2026 NCAA Tournament

[deiscanton]

Okay, D3BBall, I goofed in saying that last year, only 2 of the 3 NESCAC teams in the NPI Top 8 could have made it to Fort Wayne.  The third team, Tufts, could have made it in had they defeated Redlands in the second run and  then won at the NYU sectional.  I still think, however, that even if Tufts had defeated Redlands in the second round at Cousens Gym last year, NYU would have beaten Tufts at the Paulson Center in New York in the Elite Eight had it come down to it.

So, Tufts did have a path to the D3 Final Four last year without having to go through Wesleyan or Trinity (CT).  That was because the DIII Men's National Committee last year decided to put Tufts as a #2 seed in a potential sectional headed by NYU rather than forcing Tufts to go to Wesleyan's sectional.  Emory, as the #5 overall seed by NPI last year, went to Wesleyan's sectional last year instead.

[D3BBALL]

Okay, D3BBall, I goofed in saying that last year, only 2 of the 3 NESCAC teams in the NPI Top 8 could have made it to Fort Wayne.  The third team, Tufts, could have made it in had they defeated Redlands in the second run and  then won at the NYU sectional.  I still think, however, that even if Tufts had defeated Redlands in the second round at Cousens Gym last year, NYU would have beaten Tufts at the Paulson Center in New York in the Elite Eight had it come down to it.

So, Tufts did have a path to the D3 Final Four last year without having to go through Wesleyan or Trinity (CT).  That was because the DIII Men's National Committee last year decided to put Tufts as a #2 seed in a potential sectional headed by NYU rather than forcing Tufts to go to Wesleyan's sectional.  Emory, as the #5 overall seed by NPI last year, went to Wesleyan's sectional last year instead.

I know it's impossible to get it perfect. But sure seems like last year and this year the brackets played out not in favor of the NESCAC teams. Tufts/Wesleyan/Trinity bracket has 8 of the top 25 NPI teams, all other have 6. By seeding Trinity has to play a 5 seed (a team they already played in non-conference play) in the 2nd round, moving Babson and WPI was a no brainer.

[ziggy]

Okay, D3BBall, I goofed in saying that last year, only 2 of the 3 NESCAC teams in the NPI Top 8 could have made it to Fort Wayne.  The third team, Tufts, could have made it in had they defeated Redlands in the second run and  then won at the NYU sectional.  I still think, however, that even if Tufts had defeated Redlands in the second round at Cousens Gym last year, NYU would have beaten Tufts at the Paulson Center in New York in the Elite Eight had it come down to it.

So, Tufts did have a path to the D3 Final Four last year without having to go through Wesleyan or Trinity (CT).  That was because the DIII Men's National Committee last year decided to put Tufts as a #2 seed in a potential sectional headed by NYU rather than forcing Tufts to go to Wesleyan's sectional.  Emory, as the #5 overall seed by NPI last year, went to Wesleyan's sectional last year instead.

I know it's impossible to get it perfect. But sure seems like last year and this year the brackets played out not in favor of the NESCAC teams. Tufts/Wesleyan/Trinity bracket has 8 of the top 25 NPI teams, all other have 6. By seeding Trinity has to play a 5 seed (a team they already played in non-conference play) in the 2nd round, moving Babson and WPI was a no brainer.

There definitely could have been different ways to arrange the pod #2s and #3s in the eastern/northeastern areas that would have been better in line with seeding per NPI and work out just fine geographically. That is maybe a spot where we see the old ways of bracketing still seeping into this process, where teams were seen more even within their pod seed buckets.

It is strange to see considering how perfectly the top 16 overall seeds were placed in the bracket in relation to each other. Overall, I think this is a very good bracket and a step forward from what we got after year 1 of NPI and more in line with what I expected with the committee being able to work with black-and-white seeding top to bottom for every team in the tournament.

[Patrick Coleman]

I know it's impossible to get it perfect. But sure seems like last year and this year the brackets played out not in favor of the NESCAC teams.

Two NESCAC teams made it to the Final Four last year. What more do you want?

[ziggy]

This week on The D3 Datacast, we use our efficiency ratings to dive into the first round matchups. See who the D3 Datacast computer sees as the first round favorites and by how much in this week's show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbwg3WwkBs0

[D3BBALL]

I know it's impossible to get it perfect. But sure seems like last year and this year the brackets played out not in favor of the NESCAC teams.

Two NESCAC teams made it to the Final Four last year. What more do you want?

