At this writing, we only have about 20% of the 2005-06 Division III basketball schedule posted. We’ve received slightly more than that, but can’t post it because it doesn’t include tournament pairings. (We’ve found it takes significantly more effort to post TBA pairings and change them later, and if we leave the tournament out entirely, there’s a chance the schedule may register as complete and never get finished.)
What all this gets at is how schools decide who they will play in the first round of a tournament it hosts. The prevailing opinion used to be that you should schedule the easiest cupcake possible in the first round to guarantee you get to the championship. (In some fields, it’s hard to discern flavors of cupcake.) However, the recent numerical emphasis on the selection and seeding of the NCAA Tournament field should bring about a shift in this policy. It no longer makes sense to play your weakest opponent in a first-round game, if it’s one that would get you eight points in the Quality of Wins index (formerly SOSI). At-large playoff selections have usually come in at 10.0 or higher in QoW.
Instead, consider this hypothetical field:
You’re a perennial playoff team in a relatively weak conference, hosting a tournament. You’ve got a weak team that is an in-region game, a strong team that is in-region and a better than average team that is out of region. Normally, you’d pick the weak team. But here’s why you shouldn’t.
Take the out of region team. They’re pretty decent, will be a good test but a team you should beat, especially given the long trip. And make your fellow regional contender play the weak team. You should make the final anyway, and you will lower your rival’s QoW in the process by giving them the bad opponent. Your rival will get a regional win, however, which could raise your QoW in the process.
Now, there’s no guarantee you’ll win that title game against the strong regional rival, but you were likely to play them in the final anyway!
In essence, doing something like this means you are playing the No. 3 seed in your tournament instead of the No. 4. If you’re a good team, you can handle that.
So if you’re a coach and you’re still debating your tournament matchups, get it done. We need your schedule.
Astute observations, Pat. But I wonder just how many coaches are actually going to: a) read this and act upon it; or b) figure it out on their own.
Not sure how many coaches will read it either, but with an expanded tournament field and more “at-large” bids I think it will be something that gets consideration.
I can’t even figure it out after reading it.
Here is what I know. I will take any win I can get on the first night of a tournament, because I have a way better shot of winning another off a positive win than off a disappointing loss. Plus, you lose on the first night, noting is saying that the team you thought was the doormat istn a lot better than you thought.
Why not just invite three teams you are sure you can beat? That presupposes that you are not Hiram. 🙂
You can do that, but you risk lowering your QoW in the process. 🙂