Ultiworld Ultiworld DG

The Case For A 32-Team College Nationals

[caption id=“attachment_46106” align=“aligncenter” width=“800”]

Medals for the 2016 D1 College Championships. Photo: Paul Andris – UltiPhotos.com[/caption]

Let me start by getting this out of the way: I began thinking about this idea shortly after my team, Washington Element, lost to Stanford Superfly at this year’s College Championships. It was day one in Raleigh and the temperature was near 90 degrees. We were in our second game of the day and Stanford was in their first. We jumped out to a 9-7 lead – the latest in any game Stanford trailed all weekend – before Stanford capitalized on a series of errors from our team that looked (to me) like fatigue-related mistakes to take the game 15-11.

Perhaps our early lead was due to having already gotten the jitters of Nationals out while Stanford was just stepping into that butterfly-inducing environment. Or perhaps Stanford’s comeback was assisted by having fresher legs, having played 22 fewer points than we had that day. Or perhaps none of that was an issue – all season we had consistently played tight with Stanford before losing by two to four points. But, I found myself wondering why, for the most important college tournament of the year, we settle for a format that has built-in competitive imbalances.

Beyond the issue that we faced of two teams having played a different number of games prior to their match-up, the current format is filled with more competitive imbalance issues. With five team pools, one team faces a bye every round. This means many teams will face playing a back-to-back game situation against an opponent coming off of a bye. In addition, pool winners are granted a significant advantage by getting a pre-quarterfinal bye, an advantage exacerbated by the fact that the pre-quarters round doesn’t end until nearly 7 PM on Saturday while quarterfinals begin at 8:30 the next morning.

Five teams in a pool also means that frequently final round games don’t matter for some teams that have locked up pools or are already assured of playing in consolation games. This is even more problematic when those games matter for one team and not the other. Twice in the last four years, Element has been in final round pool games where both teams have qualified for pre-quarters and the crossover pool has been a toss-up with no apparent benefit to winning the game – but clear benefit to being more well rested for pre-quarterfinals.

With five-team pools, there is no way to get around many of these issues. Expanding to 24 teams with six-team pools can reduce the issue of unmatched byes, but it will likely lead to even more meaningless games between teams who have already assured themselves a spot in their pool. It also expands the number of pool games per division from 40 to 60, which puts significant additional demand on the field site and event resources.

A 32-team Championships greatly minimizes the competitive imbalances while requiring far fewer games than a 20 or even 24-team Championships. Eight pools of four teams each requires 48 pool games per division. It allows for a bracket of sixteen where the top two teams in each pool advance. And all of it can be done with just 12 fields, which is the same current field requirement as the current format.

The 32-Team Format:

  • Six rounds of play on Day 1 and Day 2 (8:30, 10:30, 12:30, 2:30, 4:30, 6:30) ((Sunset times for around Memorial Day weekend are 8:24 or later for all College Nationals locations for past 20 years.))
  • Teams play two pool-play games on Day 1 and one pool-play game on Day 2
  • Every pool plays games during the same round and no pools play back-to-back rounds
  • Pre-quarterfinals are played in the final three rounds of Day 2
  • All teams eliminated after pool play receive two consolation games (one on the afternoon of Day 2 and one on the morning of Day 3).
  • All teams eliminated in pre-quarter receive one consolation game (morning of Day 3)
  • Semifinals are staggered as they are currently on Day 3 (12:00, 2:30, 5:00, 8:30)
  • Finals are played on their current schedule
The Pros of the 32-Team Format:
  • A beautifully simple, competitively-balanced, easy-to-implement format
  • 12 more teams per division extend their seasons 3-4 weeks, improving the quality of play in college ultimate
  • Dozens more teams in each division have a more realistic shot at qualifying for the Championships and so will have more meaning to their season
  • 60% more players means more revenue for USAU and lower player/team fees
  • A true Sweet Sixteen round!
The Cons of the 32-Team Format:
  • Dilution of quality of pool play games (currently most pools have a “quarterfinal” like match-up, whereas 32 teams means most pools have a “pre-quarterfinal” like match-up)
  • More resources (volunteers, observers) required
  • More tightly packed schedule means weather issues harder to manage
  • Still possibility of meaningless pool games where a 2-0 team matches up with an 0-2 team in last round
  • Possibility that teams can be eliminated from Championship contention with just a single pool play loss
One area that I was curious about was the total size of each division and the number of Championship spots available. Would expanding the Championships lead to a damaging dilution of play?