I said last year they had all 3 teams in different brackets; this year they are not. Issue last year was some brackets were really overloaded especially the one trinity was in, just like this year for the Weslyean/Tufts/Trinity bracket.

Again, you and Ziggy point that the got the seedings right 1-16 going to the elite 8, my point is that you want to do what is best for the tournament. Seeds 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16 are all interchangeable and should have been placed so that 3 NESCAC teams, all top 10 rated, are not in the same bracket. No one that I know thinks this is right or the best for tournament. I would be saying the same thing if the top 3 UUA teams or any other league that has top 15 teams were all placed in the same bracket. It just makes no sense. Tufts could have easily been placed in another bracket. For Tufts and Wesleyan to play in the sweet 16, it not good for the tournament or Trinity/Wesleyan to play in the elite 8. Just like WPI and Babson should have been switched. The committee and the NCAA don't care about D3 sports, IMO, the way they should.

Last year the 2 best conferences had 2 teams each in the final 4, why because they were spread out. This year the 2nd best rated conference can get 3 top 15 teams into the final 4, and the best rated conference can only get 1 of 3 top 10 teams into the final 4. Doesn't make sense. I don't know how anyone can disagree with this. Wouldn't even be a consideration in D1 sports, certainly not basketball. Could have easily been avoided. It's just common sense!

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Seeds 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16 are all interchangeable

This is definitely not true.  Not true according to the committee, not according to the intentions of the division in moving to NPI.

This is the main sticking point.  You continue to base your argument on a fallacy.

Under the current system, those seeds are interchangeable only if the NCAA limits flights, which they did not do this year - at least not to the extent in previous iterations of the tournament.

[D3BBALL]

Seeds 1-4, 5-8, 9-12, 13-16 are all interchangeable

This is definitely not true.  Not true according to the committee, not according to the intentions of the division in moving to NPI.

This is the main sticking point.  You continue to base your argument on a fallacy.

Under the current system, those seeds are interchangeable only if the NCAA limits flights, which they did not do this year - at least not to the extent in previous iterations of the tournament.

My point was that in D1 it is definitely true and in D1 now for a number of years they reseed the final 4. They have done it for years so that teams ranked in the top 10 in the same conference don't play each other before elite 8 or final 4. I was not saying they do it this way for D3, my point was they don't. Not disagreeing with what you just wrote, it just makes my point. In the end, imo, it is a disservice to the tournament, and it comes down to money and not really caring about D3 and it has been this way for a long time.

Are you saying that you are OK with, and it's the best for the tournament, that 3 top 10 teams from the same conference are in the same bracket? Its Ok if you are, we will just disagree about what it best for the tournament and actually getting the best teams in the elite 8 and final 4.

In the end maybe no NESCAC team or UAA team make it to the final 4, but if you are doing it objectively and using common sense and didn't care about the money it wouldn't be this way. You want to protect the top 8 and that makes sense, but there needs to be some flexibility to make the brackets the best for the tournament and fair. How does the committee justify the Babson/WPI placements. Because they had it done this way on Friday we won't change it, again makes my point about D3 not being that important. Maybe every UAA team would beat each NESCAC team or vis versa, but you already know what each team has done against each other in the conference play, no need to see it so early in the NCAA, especially the high ranked elite teams.

[Patrick Coleman]

My point was that in D1 it is definitely true ...

Nothing in D1 should be used as a point of comparison. It's simply not the same.

[Caz Bombers]

Division I absolutely does not reseed the Final 4. Never has. Division II has reseeded the Elite 8 or whatever they call it for a number of years now, in all sports (semifinals for soccer and I think football).

[ziggy]

Technically with current bracketing principles put in place by the Championships Committee, the men's basketball committee would have had the latitude to not put #8 overall seed Wesleyan and #9 Tufts on a path to meet in the Sweet 16 as their true seeding warrants but I am glad they did not.

Coming at this as a general Division III basketball fan, I do want to see conference matchups avoided whenever possible in the opening weekend but have a preference for seeding holding over trying to avoid conference matchups beyond that.

I don't think it is unfair to the NESCAC schools to be in the correct spot they earned via their seeding and moving them in the bracket simply because they are from the same conference would create an unfair matchup according to seeding for the teams they would instead play as a result.

As for the balance of the Trinity (CT) pod (and treatment/placement of some other pod #2/3s), I am in complete agreement that different decisions could have and should have been made. I see these two things that are getting mixed into one discussion as two completely separate issues, however.

Reasonable people can certainly disagree, staying within the context of current bracketing principle mandates and the familiar constraints of creating a D3 bracket. That's OK.