.png)
How Tournament Selection Works
This is the longest I’ve spent on a topic before publishing an article. Sure, laziness played a huge role in that but getting coaches to talk about this subject was the real problem. I have no idea why there is pushback from the NCAA to reveal how the selection process works, but it was there. Now, maybe it was a perceived pushback from the coaches but there is a force out there that doesn’t want this information distributed. Did I put my life at risk to get this information published? That’s not for me to say. I’ll leave that to the other heroes that have done what I have done to answer that question.
In the end, I did talk to a number of coaches. These were both active and retired coaches that had been or are currently Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) members. A couple had been RAC Chairs so they had participated as part of the National Selection Committee. Some of the information in this article was taken from forums and past discussions with people in the know. I thank all of them for this information. It should be pointed out at the top that each RAC could operate slightly differently and over time there have been changes to the criteria and the approach taken when it comes to selection. I tried to capture what I heard but what is written here is not 100% to all RACs or even a single RAC, but it’s the best I could put together.
My goal with this article is to explain the selection criteria (1), the Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) process using these criteria (2) and the National Selection Committee process (3). Basically, how do teams get selected as an at-large and how does the NCAA create the NCAA Tournament bracket.
Let’s get the boring stuff out of the way as I point you to the selection criteria. The selection criteria can be found in the Pre-Championship Manual, which can be found through my FAQ page or you can just go here (2022 version). Here is the exact wording from that manual when dealing with the selection criteria:
PRIMARY CRITERIA
The primary criteria emphasize Division III competition (all contests leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order).
Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents.
Division III head-to-head competition.
Results versus common Division III opponents.
Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the final ranking and the ranking preceding the final ranking.
Conference postseason contests are included.
Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and selections.
Division III strength of schedule.
Opponents’ Winning Percentage (OWP).
Opponents’ Opponents’ Winning Percentage (OOWP).
See Appendix C for an explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations. Strength of schedule will be weighted 2/3 OWP and 1/3 OOWP.
SECONDARY CRITERIA
If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against opponents from other classifications (i.e., NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
Non-Division III won-lost percentage.
Results versus common non-Division III opponents.
Won-lost percentage during the last 25% of the season.
Division III nonconference strength of schedule.
Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by the Division III Women’s Volleyball Committee. Coaches’ polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not used by the Women’s Volleyball Committee for ranking or selection purposes.
1. Selection Criteria
Let’s skip secondary criteria for a moment and focus on the primary criteria. I will refer to them as Record, Head-to-Head (H2H), Common Opponent, Ranked Results and Strength of Schedule (SOS).
“Not listed in priority order”
Before I get into the criteria, this is a line from above that is really kind of important. By saying the following criteria is not listed in priority order means that there is a priority order that the NCAA doesn’t want us to know about, but is that really the case? In talking with my coaches, I don’t believe there is an official list of criteria by priority. With that said, SOS is most often mentioned as having the highest priority but it gets tricky in the application. At this point in the article, just come away with the knowledge that there is a general feeling of ease when a team has a good to high SOS number. From a practical standpoint, however, we just need to look at the 2021 at-large selections and the choice of Ithaca who really only had SOS in their favor but still got a spot in the tournament. No other criteria would have elevated a team into the tournament over more deserving teams, in my opinion. I will also say, from what I’ve heard, that if a RAC elevates a criterion higher than the others that they will be consistent with that throughout their choices. That’s not to say that just because one RAC does it that all of the RACs will also do this. They are independent bodies with no real knowledge of the inner workings of another RAC. With that said, the RAC Chairs know what was done in their regional meetings and do discuss it during the national meeting. In that way, they do have an opportunity to “correct” a RAC that maybe doing something on their own.
Record
Record is pretty obvious and it reflects what the manual says exactly. When comparing two teams, the best record wins (to a point). One thing I learned recently is that there is a tolerance used with record for teams that are very close. In other words, a team that is 20-3 will be considered the same as a team that is 19-3. One tolerance I heard was in the 0.015 range, which is not very large. For instance, a team with a 26-4 record would get the “win” over a team with a 25-5 record.
