Woah, ASouth, what are you doing here? Are you off your rocker? You don’t write about the women’s side of things, you’re not an expert! You’re totally right. I am not. But many of my sources have come to me to call things out on this side because the NCAA Bracket this year seems to have some, well, interesting decisions made. So, let’s use this article as a way to talk about some of things we can improve. Here at the Blog, we love improvement. And I wouldn’t be doing my duty to Division III Tennis if I didn’t give the Women’s Bracket some coverage. So, let’s go through some of the bracket, some thoughts, and some issues.
The Bracket
If you are interested in viewing the bracket, please feel free to use the below link as well as the link found at the top left of the site.
http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/tennis-women/d3/2017
For an easier way to view the bracket, I’ve listed it out below:
Region 1: CMS*, Pomona, Trinity TX, Whitman, East Texas Baptist University
Region 2: Williams*, CMU, Mary Washington, WIlkes, John & Wales, Messiah
Region 3: Middlebury*, Amherst, Skidmore, SUNY Geneseo, Farmingdale State, Elizabethtown
Region 4: Emory, Washington and Lee, Sewanee*, Methodist, Rose-Hulman
Region 5: Bowdoin*, Wesleyan, MIT, Colby-Sawyer, Bridgewater State, Gwynedd-Mercy
Region 6: Tufts*, Johns Hopkins, TCNJ, Ithaca, Nichols, Baruch
Region 7: Chicago*, Kenyon, Gustavus Adolphus, Coe, Augustana, St. Norbert, Franciscan
Region 8: Wash U*, UWW, St. Scholastica, Concordia, John Carroll, Hope, Northwestern St. P
The Seedings
For you to get a full effect of what’s going on here, I think it’s very important to understand the rankings of each team in each region. I’m going to list the teams now, just with ranking, and you can see where we instantly will have some issues. These go by the latest ITA Ranking.
Region 1: #1, #5, #16, #23, UNR
Region 2: #4, #10, #15, UNR, UNR, UNR
Region 3: #2, #12, #20, UNR, UNR, UNR
Region 4: #3, #13, #17*****, UNR, UNR
Region 5: #8, #7, #22, UNR, UNR, UNR
Region 6: #6, #14, #32, UNR, UNR, UNR
Region 7: #9, #34, #38, UNR, UNR, UNR, UNR
Region 8: #11, #27, UNR, UNR, UNR, UNR
So, do you see what’s happening? There’s a bit of an issue here. The two Midwest #1 seeds, Chicago and Wash U, are getting cakewalk draws into the Elite 8. Meanwhile, Pomona, the #5 team IN THE COUNTRY, gets to face the #16 team in the country and then the #1 team in the country. The West has four teams higher than the second ranked team in either Region 7 or Region 8. Region #5 has the #7 and #8 teams, mostly because the Northeast has way too many good teams in Women’s. Not much we can do about that.
So, ASouth, What is the issue?
A lot of you will come to me and tell me – ASouth, we have had this same problem in Men’s before and in Women’s. The West has too many good teams and the NCAA does not have enough flights. They then fly everyone into the California Region and they just have to deal with it, right? WRONG. Below, you’ll see the bracket broken out with teams that either fly or didn’t fly. I’ve denoted the flyers in bold and underlined.
Region 1: CMS*, Pomona, Trinity TX, Whitman, East Texas Baptist University
Region 2: Williams*, CMU, Mary Washington, WIlkes, John & Wales, Messiah
Region 3: Middlebury*, Amherst, Skidmore, SUNY Geneseo, Farmingdale State, Elizabethtown
Region 4: Emory, Washington and Lee, Sewanee*, Methodist, Rose-Hulman
Region 5: Bowdoin*, Wesleyan, MIT, Colby-Sawyer, Bridgewater State, Gwynedd-Mercy
Region 6: Tufts*, Johns Hopkins, TCNJ, Ithaca, Nichols, Baruch
Region 7: Chicago*, Kenyon, Gustavus Adolphus, Coe, Augustana, St. Norbert, Franciscan
Region 8: Wash U*, UWW, St. Scholastica, Concordia, John Carroll, Hope, Northwestern St. P
WAIT WAIT WAIT. HOLD UP ONE SECOND HERE. ARE YOU SAYING THAT UNRANKED METHODIST IS FLYING TO SEWANEE? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am. The NCAA is using four flights in this draw that they came up with, and they couldn’t get a fairer draw? Are you joking? How could this have happened?
