Second NCAA regional ranking

plattsburgh-edward-correa-480x400The second NCAA regional rankings have been released. Further rankings will follow on Feb. 24, along with one on Sunday, Feb. 28, which we do not get to see.

Need to know more about the regional rankings process and what they mean? Need to know more about the NCAA Tournament? Check out our NCAA Tournament FAQ.

The first record is Division III record, followed by overall.
Through games of Sunday, Feb. 14.

The NCAA has updated its data sheets. However, sometimes they disappear so if you really want a copy, you might want to go through and save the PDF files.

Men’s rankings
Atlantic Region – NCAA data sheet
1 New Jersey City 17-7 17-7
2 Stockton 18-5 18-6
3 DeSales 17-5 17-6
4 Staten Island 18-5 18-6
5 Brooklyn 18-6 18-6
6 Rutgers-Newark 18-6 18-6
7 Delaware Valley 15-6 17-6

Central – NCAA data sheet

1 Benedictine 24-0 24-0
2 Augustana 23-1 23-1
3 St. Norbert 20-2 20-2
4 North Central (Ill.) 17-6 18-6
5 Elmhurst 20-4 20-4
6 Chicago 15-6 16-6
7 Aurora 17-5 18-5
8 Carroll 17-4 17-4

East – NCAA data sheet

1 Plattsburgh State 18-4 18-4
2 Rochester 16-5 16-6
3 SUNY Geneseo 16-5 16-6
4 Brockport 15-7 15-7
5 Oswego State 17-6 17-6
6 NYU 18-4 18-4

Great Lakes – NCAA data sheet

1 Marietta 21-2 21-2
2 John Carroll 21-2 21-2
3 Ohio Wesleyan 20-3 20-3
4 Alma 18-5 18-5
5 Hope 19-1 21-2
6 Wooster 16-6 17-6
7 Hiram 17-5 17-6
8 Mount Union 14-7 15-7
9 St. Vincent 17-6 17-6

Mid-Atlantic – NCAA data sheet

1 Christopher Newport 22-1 22-1
2 Susquehanna 17-3 19-3
3 Salisbury 18-5 18-5
4 Catholic 17-5 17-5
5 Scranton 17-5 18-5
6 Franklin and Marshall 18-4 18-4

Northeast – NCAA data sheet

1 Amherst 20-4 20-4
2 Trinity (Conn.) 17-6 18-6
3 Tufts 19-5 19-5
4 Babson 17-5 17-5
5 WPI 18-5 18-5
6 Eastern Connecticut 16-7 16-7
7 Wesleyan 18-6 18-6
8 Johnson and Wales 20-2 21-2
9 MIT 18-5 18-5
10 Southern Vermont 20-3 20-3
11 Nichols 20-3 20-3

South – NCAA data sheet

1 Texas Lutheran 19-5 19-5
2 Virginia Wesleyan 17-6 17-6
3 Emory 15-6 16-6
4 Lynchburg 17-6 17-6
5 LaGrange 13-6 16-7
6 East Texas Baptist 17-5 19-5
7 Roanoke 18-4 19-4
8 N.C. Wesleyan 13-4 17-6

West – NCAA data sheet

WEST
1 St. Thomas 21-2 21-2
2 Whitworth 21-1 22-1
3 Whitman 19-3 20-3
4 St. John’s 16-6 17-6
5 St. Olaf 16-8 16-8
6 Concordia-Moorhead 15-8 15-9
7 Augsburg 15-8 15-8
Women’s

The first record is Division III record, followed by overall record.

Atlantic

1 Stockton 20-4 20-4
2 Rowan 20-4 20-4
3 Montclair State 18-6 18-6
4 DeSales 17-6 17-6
5 Manhattanville 16-6 16-6
6 Gwynedd Mercy 19-4 19-4
7 FDU-Florham 16-6 17-6
8 Sage 18-5 19-5

Central

1 UW-Oshkosh 18-4 19-4
2 Washington U. 18-4 18-4
3 UW-River Falls 18-4 19-4
4 UW-Stevens Point 17-6 17-6
5 UW-Whitewater 18-4 19-4
6 Wheaton (Ill.) 18-5 18-5
7 Concordia (Wis.) 18-4 18-5
8 Westminster (Mo.) 17-2 18-4
9 St. Norbert 18-4 18-4

East

1 Rochester 18-4 18-4
2 New York University 17-5 17-5
3 SUNY New Paltz 18-5 18-5
4 Stevens 17-5 17-5
5 SUNY Geneseo 16-5 16-6
6 St. John Fisher 20-2 20-3
7 Clarkson 19-4 19-4
8 Rochester Tech 18-5 18-5

Great Lakes

1 Thomas More 22-0 22-0
2 Hope 22-0 23-0
3 Ohio Northern 20-3 20-3
4 Denison 20-3 20-3
5 Capital 18-5 18-5
6 Bluffton 19-2 21-2
7 Rose-Hulman 18-3 20-3
8 Carnegie Mellon 16-6 16-6
9 La Roche 20-3 20-3

Mid-Atlantic

1 Scranton 23-0 23-0
2 Albright 22-2 22-2
3 Muhlenberg 20-2 20-2
4 Christopher Newport 21-2 21-2
5 Mary Washington 19-4 19-4
6 Marymount  19-4 19-4
7 Moravian 17-6 17-6
8 McDaniel 19-4 19-4

