Blast from the Past: Fixing the NCAA tournament

I wrote this back in 2009, when I regularly posted on Quinn's collegesportsinfo.com's forums.  For the most part it is still fairly in line with how I feel the tournament should evolve.

"I think too many deserving schools in the non-BCS and lower IAAA ranks miss out each year. I am offended that a school can go 28-4 and miss the tourney because they get knocked out in their conference tourney.

I heard a sports talk guy credit Jay Bilas with the idea of stripping all automatic berths. I think that would ultimately be a negative. I think small conferences would really get that shaft then.

I think I would push for a package of reforms.

1) All teams in the power conferences (Pac 10, SEC, Big 12, Big East, A10, and Big 10) would be capped at playing no more than 4 games against teams from other power conferences out of conference. This would reduce most power conference teams' ability their ability to run up huge RPI advantages. The teams that would try to game the system by playing good teams from lesser conferences would only strengthen the RPI of bubble teams from those conferences.

2) All conference tourneys and conference play must conclude by the first weekend in March.

3) 96 teams will be selected for the tourney: 32 regular season champs; 32 tourney champs (or regular season runner-up if the regular season champ wins the post-season tourney); and then 32 at large bids.

4) All 32 D1 conferences will get two auto bids, 1 for the regular season champ and 1 for the tourney winner (or the regular season runner up if the regular season champ wins the tourney). The remaining 32 bids (and any slots left unfilled by runner-ups or tourney winners) will be awarded to at large teams (mostly big conference teams).

5) Any team taking the runner up slot must have at least 20 wins to qualify and must be at least 2 games over 500 in conference to qualify (so 9-7 or 10-8 in conference does not qualify for the second conference bid). If the second place team does not meet the criteria, the conference can send the next highest place finisher who DOES fulfill the criteria. This will usually mean that the two best teams out of smaller conferences will make the field, unlike the current status quo where we regularly see a single dog (lousy) team who got a lucky break in the conference tourney come out of the small conferences. (If no teams fulfill the criteria, the conference gets a half share of the money for that bid, but the slot is then made an at large slot for that season.)

6) The pool of teams eligible for at-large bids would have finished above .500 in conference with over 20 wins total, with priority given to teams at least 2 games over .500 in conference. If needed at a tiebreaker, RPI would determine which teams one game over .500 in conference would get in. Total conferences bids would be limited to 40-45% of membership (ie. the 16 team BE would be capped at a maximum of 7 teams, the 14 team Big 10 at 6, the 12 team SEC and the Big 12 and 11 team Big 10 at 5, the 9 team MWC at 4, the 8 team WCC at 3.) Conferences would only be guaranteed that one team would definitely make it and if a second team met the criteria a second could make it.

7) The 64 lowest seeds must compete in a play-in round. They will play a single game to get into the field of 64 --- the tourney proper. Games will be spread out from Thursday to Sunday of the second weekend in March. The higher seed will host the game rather than creating the possibility of sending 4-8 small college teams to a remote site where they cannot fill a larger arena. This slight advantage to the power programs will additionally help squeeze teams that clearly can't hang (compete) out of the tourney.

8) The surviving 32 will have played their way into the actual 64 team bracket that fans can fill out in their office pool. The brackets would be released after the play in round.

9) All regular season champions who have won more than 2/3 of their total games would be seeded in the top 14 seeds in each region rewarding them for season long excellence by not feeding them to the top 8 teams while still allowing a lot of leeway for top play-in round survivors to take top seeds.

10) Every effort should be made to invite at least 14 teams local to the west region and 28 local to the western half of the US combined.

This proposal does a lot to try to gut the RPI argument that allows the power conferences to dominate the selection process. Flawed as it is, I have instead proposed using mostly wins vs. games played for general seeding purposes.

The RPI may be pretty good for seeding teams to avoid upsets, but it doesn't reward teams for winning most of the games on their schedule. The goal should be to reward teams that EARN a berth, not teams that have a lot of potential NBA talent but can't win.

