Poll
Question:
Which team will advance from the lower left bracket?
Option 1: Guilford
Option 2: Whitworth
Option 3: Eastern Mennonite
Option 4: Wooster
4 regions: WEST-SOUTH, MIDWEST, EAST and ATLANTIC
Looking at the Great Lakes, West, Midwest, and South regional rankings and conference AQ's and projected Pool C's. I have my suggestion/projection on how to use the 3 byes, < 500 mile travel, and other restraints to project half the bracket.
This leaves the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, East, and Atlantic regions as well as the winner of the OAC to make up the other half (32 teams) of the national bracket.
This projection also limits the air travel the following weekend to 2 flights. (WEST-SOUTH, MIDWEST)
MIDWEST: 16 teams, host schools in bold
Pod A: Wash U (1), Westminister, Central (25), Illinois Wes.
Pod B: Whitewater (8), Carthage (16), Aurora, Gustavus/Carleton
Pod C: Stevens Point (9), Wheaton, St Norbert (17), St. Thomas (3)
Pod D: Wooster (19), Hope, John Carrol (24), Anderson (23)
WEST-SOUTH: 13 teams, host schools in bold
Pod A: Claremont/PP at Chapman (12), winner to Whitworth (5)
Pod B: MH Baylor at Austin, winner to UT Dallas (15)
Pod C: Thomas More at Randy Mac (18), winner to E. Mennonite (7)
Pod D: Guilford (4), NC Wes., Maryville, Virginia Wes. (11)
That's 17 of the current top 25 in these 2 brackets.
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 27, 2010, 03:55:23 PM
4 regions: WEST-SOUTH, MIDWEST, EAST and ATLANTIC
Looking at the Great Lakes, West, Midwest, and South regional rankings and conference AQ's and projected Pool C's. I have my suggestion/projection on how to use the 3 byes, < 500 mile travel, and other restraints to project half the bracket.
This leaves the Northeast, Mid Atlantic, East, and Atlantic regions as well as the winner of the OAC to make up the other half (32 teams) of the national bracket.
This projection also limits the air travel the following weekend to 2 flights. (WEST-SOUTH, MIDWEST)
MIDWEST: 16 teams, host schools in bold
Pod A: Wash U (1), Westminister, Central (25), Illinois Wes.
Pod B: Whitewater (8), Carthage (16), Aurora, Gustavus/Carleton
Pod C: Stevens Point (9), Wheaton, St Norbert (17), St. Thomas (3)
Pod D: Wooster (19), Hope, John Carrol (24), Anderson (23)
WEST-SOUTH: 13 teams, host schools in bold
Pod A: Claremont/PP at Chapman (12), winner to Whitworth (5)
Pod B: MH Baylor at Austin, winner to UT Dallas (15) (Austin College lost to DePauw which plays Centre in the SCAC Finals.)
Pod C: Thomas More at Randy Mac (18), winner to E. Mennonite (7)
Pod D: Guilford (4), NC Wes,. Maryville, Virginia Wes. (11) (CNU beat NCWC.)
That's 17 of the current top 25 in these 2 brackets.
Question: What are the chances that the four ODAC teams get split up so as not to beat each other up so early in the tourney?
Please remember no question is a dumb question.
Quote from: donho on February 27, 2010, 09:52:21 PM
Question: What are the chances that the four ODAC teams get split up so as not to beat each other up so early in the tourney?
Please remember no question is a dumb question.
It's not a dumb question at all. Unfortunately the answer is: Who knows? The committee will do whatever it sees fit to do. Keep in mind that financial constraints are paramount.
Thanks for your answer Mr. Sager.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 27, 2010, 10:03:34 PM
Quote from: donho on February 27, 2010, 09:52:21 PM
Question: What are the chances that the four ODAC teams get split up so as not to beat each other up so early in the tourney?
Please remember no question is a dumb question.
It's not a dumb question at all. Unfortunately the answer is: Who knows? The committee will do whatever it sees fit to do. Keep in mind that financial constraints are paramount.
I think a couple got split up pretty well last year.
New projection in sig
Quote from: donho on February 27, 2010, 09:52:21 PM
Question: What are the chances that the four ODAC teams get split up so as not to beat each other up so early in the tourney?
Please remember no question is a dumb question.
I forget exactly how it reads in the manual but the committee tries to keep conference opponents from meeting in the first round as best they can.
It would be very strange (and unprecedented under the pools system) to see 3 or more ODAC teams in one 4 team pod
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 12:49:31 AM
It would be very strange (and unprecedented under the pools system) to see 3 or more ODAC teams in one 4 team pod
I think there's no chance that will happen. Maryville and Christopher Newport seem to be pretty obvious choices to be combined with Guilford and 1 other ODAC team. Given that at least 4 SE PA teams (along with St. Mary's and probably Richard Stockton) are going to be in, there are a few places the remaining 2 ODAC teams can go (I suppose EMU or RMC could even host). It would even be pretty easy to split those 2 teams into 2 different pods.
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 27, 2010, 03:55:23 PM
MIDWEST: 16 teams, host schools in bold
Pod A: Wash U (1), Westminister, Central (25), Illinois Wes.
Pod B: Whitewater (8), Carthage (16), Aurora, Gustavus/Carleton
Pod C: Stevens Point (9), Wheaton, St Norbert (17), St. Thomas (3)
Pod D: Wooster (19), Hope, John Carrol (24), Anderson (23)
With Carthage winning the regular and tourney CCIW, they'll host before Whitewater, who lost to Point in the WIAC tourney final. IMO.