In the past 20 years, the college division has seen incredible expansion in the number of teams playing. Since 1998, the men’s division has expanded by almost 250% and the women’s division has expanded by 350%. ((Counting teams that have 10+ recorded UPA/USAU games in the end of season rankings)) Meanwhile, bids to the Championships have only expanded from 12 to 20 (67%). As the total number of teams has expanded faster than the bids to Championships, the competitiveness at the Championships has improved consistently and the number of upsets in both divisions has continued to trend upward.

College-Growth-chart-women

In the women’s division, we now have by far the most teams per Nationals bid (12.6) than we have ever had before, while in the men’s divisions, we are nearing that peak (20.65). ((Regular season requirements implemented in 2010 and 2011 seem to have temporarily driven down the men’s team participation numbers.)) ((This does not account for DIII Nationals bids.))

College-Growth-chart-men

Moving to a 32-team Championships would put the teams per Championships bid in line with what they were between 2001-02 in the men’s division and 2004-05 in the women’s division — right in the heart of both divisions’ periods of maximum growth.

While a 32-team Championships may see a short-term dilution in the number of pool games that are competitive, it would create added intrigue in bracket play. Further, while overall growth is multi-factorial, it is possible that expanding the Championships pool could contribute energy toward a new period of fast growth in both divisions in college.

Originally published at: http://ultiworld.com/2016/07/25/case-32-team-college-nationals/

I think the idea has awesome possibilities, and I like that it would potentially cause growth in the divisions due to extended seasons. So would pre-quarters be a true round of sixteen where no teams get a bye to quarters and half of the teams are eliminated after pool play?
In terms of your graphs, I feel like you’re implying that growth of participation in general is caused by the format of nationals, which I feel would need more research in order for me to believe.
There are also plenty of examples of the format affecting game play in 2016 and other years (#1 Oregon vs. #13 Virginia, Oregon had already played a game and Virginia had not and went on to lose to their next game to a lower seeded team.)

The purpose of the graphs was to show that expanding bids to nationals would not be out of line with the historic total teams/bids ratio (although, it would be interesting to account for the DIII bids in those graphs).

I don’t mean to imply that the # of nationals teams is the primary driver of growth but there would certainly be a burst of energy into the division, particularly for those teams often ranked in the 20s-40s and that drive could help them create B or C teams, etc.

Well I think a question that needs to be asked is “what is the point of Nationals”. At first, it might seem like a dumb question. If the point of Nationals is to determine the best team, who can compete and win against the highest level of teams, then I don’t think expanding to 32 teams will really do anything. The parity of the top 10 teams of college nationals teams compared to the 21-32 ranked teams is, in my opinion, very very large.

Now if we think the point of Nationals to be something different (elite level competition for strong developing Ultimate players, for fun competition, etc.) then I think it is 100% legitimate to consider expanding the tournament, although the more teams you add, the less of a achievement making nationals is.

According to the USAU rankings there were 120 DIII Mens teams and 58 DIII Womens teams in 2016.

Last 5 In/First 5 Out of Top 32 for bids last year (albeit after Postseason Sec/Reg/Nats)

Mens In

  1. Connecticut
  2. Central Florida
  3. UC Santa Barbara
  4. Virginia Tech
  5. Virginia Commonwealth

Mens Out (Did not include Manitoba, only 5 games)

  1. Georgia Tech
  2. UC San Diego
  3. Missouri
  4. LSU
  5. Maryland

Womens In

  1. Florida State
  2. Southern California
  3. Northeastern
  4. Kansas
  5. Delaware

Womens Out

  1. Ottawa
  2. Iowa State
  3. Georgia Tech
  4. Maryland
  5. Victoria

Something like this would also lessen the impact of stuff like the BYU bid debate, or an exceptionally weak region’s auto bid being well below the next strength bid

Possibility that teams can be eliminated from Championship contention with just a single pool play loss

I am pretty sure ALL approved USAU formats do not allow this, especially in 4 team pools. Wind one day and not the other could knock some team out of championship contention with the 2 games one day and 1 the next. There will be asymmetric byes into the round of 16 unless there is massive extra field space and observer pool.

“Eight pools of four teams”

Aren’t you just watering down the competition? Sure you don’t have teams getting byes, etc. but now you have some teams playing against teams which are a real drop-off (whether that starts at 20 to 21, or later could be up for debate).

Which in a different way still gives teams an advantage who got ‘stuck’ with a significantly harder pool. There is disparity already with 16 teams and a drop-off…but I’d argue it isn’t as significant.

