Well, well, well. Look who’s back for some more bracketology. I gave you the first scenarios in an earlier article today, basically outlining things that could happen if Kenyon and Chicago took the #1 seeds in the NCAA instead of Bowdoin. Those presented some interesting scenarios and commenters have a lot of questions for us regarding the draw! I think that’s great, so please keep it up. I’m happy to answer all of your questions unless you’re telling me to stop writing Pool C articles, because that’s just plain stupid.
Either way, this set of brackets is planned to give Kenyon and Bowdoin the #1 seeds, because Chicago has been a late bloomer. Honestly. I like Chicago to take the #1 seed over Kenyon, and I will explain a little bit more later. Since you already know what the bracketology looks like, see below for what it is. Also, you can check back here for my other scenarios this morning. Enjoy!
Pool A
Allegheny Mountain – Franciscan
American Southwest – UT-Tyler
Capital Athletic – Mary Washington
Centennial – Johns Hopkins
CCIW – Carthage
CUNY – Baruch
Colonial States – Gwynedd-Mercy
Commonwealth Coast – Nichols
Commonwealth – Messiah
Empire 8 – Stevens
Great Northeast – Ramapo
Freedom – Wilkes
Heartland – Rose Hulman
IIAC – Coe
Landmark – Juniata
Liberty League – Skidmore
Little East – Southern Maine
MIAA – Kalamazoo
Midwest – Grinnell
MIAC – Gustavus
NESCAC – Amherst
North Atlantic – Colby-Sawyer
NCAC – Kenyon
Northern Athletics – Edgewood
Northwest – Whitman
Ohio Athletic – Capital
Old Dominion – Washington & Lee
Presidents – Grove City
Skyline – Yeshiva
Southern Athletic – Sewanee
SCIAC – CMS
SCAC – Trinity TX
UAA – Emory
USA South – NC Wesleyan
Pool B
Santa Cruz
Whitewater
Babson
MIT
Pool C
Pomona-Pitzer
Middlebury
Wash U
Chicago
Bowdoin
*denotes host site
Numbers in (parenthesis) represent # of teams total – fact checking!
Bracket 3
1) CMS*, Pomona-Pitzer, Santa Cruz, UT-Tyler (4)
2) Amherst*, Mary Washington, Skidmore, Nichols, Colby-Sawyer, Gwynedd-Mercy (10)
3) Middlebury*, Johns Hopkins, Babson, Yeshiva, Messiah, Ramapo (16)
4) Trinity TX, Gustavus*, Carthage, Grinnell, Edgewood (21)
5) Emory, NC Wesleyan, Sewanee, Washington & Lee*, Grove City (26)
6) Wash U*, Whitman, Coe, Kalamazoo, Rose-Hulman (31)
7) Kenyon*, Chicago, Whitewater, Capital, Juniata, Franciscan (37)
8) Bowdoin*, Stevens, MIT, Baruch, Wilkes, Southern Maine (43)
My Thoughts
Now that Bowdoin is a #1 seed, some interesting things happen. First off, Stevens gets the benefit of becoming the #2 seed in Bowdoin’s region. This is a huge break for the Ducks as they get a much easier match in Bowdoin instead of Amherst. Plus, it’s a break for me because I won’t have to answer all their emails too. Kidding boys, keep em coming.
Since the central essentially loses a #1 seed in this scenario, this brings Trinity TX back to Gustavus and GAC hosts again, instead of potentially Chicago hosting as we discussed in the comment section of the earlier brackets. Kenyon/Chicago becomes a monstrous Sweet 16 matchup and honestly probably the only one that warrants a lot of coverage. Put that on mean blogs, people. That will be a showdown for sure, and depending on who gets the #1 seed, one of those teams will have home court advantage. This means much more to Kenyon than it does to Chicago as CHI didn’t have a home match all year plus most likely doesn’t have as many drunk fans to go to the matches. Sorry, Chicago. It’s a tough school. Let me know your thoughts in the comments section.