The Problem
The clear problem here is this – it seems that Sewanee has an unnecessary host bid. Why is this? I don’t want to be that guy, but any of you who would like to look into this issue can go ahead and do your research. I’ve done my own research and this is why I came to this conclusion. Let me hit you with some facts:
- Washington and Lee put in a host bid. As you can see, they are the #2 seed in the Emory region. They did not get to host, despite every single team in that region being able to drive to them? That seems fair…
- East Texas Baptist University also put in a host bid. You might not be able to see why this matters, but it will matter later when I make a fair draw for you with 4 flights.
The Solution
NCAA Committee, if you really were all about making this sport as fair as it can be and all about letting the best team win, there was a clear solution to this. You could have used your four flights in other ways. Watch as I, D3ASouth, who admittedly doesn’t have as much knowledge as I should on the women’s side, still can create a fair bracket for you with 4 flights. Just watch. Red denotes the team is flying.
Region 1: CMS, Trinity TX, Whitman, ETBU*, Hope
Region 2: Williams*, CMU, Mary Washington, WIlkes, John & Wales, Messiah
Region 3: Middlebury*, Amherst, Skidmore, SUNY Geneseo, Farmingdale State, Elizabethtown
Region 4: Emory, Washington and Lee*, Sewanee, Methodist, Rose-Hulman
Region 5: Pomona, Wash U*, UWW, St. Scholastica, Concordia, John Carroll, NW St. P
Region 6: Bowdoin*, Wesleyan, MIT, Colby-Sawyer, Bridgewater State, Gwynedd-Mercy
Region 7: Tufts*, Johns Hopkins, TCNJ, Ithaca, Nichols, Baruch
Region 8: Chicago*, Kenyon, Gustavus Adolphus, Coe, Augustana, St. Norbert, Franciscan
In this scenario, the #1-8 seeds are basically the #1-8 ranked teams in the ITA. Chicago is a #1 seed despite being ranked at #9 but that’s okay. Unfortunately in Women’s, there are so many good NESCAC teams that this is just the way it is. But in the above scenario, the West doesn’t have to have 4 god damn ranked teams in the same region with #1 and #5 in the same region. Those two teams just played and it was a 5-4 match. Both of those teams can win the championship, and you have them in the same region. You can’t even use the “but we only have 3 flights” excuse because you’re flying freaking Methodist to Sewanee your draw. You have four flights right there. How about you use those flights to make a fair draw for everyone? It’s downright ridiculous and I won’t stand for it.
Conclusion
Anyways, there you have it. It’s all said and done already, and there’s nothing we can do to change it, but it will not go unnoticed. Best of luck to all the teams out there competing in the tournament – from what I hear, there are at least 6-7 teams that can win it. Wesleyan (a #2 seed) handed Emory their only loss of the year. CMS is undefeated but just went the distance with Pomona. Emory has also taken out Williams this year. It seems like the NESCAC is stacked as always and any of those teams can beat each other on the right day. It seems like a really interesting year for women’s tennis on that side and I am looking forward to it! If only the stain of a not so great draw did not discourage me from doing more analysis, maybe I would. And with that, I shift my attention back to my expertise. Those of you on the women’s side of DIII, please feel free to use this proposed bracket as your argument as to why something needs to change. ASouth, OUT.
Please note that this will probably be my only post about the Women’s NCAA Tournament – again, not because I don’t want to, but because my writers have day jobs and do this for fun. And I would like them to write about things they know. Women’s writers, if you are out there… I need someone to run the Women’s side of things. I simply cannot do it.
