I'm having a little trouble figuring out this "Bracket of Death" thing. First off, is it an 8-team Div. III "region," or a 16-team Div. I "region?" Either could be called a "bracket."
Second, which bracket is this "Bracket of Death?" The talk from Hoopsville seems to say it the one with #1 St. Thomas. Straight seeding says the 16-team bracket should contain #1, #8, #9, and #16. What it actually contains, based on the D3HOOPS poll, is #1, #8, #9, #12, and #14. That's a little heavy, but not extremely so and only in the lower rankings. And it is properly divided between the two 8-team brackets. Based on Massey ratings, it has #1, #4, #8, #10, #16, and #17. And the top four of those are all in St. Thomas's 8-team region, so it is a little heavy by this measure.
But now let's look at Whitewater's bracket. Based on the D3HOOPS poll, where they are #3, it should contain #3, #6, #11, and #14. It actually contains #3, #5, #7, #10, and #17, which is heavier than St. Thomas's (based on where in the order the extra team is). And more of the imbalance is in Whitewater's 8-team bracket. Based on Massey Ratings, where Whitewater is #2 and the bracket should contain #2, #7, #10, and #15, they actually have #2, #3, #6, #12, and #22. And again, the top four are in Whitewater's 8-team bracket. And again, by this measure, it is heavier that St. Thomas's.
So I'd say it is the Whitewater/North Central/Ill. Wesleyan/Wash U. bracket that deserves the title. Each of these teams had a legitimate hope to win the championship, before being placed in the B.O.D., but only one can emerge to the round of eight. St. Thomas does have strong opponents, but (according to Massey, at least) none seem to be a serious threat to upset.
And what are we comparing this to? I have to guess it is the 2009 Men's bracket that comprised the major contributors to both of this year's candidate B.O.D.s. That 16-team bracket had the D3HOOPS #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, and three more in the top 25. From Massey, these same ten teams were all in the top 11 (missing only #10). Wash U. emerged from that melee, and cruised to the title in Salem.
My usage of THE Bracket of Death is, indeed, the 2009 men's bracket (quadrant) that you referenced - the sectional that year was MUCH tougher than the FF! My usage of Bracket of Death this year is, as you surmised, the 8 teams including second round matches (if no upsets in the first round) of IWU/WashU and UWW/NCC, with winners meeting way too early in round three.
Well... for starters "straight seeding" is only done in major tournaments in the professional ranks and in things like the Division I men's and women's basketball tournaments. Other tourns in the NCAA certainly have some seeding, but nothing as straight forward.
In Division III, there are no seeds. Teams are bracketed based on the best match-up that regional rankings allow PLUS the geographic nature of limiting the number of flights needed to conduct the tournament (a maximum of 500 miles is allowed to move a team before a flight is used). We don't normally ever see at #1 vs. #16 games because it just doesn't happen.
Secondly, remember the D3hoops.com Top 25 is a poll... not a seeding. So while teams may be ranked pretty high, their regional criteria may not allow them to be as high (i.e. Calvin). The Top 25 is not part of the criteria - nor is any Top 25 - and thus not used by the NCAA when bracketing.
As for what we were referring to on Hoopsville... it was the IWU/Wash U / North Central/UWW bracket of eight teams - not the St. Thomas one. The bracket we are talking about has the #1, #2 and #3 regionally ranked teams from the Midwest along with the #3 West ranked team all meeting potentially in the second round and then the winners facing each other in the third round. This eliminates all but one of these teams and thus the "bracket of death."
The term has been around for a long time dating back to the early 2000's when it was FAR more common for a scenario like this to occur based on a far more geographic and regional mandate for bracketing and not as keen an awareness of creativity from the national committee. We haven't seen a brutal bracket of eight since at least 2007 because the committees have done an amazing job of being creative with who travels where and how they separate the teams. However, this year they got into a pickle with the lack of neutral games we normally have (30 hosts in round #1 vs. 16-18 hosts a normal first weekend). Mike DeWitt admitted they couldn't get themselves out of this scenario and even when Pat and I tried to bracket the teams prior to knowing the NCAA's version, we kept running into major problems in the Midwest.