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2010, 02:08:34 AM
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 27, 2010, 03:55:23 PM
MIDWEST: 16 teams, host schools in bold
Pod A: Wash U (1), Westminister, Central (25), Illinois Wes.
Pod B: Whitewater (8), Carthage (16), Aurora, Gustavus/Carleton
Pod C: Stevens Point (9), Wheaton, St Norbert (17), St. Thomas (3)
Pod D: Wooster (19), Hope, John Carrol (24), Anderson (23)
With Carthage winning the regular and tourney CCIW, they'll host before Whitewater, who lost to Point in the WIAC tourney final. IMO.
Whitewater does have a head to head victory over Carthage... I'm not sure how much that would play into it, but it might.
I'm a bit surprised that the D3hoops projected brackets have John Carroll a pod including Wooster, despite JCU's loss in the OAC semifinals, while the Scots won the NCAC regular season and tournament.
http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/proj-mbbbracket2010.pdf (http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/proj-mbbbracket2010.pdf)
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 28, 2010, 08:17:07 AM
I'm a bit surprised that the D3hoops projected brackets have John Carroll a pod including Wooster, despite JCU's loss in the OAC semifinals, while the Scots won the NCAC regular season and tournament.
http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/proj-mbbbracket2010.pdf (http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/proj-mbbbracket2010.pdf)
We have John Carroll and Wooster in the same pod but being hosted by Wooster. Wooster ought to be ahead in the regional rankings and probably deserves to stay home ahead of JC.
Sunday Redo
4 regions: WEST-SOUTH, MIDWEST, EAST and ATLANTIC
MIDWEST: 16 teams, host schools in bold
Pod A: Wash U (1), Westminister, Central (25), Illinois Wes.
Pod B: Carthage (16), Whitewater (8), Aurora, Carleton
Pod C: Stevens Point (9), Wheaton, St Norbert (17), St. Thomas (3)
Pod D: Wooster (19), Hope, John Carrol (24), Anderson (23)
WEST-SOUTH: 13 teams, host schools in bold
Pod A: Claremont at Chapman (12), winner to Whitworth (5)
Pod B: Centre at UT Dallas (15), winner to MH Baylor
Pod C: Grove City at Virginia Wes. (11), winner to Randolph Macon (17)
Pod D: Guilford (4), CNU, Maryville, E. Mennonite (7)
That's 17 of the current top 25 in these 2 brackets. And yes, the ODAC, because of travel restraint COULD very well stay in a 8 pod. Doesn't mean they should.
Quote from: nwhoops1903 on February 28, 2010, 12:43:15 PM
That's 17 of the current top 25 in these 2 brackets. And yes, the ODAC, because of travel restraint COULD very well stay in a 8 pod. Doesn't mean they should.
I would guess that if all four were split into just two pods that those pods would be split up in the bracket.
Quote from: donho on February 27, 2010, 09:52:21 PM
Question: What are the chances that the four ODAC teams get split up so as not to beat each other up so early in the tourney?
Please remember no question is a dumb question.
If nearly 20 years of teaching has taught me anything, it's that there are dumb questions. But this isn't one of them. ;)
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
Maybe we could get a tour of the Anheuser-Busch facilities......and free samples.
.....ooooooo and hopefan lives there.
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
only 2 years in a row
does Anderson really have a good shot?
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 02:50:28 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
only 2 years in a row
Yup, my mistake. I had it in my head that it was three years in a row. Am I right that Platteville ended up playing WashU in the next round?
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 02:50:28 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
only 2 years in a row
Yup, my mistake. I had it in my head that it was three years in a row. Am I right that Platteville ended up playing WashU in the next round?
No need to rely on your head. (http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/)
Quote from: AUStudent on February 28, 2010, 02:51:56 PM
does Anderson really have a good shot?
In games tipping off right now, if Texas-Dallas beats Mary Hardin-Baylor, and if Franklin & Marshall beats Gettysburg, I think Anderson has a chance to slip in as Pool C #18 or #19 (out of 19). (If one or both of these games go the wrong way, I think Anderson is in trouble.)
See the Pool C board for a little more detail.
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 02:50:28 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
only 2 years in a row
Yup, my mistake. I had it in my head that it was three years in a row. Am I right that Platteville ended up playing WashU in the next round?
No they played Wheaton in round 2......then Wheaton lost to WashU......which reminds me, you weren't there last year were you.
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2010, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 02:50:28 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
only 2 years in a row
Yup, my mistake. I had it in my head that it was three years in a row. Am I right that Platteville ended up playing WashU in the next round?
No need to rely on your head. (http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/)
404 error... Page not found for 2009.
Quote from: PointSpecial on February 28, 2010, 04:51:20 PM
Quote from: David Collinge on February 28, 2010, 03:00:01 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 02:50:28 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
only 2 years in a row
Yup, my mistake. I had it in my head that it was three years in a row. Am I right that Platteville ended up playing WashU in the next round?
No need to rely on your head. (http://www.d3hoops.com/archives/)
404 error... Page not found for 2009.