In summary, this criterion is about the numbers (or I guess I should say “percentages”) with no thought to the quality of the wins/losses. I will say that this criterion is one of the three main one’s used when it comes to national selection because common opponent and head-to-head don’t often occur with teams out of region. One thing to note is that this criterion, like the others, deal with DIII opponents only. It also doesn’t include results against DIII opponents who are in their first two years of reclassification.
Another easy one. When two teams being compared played each other, the winner gets an advantage due to this criterion. You can see how this criterion doesn’t really come into play during national selection but it’s a big one during regional rankings. As I understand it, you don’t get any more bonus points for beating your opponent multiple times. I did ask about splits like 2-1 and how that would be handled. What I heard back was that the team with the two wins will take this criterion but there could be some discussion if these two teams end up tied (or very close) after the RAC’s evaluation. For instance, we saw this past season that Colorado College beat Southwestern twice but Southwestern won their last match in their conference semifinals. Colorado College should have received the “win” for this criterion, but if the RAC thought these two teams were very close after looking at all of the criteria they may have gone back and given Southwestern the edge because of that later win. (I’m not saying that happened because Southwestern was regionally ranked higher than Colorado College. I’m just using an example I’m aware of where this type of argument could have occurred.) I also didn’t get an indication from anyone I spoke to that where the matches were played or how long the matches went (3-sets versus 5-sets, for instance) played a role in this criterion.
Common Opponent
This criterion is another one that doesn’t really come into play often during national selection but there is more of a chance than head-to-head. This criterion judges how one team did versus the other against the same opponents. One important discussion point about this criterion is how its worded. It doesn’t say “percentage” like it does in record but, rather, “results”. Regardless, the people I discussed this with indicated that percentage wins out in this criterion. I also didn’t get an indication that there is a tolerance given with this criterion. (To be clear, tolerances were mentioned in record, SOS and non-conference schedule SOS, which is a secondary criterion.) I personally feel that this criterion is being used incorrectly and that it should reflect results and not percentage but I understand why percentage is used (more on this later). I guess a hypothetical for you to ponder is would you favor a team with a win over Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (a top team) but a loss by Texas Lutheran (a good team) over a team with a loss to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps but a win over Texas Lutheran? Or are they equal like the RACs would consider this hypothetical? I always seem to favor the team that has an outstanding win because they have shown they can compete at the highest level. Like head-to-head, there was no indication that where the matches were played or when in the season they were played mattered.
I can certainly see why percentage is used in region (because you have a number of results to shift through) but I struggle more with national selection. In national selection, you’ll be lucky to have a few common opponent results if the teams are not from regions near each other. I think a deep dive into the results would be beneficial as opposed to a strict percentage wins the criterion approach.
Another random note – I did see on a chat board once, from a coach that had served on a RAC in the past, that common opponent isn’t really respected in the same manner as the other criteria. I didn’t get that feeling from the coaches I talked to.
Ranked Results
Despite what I’ve said about SOS (and what I will say shortly), I believe Ranked Results is the most important selection criteria when it comes to the national selection. Typically, most comparisons done at the national level involve only Record, SOS and Ranked Results. It’s also very common that Record and SOS cancel each other out leaving only this criterion left for over 75% of the comparisons made at the national level. (75% was pulled out of my…uh…it was a guess but a very conservative one.) This criterion is also the most polarizing selection criterion we have. When I read the wording of this criterion it means that the RAC and national selection committee should examine the “results” against regionally ranked opponents. It opens the door to all kinds of things like where the matches were played, when they were played, where are the opponents ranked and how many sets were needed in the match. Heck, I feel it even opens up the concept of bad losses. (A “bad loss” is one that occurs against an opponent that is not regionally ranked.) I mean, if I’m looking at a team with a 20-10 record and a 4-4 Ranked Results “record” do I favor them over a team that is 20-10 with a 4-10 Ranked Results “record”? If you go by percentage, you would (0.500 is better than 0.286), but if you look at the results then maybe you wouldn’t. The second team only lost to regionally ranked teams while the first team had 6 losses to unranked teams (or bad losses). Deserves a deeper look, right?