While this isn't the greatest scenario to be had this year... I do take solace in two things: there is a lot of parity this year and there was bound to be a tough 8-bracket or two because of so many good teams; the track record for the committee has been so good that while I am not thrilled with this issue, I give them the benefit of the doubt considering their circumstances. May the best team win.
We should all relax, I guess...especially comparing this seasons BOD to that 2009 aggregate.
As long as there are geographical concerns and demands involved in crafting the tournament, there will often be one or two talent-overloaded quadrants, and a couple of comparatively weak ones. The Missouri State High School Activities Association bases its tournament by geographic arrangements in the district tournaments, without seeding the district winners. So, the four paths to that final four can be significantly different, regarding the degree of difficulty.
Just gotta win...
Quote from: jaybird44 on February 28, 2013, 08:11:22 PM
We should all relax, I guess...especially comparing this seasons BOD to that 2009 aggregate.
As long as there are geographical concerns and demands involved in crafting the tournament, there will often be one or two talent-overloaded quadrants, and a couple of comparatively weak ones. The Missouri State High School Activities Association bases its tournament by geographic arrangements in the district tournaments, without seeding the district winners. So, the four paths to that final four can be significantly different, regarding the degree of difficulty.
Just gotta win...
Easy to say for a fan of the team that survived THE Bracket of Death (then 'coasted' to the title)! ;D
Being a fan of IWU (who wasn't in the 2009 tourney), I view this year's BoD a bit differently - if we beat Transy in round one (not a given), we face WashU, to whom we lost in December. IF we get revenge, we then face (probably) either UWW or NCC, against whom we were 1-2 this season. (That's three of the five season losses right there (and a fourth was to a team Transy finished ahead of in the HCAC)! :P)
This year's BoD does not even begin to compare to the 2009 version (THAT will hopefully never be repeated), but it is still much tougher than rounds two and three ought to be. And yes, I recognize the logistical difficulties in avoiding it; that said, I still have a fan's right to complain about it! ;D
Quote from: jeffjo on February 28, 2013, 06:06:37 PM
I'm having a little trouble figuring out this "Bracket of Death" thing. First off, is it an 8-team Div. III "region," or a 16-team Div. I "region?" Either could be called a "bracket."
Second, which bracket is this "Bracket of Death?" The talk from Hoopsville seems to say it the one with #1 St. Thomas. Straight seeding says the 16-team bracket should contain #1, #8, #9, and #16. What it actually contains, based on the D3HOOPS poll, is #1, #8, #9, #12, and #14. That's a little heavy, but not extremely so and only in the lower rankings.
Bracket of death should probably be re-worded to "region" or "section" of death. Lately it has referred to a heavy 8 team "region" of one of the 16 team portions of the bracket.
In an 8 team region, using NCAA DI type seeding, the #1 seed should also have #16, #17, #32, #33, #48, #49, and #64. That is nowhere NEAR what you said.
Looking at St. Thomas' 8 team region...and we'll use Massey so that we can get rankings for all teams in the "region" and attempt to compare apples to apples, your (incorrect) DI example to the DIII bracket...you have #1, #4, #8, #10, #23, #28, #72, #83....
Even using d3hoops top 25 you get #1, #12, #14, #19, #22, #29, and aurora and northwestern don't register (also the last 2 in Massey). Again, a lot more difficult than the path a #1 seed in the division I tourney would have.
So yes. Bracket of death seems entirely appropriate. But, like others have said, the d3 committee operates with a lot of financial restrictions and does a good job overall.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2013, 06:24:11 PM
As for what we were referring to on Hoopsville... it was the IWU/Wash U / North Central/UWW bracket of eight teams - not the St. Thomas one. The bracket we are talking about has the #1, #2 and #3 regionally ranked teams from the Midwest along with the #3 West ranked team all meeting potentially in the second round and then the winners facing each other in the third round. This eliminates all but one of these teams and thus the "bracket of death."