As for: " In addition, pool winners are granted a significant advantage by getting a pre-quarterfinal bye"

Don’t want to be that guy but going to anyways: win your games. It’s that simple.

I do have to say that the con of meaningless pool games is definitely minimized with the 32 team format. While you would have a 2-0 and a 0-2 game in the round, the other game is a 1-1 vs 1-1 game. Sure that 2-0 team took care of business but they did it against the two teams that are fighting for 2nd place in the group. With there being only 3 pool games instead of 4 it greatly minimizes these chances because unless two teams go 2-0 in the first two rounds of pool play everyone still has a mathematical chance of advancing to the bracket from the pool in the last round.

For those who suggest it is “watering down the competition”, I ask the simple question “How
?” and based off of what? Are we basing it off the records of the teams who were the last 4 seeds at nationals? Are we basing it on the results of Metro East region (even though they won some games)?Are we basing it off teams who had a strong early or late performance in the regular season to earn a bid for the region but still maintained a mediocre record overall? These aren’t rhetorical questions, I’m just honestly curious why we say expanding it to 32 teams would be watering down the competition.
If I can recall, I’m pretty sure D1 Men’s nationals did not go to chalk this year. There were numerous upsets and possible scares all around. I’m pretty sure less than a handful of people expected the last bid earner from the Southeast (Auburn) to win their pool. Or Case Western to give both Oregon and UNC a run for their money in pool play? Unsung Cal Poly almost making it to pre-quarters.Would anyone besides Harvard supporters honestly say they expected to see Harvard win the rematch with Oregon or even finish ahead of their region winner/tournament favorites UMass?

And what about teams that were favorites to make a solid run at Nationals or bid earners in the regular season Standford, Florida, UBC (not including Ohio State because of inflation of stomping on Cincy, but that’s just me)? Some teams just got taken out by another team that was just rolling in hot. Some teams were just a victim of a bad game or bid starved region. Granted these just seem like excuses in front of other teams who got the job done.
But who wouldn’t want to see the difference a month would make for teams salivating for a shot at Nationals?

Maybe I’m just biased because I am part of a group who would have loved to see his team get to Nationals if the field was expanded. Nationals is a goal everyone makes, not because it is easily attainable but because your results say you are “elite” once you made it to the promise-land. So I can understand the struggle of wanting to expand from that standpoint.

I’m just saying it is a bit premature to say it is “watering down” the competition. It’s not like it was suggested to move to something extreme like a 68 team field in NCAA basketball, which also if I recall did not go to chalk this year…
I’m also curious what’s the time window for USAU to implement a format expansion?

Speaking on the “watering down the competition” point, I agree with Adante. Speaking from a team that just made it to Nationals this year, I really don’t think the competition would be watered down that much, especially since so many tournaments during the year can mess up the USAU rankings which then mess up the bid allocation.

Being a very large late season tournament Centex has a huge impact on USAU rankings. However, the conditions are usually less than superb. Women’s Centex was filled with heat exhaustion 3 years ago, windy and rainy 2 years ago, aggressively muddy last year, and ridiculously windy this year. These weather conditions, especially the 30mph gusts from this past year, can play a heavy hand in influencing the winner of the game simply from the winner of the flip, but unfortunately, weather conditions are not considered in USAU rankings and thus there were many teams that became misranked because they won or lost the flip or decided not to go to Windtex at all. My team, USC, went from 20 to 30 because of Centex.
Expanding to a 32-bid nationals would help correct for this error.

Also, as stated earlier, 32 bids would correct for teams getting pushed out from strength bids by lower ranking autobids.
Example: Tufts. Tufts ended the season ranked in the top 20, but didn’t earn another strength bid for New England because 2 regions still needed autobids after the top 18. Tufts is an amazing team that, in my opinion, consistently play on that elite nationals level, but wasn’t able to got to Nationals this year simply because their region only had one bid. I would also put Northeastern in a similar boat.
I believe something similar happened in the North Central region as well.

This is not an uncommon problem in women’s. This past year, there were 9 bids between the Northwest and Southwest regions alone and another 5 between Ohio Valley and South Central. That means that the other 6 regions only had one bid each and I don’t think those regions are so much weaker than the others to only have one bid.

On another note, I think bringing more talented teams into the same tournament would make two important points.

  1. It would acknowledge how the level of play has grown and expanded over the years.
  2. It would raise the level of play further across the sport in the long run as more teams will see what it means to be elite.

Overall, although it might be logistically difficult, I think this would be a good move for our sport as a whole.