One interesting note about Ranked Results is that it is always presented as a percentage by the NCAA. In talking with RAC members that have served regionally, in almost all comparisons, percentage is used when it comes to Ranked Results! “Results” are only considered when this criterion is close. So (another hypothetical), a team that is 4-4 in Ranked Results will win a comparison against a 2-8 team regionally. Even if the 4-4 team had 6 bad losses. Even if the 4-4 team only played teams that were not highly ranked. Even if the 2-8 only played the #1 regionally ranked team from each region and had no bad losses. It doesn’t make sense, right? I can spit out a number of hypotheticals like this.
In talking with one coach who was a RAC Chair over a decade ago, he said that they would look at results and not percentage but he felt that this had change over time and it’s now more about the percentage or numbers. He went on about how “back in the day” this process wasn’t about making friends. One story he communicated was about a coach complaining during the national selection call that a team under consideration had come to their region and lost to four teams that were not regionally ranked. The coach said that team sucked. The coach of the team “that sucked” was on the call. This coach telling the story thought that the process had become too sterile and really about the numbers now.
I do believe, based on my conversations, that the RACs are pretty numbers oriented with this criterion. I also think that the National Selection Committee is more likely to look at the entire picture because they don’t have a lot to compare teams with when you get to that point.
Strength of Schedule
The granddaddy of the selection criteria and one of the main three when it comes to national selection. The SOS is calculated differently than a normal SOS number. The NCAA uses a formula that factors in your opponents’ records (not including your match) and your opponent’s opponents’ records. There is a tolerance used when it comes to comparing SOS numbers between teams. I’ve heard as low as 0.004 to as high as 0.015 in the past. (One coach thought it could have been as high as 0.025.) I was told that the tolerances are given by the NCAA. One thing the coaches didn’t agree with, so I don’t know the real story here, is whether the tolerances are identical for each region. I was told they are and I was told they are not. I’ve also heard they are calculated through some six-sigma voodoo (“voodoo” is my word). Not much more to say about such an important criterion, except that it does seep into the other criteria. A better SOS probably means a worse record. It also means you probably have more head-to-head matches against other regionally ranked teams. It also means you have probably had more Ranked Results matches. If a team with a high SOS is being considered for an at-large bid and has a good to great record, they are a hard team to deny on selection day.
Scorecard
Before I get into the Secondary Criteria, I think there are more topics to cover that go into the evaluation process. One of the more controversial topics is the scorecard. We have 5 selection criteria so how do we handle the “winners” of each criterion? The answer is the scorecard where you basically check off the winner for each criterion and add up how many, out of the five, that a team won. I’m not saying that there is an official or even real scorecard for this process, but I am saying that I heard from multiple coaches that this is how the comparisons are handled. Team A has 3 criteria and Team B has 2 then Team A is ranked higher than B.
Why this is controversial to me is that I think the entire picture needs to be looked at as a whole instead of using a straight scorecard or numbering system. Just because a team “wins” more criteria doesn’t mean they are the better choice. One reason is that each region is created differently and are separated from other regions differently. The more regions within a diameter, the more choices a team has to schedule and the more creative they can get with gaining a higher SOS. We also have regions that are just plain bad on a whole (yes, I’m talking about the two New York Regions – III and IV). The programs in these regions typically are not doing what they can to “earn” an at-large bid, but the NCAA seems to consider each region the same and this is where the scorecard can lead to unworthy teams getting at-large bids.