Okay,
some need to rely on your head. :)
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 03:06:04 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:53:50 PM
Quote from: sac on February 28, 2010, 02:50:28 PM
Quote from: HopeConvert on February 28, 2010, 02:43:19 PM
Gotta say, I wouldn't be happy to see Hope sent to St. Louis. The only upside is that, after being knocked off by the Bears 3 years in a row, it would be nice to pay them back on their home floor (not that I'm predicting it).
only 2 years in a row
Yup, my mistake. I had it in my head that it was three years in a row. Am I right that Platteville ended up playing WashU in the next round?
No they played Wheaton in round 2......then Wheaton lost to WashU......which reminds me, you weren't there last year were you.
No, I wasn't there last year. I can't quite remember why, although I am confident it was a commitment I couldn't get out of.
Another argument to make Hope a pod: I'd rather tour and sample NHBC than Anheuser-Busch.
Why does Messiah not get in? They have better numbers than Wheaton. It seems like Wheaton - Messiah - Rutgers Newark are all pretty equal and ahead of other options.
Quote from: fantastic50 on February 28, 2010, 08:17:07 AM
I'm a bit surprised that the D3hoops projected brackets have John Carroll a pod including Wooster, despite JCU's loss in the OAC semifinals, while the Scots won the NCAC regular season and tournament.
http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/proj-mbbbracket2010.pdf (http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/proj-mbbbracket2010.pdf)
JCU has a head-to-head win against Wooster, which is why we went that direction.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2010, 08:24:01 PM
Why does Messiah not get in? They have better numbers than Wheaton. It seems like Wheaton - Messiah - Rutgers Newark are all pretty equal and ahead of other options.
Messiah's secondary criteria are awful. Losses to Penn State-York and Valley Forge Christian.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2010, 08:34:39 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2010, 08:24:01 PM
Why does Messiah not get in? They have better numbers than Wheaton. It seems like Wheaton - Messiah - Rutgers Newark are all pretty equal and ahead of other options.
Messiah's secondary criteria are awful. Losses to Penn State-York and Valley Forge Christian.
So when they go to sceondary criteria it is across the board for all eight teams? It just seems like Messiah should win over Calvin and Anderson on primary criteria.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2010, 08:40:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 28, 2010, 08:34:39 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2010, 08:24:01 PM
Why does Messiah not get in? They have better numbers than Wheaton. It seems like Wheaton - Messiah - Rutgers Newark are all pretty equal and ahead of other options.
Messiah's secondary criteria are awful. Losses to Penn State-York and Valley Forge Christian.
So when they go to sceondary criteria it is across the board for all eight teams? It just seems like Messiah should win over Calvin and Anderson on primary criteria.
Calvin and Anderson have much better WP's while Messiah's part in the conversation is their SOS. Its nice they had a tough schedule but that can't always make up for a deficiency in WP. Calvin's SOS is at least north of .500, Anderson's struggles at .4772.
The secondary criteria gives a deeper look and we feel Messiah falls short. To me, they are the casualty of the Mary Hardin-Baylor win. Messiah doesn't get any help from secondary criteria while Calvin adds a win over Carthage.
Maybe I just don't understand when they go to secondary criteria.
Obviously IWU's strong SOS gets them a nod early, deservedly so. I just get a bit confused as to where the combination of SOS and WP figures into an advantage for one team over another.
It's seems awfully subjective for such accurate predictions. Although it seems that the first 16 picks, or so, are pretty unanimous.
Pat,
Love your projection showing Plattsburgh State hosting Nazareth, St. John Fisher, ans Colby. I hope you hit that one right on the head. Great show tonight on Hoopsville, with Dave, you and all the special guests.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2010, 09:24:41 PM
Maybe I just don't understand when they go to secondary criteria.
Obviously IWU's strong SOS gets them a nod early, deservedly so. I just get a bit confused as to where the combination of SOS and WP figures into an advantage for one team over another.
It's seems awfully subjective for such accurate predictions. Although it seems that the first 16 picks, or so, are pretty unanimous.
It seems from the regional rankings they won't choose between a team with a (much) higher WP, but lower SOS, and a (much) higher SOS, but lower WP. They like to use the other primary criteria, but across regions head to head and common opponents aren't very likely.
In the case of Calvin vs. Messiah (basically what it came down to for us in the last spot) there just wasn't enough to choose between the two in primary criteria. Calvin had the WP advantage, Messiah with the SOS, so we then went to secondary criteria.
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
It seems from the regional rankings they won't choose between a team with a (much) higher WP, but lower SOS, and a (much) higher SOS, but lower WP. They like to use the other primary criteria, but across regions head to head and common opponents aren't very likely.
In the case of Calvin vs. Messiah (basically what it came down to for us in the last spot) there just wasn't enough to choose between the two in primary criteria. Calvin had the WP advantage, Messiah with the SOS, so we then went to secondary criteria.
What about Wheaton vs. Messiah though, where Messiah has both the WP and SOS advantage? Would secondary criteria even be a factor in that comparison?
Quote from: fritzdis on February 28, 2010, 11:16:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
It seems from the regional rankings they won't choose between a team with a (much) higher WP, but lower SOS, and a (much) higher SOS, but lower WP. They like to use the other primary criteria, but across regions head to head and common opponents aren't very likely.
In the case of Calvin vs. Messiah (basically what it came down to for us in the last spot) there just wasn't enough to choose between the two in primary criteria. Calvin had the WP advantage, Messiah with the SOS, so we then went to secondary criteria.
What about Wheaton vs. Messiah though, where Messiah has both the WP and SOS advantage? Would secondary criteria even be a factor in that comparison?