Northeast

1 Tufts 21-2 21-2
2 Amherst 23-1 23-1
3 University of New England 20-3 20-3
4 Bowdoin 19-5 19-5
5 Johnson and Wales 21-2 21-2
6 Eastern Connecticut 17-6 17-6
7 Connecticut College 17-6 17-6
8 Keene State 20-3 20-3
9 Emmanuel 18-6 18-6
10 Williams 17-7 17-7
11 Regis (Mass.) 20-3 20-3
12 Babson 18-5 18-5

South

1 Texas-Tyler 18-1 21-1
2 Guilford 18-3 18-3
3 Lynchburg 19-4 19-4
4 Birmingham-Southern 19-2 20-2
5 Maryville (Tenn.) 19-3 19-3
6 Trinity (Texas) 18-3 20-4
7 Eastern Mennonite 16-6 16-6
8 Austin 16-7 16-7
9 Hendrix 18-5 18-5

West

1 George Fox 22-0 23-0
2 St. Thomas 20-3 20-3
3 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 19-3 19-4
4 Saint Mary’s (Minn.) 19-4 19-4
5 Luther 16-5 18-5
6 Wartburg 16-6 17-6
7 Chapman 17-4 17-6
8 Gustavus Adolphus 17-6 17-6

Regional score reporting forms (including SOS) below:
Atlantic | Central | East | Great Lakes | Mid-Atlantic | Northeast | South | West

First 2016 regional rankings released today

JOL_2532The first NCAA regional rankings have been released this afternoon. Further rankings will follow on Feb. 17 and Feb. 24, along with one on Sunday, Feb. 28, which we do not get to see.

Need to know more about the regional rankings process and what they mean? Need to know more about the NCAA Tournament? Check out our NCAA Tournament FAQ.

The first record is Division III record, followed by overall.
Through games of Sunday, Feb. 7.

The NCAA has updated its data sheets. However, sometimes they disappear so if you really want a copy, you might want to go through and save the PDF files.

Men’s rankings
Atlantic Region – NCAA data sheet

1 Stockton 17-4 17-5
2 Staten Island 17-4 17-5
3 Brooklyn 17-5 17-5
4 New Jersey City 14-7 14-7
5 DeSales 15-5 15-6
6 Rutgers-Newark 16-6 16-6
7 Delaware Valley 14-5 16-5

Central – NCAA data sheet

1 Benedictine  22-0 22-0
2 Augustana  21-1 21-1
3 St. Norbert 18-2 18-2
4 North Central (Ill.) 15-6 16-6
5 Elmhurst 19-3 19-3
6 Aurora 16-4 17-4
7 Chicago 13-6 14-6
8 Carroll 15-4 15-4

East – NCAA data sheet

1 Plattsburgh State 17-3 17-3
2 Rochester 14-5 14-6
3 SUNY Geneseo 14-4 14-5
4 Oswego State 14-6 14-6
5 SUNY Oneonta 13-7 13-7
6 St. John Fisher 15-5 15-5

Great Lakes – NCAA data sheet

1 John Carroll 21-0 21-0
2 Marietta 19-2 19-2
3 Ohio Wesleyan 19-2 19-2
4 Hope 17-1 19-2
5 Alma 16-5 16-5
6 Wooster 15-5 16-5
7 Mount Union 14-5 15-5
8 Hiram 15-5 15-6
9 Trine 14-6 15-6

Mid-Atlantic – NCAA data sheet

1 Christopher Newport 20-1 20-1
2 Susquehanna 16-2 18-2
3 Salisbury 16-5 16-5
4 Catholic 16-5 16-5
5 Franklin and Marshall 18-3 18-3
6 Scranton 15-5 16-5

Northeast – NCAA data sheet

1 Amherst 18-4 18-4
2 Trinity (Conn.) 15-6 16-6
3 Tufts 17-5 17-5
4 Babson 15-5 15-5
5 Wesleyan  18-4 18-4
6 WPI 16-5 16-5
7 Eastern Connecticut 14-7 14-7
8 MIT 16-4 16-4
9 Johnson & Wales  19-1 20-1
10 Southern Vermont 18-3 18-3
11 Nichols 18-3 18-3

South – NCAA data sheet

1 Emory 14-5 15-5
2 Texas Lutheran 17-5 17-5
3 Virginia Wesleyan 15-6 15-6
4 Lynchburg 16-5 16-5
5 LaGrange 12-5 15-6
6 East Texas Baptist 16-4 18-4
7 Roanoke 16-4 17-4
8 N.C. Wesleyan 11-4 15-6

West – NCAA data sheet

1 St. Thomas  19-1 19-1
2 Whitworth 19-1 20-1
3 Whitman 17-3 18-3
4 Concordia-Moorhead 14-6 14-7
5 Bethel  14-6 14-6
6 St. John’s  15-5 16-5
7 Dubuque 12-6 15-6

Women’s

The first record is Division III record, followed by overall record.

Atlantic

1 Stockton 18-4 18-4
2 Rowan 19-3 19-3
3 Montclair State 16-6 16-6
4 DeSales 16-5 16-5
5 Sage 17-4 17-4
6 Gwynedd Mercy 17-4 17-4
7 FDU-Florham 15-5 16-5
8 Manhattanville 14-6 14-6

Central

1 UW-Stevens Point 16-5 16-5
2 Washington U.  16-4 16-4
3 UW-River Falls 16-4 17-4
4 UW-Oshkosh 16-4 17-4
5 UW-Whitewater 16-4 17-4
6 Concordia (Wis.) 17-3 17-4
7 Wheaton (Ill.) 16-5 16-5
8 Westminster (Mo.) 15-2 16-4
9 St. Norbert 16-4 16-4

