Here on the women’s side of the blog we have a lot of feelings about NCAAs, and so we decided to get together and throw them onto a page for y’all. The guys side calls this a “stream of consciousness” article, but I’m hoping we have a little more structure than those. Either way, you’ll get a live look-in at our minds right now, and you can judge just how OCD/ADHD I (WestW) really am. Before I forget, make sure to check out our Players of the Week from Regionals, and be on the lookout for quarterfinal previews soon!
REGIONALS
ASouthW: Regionals were weirdly easy to predict. I’m going to hop on this now because CentralW already talked about it a little in our POTW article and I’m all about getting that low hanging fruit, but there was literally only 1 upset in UT Dallas over Linfield. MIT/Bowdoin was an upset based on rankings that hadn’t reflected their recent big win over Tufts but if we’re being honest, we all kind of had an inkling that MIT was going to pull it out. What happened to the crazy upsets? The fact that I was able to get on my laptop and look up some of the teams and make educated guesses based on results this season and get most of the matches right tells me that the rankings have actually managed to sort themselves out pretty well at this point.
CentralW: Can the NCAA and hosts make the Regional Championship more of a thing?? I was watching a softball regional final and after the game finished there was a trophy(!) presentation and the runners ups were called up player by player to receive their NCAA medallion. The winning team was recognized player by player as well. It’s a huge deal to make it to the regional final and the players should be recognized as such.
WestW: Successful Texas teams have this one thing in common. Hindsight is 20/20 and it’s easy to say after the fact, but UT-Dallas was a lot better than we gave them credit for. This is a team that had only one loss to Trinity all year, and they came out firing in singles to pull off a big upset over Linfield. She got props in our POTW, but Kathy Joseph was great in that 3-set clincher. And I noticed that her sister Stephanie is also on the team. In fact, the Comets have TWO sets of sisters on the squad at once — the Josephs are joined by Sumvruta and Svaksha Iyengar! And you can’t forget the Kaffen twins over at Trinity when you’re talking Texas tennis sisters. Is it a coincidence that both UT-Dallas and Trinity made NCAAs this year? I don’t think so. Coach Porter better adjust his recruiting if Southwestern wants to make NCAAs in 2020.
ASouthW: I don’t want to steal NEW’s thunder here but her Twitter interaction with the MIT women’s twitter account and a former MIT player after their upset of Bowdoin was so heartwarming and reminded me how enjoyable blogging is. I think in general people only interact with us or comment to tell us how we’re wrong or offer criticism. Which is fine, we can take criticism, but it’s always nice to know that people are reading what we write and don’t hate us for it. Also, side note, when we predict matches, we have to pick a winner. It’s not optional. Sometimes we’re wrong and that’s ok but don’t hate us if we don’t pick you or your team. That’s how sports work – someone wins and someone loses. It’s not personal and we don’t mean it to be personal. In fact we make a huge effort to keep everything positive. If you are that offended then let the rackets do the talking and whatnot.
NEW: Going off of what ASW said, I make wild predictions and I stand by them. While I’m very glad my MIT crystal ball prediction came true and I had the most heart-warming interaction with the MIT fanbase and team, let’s face it, I call crazy things all the time, and more often than not, I’m very wrong. I’m the expert and at the same time, I’m no expert at all, but that’s what makes this and the blogging team so fun for me. Anywho, in keeping with my spirit, I’m going rogue again for my next hot take…
NATIONALS
NEW: We getting an all-NESCAC final with Wes vs. Midd. ‘nuff said and the hottest of hot takes.
CentralW: Emory’s going to take the Championship!!!
ASouthW: I’m not that confident in Emory. Gasp, I know. I’m always high on Emory. It’s part of being an ASouth writer. I’m still picking them to win it all, but after their close matches with CMU and Chicago at UAAs I’m a little nervous. I’m willing to overlook their mid-season loss to Midd, and they breezed through their regional this weekend so obviously they’re not playing terribly, but they really are looking a little more vulnerable than last year. And we all know how that ended. Their big advantage is that they only have to play CMS OR Midd, not both.