They have an advantage in both, but it's quite slight in both. It seems like something deserving of going to secondary (I'd include Rutgers-Newark in that as a three way comparison).
That is my major argument - I'd include those three as the last three, leaving Calvin and Anderson on the board.
We'll find out tomorrow.
Looking at your projections, surprised to see both Point and Whitewater hosting over Carthage. Thought Carthage would host before BOTH Point and Whitewater host. Carthage won both regular season and tourney titles. Are you saying the WIAC is that much better than the CCIW this year?
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2010, 11:30:53 PM
Looking at your projections, surprised to see both Point and Whitewater hosting over Carthage. Thought Carthage would host before BOTH Point and Whitewater host. Carthage won both regular season and tourney titles. Are you saying the WIAC is that much better than the CCIW this year?
If you are referring to my projections, in my Sunday redo, I now have Carthage hosting their pod with Whitewater a traveling member.
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on February 28, 2010, 11:30:53 PM
Looking at your projections, surprised to see both Point and Whitewater hosting over Carthage. Thought Carthage would host before BOTH Point and Whitewater host. Carthage won both regular season and tourney titles. Are you saying the WIAC is that much better than the CCIW this year?
No, I think it's more a matter of UWW beating Carthage earlier this season, plus UWSP has win-loss percentage and SOS advantages over the Red Men, and the 5-2 (UWSP) and 4-1 (Carthage) records against common opponents isn't enough of an advantage in Carthage's favor.
Regular-season and tourney titles aren't among the NCAA's criteria.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 28, 2010, 11:23:43 PM
Quote from: fritzdis on February 28, 2010, 11:16:41 PM
Quote from: KnightSlappy on February 28, 2010, 09:55:22 PM
It seems from the regional rankings they won't choose between a team with a (much) higher WP, but lower SOS, and a (much) higher SOS, but lower WP. They like to use the other primary criteria, but across regions head to head and common opponents aren't very likely.
In the case of Calvin vs. Messiah (basically what it came down to for us in the last spot) there just wasn't enough to choose between the two in primary criteria. Calvin had the WP advantage, Messiah with the SOS, so we then went to secondary criteria.
What about Wheaton vs. Messiah though, where Messiah has both the WP and SOS advantage? Would secondary criteria even be a factor in that comparison?
They have an advantage in both, but it's quite slight in both. It seems like something deserving of going to secondary (I'd include Rutgers-Newark in that as a three way comparison).
That is my major argument - I'd include those three as the last three, leaving Calvin and Anderson on the board.
We'll find out tomorrow.
I'll concede that the numbers may not put Messiah ahead of Wheaton so clearly that secondary criteria aren't considered, but if Rutgers-Newark isn't in ahead of Wheaton on primary criteria alone, then I don't see the point of designating them as primary criteria. They have a significantly better WP, close SOS, and far better in-region record vs. ranked teams.
Bracket: http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/mbb-bracket2010.pdf
Does anybody see any glaring inequities in this bracket? I can't...
Shipping Whitworth and Whitewater to the opposite side of the bracket separates some of the highest ranked teams in the West from the other ones and from the Midwest. I'm not sure how, numbers-wise, they matched up...
But this seems at least to me to be the most balanced bracket we've gotten in a very, very long time.
... But people not in the West may think differently!
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 10:29:27 AM
Does anybody see any glaring inequities in this bracket? I can't...
Shipping Whitworth and Whitewater to the opposite side of the bracket separates some of the highest ranked teams in the West from the other ones and from the Midwest. I'm not sure how, numbers-wise, they matched up...
But this seems at least to me to be the most balanced bracket we've gotten in a very, very long time.
... But people not in the West may think differently!
It might just feel more balanced because who the top teams are might not be so obvious this year.
It is clear they made an effort to move some Midwest/West teams away from their natural bracket..........that should be applauded at least.
ie Wheaton to Texas, Whitewater to Ohio
Can anyone point me to where they have the game times for the first 2 rounds?
Also, other than the "bye" brackets, are all the games on Friday and Saturday, not Thursday?
I agree there -- when I was looking at bracketing for myself and wondering how I could keep certain teams from meeting each other I had a bit of a eureka moment to remind myself that those teams aren't necessarily world-beaters this year.
Game times are 6 and 8 p.m. local time. In the past the host teams have been required to play at 8 but some got to play the early game last year. That's a loophole they were talking about closing but I can't say for sure.
The Thursday first-round games are 7 local time, Saturday second-round games also at 7.
I think the biggest surprise to me was Wheaton flying to Texas. The committee put a flight in the first round rather than matching up conference opponents. That's not something they've done in the recent past.
Granted, if Wheaton loses, there's no flight for the second round game, but still I didn't expect to see that.
There's no flight for the second game anyway. Wheaton would remain in Texas if it wins.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 11:22:54 AM
I think the biggest surprise to me was Wheaton flying to Texas. The committee put a flight in the first round rather than matching up conference opponents. That's not something they've done in the recent past.
Granted, if Wheaton loses, there's no flight for the second round game, but still I didn't expect to see that.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 11:22:54 AM
I think the biggest surprise to me was Wheaton flying to Texas. The committee put a flight in the first round rather than matching up conference opponents. That's not something they've done in the recent past.
Granted, if Wheaton loses, there's no flight for the second round game, but still I didn't expect to see that.
