Happy Sunday, boys and girls! We at The Blog have strong feelings concerning the decrease of Pool-C teams for this year’s NCAA tournament. In order to help shed a little light on the situation, we have brought in an NCAA expert in every sense of the word. Chris Bizot is the head coach of the men’s and women’s teams at UT-Tyler, and both his men’s and women’s teams have made the NCAA tournament every year since 2008. In addition to his extensive coaching duties, Coach Bizot is the National Chair and West Region Chair of the NCAA Men’s Tennis Championship Committee. He also serves as West Region Chair for the ITA Rankings. Coach Bizot has very generously agreed to answer a few of our writers’ questions regarding the NCAA and the recent Pool-C decision.
Q: First thing’s first, can you please explain to the readers how the current system works?
Coach Bizot: As per the Division III Manuel: In team sports, overall bracket sizes shall be established based on an approximate access ratio of 1:6.5. In golf and tennis, the team portion of the bracket shall be based on an approximate access ratio in the range of 1:7 to 1:7.5 with the specific access ratio to be recommended by the NCAA Division III Men’s and Women’s Golf Committees and NCAA Division III Men’s and Women’s Tennis Committees, respectively, subject to approval by the NCAA Division III Championships Committee. The individual participant access shall be determined according to Championships Committee policy (see Bylaw 31.3.1.1.1 for maximum bracket sizes). The overall team bracket size shall be determined by dividing the total number of active Division III institutions sponsoring the sport by 6.5 or the number specified for golf and tennis (1:7.5), and then adjusted as necessary by the Championships Committee. Bracket composition shall be based on three pools (A, B and C).
Q: Can you break down the different pools for us?
Coach Bizot: As per the Division III Manual
(a) Pool A—Conferences that meet the automatic-qualification requirements per Bylaw 31.3.3. No conference shall receive more than one automatic berth per sport;
(b) Pool B—Independent institutions plus institutions from conferences that do not meet the automatic-qualification requirements.
(1) Eligible institutions. The number of eligible institutions in Pool A (total number of institutions in conferences with automatic qualification) subtracted from the total number of active Division III institutions sponsoring the sport.
(2) Available berths. The number of institutions eligible in Pool B divided by the access ratio for Pool A (total number of institutions in conferences with automatic qualification divided by the number of Division III conferences with automatic qualification).
(c) Pool C—Institutions in conferences with automatic qualification that are not the conference champion plus remaining independents and members of nonqualifying conferences. The number of Pool C berths is determined by subtracting Pool A and Pool B from the total bracket size. There shall be a minimum of two berths in Pool C.
Q: Why is the Pool System used?
Coach Bizot: As per the Division III Manual, the size of all NCAA championships fields shall be established by the Championships Committee to provide for efficient management of the events, adequate NCAA championship opportunities relative to the nationwide quality of competition and sound economic administration of the financial resources of the Association and its championships.
Q: If Pool C loses bids, does that mean Pool B equally loses bids?
Coach Bizot: Not necessarily. It all depends on the ratios that are outlined in the section above.
Q: When was this policy put into place?
Coach Bizot: 2007 was the first year of the AQ/pool allocation bracket for men’s and women’s tennis.
Q: Specifically, what are the new conferences with “Pool A” spots?
Coach Bizot: Great Northeast Athletic Conference and the Southern Athletic Association.
Q: What are your initial thoughts on the changes to Pool C?
Coach Bizot: Having been a Pool C team myself you do not want anyone excluded that is ranked in the top 15 so that is unfortunate. We are fortunate in the fact that Division III tennis is getting better and better. Ten years ago we did not have near as many national level programs and this would not have been as big of a deal. We are also fortunate to have an individual championship that Division II does not have.
Q: It’s obvious that certain sports have more Pool C spots than others. For example, DIII women’s tennis usually has 9. Is there anything coaches, players, and parents can do to increase this number for DIII men’s tennis, or is it simply about percentages?
Coach Bizot: Increase active member sponsorship numbers (that become members of existing AQ conferences) / decrease the number independent institutions (in that they join existing AQ conferences) / attempt to minimize the number of institutions that drop their programs throughout the course of a given year (this reduces the active membership numbers which ultimately determines bracket sizes, pool allocations). You can look at Division III Women’s Tennis where you had some fluidity the last few years with teams moving to AQ Conferences etc and now has settled into what they have now. For instance UC Santa Cruz women’s tennis is an affiliate member of the Great South so they are now a Pool A team, whereas UCSC Men are still independent at this time. If you compare Men’s Tennis to Men’s Golf they have a much tougher situation where they only receive 2 Pool C bids. I like to use 2013 UT Tyler Men’s Golf team as an example: They lost in conference, stopped practicing because they thought they were done. Received the last bid and went out and won the National Title. So it could be worse!
Q: What else can be done to help?