The teams that are eliminated in the play-in round only would be eligible to play in the NIT or any other post season tourney.''

more supporting arguments from 2009:

"Bids by conference (data from wikipedia)
Bids Conference -(Schools)
7 Big East - (Pittsburgh, Villanova, Connecticut, Marquette, Louisville, West Virginia, Syracuse)
7 ACC - (Clemson, North Carolina, Boston College, Wake Forest, Maryland, Florida State, Duke)
7 Big Ten - (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan State, Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan)
6 Big 12 - (Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas)
6 Pac-10 - (Arizona State, Arizona, USC, UCLA, California, Washington)
3 SEC - (Tennessee, Mississippi State, LSU)
3 Atlantic 10 - (Xavier, Dayton, Temple)
2 Mountain West (BYU, Utah)
2 Horizon (Butler, Cleveland State)
1 22 other conferences


The Big East was dynamite this year and is a 16 member conference --- no problem with them getting the 7 teams in their conference that broke 20 wins in.

The ACC is a 12 team conference I am not as OK with them getting 7 teams in although they were qualitatively great as well. I thought maryland was the most marginal of tourney teams, but I can live with it as Maryland did break 20 wins.

Can anyone defend the Big 10 getting in 7 schools? 4 or even 5 with an IMO deserving Penn State (they went 10-8 in conference, 23-11 overall, 4-3 vs. top 25 teams and 8-10 vs. top 100), I can understand, but Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin? It was a very mediocre conference with great depth so the depth of the league dragged up everyone's RPI.

This happens every year. The overreliance on RPI lets the BCS conferences dominate the BB bids.

I am from big 12 country, but I wouldn't have a problem taking out Texas and OSU out of the tourney. Throw them in with Kansas State, in spite of their 20+ wins. They aren't good enough to beat 2 top teams and win it all, so why are they in? Money. -----To eliminate non-BCS schools and keep the tourney money in BCS conferences' hands.

The Pac 10 had 4 legit tourney teams this year. I would argue that if you don't break 500 in your conference you shouldn't be in the tourney. (Now I'll concede USC winning the tourney allowed them to play their way in, but Arizona? No. As talented as they are, they haven't earned it.

Right there are 6 slots. Why Not UNM who finished tied for 1st in the MWC? Why not 22-9 San Diego State with Tourney proven coach Steve Fisher? Why not 27-7 Creighton who tied for first with a 14-4 conference record in the always strong MVC? Why Not 26-6 St. Mary's which went 20-2 when their star point guard Patty Mills was healthy? Why not 26-7 Davidson with Stephon Curry (who tore up the tourney in 2008)? Why not Tulsa who went 25-10, finishing second to Memphis at 12-4 in conference USA? Why not UALR who went 13-3 tying for the best record in the sunbelt while emassing a 23-8 record? Why not Vermont who 24-8 and tied for first in their conference with a 13-3 record? Why not Weber State who in spite of a modest 21-10 record, destroyed their conference going 15-1?

There were a lot of less talented teams playing better than Texas or OSU who could have legitimately knocked off a top or second tier team and made the tourney a whole lot less predictable and a lot more exciting.

Eventually the smaller conferences have to stop allowing their claims on tourney invites and tourney money to be stolen from them based on an RPI system that punishes them for being in a weaker conference.

Some want to reduce the Tourney down.  If you wanted, you could have only teams in the RPI top 40 who have played 4+ games against the top 25 and have wining records in the those games plus the 1-3 teams in the RPI top 10 that don't.  You could probably have a 16 team tourney.

Your national champion is almost always within the group. The rest of the teams are icing. The rest draw out the tourneys to create more game & TV revenue. They may eliminate a couple of the top teams who either lack depth or experience injuries or just aren't playing well.

The 5th to 8th teams out of BCS conferences are just there to keep the #1 and #2 teams from the non-BCS conferences from making money in the Tourney.  That is crap to me.

I think the non-BCS FBS schools---minus BCS lapdogs the MWC and A10 --- should go to the networks enmasse and hijack the selection process.

Davidson was good enough to legitimately merit a tourney slot. Instead of a second tourney of Stephon Curry, TV got Minnesota. That cost TV big money. I think St. Mary had a run in them and would have wanted to see Patty Mills in the dance. The small schools CREATE the excitement that drives viewership. They need to present their case to the TV networks."

=========================================================

how this would have played out in 2009

=========================================================

Regular season champs

32 regular season champs are in with autobids.  27 earn a bye from the play-in round due to total losses amounting to less than 1/3 of their total games.

