.png)
2013 NCAA field announced
Everyone knows, but for posterity’s sake, the NCAA selection committee released the 2013 D-III women’s volleyball tournament field this morning.
The committee and I set a new record for disagreement. The worst disagreement since 2009 was three teams. This year I had five different teams.
No one asked, but here it goes. First the good and indifferent. We didn’t have to take pitchforks and lanterns to Indianapolis — the committee finally separated Calvin and Hope. Awesome, thank you. And that’s from the entirety of the division.
I was about 90 percent sure I was wrong on Bowdoin when I clicked “Publish.” It was a hunch that even I wasn’t sold on. I liked Bowdoin’s peripheral numbers, but in relative terms they were not outstanding. New England is populous, so it stands to reason that teams will play a slight percentage more matches against ranked teams. There are other reasons, but I abide the exclusion of Bowdoin.
I mentioned in the comments that Puget Sound was the last team the make my projections.
On my board that meant DePauw and UT Dallas are in the field instead of Bowdoin and Puget Sound. Not exactly “So far, so good” but “So far, so let’s agree to disagree.” I’ll even concede DePauw for Bowdoin without a quarrel. When I’m wrong, I’m wrong.
Every wording of the new rule said teams must play “at least” 70 percent of their countable competition in-region. Unless one of UC Santa Cruz’s non-D-III matches was an exhibition not denoted on its schedule, then the Banana Slugs played a shade over 69 percent of their matches in-region. Sixty-nine is not “at least” 70. I posted a comment stating that if UCSC is eligible, then it would get the second Pool B. Turns out UCSC was eligible. I genuinely hope it was due to a waiver. Nebraska Wesleyan gets a waiver each year, so other D-III independents could have done likewise. No problem there, but I would like to know whether one or more of the matches were exhibitions, UCSC had a waiver or 69.2 percent is good enough.
That leaves Ohio Northern and UW-Eau Claire. In other words, where I disagree most with the committee.
Ohio Northern beat DePauw. Ohio Northern was above DePauw in all three regional rankings. Since the third Great Lakes ranking, ONU lost to Heidelberg and beat Baldwin Wallace. DePauw lost to Wittenberg and beat Oberlin and Denison. If it means the difference in overtaking another team in the rankings, everyone in the Great Lakes needs to schedule and beat Denison late next year to earn a season split. Either that or, whatever you do, don’t lose to the OAC co-champion — a team that you beat at home in a nonconference match earlier in the year — in the tourney semifinals because you’ll be overtaken by the team that you beat earlier in the year. By the way, the team that you beat also had a lower strength of schedule and played fewer matches against ranked teams while both won two against ranked teams.
The committee could be saying that the Great Lakes rankings had been incorrect this whole time, but I’m not sure why. DePauw is in? Great. DePauw is in and Ohio Northern isn’t? I’m not buying it.
Many of the teams on the pile toward the end were on that pile for a reason. It was going to be a coin flip any way you look at it. I happen to prefer the teams in my projections over the NCAA’s pile-plucking. The criteria are set up to allow discretion. It’s part science, part art. The criteria I chose to value were not the same as the committee’s chosen values. That happens.
Then there’s UW-Eau Claire. No. 2 seed at the WIAC tourney. Played the second-toughest schedule in the Midwest Region — St. Thomas twice, St. Ben’s twice, Elmhurst, Chicago, WUSTL, etc. One of four teams to beat Augsburg. Lost to UW-Whitewater in the WIAC semis. Out of the tourney? The Eau Claire/Whitewater match was possibly a make-or-break for both teams?
I value playing the best teams and winning some of them over racking up 32 wins with a far inferior schedule. What message does the Eau Claire omission send? One possible message I get is to rack up 32 wins.
UWEC needed to win more matches against the area elite to feel safer. That’s a good idea for all teams that don’t secure Pool A bids. However, to my eyes it looks like a win over Edgewood could have been enough for UWEC to get in this year. Beating Edgewood isn’t easy. Ask New Paltz and many others, like Christopher Newport. But Edgewood is one very good area team UW-Eau Claire didn’t fit into its crazy schedule this year.
The committee will never convince me that UWEC should not be playing this week. After years of valuing strength of schedule, I hope this isn’t a mandate to avert risk and schedule as many decent wins as possible.
With that out of my brain and onto a keyboard, I’ll get back to prepping the Regional Guides for the Elmhurst, St. Thomas and Calvin regionals. I hope to have those done tonight. No promises.
-Ricky Nelson
Comments