To all reading this article and comments –
The point of this article was simply to point out the places in the bracket where things could have gone a bit better. At this point, it seems like no one is to blame, but I think the fact of the matter is things could have been better. Not only could things have been better from a bracket perspective, but also from this site’s perspective as well. I hope that those reading will not blame any of the committee members involved – from what it seems it looks like rules were upheld. However, the NCAA can do our sport justice by allowing us to create fairer draws. Flying 4 teams this year allows you A TON of flexibility moving forward if you go that route. Please explore this – we’re practically begging you.
To all those that have commented – thanks for joining me and the others in this discussion. I think the goal here is clear, let’s give every team and player a fair chance at their potential. This discussion has been constructive and at times, somewhat hostile. But we should all have the same goals and that’s to get these great men and women playing DIII Tennis the best experience they could possibly have.
Thanks all.
Just to clarify: Washington and Lee did not submit a bid for the women’s draw in 2017. They choose to alternate years with the men’s team on who can submit a bid each season. Every committee member serving in any year on both the men’s and the women’s committee would always work to avoid the Claremont/Pomona situation that continues to be an ongoing annual dilemma within division III for both the men’s and the women’s side of the draw. This geographical problem is usually out of the control of the committee. They are limited by the parameters available to them set by the NCAA. A situation similar to Methodist in 2017 being awarded a flight is not a choice, it is a rule. Committees cannot control a situation if a school is not within 500 miles of any host sites. The spread out geography of the south and the smaller number of teams selected in that region does not always lend itself to simple solutions. While it would seem simple to think that a highly seeded team like Emory should always host a regional- there are not always enough teams within 500 miles of Atlanta, Georgia to make this work. Preparing eight draws creates a domino effect when one team is moved from one site to the next. Committee members who have teams involved in the selection, or the bracketing are not part of the decision making process. They remove themselves from the conference call process and are represented by an independent proxy from their region. I am confident that any committee member I have ever seen or worked with in creating this draw would always hope to have the best eight teams represented at the final site. But just as many of the very best teams in the country are left out of the tournament, what we are left with is a national event that is inclusive of the breadth of division III. Since the onset of the AQ process there has been a dramatic growth in division III tennis. More quality coaches, better recruiting and facilities, and a deeper pool chasing national success. One cannot argue that the best 48 are always represented, or are placed accurately and evenly, but speaking as someone who coached when this entire tournament was made up of only 8 selected teams, the product we have today allows every division III team and player at least the window to advance, however unequal that path may seem.
OldCoach, I appreciate your comment – I will not reveal your identity unless you allow me to, so let me address some of the issues I have with this post and with the NCAA.
1. The notion that W&L did not submit a bid to host is not true. I have this confirmation on twitter here and confirmation from other coaches in DIII.
https://twitter.com/WLUWomensTennis/status/862168632981426176
I have screenshotted the tweet as well to provide valid confirmation for the fact that W&L put in a bid to host. Additionally, W&L Men’s is not hosting this year. They are being sent to Emory. This instantly dispels the fact that the committee had no other choice but to send Methodist to Sewanee. That is not true. W&L put in a bid to host, they are the higher ranked team.
2. I, as well as some commenters below, have provided the “simple solutions” you speak of for the draw at hand. There are teams driving to Williams that are higher ranked than teams driving to Tufts. The draw is unfair. It’s as simple as that. What we as DIII tennis fans are asking for is a fairer draw and one that is well thought out and does what you mention in your comment – “A national event that is inclusive of the breadth of Division III” and one that “the committee members creating the draw would hope to have the best eight teams represented at the final site.” This notion was NOT achieved in this draw. We have proven that with our comments.
3. I understand the amount of work that needs to be done to create a fair draw. I am aware of the domino effects of draws moving. I know this because I do bracketology for Men’s and now for the Women’s side. I do multiple bracketologies, giving scenarios of things that could happen depending on bids. I did my research, confirming host bids with schools, research on destinations, and rankings. That is the work that is needed to create the BEST draw for Division III Tennis. You talk about how DIII has grown – let’s enable it to grow further. Let’s showcase how much we care about the development of our players.