I’m fine with a scorecard being used, actually, because the RAC members don’t have an infinite amount of time to do this job and this simplifies the process but I think there needs to be a sanity check at the end. If you get done and say Team A is better per the criteria than B but you are pretty confident Team B is actually the better team if they played, than more work is needed. Maybe you end up with Team A at the end, but you’ve looked deeper and probably feel better about Team A after this additional work.
Sanity Check
Speaking of sanity check, there is a check placed on the RAC regional rankings. The NCAA Selection Committee has to approve the rankings from each region. If they don’t believe the process (or criteria) were followed correctly then they can return the results to the RAC to be redone. Or, they can simply change them. As I mentioned under “Priority Order”, the RAC Chair can go back and advise the members if that RAC was doing something different from the others. In this way, the RACs can be processing the data in the same way even though they operate independently.
Now the sanity check I was referring to above (Team A and Team B) was more of which team do you really think would win if they played on a neutral court. What I heard from one coach is that this type of check is more likely to happen on a national level and was part of the discussion “back in the day”. The coach that mentioned this said he believed that today there is less of that type of discussion.
Secondary Criteria
I don’t want to dive too deep on the secondary criteria. You need to know it exists and that it is supposed to be used to break ties with the primary criteria. The coaches I talked to said that it has been used. There are currently four criteria with two involving matches against non-DIII teams. The other two are Won-lost percentage during the last 25% of the season and DIII non-conference SOS. What’s interesting about the 25% rule is that it’s been a primary criterion in the past and even been removed as a criterion all together. I would hope that these last two would be the ones used and maybe they add value if everything is too close to call. I don’t feel that non-DIII competition is worthy of the criteria. The teams are vastly different and most schools don’t play those teams. How do you compare teams across different levels of play and would you really penalize a team that played a pure DIII schedule if they are locked in a tie with a team that did?
(Update 10/31/23) I had a recent email exchange with a coach that has served on a number of RACs in the past and was on a RAC within the last few years. They said that “secondary criteria is used more than you would think”. They went on to say that really only Last 25% and DIII non-conference SOS are used. The non-DIII secondary criteria has been used in the past but more in the distant past. They indicated that it was used to split teams that were very close to each other. I’m still of the mind that you can split teams by fully looking at the Ranked Results and understanding the level of competition they played, but I also have no issues use these two secondary criteria when needed.
2. RAC Process
We’ve covered the primary and secondary criteria and touched on how the RACs use this data but I also want to dive into the process a bit more. If you want the dry information, then you can go HERE for the NCAA document that covers their expectations from the position.
First off, the RACs consist of a person from each member conference in the region. They serve a term of 3-years. Leading the RAC is the RAC Chair who is also from one of the conferences and will be a member of the National Selection Committee. They do not vote or rank during the RAC process. The members (and RAC Chair) are typically coaches but they can also be Athletic Directors or (more commonly) Assistant Athletic Directors. Other positions can also be a RAC member and there are rules about how many coaches can serve at one time. Each region has their own RAC that deal with only the teams in their region.
This year (2022), the first Regional Rankings will be published October 19th. The RAC will actually start their work the week before with a practice or mock ranking that isn’t published. Prior to each meeting, the members are supposed to review the championship data in the NCAA score reporting system. Each member will then create their own idea of what the rankings will be with their justification. They will compare the teams in their region against the selection criteria, which we documented above. There will then be a call run by the RAC Chair where each member will go through the rankings and debate the teams. There is typically a blind vote following the discussion on the order. The final order will then be presented to the Selection Committee by the RAC Chair.
It’s not really that important how the meeting is conducted or how the rankings get ironed out, but there are a couple of things I wanted to touch on.
