Since I’ve got a bit of time on my hands, I wanted to take some time to discuss a subject I know none of you were anxiously wondering about: Pool B
The following will be a brief history of what Pool B is and what it means for the tournament, but if you want a more in depth discussion on how NCAA selection works, please read this article
http://www.division3tennis.com/ncaa-selection-work/
Basically, the number of bids to the national championship tournament doled out by the NCAA is determined by ratios. In men’s tennis, that ratio is 1:7.5, meaning two out of every 15 teams makes the tournament. A huge chunk of those teams are “Pool A Teams,” the teams that qualify for nationals by winning their conference tournament. In order for a conference get an “AQ,” there have to be at least 7 teams in that conference.
As you can imagine, there are quite a few conferences with more than seven teams (the American Southwest Conference that UT-Tyler plays in, for example, has 13 teams), so in order to reach that 1:7.5 ratio, the NCAA has to give out a number of “At Large” bids. In order to qualify for an “at large” bid, you have to be a team in an AQ conference. This is Pool C.
Then there are the teams that either are not in a conference or are in a conference that’s too small to earn an AQ. Where do these teams fit in? Pool B. To keep things fair, the NCAA allocates Pool B spots by that same 1:7.5 ratio, so that the same proportion of independent teams as affiliated teams make the tournament.
Pool B used to be as big as Pool C and quite strong. For example, in 2012, Pool B consisted of UCSC (top 10), Skidmore, Vassar, Wisconsin-Whitewater, MIT, and TCNJ. All teams were either ranked in the top 30 or close. As smaller conferences like the Liberty League (where Vassar and Skidmore play) and the NEWMAC (where MIT plays) have coalesced into AQ conferences, Pool B as gotten smaller and smaller to the point that this year, only two teams will get into the NCAA tournament through Pool B. Mathematically speaking, that means there are fewer than 21.5 independent teams (I guess they round down to the nearest whole number).
Without further ado, here’s a little table comparing the three independent teams competing for the two Pool B spots.
- TCNJ – As the only team with a win against a ranked team, TCNJ is sitting pretty. Their only two losses were relatively close ones against top 30 competition, and the worst thing that could happen to them the rest of the way is a loss to Stevens. Even if they were to lose to the Ducks, their resume would still be far and away superior to the rest of the Pool B teams, so they’re pretty much a lock
- UCSC and Wisconsin-Whitewater – We’ve all become so accustomed to seeing these two teams in the tournament that it’s difficult to believe that one of these teams will not be in the field this year. UCSC has been plagued by their own abysmal schedule, while Wisconsin-Whitewater has been plagued by injuries. How will the selection committee evaluate these two teams? There’s really no precedent. Cruz has only played six DIII teams, and their best win is undoubtedly better than UWW’s. The Warhawks, on the other hand, have a number of DIII wins, a few of them decent, but they have many losses, including a particularly damaging one to Whittier. As you can see by our Power Rankings, The Blog feels that UCSC is the stronger team, but they haven’t really done anything to prove it. It’s our guess that the committee would take the Slugs if the season ended to day.
Fortunately for UWW, the season has not ended today, and they still have a couple more chances to improve their resume. With Grant Thompson back (albeit hobbled) from injury and playing #1 singles, the Warhawks are primed to play their best tennis of the season down the stretch and they have a golden opportunity to pick up a quality win in a couple weeks at home against Coe. If they were to win that match, I would project the Warhawks into the tournament, knocking Cruz and their terrible schedule out of the tournament.
OK, so what?
At The Blog, we’ve never really spent a whole lot of time discussing Pool B because the teams on the Pool B bubble have never been serious contenders, but this year, the Pool B bubble could have pretty huge implications for the bracket.
As a general rule, the bracket will be constructed to minimize flights. In the past, that has meant a Region of Death in California featuring several top 10 teams (in 2011, #3 CMS, #4 UCSC, and #7 Pomona-Pitzer were all in the same region). As the SCIAC powers have dropped off a bit and the UAA/NESCAC have gotten deeper, the California region has gotten weaker and weaker. It was its weakest in recent memory when unranked UCSC, #19 Whitman and #32 UT-Tyler joined #2 CMS in Claremont last year. This was only possible because UCSC made it in through Pool B to round out a 4-team region (the minimum number of teams in a region).
If UCSC were not to qualify, it would be more cost-efficient for the NCAA to send CMS and Whitman to San Antonio for a new “Region of Death” with Trinity and UT-Tyler. If that were to happen, Trinity would not longer be available to fly and shore up another region as a #2 seed. Basically, UCSC is a geographical lynchpin, and if the Slugs don’t make the tournament, the bracket will look very different from previous iterations.
