So, it’s that time of year again where we start thinking heavily about the NCAA tournament. This is what everyone’s here for anyways, correct? Bracketology is one of the best ways to get y’all active and thinking about where teams will be as spring hits. We’ve already completed Indoor Nationals, the Stag-Hen tournament, and a ton of other Spring Breaks, so this is a great time to get an idea of where everyone stands. This is also a realistic version of where everyone stands. Our bracketology uses the most realistic version of teams as well as any criteria that the NCAA committee normally uses. D3Tennis and I have gone team-by-team to give you our projections. Before we get started, it’s definitely important to know some rules.
First, I’ll take you through the amount of teams this year. Overall, there will be 44 teams competing in the NCAA tournament. This includes 32 Teams from Pool A. Pool A competitors are from conference championship winners. There will also be 5 teams from Pool B (independents) and 7 teams from Pool C (at large bids). Since it’s currently projected that there will be only 1 Pool C competitor from California this year, this really puts a changeup in our bracket. Secondly, it’s important to know the flying rules for the tournament. Usually, the NCAA committee provides no more than 3 flights for DIII Tennis. What that means is any team that travels more than 500 miles will be flown to the host site. Yes, this means the return of the As The Crow Flies Calculator! Kidding, we don’t actually use that. You’ll see that the bracket below incorporates that rule into the projected bracket. In addition, the bracket below incorporates which schools will put in bids to host. If you are unfamiliar, schools may opt out of putting in bids for a few reasons. The most common reason is that this may be a year where it’s the women’s team’s turn to host. This happens at Emory, CMU, and a few other schools. Although Emory hosted last year, I believe they hosted the women’s as well so it looks like they are capable. The bracket below assumes Emory can host this year. Okay, now that you have some of the basic rules down – time to take you through our thinking behind the bracket.
Before you read the bracket, please keep a few things in mind. First off and most importantly, we have used our power rankings for the bracket. The reason why is because we believe it is the best projection of where teams will be at the end of the year. This does cause some discrepancy with how teams are currently ranked, but we felt you would rather have a projection than an actual because there is a lot of tennis to play! We can only go off of what data we have at this very moment. As new results come in, we’ll try and get you updates on the bracketology. One thing to really note is that Emory is currently a #2 seed. Emory has historically gotten stronger as the season goes on and they have shots at Case, Hopkins, Middlebury, and Kenyon all moving forward. They also have the UAA tournament. If they beat Case, that could mean the #2 seed and potentially playing CMU in the semifinal. So, like I said earlier, lots of tennis still to be played! Same goes for Case as they have shots at Kenyon and Emory as well as the UAA tournament where they will get 2 of the WashU/Emory/CMU trio. Again, a lot of tennis to be played. Last thing to note is that we used the Pool A champions from last year for the more lower tier teams. These will not have an impact on hosting and the bracket overall.
Without further ado, please see our power rankings version of the bracketology below! It’s not in the super bracket format that you might like, but it’s still accurate and at least it follows the rules, you know. We’re all about reality here at division3tennis.com.
*denotes host site
1st Bracketology:
1: CMS*, P-P, Tyler, Cruz
2: Amherst*, Mary Washington, Drew, Nichols, UMass-Boston, Farmingdale State
3: Wash U, Gustavus, Whitewater*, Coe, Grinnell, Concordia (Wis.)
