-5 (#1)
CSAC: Cabrini 19-9 (#3)
CCC: University of New England 25-3 (#1)
Empire 8: Stevens (NJ) 21-6 (#1)
GNAC: St. Joseph's (ME) 23-5 (#1)
GSAC:
HCAC: Bluffton 25-2 (#1)
IIAC: Loras 19-8 (#2)
Landmark: Scranton 27-0 (#1)
Liberty: Clarkson 22-5 (#1)
LEC: Eastern Connecticut 22-6 (#1)
MASCAC: Westfield State 20-7 (#1)
MIAA: Hope 26-1 (#1)
MAC Commonwealth: Albright 25-2 (#1)
MAC Freedom: FDU-Florham 21-6 (#2)
Midwest: St. Norbert 21-4 (#1)
MIAC: St. Thomas (MN) 24-3 (#1)
NECC: Regis (MA) 24-3 (#1)
NESCAC:
NEWMAC:
NJAC: Montclair State 21-6 (#1)
NAC: Husson 21-6 (#1)
NCAC: DePauw 22-6 (#2)
NEAC:
NACC: Wisconsin Lutheran 20-7 (#2)
NWC: George Fox 27-0 (#1)
OAC: Mount Union 19-7 (#2)
ODAC:
PAC: Thomas More 27-0 (#1)
Skyline: SUNY-Old Westbury 23-5 (#3)
SAA:
SCIAC: Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 22-5 (#1)
SCAC: Trinity TX
SLIAC: Greenville 20-7 (#2)
SUNYAC: SUNY New Paltz 21-6 (#1)
UAA: Washington (MO) 20-5 (No Conference Tournament)
UMAC: UW-Superior 24-3 (#1)
USAC: Maryville (TN) 24-3 (#1)
WIAC: UW-Oshkosh 22-5 (#2)



Oops, sorry. I hit modify instead of quote.  +1!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on February 27, 2016, 06:58:02 PM
+k Captain Joe - thanks for the start of the list.

West region:  I took a closer look today trying to justify a 2nd team from the Northwest Conference. I will be disappointed if Luther AND G. Adolphus get in and Puget Sound is left out.

Assuming Puget Sound needs an at-large bid, here is the data from the most recent regional ranking.

Luther (17-6); 2-3 against ranked opponents; .530 SOS; #1 seed in IIAC and lost in conference final
G. Adolphus (19-6); 0-4 against ranked opponents; .526 SOS; #3 seed in IIAC and lost in conference semi-final
Puget Sound (16-7); 1-3 against ranked opponents; .553 SOS; #2 seed in NWC and playing tonight in final

I guess it will be that one additional loss that will leave UPS out. I of course believe the NWC is strong enough to support a 2nd team in the NCAA tournament.  I will get my wish if the Loggers get the upset win.  :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on February 27, 2016, 08:35:25 PM
 I humbly ::) help the NCAA committee by suggesting 2 Scranton pod alternatives:

Ronk's former prospects(2 on each team):                I get to see how they're doing in person
    Muhlenberg, Montclair St, Carnegie-Mellon

or repeat last year's:
    Eastern Connecticut, Stevens, CUNY rep-Lehman     they know the way to Scranton
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on February 27, 2016, 10:01:24 PM
The times on these games are throwing me off. Keep forgetting they are EST.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Captain_Joe08 on February 27, 2016, 11:42:21 PM
With George Fox having the Northwest Conference Title Game well in hand, all the Saturday tournament finals are in the books.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on February 29, 2016, 02:55:40 PM
The George Fox bracket has 4 former champs in the 21st Century.

UW-SP in 2002
Trinity Tx in 2003
DePauw in 2007 and 2013
George Fox 2009.

What a bracket!  Proud programs with great traditions.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:53:46 AM
Tough, yes. But as Pat pointed out, not necessarily as fearsome as in the past.

DePauw wouldn't have made the tournament this year if they hadn't won the AQ.
Trinity TX, as much as I like them as a semi-sleeper, isn't the same without their key player.
UWSP: I love Shirley Egner, but are they as good as those championship days?

But historically... damn amazing bracket and even opening pod for George Fox.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: David Collinge on March 01, 2016, 08:40:36 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2016, 12:53:46 AM
DePauw wouldn't have made the tournament this year if they hadn't won the AQ.

And they wouldn't have won the AQ without an amazing buzzer-beating three by Emily Budde in the semifinal. I hope everyone saw that shot, but in case anyone missed it...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK2T0Wjgkq0
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 05, 2016, 09:59:34 PM
A great game to watch.

GFU 62 UWSP 59. I guess that UT-Tyler gets to fly to GFU for the Sweet 16.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 05, 2016, 10:02:39 PM
I so wish that were true. But the NCAA saves a flight by sending UT-Tyler and GFU to St. Thomas.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 12:27:11 AM
Yeah... GFU and Tyler are not hosting... St. Thomas is my guess as well.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 06, 2016, 10:26:38 AM
Dave,
Why did you say(tweet) that Tufts should host the sectional over Scranton?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2016, 01:27:50 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 12:27:11 AM
Yeah... GFU and Tyler are not hosting... St. Thomas is my guess as well.
So GFU and UTT get to play at a "neutral site" for their game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 06:57:36 PM
It may have been one of the best weekends of the Division III basketball tournaments in recent history. Upsets, close finishes, buzzer beaters, and more. Survive and advance hasn't fit better as a description than after the first two rounds of this year's championships.

Tonight, Dave McHugh recaps it all on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) tonight. From those who surprised to those who survived. Even the favorites had their moments. Dave will talk to many who are not only still playing, but get a chance to host next weekend and hope it helps them get to the final four.

Hoopsville hits the air at 7pm ET here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/mar6

Guests include (in order of apperance):
- Brian Sortino, Oswego State junior guard
- Jason Leone, Oswego State men's coach
- John Tauer, No. 8 St. Thomas men's coach (Pat Coleman interview)
- Trevor Woodruff, No. 3 Scranton women's coach
- Megan Haughey, Stevens women's coach
- Bob Sheldon, No. 20 Tufts men's coach

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

And the Hoopsville Fundraising project is in it's closing days as well, but we have not met the goal. Please consider helping us cover Division III basketball the way it deserves to be covered: http://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser/x/6029509.

Thanks!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 06, 2016, 10:26:38 AM
Dave,
Why did you say(tweet) that Tufts should host the sectional over Scranton?

At first I felt Tufts criteria was better despite being a #2... but then I realized CNU couldn't get to Tufts anyway and a future tweet showed I changed that prediction.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 06, 2016, 07:00:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 06, 2016, 10:26:38 AM
Dave,
Why did you say(tweet) that Tufts should host the sectional over Scranton?

At first I felt Tufts criteria was better despite being a #2... but then I realized CNU couldn't get to Tufts anyway and a future tweet showed I changed that prediction.

What criteria was better?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 09:39:39 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 06, 2016, 07:00:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 06, 2016, 10:26:38 AM
Dave,
Why did you say(tweet) that Tufts should host the sectional over Scranton?

At first I felt Tufts criteria was better despite being a #2... but then I realized CNU couldn't get to Tufts anyway and a future tweet showed I changed that prediction.