East

1 Rochester  17-3 17-3
2 New York University 17-3 17-3
3 SUNY Geneseo 14-4 14-5
4 Stevens 15-5 15-5
5 St. John Fisher 17-2 17-3
6 SUNY New Paltz 15-5 15-5
7 Clarkson 17-4 17-4
8 Rochester Tech 17-4 17-4

Great Lakes

1 Thomas More 20-0 20-0
2 Hope 21-0 21-0
3 Ohio Northern 18-3 18-3
4 Denison 19-3 19-3
5 Carnegie Mellon 15-5 15-5
6 Rose-Hulman 16-3 18-3
7 Capital 17-4 17-4
8 Bluffton 17-2 19-2
9 Washington and Jefferson 18-3 18-3

Mid-Atlantic

1 Scranton 21-0 21-0
2 Albright 20-2 20-2
3 Muhlenberg 17-2 17-2
4 Marymount  18-3 18-3
5 Moravian 16-5 16-5
6 Christopher Newport 19-2 19-2
7 Mary Washington 18-3 18-3
8 York (Pa.) 16-5 16-5

Northeast

1 Tufts 20-2 20-2
2 Amherst 21-1 21-1
3 University of New England 18-3 18-3
4 Bowdoin 17-5 17-5
5 Williams 17-5 17-5
6 St. Joseph’s (Maine) 15-4 17-4
7 Johnson & Wales  20-2 20-2
8 Eastern Connecticut  16-5 16-5
9 Keene State 18-3 18-3
10 Regis (Mass.) 18-3 18-3
11 WPI 20-1 20-1
12 Connecticut College 16-5 16-5

South

1 Texas-Tyler 18-1 21-1
2 Guilford 16-3 16-3
3 Maryville (Tenn.) 17-3 17-3
4 Lynchburg 17-4 17-4
5 Trinity (Texas) 16-3 18-4
6 Birmingham-Southern 17-2 18-2
7 Hendrix 16-5 16-5
8 Emory & Henry 15-4 15-5
9 Eastern Mennonite 14-6 14-6

West

1 George Fox 20-0 21-0
2 St. Thomas 18-3 18-3
3 Saint Mary’s (Minn.) 18-3 18-3
4 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 17-3 17-4
5 Luther 14-5 16-5
6 Cal Lutheran 16-3 16-5
7 Loras 14-6 14-7
8 Gustavus Adolphus 15-6 15-6

Regional score reporting forms (including SOS) below:
Atlantic | Central | East | Great Lakes | Mid-Atlantic | Northeast | South | West

post

Recommending ‘no’ vote on some proposed basketball rules

Vines Center

Changing the rules. Will new lines start getting drawn on courts, again?

The NCAA Men’s and Women’s Basketball Rules Committees have recently approved different packages of rule changes as they often do every two years. Some of the rules are needed, some are interesting, and some are perplexing. All of these changes still need approval by the NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel which meets June 8.

The tendency is that changes approved by rules committees don’t all get approved by the oversight panel. I will point out many of the proposals being presented to the oversight panel and tell you why I do or don’t like them especially when it pertains to Division III.

Links:
Men’s changes (from the NCAA)
Women’s changes (from the NCAA)

But first, I wanted to point out the most glaring problem. Both rules committees approved different packages of changes. I understand why each gender has its own rules committees, but in basketball they are clearly not talking to one another. This is a problem.

In sports like lacrosse, the men’s and women’s game are dramatically different. In essence they are two different sports. However, in other sports like soccer the rules are nearly identical. Now those going to lacrosse games have known the difference in the two sports that has existed nearly since the creation of those sports especially as an NCAA sport. So fans of lacrosse don’t get confused by the dramatically different rules and regulations. Those in soccer do expect the sports to be the same and don’t have any trouble watching either game to understand what is happening or what rules are being enforced.

The problem with basketball: the game is intended to be the same for both genders like soccer, but the NCAA rules committees treat their sports like they are lacrosse. It is crazy and has been causing confusion for years especially in a sport that outside of higher-end Division I is played as men and women double-headers.

Many have complained or commented that the sports need to be more similar. Coaches understand that for fans to appreciate the game and understand what is going on during a game, the rules have to be similar. The women’s game added the 10-second backcourt violation two years ago and even adjusted their three-point line to the men’s line. Of course, the fact the women didn’t have a 10-second violation or a different three-point line also speaks to how these committees don’t seem to communicate with one another and pretend the other doesn’t exist.

That has to stop. This sport has to be either treated the same or made completely different. I am a proponent for the being treated the same with the same rules and regulations, though I am completely fine with two different sized basketballs. When fans are watching a game, it is better for them and the sport if they can then turn on another game in a different gender and understand what is going on. Imagine if you showed up to a double-header and one game was played under one set of rules and the other under a completely different set. How long do you think it would take you to fully grasp what was going on?

I could go on and on about this, but let’s move on to the approved recommendations, because that will bring to light even more differences. We start with the men:

Could the arc get bigger. Proposal would expand from 3 to 4 feet.

Could the arc get bigger. Proposal would expand from 3 to 4 feet.

Restricted-area arc:

The rules committee wants to continue reducing the number of collisions at the basket and has decided to follow the NBA and expand the arc under the basket from a three-foot arc to a four-foot arc. I’m not sure if this is good or bad. I do think the arc has helped understand if a defender is truly in a place on the floor they can affectively defend especially in a standing position before an offensive player goes up for a basket. However, I think if they keep fiddling with the rule it will never be something people grasp especially if the size of the arc is just going to change every few years (by the way, FIBA has the international arc at approximately 4.1 feet).