"Big Ten MSU (15-3) 27-6
Southeastern LSU (13-3) 27-8
Atlantic Coast UNC (13-3) 30-4
Big East Louisville (16-2) 29-5
Big 12 Kansas (14-2) 26-7
Pacific 10 Washington (14-4) 26-9
Mountain West BYU (12-4) 25-8
Missouri Valley UNI (14-4) 23-11
Atlantic 10 Xavier (12-4) 26-7
Conference USA Memphis (16-0) 33-3
Western Athletic Utah St. (14-2) 30-5
Colonial VCU (14-4) 24-10
Horizon Butler (15-3) 26-6
Mid-American Buffalo (11-5) 21-12**
Sun Belt WKU (15-3) 25-9
West Coast Gonzaga (14-0) 28-5
Southern Davidson (18-2) 27-7
Metro Atlantic Siena (16-2) 27-7
Ohio Valley Tenn-Martin (14-4) 22-10
Big Sky Weber St (15-1) 21-10
Ivy Cornell (11-3) 21-10
Summit NDSU (16-2) 26-7
America East Binghampton (13-3) 23-9
Atlantic Sun Jacksonville (15-5) 18-14**
Mid-Eastern Morgan St. (13-3) 23-12**
Patriot American (13-1) 24-8
Big South Radford (15-3) 21-12**
Big West CS Northridge (11-5) 17-14**
Southland SFA (13-3) 24-8
Southwestern Alabama St. (16-2) 22-10
Northeast Robert Morris (15-3) 24-11
Great West/Independents Seattle (21-8)*

* Seattle is not technically a GW member as far as I know, but it just made it easier to layout.
** 5 of the 32 champions  (Buffalo, Jacksonville, Radford, Morgan St, & CS Northridge) would not qualify for the bye and top 14 seeding, due to losing more than 1/3 of their total games."

32 slots filled out of 96; 27 first round byes.

=========================================================================

"runner ups
8 Non-regular season Champions who won their tourneys.
Big Ten Purdue (11-7) 27-9 2nd
SEC Miss St. (9-7) 23-13 6th
ACC Duke (11-5) 30-6 2nd
Big 12 Missouri (12-4) 29-6 3rd
PAC 10 USC (9-9) 22-12 6th
MWC Utah (12-4) 24-10 2nd
MAC Akron (10-6) 23-13 3rd
Big Sky PSU (11-5) 23-10

19 runnerups who satisfy the runner-up criteria.

Atlantic Sun E. Tenn St. (14-6) 23-11 2nd
Atlantic 10 Temple (11-5) 22-12 4th
Horizon Cleveland St. (12-6) 26-10 3rd
Southern Chattanooga (11-9) 18-17 5th
Ohio Valley Moorehead St. (12-6) 20-16 4th
MVC Creighton (14-4) 27-7 2nd
CUSA Tulsa (12-4) 25-11 2nd
Sun Belt UALR (15-3) 23-8 2nd
Metro Atlantic Niagra (14-4) 26-9 2nd
Big East UCONN (15-3) 29-4 2nd
Western Athletic Nevada (11-5) 21-13 2nd
Colonial George Mason (13-5) 22-11 2nd
West Coast St. Mary's (10-4) 27-6 2nd
Summit Oakland (13-5) 23-12 3rd
America East Vermont (13-3) 24-8 2nd
Big South VMI (13-5) 24-8 2nd
Big West Pacific (10-6) 20-12 2nd
Southland Nicholls St (12-4) 20-11 2nd
Great West/Ind South Dakota (20-9)*

* Technically USD had the best record in the GW, but as I lumped seattle in with the GW, they get the runnerup slot.

5 conferences would get an added half share, but would not have had a second team meet the criteria to qualify.

Mid-Eastern none
Patriot none
Southwestern none
Northeast none
Ivy none"

59 slots filled out of 96; 27 first round byes.

================================================================

Preferred at large bids

"31 teams satisfied the "preferred" criteria for at large bids.