What I heard on Hoopsville was that you asked the question in the context of the IWU/Wash U etc. bracket. You didn't overtly state this was the bracket you were referring to, as it seemed sort of obvious that it was the tougher grouping. But when Mike DeWitt answered, he made a reference to St. Thomas -- which struck me that maybe the committee thought the bracket of death was on the other side of the draw.
Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. I actually thought that it may be a great example of a bunch of folks (i.e. - us) sitting outside the bubble getting into the weeds and presuming we've figured everything out, when in fact, those inside the bubble may have had a completely different take on things.
Quote from: jeffjo on February 28, 2013, 06:06:37 PM
I'm having a little trouble figuring out this "Bracket of Death" thing. First off, is it an 8-team Div. III "region," or a 16-team Div. I "region?" Either could be called a "bracket."
Second, which bracket is this "Bracket of Death?" The talk from Hoopsville seems to say it the one with #1 St. Thomas. Straight seeding says the 16-team bracket should contain #1, #8, #9, and #16. What it actually contains, based on the D3HOOPS poll, is #1, #8, #9, #12, and #14. That's a little heavy, but not extremely so and only in the lower rankings. And it is properly divided between the two 8-team brackets. Based on Massey ratings, it has #1, #4, #8, #10, #16, and #17. And the top four of those are all in St. Thomas's 8-team region, so it is a little heavy by this measure.
But now let's look at Whitewater's bracket. Based on the D3HOOPS poll, where they are #3, it should contain #3, #6, #11, and #14. It actually contains #3, #5, #7, #10, and #17, which is heavier than St. Thomas's (based on where in the order the extra team is). And more of the imbalance is in Whitewater's 8-team bracket. Based on Massey Ratings, where Whitewater is #2 and the bracket should contain #2, #7, #10, and #15, they actually have #2, #3, #6, #12, and #22. And again, the top four are in Whitewater's 8-team bracket. And again, by this measure, it is heavier that St. Thomas's.
So I'd say it is the Whitewater/North Central/Ill. Wesleyan/Wash U. bracket that deserves the title. Each of these teams had a legitimate hope to win the championship, before being placed in the B.O.D., but only one can emerge to the round of eight. St. Thomas does have strong opponents, but (according to Massey, at least) none seem to be a serious threat to upset.
And what are we comparing this to? I have to guess it is the 2009 Men's bracket that comprised the major contributors to both of this year's candidate B.O.D.s. That 16-team bracket had the D3HOOPS #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, and three more in the top 25. From Massey, these same ten teams were all in the top 11 (missing only #10). Wash U. emerged from that melee, and cruised to the title in Salem.
One problem I see here is that you're misconstruing seeds and rankings.
Yes, in the D-I tournament, a 1 seed plays a 16 seed (or at least they did before the play-in games). There would be 4 #1 seeds and 4#16 seeds.
So, in all likelihood, you would have the top 4 ranked teams ranked as #1 seeds, playing the 4 bottom teams (though it's likely not actually like this, due to automatic bids...)
So, this is what a "perfect" D-I bracket would look like:
#1 seed (#1 ranked) vs #16 seed (#64 "ranked") --> Region A
#1 seed (#2 ranked) vs #16 seed (#63 "ranked") --> Region B
#1 seed (#3 ranked) vs #16 seed (#62 "ranked") --> Region C
#1 seed (#4 ranked) vs #16 seed (#61 "ranked") --> Region D
#2 seed (#5 ranked) vs #15 seed (#60 "ranked") --> Region D
#2 seed (#6 ranked) vs #15 seed (#59 "ranked") --> Region C
#2 seed (#7 ranked) vs #15 seed (#58 "ranked") --> Region B
#2 seed (#8 ranked) vs #15 seed (#57 "ranked") --> Region A
#3 seed (#9 ranked) vs #14 seed (#56 "ranked") --> Region A
Etc.
So the #1 ranked team would be in a 16 team bracket with the #8, the #9, and the #16 ranked teams... but the first chance they'd have to play each other would be in the Elite 8. They would only play the #8 or #9 team... but not both (#8 and #9 would play in the Sweet 16).