What criteria was better?

Tufts was was 22-2 with a .616 SOS along with be 8-2 vRRO with a road win over Amherst.

Scranton was 25-0 with a .561 SOS and 4-0 vRRO.

If you just played the SOS game (.030=2games) - Tufts improves to a 24-0 under Scranton's SOS and Scranton falls to a 23-2 with Tuft's SOS, but considering the descrepency is nearly .060 I think the edge still goes to Tufts. They also played 10 ranked opponents (granted, easier in the Northeast) and did pretty darn well against them at 8-2.

It would have been a very interesting conversation, to say the least, and I certainly would have understood if the committee went with Scranton if it was debatable... but considering CNU couldn't get to Tufts in the first place... there was no debate.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: NWCSportsFan on March 06, 2016, 11:42:29 PM
One difference, UTT hosted the first weekend as they deserved, GFU did not.

Maybe a new NWC recruiting slogan could be "Join the NWC and see the country."

Given that this seems to happen often to the NWC, perhaps in fairness, the NCAA could budget to allow a 27-0 NWC team to host the first or second weekend once in a while, or both, as some other undefeated teams are able to do.  The NWC should not be punished because of something they cannot control, geography.

In retrospect, GFU should have lost the conference title game to UPS so that 2 NWC teams could have made into the tournament.  That doesn't seem right at all.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2016, 01:27:50 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 12:27:11 AM
Yeah... GFU and Tyler are not hosting... St. Thomas is my guess as well.
So GFU and UTT get to play at a "neutral site" for their game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 07, 2016, 11:41:39 AM
Quote from: NWCSportsFan on March 06, 2016, 11:42:29 PM
One difference, UTT hosted the first weekend as they deserved, GFU did not.

Maybe a new NWC recruiting slogan could be "Join the NWC and see the country."

Given that this seems to happen often to the NWC, perhaps in fairness, the NCAA could budget to allow a 27-0 NWC team to host the first or second weekend once in a while, or both, as some other undefeated teams are able to do.  The NWC should not be punished because of something they cannot control, geography.

In retrospect, GFU should have lost the conference title game to UPS so that 2 NWC teams could have made into the tournament.  That doesn't seem right at all.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 06, 2016, 01:27:50 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 12:27:11 AM
Yeah... GFU and Tyler are not hosting... St. Thomas is my guess as well.
So GFU and UTT get to play at a "neutral site" for their game.
Welcome to the boards NWCSportsFan.
Yes, losing to UPS might have given you a home game.
I wonder if the Tommies winning the OT game in the first round saved their hosting bid this weekend.

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: NWCSportsFan on March 07, 2016, 11:07:17 PM
Very sad and unfortunate that a NWC team would have a better chance of hosting by losing, but don't worry, the rivalries in the NWC are such that no team would do that.  Probably the same everywhere in DIII women's basketball.  And if you do lose, you most likely have to play the same team again in the second round.  It's happened that way many times in the past.

Good luck to the Bruins in St. Paul.  They will represent George Fox and the NWC well.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 09, 2016, 11:12:21 PM
Based on the last public regional rankings and won/loss record, George Fox vs. UT-Tyler is quite a match-up.
#1 from the West vs. #1 from the South with a combined record of 58-1. A neutral site game, so no homecourt advantage for either team.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 10, 2016, 12:30:39 PM
Quote from: BruinFan on March 09, 2016, 11:12:21 PM
Based on the last public regional rankings and won/loss record, George Fox vs. UT-Tyler is quite a match-up.
#1 from the West vs. #1 from the South with a combined record of 58-1. A neutral site game, so no homecourt advantage for either team.
I also do not see that either team has played in this gym before/recently.

Yes, this should be a good one. We can see if UTT's ball handers can handle the GFU press.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: NWCSportsFan on March 10, 2016, 05:04:29 PM
Except for GFU and UTT, none of the other undefeated or one loss teams have to play another undefeated or one loss team in the Sweet 16 matchups.  If the NCAA is going to use finances and geography to set up the brackets, perhaps they could consider reseeding the Sweet 16 pods.  It looks like both GFU and UTT are Elite Eight caliber teams.

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 10, 2016, 06:06:43 PM
Maybe, but the ASC representative hasn't reached the Elite 8 since Howard Payne went undefeated in 2008. The ASC's tournament record since then is 7-12.

Texas-Tyler has one loss but it also has just one win against teams that received votes in the last Top 25 poll, and that team may receive no votes in the year-end poll.  There's a chance Texas-Tyler is really good. There's also a chance they floated up to No. 6 in the country because everyone else around them lost.

If money were no object, which of the teams who hosted last week and play on a neutral court this week (i.e. similar to Texas Tyler) would clearly be easier opponents for George Fox -- Bowdoin, Rochester, Albright, Tufts, or Washington U? If I were George Fox and could pick my opponent, there are only two on that list I'd rather face and one of them (Bowdoin) would give me pause because they have better win (Tufts) than anyone Texas-Tyler has beaten to date.

How would you have reorganized the pods to get George Fox a better second round opponent?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 10, 2016, 06:22:20 PM
It is hard work just to get into the NCAA tournament in the first place. It is even harder to get out of the second two rounds. But which eight teams of the 32 left can get the job done and march on to the championship weekends?

Thursday night on Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh chats with some of those who have already surprised and those who hope to keep their tournament dreams reality.

Hoopsville hits the air at 7pm ET. You can watch the show here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2015-16/mar10

Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Ryan Cain, Keene State men's coach
- Jim Scheible, No. 16 Rochester women's coach
- Kendra Hassel, No. 6 UT-Tyler women's coach
- Jason Zimmerman, Emory men's coach (NABC Coach's Corner)
- Dave Hixon, No. 15 Amherst men's coach
- Steve Moore, Wooster men's coach

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: NWCSportsFan on March 10, 2016, 06:44:47 PM
I was just suggesting reseeding the teams at each location, if it makes sense, not moving teams between pods. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 10, 2016, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: NWCSportsFan on March 10, 2016, 06:44:47 PM
I was just suggesting reseeding the teams at each location, if it makes sense, not moving teams between pods.

NCAA brackets are designed the way they are... why would we reseed at those brackets. Doing that would cause the committee to care less about the overall design of the bracket.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: San Juan on March 10, 2016, 08:12:02 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 06, 2016, 07:00:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 06:58:13 PMDave  just  a question here?I notice you said that the criteria for Tufts over Scranton was better because of the Sos comparison and if CNU was closer to Tufts you could have seen the Regionals  going to Tufts.Did you look at Thomas Mores Sos at 525 I didn't here you make that statement in there pod.Scranton is 573 sos just a thought.
Quote from: ronk on March 06, 2016, 10:26:38 AM
Dave,
Why did you say(tweet) that Tufts should host the sectional over Scranton?

At first I felt Tufts criteria was better despite being a #2... but then I realized CNU couldn't get to Tufts anyway and a future tweet showed I changed that prediction.

What criteria was better?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 10, 2016, 09:46:12 PM
San Juan - don't know if you prematurely posted, but I answer the question to that here:

Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 09:39:39 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 06, 2016, 07:00:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2016, 06:58:13 PM
Quote from: ronk on March 06, 2016, 10:26:38 AM
Dave,
Why did you say(tweet) that Tufts should host the sectional over Scranton?