Pitt (15-3) 29-4
OU (13-3) 29-5
Wake Forest (11-5) 24-7
FSU (10-6) 25-10
UCLA (13-5) 26-9
Auburn (10-6) 24-11
Dayton (11-5) 27-7 2nd
UNM (12-4) 22-12
SDSU (11-5) 25-9
Illinois (11-7) 24-10
ASU (11-7) 25-9
Charleston (15-5) 27-8
Green Bay (13-5) 22-11
Illinois St. (11-7) 24-10
Rhode Island (11-5) 23-11
UAB (11-5) 22-12
ODU (12-6) 22-10
Belmont (14-6) 20-12
UNT (11-7) 20-12
Liberty (12-6) 23-11)
Villanova (13-5) 28-7
Cal (11-7) 22-11
Wright St. (12-6) 20-13
Citadel (15-5) 20-13
Marquette (12-6) 25-9
Hofstra (11-7) 21-11
Syracuse (11-7) 27-9
S. Carolina (10-6) 21-10
Tenn (10-6) 21-13
Houston (10-6) 21-12
UTEP (10-6) 21-12)"

90 slots filled out of 96; 27 first round byes.

======================================================

6 slots for bubble teams

"That still leaves 6 extra bids = the 5 runner-up slots that could not be filled and one designated at- large slot.

14 teams finished with more than 20 wins and 1 game over 500 in conference.

 Here they are sorted by record.

TAMU (9-7) 24-10
Penn St. (10-8) 24-11
Clemson (9-7) 23-9
WV (10-8) 23-12
OSU (9-7) 23-11
Ohio St. (10-8) 22-11
x- Florida (9-7) 25-10
x-UT (9-7) 23-12
x-KSU (9-7) 22-12
x-BC (9-7) 22-12
x-UNLV (9-7) 21-11
Duquesne (9-7) 21-13
x-Wisc (10-8) 20-12
USA (10-8) 20-13

Conference participation limits would knock Florida, Texas, Kansas St, Boston College, UNLV, and Wisconsin out. (ie. the Big 12 already would have Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri with TAMU and OSU having the better records overall to complete the conference's max allotment of 5 teams.) Dusquesne and USA would simply fail to get in due to lesser overall records."

That would be your field, giving the vast majority of the country's 20 win teams legit shot at winning a national title.

==================================================================

Play in round

This part admittedly looks complex on paper, but in reality it is pretty simple and would effectively be transparent to fans.  These schools would have to win a head to head matchup to "make the bracket of 64".  The results would yield the nice clean bracket we are used to.

"The play in round would be seeded out by win percentage (although RPI would work too)

1 Pitt (15-3) 29-4
2 UCONN (15-3) 29-4 2nd
3 OU (13-3) 29-5
4 Duke (11-5) 30-6 2nd
5 Missouri (12-4) 29-6 3rd
6 St. Mary's (10-4) 27-6 2nd
7 Villanova (13-5) 28-7
8 Dayton (11-5) 27-7 2nd
9 Creighton (14-4) 27-7 2nd
10 Wake Forest (11-5) 24-7
11 Charleston (15-5) 27-8
12 Syracuse (11-7) 27-9
13 Vermont (13-3) 24-8 2nd
14 VMI (13-5) 24-8 2nd
15 Purdue (11-7) 27-9 2nd
16 UCLA (13-5) 26-9
17 Niagra (14-4) 26-9 2nd
18 UALR (15-3) 23-8 2nd
19 SDSU (11-5) 25-9
20 ASU (11-7) 25-9
21 Marquette (12-6) 25-9
22 Cleveland St. (12-6) 26-10 3rd
23 Clemson (9-7) 23-9
24 FSU (10-6) 25-10
25 Illinois (11-7) 24-10
26 Illinois St. (11-7) 24-10
27 TAMU (9-7) 24-10
28 Utah (12-4) 24-10 2nd
29 PSU (11-5) 23-10
30 Tulsa (12-4) 25-11 2nd
31 South Dakota (20-9)*
32 ODU (12-6) 22-10
33 Auburn (10-6) 24-11
34 Penn St. (10-8) 24-11
35 S. Carolina (10-6) 21-10
36 Rhode Island (11-5) 23-11
37 Liberty (12-6) 23-11)
38 OSU (9-7) 23-11
39 E. Tenn St. (14-6) 23-11 2nd
40 Green Bay (13-5) 22-11
41 Cal (11-7) 22-11
42 Ohio St. (10-8) 22-11
43 George Mason (13-5) 22-11 2nd
44 WV (10-8) 23-12
45 Oakland (13-5) 23-12 3rd
46 Hofstra (11-7) 21-11
47 UNM (12-4) 22-12
48 UAB (11-5) 22-12
49 USC (9-9) 22-12 6th
50 Temple (11-5) 22-12 4th
51 Nicholls St (12-4) 20-11 2nd
52 Miss St. (9-7) 23-13 6th
53 Akron (10-6) 23-13 3rd
54 Houston (10-6) 21-12
55 UTEP (10-6) 21-12)
56 Belmont (14-6) 20-12
57 UNT (11-7) 20-12
58 Pacific (10-6) 20-12 2nd
59 Tenn (10-6) 21-13
60 Nevada (11-5) 21-13 2nd
61 Wright St. (12-6) 20-13
62 Citadel (15-5) 20-13
63 Moorehead St. (12-6) 20-16 4th
64 Chattanooga (11-9) 18-17 5th"