I’m fine with this being adjusted as long as we can leave well enough alone after this. It should also be pointed out that Division I men will go to the new arc this coming season while Division II and Division III will institute the new arc for the 2016-17 season (constantly repainting courts is money lower division schools don’t have laying around in their budgets).

I somewhat endorse.

Pace of Play:

There are a few changes in this category, so let’s break down each:

30-Second Shot Clock:

This one has been a long time in coming. For many people, trying to understand why men’s basketball had the longest shot clock in the entire game (including high school) was perplexing, but it was shrugged off since despite the women’s clock being at 30-seconds they didn’t have a 10-second violation like in the men’s game. I think people thought the two differences evened themselves out. Once the women added the 10-second call and didn’t change their shot clock, more people wondered why the men’s game was so “slow.”

The men’s game has needed to shorten the shot clock for so many different reasons they finally got around to experimenting with it (in last year’s non-NCAA post-seasons) and implementing it. Now there will be more possessions in a game and offenses will need to move quicker. It also allows scoring to increase.

Some have complained that shortening the time will lead to more bad shots, worse shooting percentages, and more turnovers. This is akin to warmongering. Last year’s non-NCAA post-seasons did not prove that as numbers did not go down (they went up in many cases, especially average scoring) and the same was said when the women added the ten-second violation. The change in the women’s game did not equate to dramatically more turnovers or worse shooting.

Here’s the key: these players are coming up from high school where there is already a shorter shot-clock, ten-second violation, etc. They are used to these rules and pace of play already. Furthermore, if a person is rushing to get a shot off with two-seconds left on a 35-second clock… they are still going to rush to get a shot off with two-seconds left on a 30-second clock. The only difference is five seconds of actual game clock haven’t elapsed. And for those who state this will hurt offenses that have long offensive sets – that is the EXACT reason this rule needed to be put in place. Offenses that run plays lasting 20 to 30 seconds are killing the game. And how in the world do these offenses work when the ball goes out of bounds or there is a kicking violation and there is less than 15 seconds remaining on the clock?! They go to a shorter offense. Seems they should go to that offense, period.

I endorse.

Could the number of timeouts change? In some ways, I hope so.

Could the number of timeouts change? In some ways, I hope so.

Timeouts:

I am not sure how these will be adjusted for Division III, but according to the NCAA the proposal is to remove a second-half 30-second timeout for teams (essentially removing one team timeout per game) and strictly enforcing resumption of play after a timeout.

If reducing the number of timeouts in all games in all divisions including non-media games is the plan, I am all for it! There are too many time outs, especially the long-versions. I would love to see the number of 30-second and long timeouts switched so there are maybe four short timeouts and two long ones per game. Too much time is spent on the sidelines especially in media games!

And I would love to see the refs pick up the pace of play in general, but especially after timeouts and for substitutions. The new rules would have the refs warn a team and then one technical foul shot will be given each subsequent time a team is called for taking too much time. Sure, the technical shot will slow things down, but a coach and team aren’t going to want to lose points at the line, so that is going to be work itself out just fine.

Other pace of play rule changes:

  • In media games if a team calls a timeout within 30 seconds of a media break or following the point when a media break would be taken, it becomes a media timeout.
    Great! This will cut down on the number of times the game is stopped for “extra” breaks. (By the way, women added this rule last year to much success.)
  • A coach can no longer call timeout when the ball is in play.
    Perfect! Too many times a coach bails his players out or calls timeout in the course of play. Or worse, the coach tries calling timeout, but because the refs are paying attention to the game they don’t see or hear it. This removes all of those scenarios and puts the game in the player’s hands when the ball is in play. Terrific.
  • Teams get ten seconds… only ten seconds… to advance the ball up to the front court.
    Terrific! There are some exceptions to this (notably a foul on the defense), but overall this is a way of rewarding the defense for good play and not bailing out an offense who are struggling especially if they call timeout.
  • Reduce the amount of time a coach has to replace a disqualified player.
    I would love to see NO time allowed, but I will take this change. Too many coaches either stall or use the time as a free timeout. You can’t tell me a coach isn’t aware of who is on the floor that is in foul trouble (with some exceptions), so to give them time to figure out who they are going to substitute is ridiculous.

All in all, I endorse!

Faking Fouls:

I played soccer throughout my life and in college and nothing drives me more crazy than flopping. If I was fouled and I went to the ground, it was because it was that hard a foul not because I was trying to bait the ref into a call. I consider it a part of sportsmanship and the fact the crap that goes on in soccer has made its way into basketball and gotten worse in the last few years is disheartening.

Now the NCAA is trying to crack down on it. However, the rule reads (according to the NCAA press release): “would allow officials to penalize faking fouls during the use of video to review a possible flagrant foul.” The good news: they can use a review to determine if someone faked a foul or injury. The bad news: it appears they can only do this when determining if a flagrant foul was committed. Other occasions when flopping is taking place isn’t reviewable.

I endorse, kind of – wish it were more aggressive.

 

Other rule change ideas: allowing dunking in pre-game.

Other rule change ideas: allowing dunking in pre-game.

Other changes:

  • Using review to determine if there was a shot clock violation any time during a game.
    Good! The fact this wasn’t reviewable unless late in the second half was difficult to understand.
  • Making Class B technical fouls one-shot fouls.
    I’m okay with that. Picks up the pace of play and doesn’t hurt a team if a questionable hanging on the rim technical is called.
  • Eliminating the five-second closely guarded rule for someone dribbling.
    Eh… I’m not okay with this. I understand this is probably the result of instituting the 30-second shot-clock, but let’s not take something away from the defense who is pushing the issue while still giving the offense the ability to stall by simply dribbling the ball while standing still (or hardly moving) 40-feet from the basket.
  • Removing the prohibition on dunking in pregame warmups.
    I’m not okay with this. It goes to sportsmanship for me. I don’t want to see the pregame turn into a free-for-all I-can-outdo-you scenario. Not to mention the fact, people will regret this rule once a backboard, rim, or stanchion is broken and the game delayed or postponed to get it fixed. Pre-game is to get ready for the game, not for a dunking competition. Leave this rule alone.