At first I felt Tufts criteria was better despite being a #2... but then I realized CNU couldn't get to Tufts anyway and a future tweet showed I changed that prediction.

What criteria was better?

Tufts was was 22-2 with a .616 SOS along with be 8-2 vRRO with a road win over Amherst.

Scranton was 25-0 with a .561 SOS and 4-0 vRRO.

If you just played the SOS game (.030=2games) - Tufts improves to a 24-0 under Scranton's SOS and Scranton falls to a 23-2 with Tuft's SOS, but considering the descrepency is nearly .060 I think the edge still goes to Tufts. They also played 10 ranked opponents (granted, easier in the Northeast) and did pretty darn well against them at 8-2.

It would have been a very interesting conversation, to say the least, and I certainly would have understood if the committee went with Scranton if it was debatable... but considering CNU couldn't get to Tufts in the first place... there was no debate.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 10, 2016, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 10, 2016, 06:06:43 PM
Maybe, but the ASC representative hasn't reached the Elite 8 since Howard Payne went undefeated in 2008. The ASC's tournament record since then is 7-12.

Texas-Tyler has one loss but it also has just one win against teams that received votes in the last Top 25 poll, and that team may receive no votes in the year-end poll.  There's a chance Texas-Tyler is really good. There's also a chance they floated up to No. 6 in the country because everyone else around them lost.

If money were no object, which of the teams who hosted last week and play on a neutral court this week (i.e. similar to Texas Tyler) would clearly be easier opponents for George Fox -- Bowdoin, Rochester, Albright, Tufts, or Washington U? If I were George Fox and could pick my opponent, there are only two on that list I'd rather face and one of them (Bowdoin) would give me pause because they have better win (Tufts) than anyone Texas-Tyler has beaten to date.

How would you have reorganized the pods to get George Fox a better second round opponent?
Thanks for the analysis of the tourney from the GFU and UTT perspective.

IMHO, the ASC declined significantly after Chris Kielsmeyer left HPU and Sam Nichols left McMurry in 2008.  Julie Goodenough's program carried strong momentum for another 3-4 years after she left HSU for Okie State about 2002.

Since 2011, Louisiana College under the late Janice Joseph-Richards and her successor, UTD and UTT have met some strong competition in the playoffs, e.g., Thomas More (pre-Moss), Wash U and GFU.  The good thing for the ASC is that the SCAC is nearby and so we are likely to get the first rounds in Texas, most years, instead of being flown to the Northwest or Iowa.

I think that UTT's Kendra Hassel is the best coach in the conference since Kielsmeyer and may be the one that gets ASC Women's Hoops back to the national level.  When Kendra Anderson Hassel was at HSU, she saw the top level of competition in D3.  I will be pleased if the Patriots win this first time at the Sweet 16, but programs often do not comprehend how much or how little they lack to be an elite program the first time they get there.

As an ASC fan, this is fun again.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 11, 2016, 08:22:21 PM
Well, how about those Patriots?

Certainly justified their ranking tonight and did the ASC proud. Coach Hassell is pretty good for a "hardened sinner." :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2016, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on March 11, 2016, 08:22:21 PM
Well, how about those Patriots?

Certainly justified their ranking tonight and did the ASC proud. Coach Hassell is pretty good for a "hardened sinner." :)
Thanks Gordon.  (You talk like one who knows the lay of the land!)  I am grateful for your kind words.

I am glad that GFU and UTT could face off on a neutral court.  I firmly believe that HPU only defeated Hope in the 2008 Elite 8 game because of home court advantage before a loud sellout crowd in the Brownwood Mausoleum**. Had HPU had to go to Hope, I think the outcome would have been different.

In the early 2000's when the HSU Cowgirls were making their runs and national observers got to compare ASC ball to a known quantity. we got "lots of respect".  We had 2 champs in that era from Texas, Trinity in 2003 and HPU in 2008.

I am hoping that we can get the level back up with UTT's success.  ETBU gave UTT hard games. Let's see how that translates into some some recognition.

(** HPU played in the Brownwood Coliseum which was notorious for its bad court and poor lighting, lighting that had not been upgraded since its was built in the 1960's.

HPU had several games of more than 2000 fans in the 2006-07 season, but did not get to host beyond the 2nd game. The City of Brownwood upgraded the lighting and bought a court that was being sold by the New Jersey Nets, if I remember.

The upgrades were in place for HPU's perfect 28-0 season.  They got to host the 16/8 games. )
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 11, 2016, 08:45:57 PM
That night of the Hope/Howard Payne game is one of my favorite memories of covering Division III sports. A nice dinner with you and Dave Collinge, a great game and you gave me Dr. Pepper with pure cane sugar to take home. Doesn't get any better than that. :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 11, 2016, 10:37:34 PM
Good!  UTT gets Wartburg on a neutral floor.

I'll bet the team in orange wins!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 22, 2016, 10:33:43 PM
What a season of Division III basketball and it isn't quite over with yet! The men might have crowned their championship, but the women have one more game to go.

On this episode of Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh looks back at the two championship weekends with help from Ryan Scott, Gordon Mann, and Adam Turer. We look at the championship for St. Thomas and the near perfect miss by Benedictine. We also take a look at the two semifinal games in women's basketball and the upcoming championship between St. Thomas and Tufts to be played in Indianapolis.

Dave also talks to Page Moir, head coach for Roanoke, who suddenly announced on Tuesday he is stepping down from the position and looking for something new to challenge him.

You can watch the show in its entirety or listen to the podcast above.

Guests include (in order of appearance):
- Page Moir, Roanoke men's coach
- Keith Bunkenburg, No. 2 Benedictine men's coach
- Steve Fritz, St. Thomas athletics director and former men's coach
- John Tauer, No 1. St. Thomas men's coach
- Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com Mid-Atlantic reporter
- Gordon Mann and Adam Turer, women's semifinals report
- Jeff Hans, No. 1 Thomas More women's coach
- Carla Berube, No. 7 Tufts women's coach

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Smitty Oom on March 24, 2016, 12:57:17 PM
First time poster on the women's side, but I have a question I have been struggling with the past few days. Is there any interest by the WNBA for Sydney Moss? She is the most dominant college basketball player right now (Maybe Stewart from UConn would have an argument for that, but her surrounding team is better comparatively). So, is there any word on that?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 24, 2016, 05:15:17 PM
Good question. We'll have to ask the Thomas More folks at some point.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 24, 2016, 05:25:02 PM
Quote from: Smitty Oom on March 24, 2016, 12:57:17 PM
First time poster on the women's side, but I have a question I have been struggling with the past few days. Is there any interest by the WNBA for Sydney Moss? She is the most dominant college basketball player right now (Maybe Stewart from UConn would have an argument for that, but her surrounding team is better comparatively). So, is there any word on that?

I would guess the WNBA would be VERY interested.  My question would be does Sydney Moss have any interest in them?  My understanding was always that she went from D1 to D3 so basketball would be less of a 'job', and she could be a genuine student.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 29, 2016, 08:54:06 AM
To the D3 historians,
Have any other coaches taken a team to the Final Four at both the Division 3 and Division 1 levels?