 

"Yeilding the following matchups scattered from thursday to saturday of the first/play in week

Chattanooga (11-9) 18-17 5th @ Pitt (15-3) 29-4
Moorehead St. (12-6) 20-16 4th @ UCONN (15-3) 29-4 2nd
Citadel (15-5) 20-13 @ OU (13-3) 29-5
Wright St. (12-6) 20-13 @ Duke (11-5) 30-6 2nd
Nevada (11-5) 21-13 2nd @ Missouri (12-4) 29-6 3rd
Tenn (10-6) 21-13 @ St. Mary's (10-4) 27-6 2nd
Pacific (10-6) 20-12 2nd @ Villanova (13-5) 28-7
UNT (11-7) 20-12 @ Dayton (11-5) 27-7 2nd
Belmont (14-6) 20-12 @ Creighton (14-4) 27-7 2nd
UTEP (10-6) 21-12) @ Wake Forest (11-5) 24-7
Houston (10-6) 21-12 @ Charleston (15-5) 27-8
Akron (10-6) 23-13 3rd @ Syracuse (11-7) 27-9
Miss St. (9-7) 23-13 6th @ Vermont (13-3) 24-8 2nd
Nicholls St (12-4) 20-11 2nd @ VMI (13-5) 24-8 2nd
Temple (11-5) 22-12 4th @ Purdue (11-7) 27-9 2nd
USC (9-9) 22-12 6th @ UCLA (13-5) 26-9
UAB (11-5) 22-12 @ Niagra (14-4) 26-9 2nd
UNM (12-4) 22-12 @ UALR (15-3) 23-8 2nd
Hofstra (11-7) 21-11 @ SDSU (11-5) 25-9
Oakland (13-5) 23-12 3rd @ ASU (11-7) 25-9
WV (10-8) 23-12 @ Marquette (12-6) 25-9
George Mason (13-5) 22-11 2nd @ Cleveland St. (12-6) 26-10 3rd
Ohio St. (10-8) 22-11 @ Clemson (9-7) 23-9
Cal (11-7) 22-11 @ FSU (10-6) 25-10
Green Bay (13-5) 22-11 @ Illinois (11-7) 24-10
E. Tenn St. (14-6) 23-11 2nd @ Illinois St. (11-7) 24-10
OSU (9-7) 23-11 @ TAMU (9-7) 24-10
Liberty (12-6) 23-11) @ Utah (12-4) 24-10 2nd
Rhode Island (11-5) 23-11 @ PSU (11-5) 23-10
S. Carolina (10-6) 21-10 @ Tulsa (12-4) 25-11 2nd
Penn St. (10-8) 24-11 @ South Dakota (20-9)*
Auburn (10-6) 24-11 @ ODU (12-6) 22-10"

"Now to show how this might play out, let's guess some play in winners.

1 Pitt (15-3) 29-4
2 UCONN (15-3) 29-4 2nd
3 OU (13-3) 29-5
4 Duke (11-5) 30-6 2nd
5 Missouri (12-4) 29-6 3rd
6 St. Mary's (10-4) 27-6 2nd
7 Villanova (13-5) 28-7
8 Dayton (11-5) 27-7 2nd
9 Creighton (14-4) 27-7 2nd
55 UTEP (10-6) 21-12)
54 Houston (10-6) 21-12
12 Syracuse (11-7) 27-9
52 Miss St. (9-7) 23-13 6th
14 VMI (13-5) 24-8 2nd
15 Purdue (11-7) 27-9 2nd
16 UCLA (13-5) 26-9
17 Niagra (14-4) 26-9 2nd
47 UNM (12-4) 22-12
19 SDSU (11-5) 25-9
20 ASU (11-7) 25-9
21 Marquette (12-6) 25-9
22 Cleveland St. (12-6) 26-10 3rd
42 Ohio St. (10-8) 22-11
24 FSU (10-6) 25-10
40 Green Bay (13-5) 22-11
26 Illinois St. (11-7) 24-10
27 TAMU (9-7) 24-10
28 Utah (12-4) 24-10 2nd
36 Rhode Island (11-5) 23-11
30 Tulsa (12-4) 25-11 2nd
34 Penn St. (10-8) 24-11
33 Auburn (10-6) 24-11

