We know one sectional host so far. Amherst is hosting the men’s sectional: Utica vs. St. John Fisher, Amherst vs. Tufts.
We’ll post the rest as we get them. Meanwhile, if you know where it is documented that a school is hosting a sectional, post it.
47 thoughts on “Who’s hosting sectionals”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The women’s sectionals have been released:
Southern Maine
Pacific Lutheran
Scranton
DePauw
Remaining men’s hosts: Lawrence, Virginia Wesleyan, Wittenberg
I have to expect they split the sessions at Lawrence, as they did at Albion last year, having a separate admission for Illinois Wesleyan/Lawrence after clearing the gym from Puget Sound/Augustana.
i don’t know exactly how the d3 bracketing works, but i was told that the team with the best record gets homecourt advantage all the way until the final four. i was wondering if i was misinformed, because my school (hope college) has a better record and higher ranking than wittenberg, yet our boys have to travel there to play the sweet 16 game. thanks for the help.
It’s a little more complicated than that. Central location is also important. There are a lot of factors that are considered but I must say I’m slightly surprised at the selection of Wittenberg.
Central location may be a factor, but last year teams from Oregon, Texas, and Minnesota traveled to Virginia to play a sectional at Randolph-Macon. This year teams from Virginia, Wisconsin, and Texas are traveling to Washington to play a sectional at Pacific Lutheran. Unless I don’t understand the meaning of “central”, central was clearly not the major factor in either of those decisions. Can you shed any light on the other factors that go into these decisions? If what “dbucks” says in post #4 has any accuracy to it, then Randloph-Macon, which has a better record than Pacific Lutheran, and a higher ranking in both your poll and the coaches poll, sould have gotten the nod if they weren’t going to let Hardin Simmons or UW-Stout host.
Uhm, yeah, but when they’re all flying it doesn’t matter about central location. That’s only important when teams bus. Flying is flying is flying. It wasn’t a central location when Randolph-Macon hosted the sectional last year, either, with teams from the same four areas.
Witt has a higher QOWI than Hope, if that means anything.
I think it just came down to Mississippi College being the highest seed remaining in the bracket, but not really being a feasible location due to travel. Wittenberg being selected indicates to me that the Tigers were the #2 seed.
QOWI/in-region winning % heading into tourney:
Mississippi 11.154/.962
Wittenberg 10.652/.870
Transylvania 10.370/.852
Hope 10.211/.895
The way the bracket was constructed leads me to believe the seeds are:
#1 Mississippi College
#4 Transylvania
#2 Wittenberg
#3 Hope
Thanks. Now I understand that busing vs flying is one of the factors. And your final sentence essentially reiterates my first sentence, and underscores the point I was trying to make.
So it basically sounds like my school (Mississippi College) never has (or will have) a chance to host sectionals … and only because there are not enough other quality D3 teams nearby. If we didn’t earn the right to host this year (27-1 record, 2 tourny blowouts, etc) I don’t know what more we could have done. Could money also play a role in the selection? Do the schools offer a “bid” to NCAA to be able to host?
I wouldn’t say that’s the case, parksfolk. I think Mississippi College would have a chance to host a sectional, considering Pacific Lutheran is doing so on the women’s side and is just as remote. Puget Sound did a couple years ago, though that was also because UW-Stevens Point couldn’t host both men and women at the same time.
In a situation where it’s a West/South sectional I could definitely see Mississippi College hosting.
Help me find and understand the QOWI.
Analysis does show Wittenberg has wins over
Trany, Tufts, Baldwin Wallace, Ohio N. &
Cedarville—all relatively strong teams.
Would that with facility / location = hosting?
Here’s the final QOWI. It ends at the end of the regular season.
http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=2910.msg495246#msg495246
Thanks Pat. Maybe history has something to do with the right-to-host too. We (Mississippi College) are going deeper into the Tourny in recent years, and this is our 2nd straight trip to the Sweet 16. So maybe continuing to improve each year will earn more respect for the program and carry some weight. I did think at a minimum though we did earn a “bye” in Round 1.
Does attendance figure into the calculations at all? Given the NCAA’s hesitation to spend money to move teams around, I’d think that the gate would make a difference, too. As far as I can tell, Wittenberg only drew 2500 for the whole weekend tourney, while Hope drew 3500 each night.
I don’t think you can “buy a sectional” in that way, no.
I understand Virginia Wesleyan had an outstanding season but a “central location” was not thought about for this site. Lincoln had a great season and is much more centrally located for all of the schools. William Paterson will have a 7 1/2 hour bus ride….YIKES!
Lincoln did not file to host the sectionals.
I believe many teams have bused to William Paterson over the years. I’m sure WPU can handle going the other direction. Besides, WPU won the sectional the last time it was in the Tidewater area.
Why would Lincoln not file to host the sectionals? Is there facilities that bad? I don’t think William Paterson deserves to host, but Lincoln would qualify in my opinion. It would be a heck of a lot less driving for the other teams.
