D III Women's Volleyball

A source for NCAA Division III women's volleyball info and opinion, with a focus on the Midwest and Central regions

2012 Walnut & Bronze poll

Advertisements

Written by Ricky Nelson

November 11, 2012 at 11:38 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

9 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. This is not sour grapes because Calvin deserves to be in the final eight and is a great team, but to have Calvin and Witt in the same regional was crazy. Witt has already beaten 3 of the teams in the final eight. Oh well, until the NCAA decides to seed the regionals like they do in other sports, we will have to live with it. Congrats to Calvin and Witt on a great match. I don’t see Calvin being challenged for the national title.

    Anonymous

    November 12, 2012 at 7:46 am

  2. Have you forgotten that Elmhurst beat Calvin in 3 sets earlier this year? Wittenberg isn’t the only team in the nation who can challenge the Knights.

    Anonymous

    November 12, 2012 at 10:00 am

  3. In the Calvin-Witt post game interview, Calvin’s Coach Amber Warners alluded to the fact that Wash U might be joining the Great Lakers region next year. Is that true? Here’s the link to the audio:http://www.calvin.edu/sports/audio/2013/2012%20Vball%20Regional%20Interviews/CalvinRegionalFinal.mp3

    Anonymous

    November 12, 2012 at 11:15 am

  4. The problem is that it wasn’t just Calvin and Wittenberg in a challenging regional. Hope, Otterbein, Heidelberg and Mount Union were all in that regional as well. Emory and Christopher Newport and Juniata in the same regional. Chicago, Elmhurst, WashU, and Whitewater all in the same regional. This doesn’t make sense when in the New York regional there was only one nationally ranked team in the top 25. Is the NCAA so desperate to save money on travel expenses that they sacrifice good match-ups and the fates of teams that should probably advance farther in the tournament than a team like Hope did? Will this ever change?

    Anonymous

    November 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm

  5. It is not just Calvin and Wittenberg that had a challenging regional. Wittenberg, Otterbein, Hope and Mount Union were all in that regional as well. Emory, Christopher Newport and Juniata all in another regional. Elmhurst, WashU, Whitewater and Chicago all in a third regional. Why does the NCAA choose to stack regionals like this and leave the New York region with only one nationally ranked team in the top 25? Is the NCAA so into saving travel expenses they must sacrifice well-deserving teams rather than making better matchups and a more competitive elite eight, final four? Will this ever change?

    Anonymous

    November 12, 2012 at 1:00 pm

  6. To 11:15 a.m.: Yes, it’s true. It’s been on the radar for a while. It appears to be a reality starting next season. But I’ve thought that in the past, so I’m treating it like a D-III volleyball recruit. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I’ll believe it when the recruit enrolls in the fall. In other words I’m not buying fully WUSTL to the Great Lakes until I see it in the Manual.

    To the others: I’m not downplaying the facts as you present them – the Great Lakes Regional has been one of the toughest for some time now. I also agree that several other regionals were nearly as stacked in comparison to other regions. And it’s been this way at least since D-III tournaments were expanded greatly several years ago. If you are not aware, the NCAA decided to spread the D-I men’s basketball tourney (and football) TV contract cash to all divisions in the recent past. It wasn’t long ago when the D-III women’s volleyball tourney was a much, much smaller event. We’re talking nearly 40 fewer teams smaller.

    So, it’s a give and take in that regard. I think some people tend to forget that the expanded tournament is a boon to access rather than the 64 best teams competing at evenly matched regionals and, eventually, finals. D-III tournaments are about conferences having access to championships. With that access comes the wet blanket – emphasis on regional competition, the structural backbone to D-III.

    I doubt many of you have seen this, but I think it’s very, very important to note when this debate reoccurs. This is straight out of the Pre-championships Manual. This paragraph, in a 32-page document, is one of the many reasons that it’s a shame that normal folks like you and I can’t access the Manual.

    “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.”

    That regional emphasis doesn’t only pertain to teams getting bids; it also means that “championship-caliber teams” may not have the opportunity to make the national finals tournament.

    For what it’s worth, I like this philosophy, even if that means consensus top-five teams like Calvin and Witt must play in a regional final. I’m not sure they’re mutually exclusive, but if I have to choose between greater access or a slightly skewed (I use “slightly” on purpose because the finals field is never absurd), I’m choosing access.

    I’ll end this with a few more paragraphs from the Manual.

    “Once selected, teams will be grouped in clusters according to natural geographic proximity. Teams will then be paired according to geographic proximity. A team may be moved to numerically balance the bracket if geographic proximity is maintained. Teams should be paired and eligible sites should be selected according to geographic proximity (within 500 miles).

    Teams may be seeded on a regional basis using the regional selection criteria. However, geographic proximity takes precedence over seeding.

    Teams from the same conference do not have to play one another in the first contest of the regional tournament as long as geographic proximity is maintained.

    The highest seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.”

    Agree or disagree, that’s the framework. I happen to agree.

    -Ricky Nelson

    uwoshvball

    November 12, 2012 at 2:02 pm

  7. […] you have not chimed in, place a vote for your predicted national champion either via this link or by scrolling down to the next […]

  8. My more detailed predictions…

    Game 1: St. Thomas over Clarkson
    Game 2: Elmhurst over Salisbury
    Game 3: CNU over UMassBoston
    Game 4: Calvin over Puget Sound

    Game 5: Elmhurst over St. Thomas
    Game 6: Calvin over CNU

    Game 7: Calvin over Elmhurst

    A Maroon and Gold Flying Dutchman

    November 13, 2012 at 8:10 am

  9. Those would be fantastic semifinals!
    -Ricky Nelson

    uwoshvball

    November 13, 2012 at 12:25 pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: