D3AS here. In conjunction with my sweet Pool C articles, the Guru always will come out with some Bracketology to make sure that you know exactly what all this means for NCAAs. NCAAs is kind of a big deal, if you haven’t noticed. If you haven’t seen his Bracketology #1, you can be linked below. Although, since things have totally changed, it might not even be helpful. Bracketology gives all of you a good idea of where everyone can be placed given the teams that make it. You see how that works? I tell you who makes it, the Guru tells you what their draw might be. Now, we realize that there are plenty of scenarios in Bracketology and that the Bracketology below may not and probably will not be the bracket we see in May. Later on, the bracketology articles will feature multiple scenarios so you can digest and debate which one will come to pass. Anyways, let me pass this off to the Guru.
Bracketology #1 from two weeks ago: http://www.division3tennis.com/bracketology-1/
As promised, here is an updated Bracketology if the tournament started today:
1. Emory, Christopher Newport, Sewanee, W&L*, Juniata
2. Bowdoin*, Stevens, MIT, Yeshiva, Southern Maine
3. CMS*, Whitman, Tyler, Cruz
4. Midd*, Swarthmore, TCNJ, Hunter, Nichols, Messiah
5. Chicago*, Gustavus, Coe, Grinnell, Edgewood
6. Case*, Whitewater, Kalamazoo, Carthage, Rose-Hulman, John Carroll
7. Carnegie*, Kenyon, NC Wesleyan, Wilkes, Franciscan, Grove City
8. Williams*, Trinity TX, Skidmore, Colby-Sawyer, Ramapo, Gwynedd-Mercy
* denotes host team and the number represents the team’s overall seed. For example in the quarterfinals, 1 would play 8, 4 would play 5, etc.
A few things to note: I have swapped Hopkins out and Swarthmore in. To the same tune, I have swapped Mary Washington out and Christopher Newport in. Despite Whitman’s loss on Saturday to Lewis & Clark, they are still going to be the highest ranked team in their conference and remain the heavy favorite to win the NWC. Although it sounds weird, I view Swarthmore as the favorite over Hopkins to win the Centennial given results from this past weekend. I also view Newport as the favorites in the Capital over Mary Washington.
The strange thing about this year is that a lot of teams that typically win less competitive conferences are having down years. These teams include:
Trinity TX – Elite 8 five of the past six years. Top 10 year-end six years in a row. Currently ranked #12 and will drop after this past weekend.
Johns Hopkins – Elite 8 three of the past four years. Top 13 year-end the past five years. Currently outside the top 20 and will drop. Sitting 2nd in their conference.
Mary Washington – Year-end 15 and 16 the past two years. Currently sitting 2nd in their conference.
Kenyon – Top 12 five years in a row. NCAA runner-up and Indoors champion within past four years. Lost to Whitewater, finished 8th at Indoors and currently outside the top 15.
Whitman – Top 17 in the country four years in a row. Just lost to #39 ranked Lewis & Clark.
The result of this is a weaker than normal batch of #2 seeds. If seedings hold in the above bracket, the only real upset possibilities in my opinion are in the Carnegie and Williams regions, and both of those teams would definitely still be favorites.
The last observations I want to make are that the Pool C teams currently stand at three UAA and two NESCAC, reflecting D3AS article yesterday. Also, I find it interesting that the current 4-5 quarterfinal is Chicago vs. Midd, who were the two pre-season favorites to win the national title and a rematch of last year’s NCAA semifinal.
AS: And there you have it. Our second bracketology based on current projections. For those of you that have questions, please ask about the rules, regulations, and norms about the bracket below in the comments. It’s early in the year and we welcome comments. Thanks all – and remember, this is far from the only scenario. Ask about the rest or come up with more in your comments. ASouth, OUT.
All of these ideas are good ideas. The problem lies in the fact that what is done for one sport must be done for all sports. If the NCAA increases pool c bids, they must use the same formula for all the sports. If they eliminate pool b in tennis, they must eliminate it in soccer. Very difficult to do or explain to the independent schools currently in pool b. The formula for number of teams total for the Ncaas is the same for all individual team sports. It is a different formula for team sports. The true solution is to eliminate the singles and doubles championships and become a true team sport. This would add about 4-5 more c pool bids. Any other ideas don’t meet the criteria the NCAA uses for all sport selection.
There is currently legislation being presented to eliminate Pool A by combining the teams to Pool C. This would allow Pool C to have all the Top 15 teams in the tournament. We can only hope that this legislation will get backed by the ITA and NCAA committee.