 

Experimental Rule – Added Fouls:

If approved, you won’t see this until the 2016 non-NCAA postseason, but they will experiment with six individual fouls per player in the NIT and other tournaments. Not a fan. Leave it at five. It is six in the NBA for entertainment and protection of the stars. We don’t need to be adding another foul in the NCAA.

Now for the women’s rule changes (I’m leaving the most glaring to the end):

 

Courtesy: Transylvania Athletics

Could full court efforts be removed from women’s basketball in last minute of games?

Advancing the ball to midcourt:

The women’s rules committee has recommended teams be allowed to advance the ball to the front court following a timeout in the final minute of regulation or overtime. You know, like they do in the NBA!

So if there is a made basket, a rebound, or a change of possession and a team immediately calls timeout without trying to advance the ball up the court… they can be rewarded by moving the ball 65-plus feet up the court and inbound it from mid-court with no time coming off the clock. You read that right. Teams would be allowed to inbound the ball from the 28-foot mark which is essentially in front of their bench near the scorer’s table. Committee members state it would add more excitement to the end of games.

I say NO! This is a huge reward to a team if they are unable to stop the opponent defensively (made basket) and takes away from the other team’s ability to play solid defense in forcing a team to go the 80-94 feet up the court all while the clock counts down. Is the committee crazy? This is too easy! Sure it adds excitement, but it also would encourage teams to slack off on defense, allow a tying or lead-changing basket, knowing they can just move to within 28 feet of their own basket without any time coming off the clock for a chance to tie or win.

This isn’t the NBA who has the rule in place strictly for entertainment value. I don’t love the rule in the NBA and I am going to HATE it in the women’s game if it’s allowed.

I emphatically do NOT endorse!

 

10-second backcourt time:

Similar to the men, the women are proposing teams not get bailed out of the ten-second backcourt count unless the ball is deflected out of bounds by the defense, is a jump ball call where possession keeps it in the offensive team’s hands, or a technical foul is called on the offensive team.

I like most of this. Again, most of these reward the defense for their hard work while not bailing the offense out for struggling. I do think resetting the 10-seconds because of a jump ball doesn’t do enough to reward the defense. Imagine what it’s going to be like if a team calls timeout with just one second left to get the ball over midcourt and now they have inbound it! That will make for exciting moments in a game!

(Remember, the ten-second violation is based on the shot clock, not a ref’s hand count anymore.)

I endorse.

 

Post-Defense:

The recommendation is that defenders should be allowed to place their forearm or open hand with a bent elbow on an offensive post player who has their back to the basket. Forgive me for thinking that was already the rule! I know two hands can’t be used and pushing off is illegal, but I thought the rules allowed the defense to brace themselves.

I endorse since I thought it was a rule in the first place.

 

Could the college band or DJ be asked to play more music at women's games?

Could the college band or DJ be allowed to play more music at women’s games?

Bands/Amplified Music:

The committee apparently thinks the fans are bored during games and want to allow music to be played during any dead-ball situation. Seriously?! You think playing music more often is going to solve fans being bored at women’s games? Furthermore, any dead-ball situation? That has trouble written all over it. I can imagine situations where the home arena tries to push the limits of the rule and psych out the opponent heading to the line to shoot free-throws – or between free-throws – especially late in a close game. And can you image players starting to ask for “walk-up” music for when they head to the free-throw line? There is nothing good about this rule.

I do NOT endorse!

 

Quarters vs. Halves:

And here is the big one. The women’s committee is recommending the game be broken up into quarters and not halves.

From the NCAA press release:

“The rules committee is very excited about the change to the four-quarter format for the 2015-16 season. We believe this change, along with the associated changes to the timeout and foul rules, will address flow of the game and physicality. The overall format will strengthen the connection of college basketball with women’s basketball globally.”
– Michael Shafer, chair of the NCAA Women’s Basketball Rules Committee and women’s basketball coach at the University of Richmond.

“The game from high school to the professional and international levels will now be using the same four-quarter format, which makes sense globally.”
– Anucha Browne, NCAA vice president, women’s basketball championships

 “The move to four quarters allows women’s collegiate basketball to align with all other levels of play and will be an exciting change for the future of the game. Having also been involved in the game at the Olympic and international levels, it is a positive move to see that all will be playing within the same basic structure going forward.”
 Dru Hancock, chair Division I Women’s Basketball Committee

“As the game becomes more global each year, it’s important that we start the process toward standardizing the rules. This is just the beginning of what I hope are many other changes to improve this great game.”
– Geno Auriemma, University of Connecticut women’s basketball coach

 

On paper, I understand the idea of changing the game to quarters. It is played in quarters from youth through international and professional. The college game is the only one played in halves. I agree with the quotes above that the game needs to be more similar to the global game. For that reason alone, I understand and appreciate the change.

If the women's rules committee gets their way, you won't see scoreboards with these kinds of numbers in the future.

If the women’s rules committee gets their way, you won’t see scoreboards with these kinds of numbers in the future.