I have not been in the facility to judge for myself but the first test passed with, by all accounts, flying colors this weekend. That’s in contrast to reports on other lcoations.
Perhaps they felt hosting a sectional was too optimistic, having never hosted anything before this past weekend. However, frankly, it doesn’t really matter. I believe VWC would have gotten to host regardless.
Pat…you’re talking about “central” locations…How about the Va Wesleyan hosting? They are the strongest rated team of the four teams, but two of the other teams are in commuting distance of Philadelphia and the other is in Northern NJ. It sounds like they will be taking buses in this case, and if not, if they placed the sectional in one of the other sites, then only Va. Wesleyan would have to fly….this way three teams have to fly.
Virginia Wesleyan is within 500 miles of the other three teams. They will not be flying. The NCAA only pays for flights in Division III when teams are more than 500 miles from their destination.
That’s the only standard that counts — still, like I said above. If everyone can bus to every other possible host, then central location isn’t an issue.
When it came down to Amherst and Fisher hosting this weekend. Was it a clear and obvious choice to have it at Amherst even though there are 2 Massachusetts teams and 2 NY teams?
Pardon me for asking an honest question (see above re: attendance). I wasn’t suggesting that anyone ‘buy’ a sectional. I asked if attendance was a consideration – as it clearly is given others’ questions about facility capabilities, etc. Given the difficulty of comparing teams across regions, etc., it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask if the NCAA has an interest in people actually coming to see the teams play. In a section where the highest ‘qowi’ team isn’t given the tourney (presumably because of cost), then saying that revenue is illegitimate as a factor seems a bit hypocritical.
SDW, in the case of Hope/Wittenberg the higher QOWI team did get the sectional, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Fisheralum, great question, and I’m not sure. I know LeFrak seats more than St. John Fisher does, so that may have been a consideration, but I’m sure that since all teams are within 500 miles of each other that the highest seed was chosen.
The NCAA could eliminate all this confusion by simply releasing its seeds for the bracket but from what I have heard, the reason they don’t do it is to avoid questions from schools not selected to host.
I think it only creates more questions.
Alas, must respectfully disagree with Mr. Coleman’s attempts to apply common sense to the D3’s hosting selection process, especially his assertion that it’s only “a little more complicated than that”. Here’s benighted “dbuck23” thinking home-court advantage should go to teams with the best records. Where’s the fun in a process as open, straight and simple as that?
How much more witty it is when their decision disadvantages the more deserving teams like they did in the first round by sending 1st-place SCIAC team, Clarement-Mudd-Scripps to their doom on 2nd-place Occidental’s home-court. A jocular observer of this madcap event has posted here, “Dem’s the Breaks!”.
Only problem with taking this philosophical attitude to slapstick selections is that the domino effect then might come into play, such as when Occidental lost Saturday at Puget-Sound by only 6. So now we’ll never know 1)whether the SCIAC’s best team could have progressed another round or two and 2) how deserving a winner Puget-Sound is compared with other teams who they might play next round.
Ah, where have you gone Jerry Lewis? Our D3 hosting selection process turns it’s lonely eyes to you?
Occidental 9.750 12-4
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 9.400 15-5
Same record, higher QOWI got to host.
Attendance is not a consideration as long as the facility meets the minimum facility requirements laid out by the NCAA.
Lawrence only seats about 1,200 or so…the smallest of the four teams in their sectional.
A couple points to keep in mind…
1. Not all schools apply to host sectionals.
2. Not all schools can staff a sectional. Recognize that it takes a huge staff to get the job done. I was at Baruch this weekend and you are looking at about 30 people or so to be in NYC on Friday and Saturday night to pull off the sectional. It happened…but Baruch knew they couldn’t do it 2 weeks in a row and didn’t file to host a sectional (which had to be done before they knew they wouldn’t be in it).
thanks Pat, That would be the easiest way to do things. But that takes the fun out of us contemplating who should be hosting a 4 team tournament to get to the Final 4. Everyone would probably agree with me on that point
Pat, do you honestly believe that a 10-4 SCIAC second place team deserves homecourt advantage over a 13-1 first place team? How very droll!
FScott,
What Pat was trying to show you is that the QOWI and in-region record are the determining factors at this point. Conference standings do not factor in. These are the rules that everyone (at least the coaches and AD’s) are aware of at throughout the season. It’s not “breaks,” it’s the numbers.
Exactly. Unless you’ve been halfway around the world, you should be aware of the factors involved.
WPU’s bus ride is on about six hours maybe six and a half if take Rt. 13 down the Eastern Shore. Seven and a half or eight if they take 95. I used to make that drive almost every weekend when I was in the Navy.
Sorry, had to go out and didn’t respond straight away to Joe and Pat, neither of whom dealt with the substance of the issue I raised. Doubtless, Pat Coleman doesn’t mean to misrepresent others’ posts, such as sdw’s issue about the use of attendance figures (posts 16 and 25). Sdw got miffed and left, but I’m okay with Pat’s stuff because he generates interesting and amusing discussions.