So, this is what the road would look like for the #1 team:
1 vs 16
1 vs 8/9
1 vs 4/13 or 5/12
1 vs 2/15 or 3/14 or 6/11 or 7/10
This is regular stuff... we grew up on it watching the D-I tournament. We're used to it.
But what are these teams' rankings?
#1 vs #64
#1 vs #32/#33
#1 vs #16/#49 or #17/#48
#1 vs #8/#57 or #9/#56 or #24/#41 or #25/#40
So, the toughest path that the #1 seed could have...
Would be 64, 32, 16, 8.
That's with no upsets. Any upsets for the top team in any quadrant along the way, and the path gets easier for a #1 seed.
Now let's look at the St. Thomas bracket.
#19 Rose Hulman vs #12 Calvin
Northwestern vs #14 Stevens Point
#1 St. Thomas vs Aurora
#22 Wheaton vs ORV St. Norbert
#25 Va Wesleyan vs Delaware Valley
ORV Christopher Newport vs Rutgers Newark
#8 Williams vs Wesley
#9 Catholic vs Staten Island.
So St Thomas' route would look like this:
#1 vs Aurora
#1 vs #22
#1 vs #12/#14/#19
#1 vs #8/#9/#25
Aurora is not the worst team in the tournament, so their first game will be tougher than a #1 vs #64.
Their second game will likely be against a team 10 places ahead of the "ideal" listed above. Their third game would be against the #8 or #9 team.
In the "ideal" world, there would be 7 top 25 teams (one more than the other three quadrants if it was the #1 quadrant), but the UST bracket has 8
But that's going by the poll. How about Massey?
#1 vs #72 Aurora (that looks about right)
#1 vs #10 Wheaton/#28 St. Norbert (Way too early for a match-up vs a top 10 team... this shouldn't happen until Sweet 16 or Elite 8)
#1 vs #3 Stevens Point/#8 Calvin/#23 Rose Hulman/#83 Northwestern (Way too early for a match-up vs a top 3 team, shouldn't happen until the Final 4)
#1 vs #16 VA Wesleyan/#17 Williams/#24 Catholic/#36 Chris Newport/#47 Wesley/#67 Rutgers Newark/#119 Del Valley/#120 Staten Island
So, if these ratings are to be believed, then a Sweet 16 or Elite 8 match-up is to take place in round 2, a Final Four match-up is to happen in the Sweet 16, and then for the Elite 8, the game will be easier than the last two.
It's unbalanced. But, again, looking at the "perfect" bracket, this quadrant should have 7 top 25 teams. Instead there are 8. And there shouldn't be any "better" than 5, at the very least, and only two better than eight... but there are three.
Quote from: kiko on February 28, 2013, 11:14:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2013, 06:24:11 PM
As for what we were referring to on Hoopsville... it was the IWU/Wash U / North Central/UWW bracket of eight teams - not the St. Thomas one. The bracket we are talking about has the #1, #2 and #3 regionally ranked teams from the Midwest along with the #3 West ranked team all meeting potentially in the second round and then the winners facing each other in the third round. This eliminates all but one of these teams and thus the "bracket of death."
What I heard on Hoopsville was that you asked the question in the context of the IWU/Wash U etc. bracket. You didn't overtly state this was the bracket you were referring to, as it seemed sort of obvious that it was the tougher grouping. But when Mike DeWitt answered, he made a reference to St. Thomas -- which struck me that maybe the committee thought the bracket of death was on the other side of the draw.
Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. I actually thought that it may be a great example of a bunch of folks (i.e. - us) sitting outside the bubble getting into the weeds and presuming we've figured everything out, when in fact, those inside the bubble may have had a completely different take on things.
I believe his reference was along the lines of the fact they had trouble moving teams around and that they had a similiar challenge in the St. Thomas section with teams like the Tommies, Wheaton, Rose-Hulman, and St. Thomas.