Chris, I assume you mean Pool B elimination?
But Williams almost lost to Nichols!!!
Gotta love Nichols.
I can’t imagine Amherst doesn’t find a way to vindicate its loss to Tufts and make the tournament. If not, I can’t think of a more talented team in the past to miss the tournament. I am not counting them out for the NESCAC title, or even regular season wins against Bowdoin, Middlebury, and Williams. If Amherst were to beat two of those 3 teams, and avoid any other losses the rest of the way, do you think they would be able to secure a pool C bid?
I agree with you about the talent. I would be curious as to what the other writers think, but I believe that two wins against Bowdoin/Midd/Williams and a clean slate the rest of the way (including Wesleyan and/or whoever they play in the 1st round at NESCACS if they aren’t awarded a bye) will be enough (combined with the 6-3 win over PP) to get Amherst in. However, as D3AS and The Guru have said, it also has a lot to do with how the UAA plays out.
I should have totally said inb4 everyone complains about the state of DIII Tennis selections lol
Juniata, Yeshiva, Southern Maine, Hunter, Nichols, Messiah, Edgewood, Carthage, Rose-Hulman, John Carroll, Wilkes, Franciscan, Grove City, Colby-Sawyer, Ramapo, and Gwynedd-Mercy?
As opposed to Amherst, P-P, Redlands, Whitman, Wesleyan, Johns Hopkins, Mary Washington, Wash U, and Tufts?
What a terrible system…
Cant change the popularity and dominance of tops teams due to location, academics, and other variables.. sorry not sorry. a couple of those teams can hang with top teams..
I would love to know which of those teams can hang with Amherst, Wesleyan and Pomona. Please educate me.
Before I start this, let me say that the current process, while flawed, allows a lot of teams to get to the tournament that normally wouldn’t. Which is a good thing. I think there needs to be a bit of a compromise though as now top teams are missing out because of this. Now, let me get to “a couple of those teams can hang with top teams” statement, because that is a travesty that someone would think this and blatantly untrue.
For example, let’s take a look at Wilkes NCAA Tournament performance.
2015: Trinity TX def Wilkes, 5-0
2014: Mary Washington (not even a top 10 team) def. Wilkes, 5-0
2013: Case Western def. Wilkes, 5-0 (Case was the #2 seed)
2012: WIlkes site not updated
2011: Ohio Northern (not ranked) def. Wilkes, 5-0. Ohio Northern then lost next round to Kenyon, 5-1.
2010: Emory def. Wilkes 6-0
Wilkes has won 0 matches in 6 years at the NCAA tournament against ranked teams. Please also be advised that no unranked team has ever upset a top 20 team at NCAAs.
If you would like me to check another team, I would love to.
In previous years, there have been 7 Pool C spots, which would mean Amherst and Wesleyan could probably get in this year. If we made it up to 8 Pool C spots, that would mean the whole top 10 could make the tournament. I don’t see why that’s not an option at this point. We keep adding Pool A teams, why are Pool C teams getting the shaft?
I’m a bit confused by your “can’t change the popularity and dominance of top teams due to location, academics, and other variables” statement. What are you trying to say with this comment? Other than “sorry not sorry,” which isn’t one of the more thought-out arguments I’ve ever seen.
Yeah it’s pretty silly that the current system can exclude top 10 teams from the national tournament, and the argument that some automatic qualifiers from less-known conferences can contend with national powerhouses is…bizarre. I do, however, think that players in those conferences deserve to have a postseason that’s actually meaningful(Would winning the OAC, for example, matter much if it didn’t lead to an AQ). I think an elegant, albeit expensive, solution would be to expand the number of pool C spots by a healthy margin and then having some pool A conferences lead to play-in rounds where the winners of the pigtail get to compete at nationals. This would reduce the number of pool A bids, expand pool C, and also give some weaker schools a fair shot at a really cool experience.
A great solution and something that should be thought about. Thing is, we only need to add about 3 teams from Pool C to really give everyone a fair shot. I’m okay with the small guys making NCAA. That’s awesome. Good for them. Maybe you expand Pool C and diminish Pool A. Then, six conference winners battle it out on a neutral court near them for that chance to go to NCAAs. Something to play for for everyone. Competitiveness all around. No extra charge for the NCAA. I find it hard to believe in a world of people, we’re not looking for better solutions here.