*denotes host site
Bracket 4
1) CMS*, Pomona-Pitzer, Santa Cruz, UT-Tyler (4)
2) Amherst*, Mary Washington, Nichols, Colby-Sawyer, Gwynedd-Mercy (9)
3) Middlebury*, Stevens, Skidmore, Babson, Yeshiva, Ramapo (15)
4) Trinity TX, Chicago, Coe, Kalamazoo*, Rose-Hulman (20)
5) Emory, NC Wesleyan, Sewanee, Washington & Lee*, Messiah (25)
6) Wash U, Gustavus, Whitewater*, Carthage, Grinnell, Edgewood (31)
7) Kenyon*, Johns Hopkins, Capital, Juniata, Grove City, Franciscan (37)
8) Bowdoin*, Whitman, MIT, Baruch, Wilkes, Southern Maine (43)
My Thoughts
Throwing you guys for a loop here! Here’s another scenario that could potentially happen if Chicago is a #2 seed. While I think this is a less likely scenario, I want to make sure that Coach Tee is sufficiently nervous about going to all these different places to play, and then he gets surprised by getting his host bid approved. That’s what we do here at the blog. As you can see, the big change is Chicago/Trinity TX playing each other at none other than the famous Kalamazoo site. What a match that would be as Trinity TX hasn’t been heard from in a while and Chicago has been heard from a lot recently.
This in turn sends Whitman all the way across the country to Bowdoin, which is a hella long flight. That should be an interesting match as well because people are underestimating Whitman as always, and Bowdoin is not necessarily having the best time of things lately. Also to note in these scenarios is that Bowdoin gets the #8 overall seed, where they would face CMS in the Elite 8. Is that something they want? It’s pretty crazy. Do you want the #8 overall seed or do you want to duck CMS? I think it depends on the team. For example, I think Chicago would love it to get the experience of seeing a potential national title team. Others may disagree.
Okay, it’s late late late and I can’t watch another True Detective without passing out. Apparently, Dante Quazzo never sleeps, Wade Heerboth is slapping the bag, and there’s a lot of throwdown in the comments section lately. Comment away while I hit the hay. ASouth, OUT.
I know you guys are more focused on Pool C, and since that deals with the higher ranked teams, I understand, but I’m curious as to why you have MIT and Babson ahead of TCNJ for a Pool B spot. TCNJ is ranked ahead of both in the latest ITA and NCAA rankings. The only common opponent they all have is Vassar, a team that TCNJ beat 9-0, Babson beat 8-1, and MIT beat 6-3.
This is a good callout – the Babson/MIT final will actually potentially determine the last Pool B spot! Woah.
Even though as unlikely as this might sound, I am not sure if Uw-La Crosse has been on your radar at all except for maybe against whitewater. They have had an exceptional season, and have beat at least 3 to 4 teams that qualify for nationals, what do you think the chances are for them to get into the Pool B, there seem to be not enough teams in that pool and it looks like the NCAA needs to look at breaking some conferences up to even out the power houses. I mean Case Western being in Emory’s conference is ridiculous they are eleven hours apart. In the end what are the chances of the Pool B opening up for some teams that are in non AQ confereneces?
I’m going to respond to this here with the same answer I will respond to the same question in Bracketology 3A. I was unaware of UW-Lacrosse’s season other than the loss to UWW. I took a look and they certainly have had a good season. However, there are only 4 Pool B berths every year and if you stack up the resumes of UW-Lacrosse and MIT/Babson, I think MIT/Babson win it every time. Obviously, UW-Lacrosse would not get in over Whitewater or UC Santa Cruz.
While Lacrosse has beaten Pool A teams, that is not enough to get them in. I agree that we need more Pool C spots, but I don’t think the Pool B opens up. Pool C should be the focus right now considering Carnegie, Case, Redlands, (#11-13) are all not making the tournament right now. Let’s focus on that first before we talk about Pool B teams.
Seeing all these different permutations of the brackets has really brought home the injustice of it all — both in terms of the ridiculously small number of Pool C berths and the NCAA travel rules. Many qualified teams will not get a chance to compete for the National Championships because of the strength of their home conference. Frankly, there are enough quantitative tools available to do a better job of qualifying who should make the NCAA Championships (assuming you want them to reflect the best in the country) but the rules reflect a very old school model.
No where is this more clear than what will happen to Pomona-Pitzer. Yes, they will most likely get the chance to compete in an NCAA Regional, but lets be real. After beating 5 of the current top 10 teams, playing one of the most brutal schedules in DIII and, yes, unfortunately blinking in their last critical match of the season (the day after taking CMS to their closest DIII score of the season) they will be rewarded with yet another all-or-nothing shot at the top team in the country. After banging on the door of the #2 ranking, they are going to have almost zero chance at closing out their season inside the top 8.