WestW: The most unpredictable Nationals in a long, long time. I didn’t pay attention in history class, but I like to think I know my contemporary D3 tennis history so here’s a little refresher for y’all. The finals results from this decade: Williams def. Emory, Williams def. Amherst, Williams def. Chicago, Williams def. Emory, Emory def. Amherst, Williams def. Emory, Emory def. Williams, Williams def. Emory, CMS def. Emory. Can you spot any patterns? I was never good at math either, so I can’t, but Analyst tells me that Williams and Emory have both played in 7 finals since 2010. It was a little boring knowing the same two teams would be playing for the championship year after year, and with how crazy 2019 has been it feels like CMS really opened the floodgates after beating both programs last year. Now everyone has the mentality that anyone can beat anyone, and we’ve seen it in all the “upsets” this year. Nationals, even in the quarters, is always 5 notches more intense than any other part of the season — the teams are closely matched, players feel the gravity of the moment and tighten up, and emotions run really high. While I think CMS beats Emory in the finals, as Analyst says below the title’s really up for grabs
CentralW: Where are all the women’s seniors going??? I was looking through my Twitter feed and looking at photos of happy winners from the NCAA Tournament and noticed that the women’s teams tended to be much smaller than the men’s teams. So I was curious and did a roster count of the teams who made it to the Elite Eight and here’s what I found:
Women (Team, # of players, # of seniors)
MIT (7, 0)
Chicago (8, 0)
Wesleyan (8, 1)
Emory (11, 1)
Middlebury (11, 1)
CMU (12, 1)
CMS (13, 1)
Amherst (16, 5)
Total = 86 Players, 10 seniors = 11.6% are seniors
Men (Team, # of players, # of seniors)
Wesleyan (11, 0)
Bowdoin (11, 4)
Amherst (11, 5)
WashU (13, 2)
CMS (14, 3)
Middlebury (14, 4)
Chicago (15, 3)
Total = 103 Players, 25 seniors = 24.3% are seniors!
On the women’s side, other than Amherst, no team had more than 1 senior. On the men’s side, other than Wesleyan, no team had less than 2 seniors. [NEW: And for Amherst, 3 of their 5 seniors haven’t seen playing time in the lineup all season!]
NEW: I hate how one-sided the quarter final matches appear to be. Ok, ok, I know this isn’t a super hot take (realistically, it’s mild salsa at best), but NCAAs has always been my favorite time of year because anything can happen! Especially in a year where we’ve spoken so much about competitiveness and how you don’t really know who’s going to win a match going into it, it’s frustrating to look at the Elite 8 and pretty much know the outcome of the four matches. I don’t know if it’s because of how the seeds shook out, or if it’s because the gap in teams has widened since the beginning / middle of the season, but I was really hoping for a lot of upsets and tight matches in both the regionals and now at nationals. Now, I’m not going to let those W&L / Sewanee, Linfield / UTD and Nichols / Colby-Sawyer matches fall by the wayside because those wins and close battles were HUGE for all teams involved, and that is what we live for here on the Blog. I just wish there were more of those. Who knows, Chicago could upset Emory this time around, and Amherst might push Midd a bit further, but overall, the odds are looking not so hot for some close matches and upsets. All that being said, I think we’re in for a wild ride come the Final Four and I am here for it.
Analyst: Any of the top four teams could win NCAAs. Like NEW said, the quarterfinals matchups each have a clear favorite. I am all for the underdogs so I would love to see an upset in the Elite Eight, but any upset in those four matches would be a big surprise. That being said, I think any of the top four teams (Emory, CMS, Midd, and Wesleyan) is capable of winning the championship. Wesleyan is probably the least favored to win the title, but after their performance against Middlebury, I think even they on the right day can beat any other team. I am quite excited to see how next week plays out, because anything can happen.
ASouthW: Someone please tell me if they still give out Kazoos in Kalamazoo. If they don’t then they should.
INDIVIDUALS
NEW: There are a ton of really good singles players who deserved a spot in Individuals and didn’t make it. So, ASW touched on this in her hot takes, but seriously NCAA?! While I love the NE and acknowledge that it is one of the stronger regions in the country, how were three of the four at large bids awarded to the NE, and more specifically, NESCAC, schools? And how in the world did Midd snag TWO of those three NE at-large bids? On the one hand, I think it’s pretty cool and shows the depth in D3 that some #3 singles players (a la Christina Puccinelli, Kristina Yu, and Rebecca Berger) were able to make it in, but that just compounds the problem of concentration and takes away spots from other deserving players. I think all three of those #3s had great seasons that should definitely be acknowledged, but I can’t help but wonder why others were looked over to give them these spots.