Count me as someone that didn't believe the NCAA would split conference opponents and add a flight, even though they don't want to have conference foes face each other in the first round. I suppose they should be commended for doing so.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 10:22:32 AM
Bracket: http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/mbb-bracket2010.pdf
I thought you were working today! lol ;D :D ;)
Quote from: ziggy on March 01, 2010, 11:32:04 AM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 11:22:54 AM
I think the biggest surprise to me was Wheaton flying to Texas. The committee put a flight in the first round rather than matching up conference opponents. That's not something they've done in the recent past.
Granted, if Wheaton loses, there's no flight for the second round game, but still I didn't expect to see that.
Count me as someone that didn't believe the NCAA would split conference opponents and add a flight, even though they don't want to have conference foes face each other in the first round. I suppose they should be commended for doing so.
Although, when you think about it, putting TX-D and MHB back together guarantees a flight, as there's no real chance anyone within driving distance will host a sectional.
This way the split conference opponents and there's a slight chance Wheaton wins both games and they don't have to fly anyone from Texas up to the Midwest.
Quote from: Old School.... (Tom Doebler) on March 01, 2010, 11:35:13 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 10:22:32 AM
Bracket: http://www.d3boards.com/playoffs/mbb-bracket2010.pdf
I thought you were working today! lol ;D :D ;)
I am. I'm simply prepared in advance. :)
As in neither Dave or I can put our mug on camera right now but I can still work behind the scenes.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 11:29:56 AM
There's no flight for the second game anyway. Wheaton would remain in Texas if it wins.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 11:22:54 AM
I think the biggest surprise to me was Wheaton flying to Texas. The committee put a flight in the first round rather than matching up conference opponents. That's not something they've done in the recent past.
Granted, if Wheaton loses, there's no flight for the second round game, but still I didn't expect to see that.
And in all actuality, a flight from Chicago to Dallas wouldn't be as expensive as flights from regional airpots, either.
I'm trying to decide if that lower left section makes sense or not. They may have created more flights in future rounds by moving Whitewater like that.
I'm not paying for it, I don't care. The brackets are a lot more even than last year.
Quote from: The Roop on March 01, 2010, 12:44:17 PM
I'm trying to decide if that lower left section makes sense or not. They may have created more flights in future rounds by moving Whitewater like that.
Everybody, but the Whitewater/Defiance winner can drive to Guilford (save the West Coast winner).
It's only an issue if Whitewater makes sectionals.
You also have to consider that there's not a single team in that MW bracket who can drive to Virginia.
The only other option was to switch grove city with wheaton and switch those pods, which would have really created a lopsided bracket again.
It seems like the best move, even if they have a chance at an extra flight.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 12:57:41 PM
It's only an issue if Whitewater makes sectionals.
Now that I think of it, not necessarily. If Centre came out too that would be driving distance but would they let Centre host over Guilford ??
If it meant two flights instead of three, I suspect they would.
Actually it would only be one for the west coast team.
Right, that, sorry.
I was wondering what people thought on which bracket/region would be the most difficult? And which is the easiest?
Quote from: deanslist on March 01, 2010, 02:22:32 PM
I was wondering what people thought on which bracket/region would be the most difficult? And which is the easiest?
The only bracket that stands out against the rest is the WashU, IWU, Carthage, St. Thomas half - those are tough second round games. I think Williams and VA Wesleyan have slightly easier paths to the final eight than most.
It's about as balanced a bracket as I've seen.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 11:29:56 AM
There's no flight for the second game anyway. Wheaton would remain in Texas if it wins.
That's still an expense, since the NCAA would have to pick up Wheaton's per diem. Of course, it's a lot cheaper than two separate flights.
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 02:33:41 PM
Quote from: deanslist on March 01, 2010, 02:22:32 PM
I was wondering what people thought on which bracket/region would be the most difficult? And which is the easiest?
The only bracket that stands out against the rest is the WashU, IWU, Carthage, St. Thomas half - those are tough second round games. I think Williams and VA Wesleyan have slightly easier paths to the final eight than most.
It's about as balanced a bracket as I've seen.
If you go by top 25 teams, the upper right has 8, lower right has 7, upper left has 3, and lower left has 6.
3 top 10 teams in the upper right, 1 in the lower right, 2 in the upper left and 4 in the lower left.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 01, 2010, 03:47:09 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on March 01, 2010, 11:29:56 AM
There's no flight for the second game anyway. Wheaton would remain in Texas if it wins.
That's still an expense, since the NCAA would have to pick up Wheaton's per diem. Of course, it's a lot cheaper than two separate flights.
They'd have to pick up Wheaton's per diem anyway, since they'd be traveling on Friday no matter what.
Quote from: deanslist on March 01, 2010, 02:22:32 PM
I was wondering what people thought on which bracket/region would be the most difficult? And which is the easiest?
I think the upper left would be the "easiest..." if you're Williams. It's kind of the Williams invitaional from the looks of it. They're a shoo-in (or is that shoe-in? I don't remember what was decided earlier this year...) to host the sectional and wouldn't face Middlebury until the Elite 8.
Just one guy's opinion, though it would be tough to say their record didn't earn it.
We may need to wait until Salem to see if they're as good as their record, whereas the other three brackets have at least 4 or 5 teams minimum who could realistically win 5 or 6 in a row and take home the Walnut and Bronze.
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 04:05:11 PM
If you go by top 25 teams, the upper right has 8,
And 3 of the better unranked teams I have to believe - Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, and Hope.
