Opinion: The hosting "controversy" involving Transylvania is yet again evidence of a much larger issue within Division III
The headline of this post was supposed to be: “BREAKING: NCAA selects hosts for Sectional Round”. But as of 10:20 a.m. CT yesterday morning, we still had no news on who would be hosting next weekend; a surprising delay considering second round games wrapped up by 10:00 p.m. CT on Saturday night, and the men’s committee had announced their hosts nearly 11 hours prior.
And I had to get back on the road for the 3-hour drive home from Abilene, Texas, so as it turned out, my initial report on the hosts wasn’t ever written. That said, there’s been plenty of discussion about the hosting announcement, nonetheless, and most notably because of the fact that Transylvania won’t be hosting.
I waited before actually putting pen to paper (or in this case, my fingers to the keyboard) in terms of a reaction to this so-called “controversy”. It’s important to have the right frame of reference and understand all vantage points in analyzing a situation like this one. There’s a lot of factors, but that hasn’t changed the roar that has emerged out of Lexington, Kentucky, perhaps loud enough to be heard from the NCAA headquarters in Indianapolis.
No, seriously. This isn’t just typical disgruntled D3 or Transy supporters upset that UW-Whitewater, and not Transy, will be hosting in the Sectional Round this weekend. This is WKYT news station in Lexington publishing a full report on it, and Transylvania President Brien Lewis publicly sharing an email he sent to NCAA President Charlie Baker. This is Kentucky Sports Radio host Matt Jones putting out a tweet that reads the following: “The NCAA sending the Transy Women’s Basketball team on the road for the Sectionals when they are undefeated and the defending national champion, is absurd,” and getting over 1,200 likes and 110,000 views on it. The email from Lewis to Baker that WKYT reporter Lyndsey Gough posted on X/Twitter yesterday afternoon is up over 101,000 views at the time of writing. Point being, the Lexington community is mad, and they certainly have every right to be.
From their vantage point, the reigning national champions, a program with a 62-game win streak (the longest active streak of any NCAA program in any sport at any level) was robbed of the opportunity to host this weekend. Why? Well, not everyone seems to be clear on that. One reporter who covers the University of Kentucky posted that it is “safe to assume that the NCAA hates the Transylvania women's basketball team” because “there really isn't any other excuse for sending a 28-0 team on the road in the NCAA DIII Tournament is there?”
Well, yes. Yes, there is. Frustrating as it may be at times, geography is rooted within the Division III structure for good reason. With a limited budget, the national committees in each sport do their absolute best to create unique matchups and pods in tournament settings while minimizing the number of flights used. And they do a pretty darn good job of it. But they can’t help it when situations like this occur. Need proof? Gustavus Adolphus and UW-River Falls, the top two teams in the nation in women’s hockey, are meeting in the first round of their national tournament this week, which has sparked quite a bit of outrage. The 500-mile rule came into play, and there was no other option but to have Gustavus and River Falls battle in a game that really should’ve been a national title contest. And in men’s basketball, Randolph-Macon lost out on a Sectional Round hosting opportunity because Tufts can’t bus to RMC, but they can bus to Trinity (CT). This isn’t only a women’s basketball deal. This is something that happens in almost every sport in almost every year. Unfortunately, geography throws a wrench into even the most perfect of brackets, and it doesn’t matter what sport you’re talking about.
Truth be told, the national committee does not “hate” Transylvania, in case that wasn’t already clear. In fact, they lined things up to have Transylvania hosting this weekend. The only way Transy would lose out on the chance to host is if UW-Stout went and won the Carroll pod. If Carroll, WashU, or Puget Sound won the pod, it is clear Transylvania would’ve been the host. But because Stout won, and is well over 500 miles away from Lexington, the Sectional was moved to Whitewater, where all four teams could easily bus to. The committee can’t change the budget, nor can they help it if the NCAA denies flight requests. It’s not their fault, plain and simple, that this happened.
Now, the argument could be made that the NCAA (and by this I am referencing those in charge of the Division III budget) should’ve allowed for an extra flight, by understanding the issue Stout winning their pod caused. Would it have hurt the NCAA’s bottom line? No. Considering that NYU, RIC, and Bowdoin, the other three Top 4 seeds in the tournament are all hosting, does this feel like it would’ve been a correct move by the NCAA? Yes. 100%. But should this come as a surprise? Not if you’ve spent time in D3. Geography always has and always will play into these conversations, fair or unfair, considering the budget constraints. And that’s where the real debate begins.
Here’s Transylvania President Brien Lewis’ email to Charlie Baker yesterday:
“I am extremely disappointed to learn that despite being the undefeated national champions and being on a historic 62-game winning streak (the third longest in DIII women’s basketball), the Transylvania Pioneers will not be hosting the next round but will be sent on a 7-hour bus trip to Whitewater, Wisconsin.
To say that this seems a very poor way of rewarding consistent outstanding performance by these student athletes and their dedicated supporters is a gross understatement.
While I understand and applaud the general policy of limiting flights and travel, this does not appear appropriate or reasonable in these circumstances and given the bracketing and results of the tournament to date.
I regret having no alternative at this point but to express this frustration very publicly.”
I bring this up because it sparked a firestorm and generally, I appreciate the decision to put out this statement/email. I think people are fed up and tired with the fact that top seeds lose the chance to host because of one flight. It feels like a slight towards the teams that have worked to earn those top seeds and who have obviously posted resumes that rank extremely high in the tournament. Let’s be clear: Whitewater isn’t getting to host because of the better resume. It is because of geography entirely. And that’s where the source of the frustration comes from my perspective.