To clarify, here are the proposed changes:

  • Four, ten-minute quarters.
  • Teams would reach a two free throw bonus on a fifth foul in each quarter (no one-and-one shots) with fouls resetting each quarter except in overtime (as with current rules).
  • Media timeouts would be reduced to just one per quarter under the five minute mark since there will be a media timeout between each quarter.
  • Media games: each team would have four total timeouts (three 30-seconds and one 60-second) for the game, but one of the 30-second timeouts would have to be used in the first half (similar to current media-game timeout rules).
  • Non-media games: each team would have five total timeouts (three 30-seconds and two 60-seconds) with four of them being carried over to the second half.

 

Again on paper, I have no problems with these changes. It addresses a number of things like too many stoppages in the game. This would actually flip the timeouts to giving more short versions and it would eliminate a media timeout (three for 20 minutes of basketball versus four or even five) and makes fouling a bigger penalty with the two-shot opportunity instead of starting with the one-and-one.

One thing I do see is that rules changes always get put in place considering the TV audience. Of course, that audience isn’t necessarily a factor in Division III or at least media rules aren’t a factor. So by changing the game to make it flow better especially with media in mind is a fool’s errand for just the Division I likes. What about the other 95-percent, as D3sports.com Executive Director Pat Coleman pointed out in a recent tweet, of teams and schools where that isn’t part of the equation?

The problem I have gets back to the beginning: the rule differences in the men’s and women’s game are already frustrating fans; this would just be the icing on the cake!

Making the rules the same makes it easier for the fans to enjoy.

Making the rules the same makes it easier for the fans to enjoy.

Should the game be played in quarters as it is played everywhere else? Why not. But don’t move to quarters unless BOTH genders move in that direction. The men should implement quarters as well. I would be all for it if the men agreed that the pace of the game and such would be better if it were played in ten minute quarters. However, unless they move in that direction and both genders adopt the same rule change, I am completely against this.

Imagine being in an arena or watching games online, especially in the post-season, and seeing the women playing four quarters or watching the men playing halves. You then turn on the other gender’s game or stay to watch the second game of a double-header and all the rules are different. When a team is shooting free-throws and the kind of shots is different. The clock doesn’t start at 20:00 or there is a “3” or “4” under period on the scoreboard. You can’t keep track of how many timeouts each team has been given. It is only going to cause more confusion. I’m a public address announcer for basketball and I am quite sure I am not going to be able to keep all the rule differences straight.

I also don’t agree that the women’s game needs to have gimmicks (because, be honest, quarters is a gimmick if the men aren’t doing the same thing) to get people to watch or appreciate the game more. The fact they want to allow more music to be played in dead-ball situations screams they don’t think the women’s game can solve its problems without throwing in gimmicks. Moving the ball up to midcourt is a gimmick.

Is the women’s game different? Yes, just as women’s soccer is different than men’s soccer. However, it doesn’t mean you need to have completely different rules in place to make it stand out or be appreciated. And don’t pretend those who love men’s basketball are going to all of the sudden fall in love with women’s basketball because of the gimmicks. Or that you will gain more fans of women’s basketball because the rules are different. Those who love NASCAR don’t necessarily appreciate or even like Indy Car or Formula 1 and vice versa. Men’s and women’s basketball are different because of the way the game is played – above the rim; below the rim. It shouldn’t be different because they decided to start playing by different rules… or gimmicks.

 

Final public NCAA regional rankings released

Eian Davis Albertus MagnusThe final public NCAA regional rankings were released Wednesday afternoon. The committees create one more ranking on Sunday, March 1, but do not release it to the public.

Need to know more about the regional rankings process and what they mean? Need to know more about the NCAA Tournament? Check out our NCAA Tournament FAQ.

The second record is Division III record, followed by overall.
Through games of Sunday, Feb. 22.

NCAA Division III men’s basketball championships handbook

Men’s rankings
Atlantic Region – NCAA data sheet
1 Richard Stockton 20-5 20-5
2 William Paterson 19-6 19-6
3 Baruch 19-6 19-6
4 Brooklyn 21-5 21-5
5 Rutgers-Newark 18-8 18-8
6 Sage 20-4 21-4
7 Misericordia 19-6 19-6

Central – NCAA data sheet
1 Augustana 21-4 21-4
2 UW-Whitewater 21-2 22-3
3 UW-Stevens Point 21-4 21-4
4 Washington U. 19-5 19-5
5 St. Norbert 22-1 22-1
6 Illinois Wesleyan 18-7 18-7
7 Elmhurst 19-6 19-6
8 North Central (Ill.) 16-7 18-7

EastNCAA data sheet
1 St. John Fisher 21-4 21-4
2 Plattsburgh State 18-7 18-7
3 Hobart 18-6 18-7
4 Skidmore 17-7 17-7
5 NYU 16-8 16-8
6 Clarkson 18-6 19-6

Great Lakes – NCAA data sheet
1 Marietta 23-2 23-2
2 Ohio Wesleyan 21-4 21-4
3 Wooster 20-5 20-5
4 John Carroll 19-5 19-5
5 Mount Union 19-6 19-6
6 Penn State-Behrend 23-2 23-2
7 Calvin 18-5 19-6
8 St. Vincent 18-6 19-6
9 Hope 16-7 17-8

Mid-Atlantic – NCAA data sheet
1 Johns Hopkins 22-3 22-3
2 Dickinson 20-5 20-5
3 Catholic 21-3 21-4
4 Franklin and Marshall 20-5 20-5
5 Scranton 20-5 20-5
6 St. Mary’s (Md.) 18-4 20-4