4. Lastly, even if somehow you disprove the fact that W&L put in a bid – sources close to the bracket selection tell me it is the NCAA’s duty to reach out to schools in the event of an unfair draw to try and get a fairer one. That means reaching out to W&L, reaching out to ETBU, reaching out to other schools, to get a fair draw. If W&L did not put in a bid, which they did, then it is your duty to reach out and try and get one. Somewhere along the line, the NCAA failed to do so.
Thank you.
Even if one kept all the hosts as they are in the bracket, Wesleyan should not have been sent to Bowdoin.
While your comment about higher ranked teams driving to Williams than Tufts is correct, if you are implying that the same higher ranked teams driving to Williams should instead be driving to Tufts that is incorrect. They can’t drive to Tufts.
Solution 1.25 (Same hosts as now, but traded Wesleyan and Johns Hopkins, Regions 5 and 6 seem more fair than current bracket)
Region 1: CMS*, Pomona, Trinity TX, Whitman, East Texas Baptist University
Region 2: Williams*, CMU, Mary Washington, WIlkes, John & Wales, Messiah
Region 3: Middlebury*, Amherst, Skidmore, SUNY Geneseo, Farmingdale State, Elizabethtown
Region 4: Emory, Washington and Lee, Sewanee*, Methodist, Rose-Hulman
Region 5: Bowdoin*, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Colby-Sawyer, Bridgewater State, Gwynedd-Mercy
Region 6: Tufts*, Wesleyan, TCNJ, Ithaca, Nichols, Baruch
Region 7: Chicago*, Kenyon, Gustavus Adolphus, Coe, Augustana, St. Norbert, Franciscan
Region 8: Wash U*, UWW, St. Scholastica, Concordia, John Carroll, Hope, Northwestern St. P
Solution 1.5 (Assuming Washington & Lee did not put in to host but Mary Washington did put into host. Regions 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 seem more fair than current bracket. At least added more ranked teams to region 8.).
Region 1: CMS*, Trinity TX, Pomona, Whitman, ETBU,
Region 2: Williams*, Johns Hopkins, Ithaca, WIlkes, John & Wales, Messiah, Westminster
Region 3: Middlebury*, Amherst, Skidmore, SUNY Geneseo, Farmingdale State, Elizabethtown
Region 4: Emory, Washington and Lee, Sewanee*, Rose-Hulman, NW St. P
Region 5: Bowdoin*, MIT, TCNJ, Colby-Sawyer, Bridgewater State, Gwynedd-Mercy
Region 6: Tufts, Wesleyan, Mary Washington*, Nichols, Baruch, Franciscan, Methodist
Region 7: Chicago*, CMU, Coe, Augustana, John Carroll, Concordia, St. Norbert
Region 8: WashU, UWW*, Hope, Kenyon, Gustavus Adolphus, Concordia
Flew NW St. P in above to Sewanee as Methodist could now drive to Mary Washington.