Coach Bizot: As I told the coaches at the ITA convention: “We are only as strong as our weakest link.” Which means we need to promote our sport as much as possible. I think we as coaches (and I am as guilty as the next guy) are focused on our own program and trying to win a National Title. Perhaps we need to help our younger or part time coaches have more stable programs. I feel strongly about this that our #1 job is to grow our game. So, in my opinion, that is the best way to improve this situation. I will add that our conference will be adding as many as 4 active tennis members (McMurry – reclassifying from D2; Concordia (TX) – adding Tennis in 2015-2016; Sul Ross – hopefully will regain active status; Belhaven College – reclassifying from NAIA) in the near future so hopefully with that help.
Q: We hear so much talk about money being the most important factor in NCAA decisions. Can you tell us if/how money plays a role in this most recent decision?
Coach Bizot: While the Division III Championships Committee would like to review any sport committee recommendations that have a financial impact; the pool C reduction and bracket reduction (of one team) had nothing to do with financial implications, nor were they a men’s and women’s tennis committee recommendation. These adjustments were simply based upon the principles of establishing bracket sizes, per the Division III Manual.
Q: Do you think this change will affect coaches’ scheduling decisions in the coming years?
Coach Bizot: Absolutely! I think most of our Pool C coaches do a great job of putting their schedule together. I do feel you will need to pay close attention to previous years results, who is losing several seniors, recruiting classes, etc. I kind of look at it like college football (every game counts) where every Pool C matchup will be huge so your margin for error will be very small. The Selection Committee will have some very tough decisions to make without a doubt.
Q: Is there any realistic chance of this changing again in the near future?
Coach Bizot: Yes
Q: Might more Pool C spots disappear?
Coach Bizot: No – but it depends on the number of active members.
Q: What has to happen (realistically) for the NCAA to change the field?
Coach Bizot: The bracket and pool allocations are a fluid arrangement based upon the principles of establishing bracket sizes (e.g.: 2006 – 32 team; 2007 – 41 team [first year of the AQ which is why the number dramatically increased]; 2008 – 41 team; 2009 – 41 team; 2010 – 42 team; 2011 – 42 team; 2012 – 43 team; 2013 – 44 team; 2014 – 44 team; 2015 – 43 team; 2016 -??). The Division III Championships Committee will review any possible changes that would have a financial impact.
Q: Finally, we here at The Blog are always looking to better ourselves, what is the one thing you’d like to see either more or less of from us?
Coach Bizot: I think The Blog is fantastic!! It is great to have coverage for Men’s and Women’s Division III tennis. I think it goes back to growing our game and you guys are a big part of that. We need every Division III coach, player, fan, etc to be “All in”.
We’d like to thank Coach Bizot for taking the time to answer our questions and help spread the word about this year’s Pool-C changes. If you have any specific questions, feel free to shoot me an email at D3Northeast@gmail.com, or email your friendly regional blogger! Look for AS and his historical Pool-C article tomorrow, POTW/Power Rankings on their usual days, and some previews/recaps sprinkled in for good measure!
Thank you so much for the great interview. It is quite unfortunate for a top 15 team not to get into nationals. It is, however, a great thing to have the AQ system that allows every team a chance to get into nationals.
It would be nice to have a provision that would allow additional teams in top 15 who fall under pool C to qualify. I have no knowledge of this, but what is the lowest ranked team to make the final or win nationals? Does the #15 team really have any more chance than the #30, 50? I have coached against teams in the top 5 and top 10 and there seems to be enough of a difference such that it would be a big upset and then that team that is 10 would have to pull off several others to win.
I’m not sure about the lowest ranked team to win nationals, but I would say this year and for the foreseeable future, the #15 team absolutely has a shot to win nationals, just by looking at the crazy results we’ve seen so far this year. Just looking at Pomona’s schedule (Pomona is currently #4), this is who they have beaten 5-4:
– #5 Amherst (actually 6-3)
– #6 Middlebury
– #8 Bowdoin
– #9 Carnegie Mellon
– #13 Chicago
– #19 Mary Washington
– #21 UCSC
– #23 Tufts
– #28 Skidmore
They also lost 5-4 to #26 Bates.
I know this is just one example, but I think it illustrates that the gap between a team in the mid 20s and a top 5 team is not all that big. However, the top 15 teams are overall much more consistent, and have a better shot to put it all together and upset a top 5 team.
As for what you mentioned about teams in the #30-50 range, these teams consistently lose badly to top 15 teams, and I do not believe those teams are serious contenders. I agree with you that a provision to pull in teams in the top 15 would be a nice addition, if this was possible.
Very interesting. A match here or there and that team that is #4 could be ranked #15. Maybe that just shows that the teams in the top 20 are becoming more competitive with the teams at the top. Does that mean the top are weaker than years past or that the mid-pack of nationally ranked teams have improved? Still think that a #15 has little shot at winning nationals. Making a run, for sure. Making it out of their region, sure. Winning the whole thing will be tough. The AQ allows teams that were previously overlooked to get in and compete at this level. For example, it would have been so much more difficult for Stevens to have built up their program over the past 5+ years if they were never getting the opportunity to play at nationals and compete against better competition. They got to show that they can play the best teams close, and now they are even winning. 15 years ago, they were awful, now they keep improving each year. Easier to get good players when you show you have success.