Results versus Percentage
I mentioned above that the Record criterion specifically uses the term “percentage” while the Common Opponent and Ranked Results uses the term “results”. I believe “back in the day” this meant something while today it does not or very little. “Percentage” means you use the number. Maybe there is a tolerance involved but this, for the most part, is an easy comparison. “Results” means you look at the makeup of the wins and losses and that not every win or loss is the same because the teams they played were different. When you use numbers, you can put yourself in position to take a team over another when it’s obvious to the eye that the opposite should occur.
Hypothetical:
Team A: 25-3, 0.600 SOS and 6-3 Ranked Record Team B: 20-8, 0.580 SOS and 4-6 Ranked Record
If we use the numbers, Team A is the obvious choice. If we look deeper then we may find that Team A plays in a weak region surrounded by other regions that are not that good. They have built their record by playing top teams from conferences that are not that good. Their SOS is good because those teams have decent records. Their ranked wins are from teams that are ranked near the bottom of these not so good regions. Team B is from one of the best regions in the nation. They have wins against some of the top teams in the nation and their losses are to top teams. Their two unranked losses are to teams that would easily be ranked in Team A’s region. At the end of the day, when you look at these two teams, you know that Team B would win rather easily. Which team is now the pick? It’s still Team A unless we use “results”.
The reason I wanted to bring this up under the RAC Process is because it’s up to the RAC members and RAC Chairs how they want to evaluate these criteria. The Pre-Championship Manual (Section 10-1) states, “The Division III championships philosophy is to field the most competitive teams possible while minimizing missed class time; to emphasize regional competition in regular-season scheduling; and to provide representation in NCAA championship competition by allocating berths to eligible conferences, independent institutions and a limited number of at-large teams, realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving out some championship-caliber teams.” The at-large selections are the method to “field the most competitive teams possible” realizing that the number is limited by the conference bids and the independent institutions. If the charter is to put your best teams in ranked order so that we get the best teams into the NCAA Tournament then it’s mandatory, in my opinion, to look at results as opposed to numbers. Again, in talks with my coaches, this occurred in the past more than it occurs today and when it occurs today it’s usually to separate two teams that are close together in the rankings. I have heard that the Selection Committee will use results more because there is less data to go by. (I think I’ve restated this point a number of times now…sorry.)
RPI & Team Sheets
One thing that has come up over the past few years is the use of RPI and team sheets. RPI is Ratings Power Index and consists of a team’s winning percentage, the opponent’s winning percentage and the winning percentage of the opponents that played the opponent. Team sheets are the way the RPI results are distributed and will also include information like the last 10 results for each team. My understanding is that this information is used to help in constructing the rankings, but it should be noted that this information is not selection criteria. One major problem with this is that RPI (specifically) really duplicates the SOS selection criterion. If you are using both pieces of information to evaluate a team then you are essentially making SOS more important than the other criteria. I can understand using this data to look deeper into the Ranked “Results” and the Common Opponent “Results”, but I fear this information may be being used incorrectly for the simple reason that the RACs today don’t really look at “results” (as I just discussed).
I did have one coach say that they would use this data when there were ties, but again, they are duplicating the SOS selection criterion. In the past, I’ve heard a coach complain that using this data caused them problems because they would fail the Selection Committee sanity check.
Other Stuff
I will sometimes talk about signature wins or bad losses but these don’t exist by themselves in the criteria. A signature win is a win against a really strong team. Maybe one that you feel could win the national championship. By beating this type of team, you are saying that this team is also capable of playing at the level. If we are trying to get the best teams possible into the tournament then this should be a pretty big selling point for a team. Signature wins are considered when it comes to Ranked Results, but if RACs are only looking at percentages then it won’t come into play. Bad losses are simply losses to teams that are not regionally ranked. Obviously, some of these are not bad losses when you talk about the really good and deep regions (like Region VIII in 2022). Still, bad losses are only considered in Record. And only as a means to lower the winning percentage. That’s it.