Over the course of this season there have been many commenters on this blog wanting to add asterisks to Pomona-Pitzer’s wins. Most seem founded in the belief that wins at the top of a lineup matter more than the 23 times Pomona walked away with the lead after doubles (11 of which were sweeps). 23 of 28 doesn’t seem like a fluke, especially when you are cycling through the best of the best in DIII. Oh, and that revolving door at #6, all of those different players contributed match wins more than 70% of the time. Unless the NCAA has changed the rules, those points are just as valuable as the glamorous wins at #1 (with no disrepect to the P-P guys who played #1 & #2 since they also won pretty close to that percentage).
It seems to me that the best way to resolve the doubt is to test Pomona-Pitzer outside their region. Without the opportunity to see P-P bested at an NCAA regional not hosted by CMS, the legitimacy of the top 8 at the end of the season won’t truly be known. I’d think that those teams who compete in the Elite 8 want to think there were no asterisks on their ranking saying *these represents the best teams of their respective geographies and conferences, within the financial guidelines set up by the NCAA.
And, most importantly, those of us who voted for Pomona-Pitzer as the “feel-good” story of the season want a chance to remove the fiction from the fairy tale and see how the story really ends.
I agree with almost 90% of what you’re saying other than “many commenters on the blog thinking a top of a lineup win matters more than doubles leads.” I don’t defend the commenters often, but I think you’re exaggerating. Additionally, the bloggers have never put an asterisk on Pomona’s wins except early in the season after PP initially lost to Bates.
Overall good post, but eh – the “Pomona gets no respect” card rubs me the wrong way. I am a proponent of shipping PP out for sure to get a #1 seed and compete and “prove doubters wrong,” but give us/commenters a bit more credit.
D3AS, sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to those who comment on blog posts, not you and the rest of the blog team. I respect the considered opinions of you and your colleagues.
No worries! I think there have definitely been some commenters who doubt the PP season but I don’t think that is the general thoughts of the whole DIII world. There is a lot of respect around the teams for PP’s season for sure. Now, they may not push for PP to be sent out somewhere else, but I can assure you that the Sagehen season has been recognized.
I don’t believe W&L submitted a bid to host this year. hope this helps
This certainly does help, thank you!
That is not true…They did submit a host bid.
What’s the argument for Kenyon being seeded above Chicago? Their resumes are very similar, the only real difference is Kenyon going 2-0 vs. Case and 2-0 vs. Carnegie, while Chicago went 1-1 and 1-0 vs. those teams, respectively. Kenyon’s next best wins are 5-4’s against Whitman and Santa Cruz, similar to Chicago’s wins vs. Gustavus (5-4) and Tyler (7-2). They each posted 7-2 victories against Denison and Depauw (plus Kenyon’s 6-1 again over Depauw this past weekend). Both with 5-4 losses to WashU (plus Kenyon’s 8-1 loss to WashU at the StagHen), etc. etc. etc….. In the end, these two teams played head-to-head back in February with Chicago beating Kenyon 7-2. Shouldn’t this head-to-head result carry enough weight to leapfrog Chicago over Kenyon?
Totally correct – in the end, whether one of these teams gets the #1 or #2 seed is moot, as I’m almost 100% sure that they will play each other if this is the case. It would essentially determine where they are playing. Chicago probably should leapfrog Kenyon (I had this in Bracketology #3A) and they would have the same bracket just with Chicago hosting.
Great comment and research, thanks for keeping me honest!
I realize I said in a comment that Emory had a 90% hosting potential in the last Bracketology, and have them not hosting for both of these scenarios. Before some Emory player tells me to read the facts before writing the blog, I would like to say that I don’t believe the NCAA will pick Bowdoin as their last #1 seed by virtue of their resume.
There are also many scenarios in which Emory hosts in this situation, and they still have a strong chance of hosting.
I love bracket 4, because it introduces matchups we normally never get to see in the regular season (Trinity-Chicago, Bowdoin-Whitman–this year’s match is an exception, Kenyon-Hopkins). Plus, I think in any of those matches upsets could be pulled. I wonder if there’s a way to get Chicago and Wash U in the same region (Chicago as the 2 seed, obviously); they had an amazing match earlier this year and I’d love to see a second one.