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2010, 04:20:55 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 04:05:11 PM
If you go by top 25 teams, the upper right has 8,
And 3 of the better unranked teams I have to believe - Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, and Hope.
good point
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2010, 04:20:55 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 04:05:11 PM
If you go by top 25 teams, the upper right has 8,
And 3 of the better unranked teams I have to believe - Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, and Hope.
good point
Bottom right has six top 25 teams and one that is receiving votes. This looks to be a highly competitive pod.
http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb
Massey Ratings for the upper right bracket...
#1 - UW-Stevens Point
#2 - St. Thomas
#7 - Washington U.
#11 - Carthage
#14 - Carleton
#15 - Central
#22 - Illinois Wesleyan
#23 - St. Norbert
#26 - Wheaton
#27 - Texas-Dallas
#39 - Hope
#42 - Anderson
#47 - Mary Hardin-Baylor
#77 - Aurora
#158 - Westminster
Who ever wants to, jump in and do another...we'll get all 4 up here.
Quote from: Knightstalker on March 01, 2010, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2010, 04:20:55 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 04:05:11 PM
If you go by top 25 teams, the upper right has 8,
And 3 of the better unranked teams I have to believe - Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, and Hope.
good point
Bottom right has six top 25 teams and one that is receiving votes. This looks to be a highly competitive pod.
I count 7....
10. Willy Pat
11. Va Wes
13. MIT
14. St. Mary's
18. Randy Mac
20. F&M
21. Cabrini
Massey Ratings for the bottom left bracket...
#3 - Whitworth
#4 - UW-Whitewater
#5 - Guilford
#9 - Eastern Mennonite
#12 - Chapman
#17 - Wooster
#31 - John Carroll
#33 - Wilmington
#40 - Defiance
#41 - Maryville
#45 - Claremont-MS
#53 - Lycoming
#75 - Centre
#118 - Grove City
#178 - Christopher Newport
For comparison's sake...
Average rank for this bracket: 41.5
Average rank for upper right bracket: 31.9
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 05:03:56 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on March 01, 2010, 04:28:34 PM
Quote from: sac on March 01, 2010, 04:23:36 PM
Quote from: Titan Q on March 01, 2010, 04:20:55 PM
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 04:05:11 PM
If you go by top 25 teams, the upper right has 8,
And 3 of the better unranked teams I have to believe - Illinois Wesleyan, Wheaton, and Hope.
good point
Bottom right has six top 25 teams and one that is receiving votes. This looks to be a highly competitive pod.
I count 7....
10. Willy Pat
11. Va Wes
13. MIT
14. St. Mary's
18. Randy Mac
20. F&M
21. Cabrini
Missed Cabrini
Does Massey have some sort of "recent play" factor? Carleton at #14 seems really strange otherwise.
In just looking at the brackets, I'd rank them:
1. Upper Right
2. Bottom Left
3. Bottom Right
4. Upper Left
It's good to see the toughest two brackets on opposite sides.
Since the means are skewed by the 3-digit teams, the medians are:
upper right = 23
lower left = 31
Quote from: PointSpecial on March 01, 2010, 04:05:11 PM
Quote from: Hoops Fan on March 01, 2010, 02:33:41 PM
Quote from: deanslist on March 01, 2010, 02:22:32 PM
I was wondering what people thought on which bracket/region would be the most difficult? And which is the easiest?
The only bracket that stands out against the rest is the WashU, IWU, Carthage, St. Thomas half - those are tough second round games. I think Williams and VA Wesleyan have slightly easier paths to the final eight than most.
It's about as balanced a bracket as I've seen.
If you go by top 25 teams, the upper right has 8, lower right has 7, upper left has 3, and lower left has 6 7.
3 top 10 teams in the upper right, 1 in the lower right, 2 in the upper left and 4 in the lower left.
Correction for bottom left.
Why don't I just list them all... it would be much easier!
Upper Left (3):
2. Williams
6. Middlebury
22. St. John Fisher
Lower Left (7):
4. Guilford
5. Whitworth
7. Eastern Mennonite
8. UW Whitewater
12. Chapman
19. Wooster
24. John Carroll
Upper Right (8):
1. Wash U
3. St. Thomas
9. UW Stevens Point
15. UT- Dallas
16. Carthage
17. St. Norbert
23. Anderson
25. Central
Lower Right (7):
10. Willy Pat
11. Va Wes
13. MIT
14. St. Mary's
18. Randy Mac
20. F&M
21. Cabrini
And none of them resembles the Bracket of Death - thank God (and/or the NCAA)!
A large part of that is that the power is simply much more dispersed geographically this year than last. But (as Pat showed last year) they could have easily relieved the B of D last year and didn't; this year they removed UWW and Whitworth from what still wouldn't have been as bad, but would have been clearly the toughest bracket.
