D2 Regional Seeding

[GoVSUTrojans]

I hate this regional seeding crap. You are not getting the best 64 teams. You are getting the top 8 in each region.

Let me be clear, I get it. Scheduling and budget probably has something to do with it. That also means if you don't schedule good OOC OR resided in a bad conference, you are screwed. You can go undefeated and still not get any respect. This happens in D1 football every few years it seems like. Costal Carolina will go undefeated and miss the playoffs.

Is it just me or do others feel like nothing is wrong and/or it can't be fixed?

[Bballfan]

It all comes down to money and the fact that the D2 powers feel it is important to have representation from all corners of the country. Sort of like other things in life. You are not getting the 64 best. You are getting the 8 best in each region. I have seen teams play in the Elite 8 that wouldn't even make the region in some parts of the country. it is more certainly an uneven playing field, but the NCAA isn't going to invest a lot of money in D2 or D3. All they care about is March Madness, where they make millions to help support all the other sports they have tournaments in.

As far as money, I believe they have a rule where if over 500 miles from the host location they will pay to fly a team. Now, that is a lot of money. So you don't want to have to have a team go from say Central Oklahoma to say Massachusetts to play a D2 women's game. That would cost a lot of money. Only the revenue generators (i.e. D1 mens and womens basketball) are going to get supported for that.

It is what it is. A big **** sandwich and everyone has to take a bite!

[NWFanatic]

It is a joke and purely a cost saving situation. Can you imagine the uproar in D1BB if no more than 1 team from a conference could ever make the Elite 8? There have been several instances over the years in the Centeal Region when the Regionsl final was a much tougher game than the E8 games

[Scrub]

There have been several instances over the years in the Centeal Region when the Regionsl final was a much tougher game than the E8 games

Your game with the Parker Fox Northern team a few years ago comes to mind. That game was the de facto National Championship. And then, just for kicks, your Bearcats went on the win the actual National Championship as well! ; )

[NWFanatic]

NW was also on the other end twice in recent history too…barely losing to UCM and Augustana in the Regional final only to watch them win it all.

[Scrub]

NW was also on the other end twice in recent history too…barely losing to UCM and Augustana in the Regional final only to watch them win it all.

Yup, we fans here at West Liberty had a front-row seat (figuratively speaking) for the UCM championship.

[LukeMcConnell1]

As far as money, I believe they have a rule where if over 500 miles from the host location they will pay to fly a team. Now, that is a lot of money. So you don't want to have to have a team go from say Central Oklahoma to say Massachusetts to play a D2 women's game. That would cost a lot of money. Only the revenue generators (i.e. D1 mens and womens basketball) are going to get supported for that.

It is about money but if NAIA can move teams all over the country to stage a true national tournament, the. So can NCAA.

Here are some of the NAIA trips for this weeks games: Arizona to Indiana, Oregon to Iowa, Florida to Iowa, Texas to Montana, Florida to Texas, Indiana to Arizona, Florida to Oklahoma, Texas to Tennessee, Pennsylvania to Tennessee, Maryland to Indiana, California to Florida, Kentucky to Florida.

The main obstacle are the regions (and conferences) that stink compared to the top of the division that would lose tournament spots because more teams from say, the Central region, would get in. Those are the real barriers to change.

Remember, the NCAA is the institutions.

[unc4life]

I hate this regional seeding crap. You are not getting the best 64 teams. You are getting the top 8 in each region.

Let me be clear, I get it. Scheduling and budget probably has something to do with it. That also means if you don't schedule good OOC OR resided in a bad conference, you are screwed. You can go undefeated and still not get any respect. This happens in D1 football every few years it seems like. Costal Carolina will go undefeated and miss the playoffs.

Is it just me or do others feel like nothing is wrong and/or it can't be fixed?

This is correct, and like others have said above your getting lopsided regions. The women's Midwest region over the last several years has had 2 or 3 of the top 5 teams in the county, with only 1 of them able to make it to the elite 8. Again this year GVSU and Ashland are the top two teams in the country...but only one has a chance to go to the elite 8. Your never really getting the best 8 teams or at least the most deserving teams in the final 8.

[Bballfan]

Last season Ashland, Drury, and Grand Valley would win any other region in the country. And it wouldn't even be close.

But it is all about equity and inclusion. They want representation from all parts of the country. Again this year there will be some teams that have no business in the Elite Eight. But they will represent their region.

[sportsvine]

Lots of complaining, likely with good reason, but what are some possible solutions that anyone might have? It would be tremendously fantastic if D2 could go like D1 and have every conference have automatic qualifiers, and fill the rest of the field with at large bids. Done this way, would the field of 64 look much different than the 64 that actually make it? But, even done this way, then, group the teams into regions of 16 based on geography? Still, at this point, a decisions would have to be made on who hosts, neutral, or awarding top teams? Perhaps a format similar to baseball and softball where half the regional bracket hosted by the 1 seed (1vs16, 8vs9, 4v13, 12v5), and the other half the regional bracket hosted by the 2 seed (2v15, 10v7, 3v14, 6v11), and then the winners of each sub region will meet at the higher winning seed. Done this way, you eventually have a Final Four much similar to D1; OR, you could take the 8 winning sub region teams and reseed them for an Elite Eight.