I would hope that we would have all learned by now that Twitter is not the best source for factual information, nor would it come from what you heard from other division III coaches. I am always happy to put my name behind anything I will ever write or say. I would hope that after 32 years of coaching the men’s tennis team at Sewanee, two full tours serving the NCAA membership on the NCAA tennis committee, hosting multiple NCAA and ITA events, and volunteering my time on awards and ranking committees that you would do me the courtesy of checking your facts before correcting me or suggesting that what I have written is untrue.. An NCAA bid to host the first three rounds of the NCAA Championship is far more complicated than simply replying over twitter “We did”. The truth of the matter is that Washington and Lee did not submit a bid to host the women’s side of the tournament and also as you properly suggested they were asked by the NCAA to submit a bid to host but declined. You can easily check this my contacting the NCAA staff or by directly asking the athletic director at Washington and Lee. I am happy to provide you with their contact information. Outside of that, you and I really have no argument. I have been a part of this event since its inception and have worked very hard to help it reach the point it is now, however imperfect. Hosting a regional or national tournament is no small undertaking. Within 48 hours of being notified that you will host, a site must hire officials on short notice, enlist staff and volunteers to run the event, schedule trainers, prepare facilities. None of this is done to gain some sort of home court advantage. Working as a part of a regional or national committee is a service back to the sport we all love and support. From my long and personal experience, what I have witnessed is coaches working to create the best possible experience for hundreds of student-athletes. No one disputes that a team as strong as the Pomona women deserve the chance to be recognized as one of the best eight teams in the country. I am on your side. I also completely agree that men’s teams like Carnegie Mellon, Redlands, Case Western, Pomona, and Tufts deserve to compete among the best. However, I have the advantage of stepping back and taking the long view of this tournament and have witnessed it’s evolution. All of the above mentioned teams (with the exception to some degree of Tufts men) can at least say that they had a path to the NCAA Championship on the court. This was not always true in our division or our sport. Whether Redlands competes against Claremont in the SCIAC final or the NCAA final, whether the Pomona women play Claremont for the third time in a regional or a national semifinal, at least they were on the court competing rather than having a committee decide their fate as we used to do when we began with eight, then ten, then twelve teams, before the advent of the AQ system. I chaired the NCAA committee during those years when the wildly unpopular notion of AQ was first implemented. None of us at the time thought that having teams inferior in ability to those who would stay home would be fair. And we still have a system that is left with some unfairness, but what was created was a system that encouraged those across what I described as “the breadth of division III” to have the same learning opportunities as the top tier programs. 20 years ago, programs like Wesleyan, Johns Hopkins, Chicago, and Case Western were barely on the radar. Presidents and athletic directors responded by hiring better coaches, building new facilities, increasing recruiting efforts, and as a result our sport has thrived. I would hope that budgets will gradually increase to allow more flights and I’m certain that our systems will continue to evolve to create a better and fairer tournament for all, but the NCAA supports many sports across all divisions with the funds that come from a division I basketball contract. For those of us who remember the lean days of division III, we have an incredible experience to offer to a tremendous amount of collegiate student-athletes. Your blog itself is evidence of the growth of this sport and you’re providing a valuable contribution toward its continual growth. I appreciate the passion and time that all of you put into this undertaking and I will look forward to great competition on both sides this weekend and when you all visit us in Chattanooga in the coming weeks. -John Shackelford
Coach Shackelford – totally appreciate the comment and you engaging us in this conversation.
I will go ahead and let the W&L host bid fall to the wayside as it looks like it has devolved into a “he said, she said” type argument which I would obviously rather not get into. However, if you could send over the W&L contact information that would be great – I would love to do more of my research and at least gain knowledge of what is going on here. What I will say is this – from historical perspective, W&L has hosted one of either the Men’s or Women’s regions for a majority of the tournaments for the past 10 or so years. For them NOT to host this year and also DECLINE to host as you mention, is very strange. Not saying it didn’t happen – but I hope you can understand where the questions have arisen.
I also have no doubt that DIII has come a LONG way since the days in which you first started – and thank you for having a hand in that. The process continues on with everyone that’s involved with DIII today, and that now includes myself and the blog writers. I think you will see in the above and in the comments that there seem to have been some oversights in the draw and I don’t think that I will back down in saying that this draw is not the best that could have been made with the NCAA restrictions we have today. We are very well-versed in those restrictions. Some of the comments have the same host sites with what are much fairer brackets as well.
Either way – the point of this post is to encourage progress. I think we can both agree here – W&L is a host that should have been utilized. They have been hosts for as long as I can remember. I would just encourage the NCAA Committee that there are options. Options to make DIII Tennis better than the product it is today – which is still awesome, but there’s always improvement to be had. The NCAA should be held to a standard to exhaust all resources to make as fair a bracket as possible. It is, after all, the only tournament that matters.
While you are right in saying “everyone has a path to the championship,” some have harder paths to other goals, such as the Elite 8. I can say from experience the Elite 8 were some of the best experiences of my life. I think it would be unfair for a player from Pomona to never get that experience because they never beat the #1 team in the country.
