Ricky Nelson’s 2016 projected field of 64

This is what I think the field should be when it is revealed via an online selection show at 11:30 a.m. central tomorrow.

The committee and I have never synced up completely with our selections, so don’t fret, bubble teams. If you don’t see your name below, chances are you’ll be playing next week anyway. Another caveat is that I do not know for sure whether there will be a Pool B bid. My sense is that there will not be sufficient numbers for a Pool B bid this year.

My yearly at-large matches with the national selection committee: 2015: 16 of 20 2014: 18 of 20 2013: 16 of 21 2012: 19 of 22 2011: 19 of 22 2010: 19 of 21 2009: 19 of 22 2008: 20 of 23

Pool A (43) Allegheny Mountain Collegiate Conference: Pittsburgh Bradford American Southwest Conference: Texas Dallas Capital Athletic Conference: Mary Washington Centennial Conference: Johns Hopkins City University of New York Athletic Conference: Hunter College Conference of Illinois & Wisconsin: Millikin Colonial States Athletic Conference: Cabrini Commonwealth Coast Conference: Endicott Commonwealth Conference: Stevenson Empire 8 Athletic Conference: Ithaca Freedom Conference: Eastern Great Northeast Athletic Conference: Johnson & Wales Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference: Bluffton Iowa Intercollegiate Athletic Conference: Wartburg Landmark Conference: Juniata Liberty League: Clarkson Little East Conference: UMass Boston Massachusetts State College Athletic Conference: Framingham State Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association: Hope Midwest Conference: St. Norbert Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference: Gustavus Adolphus New England Collegiate Conference: Regis New England Small College Athletic Conference: Middlebury New England Women’s and Men’s Athletics Conference: MIT New Jersey Athletic Conference: Montclair State North Atlantic Conference: Maine Maritime North Coast Athletic Conference: Wittenberg North Eastern Athletic Conference: Gallaudet Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference: Concordia Wisconsin Northwest Conference: Whitworth Ohio Athletic Conference: Ohio Northern Old Dominion Athletic Conference: Randolph-Macon Presidents’ Athletic Conference: Bethany Skyline Conference: Farmingdale State Southern Athletic Association: Hendrix Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference: Cal Lutheran Southern Collegiate Athletic Conference: Trinity (Texas) St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference: Greenville State University of New York Athletic Conference: Brockport University Athletic Association: Emory Upper Midwest Conference: Northwestern USA South Athletic Conference: Meredith Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference: Wisconsin-Whitewater

Pool B (0)[None] New Rochelle

Pool C (21)Augsburg Clark Calvin Carnegie Mellon Chicago Christopher Newport Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Colorado College DePauw Elmhurst Heidelberg Illinois Wesleyan Stevens La Verne Southwestern Springfield St. Thomas Tufts Washington-St. Louis Wisconsin-Eau Claire Ramapo Wisconsin-La Crosse Wisconsin-Oshkosh Wisconsin-Stevens Point Susquehanna

Among the teams I considered for the last bid were Berry, Stevens, Susquehanna and Bethel. I went with Illinois Wesleyan instead. However, if there are nine teams available in Pool B, the list of Pool C’s will be whittled to 20 anyway, according to my math.

I tend to lean toward signature wins as a tiebreaker when things are close. This is the NCAA Championship. What have teams done to prove they belong? I think a good way to answer that question and to parse the field of contenders — again, when other criteria are relatively close —  is the fact that there are several candidates that could beat the best teams are there are also several candidates that have beaten some of the best teams. Minimizing questionable losses also helps a team’s stock in my eyes.

The committee has the freedom — I’ll go so far as to say the responsibility — to factor wins against upper-tier ranked teams more so than lower-ranked teams. Not all results against regionally ranked teams are created equal, nor should they be treated as such. In a similar vein, not all strength-of-schedule figures are created equally.

The criterion is “results versus Division III ranked teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection” and not “winning percentage” nor “number of wins” versus ranked teams. The term is “results” for a reason. Art is necessary alongside the science of the selection process, and verbiage within the stated criteria allows for that art.

That’s the rationale for my predicted field. All this written, I’m certain that the committee will choose a different field. If nothing else, this gave you something to read before tomorrow’s selection show. I hope your team gets a bid.

-Ricky Nelson