However, I know having talked to Mike prior to the interview when referencing the bracket of death to him... the IWU/Wash U/North Central/UWW bracket was the one he knew I was talking about and vis versa.
Just for comparison:
- The IWU/Wash U/North Central/UWW bracket features #1, #2, and #3 from the Midwest and #3 from the West. (FYI: Transylvania is #7 in the Midwest)
- The St. Thomas/Rose-Hulman/Wheaton/UWSP bracket features #1 and #2 from the West and #4 and #5 from the Midwest. (FYI: Calvin is #5 in the Great Lakes)
Clearly the higher regionally ranked teams are facing off in the first example than the second.
Quote from: jaybird44 on February 28, 2013, 08:11:22 PM
We should all relax, I guess...especially comparing this seasons BOD to that 2009 aggregate.
As long as there are geographical concerns and demands involved in crafting the tournament, there will often be one or two talent-overloaded quadrants, and a couple of comparatively weak ones. The Missouri State High School Activities Association bases its tournament by geographic arrangements in the district tournaments, without seeding the district winners. So, the four paths to that final four can be significantly different, regarding the degree of difficulty.
Just gotta win...
Yep... for those who weren't around, in 2009, we had, in the second round, in the same region:
#1 St Thomas vs #4 Stevens Point
#2 Wash U vs #8 Whitewater
#3 Wheaton vs #5 Platteville
#7 Puget Sound vs #21 Whitworth
In the Sweet 16, it was
#2 Wash U vs #3 Wheaton
#1 St Thomas vs #7 Puget Sound
Wash U beat St. Thomas and cruised to the National Championship with two double digit wins in Salem.
Everything pales in comparison to this.
Quote from: John Gleich on March 01, 2013, 12:06:48 AM
#1 St Thomas vs #4 Stevens Point
#2 Wash U vs #8 Whitewater
#3 Wheaton vs #5 Platteville
#7 Puget Sound vs #21 Whitworth
In the Sweet 16, it was
#2 Wash U vs #3 Wheaton
#1 St Thomas vs #7 Puget Sound
Wash U beat St. Thomas and cruised to the National Championship with two double digit wins in Salem.
And, to think, the closest game for the National Champs was actually the two point win in the first round over Lawrence. The Vikings led for the last several minutes of the game before Aaron Thompson sank a three-pointer to take the lead and a last second layup to tie the game was no good.
Quote from: WUH on March 01, 2013, 12:27:17 AM
Quote from: John Gleich on March 01, 2013, 12:06:48 AM
#1 St Thomas vs #4 Stevens Point
#2 Wash U vs #8 Whitewater
#3 Wheaton vs #5 Platteville
#7 Puget Sound vs #21 Whitworth
In the Sweet 16, it was
#2 Wash U vs #3 Wheaton
#1 St Thomas vs #7 Puget Sound
Wash U beat St. Thomas and cruised to the National Championship with two double digit wins in Salem.
And, to think, the closest game for the National Champs was actually the two point win in the first round over Lawrence. The Vikings led for the last several minutes of the game before Aaron Thompson sank a three-pointer to take the lead and a last second layup to tie the game was no good.
That IS interesting!
In 2010, UWSP beat Carleton by 1 (59-58) in the first round... then won the rest by 15, 7, 16, 12, and 5.
Point was by no means in a "bracket of death" in 2010... it was much more balanced than in 2009, but still, they were pushed to the limit in the first round.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 01, 2013, 12:02:27 AM
Quote from: kiko on February 28, 2013, 11:14:11 PM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 28, 2013, 06:24:11 PM
As for what we were referring to on Hoopsville... it was the IWU/Wash U / North Central/UWW bracket of eight teams - not the St. Thomas one. The bracket we are talking about has the #1, #2 and #3 regionally ranked teams from the Midwest along with the #3 West ranked team all meeting potentially in the second round and then the winners facing each other in the third round. This eliminates all but one of these teams and thus the "bracket of death."