I hope there are no hard feelings here – you’ve long been supportive of us at the Blog and I will continue to always support Sewanee Tennis. I love both of your programs and what you have done for DIII Tennis. All I’m encouraging is more progress. 🙂
Thanks – ASouth.
Does the number of courts at the host facility matter for site selection purposes? From looking at Google Maps, it appears that ETBU has only eight courts while Sewanee has twelve.
It can be a factor if the NCAA determines a host site to be unable to host, but the fact of the matter is ETBU is perfectly capable.
Also, the discussion is not between the two – the NCAA could have just had W&L host with their ample courts instead of Sewanee. That would have eliminated one flight and been status quo. The fact that Sewanee is hosting is for lack of a better term, a middle finger to the West as another commenter mentioned.
Note: UWW* would still have to host under your solution.
Here are ideas on how the committee could have further improved your solution. None of this really took long to figure out, not sure how there were so many misses on this released bracket.
Make the West region four teams only. Save the flight on Hope, send to Chicago. You now have three flights. And if you want four flights, let CMS host. As #1 overall seed I get wanting them to host.
Region 1: CMS, Trinity TX, Whitman, ETBU*
Region 2: Williams*, Johns Hopkins, MIT, WIlkes, John & Wales, Messiah, Westminster
Region 3: Middlebury*, Amherst, Skidmore, SUNY Geneseo, Farmingdale State, Elizabethtown
Region 4: Emory, Washington and Lee*, Sewanee, Methodist, Rose-Hulman
Region 5: Pomona, WashU, UWW*, Coe, St. Scholastica, Concordia, NW St. P
Region 6: Bowdoin*, Wesleyan, TCNJ, Colby-Sawyer, Bridgewater State, Gwynedd-Mercy
Region 7: Tufts, Kenyon, Mary Washington*, Ithaca, Nichols, Baruch, John Carroll
Region 8: Chicago*, CMU, Hope, Gustavus Adolphus, Augustana, St. Norbert, Franciscan
Region 2: Johns Hopkins and MIT added in to more fairly balance for Williams
Region 5: Moved Coe here, put Hope in Chicago to strengthen Chicago region
Region 6: Traded stronger MIT for weaker TCNJ to balance
Region 7: Moved Kenyon and Mary Washington here, Mary Washington hosts, moved John Carroll here
Region 8: Moved CMU, Hope here.
You could flip Kenyon/CMU in region 7/8 without too much difference, but Tufts beat Chicago so deserves the easier route. Plus as a top seed going on the road for Tufts – an easier route makes giving up home court a little more palatable.
Even small, easy changes to current bracket would have made way more fair. .
Why is #6 seed Bowdoin forced to play Wesleyan and #7 seed Tufts get a significantly easier route? Wesleyan should have been sent to Tufts.
Send TCNJ to Bowdoin. Yes, Bowdoin’s bracket becomes easier, but they deserved it by beating both Tufts and Wesleyan during regular season.
Or if don’t want to move Wesleyan, why does Wesleyan have to play a tougher MIT and Johns Hopkins get an easier TCNJ? Flip TCNJ and MIT. Little misses like these look really bad.
Note: when referring to misses on released bracket, that was a reference to misses on the NCAA released bracket, not the original solution bracket.
My ONLY issue with this is that there is a little known rule in Women’s that a region cannot only have 4 teams, which is why I flew Hope out to Texas.
However, the rest of your bracket makes sense. It’s clear that this year’s bracket was lazy/corrupt/cursory because there were a TON of other options. The fact that you and I can create an exponentially fairer bracket is to be quite honest, despicable. I have not followed women’s tennis this year admittedly but just using numbers shows where everything went wrong. I hope the NCAA can use this as a starting point for a fairer draw conversation.