Northeast – NCAA data sheet
1 Babson 23-2 23-2
2 Trinity (Conn.) 19-4 20-5
3 Amherst 19-6 19-6
4 Bates 19-6 19-6
5 Eastern Connecticut 21-4 21-4
6 WPI 21-4 21-4
7 Albertus Magnus 24-1 24-1
8 Bowdoin 18-7 18-7
9 Springfield 18-7 18-7
10 Southern Vermont 21-2 22-3
11 Wesleyan 17-8 17-8

South – NCAA data sheet
1 Randolph-Macon 23-2 23-2
2 Emory 19-5 19-5
3 Virginia Wesleyan 20-4 21-4
4 East Texas Baptist 20-5 20-5
5 Centre 19-4 20-4
6 Hardin-Simmons 19-6 19-6
7 Rhodes 18-5 18-6
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 17-8 17-8

West – NCAA data sheet
1 St. Thomas 22-3 22-3
2 St. Olaf 21-4 21-4
3 Buena Vista 18-6 18-7
4 Whitman 19-4 20-5
5 Whitworth 22-3 22-3
6 Dubuque 19-5 20-5
7 Bethel 17-8 17-8

Women’s

The first record is Division III record, followed by overall record.

 

Atlantic
1 Montclair State 24-1 24-1
2 FDU-Florham 24-1 24-1
3 Cabrini 22-3 22-3
4 Richard Stockton 20-5 20-5
5 Eastern 19-4 21-4
6 Baruch 22-4 22-4
7 Brooklyn 19-6 19-6
8 Rowan 16-9 17-9

Central
1 Wheaton (Ill.) 19-3 22-3
2 Washington U. 21-2 22-2
3 North Central (Ill.) 20-4 21-4
4 St. Norbert 20-3 20-3
5 Wisconsin Lutheran 21-4 21-4
6 Chicago 17-6 18-6
7 UW-Oshkosh 18-6 19-6
8 Spalding 18-3 18-3
9 UW-Superior 18-6 18-7

East
1 Geneseo 21-3 21-4
2 New York University 20-4 20-4
3 Ithaca 21-4 21-4
4 Stevens 22-3 22-3
5 St. John Fisher 19-6 19-6
6 Cortland 20-5 20-5
7 St. Lawrence 19-6 19-6

Great Lakes
1 Thomas More 23-0 25-0
2 Calvin 23-0 25-0
3 DePauw 23-1 23-1
4 John Carroll 22-3 22-3
5 Transylvania 23-1 24-1
6 Hope 22-3 22-3
7 Ohio Northern 20-5 20-5
8 St. Vincent 21-4 21-4
9 Baldwin Wallace 19-6 19-6

Mid-Atlantic
1 Scranton 23-2 23-2
2 Salisbury 23-2 23-2
3 Stevenson 21-3 21-3
4 McDaniel 23-2 23-2
5 Muhlenberg 18-7 18-7
6 Albright 19-6 19-6

Northeast
1 Tufts 24-1 24-1
2 Amherst 23-2 23-2
3 Bowdoin 21-3 22-3
4 Williams 20-5 20-5
5 University of New England 20-5 20-5
6 Westfield State 21-4 21-4
7 Mass-Dartmouth 18-7 18-7
8 Springfield 19-6 19-6
9 Roger Williams 19-6 19-6
10 Eastern Connecticut 17-8 17-8
11 Norwich 19-4 21-4
12 Castleton 21-4 21-4
(The NCAA notes the GNAC did not cast a ballot in this week’s ranking.)

South
1 Texas-Tyler 24-1 24-1
2 Eastern Mennonite 21-2 21-3
3 Maryville 23-2 23-2
4 Randolph-Macon 20-3 20-4
5 Texas-Dallas 21-4 21-4
6 Trinity (Texas) 19-5 20-5
7 Lynchburg 17-8 17-8
8 Louisiana College 16-7 16-7
9 Millsaps 18-5 20-5

West
1 George Fox 24-0 25-0
2 St. Thomas 25-0 25-0
3 Puget Sound 20-3 22-3
4 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 21-3 22-3
5 Whitworth 15-4 21-4
6 Luther 18-5 20-5
7 Bethel 20-4 20-5
8 Dubuque 17-8 17-8

Regional score reporting forms (including SOS) below:
Atlantic | Central | East | Great Lakes | Mid-Atlantic | Northeast | South | West

Second regional rankings released Thursday

rmc-giggetts-actionThe second NCAA regional rankings were released Thursday morning. One more ranking will follow on Feb. 25, along with one on Sunday, March 1, which we do not get to see.

If you’ve missed it, the men’s region formerly known as the Midwest was renamed the Central Region this season, and the WIAC was moved into that region from the West. Other conferences moved, primarily between the Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions, for both men and women. Need to know more about the regional rankings process and what they mean? Need to know more about the NCAA Tournament? Check out our NCAA Tournament FAQ.

The second record is Division III record, followed by overall.
Through games of Sunday, Feb. 15.