3. National Selection Committee
We’ve touched on this committee and their makeup but you should also know that there is NCAA representation in this committee. The intent is for experienced people who have been through the process to help the committee stay on task and to ensure the criteria is used properly. Jan Gentry was typically this representative before retiring last year (2021). To revisit, each regional RAC Chair sits on the committee. With the realignment last year in regions, we now have 10 members plus a National Chair in addition to the NCAA representative. Their job is to ensure that the regional rankings are done correctly and then on selection eve or even selection eve eve, get together to start determining who is in the NCAA Tournament. There are three classifications of bids; Pool A, Pool B and Pool C. Pool A is your conference automatic qualifier. It’s the team that wins the conference tournament or, in the case of the NWC, who wins the regular season. Pool B are for independent teams when there are enough to warrant a bid. With the creation of the Collegiate Conference of the South (CCS), which was split off from the USA South Conference, we will have a Pool B bid in 2022. This is because the CCS doesn’t have an automatic qualifier as it takes a few years for this to be approved by the NCAA. Pool C are the at-large bids and go to the best teams that did not get a Pool A or Pool B bid.
Pool A bids are easy. Who won the conference. The Selection Committee will then determine the Pool B bid(s) by using the criteria to compare all of the independents. It’s important to remember that whomever wins the CCS Tournament isn’t automatically going to the tournament. The big work for the committee is the Pool C bids.
Each RAC Chair will have their regional rankings and they will remove the teams that received Pool A or Pool B bids. They will then nominate the top team remaining from their rankings to the committee. With 10 regions, there will be 10 teams compared using the selection criteria. As I mentioned previously, this typically comes down to Record, SOS and Ranked Results because Head-to-Head and Common Opponents aren’t that common across regions. After the comparisons are done, a team will be selected and granted a Pool C bid. That region will remove the team from their list and elevate the next team from their rankings that will then be nominated against the nine that didn’t get in. This process will be repeated until all of the Pool C bids are handed out. It’s important to know that just because you are a top team in one region doesn’t mean you are guaranteed to get a Pool C bid. It should also be pointed out that RACs can rank more than 7 teams but they will not be published. For the deeper regions, once all of their teams are removed from their list of 7, they would continue to nominate teams from this extended list.
At the end of the selection process, all of the Pool C bids will be filled and the NCAA will have their 64 teams. At this point, the committee will need to determine the regional hosts, the schools that go to each regional and the seeding.
One question I asked all coaches was whether flights or distance played a role in rankings and seedings. We know that the NCAA allocates around 6 flights to filling out the brackets, but is this considered when teams are being considered. In every case, I was told that flights are never considered until it’s time to put teams in brackets. One coach did say that they have heard it is discussed in other sports but no one knew of it happening in volleyball.
Changing the Rankings
One really important aspect of the Pool C work is that the RAC Chairs can change their rankings at any time. I didn’t realize this until talking to coaches that had served as a Chair. One coach that I talked to mentioned a case that happened while he was a Chair. He had worked for 17 or 18 rounds to get his highest ranked team into the tournament but was having no luck. At some point, Jan Gentry asked him if he wanted to make any changes to his rankings. At that point, he took the next highest team and nominated them instead of the team that had failed to get chosen. That team was selected as they had criteria that worked nationally but obviously didn’t work regionally. He then went back to fighting for the other team to no avail. This obviously caused some confusion with the two teams because they knew the rankings going into the selection. This coach then went on to say that he thought that is what happened in 2014 when Colorado College was selected over Southwestern even though they were ranked behind them. That year, CC had better criteria (nationally) but had lost to Southwestern three times and was ranked behind them regionally. I had never heard that this was the case that year and I’m actually pleased that the RAC Chairs have this ability. I often advocate that RACs break ties by putting their best national candidate ahead of the other team. It’s good to know that the RAC Chairs have this ability even though the rankings won’t reflect it.
Host Schools
The NCAA will solicit bids from schools to host regionals. Schools can also submit bids unsolicited. There is a process to follow but obviously the NCAA wants to get schools from each region and even multiple schools for some regions.