What I heard on Hoopsville was that you asked the question in the context of the IWU/Wash U etc. bracket. You didn't overtly state this was the bracket you were referring to, as it seemed sort of obvious that it was the tougher grouping. But when Mike DeWitt answered, he made a reference to St. Thomas -- which struck me that maybe the committee thought the bracket of death was on the other side of the draw.
Not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. I actually thought that it may be a great example of a bunch of folks (i.e. - us) sitting outside the bubble getting into the weeds and presuming we've figured everything out, when in fact, those inside the bubble may have had a completely different take on things.
I believe his reference was along the lines of the fact they had trouble moving teams around and that they had a similiar challenge in the St. Thomas section with teams like the Tommies, Wheaton, Rose-Hulman, and St. Thomas.
However, I know having talked to Mike prior to the interview when referencing the bracket of death to him... the IWU/Wash U/North Central/UWW bracket was the one he knew I was talking about and vis versa.
Just for comparison:
- The IWU/Wash U/North Central/UWW bracket features #1, #2, and #3 from the Midwest and #3 from the West. (FYI: Transylvania is #7 in the Midwest)
- The St. Thomas/Rose-Hulman/Wheaton/UWSP bracket features #1 and #2 from the West and #4 and #5 from the Midwest. (FYI: Calvin is #5 in the Great Lakes)
Clearly the higher regionally ranked teams are facing off in the first example than the second.
Thanks -- clearly I didn't have line of sight to whatever off-air conversations you'd had. Without that context, his comment was not quite as clear.
Quote from: WUH on March 01, 2013, 12:27:17 AM
And, to think, the closest game for the National Champs was actually the two point win in the first round over Lawrence. The Vikings led for the last several minutes of the game before Aaron Thompson sank a three-pointer to take the lead and a last second layup to tie the game was no good.
I remember watching the round 3 game vs Wheaton (at Wheaton) - that was a real barnburner as well.
http://athletics.wheaton.edu/custompages/mbball/mbbarchivedstats/2009/secsemi2.htm
Wheaton led 52-51 with 3:08 to play and lost 55-52.
This discussion is great for newbies to the boards. I think that the committee did a very good job of handling the challenge that is presented by the "D-3 basketball stronghold" that is a 500 mile radius of Chicago.
When you look at the 40-odd conferences in D-3, there are about 8-10 weaker conferences in the classification. Most of them are located in a 300-mile radius from Hartford CT. Until the presidents of D-3 institutions change to focus and emphasis of intercollegiate athletics in D3, we will be stuck with this every year.
Midwesterners can take pride in the quality of basketball played in the area.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 01, 2013, 09:10:40 AM
This discussion is great for newbies to the boards. I think that the committee did a very good job of handling the challenge that is presented by the "D-3 basketball stronghold" that is a 500 mile radius of Chicago.
When you look at the 40-odd conferences in D-3, there are about 8-10 weaker conferences in the classification. Most of them are located in a 300-mile radius from Hartford CT. Until the presidents of D-3 institutions change to focus and emphasis of intercollegiate athletics in D3, we will be stuck with this every year.
Midwesterners can take pride in the quality of basketball played in the area.
I think I'm coming around to the positive point of view towards the midwest "bracket of death". I'm far more likely able to see great games in person every year. It would certainly be more fair to send a few weak East AQs to the midwest for first round games, but it wouldn't be as good of a game and the atmosphere would obviously suffer as the opposing team wouldn't have much of a traveling fan base.
Let's just compromise fairness in bracketing for transparency in seeding. Have the committee rank/release the seeding for 1-62, and create a little extra hype for the newbies who may not understand that the 2nd round game they're thinking of going to is really #3 vs #5.
OK. I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but I'm really confused about something.
There was talk on the previous page about which teams being #1, #2, and #3 in the Midwest, and #3 in the West. My question is-If the NCAA does not release/publicize the final regional rankings/seeding as I've heard, how is it known in what current position the NCAA committee has them? And, who is 1, 2, and 3 in the Midwest?
Also, am I right in assuming Whitewater is the current #3 in the West?
Quote from: AndOne on March 01, 2013, 03:17:48 PM
OK. I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but I'm really confused about something.