If you’re a West region fan, book your calendar for UW-Whitewater vs. Coe on April 30th because it has become the most significant regular season match of the year in the West region.
Dont forget that Trinity has to put in a bid to host. If they do not bid they will not get the CMS, TRINITY TX, TYLER, WHITMAN bracket. Trinity traditionally does not want to host anymore. Especially if they think they could get shipped to UWW or Gustavus for a #1 seed.
Excellent point, meaning it would behoove Trinity (and Tyler) to put in a bid to host this year
Hey West, in the new rankings Whitewater is ranked 40 and TCNJ is 33. If these two teams stay ranked, is there still a chance UCSC can still make regionals instead of let’s say Whitewater? I don’t see how they would since UCSC is in the abyss of the unranked.
To be honest, we were all pretty surprised to see the Warhawks in the rankings, as they haven’t really done anything to merit that. Nevertheless, a couple comments regarding Cruz’ chances at making NCAA’s:
– the NCAA selection committee and the ITA ranking committees are not the same, and the selection committee might see things differently. We’ve seen it before
– UW-W still could lose a match to UW-La Cross or something that would weigh heavily on their resume
– A UW-W victory over Coe with Thompson in the lineup would probably render all this discussion moot
Slug fans, you’ve still got a shot! But it was a really, really, really, really bad year not to play Whittier. Maybe you can get on their schedule instead of going to the Ojai.
Thanks for this introduction to Pool B and analysis of the current situation.
You mention that TCNJ has only lost to Mary Wash and NYU, but I believe they’ve also lost to Colby. Does this change your assessment of their chances? My guess is that they still have the pole position.
On an unrelated note, but one best directed your way–how do you feel about the West doubles rankings? It looks as if Tyer and Lambeth still hold the top spot, which surprises me in light of the fact that–unless I’m mistaken–they lost to the Linfield #1 team. I know that no team has managed to distance themselves from the pack in the West, but do you find it surprising that the Trinity team seems to have been granted a fairly substantial mulligan?
I’m pretty sure regional rankings are only affected by matches from other teams in your region so that loss doesn’t matter. Also, Tyer and Lambeth beat Gordy and Mork so they should be put ahead of them and no other teams stand out. This is what I think so if I’m wrong, West, please set me straight!
Linfield is in the same region of Trinity….
…… oh. Ok well then Matt’s asking a good question
Thanks for the comment!
Regarding TCNJ, I apologize for overlooking the Colby loss. You’re correct that this doesn’t change my assessment, as they still have far and away the best overall resume between the three teams. With that Colby loss, however, a loss to Stevens might hurt them. I still fell that they would get in, even if they were to lose to the Ducks.
I took a pretty in-depth look at the doubles rankings, and I think they got it right. The Linfield loss is damaging to Trinity, but there are no dominant doubles teams in the West region this year, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see the West lose its fourth spot to the at-large pool. Let’s take a look at the teams (fall results in parens)
Trinity
Wins: CMS, Emory, Kenyon, Stevens, Whitman, RPI, Case, Tyler, (Fox), (Chicago), (Bowdoin)
Losses: Emory, GAC, Midd, Amherst, Kenyon
CMS
Wins: Whittier, Redlands, Santa Cruz, Chicago, Wesleyan, CMU, Swarthmore
Losses: Trinity, Brandeis, Bates, Wash U, Bowdoin, Williams, Midd, Emory
Redlands
Wins: Swarthmore, Mary Washington, Brandeis, Sewanee, Cruz, Cal Lu, Whittier
Losses: CMS, Williams, Bowdoin, Wesleyan, CNU, PP,
PP
Wins: Redlands, Mary Washington, Swarthmore, Case, Tufts
Losses: Cruz, Caltech, Williams, Wash U, Bowdoin, CNU
Southwestern
Wins: GAC, Midd, Tyler, Linfield, Cal Lu, Whittier, bunch of Texas teams
Losses: UMHB
Talk about littering the stat sheet. Getting to Drek’s assumption that only regional competition counts. This is not true. The committee looks at a team’s whole body of work. Trinity has several impressive non-divisional wins (and losses), and right now I think their head-to-head win over CMS is keeping them at the top spot by a nose (not that it really matters who is 1, 2, or 3).
Interesting that TU #1 dubs & SW #1 dubs both beat Tyler and they have 3 other common opponents. (GAC, Midd, & Linfield.) SW won all 3 of those matches & Trinity lost all 3 of them.
On the other hand, SW obviously has a weaker SOS than TU (but SW did beat all the ranked teams they played). & Finally, it’ll sort itself out since TU & SW will play next weekend (so there will be a head to head) & probably will meet again in the conference tournament.