Back to my issue, anyone around the world who listened online to Occidental’s excellent commentators was made aware how the QOWI rule required awarding the home-court advantage to the SCIAC’s 2nd-place team, Occidental, over 1st-place Claremont-Mudd-Scrips. My criticism was made in hopes the NCAA might stop ignoring the damage to their credibility caused by, presumably, an unintended injustice in the application of this rule. It goes in the same basket as Pat’s valid criticism of the NCAA’s refusal to release their bracket seeds and “eliminate all this confusion”.
Surely, it wouldn’t be onerous for the NCAA to amend the QOWI rule so that teams in this unfortunate predicament would play on a neutral court. As long as clearly unfair outcomes (and their domino impacts up the line)continue to go unrectified, how can we maintain confidence in the NCAA’s ability to make their host selections with sound criteria, free from organizational politics?
FScott,
The NCAA is always looking for ways to improve things, believe it or not, and there will be revisions to the system in the future. For right now, the numbers that matter fell in Occidental’s favor.
fscott, please go to the Men’s Multi-region board, find and consider the “greater inequity” and vote.
Could somebody please explain to me why Southern Maine and Scranton host Sectionals and even the first and second rounds more often than anybody else? Yes regular season success has something to do with it, but are they the only ones in their regions fit to host?
As far as best record is concern, WashU didn’t host in 1999, and have only hosted in 2000 to my recollection.
Ehh, fscott, I don’t see it as a clearly unfair outcome. Perhaps CMS should have beaten Chapman either of the time they played and they wouldn’t have been in that predicament.
Scranton and USM are now hosting back to back years and that’s a bit of a surprise. In the past the women’s committee has seemed to rotate sites more.
In the case of Southern Maine, it’s actually the Atlantic’s turn to host, but Mary Washington, the lone Atlantic team, does not have a sufficient facility. Place seats 650 on a good day. Bridgewater’s campus is on break this week so it did not file to host. Bowdoin has a sufficient facility but Southern Maine is the higher seed, so there we are.
Can’t really tell you why Wash U hasn’t hosted more. It used to be an absolute rotation between regions, which is why they didn’t host in 1999 and probably why in 2001. In 2002 they didn’t qualify for the sectionals.
I didn’t get miffed so much as decided that pursuing the issue wasn’t getting me anywhere.
Anyway, I’ve got another question. It makes sense to me to use regional records when placing teams in the first round, but has any thought been given to using a full-season qowi for seeding sectionals?
In some cases, location must matter more than the numbers. Mississippi College is the higher seed, has a better record, higher QOWI, and larger seating capacity than Wittenberg … yet Wittenberg is the host. Will either Hope or Transylvania bus to Wittenberg, or will all 3 teams be flying?
Hope and Transylvania are easily within 500 miles of Wittenberg, so only MC will be flying. That’s why it’s there — if all three teams were flying anyway then they would likely put it at MC.
sdw, I would love to see full-season QOWI used in all instances, frankly. But the overarching Division III philosophy is to emphasize regional play and it is difficult to get away from that.
I have to say that the QOWI is a great way to seed teams in D3 because no one has seen all the teams. There is no other way to quantify how good a team is. However, the entire body of work of a team should be used, not just in region. I understand that D3 presidents want the emphasis on in region so that it is more attractive to the coaches to stay close to home. focus on academics, etc. But for teams on the edge of a region, it is sometimes easier and more advantagious to play schools from the next region. For example, it is easier and closer for Hope and Calvin to schedule more competitive Illinois and Wisconsin schools than traveling to Columbus to play those schools.
As long as the in region QOWI is in place, it will be difficult for teams from conferences like the MIAA ( 3 teams in the top 15, the rest bad) to ever get a chance because they are forced to play teams that bring down their power numbers 2 times each season. Using the whole body of work would solve that problem. But, I guess you have to convince the preidents of that. GOOD LUCK!!
That is why people think opponents opponents records should figure into the QOWI or whatever the next version of it is called. It would be nice if the NCAA could rotate the hosting regions as they do with the women to eliminate a lot of these questions. Or the other possibility that I have thought of a few times is reseeding after the regionals for the purpose of determining more balanced sectionals.
Ralph, I appreciate your steering me over to your “greater inequity” thread, which seems a more suitable forum for issues I’m concerned about.
To those in here, thanks for your informative posts and good luck with your bracketology. It’s been fun.
Considering Wash U this year, their radio broadcast was announcing during the game v. Carroll when the seniors walked off the court that it would be the last time they got applause at the WU Field House because they weren’t going to be home for sectionals.
This implies to me that possibly, they didn’t bid this year. This weekend is the first weekend of Spring Break at WU.
I am sure that they still put in a bid. Because of the amount of community support (especially the retired and alumni), there is no reason that Wash U. wouldn’t have put in a bid. In all common sense, why would they want to play Hope and possibly Depauw at Depauw? Student section or no student section, I am sure Wash U put in a bid. The radio broadcaster probably just correctly assumed that Depauw would be hosting.