There was talk on the previous page about which teams being #1, #2, and #3 in the Midwest, and #3 in the West. My question is-If the NCAA does not release/publicize the final regional rankings/seeding as I've heard, how is it known in what current position the NCAA committee has them? And, who is 1, 2, and 3 in the Midwest?
Also, am I right in assuming Whitewater is the current #3 in the West?
Whitewater was #3 in the last-revealed regional rankings. Stevens Point did lose a day after the rankings came out, while Whitewater went 2-0, including a victory against a reg ranked opponent (Stout) but UWSP is 2-0 against the Warhawks this season.
Both teams have very high SOS's and numerous games vs regionally ranked opponents, but Point holds the edge there, 7-2 vs WW's 5-3.
The point became moot from the standpoint of Pool C, as UWW won the WIAC's automatic bid and Point likely was one of the first off the table in Pool C selection... so it effectively didn't matter what the order was.
I (rather passively) listened to the Hoopsville broadcast with Coach DeWitt, the national committee chair of the selection committe and he was very transparent and forthcoming with information... he may have given more information about the final seeding in those two regions, but I didn't catch it.
Quote from: John Gleich on March 01, 2013, 04:12:27 PM
Quote from: AndOne on March 01, 2013, 03:17:48 PM
OK. I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but I'm really confused about something.
There was talk on the previous page about which teams being #1, #2, and #3 in the Midwest, and #3 in the West. My question is-If the NCAA does not release/publicize the final regional rankings/seeding as I've heard, how is it known in what current position the NCAA committee has them? And, who is 1, 2, and 3 in the Midwest?
Also, am I right in assuming Whitewater is the current #3 in the West?
Whitewater was #3 in the last-revealed regional rankings. Stevens Point did lose a day after the rankings came out, while Whitewater went 2-0, including a victory against a reg ranked opponent (Stout) but UWSP is 2-0 against the Warhawks this season.
Both teams have very high SOS's and numerous games vs regionally ranked opponents, but Point holds the edge there, 7-2 vs WW's 5-3.
The point became moot from the standpoint of Pool C, as UWW won the WIAC's automatic bid and Point likely was one of the first off the table in Pool C selection... so it effectively didn't matter what the order was.
I (rather passively) listened to the Hoopsville broadcast with Coach DeWitt, the national committee chair of the selection committe and he was very transparent and forthcoming with information... he may have given more information about the final seeding in those two regions, but I didn't catch it.
It also seems like the final rankings from a number of regions leaked out. Dave seemed pretty confident he knew all the rankings from several regions.
Wow. I didn't expect such a wide and varied response. I had intended to respond to whatever answers I got this morning before work, but there were too many.
Some background on me, so I can't be accused of hiding it. I graduated from Wash U with a Masters in Applied Math, summa cum laude, after only four years. But I attended during the interregnum, so I never was much of a college hoops fan until my kids were big enough to attend major Div I schools. I started following Wash U the same time I started following college hoops in general, at the end of the heyday (not that the last 6 years are anything to be ashamed of) of the women's program. I have read D3HOOPS ever since, but never posted here (I did think about it two years ago, when I registered). I even attended the "cruise" to the championship in Salem, 2009; much buoyed by da Bears (sorry; Chicago roots, too) surviving a true "bracket of death." I may even go again this year (fingers crossed for luck) for the quarters/semis.
My point is that I am not a newbie in any sense of the word. And I resent any implication that I was, and any inaccurate claims that I was wrong in any of the rankings (yes, I know what the different kinds are, thank you) I cited. I thought I indicated, pretty clearly, if I was talking about an 8-team or 16-team "bracket." And even though I left out the bottom half, I was accurate for what I was describing.
In fact, it was the differences in the kinds of rankings that I was trying to emphasize. Massey is an objective assessment of performance. Whether or not you agree that it succeeds, it is trying to rate each team's performance against the performance-strength of its opponents. Regional rankings - which I did not even consider accessing, since they aren't public AFAIK - are an objective assessment of merit, not performance. The difference is that merit's baseline is what is possible for a team given their schedule (or what they potentially could schedule). It's not an absolute measure.