You’re definitely right on that front; teams like Stevens might not have the chance to develop their programs the way they have if they did not have the opportunity to compete in nationals with AQ and what not. This is in part because, as you’ve mentioned, nationals inspires an incentive for the players to compete at schools like Stevens. It also inspires hard work throughout the year. Teams like Stevens, Sewanee, and others can rely on this in recruiting and bring in players they would have no shot of attracting if they were a weak team in a strong conference (say, Connecticut College in the NESCAC).
However, take this argument and compare the “best” byproduct (which we can designate as AQ opportunity) with one of the worse ones, the fact that top 15 teams cannot participate with these teams in the nationals championships. Looking at the draws from last year’s championship, one of these AQ teams is that of Southern Maine. While obviously I mean no disrespect to Southern Maine – winning any conference is something to be proud of – they qualified for the championship when top 15 caliber teams like Chicago were left out. While Chicago surely wouldn’t have won the entire championship last year, they certainly would’ve done better than a 5-0 loss in the first round, to a team that would then lose 5-0 in the next round (a common trend at the tournament surprisingly.)
Remember, it’s not just about winning the event. As you mentioned, it’s about participation, and always having the opportunity to make a deep run, just like those AQ teams have. Just like in basketball’s March Madness, even winning the first two rounds or making the Final Four is a memory that will stay a lifetime in a player’s mind. Think about it, in NCAA DI Basketball this year, no CHANCE Michigan State would’ve qualified for their equivalent for Pool C. In effect, the Pool C teams are participating in all but the playoffs from their first matches, with teams ranked as high as 25-ish already considered to have no chance to qualify for nationals (for example, Bates).
The questions we should ask involve what is limiting the NCAA from either expanding the size of the tournament or including these top teams. The real progress will be made in alleviating these economic problems. After that, I don’t see why we simply couldn’t go to the same method used by March Madness – about half the draw for conference winners, half for wild cards.
P.S. – Also, someone had mentioned once the thought of shrinking the number of conferences, and I agree to a point with this. To shrink the Pool A members, make the conferences more competitive by sheer mass. Just an idea.
Two things here probably worth pointing out:
1. Pool C teams definitely have the potential to win a national championship. Pool C definitely matters:
– Last year, Case Western was the 4th team in Pool C, and ended up making the Elite Eight
– 2012, Wash U was the 6th team in Pool C, and ended up making the Final Four. Put another way, a Final Four team wouldn’t even have made the tournament if there had been just 5 spots that year.
– 2010, Amherst made it to the NCAA finals (and gave Midd a run) as the 2nd team in Pool C
2. Michigan State is a “Pool C” team
– They are a team that didn’t win their conference title that got an at large bid. That’s a Pool C team, yet they had plenty of access to get into the tournament and make an impact. The only difference is that there are quite a few more Pool C spots in DI Men’s Basketball than DIII men’s tennis. That’s what makes what Coach Bizot said about minimizing the Pool B teams and maximizing the size of Pool A conferences so important. Pretty much every team in DI men’s basketball is in some conference, and most of those conferences (even the crappy ones) have at least 10 teams. To increase Pool C, we need to stop giving Pool A bids to weak 7-team conferences like the Little East Conference (sorry Southern Maine) and the North Atlantic Conference (sorry Colby-Sawyer). We need the weak conferences to have at least 10 teams in them to make room for at-large bids in the stronger conferences, but right now, the small, weak conferences have no incentive to add other weak teams. That probably makes much more sense in my head than in print, but that’s basically the crux of the situation
Who’s Manuel?
All kidding aside, thanks for this great interview with lots of fascinating information.
While this is a good article, it does not really touch on the unfairness of the current Pool C system. As I understand it, the NCAA has set up the formula for D3, that is used for better or for worse, to determine the field. Individual sports are not allowed to modify the field based on their unique circumstances. In the case of men’s tennis, this is horrible. Many deserving teams do not get in. Take the case of Redlands. They are not even really in the Pool C discussion, but they clearly deserve an NCAA bid this year. In fact, my guess is several players on Redlands will never get into the tournament during their playing careers. It is not just about the end (who wins), it is also about the journey. To get into the tournament means a lot to these kids who spend untold number of hours on the court practicing. Getting into the tournament would serve as payback for all the time spent and would make for life long memories. Of course, there has to be a limit on how many teams get in. But my guess is that there are about 250 teams +/- playing tennis. The NCAA could certainly come up with a rule of something like (a) 5 pool C teams or (b) every team in the top 20 not qualifying for Pool A or Pool B gets a bid, whichever is greater.
You’re right, the current Pool C scenario is not fair at all. But that’s why we premiered with this article to give a intro to everyone as to the NCAA’s thinking behind Pool C. There’s two sides to everything, Coach Bizot was giving the details behind the NCAA’s decision.
Just to be that guy, Redlands made the tournament two years ago ;). Stay tuned for Pool C coverage the rest of this week!