The Selection Committee will then choose the host schools based on how the teams finished (highest seeds are preferred) but, at this point, travel is a primary consideration. No where is this more obvious than the fact that Colorado College has never hosted a regional. Even though they have been the highest seed at times, hosting a regional would require 7 flights dedicated to just this region. It’s never going to happen with the current cost constraints.
Regionals
The NCAA will now create the 8 regionals and start the process of placing 8 teams into each regional usually by grouping the teams by distance. (It’s quite possible that the grouping takes place first and then the host school picked.) There are a number of written “rules” that govern this process. One coach called them suggestions because they do get violated at times. You can find the 2021 Travel Policy HERE.
One rule is that teams must drive if the tournament site is within 600 miles from their campus. I believe this was 500 miles prior to last year. (Update – The 2022-23 Manual was just released and it says 500 miles.)
There is also a “rule” about teams not flying more than three time zones but this has been violated whenever a California school is flown to Emory as has been done a few times.
There is another “rule” that says schools shouldn’t drive past one regional to get to another.
I mention the rules because they have the effect of keeping regionals regional in nature. The NCAA tries to keep the costs down and allow no more than six flights. This can cause the regionals to be very unbalanced.
Seeding
The Selection Committee will take each regional’s 8 teams and seed them. The host school is not guaranteed the first seed. One rule or suggestion (I can’t remember if it’s an official rule for volleyball but it is mentioned in the Pre-Championship Manual) that is enforced is that conference teams cannot play each other in the first round. This can cause some problems if a lot of schools are in the same regional from the same conference.
I regret that I didn’t ask how the seeding process works. I assume the criteria is used to seed the 8 teams in each regional.
Bracket
The final act of the Selection Committee is to announce the NCAA Tournament bracket, which typically happens on the Monday following the conference tournament weekend. You have to remember that there are conference tournaments that happen until Sunday afternoon so there is a lot of regional and seeding work to be done on that day.
Other Stuff
If you’ve ever watched a regional final trophy presentation then know that the RAC Chair was the one presenting. When we had 8 regionals and each region hosted then things were pretty simple. Now that we have 10 regions, there will be years where at least 2 RAC Chairs will not be overseeing a regional.
Reseeding
I said bracketing was the final act for the National Selection Committee but it isn’t. They have to oversee the regionals and once we get our final 8 teams (Elite 8), they will need to reseed them. I believe this is done by the criteria. I’m unsure if reseeding is an official rule as it was being done on a trial basis beginning with 2017.
Reseeding came about based on a suggestion from Emory Coach Jenny McDowell. She was bothered that the Elite 8 was seeded based on the strength of the regionals and that Emory was always placed in one of the easier regionals. This meant that if her team made the Elite 8 that they would have to play a tough team out of a tough regional in the quarterfinals. She felt it was fairer that the teams that came out of the regionals (regardless of whether they were easy or not) would be reseeded based on the teams. I call this having your cake and eating it, too. I would agree that reseeding based on the teams is fairer but only if the regionals are fairer, which they will never be in DIII. I don’t agree in rewarding a team with an easy regional only to reward them again with a higher seed. The reseeding has really helped the New England teams as they typically have the weakest regionals (by far) but now have been getting good seeds in the Elite 8. In 2021, Tufts received the 5th seed, which forced Trinity and Calvin to play in the quarterfinals as Calvin received the 6th seed. From what I can tell since reseeding has started is that the committee doesn’t spend a lot of time on examining results but goes by numbers.
Conclusion
Yes, I’ve included some snarky comments into this article but that’s really what I do. I hope that between the snark, you can figure out the criteria and the processes so that when selection comes around, you know the rules that are being used. I wanted to have a one-stop shop on this stuff so I’ll probably link this article from the FAQ page. I again want to thank the coaches that spoke to me on this stuff. If anyone else wants to add information that would be useful, I’m open to updating this article.
Comments