NCAA Division III men’s basketball championships handbook

Men’s rankings
Atlantic Region – NCAA data sheet

1 Richard Stockton 19-5 19-5
2 William Paterson 19-5 19-5
3 Baruch 18-5 18-5
4 Brooklyn 19-5 19-5
5 Rutgers-Newark 16-8 16-8
6 Sage Colleges 18-4 19-4
7 Staten Island 17-7 17-7

Central – NCAA data sheet

1 Augustana (IL) 20-4 20-4
2 Wis.-Whitewater 19-2 20-3
3 Wis.-Stevens Point 20-4 20-4
4 Washington-St. Louis 17-5 17-5
5 Elmhurst 19-5 19-5
6 St. Norbert 21-1 21-1
7 Ill. Wesleyan 17-7 17-7
8 North Central (IL) 15-7 17-7

East – NCAA data sheet

1 St. John Fisher 20-2 20-2
2 Plattsburgh St. 16-6 16-6
3 NYU 16-6 16-6
4 Hobart 16-6 16-7
5 Skidmore 16-7 16-7
6 Clarkson 17-5 18-5

Great Lakes – NCAA data sheet
1 Marietta 21-2 21-2
2 Ohio Wesleyan 19-4 19-4
3 Wooster 18-5 18-5
4 Mount Union 18-5 18-5
5 John Carroll 17-5 17-5
6 Case 12-6 14-7
7 Calvin 16-5 17-6
8 Penn St.-Behrend 21-2 21-2
9 Hope 14-7 15-8

Mid-Atlantic – NCAA data sheet
1 Johns Hopkins 20-3 20-3
2 Dickinson 19-4 19-4
3 Catholic 20-2 20-3
4 Frank. & Marsh. 19-4 19-4
5 Scranton 18-5 18-5
6 St. Mary’s (MD) 16-4 18-4

Northeast – NCAA data sheet
1 Babson 21-2 21-2
2 Bates 18-5 18-5
3 Trinity (CT) 18-4 19-5
4 Amherst 18-6 18-6
5 Eastern Conn. St. 19-4 19-4
6 WPI 19-4 19-4
7 Bowdoin 17-6 17-6
8 Springfield 16-7 16-7
9 Albertus Magnus 21-1 21-1
10 Rhode Island Col. 16-7 16-7
11 Southern Vt. 19-2 20-3

South – NCAA data sheet
1 Randolph-Macon 21-2 21-2
2 Emory 17-5 17-5
3 East Tex. Baptist 19-4 19-4
4 Va. Wesleyan 18-4 19-4
5 Centre 17-4 18-4
6 Hardin-Simmons 17-6 17-6
7 Louisiana College 13-5 13-9
8 Mary Hardin-Baylor 16-7 16-7

West – NCAA data sheet
1 St. Thomas (MN) 20-2 20-2
2 St. Olaf 20-3 20-3
3 Buena Vista 17-5 17-6
4 Dubuque 18-4 19-4
5 Whitman 17-4 18-5
6 Whitworth 20-3 20-3
7 Chapman 13-3 18-3

Women’s

The first record is in-region record, followed by overall record.

 

Atlantic

1 Montclair State 23-1 23-1
2 FDU-Florham 22-1 22-1
3 Cabrini 21-3 21-3
4 Richard Stockton 20-4 20-4
5 Eastern 17-4 19-4
6 Baruch 19-4 19-4
7 Rowan 16-7 17-7
8 Brooklyn 18-5 18-5

Central

1 Wheaton (Illinois) 18-3 21-3
2 Washington U in St. Louis 19-2 20-2
3 North Central (Illinois) 19-4 20-4
4 St. Norbert 19-3 19-3
5 Wisconsin-Oshkosh 18-4 19-4
6 Wisconsin Lutheran 19-4 19-4
7 Chicago 15-6 16-6
8 Wisconsin-Superior 17-5 17-6
9 Spalding 16-3 16-3

East

1 New York University 20-2 20-2
2 SUNY Geneseo 18-3 18-4
3 Ithaca 19-4 19-4
4 Stevens 19-3 19-3
5 SUNY Cortland 19-4 19-4
6 St. John Fisher 17-5 17-5
7 St. Lawrence 18-5 18-5

Great Lakes

1 Thomas More 21-0 23-0
2 Calvin 20-0 22-0
3 DePauw 22-1 22-1
4 John Carroll 20-3 20-3
5 Hope 21-2 21-2
6 Transylvania 21-1 22-1
7 Saint Vincent 20-3 20-3
8 Baldwin Wallace 18-5 18-5
9 Ohio Northern 18-5 18-5

Mid-Atlantic

1 Salisbury 22-1 22-1
2 Scranton 22-2 22-2
3 Stevenson 20-2 20-2
4 McDaniel 22-1 22-1
5 Muhlenberg 16-6 16-6
6 Albright 17-6 17-6

Northeast

1 Tufts 23-1 23-1
2 Amherst 21-2 21-2
3 Bowdoin 20-3 21-3
4 Williams 19-5 19-5
5 University of New England 19-4 19-4
6 Springfield 18-6 18-6
7 Massachusetts Dartmouth 17-6 17-6
8 Westfield State 19-4 19-4
9 Eastern Connecticut State 15-8 15-8
10 Roger Williams 17-6 17-6
11 Norwich 17-4 19-4
12 Castleton 20-4 20-4

South

1 Texas-Tyler 23-1 23-1
2 Eastern Mennonite 19-2 19-3
3 Randolph-Macon 18-3 18-4
4 Maryville (Tennessee) 21-2 21-2
5 Texas-Dallas 19-4 19-4
6 Lynchburg 16-7 16-7
7 Trinity (Texas) 18-5 19-5
8 Louisiana College 16-5 16-5
9 Piedmont 18-5 18-5

West

1 George Fox 22-0 23-0
2 St. Thomas (Minnesota) 23-0 23-0
3 Whitworth 14-3 20-3
4 Puget Sound 18-3 20-3
5 Luther 17-4 19-4
6 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 19-3 20-3
7 Bethel (Minnesota) 19-3 19-4
8 Whitman 12-6 15-8

Regional score reporting forms (including SOS) below:
Atlantic | Central | East | Great Lakes | Mid-Atlantic | Northeast | South | West