Congrats to Scott Rueck who just accomplished it with Oregon State after previously taking George Fox in 2009. It is a great story. He held open try-outs when he went to Oregon State in 2010 in an attempt to find any talent he could to round out a depleted roster. He has since built the program using the same coaching philosophies and looking for the same character qualities in the athletes that he had at George Fox.

I hope a couple of you that will attend the championship weekend in Indy will get a chance to say hello to Scott and congratulate him in person.

http://espn.go.com/womens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15088719/scott-rueck-coaches-oregon-state-beavers-first-final-four
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 29, 2016, 11:15:40 AM
Bo Ryan won the Division III titles with UW-Platteville in 1998 and 1999 and took the Wisconsin men to the Final Four in 2014-15.

I hope to see Scott and maybe even get some interview time with him in Indianapolis, but I know he'll be busy. He's a great coach and a great guy so I'm very happy for his success.

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on March 29, 2016, 04:46:54 PM
Bo Ryan also won DIII titles with Platteville in 1991 and 1995.  And he took them to the Final Four in 1992.

Would be interesting for Gordon to get an interview with Geno Auriemma and his thoughts on what his former player, Carla Berube, has done at Tufts.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 29, 2016, 08:52:04 PM
There is a story on the front page of Geno talking about Thomas More and repeating... not sure he talked about Carla.

Gordon, myself, and others will be in Indy... we will do what we can. LOL
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: BruinFan on March 29, 2016, 09:52:01 PM
Thanks to Gordon, bballfan13, and Dave for the replies and information.

Dave and Gordon have a great time in Indy - I'm jealous.

There is a fun very short video of Breanna Stewart in a boxing ring last summer with Scott Rueck when he was an assistant coach with the USA PanAm games team. The end of the video is ominous, but in Scott's defense Breanna has a significant reach advantage.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on March 30, 2016, 04:49:57 AM
Have fun in Indy Gordon and Dave.  You guys always do a great job!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on March 30, 2016, 10:54:50 AM
Thanks, guys.

I'll have to look for the Rueck/Stewart Ultimate Fighting Video. :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: hopefan on April 04, 2016, 09:57:18 AM
I see in today's paper that the D2 women's championship game is being televised... wish the powers had seen fit to televise the D3 game as well.....
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on April 04, 2016, 02:44:10 PM
Yeah. At least we have the webstream, unlike the men's title game in Atlanta.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on April 04, 2016, 04:17:59 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on April 04, 2016, 02:44:10 PM
Yeah. At least we have the webstream, unlike the men's title game in Atlanta.

Gordon,
any pre-game or post-game discussion, ala hoopsville?
what time does webstream start?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on April 04, 2016, 06:52:29 PM
Ronk:

Sorry I'm just seeing this. The game started at 6 pm. If you're into Twitter, follow d3hoopsville for live analysis
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: NE Jeffs Fan on April 05, 2016, 12:42:53 PM
On which board do Thomas More College and fans participate?  Just wanted to say congrats on another great season.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on April 05, 2016, 02:50:12 PM
Quote from: NE Jeffs Fan on April 05, 2016, 12:42:53 PM
On which board do Thomas More College and fans participate?  Just wanted to say congrats on another great season.

It's the PAC board in the Great Lakes Region, but you'll be pretty disappointed - after ten (?) years, they've just started page 3. :P
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: hopefan on April 07, 2016, 05:57:22 AM
I may have missed it, but what was the attendance estimate of the women's championship game?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on April 07, 2016, 08:43:36 AM
Quote from: hopefan on April 07, 2016, 05:57:22 AM
I may have missed it, but what was the attendance estimate of the women's championship game?

At one point right after the game the NCAA had it listed in the box around 6,400.  Now that I go and look at the box score on ncaa.com and D3hoops.com they both do not show it.  It looked like pretty good attendance to me from the video stream.  I think 6,400 is probably a good guess.  Thomas More traveled very well as they were only about 2 hours from the game.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: gordonmann on April 07, 2016, 11:11:28 AM
Thomas More coach Jeff Hans read the number 6,400 off of something he had in front of him in the post-game press conference but the official box score left the number blank.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: hopefan on April 07, 2016, 01:45:57 PM
6400!!!   WOW!!!  That is fantastic... feel great for T. More who has accomplished so much the last several years, to be able to play in front of numbers like that!!!!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 13, 2016, 04:42:08 PM
Believe it not, the 2016-17 basketball season is just days away. But the season can't start without Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) hitting the air!

Tune in tonight starting at 7pm as Dave talks to the two preseason numbers one teams, finds out how the offseason went for the two defending national championships, and touches bases with the men's and women's basketball committee chairs.

Guests include:
- Kevin Vande Streek, men's basketball committee chair and head coach for Calvin
- Bobbi Morgan, women's basketball committee chair and head coach for Haverford
- John Tauer, head coach for No. 10 St. Thomas men
- Dave Hixon, head coach for No. 1 Amherst men
- Jeff Hans, head coach for No. 4 Thomas More women
- Carla Berube, head coach for No. 1 Tufts women

You can watch the show here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/nov13

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on February 26, 2017, 10:50:13 PM
Here is my best shot at looking at who gets in Pool C for the 2017 NCAA tournament:

Round 1   Tufts
Round 2   Puget Sound
Round 3   Wisconsin-Oshkosh
Round 4   SUNY Geneseo
Round 5   Catholic
Round 6   Gustavus Adolphus
Round 7   Albright
Round 8   Mary Washington
Round 9   Chicago
Round 10   Hope
Round 11   Bowdoin
Round 12   DeSales
Round 13   Marymount
Round 14   Mass Dartmouth
Round 15   Illinois Wesleyan
Round 16   Lynchburg
Round 17   Maryville
Round 18   George Fox
Round 19   Rochester
Round 20   Bethel

And here is my selection round by round:

Round 1      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Wisconsin-Oshkosh   24-3   0.889   0.542   3-3
East   SUNY Geneseo   26-1   0.963   0.511   1-0
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Catholic   23-4   0.852   0.588   3-3
Northeast   Tufts   25-2   0.926   0.611   7-2
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   Puget Sound   22-2   0.917   0.565   4-2
               
               
Round 2      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Wisconsin-Oshkosh   24-3   0.889   0.542   3-3
East   SUNY Geneseo   26-1   0.963   0.511   1-0
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Catholic   23-4   0.852   0.588   3-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   Puget Sound   22-2   0.917   0.565   4-2
               
               
Round 3      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Wisconsin-Oshkosh   24-3   0.889   0.542   3-3
East   SUNY Geneseo   26-1   0.963   0.511   1-0
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Catholic   23-4   0.852   0.588   3-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   Gustavus Adolphus   24-2   0.923   0.542   2-2
               
               
Round 4      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Chicago   18-7   0.72   0.638   8-5
East   SUNY Geneseo   26-1   0.963   0.511   1-0
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Catholic   23-4   0.852   0.588   3-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   Gustavus Adolphus   24-2   0.923   0.542   2-2
               
               
Round 5      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Chicago   18-7   0.72   0.638   8-5
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Catholic   23-4   0.852   0.588   3-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   Gustavus Adolphus   24-2   0.923   0.542   2-2
               