[LukeMcConnell1]

Lots of complaining, likely with good reason, but what are some possible solutions that anyone might have? It would be tremendously fantastic if D2 could go like D1 and have every conference have automatic qualifiers, and fill the rest of the field with at large bids. Done this way, would the field of 64 look much different than the 64 that actually make it? But, even done this way, then, group the teams into regions of 16 based on geography? Still, at this point, a decisions would have to be made on who hosts, neutral, or awarding top teams? Perhaps a format similar to baseball and softball where half the regional bracket hosted by the 1 seed (1vs16, 8vs9, 4v13, 12v5), and the other half the regional bracket hosted by the 2 seed (2v15, 10v7, 3v14, 6v11), and then the winners of each sub region will meet at the higher winning seed. Done this way, you eventually have a Final Four much similar to D1; OR, you could take the 8 winning sub region teams and reseed them for an Elite Eight.

I think 16 four-team regions is the way to go, grouped after you pick the 64 teams. Will some have to travel more than others? Sure, but that's the case now. Heck, Minnesota State Mankato is in Oklahoma City right now and that's in the current regional setup. Meanwhile, there's a school in another region 15 minutes away from Southern Nazarene's campus.

16 regions also lessens the burden a bit on host schools and personnel. After that, you could do four more four-team regions and end up with a Final Four instead of an Elite Eight. No solution is perfect, but actually having a true national tournament would alleviate some of the problems that would arise with a new format.

[BuffaloChip]

It all comes down to money and the fact that the D2 powers feel it is important to have representation from all corners of the country. Sort of like other things in life. You are not getting the 64 best. You are getting the 8 best in each region. I have seen teams play in the Elite 8 that wouldn't even make the region in some parts of the country. it is more certainly an uneven playing field, but the NCAA isn't going to invest a lot of money in D2 or D3. All they care about is March Madness, where they make millions to help support all the other sports they have tournaments in.

As far as money, I believe they have a rule where if over 500 miles from the host location they will pay to fly a team. Now, that is a lot of money. So you don't want to have to have a team go from say Central Oklahoma to say Massachusetts to play a D2 women's game. That would cost a lot of money. Only the revenue generators (i.e. D1 mens and womens basketball) are going to get supported for that.

It is what it is. A big **** sandwich and everyone has to take a bite!

Yep. Last night I watched Ft. Lewis and Dallas Baptist lose in the regional semis. They are both Elite 8 material in a national seeding.

[D2Rover]

I see three ways of doing it.

1. Seed the top 16 teams in the country 1-16. Then assign the other other 48 geographically to minimize travel. Then have highest remaining seeds host Sweet 16 and Elite Eight games with 4 teams per site, and a Final Four somewhere neutral. Two-game weekends instead of three-game, which theoretically means less class time missed and less hotel nights to pay for, and the extra travel costs of an extra weekend should be somewhat offset because doubling the number of first-round hosts means shorter travel. Having a Final Four rather than Elite Eight allows for more coordination with the D1 tournament, I'm not sure if that's positive but it seems like bonus exposure.

2. Same start as above, but have the Sweet 16 onward neutral site, either as one week-long tourney (logistically difficult) or with two sites for the Sweet 16/Elite 8 and a different one for the final four. If the 16/8 sites are split, seed the top 16 in two 1-8 sets in a somewhat regional manner, allowing to generally send teams to the nearer host site (especially since half of those 16 will often be in the middle of the country anyway). Allows the NCAA more predictable travel costs for those middle rounds, and allows for more host sites. Also puts more tournament games in different locations, aiding accessibility and exposure. Would be fun to always have that round at D2 sites, maybe even have them rotate by region, doubt that would be a priority. Like before, Final Four would be easier to coordinate with D1.

3. Keep regionalization, but only 6 teams per region (48 total) in the tournament. The last 16 slots are "open at-large" bids, and go to the best 16 teams in the country not to make the 48-team field. These teams then get seeded first by keeping teams in region, then filling in regions that are missing teams - for example, if the Central Region has 4 of the 16 "open at-large" bids, the top two of those will be the 7 and 8 seed in the Central Region, while the next two will be seeded into regions which had 0 or 1 "open at-large" bids. I do not know exactly how that seeding would work or who gets sent to which region. This solution allows D2 to keep it's regional model, but will lead to many less circumstances where teams that are clearly in the top 41 at-large teams miss the tournament in a tough region. I would think this is the most likely concession we get from NCAA because it keeps regionalization, but it also creates some ridiculous travel that the other two methods would avoid.


I'm pretty convinced all three of these would be upgrades from the current system. I think I lean towards #1 as it creates the most home games per tournament. I suspect the NCAA has no interest in changing anything, unfortunately, but maybe if there are more institutions pushing for this then we realize there would be a chance. I imagine the 26-27 season would be the earliest we see changes, as the tournaments are already scheduled for Pittsburgh in 2026. A lot more could change by then if things go downhill quickly enough in D1.