I fully understand the difficulty the committee faces in creating this ranking, and in organizing a national tournament without the existence of anything better to base it on. I applaud their results. But each "regional" bracket is only three tiers deep; I just don't see much point in bemoaning whether the very-necessary constraints on scheduling make matchups occur one round too soon, which realistically is all that happens. I just don't place much stock in the numbers when comparing the capability of teams from different regions, so the national view is what I wanted to look at.
The D3HOOPS *poll*, on the other hand, is a subjective assessment. Whether it measures performance or merit is in the eyes of the voter, but it also is a trans-region measurement. So when I think about a "bracket of death," I think about imbalances on the national scale, not the regional scale. Both the D3HOOPS *poll* and the Massey ratings can indicate this imbalance, by comparing the actual seedings (whether or not they are based on a ranking statistic) to what they would suggest, if they had been used.
But none of that is really the reason I posted. At Wash U, we have come to expect to be in the most death-like region, and 2009 was not the only example [see note] of an extreme. My impression, from DeWitt's comments, was that the biggest concern the committee had about this issue was St. Thomas's bracket (whether 8 or 16). But the same impression I got from D3HOOPS interviewers was that it was Whitewater's (yes, I think of it as Whitewater's). And I agree with my impression of D3HOOPS. But it wasn't clear, so I asked.
[Note] Look at the women's side, in 2000 and 2011. Yes, I know the regional constraints were stiffer in 2000; but their 8-team bracket had D3HOOPS #1, #2, #5, and #12; the 16-team bracket added #3 and #6. One computer rating had it at #1, #2, #3, and #6, adding #9. (I strongly suspect there was a database error that elevated #12 to #3.) In 2011, their 8-team bracket had #1, #14, and #10 ahead of them at #12. Their path to the championship game was #10 Denison, #4 Hope at Hope, #1 Thomas More at Thomas More, #6 Chicago, #7 Illinois Wesleyan at Illinois Wesleyan, and #2 Amherst. I consider that worse than the 2009 Bracket of Death, because the pain was spread out to each game AND three were in hostile venues. I don't think any potential champion could hope to win all six such games, so in my mind Wash U's women are the true champions of 2011. Yes, this is my subjective assessment of merit. :)
I really am not trying to criticize the selection process. I understand the huge problems involved. But would it be too much to ask to receive some acknowledgement, especially when that acknowledgement is given to others?
+++++
But my next question, quite seriously, is this: What do you now think of the sideshow in Atlanta? I hated the idea the first I heard of it, for the very reasons exposed here.
As I scanned the previous 1.5 pages of really great posts, I think that I was the first to use the term "newbies", but the comment was geared towards the outstanding comments that were being made.
Jeffjo, I was not trying to call you out. I just liked the discussion that you started! :).
I am glad that you have come out from your "lurker" status!
I did get the final regional rankings for all of the regions (except for 10-12 in the Northeast)... so what I am indicating in that information is factual.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2013, 12:11:16 PM
I did get the final regional rankings for all of the regions (except for 10-12 in the Northeast)... so what I am indicating in that information is factual.
When do you plan to publish the final rankings? -or did I miss it? Maybe we can seed the tourney 1-62 on our own.
I have been mentioning them when needed... not going to publish the entire list.
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on March 02, 2013, 12:20:37 PM
I have been mentioning them when needed... not going to publish the entire list.
Why would they not be needed? They explain hosting and pool c selections. Did someone threaten to break your thumbs?
I don't think the NCAA would be all that happy with publishing a list that it works so hard to keep veiled.
Quote from: jaybird44 on March 03, 2013, 10:40:59 AM
I don't think the NCAA would be all that happy with publishing a list that it works so hard to keep veiled.
Ah Yes. So much "transparency" in another large bureaucracy. ???
Well there are several committees not happy with the fact the NCAA doesn't allow them to release the final rankings... but per that... I am not releasing everything formally.