Here is an updated bracket four-flight bracket that I feel is even better:
Region 1 (5): CMS, Trinity TX, Whitman, ETBU*, St. Scholastica
Region 2 (6): Williams*, Johns Hopkins, WIlkes, John & Wales, Messiah, Westminster
Region 3 (6): Middlebury*, Amherst, Skidmore, SUNY Geneseo, Farmingdale State, Elizabethtown
Region 4 (6): Emory, Washington and Lee*, Sewanee, Methodist, John Carroll, Franciscan
Region 5 (6): Bowdoin*, MIT, TCNJ, Colby-Sawyer, Bridgewater State, Gwynedd-Mercy
Region 6 (7): Pomona, WashU, UWW*, Gustavus Adolphus, Concordia, NW St. P, St. Norbert
Region 7 (6): Tufts, Wesleyan, Mary Washington*, Ithaca, Nichols, Baruch
Region 8 (7): Chicago*, CMU, Hope, Kenyon, Coe, Augustana, Rose-Hulman
Changes:
Region 1: St Scholastica flown out to CMS.
Region 2: pulled MIT to make Bowdoin’s quarter stronger
Region 4: Rose-Hulman would actually have to fly to Washington & Lee. Instead sent two teams that could drive to Washington & Lee in John Carroll and Franciscan. In part two teams just because more teams can drive to Washington & Lee which balances #’s and makes picking them not to host even more of a illogical.
Region 5: MIT gives a stronger #2 seed to Bowdoin. Also Bowdoin beat Pomona so should be seeded over them.
Region 6: Moved Gustavus Adolphus to balance strength
Region 7: Moved Wesleyan here instead of Kenyon. Tufts and Wesleyan should be together. Wesleyan with Bowdoin is just wrong.
Region 8: Kenyon moved here from Region 7. Coe moved here to balance with Region 6. Rose-Hulman can drive here.
I would guess some of the 4-7 seeds in each region could be swapped somewhat to make fairer.
Here is the link to the responsible NCAA tennis committee in case wondering:
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=3WTENNIS
Correction:
Region 1: St Scholastica flown out to ETBU
Would be interesting to know if CMS would rather go on road to play this bracket or stay at home to play Pomona.
I can confirm that CMS would rather play on the road in this bracket than play at home against Pomona.
Sounds like you would be a really good blogger
*upvote*
Thank you for bringing light into this situation– the West region has often been on the short end of the stick when it comes to NCAA Regionals. Just last year, Pomona-Pitzer was put into the same region as CMS despite both being ranked 4 and 5 respectively in the nation, and thus, PP was unable to go into the elite 8, while teams like Wash U (PP beat TWICE during the regular season, 7-2 and 8-1), Amherst (PP beat 6-3), and Middlebury (PP beat 5-4) got to make it into the Elite Eight. Looking at this year, if everything plays out to seeds, teams that lost to PP and/or CMS will make the elite 8, while either PP or CMS will not. This is completely ridiculous and unfair to both teams, especially since there was a way this year (unsure about last year) that this could have been resolved.
Anyways, I really hope that you get more women’s writers!!!
Wow, that is unreal… the methodist flight to sewanee is a middle finger of apathy to pomona/cms
Thank you for finally recognizing the unfair situation for the West. Clearly the NESCAC is getting everything they could wish for. The solution if the excuse is overall budget is to host the elite 8 geographically inside NESCAC often enough to save all the money spent traveling by their 4 teams at the Elite 8. The real question is why the Pomona Coach is on a lot of NCAA committees and is always the one excluded from the elite 8? Does she prefer not to get there ?
I’d like to dispel a few things in this post.
1. The NESCAC is not getting all it could wish for. They have a ton of tough draws despite high rankings – example is Bowdoin and Wesleyan in the same draw.
2. If it is overall budget, then that can be a different conversation. However, with the general carelessness of this bracket I doubt it is.
3. This is the first year the SCIAC commish is on the committee. Last year, it was the UT-Dallas Coach. I also think you underestimate how tough it is to sway the decisions made by your peers. I would prefer not to comment on individuals inside the committee but would like to just call out the general issues with the bracket so they can work on them to the best of their abilities. I am sure they are hard working and mean well – but sometimes a helping hand or some publicity can shift a way of thinking.
Thank you for commenting though! This discussion is unbelievably important and the more discussion the better.