               
Round 6      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Chicago   18-7   0.72   0.638   8-5
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Albright   22-5   0.815   0.575   5-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   Gustavus Adolphus   24-2   0.923   0.542   2-2
               
               
Round 7      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Chicago   18-7   0.72   0.638   8-5
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Albright   22-5   0.815   0.575   5-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 8      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Chicago   18-7   0.72   0.638   8-5
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Mary Washington   23-4   0.852   0.555   4-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 9      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Chicago   18-7   0.72   0.638   8-5
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Marymount   20-5   0.8   0.554   3-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 10      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Illinois Wesleyan   18-9   0.667   0.619   4-6
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Hope   20-4   0.833   0.52   4-3
Mid-Atlantic   Marymount   20-5   0.8   0.554   3-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 11      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Illinois Wesleyan   18-9   0.667   0.619   4-6
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Marymount   20-5   0.8   0.554   3-3
Northeast   Bowdoin   21-4   0.84   0.59   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 12      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   DeSales   20-7   0.741   0.563   5-4
Central   Illinois Wesleyan   18-9   0.667   0.619   4-6
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Marymount   20-5   0.8   0.554   3-3
Northeast   Mass Dartmouth   22-5   0.815   0.543   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 13      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   Misericordia   18-7   0.72   0.524   2-4
Central   Illinois Wesleyan   18-9   0.667   0.619   4-6
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Marymount   20-5   0.8   0.554   3-3
Northeast   Mass Dartmouth   22-5   0.815   0.543   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 14      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   Misericordia   18-7   0.72   0.524   2-4
Central   Illinois Wesleyan   18-9   0.667   0.619   4-6
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Moravian   18-7   0.72   0.581   1-7
Northeast   Mass Dartmouth   22-5   0.815   0.543   2-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 15      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   Misericordia   18-7   0.72   0.524   2-4
Central   Illinois Wesleyan   18-9   0.667   0.619   4-6
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Moravian   18-7   0.72   0.581   1-7
Northeast   East Connecticut   19-8   0.704   0.572   3-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 16      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   Misericordia   18-7   0.72   0.524   2-4
Central   Concordia Wisconsin   22-3   0.88   0.496   0-0
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Moravian   18-7   0.72   0.581   1-7
Northeast   East Connecticut   19-8   0.704   0.572   3-4
South   Lynchburg   22-6   0.786   0.564   1-5
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 17      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   Misericordia   18-7   0.72   0.524   2-4
Central   Concordia Wisconsin   22-3   0.88   0.496   0-0
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Moravian   18-7   0.72   0.581   1-7
Northeast   East Connecticut   19-8   0.704   0.572   3-4
South   Maryville   23-5   0.821   0.51   1-3
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 18      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   Misericordia   18-7   0.72   0.524   2-4
Central   Concordia Wisconsin   22-3   0.88   0.496   0-0
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Moravian   18-7   0.72   0.581   1-7
Northeast   East Connecticut   19-8   0.704   0.572   3-4
South   Texas Lutheran   21-5   0.808   0.488   3-2
West   George Fox   18-5   0.783   0.56   1-5
               
               
Round 19      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   Misericordia   18-7   0.72   0.524   2-4
Central   Concordia Wisconsin   22-3   0.88   0.496   0-0
East   Rochester   17-8   0.68   0.605   4-7
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Moravian   18-7   0.72   0.581   1-7
Northeast   East Connecticut   19-8   0.704   0.572   3-4
South   Texas Lutheran   21-5   0.808   0.488   3-2
West   Bethel   22-5   0.815   0.544   0-4
               
               
Round 20      Record vs D3   Win %   SOS   vRRO
Atlantic   Misericordia   18-7   0.72   0.524   2-4
Central   Concordia Wisconsin   22-3   0.88   0.496   0-0
East   Skidmore   17-9   0.654   0.557   2-4
Great Lakes   Carnegie Mellon   18-7   0.72   0.603   2-6
Mid-Atlantic   Moravian   18-7   0.72   0.581   1-7
Northeast   East Connecticut   19-8   0.704   0.572   3-4
South   Texas Lutheran   21-5   0.808   0.488   3-2
West   Bethel   22-5   0.815   0.544   0-4
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on February 27, 2017, 08:00:49 PM
Congratulations to everyone that got in.  I missed just 2 of my picks this year. 

I missed Calvin and Eastern Connecticut.  I had Bethel and Maryville in.

It looks like Calvin was regionally ranked in front of Carnegie Mellon in the final regional rankings they don't publish.  I was going off of the previous one (with some minor changes I thought they would make).  I did not think they would switch Carnegie Mellon and Calvin, but they did and that ultimately got Calvin in.

Good luck and I hope for a great tournament!
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2017, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on February 27, 2017, 08:00:49 PM
Congratulations to everyone that got in.  I missed just 2 of my picks this year. 

I missed Calvin and Eastern Connecticut.  I had Bethel and Maryville in.

It looks like Calvin was regionally ranked in front of Carnegie Mellon in the final regional rankings they don't publish.  I was going off of the previous one (with some minor changes I thought they would make).  I did not think they would switch Carnegie Mellon and Calvin, but they did and that ultimately got Calvin in.

Good luck and I hope for a great tournament!

They actually do publish the final regional rankings effective this academic year... for some reason the women's rankings aren't out despite even the committee chair's belief they were out. She has stated and we pretty much know it to be true that Calvin jumped Carnegie Mellon. It is fact at this point even if we haven't seen them.

When we looked at it after the fact (after we ranked and selected), Gordon made a good argument for why Calvin should have moved in front. I think it was the right decision in the end.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on February 27, 2017, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 27, 2017, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on February 27, 2017, 08:00:49 PM
Congratulations to everyone that got in.  I missed just 2 of my picks this year. 

I missed Calvin and Eastern Connecticut.  I had Bethel and Maryville in.

It looks like Calvin was regionally ranked in front of Carnegie Mellon in the final regional rankings they don't publish.  I was going off of the previous one (with some minor changes I thought they would make).  I did not think they would switch Carnegie Mellon and Calvin, but they did and that ultimately got Calvin in.

Good luck and I hope for a great tournament!

They actually do publish the final regional rankings effective this academic year... for some reason the women's rankings aren't out despite even the committee chair's belief they were out. She has stated and we pretty much know it to be true that Calvin jumped Carnegie Mellon. It is fact at this point even if we haven't seen them.

When we looked at it after the fact (after we ranked and selected), Gordon made a good argument for why Calvin should have moved in front. I think it was the right decision in the end.

I'm looking forward to seeing the final regional rankings, just for my own curiousity. So thanks for confirming.

Yes, I agree with the decision of Calvin over CM and I'm glad the committee did too. Great interview with the women's chair this afternoon. It did a great job of bringing us a bit closer to their thought process. I think they did a good job this year. Always tough calls to make to leave someone out, but they really did well.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 01, 2017, 01:38:03 PM
Women's bracket saved from a possible sectional hosting problem in the Tufts/Scranton/Wash U/Oshkosh quadrant if all their men's teams had been able to host - saved only by Wash U and Oshkosh men being in the same regional so that only 1 of the 2 was a potential sectional host. 
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2017, 06:56:19 PM
It is nearly time to tip up the ball on the NCAA Division III Basketball Tournaments. Who will end up in Grand Rapids and Salem with a chance at a national title?