Analyst: I want to give a shoutout to some of the individual qualifiers who’ve thrived in college tennis despite not being top DIII recruits. I don’t know if this is much of a hot take, but I what Central mentioned about the senior dropoff and attrition rate on the women’s side is real and definitely an issue that makes me think a lot about, but I want to look on the opposite side and give a shoutout to the players who have really thrived in DIII tennis despite not coming into college as top recruits. With more and more 4-star and higher recruits choosing to go DIII, I’m really impressed by the people who aren’t as highly rated in juniors but improve throughout college and reach new heights themselves but also help their teams reach new heights. Kana Moriyama from Caltech was a 2-star recruit and started her college career playing about #3, but spent the last couple seasons at #1 and as a senior has helped lead her team to their best year in history. Leah Bush from Williams was also a 2-star recruit, and I remember a tweet from a few weeks ago mentioning that she’s played every position in their singles lineup. Williams didn’t have their best year this year, but Bush has gone from low in the lineup to playing #1 and qualifying for individuals, and she’s had a big impact on her team over the last four years. I also want to recognize Lauren O’Malley who came into John Carroll as a 3-star recruit and now as a senior has had an incredible season and has made history for her school. And finally, there are many more players who deserve to be recognized here but who I haven’t named individually, so here’s a shoutout to all those players too.
ASouthW: The singles tournament has 32 players from 22 schools and I have really mixed feelings. CMS, Wes, and Midd have three players each, and obviously they all deserve to play in the tournament. There are a lot of good players, and if I busted my butt at #1 singles all season then got passed over by someone who played #3 singles at a top school I would be bummed. I’m not saying that the tennis is an issue here – all the players who are in the tournament are great tennis players and deserve their spot. But how do you even compare someone’s record at #3 singles to someone else’s at #1 singles for the at-large spots? Regardless, going to Kalamazoo to compete at NCAAs is such a special experience and it kind of aligns with the spirit of D3 tennis to give those individual spots to people who wouldn’t otherwise get to make the trip.
CentralW: I’m in total agreement with ASouth and I think that a couple more #1 players should have made individuals over a couple of the #3 players. No disrespect at all to the #3 players but it’s totally a different world to play #1 than #3. You can get a pretty good record (even go undefeated) at #3 (and even #2) and manage to get a couple of good wins in fall tournaments against #1 players, but as a #1 player you need to play the best player every single time. So my Hot Take is – for individuals, I’m going to be cheering for the everyday #1 player in Lauren O’Malley from John Carroll!!!!!
BLOGGER PREDICTIONS / RANKINGS FOR NATIONALS
For anyone that keeps bringing up the Pomona issue. I would like to refer to you 2010 when on the Men’s side CMS, UCSC and Cal Lu were all ranked in the top 6 in the nation and had to fight for the West.
http://itatennis.activecm.net/ResultsAndRankings/Rankings/2009-10_NCAA_Division_III_Men_s_Rankings/April_29_-_DIII_Team_Rankings.htm
Or 2011, when CMS (3), UCSC (4), Pomona-Pitzer (7), and Redlands (15) had to fight it out. Definitely not a new phenomenon.
Hi there. Blog Mom here.
Who are the #1 singles players that you would have liked to see over Gerber, Yu, and Puccinelli? I think the best exercise is to compare resumes and results before saying that others should get into the tournament. High level tennis and seasons should be rewarded. Those three women are great players, clearly. They shouldn’t be penalized for being on a good team by not getting to compete at individuals. On the flip side, of course we want more small school team players to make it. But, only if the results warrant it.
So, would love if you told the readers who should make it in over those three, and why?
OK, sure. I reread the article again (I filled out the hot takes first so I wasn’t as familiar with some of the other responses but worry not, I’ve done the reading now) and no where do I see anyone saying that Berger*, K Yu, and Puccinelli (henceforth in this comment referred to as BYP) DON’T deserve to be in the tournament. All the credit to these girls, they have the game to be there. They’ve had phenomenal seasons. Hey, maybe what we really want is to see a bigger tournament that can accommodate everyone in the top teams as well as the top players from the non-top team schools.
The point we attempted and perhaps failed to make was regarding the bigger picture here – how do you compare a #3 singles player (even though they’re from the best team in the country) with a #1 singles player? It’s not a rhetorical question (and it wasn’t when I asked in the article either). I’m going to try to make this point again so bear with me here.