4: Midd*, Bowdoin, Stevens, Babson, Marywood, Elizabethtown
5: Hopkins, Kenyon*, Earlham, Ohio Northern, Wheaton, Franciscan
6: Williams*, Whitman, MIT, Baruch, Wilkes, Colby-Sawyer
7. Trinity (TX), Emory*, Washington & Lee, NC Wesleyan
8. Carnegie Mellon*, Case Western, Skidmore, Kalamazoo, TCNJ, Grove City
Final Thoughts – With the above bracketology, there are probably three regions that I’m especially looking forward to. That would be the #5, #7, and #8 regions. Hopkins/Kenyon would be a great matchup of two really different teams. One team that has historically shat the bed at NCAAs and another that has historically stepped up at the end of the year. To date, Hopkins has had an incredible season while Kenyon’s has a lot to be desired. That should make for an interesting matchup. In Region #7, we see the Emory bracket. Trinity TX will be the #1 seed but they can’t be too happy about their two seed. Two fiery teams that have had NCAA success will be duking it out on Emory’s home courts. That’s sure to have some crazy matchups and I’d love to see that region happen. Lastly, region #8 should provide us with a big rivalry in CMU/Case as well as a sleeper pick in Skidmore. Teams want to avoid that #3 seed so they can be fresh for the sweet 16 match that is sure to be a nail-biter. Again, both these teams will play later on this year, so that may be a NCAA tournament precursor! Also, what the seeding means for that region is that they get the dreaded CMS in the Elite 8. Much like in professional sports, there is a lot of jockeying for position to avoid the best teams when you get further in the tournament. Neither CMU nor Case has ever been to a Final 4. It would be tough for either of them to do so with CMS looming. Basically, it really sucks to be the last #1 seed or the first #2 seed.
Hope y’all enjoyed our first bracketology edition. You know, we make sure that you have the most realistic versions of bracketology. Why would you want to read anything else? As always, we appreciate your comments and thoughts and love answering any of your questions. I hope this wasn’t too sports-gossipy for you… ha.
Ok so what you are really saying is that D3 tennis is really screwed up unlike basketball in which they try and pick the best teams out there it’s not a level playing field for all? If certain divisions have really good teams in it then some really good teams won’t make it because of the system? Don’t you agree that maybe the NCAA should not have pool A,B and C and just have 1 pool where certain teams get auto bids for winning division but at large bids should be awarded by merit and not just because there division isn’t auto bid? I think it is a real shame that teams aren’t picked on merit alone. I didn’t know this but it is a real shame if they don’t change system to get the best 44 teams in period.
If I may interject with a little regional bias.
To Post Season:
Yes, the system is messed up, but you are wrong in saying that the basketball tournament isn’t messed up by your standards. Surely you don’t think that Cal Poly (losing record) deserved to be in the tournament more than Cal (winning record in the Pac 12).
Personally, I would love to see one pool of the 32 most meritorious teams, as that would have allowed Pomona and Whittier in last year. I would also like to see the NCAA pay a little more on travel, so we don’t have a situation where three top 10 teams are in the same region of death (like 2010 and 2011). Unfortunately, that’s not about to change.
Apparently, the Guru doesn’t have a real problem with the current system. I think the reason for this is that the current system effectively gets the only teams that have any chance of winning into the tournament, which is the ultimate goal, though I would like to see RPI in the field as much as you would.
To LoveD3Tennis:
You have some things right and some things wrong. The number of teams isn’t the same for all sports. The DIII basketball tournament just concluded, and if you go take a look at the bracket, you’ll see that the field is big enough that you could be an unranked team and still get in through Pool C. They are also willing to pay for three rounds of travel and don’t have a problem with having three teams (and their trainers, and their AD’s, and their SID’s) fly to a site with a deserving #1 seed, so the #1 seed gets to host no matter what (sorry, Trinity). In the eyes of the NCAA, all sports are not created equal.
The thing that stays constant is supposed to be the percentage of teams that get into the tournament. That is, the same percentage of teams in “automatic bid” conferences get in as “independent teams.” So, under the current system, there is no maneuverability with the number of Pool B vs. Pool C bids, and the reason more teams get into the basketball tournament is because there are more basketball programs total (though that doesn’t explain why they’re willing to spend so much more god damn money on it). Anyways, conference realignment is pretty much constantly happening, which is why the number of bids in each pool keeps changing.
Of course, the NCAA makes an exception for money-making sports, which is why the DI basketball tournament and the DI football championships look so very different.
Let me know if there’s anything else you would like me to try to clear up.