On Thursday's nights Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com), Dave McHugh gives his preview of the two tournaments and who may be the surprises, who can pull off an upset, who are the favorites to make a run, and who just might walk away with the walnut and bronze.

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs LIVE starting at 7:00 PM ET from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/mar2 --- or via the simulcast on Facebook Live (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville). If you miss the show live, you can watch it On Demand or listen to the podcasts.

The show is jammed packed with guests, but Dave will also have time for your questions. Make sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com. You can also tweet them to us.

And please consider helping Hoopsville stay on the air like you might help your public television station. The annual fundraising campaign was extended a few days because we had only raised 52% of our goal. Click the following link for more information and to make a donation: Hoopsville Fundraising Page (https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017)

Guests scheduled (in order of appearance):
- Carl Danzig, Scranton men's coach
- Abby Pyzik Smith, Lynchburg women's coach
- Brad Fischer, No. 13 UW-Oshkosh women's coach
- Michael Blaine, Medialle men's coach
- Jeff Brown, No. 6 Middlbury men's coach
- Cameron Hill, No. 7 Trinity (Texas) women's coach

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Fundraiser: https://igg.me/at/hoopsville-fundraiser-2017

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dm7hyu%2F67im4wp2kqxj36iu.jpg&hash=3709a0096397bb9a1cdf10b99328b2589a46785f)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: GoPerry on March 04, 2017, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2017, 01:38:03 PM
Women's bracket saved from a possible sectional hosting problem in the Tufts/Scranton/Wash U/Oshkosh quadrant if all their men's teams had been able to host - saved only by Wash U and Oshkosh men being in the same regional so that only 1 of the 2 was a potential sectional host.

No matter what happens, there will be multiple flights involved in that Tufts lower right bracket next weekend.  But it looks like the committee knew that would happen anyhow or maybe it's fairly standard and typically unavoidable in the Rd of 16.  If Tufts wins, 2 midwest teams are flying there for sure.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2017, 12:49:06 PM
Quote from: GoPerry on March 04, 2017, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: ronk on March 01, 2017, 01:38:03 PM
Women's bracket saved from a possible sectional hosting problem in the Tufts/Scranton/Wash U/Oshkosh quadrant if all their men's teams had been able to host - saved only by Wash U and Oshkosh men being in the same regional so that only 1 of the 2 was a potential sectional host.

No matter what happens, there will be multiple flights involved in that Tufts lower right bracket next weekend.  But it looks like the committee knew that would happen anyhow or maybe it's fairly standard and typically unavoidable in the Rd of 16.  If Tufts wins, 2 midwest teams are flying there for sure.

Two things: if the Tufts men's team is still in the tournament, they may go to Babson... or they may be at Tufts which would keep the women from hosting.

Secondly... no guaruntees Tufts is the top seed there... you could make an argument that WashU is the #1 in that pod and Oshkosh can bus to them... so possibly Tufts is flying to St. Louis.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: bballfan13 on March 04, 2017, 09:50:55 PM
Looks like the NCAA will pay for 3 flights for the St. Thomas corner of the bracket.  It will be St. Thomas, Marymount (VA), Puget Sound / Whitman, and Trinity (TX).  4 corners of the US.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: 7express on March 04, 2017, 11:08:51 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on March 04, 2017, 09:50:55 PM
Looks like the NCAA will pay for 3 flights for the St. Thomas corner of the bracket.  It will be St. Thomas, Marymount (VA), Puget Sound / Whitman, and Trinity (TX).  4 corners of the US.

Using the milage chart and who the final 16 teams will be (the winner of PS/Whitman has no bearing on this as the winner will fly regardless). 

Upper Left (Amherst quadrant):  Who should host?  Amherst.  Who will likely host? Amherst.  3 of the 4 teams are from the same state (MA) with the 4th (New Paltz) being just across the border in New York, so all bussing here....and mostly rather short bussing too.
Bottom Left (Thomas More quadrant): Who should host?  Ohio Northern.  Who will likely host?  Ohio Northern.  Hope knocking out Thomas More benefits Ohio Northern the most as they would likely be traveling to Thomas More, but since they are now eliminated, the teams will probably be coming to them instead.  Newport is 500+ miles away from everyone, so they will be playing out to somewhere.....likely Ohio.
Upper right (St. Thomas quadrant): Who should host?  St. Thomas.  Who will likely host?  St. Thomas.  The hodgepodge of teams: 1 from Minnesota, 1 from the DC area, 1 from south Texas, and 1 from the Pacific Northwest.  I doubt any of these schools are 1,000 miles from each other much less 500, so there will be 3 flights somewhere, so you send the 3 flights to the best team remaining, and that is St. Thomas
Bottom left (Tufts quadrant): Who should host?  Tufts.  Who will likely host?  Tufts.  Since I think the Tufts men will end going to Babson, that will open up Tufts for another weekend of hosting duties.  Scranton can bus to Tufts, and while Oshkosh can bush to Wash U, neither of them can bus to Scranton, so there will be 2 flights anyways no matter whether you send the Midwest teams (Oshkosh, Wash U) out east, or the East coast teams (Tufts, Scranton) out to St. Louis, so like the upper portion of the bracket when you are guaranteed to have flights regardless of where the sectional ends up, you send it to the team with the best resume, and I believe that team is Tufts.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ralph Turner on March 04, 2017, 11:13:24 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on March 04, 2017, 09:50:55 PM
Looks like the NCAA will pay for 3 flights for the St. Thomas corner of the bracket.  It will be St. Thomas, Marymount (VA), Puget Sound / Whitman, and Trinity (TX).  4 corners of the US.
That is a bummer for Trinity. The one year that an "island" team can host 3rd and 4th round games, and TU can blame the loss at Texas Lutheran on losing their chance.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 04, 2017, 11:34:08 PM
Quote from: 7express on March 04, 2017, 11:08:51 PM
Quote from: bballfan13 on March 04, 2017, 09:50:55 PM
Looks like the NCAA will pay for 3 flights for the St. Thomas corner of the bracket.  It will be St. Thomas, Marymount (VA), Puget Sound / Whitman, and Trinity (TX).  4 corners of the US.

Using the milage chart and who the final 16 teams will be (the winner of PS/Whitman has no bearing on this as the winner will fly regardless). 