THE HISTORY OF THE 2010 FIELD| school | yrs in tmt (first app) | Elite 8s | Final 4s | 1-2-3-4 | W-L (.pct) |
| Brandeis | 7 (1975) | 3 | -- | -- | 9-6 (.600) |
| Rhode Island C. | 7 (1975) | 2 | -- | -- | 6-8 (.429) |
| St. Lawrence | 12 (1975) | 1 | -- | -- | 10-13 (.435) |
| Franklin & Marshall | 21 (1975) | 8 | 5 | 0-1-1-3 | 36-25 (.590) |
| William Paterson | 14 (1975) | 5 | 2 | 0-1-0-1 | 22-14 (.611) |
| Plattsburgh State | 6 (1976) | 1 | 1 | 0-0-0-1 | 5-6 (.455) |
| Grove City | 5 (1976) | -- | --- | -- | 3-5 (.375) |
| Oneonta State | 2 (1977) | 1 | 1 | 0-1-0-0 | 4-1 (.800) |
| Central | 9 (1977) | -- | -- | -- | 5-9 (.357) |
| Albright | 4 (1977) | 1 | -- | -- | 4-3 (.571) |
| Clark | 16 (1978) | 8 | 2 | 0-2-0-0 | 26-15 (.634) |
| Virginia Wesleyan | 10 (1978) | 2 | 2 | 1-1-0-0 | 13-10 (.565) |
| Wooster | 19 (1978) | 3 | 2 | 0-0-1-1 | 18-19 (.486) |
| Centre | 13 (1979) | 3 | 2 | 0-0-0-2 | 12-18 (.400) |
| Brooklyn | 3 (1982) | 1 | 1 | 0-0-1-0 | 4-2 (.667) |
| Hope | 21 (1982) | 4 | 3 | 0-2-1-0 | 25-21 (.543) |
| Bridgewater State | 5 (1983) | -- | -- | -- | 3-4 (.429) |
| Wisconsin-Whitewater | 16 (1983) | 3 | 3 | 2-0-0-1 | 23-14 (.622) |
| John Carroll | 12 (1983) | 3 | 1 | 0-0-1-0 | 20-13 (.606) |
| Nazareth | 7 (1984) | 1 | -- | -- | 5-6 (.455) |
| Claremont-Mudd-Scripps | 10 (1984) | -- | -- | -- | 3-10 (.231) |
| St. Norbert | 3 (1984) | -- | -- | -- | 1-2 (.333) |
| Illinois Wesleyan | 19 (1984) | 9 | 4 | 1-0-3-0 | 39-18 (.684) |
| Lycoming | 5 (1985) | -- | -- | -- | 4-4 (.500) |
| Christopher Newport | 17 (1986) | 1 | -- | -- | 10-17 (.370) |
| Richard Stockton | 13 (1987) | 4 | 2 | 0-1-0-1 | 21-14 (.600) |
| Washington MO | 15 (1987) | 5 | 3 | 2-0-1-0 | 26-12 (.684) |
| Cabrini | 8 (1988) | -- | -- | -- | 4-8 (.333) |
| Merchant Marine | 8 (1989) | -- | -- | -- | 4-7 (.364) |
| Randolph-Macon | 10 (1990) | -- | -- | -- | 5-9 (.357) |
| St. Thomas | 11 (1990) | 2 | 1 | 0-0-0-1 | 12-11 (.522) |
| Maryville | 17 (1991) | 1 | -- | -- | 13-16 (.448) |
| St. John Fisher | 14 (1992) | 1 | -- | -- | 8-13 (.381) |
| Defiance | 4 (1993) | -- | -- | -- | 0-3 (.000) |
| Williams | 11 (1994) | 4 | 4 | 1-1-2-0 | 25-9 (.735) |
| Westminster MO | 2 (1995) | -- | -- | -- | 0-1 (.000) |
| Wheaton IL | 7 (1995) | 1 | -- | -- | 7-6 (.538) |
| DeSales | 3 (1996) | 1 | -- | -- | 3-2 (.600) |
| Wisconsin-Stevens Point | 9 (1997) | 4 | 2 | 2-0-0-0 | 19-6 (.760) |
| Aurora | 8 (1998) | -- | -- | -- | 1-7 (.125) |
| Carthage | 4 (2000) | 2 | 1 | 0-0-1-0 | 7-3 (.700) |
| Whitworth | 5 (2003) | -- | -- | -- | 3-4 (.429) |
| Texas-Dallas | 3 (2005) | 1 | -- | -- | 2-2 (.500) |
| Gordon | 2 (2006) | -- | -- | -- | 0-1 (.000) |
| Carleton | 2 (2006) | -- | -- | -- | 0-1 (.000) |
| Guilford | 4 (2007) | 1 | 1 | 0-0-1-0 | 7-3 (.700) |
| Mary Hardin-Baylor | 3 (2007) | -- | -- | -- | 1-2 (.333) |
| St. Mary's MD | 2 (2008) | -- | -- | -- | 2-1 (.667) |
| Middlebury | 3 (2008) | -- | -- | -- | 0-2 (.000) |
| Wesley | 2 (2009) | -- | -- | -- | 0-1 (.000) |
| Medaille | 2 (2009) | -- | -- | -- | 0-1 (.000) |
| MIT | 2 (2009) | -- | -- | -- | 1-1 (.500) |
| SUNYIT | 2 (2009) | -- | -- | -- | 1-1 (.500) |
| Maine-Farmington | 1 (2010) | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Rutgers-Newark | 1 (2010) | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Eastern Mennonite | 1 (2010) | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Wilmington | 1 (2010) | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Chapman | 1 (2010) | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Anderson | 1 (2010) | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Purchase | 1 (2010) | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Albertus Magnus | 1 (2010) | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2010, 05:21:54 PM
And none of them resembles the Bracket of Death - thank God (and/or the NCAA)!
A large part of that is that the power is simply much more dispersed geographically this year than last. But (as Pat showed last year) they could have easily relieved the B of D last year and didn't; this year they removed UWW and Whitworth from what still wouldn't have been as bad, but would have been clearly the toughest bracket.
