Quote from: justafan12 on May 16, 2025, 04:21:13 PM

Quote from: scottiedawg on May 14, 2025, 08:58:46 AMand thank goodness they didn't just smash Linfield and Redlands into the same pod.

Honest question, why would that be bad?

Teams #6 and #9 in the same opening pod would be seeded very very poorly.

Ideally you have one team from each group in an opening weekend pod:
#1-16
#17-32
#33-48
#49-64

and thank goodness they didn't just smash Linfield and Redlands into the same pod.

Official NCAA Mileage Calculator tool says 501 Huntingdon -> ETBU and 502 ETBU -> Huntingdon. So unless there's a change I don't know about it's a "flight."

Marietta is in bad financial trouble right?

I wonder how much Isaiah Hamlet's recruiting commitment is linked to VanderWal.

Scranton WBB preseason #1 maybe??? (just started looking at Rosters)

I think I've been lower on Baldwin Wallace all year than most, as they have won soooo many single digit, close, games. I've been trying to figure out why--FT shooting isn't elite. They aren't elite at taking care of the ball.

But watching all of their tournament games, I've been extremely impressed at the subtle things Harrer schemes up (quick 3 for Ressler against OWU being one of them). It's absolutely a reason they won almost every small digit game this year.  (Players are very good too, but there are a handful of teams with very good players that didn't have the same sparkling record in narrow games that BW did this year).

And I'm pretty sure getting outcoached by Fischer is not a knock against a coach!

Quote from: hoopstermom on March 08, 2025, 10:28:27 PMSince NYU women hosted 1st round, won't NYU men host 2nd round?  Sooooo, that would mean Gettysburg is highest remaining seed to host next round in the UR quandrant, right? 

I think so!

Quote from: Ralph Turner on March 08, 2025, 06:06:59 PMThanks for pulling for McM. IMHO, Colorado College likely was a #7 seed (#25 to #28 nationwide), but was UW-Lacrosse really a #12 seed?

#12 or a #10, the WIAC is just so strong.

This may not be the question you were asking, but UW-La Crosse was the 45th highest NPI team in the tournament, so a "high 12 seed."

Shows just how good an 11-loss team can be!

sort of randomly comparing LAND, MACC, MACF, you can see how much better the 3 Landmark teams (and Messiah) were than everyone else.

TEAM ---------------	adjEm---------	Rank---------	Conf--------
Scranton	54.2	2	LAND
Catholic	36.4	10	LAND
Messiah	32.8	13	MACC
Elizabethtown	30.0	19	LAND
Lebanon Val	20.3	67	MACF
York PA	12.8	118	MACC
Widener	11.4	127	MACC
Susquehanna	11.3	128	LAND
Arcadia	10.4	138	MACF
Stevens	9.4	146	MACF
DeSales	8.8	153	MACF
Albright	4.3	189	MACC
Drew	3.0	210	LAND
Stevenson	(0.9)	241	MACC
Juniata	(1.4)	245	LAND
Alvernia	(2.7)	255	MACC
Goucher	(2.8)	257	LAND
Hood	(4.5)	267	MACC
Moravian	(9.0)	295	LAND
King's PA	(12.6)	314	MACF
Lycoming	(12.7)	315	LAND
Misericordia	(13.2)	323	MACF
FDU Madison	(14.1)	325	MACF
Delaware Val	(16.0)	333	MACF
Eastern Univ	(23.5)	363	MACC
Wilkes	(27.6)	372	LAND

ronk's got my back! :-)

Quote from: faunch on March 03, 2025, 01:46:58 PMHow does U of Chicago get to host with an 18-7 record, pool C bid and 34 NPI?

Because Illinois Wesleyan women's basketball are hosting.

Main Team ————————	Opponent  ————————	Opponent Overall Seed	Quadrant Seed	Distance
Scranton	Scranton	3	1	0
Scranton	Cortland	30	8	99
Scranton	Montclair St.	46	12	108
Scranton	Vassar	48	12	118
Scranton	Stevens	58	15	120
Scranton	NYU	2	1	121
Scranton	Brooklyn Col	64	16	129
Scranton	Messiah	22	6	132
Scranton	Elizabethtown	24	6	138
Scranton	Merchant Marine	33	9	142
Scranton	Immaculata	50	13	143
Scranton	SUNY Cobleskill	53	14	153
Scranton	Gettysburg	8	2	162
Scranton	Mt. St. Mary	60	15	174
Scranton	St. Joseph CT	55	14	191
Scranton	Trinity (Conn)	34	9	192
Scranton	Johns Hopkins	14	4	201
Scranton	Geneseo St.	49	13	202
Scranton	W New England	25	7	222
Scranton	Smith	11	3	236
Scranton	Brockport St.	41	11	236
Scranton	Catholic	16	4	238
Scranton	Gallaudet	61	16	240
Scranton	Amherst	32	8	243
Scranton	Carnegie Mellon	19	5	283
Scranton	La Roche	56	14	293
Scranton	Tufts	37	10	299
Scranton	Bridgewater MA	39	10	308
Scranton	Washington & Jefferson	40	10	312
Scranton	Endicott	35	9	317
Scranton	MA Dartmouth	27	7	318
Scranton	Randolph-Macon	9	3	327
Scranton	Washington & Lee	28	7	361
Scranton	S Virginia	29	8	364
Scranton	Baldwin Wallace	4	1	374
Scranton	Christopher Newport	17	5	404
Scranton	Bowdoin	1	1	418
Scranton	Bates	38	10	422
Scranton	Ohio Wesleyan	15	4	459
Scranton	Trine	21	6	543
Scranton	Calvin	54	14	652
Scranton	Transylvania	42	11	656
Scranton	Centre	57	15	692
Scranton	DePauw	47	12	696
Scranton	Piedmont	59	15	772
Scranton	Wisconsin Lutheran	52	13	798
Scranton	UW-Whitewater	13	4	807
Scranton	Illinois Wesleyan	6	2	810
Scranton	Ripon	44	11	877
Scranton	UW-Oshkosh	10	3	879
Scranton	Principia	63	16	906
Scranton	UW-Stevens Point	43	11	965
Scranton	UW-La Crosse	45	12	984
Scranton	Wartburg	18	5	1009
Scranton	UW-Stout	23	6	1045
Scranton	Bethel	20	5	1112
Scranton	Gustavus Adolphus	7	2	1143
Scranton	UW-Superior	62	16	1165
Scranton	East Texas Baptist	12	3	1404
Scranton	McMurry	36	9	1683
Scranton	Colorado Col	26	7	1716
Scranton	TX Lutheran	31	8	1743
Scranton	Whitman	5	2	2635
Scranton	Cal Lutheran	51	13	2745

You cannot have two teams from the same conference play each other in the first round.

There are no other restrictions on rematches.

In the past the WBB committee has worked hard to create interesting matchups, mixed-region pods, etc.

I expect that now that seeding is public, that will be kept to a minimum, to optimize the bracket integrity of seeding.

I expect pods and quadrants to be more regional than in past years.

They are missing Washington & Jefferson.