Upper Left (Amherst quadrant):  Who should host?  Amherst.  Who will likely host? Amherst.  3 of the 4 teams are from the same state (MA) with the 4th (New Paltz) being just across the border in New York, so all bussing here....and mostly rather short bussing too.
Bottom Left (Thomas More quadrant): Who should host?  Ohio Northern.  Who will likely host?  Ohio Northern.  Hope knocking out Thomas More benefits Ohio Northern the most as they would likely be traveling to Thomas More, but since they are now eliminated, the teams will probably be coming to them instead.  Newport is 500+ miles away from everyone, so they will be playing out to somewhere.....likely Ohio.
Upper right (St. Thomas quadrant): Who should host?  St. Thomas.  Who will likely host?  St. Thomas.  The hodgepodge of teams: 1 from Minnesota, 1 from the DC area, 1 from south Texas, and 1 from the Pacific Northwest.  I doubt any of these schools are 1,000 miles from each other much less 500, so there will be 3 flights somewhere, so you send the 3 flights to the best team remaining, and that is St. Thomas
Bottom left (Tufts quadrant): Who should host?  Tufts.  Who will likely host?  Tufts.  Since I think the Tufts men will end going to Babson, that will open up Tufts for another weekend of hosting duties.  Scranton can bus to Tufts, and while Oshkosh can bush to Wash U, neither of them can bus to Scranton, so there will be 2 flights anyways no matter whether you send the Midwest teams (Oshkosh, Wash U) out east, or the East coast teams (Tufts, Scranton) out to St. Louis, so like the upper portion of the bracket when you are guaranteed to have flights regardless of where the sectional ends up, you send it to the team with the best resume, and I believe that team is Tufts.

I think people are misunderstanding Tuft's position... WashU appears to be the top ranked team in this bracket... NCAA brackets tend to put the top "seeds" in the upper two sections and the lower two sections... WashU is down there. An exception is Babson on the men's side who is apparently being treated as a #1 in their grouping despite their location.

I suspect the women are headed to WashU.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: ronk on March 05, 2017, 11:26:47 AM
 The question was posed and unanswered last nite post-game as we watched the Scranton men play Williams:
would the women prefer to bus to Tufts and play them on their home court OR
fly to St. Louis and play them on a neutral court?

Separately, Stevie Ray(Suny-POLY) is the real deal: excellent 1-on-1 moves, can hit the 3, and makes FTs; defensively, she has the ability to be more of a factor than she exhibited last nite. Hadn't heard of her before Friday nite, but don't know why she wasn't a scholarship-level prospect 4 years ago.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:07:52 PM
Hosts: WashU, Geneseo, St. Thomas, Amherst
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:18:31 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:07:52 PM
Hosts: WashU, Geneseo, St. Thomas, Amherst

I'm confused, the clickable bracket on the NCAA web site indicates ONU hosting.....
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:18:31 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:07:52 PM
Hosts: WashU, Geneseo, St. Thomas, Amherst

I'm confused, the clickable bracket on the NCAA web site indicates ONU hosting.....

It appears the NCAA screwed up... Ohio Northern now hosting.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:44:22 PM
I have been told there was some mistake on the NCAA's end.. though, I am not sure where in took place... but there was a clerical error somewhere.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:44:22 PM
I have been told there was some mistake on the NCAA's end.. though, I am not sure where in took place... but there was a clerical error somewhere.

Thanks for clearing that up.  At least my reservations in Geneseo are cancelable :)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:44:22 PM
I have been told there was some mistake on the NCAA's end.. though, I am not sure where in took place... but there was a clerical error somewhere.

Thanks for clearing that up.  At least my reservations in Geneseo are cancelable :)

Turns out... committee voted for Geneseo who was #1 in the East over ONU who was #2 in the Great Lakes. The problem came down to the fact the NCAA had indicated Hope could bus to Geneseo with the mileabe being below 500. What the software didn't tell anyone ... that was going through Canada. That is a no-go. The committee was not aware of this fact until after they voted, the schools were told, and the brackets were announced.

Within 30 minutes the committee was told of the problem and quickly changed it to ONU - just one flight. Right decision, sadly didn't get made without some issues.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Nickbballcoach on March 06, 2017, 06:29:58 AM
Big fan of D3 sports. My first post, and I lead with this. (haha)  Below is how I rank the remaining NCAA teams. This is purely based on offensive efficiency. (This stat tends to hold some weight in determining a NC.) I don't think a team less than 100 will have their shot this year. (See 2nd table.)

I did do a bracket this year and tried to fill it out purely on offensive efficiency. (Exception was Regis-Amherst. Regis was more efficient, but we know that would not be result.) I think the later rounds we can use this stat.   


TeamOFF Eff
Washington113.0
Ohio Northern111.5
St. Thomas111.1
Hope108.2
Scranton106.7
Amherst105.6
Whitman104.7
UW-Osh103.2
SUNY Gen101.9
Trinity101.4
CNU98.6
Tufts97.6
Babson   97.0
Mass-Dartmouth94.0
Suny New Pl93.1
Marymount91.8

Here are the previous NC's. (The stats I could find.) It appears that the top 6 teams for this year, have the best overall shot of winning the title.


Thomas More144.0
FDU-Flor110.2
Depauw115.5
Illinois Wes105.9
Amherst111.6
Washington104.6
Howard Payne107.5
Depauw110.5

Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 06, 2017, 12:33:34 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:44:22 PM
I have been told there was some mistake on the NCAA's end.. though, I am not sure where in took place... but there was a clerical error somewhere.

Thanks for clearing that up.  At least my reservations in Geneseo are cancelable :)

Turns out... committee voted for Geneseo who was #1 in the East over ONU who was #2 in the Great Lakes. The problem came down to the fact the NCAA had indicated Hope could bus to Geneseo with the mileabe being below 500. What the software didn't tell anyone ... that was going through Canada. That is a no-go. The committee was not aware of this fact until after they voted, the schools were told, and the brackets were announced.

Within 30 minutes the committee was told of the problem and quickly changed it to ONU - just one flight. Right decision, sadly didn't get made without some issues.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F6swwzUJ.gif&hash=c446e8e614b1c21db4577e801be6dc6a88c60f73)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: sac on March 06, 2017, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:44:22 PM
I have been told there was some mistake on the NCAA's end.. though, I am not sure where in took place... but there was a clerical error somewhere.

Thanks for clearing that up.  At least my reservations in Geneseo are cancelable :)

Turns out... committee voted for Geneseo who was #1 in the East over ONU who was #2 in the Great Lakes. The problem came down to the fact the NCAA had indicated Hope could bus to Geneseo with the mileabe being below 500. What the software didn't tell anyone ... that was going through Canada. That is a no-go. The committee was not aware of this fact until after they voted, the schools were told, and the brackets were announced.

Within 30 minutes the committee was told of the problem and quickly changed it to ONU - just one flight. Right decision, sadly didn't get made without some issues.

Does this mean we can stop projecting Hope or Calvin in a New York pod in the future?
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2017, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: sac on March 06, 2017, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:44:22 PM
I have been told there was some mistake on the NCAA's end.. though, I am not sure where in took place... but there was a clerical error somewhere.

Thanks for clearing that up.  At least my reservations in Geneseo are cancelable :)

Turns out... committee voted for Geneseo who was #1 in the East over ONU who was #2 in the Great Lakes. The problem came down to the fact the NCAA had indicated Hope could bus to Geneseo with the mileabe being below 500. What the software didn't tell anyone ... that was going through Canada. That is a no-go. The committee was not aware of this fact until after they voted, the schools were told, and the brackets were announced.

Within 30 minutes the committee was told of the problem and quickly changed it to ONU - just one flight. Right decision, sadly didn't get made without some issues.

Does this mean we can stop projecting Hope or Calvin in a New York pod in the future?