To D3 West I agree with you on basketball thing like Cal Poly getting in just because they win there league. In case of tennis that’s the Farmington State or Colby Sawyer to name a couple.. I don’t believe that some leagues should get auto bid but sure that won’t change. As far as at large bids go though like in basketball there should be 12 in tennis case and all should go to teams that are based on schedule, ranking and quality wins. Not going to independent teams that may not have earned them.. That’s how basketball at D1 does it, not sure about D3. As far as auto bids go for league winners they should try and re visit that and only give them to leagues that have teams that could compete with top 50 teams. Teams like Chicago, Tufts, Denison or RPI to name a few would have a better change competing at NCAA then Farmington, Colby Sawyer and a few others mentioned in bracket. Common NCAA let’s get with program and let the kids rackets do the talking and not political rewarding of some very weak leagues
I am curious how you have Stevens, TCNJ and Babson in the bracket and skip RPI when I believe they beat all 3 of these teams pretty easy and Stayed with MIT and Whittier only losing 5-4 to both. I realize they would have to beat Skidmore to get automatic but seems to me they would get a wild card in? Aren’t they nationally ranked?
Since RPI plays in an Automatic Bid conference (Liberty League), they are eligible for only the Pool A and Pool C entries. Like you said, they would have to win their conference tournament to get in through Pool A, which represents all conference tournament winners. If they do not win the tournament, they then get put in the Pool C contenders. The Pool C contenders in the above projection are Middlebury, Williams, Case, CMU, Emory, Bowdoin, and Pomona Pitzer. They are all ranked in the top 15. Therefore, RPI doesn’t get in. Stevens, TCNJ, and Babson are in conferences that do not have an automatic bid (Pool A). Therefore, they get placed in Pool B, where they get bids as independents.
Hope that clears things up for you!
FYI, Stevens falls into pool A with an automative bid into NCAA’s.
p.s. Thanks for all your hard work with the blog – always an entertaining read!
What are chances we see a change in the number of teams represented in NCAA postseason play in the future, either up to 64 or down to 32? Personally, I would vote for expansion seeing as D3 tennis as a whole is getting stronger but would understand a reduction due to the relatively clear tiers between top 5, 5-10, 10-20, 20-30 and we tend to see the same familiar faces as legit contenders.
I pose the question because recent history has shown that the system used to determine bids seems severely flawed. Many “Pool C” teams end up missing out on postseason play even though they’re hands down better than more than half of the “Pool A” teams that make it (I’m looking at NESCAC/SCIAC/UAA here). Seems that with the current 44 team format, 32 reserved spots for conference champions is a bit much. I haven’t done extensive research on this, but my gut tells me that there aren’t 32 conferences right now with legit contenders. I might even go so far to say that there are probably no more than a handful of conferences that have multiple nationally ranked (or even nationally considered) programs. NESCAC, SCIAC, UAA are obvious. NCAC (Kenyon, Denison?, DePauw..?), Liberty League (Skidmore, Vassar..?, RPI..?), Centennial Conference (Hopkins, Swat..?).
Forgive the length of this post, just curious if the insiders had insight into the future of D3 tennis postseason play. There seem to be a lot of changes in postseason play across divisions so it appears only a matter of time until it reaches the big moneymaker that is D3 tennis.
My insight is there won’t be any change. This has been examined and criticized numerous times. The bracket was changed from 32 teams to the current format in 2006 and has expanded from 41 to 44 teams in that timeframe as more schools have adopted tennis programs. The D3 philosophy is to give a fair chance to all teams and although I hate to admit it, the current system does represent this better than the “best” 32 teams getting invited.
See my article from late 2010 about this topic: http://d3tennis.blogspot.com/2010/12/current-ncaa-selection-process-for-diii.html
I think the Southern Athletic Association gets a team, which will probably be Sewanee
Hi, thanks for the comment! You are right in saying Sewanee will probably make the tournament. However, they’ll be entered as a Pool B team as an independent. We will include them in above TCNJ or Babson in the next go around.
Please reference pages 19-20 of the following link for the auto-bid conferences.
http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/PreChamps_DIII_MW_Tennis_2014_Revised2.pdf