Upper left is definitely the lightest of the four brackets and Williams can say a ton by making it through. Upper right and lower left can argue for top difficulty. Lower right is 3rd but still strong.
I am very impressed with the field and the structure of the brackets. An apparent concern to have the top 8 or 10 teams dispersed and have a final 4 that would be compelling and HIGHLY competitive is a welcome relief from last years anticlimatic Salem.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2010, 05:16:10 PM
Since the means are skewed by the 3-digit teams, the medians are:
upper right = 23
lower left = 31
The statistician in me says that you should figure averages (mean and/or median) of the actual rating, not the ranking. Could also figure the standard deviation to get a good idea of how each fares top to bottom.
Quote from: altor on March 01, 2010, 09:51:26 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on March 01, 2010, 05:16:10 PM
Since the means are skewed by the 3-digit teams, the medians are:
upper right = 23
lower left = 31
The statistician in me says that you should figure averages (mean and/or median) of the actual rating, not the ranking. Could also figure the standard deviation to get a good idea of how each fares top to bottom.
Makes sense, but there is a reason I'm a
retired statistician! :D
The key point, IMO, is there are variations among the regions, but there is NO Bracket of Death! ;D IMO, top right is slightly the toughest; top left is
fairly clearly the weakest. Compared to last year, it's nirvana! ;)
Greg- nice history and table format. Now if you just add their endowment numbers we'll be set.
Quote from: USee on March 01, 2010, 10:28:12 PM
Greg- nice history and table format. Now if you just add their endowment numbers we'll be set.
And you just KNOW he could! ;)
(Might not even need to look 'em up! :D)
Quote from: USee on March 01, 2010, 10:28:12 PM
Greg- nice history and table format. Now if you just add their endowment numbers we'll be set.
Sure thing. Just call me Sisyphus.
(Boulder? What boulder?)
8 newbies in the tournament, thats got to be the highest in quite a few years.
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2010, 12:03:30 AM
8 newbies in the tournament, thats got to be the highest in quite a few years.
And one of them is a serious threat to win it. With their total demolitions of some excellent teams (including two ranked #1 at the time), EMU has shown that, IF on their game, they can beat anyone.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on March 01, 2010, 10:41:57 PM
Quote from: USee on March 01, 2010, 10:28:12 PM
Greg- nice history and table format. Now if you just add their endowment numbers we'll be set.
Sure thing. Just call me Sisyphus.
(Boulder? What boulder?)
Hill? What Hill?
Plus k on the History of the 2010 field
Massey Ratings for the upper left bracket:
#6 Williams
#30 Middlebury
#36 Brandeis
#37 St. John Fisher
#57 Rutgers-Newark
#72 Nazareth
#74 Plattsburgh State
#86 Brooklyn
#98 Rhode Island College
#112 Gordon
#120 Medaille
#138 SUNYIT
#143 Bridgewater State
#188 St. Lawrence
#273 Maine-Farmington
Average rank for this bracket: 98
I guess according to Massey this would be the easiest bracket as Titan Q has already mentioned. Even though no one has done the remaining bracket yet, it appears the average won't be as high as this one.
Quote from: sac on March 02, 2010, 12:03:30 AM
8 newbies in the tournament, thats got to be the highest in quite a few years.
Plus 7 additional teams that have never won an NCAA game.
I put this on the CCIW board last night. This is a post I made one year ago, on the day the brackets came out...
Quote from: Titan Q on March 02, 2009, 12:20:39 PM
Massey ratings of the teams in the Wheaton/St. Thomas quad...
http://www.mratings.com/rate.php?lg=cb&yr=2009&sub=III&mid=6
#1 - St. Thomas
#2 - Wheaton
#3 - UW-Stevens Point
#4 - Puget Sound
#5 - UW-Platteville
#6 - UW-Whitewater
#7 - Wash U
#8 - Elmhurst
#9 - Whitworth
#25 - Lawrence
#28 - Cornell
#31 - Hope
#36 - Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
#87 - Aurora
#156 - Fontbonne
The entire Massey top 9 was in one quadrant...and #25 Lawrence nearly knocked off the Bears. Here are Wash U's games in the bracket...
vs Lawrence (neutral) - W, 67-65 (trailed by 1 with :21 to play)
vs UW-Whitewater (neutral) - W, 73-70 (1-point game with :47 to play) - UWW beat Elmhurst in OT in Round 1
@ Wheaton - W, 55-52 (tied with 2:46 to play) - Wheaton needed OT to get by Platteville in Round 2
vs St. Thomas (neutral) - W, 79-64 (this was the only game not decided in the final minute)
The games in Salem (vs Guilford and Richard Stockton) were not competitive.
Bracket of Death, R.I.P.
Since I brought it up...
Bracket Quarter Mean MRating S.D.
Upper Right 0.566 0.351
Lower Left 0.500 0.377
Lower Right 0.283 0.277
Upper Left 0.126 0.331
Field 0.367 0.377
So, if I'm reading this right, what we can take from this is that the Lower Right and Upper Left aren't quite as good as the other two quarters, but they should be slightly more competitive.
Upper Left (1):
2. Williams
Lower Left (4):
4. Guilford
5. Whitworth
7. Eastern Mennonite
19. Wooster
Upper Right (3):
9. UW Stevens Point
15. UT- Dallas
16. Carthage
Lower Right (3):
14. St. Mary's
18. Randy Mac
20. F&M