2026 NCAA Tournament

[el_jefe_90]

Just curious, what year did the NESCAC get three teams in the Final Four? I know two teams has happened quite a few times. That would have to be the only time, or one of a very few, that a conference got three teams into the Final Four.

[D3BBALL]

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.

So that makes it right???

[D3BBALL]

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).

You are correct, my bad. There was talk of doing it but they never did.

[D3BBALL]

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.

Agree we can disagree, but the d1 committee would agree with me. And yes, it it 2 different things. And the committee has stated they want to protect the top 8, my point is they need to protect the tournament. You and others can say don't compare to D1, but this is pretty simple and common sense. As much as I knock the ncaa the d1 committee is smart enough not to put 3 top 10 teams from the same conference in the same bracket. It is just fundamentally smart and common sense, imo. Something this committee is just not good at, again imo.
The babson/wpi is just the committee being lazy and not caring.

[D3BBALL]

Drive versus fly is always preferable for the fan.

I do have a statistics question for the experts on these boards.

In scientific and especially large epidemiological analyses, we have Confidence Intervals. Do those apply to the NPI in any way?

I tend to think, though, in the grand scheme of things, very few in D3 are going to have much time for those complaints, given the history.

Diverting the paths of Tufts and Wesleyan from each other on the second weekend is an awful lot of consideration going to a pair of teams that have only played one game against each other this season.

I disagree, how can anyone compare 1 conference to another without them playing against each other unless you are just using analytics. That is what should be done here. Could care less where bates, Amherst, nyu are placed. but the other 6, seeing they are the best 2 conferences, by far, and 6 of the top 14 in NPI won't play until the final 4, again it would never happened in D1.
Again in the end they could all lose early and it doesn't matter.

[D3BBALL]

I tend to think, though, in the grand scheme of things, very few in D3 are going to have much time for those complaints, given the history.

Diverting the paths of Tufts and Wesleyan from each other on the second weekend is an awful lot of consideration going to a pair of teams that have only played one game against each other this season.

Not sure if it is you or your brother that is a voter, but they both did beat your or your brother's choice ALL year long for the #1 team    And the Wesleyan/Tufts game was a 1-point game with 40 seconds to go. Tufts stayed with Trinity basically all game long in their 2nd matchup while missing their best player and a all D3 candidate. So, if you are not that high on giving them consideration to move, why so high on Trinity?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Just curious, what year did the NESCAC get three teams in the Final Four? I know two teams has happened quite a few times. That would have to be the only time, or one of a very few, that a conference got three teams into the Final Four.

No.  You're right.  I'm wrong.  I always get that mixed up in my mind because there was one year it was set up to happen and one of them didn't win.  I'm getting old.  Apologies.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

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.

Agree we can disagree, but the d1 committee would agree with me. And yes, it it 2 different things. And the committee has stated they want to protect the top 8, my point is they need to protect the tournament. You and others can say don't compare to D1, but this is pretty simple and common sense. As much as I knock the ncaa the d1 committee is smart enough not to put 3 top 10 teams from the same conference in the same bracket. It is just fundamentally smart and common sense, imo. Something this committee is just not good at, again imo.
The babson/wpi is just the committee being lazy and not caring.

D1 gets a little more leeway.  Unless there are nine teams in a conference in the tournament, their rules say conference opponents can't meet until the Elite Eight.

But the thing is, three top ten teams do meet in one bracket every year.  That's how the 1-8-9 overall seeds work.

[D3BBALL]

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.

Agree we can disagree, but the d1 committee would agree with me. And yes, it it 2 different things. And the committee has stated they want to protect the top 8, my point is they need to protect the tournament. You and others can say don't compare to D1, but this is pretty simple and common sense. As much as I knock the ncaa the d1 committee is smart enough not to put 3 top 10 teams from the same conference in the same bracket. It is just fundamentally smart and common sense, imo. Something this committee is just not good at, again imo.
The babson/wpi is just the committee being lazy and not caring.

D1 gets a little more leeway.  Unless there are nine teams in a conference in the tournament, their rules say conference opponents can't meet until the Elite Eight.

But the thing is, three top ten teams do meet in one bracket every year.  That's how the 1-8-9 overall seeds work.

I know but my point is not from the same conference. If they can have WPI/Babson in the wrong spot and we all agree with that, then they could have tweaked the 1-4 or 5-8 and made so that same conference teams don't meet until elite 8. Most everyone would do this, maybe you and others wouldn't.

[el_jefe_90]

No.  You're right.  I'm wrong.  I always get that mixed up in my mind because there was one year it was set up to happen and one of them didn't win.  I'm getting old.  Apologies.

No need to apologize! I was genuinely curious because that would have been an amazing feat for the conference. Also would have been funny if it happened and the team that wasn't in the conference took home the title.

[Inkblot]

Map of the 2026 tournament

[monsoon]

Now how much am I going to regret saying this? Did I just give a dead horse new life? 

Yes. Yes you did. 

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

But the thing is, three top ten teams do meet in one bracket every year.  That's how the 1-8-9 overall seeds work.

Two brackets... don't forget 2-7-10.

[Inkblot]

D1 gets a little more leeway.  Unless there are nine teams in a conference in the tournament, their rules say conference opponents can't meet until the Elite Eight.

But the thing is, three top ten teams do meet in one bracket every year.  That's how the 1-8-9 overall seeds work.

D1 actually changed that rule a while back. The current rule is if they played once they can meet in the second round, if they played twice they can meet in the Sweet 16, and if they played three times they can meet in the Elite Eight; but the rules can be relaxed if a conference has 9+ selected.

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

No one that I know thinks this is right or the best for tournament.

I guess no one in this thread counts

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.

What does "best for the tournament" mean? I don't think there's a single answer to that.

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.

Why is it not good? The 8th and 9th seeded teams should be playing in the sweet 16. The 1st and 8th seed should be playing in the elite 8. Why should it matter what conference they come from?
If higher seeds won every game as they should in theory, The NESCAC should have 4 teams in the 2nd round (1, 8, 9, 28). The NESCAC should have 3 make the Sweet 16 (1, 8, 9). The NESCAC should have 2 make the Elite Eight (1, 8). The NESCAC should have just 1 team make the final four (1). That's not being prevented by this bracket.