I think Calvin can get to Buffalo in under 500 and I'm pretty sure Hope can get to Fredonia, so it's not entirely out of the question.  I do think Rochester's out, though.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 08:14:44 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2017, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: sac on March 06, 2017, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:44:22 PM
I have been told there was some mistake on the NCAA's end.. though, I am not sure where in took place... but there was a clerical error somewhere.

Thanks for clearing that up.  At least my reservations in Geneseo are cancelable :)

Turns out... committee voted for Geneseo who was #1 in the East over ONU who was #2 in the Great Lakes. The problem came down to the fact the NCAA had indicated Hope could bus to Geneseo with the mileabe being below 500. What the software didn't tell anyone ... that was going through Canada. That is a no-go. The committee was not aware of this fact until after they voted, the schools were told, and the brackets were announced.

Within 30 minutes the committee was told of the problem and quickly changed it to ONU - just one flight. Right decision, sadly didn't get made without some issues.

Does this mean we can stop projecting Hope or Calvin in a New York pod in the future?

I think Calvin can get to Buffalo in under 500 and I'm pretty sure Hope can get to Fredonia, so it's not entirely out of the question.  I do think Rochester's out, though.

How about if they just hermetically seal the buses as they traverse (non-stop, of course) Canada? ;D

Even better, how about if both countries (especially the USA) stop being so damned paranoid about college sports teams? ::)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 06, 2017, 11:07:01 PM
We probably can stop doing that... and I believe our crew has stopped doing that. I know when I got a note about it a few years ago (something I have forgotten until now), I stopped hoping for it. There are some spots they can get to, but not all.

The real challenge is they can't assume everyone has their passports. Having lived on the Canadian border for a number of years in my life, I can tell you it is night and day different now. NCAA just can't assume those who don't live on the border understand all of this.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 07, 2017, 01:18:42 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 06, 2017, 08:14:44 PM
Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on March 06, 2017, 05:44:14 PM
Quote from: sac on March 06, 2017, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 07:51:58 PM
Quote from: Roundball999 on March 05, 2017, 02:45:56 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 05, 2017, 02:44:22 PM
I have been told there was some mistake on the NCAA's end.. though, I am not sure where in took place... but there was a clerical error somewhere.

Thanks for clearing that up.  At least my reservations in Geneseo are cancelable :)

Turns out... committee voted for Geneseo who was #1 in the East over ONU who was #2 in the Great Lakes. The problem came down to the fact the NCAA had indicated Hope could bus to Geneseo with the mileabe being below 500. What the software didn't tell anyone ... that was going through Canada. That is a no-go. The committee was not aware of this fact until after they voted, the schools were told, and the brackets were announced.

Within 30 minutes the committee was told of the problem and quickly changed it to ONU - just one flight. Right decision, sadly didn't get made without some issues.

Does this mean we can stop projecting Hope or Calvin in a New York pod in the future?

I think Calvin can get to Buffalo in under 500 and I'm pretty sure Hope can get to Fredonia, so it's not entirely out of the question.  I do think Rochester's out, though.

How about if they just hermetically seal the buses as they traverse (non-stop, of course) Canada? ;D

Even better, how about if both countries (especially the USA) stop being so damned paranoid about college sports teams? ::)

I grew up in northern Vermont - we went to Canada often - this was before the border was an actual obstacle for americans.  It was also largely before the EU got its act together, though, and we ran into some real trouble when we tried to bring the neighbors Spanish foreign exchange student to the Montreal zoo.  I wasn't too old, but I remember that being a difficult crossing.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: RogK on March 07, 2017, 01:00:50 PM
humor from an earlier era :
A college basketball team from Indiana is going by bus to a tournament in Canada and they stop at the border.
A customs agent boards the bus and asks, "Are you all Americans?"
"No, but we do have a couple of all-conference players."
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 07, 2017, 01:40:59 PM
Crossing the Canadian border pre 9/11 was always more difficult than crossing the US. Where I lived, I usually knew (still know) those in Border Patrol at the checkpoint. I sometimes got waved through without having to stop. Canada would ask you all kinds of details. Now Canada is still tough, but the US side is ridiculous. My parents tell the story of talking to a friend of their's running the booth. They are chatting and then at the end he switched into a formal Q&A as if he didn't know them. My dad, curious, asked what that was all about. Their friend pointed to a camera above him and said, "as long as Boston is watching, I have to ask the formal questions even if I know you." (Not only a friend, but a patient of my father's.) My parents and everyone on the US side of the border had to get a passport-like, driver's license-like item for their wallet to cross back and forth. When we visit, we have to bring our passports including for the kids. Again... I used to cross back in like I was crossing a state (except for slowing down to go through the booths safely).

The NCAA can't assume players and coaches have passports for the "simple" task of crossing the US/Canadian border... and while people may wonder why that border is a concern... we can point to several terror attack ideas that were stopped at the border by US and Canadian authorities. There are still some in my parents area of DownEast Maine who think some of the terrorists on 9/11 came through that border checkpoint (since debunked, but still believed). This ain't the old days and thus... the NCAA has to act accordingly.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Just Bill on March 07, 2017, 02:25:24 PM
No Canada, no Lake Michigan ferries. Got it.
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 09, 2017, 06:46:29 PM
The Division III NCAA tournaments have already seen their fair share of twists and turns. Both defending champions eliminated on the opening night, several home teams beaten, off-the-radar squads tearing Top 10 teams apart, and much more.

It has been an exciting start. What's next?

Can the home teams parlay a perceived advantage into a Championship Weekend appearence? What Cinderalla team will hear the chimes of midnight? What program will continue to make history? How will the battle of Top 25 teams shake out? And will a storied career end this weekend or in Salem?

There is plenty to talk about ahead of the Sectional Weekend and Dave McHugh has a super-sized list of guests on Thursday night's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com).

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. You can watch the show LIVE staring at 7:00 p.m. ET here: http://www.d3hoops.com/hoopsville/archives/2016-17/mar9 --- or via the Facebook Live (http://www.facebook.com/Hoopsville) simulcast. If you missed any part of the show, you can watch it On Demand or listen to the podcast.

Despite the large list of guests, Dave will find time to answer questions as well. Make sure to email them to hoopsville@d3hoops.com or tweet them and Dave will answer them on air.

Guests scheduled (in order of appearance):
- Brian Morehouse, No. 18 Hope women's coach
- Trevor Woodruff, No. 17 Scranton women's coach
- Craig Carse, Hardin-Simmons men's coach
- Ruth Sinn, No. 2 St. Thomas women's coach
- Michelle Ferenz, No. 16 Whitman women's coach
- Kevin App, Williams men's coach
- Grey Giovanine, Augustana men's coach

You can also tune into the podcast(s) after the show has aired:
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hoopsville/id1059517087

Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D710%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3Dmkbzw%2Fjt7zn7grjzpwzjzp.jpg&hash=414d7f84435fe6b5e2fae50fd683c7781d50601a)
Title: Re: NCAA Tournament
Post by: RogK on March 19, 2017, 11:33:28 AM
By now, we all know that the whole D3 WBB season was RIGGED!
Four million ineligible players participated.
Gromacki Tower was wire-tapped.
The Tufts pregame meal was pasta with Putinesca sauce; it tasted terrible and the portions were too small.