There were a lot of names that were not worthy of getting into the tourney (IMO) and would have likely been eliminated in a play-in round. "

=====================================================================

The nice neat field of 64

Published for fans on sunday with brackets due on Thursday.  Fans will have some idea how deserving a mid-major may be from the play-in round games.  End result?  A much more fan friendly bracket and better representation from the smaller conferences.

"The remaining 64 teams would be loosely seeded by overall win/lost record. Just break them up by fours. Selection committee members would be able to tweak a bit say up to +/- 3 seeds to ease fan travel and reflect RPI when it is especially glaring. Additionally, as TV would run the show, in terms of top seeds, all things being more or less equal with the elite teams, the teams with the better star talents or more exciting brand of game might get the #1 seeds and teams that are good due to a good team effort would get #2 or possibly even #3 seeds. (ie. Memphis would be a #1 seeds. Duke and Pitt #2 seeds. Unfair? Sure, but TV would be driving the show.)

Sorted by pre-NCAA Tourney winning percentage, that would give you:

overall rank- team- records- finish in conference
1 Memphis (16-0) 33-3
2 UNC (13-3) 30-4
3 Pitt (15-3) 29-4
4 UCONN (15-3) 29-4 2nd

5 Utah St. (14-2) 30-5
6 Louisville (16-2) 29-5
7 OU (13-3) 29-5
8 Gonzaga (14-0) 28-5

9 Duke (11-5) 30-6 2nd
10 Missouri (12-4) 29-6 3rd
11 MSU (15-3) 27-6
12 St. Mary's (10-4) 27-6 2nd

13 Butler (15-3) 26-6
14 Villanova (13-5) 28-7
15 Davidson (18-2) 27-7
16 Siena (16-2) 27-7

17 Dayton (11-5) 27-7 2nd
18 Creighton (14-4) 27-7 2nd
19 Kansas (14-2) 26-7
20 Xavier (12-4) 26-7

21 NDSU (16-2) 26-7
22 Wake Forest (11-5) 24-7
23 LSU (13-3) 27-8
24 Charleston (15-5) 27-8

25 BYU (12-4) 25-8
26 American (13-1) 24-8
27 SFA (13-3) 24-8
28 Syracuse (11-7) 27-9

29 Vermont (13-3) 24-8 2nd
30 VMI (13-5) 24-8 2nd
31 Purdue (11-7) 27-9 2nd
32 Washington (14-4) 26-9

33 UCLA (13-5) 26-9
34 Niagra (14-4) 26-9 2nd
35 UALR (15-3) 23-8 2nd
36 WKU (15-3) 25-9

37 SDSU (11-5) 25-9
38 ASU (11-7) 25-9
39 Marquette (12-6) 25-9
40 Seattle (21-8)*

41 Cleveland St. (12-6) 26-10 3rd
42 Binghampton (13-3) 23-9
43 Clemson (9-7) 23-9
44 FSU (10-6) 25-10

45 VCU (14-4) 24-10
46 Illinois (11-7) 24-10
47 Illinois St. (11-7) 24-10
48 TAMU (9-7) 24-10

49 Utah (12-4) 24-10 2nd
50 PSU (11-5) 23-10
51 Tulsa (12-4) 25-11 2nd
52 South Dakota (20-9)*

53 Tenn-Martin (14-4) 22-10
54 Alabama St. (16-2) 22-10
55 ODU (12-6) 22-10
56 Robert Morris (15-3) 24-11

57 Weber St (15-1) 21-10
58 Cornell (11-3) 21-10
59 UNI (14-4) 23-11
60 Morgan St. (13-3) 23-12

61 Buffalo (11-5) 21-12
62 Radford (15-3) 21-12
63 Jacksonville (15-5) 18-14
64 CS Northridge (11-5) 17-14"


Given the desires of TV and the leeway I assigned to the selection committee to protect regional play, something like this may have resulted.