Take Kristina Yu. She had a great season at #3 singles, no doubt about it, going 8-2 against a tough schedule. She got to play 5 matches at #2 singles – against Case, Colby, Trinity, Connecticut College, and Wilkes. Correct me if I’m wrong but at no point did she hop over Victoria Yu or Venia Yeung. Take Rebecca Berger. Great player. She played 3 matches at #2 against Chapman, Cal Lu, and Redlands. Again, she never hopped over Allen or Tan. Same thing with Puccinelli (she played 2 against Bates and Chapman but never hopped).
In terms of head to head against players in the tournament, BYP’s only wins/losses in the spring are against each other. They have great wins from the fall — Pucinelli beat Fushikage (Skidmore) at the Lindsey Morehouse Invitational back in September. But she also lost to MIT #2 in the fall so… Hm. Berger beat Casper in the fall at ITAs. And Kristina Yu beat Bukzin and her teammate Venia Yeung in the fall at the JumboTechCardaMammoth Invitational (basically the fifth slam). Is that what put them in?
Now take the first alternate, Carly Levitz- she had a decent (relative to the players in the singles tournament) season at 1 with wins over Tufts and Amherst’s Smukler (Smukler in tournament with at-large bid) but took losses to Brandeis, Bowdoin, Bates (their #1s not in tournament). She lost to Victoria Yu of Welseyan, but where does that put her head to head with Kristina Yu? They haven’t played any mutual players.
So this is our question and stop me if it doesn’t make sense or you have the answer: Why did BYP get in over Levitz?
I think the debate comes down to 1) how much do we value fall results and 2) how much do we take into account strength of schedule at #1 vs. #3. Obviously there is no easy answer here. We are NOT saying the committee picked incorrectly. While these players are amazing, none of them had perfect seasons. Arguments for and against them being in the tournament are both valid. I’m not sure if head to head matches were weighed more against other players in the at-large pool or whether the star power of those fall wins over Casper, Bukzin, and Yeung were enough to tip the scales in BYP’s favor.
Another thing that us bloggers agreed on but perhaps there’s room for discussion is that playing a season at #1 is VERY different from playing the season at #3. There’s something much tougher about having to play the opposing teams BEST player every time. If you don’t agree with me, then I invite you to play #1 for a year and #3 for a year. I have a story but I won’t tell it because it would be blatantly obvious who I am. But it really is different. So yeah, sometimes you have a bad day at #1 singles and lose to a lower ranked #1 player than you in that 10 point tiebreak when your team is up 8-0. Or down 0-8. The level of competition is consistently higher and we think that should be taken into account in these down to the wire decisions, especially when these players have zero (0) mutual opponents.
Here are some other players that we think would be well suited to those 3 spots. Again, not saying these players “DESERVE” these spots over BYP, just that we don’t know how we are supposed to compare without any direct head to heads of these players with the rest of the field (aside from fall results)! These players played #1 the entire season and have wins over players in the tournament but losses to other #1s not in the tournament.
Julia Marks – Bowdoin #1 – wins over Caltech #1, Sewanee #1 (both in tournament), Tufts #1, but losses to Bates #1 (NOT #2 which would give her an indirect loss to Puccinelli), Brandeis #1, Vassar #1.
Carly Levitz (mentioned above) – Colby #1 – wins over Tufts #1, Amherst #1 (in tournament), losses to Wes, Bates, Bowdoin, Caltech, Hamilton (ok that’s kind of a bad one but it was early in the season)
Caroline Kutach/Kathy Joseph – Trinity TX #1/UT Dallas #1 – I grouped these two because selections had come out before Kathy’s big win over Uyeda of Linfield (in the tournament) so I can see the justification of not including her without that. During the season she has been undefeated at #1, with a big win over Kutach and now over Linfield #1 (in tournament). Kutach only had losses to Caltech #1 (in tournament), Southwestern #1 (in tournament), and Joseph, but also had a win over Hopkins #1 (in tournament). Otherwise the Texas schools are kind of in their own world, so I admit that it’s hard to compare them to the rest of the tournament players (kind of like BYP!)
Diana Dehterevich (Brandeis #1) / Ines de Bracamonte (Wheaton #1) / Libby Rickeman (MIT #1) – I bunched these ladies together because they’ve all beaten each other throughout the season, making this a lot harder for me and the selection committee! De Bracamonte has beaten each of the others in this group but does not have any wins over players in the tournament. Both Rickeman and Dehterevich have a win over Moriyama (Caltech). I also realize I was asked for 3 players and I’m giving you more than you asked for but my point here is that there are a LOT of deserving players and NONE of these girls went head to head with BYP.
I actually didn’t look at Central region because I’m lazy and this has gone on long enough for my point to hopefully be made.
Additionally, Defne Olcay (Emory #3) actually has wins over Kristina Yu and Nicole Tan (CMS #2 – if you get a win over #2 does that give you automatic points over #3 Rebecca Berger?) so she should have been considered to!! #asouth
To reiterate, we understand that there are only 32 spots in the tournament. A lot of people can make a claim to a spot but unfortunately some people won’t make the tournament. Kind of like the Iron Throne. It’s a close call and in no way are we saying that BYP won’t kick butt or don’t deserve spots. There are a bunch of people who would do great. What we wanted in our article was to start a discussion, and we were honestly just curious about why BYP made it in over everyone else! They, like the others, have a very valid argument.
Should I reiterate one more time? There are a lot of great players in D3 tennis. Yay D3. I’m an ex-player who just wants to spread joy in the D3 tennis community. I don’t claim to know everything and I’m not here to spread hate. When I attempted to contact all the coaches to get my senior questionnaire out, ~75 of them were nice enough to answer me and chat a little about the blog. One of the most common things I heard was that we didn’t have enough content for the little guys of the D3 tennis world. The teams who fly under the radar because they aren’t ranked. And I totally agree with that and we are making as big of an effort as we can with 5 writers to cover as many teams as possible. To us, this also means advocating for the “little guys” – in this case, players from lesser known schools who were passed over in this occasion in favor of players from the big D3 guns. The last thing we want is to offend anyone but we think we are successful if we are able to start a discussion.
Finally, if any of our readers have feedback for us we would seriously love to talk to them directly. My email is d3asouthwomens@gmail.com, if you’ve ever e-mailed me, you know that I respond basically instantly. If you don’t like me you aren’t the first and you won’t be the last. There are four other writers. My co-bloggers are such great conversationalists, I guarantee you’d have a great conversation with them. You really don’t have to go through my blog mom to get to me!
Phew. Bring the hate I’m ready.
ASW
Couldn’t we just compare UTRs of their wins and losses in the case that there is no good compare?
I’d like to reiterate that there is absolutely no hate for the takes or article above. And I do care about the little guy! I enjoy rooting for Leo V. from Carleton on the men’s side and others like him. Just wanted to debate the argument above that we’d love to see more #1s in. You put your hot takes out there, you might get some disagreement 🙂
ASouth
I agree that Kathy Joseph deserved to get in the tournament. I also think Fariza Abdulloeva of NC Wesleyan deserved consideration. Her only d3 loss was in 3 sets to Gonzalez-Rico and she has a win over Olcay. Unfortunately, her college didn’t play any other teams/players in this conversation.
As far as using UTR, it seems very inaccurate for college women right now. It seemed more accurate last year.
Yep you could and that’s probably what the committee did. Yu, Puccinelli, Berger have certainly have much higher UTRs (~9.5) with no losses to 8.5 UTR or below, with a range of opponents between 5-9, whereas most of the girls I mentioned at #1 (UTRs 8.4-8.7) have a little bit tougher strength of schedule (more opponents in 8.4-8.7 range) but it is true they have more losses to players in that range. However, there are players in the tournament with UTR as low as 8.1, including Kana Moriyama (woo go Caltech) who received an At-Large bid and has losses to many of the players in my previous comment. So what was the difference for Kana in the eyes of the selection committee? (Not rhetorical, genuinely curious here). Again, it comes down to whether fall results/non D3 results (which propelled our #3 players’ UTRs upwards) are given equal weight and whether strength of schedule is considered as it is in the team selection. I don’t know what the selection criteria are for individuals or how they differ from the team selection but if UTR is one of them then Yu, Puc, Ber are actually some of the highest in the tournament. I personally (when I’m not ASW) think hey, screw regions you might as well just put the best 32 players in to get the national champion BUT this is Division 3 tennis, it’s not the pros or even D1. I know we sometimes eyeroll at the D3 philosophy to include more representation in teams “realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving out some championship-caliber teams,” but at the end of the day, we all chose D3 knowing that was the environment. We’re extending this philosophy to the singles tournament, rightly or not.
I don’t have time to write another novel on this or list out the UTRs but truly your point is well taken. In the words of D3CentralW “I am responsible for that hot take and I stand by it”. Agree to disagree on this one. I have other things to do lol but if anyone else feels strongly about this I’d happily read your comments.
There’s no way Middlebury will beat CMS. CMS is dominating. But hopefully, CMS will fall to Emory. I’m just a little biased.
Gabi Kitchell was a 0 star coming out of HS and made the NCAAs all three spring seasons that she competed. And she did it the last two seasons with a toddler at her side! Now that’s a story! Sebastian was born Sept 2017 and she made NCAAs spring 2018 and 19. Machine! Proud of all she has done at UW-Whitewater!
WHAT?! That’s amazing. Thanks for commenting this – such a great story. Congratulations to Gabi on all her accomplishments. Sebastian should be so proud!
Just a reminder not to keep glossing over #5 team Pomona never having a chance to make the Elite 8. Looks like all bloggers picked the same final 4 and Pomona could have changed that. While I sympathize with those individuals who don’t get their shot at the individual tournament, nobody on the bubble has a realistic chance to win more than one match. The Pomona situation is at the highest level where they would have a realistic chance to go all the way. Those so-called excuses about the flights and budget are just a smoke screen. Someone must have undue influence and it can’t be that hard to figure it out. I guess that is the challenge for the Pomona coach. It’s strange that Ann Lebedeff was the PP coach and sat on the ITA committee while the whole CMS/Pomona situation developed into what it is today and for the near future. I used to think she had that ITA position because it gave the appearance that the most affected team has some representation. There is even a leadership award in her name. This accusation is probably unjust, but I speculate that the ITA loved her for biting the bullet all those years. No way the 3 flight thing is legitimate.
Someone pls approve this comment! I can’t get on the site :/
Thank you EC for your many comments on this huge issue. I can tell this really bothers you and I wish we had answers or a solution! I commend you for speaking up at every possible chance, and I hope that one day we will be able to get the attention of the NCAA. I did, however, receive word from an inside source that the committee sent multiple versions of the bracket where PP was flying elsewhere (using a 4th flight) to the NCAA but all were denied. You have every right to be upset but I think in this case the coaches who understand the situation and are trying to help PP have their hands tied. I personally don’t know how much control Coach Lebedeff had over the situation but I imagine that was very frustrating!
I think that accusation is unjust and unfair.
The ITA has no control over the tournament budget or flight rule. That comes from the NCAA, and I don’t think Coach Lebedeff ever sat on that committee (please correct me if I’m wrong). Even the NCAA representatives for D3 only have so much influence, and I know many of them have been trying to change the system for a long, long time. It’s certainly frustrating to deal with the amount of bureaucracy here, none moreso than for PP and the West region teams.
Coach Lebedeff was on the committee years ago, as was I. Having served on the NCAA committee and the ITA committee, I agree with the frustration, but not with the accusation. The coaches here have ZERO influence in these situations. This is nothing new, and has been a gripe by impacted coaches and programs for many years. The bottom line is that the NCAA is not going to make special exceptions for D3 tennis. There have been situations where the numbers 1 and 2 teams have had to play in the same regional. In 2011, my team was the overall 7 seed and had to play in the Cruz/CMS regional (3/4 seeds that year). I was the chair of the NCAA and ITA committee and co-host of NCAAs.
Any attention brought to this issue is good, but the only way to make things better is to understand them. This situation has it’s roots in the automatic qualifier structure change that came in the late 2000’s as the NCAA made all sports utilize the same selection processes. The NCAA promoted the concept of “access” to the championships for sports that would not otherwise have been selected (weaker conference winners, etc.). It negatively impacted strong schools in strong conferences (especially those with geographic challenges). There are only a small numbers of schools on the west coast, and when setting flight/travel limitations, the stage was set not to have the best field, and to limit access to the championships for strong and worthy teams. There was a fight against this then, but the NCAA is going to do what it wants to do. This wasn’t a decision for the best of the sport, or the division, or the athlete. It was money.