If it was a matter of whose resume is stronger, we could debate numbers all day. But that’s not the case here.
And I think most are in agreement that it is a real travesty Transy lost out on the opportunity to host. But as I’ve mentioned, it’s been the reaction to this situation that has caused the most debate and difference of opinion.
That’s to be expected. There is no perfect way to approach (much less change) the way the tournament plays out in relation to geography and hosting privileges. But at a minimum, it’s clear a change needs to be made. A change I’m not sure will ever actually happen. And even if it doesn’t, that is no reason for those of us in D3 to be any quieter about our dissatisfaction with the current way of operating.
Let me be clear one more time in saying that this isn’t the fault of the women’s basketball committee. It’s a much larger, wide-spread issue than that. It goes back to the way in which Division III chooses to spend its money, and it’s not purely a basketball issue. It’s an issue across all sports.
Yet, perhaps out of fear of pushback, we rarely see anyone in a position of leadership within a D-III, whether that a president, vice president, athletic director, etc. actually say these things out loud and in the open. Which is why I commend Lewis’ email to Baker. He is engaged and involved, and understands full well that no email is going to get it right for his university’s team this year. But maybe it plants a seed with Baker, and with the NCAA. You never know. Hearing from a university president, and one at such a historic and storied institution, could carry some added weight. Sure, you can poke holes in both the email and the media coverage from a Transy perspective. The fact that Transy is the defending national champ and holds a 62-game win streak does not and should not matter in this discussion, but it was still referenced in the first line of the email. Transy being #2 in the D3hoops.com Top 25 this entire year (for the most part) has no bearing on the tournament process. Past results do not matter. Even if Transy was 0-25 last year, the core of the issue wouldn’t be any different, though the optics certainly would be. No previous year dictates the decisions made in the current year, and that objective approach is both necessary and valuable in creating a fair bracket.
But even for the flaws within the email itself, the bottom line is that Lewis understands fixing this is a legislative process within Division III and it isn’t going to be changed by sending one email. Let’s also not pretend like him sending the email is the end of the world, though. In fact, I thought it was handled diplomatically and served its purpose to a great extent. In similar fashion to the Florida State/College Football Playoff controversy back in December, putting out an email publicly is a way to bring attention to the situation and let the Transy and Lexington communities know he is both aware and disappointed by it and working on their behalf. Yes, he absolutely has more of a say in how D3 spends its money and I know a lot of people are frustrated by his email in light of that fact. And that is valid. But I don’t think this was an ignorance towards the factors at play, which he is certainly well aware of. Instead, and this is me speculating, I think he was trying to speak for the team, and be a voice for them, using his platform to make sure that Transy losing the opportunity to host did not go unnoticed. And for that, I applaud him.
We cannot suppress people who attempt to spark change and are willing to do it front and center. I am in complete understanding of the fact that geography has to be a factor in Division III. But I often think there has to be a compromise. There has to be a way to ensure that student-athletes and deserving teams in Region 10 don’t have to knock each other out of the tournament in the first two rounds every year, simply because they’re “on an island”. There has to be a way to let a deserving team in an isolated part of the country host (don’t get me started on Trinity (TX) women’s basketball not hosting last year in the Sectionals…). There has to be a way to make sure that top seeds are rewarded for their high-quality body of work throughout the season. That’s what’s frustrating about this. And why we need to advocate for change. I was at Hardin-Simmons University this past weekend to see HSU women’s basketball advance to the Sweet 16 for the first time since 2006 in a second-round matchup against Trinity (TX), and witnessed a large, vocal crowd that created an atmosphere worthy of the stage upon which the game was being played.
Unfortunately, even if HSU was (hypothetically) a Top 4 overall seed this year, we wouldn’t have gotten that electric atmosphere in Abilene for another week. HSU wouldn’t even be in the hosting discussion. Why? The same reason why Transy isn’t hosting. Geography. It’s unfair, no question about it. We can argue about the correct process all day. Every school does have a vote in these types of things. But here’s the deal. Why is a president in Massachusetts or New York going to care about a team in Texas not having the chance to host? Why would they worry about Transy losing the chance to host in the Sectionals? Their athletic programs will hardly ever, if ever, be put in the same spot, or deal with the same issue. Geography is on their side. And voting to take money away from other things in Division III to guarantee that the top four seeds host in the Sectionals (assuming they advance) every year regardless of location is something they may not have much incentive to vote for. And considering the concentration of Division III schools in the mid-atlantic and northeast regions, that’s a good percentage of the Division III population.
So the point I’m trying to make is that, yes, presidents do have a significant role to play in the budget. But even if all the presidents in the isolated parts of the country (those most likely to be affected by a situation like this one) team up and vote together to push legislation that would help avoid a situation like this one from happening again, it will be an uphill battle all the way. Which is why I don’t think it hurts to have coaches and others calling for action to be taken. It cannot be a battle purely fought by the university presidents themselves inside convention and council meetings. Sure, that might be the “battleground” for these types of discussions, but that does not mean that coaches, administrators, student-athletes, alumni, and supporters are excluded from having a voice and being presented with the opportunity to use it. This needs to be a team effort to create change, which is why I think it is commendable to see people actually speaking out on this. Everyone, and especially university presidents and coaches, need to be educated on the correct avenues to bring about concrete improvements to the Division III postseason model, and concurrently, should be encouraged to speak their minds freely and if the situation calls for it, correctly express displeasure at the state of the current system.
It seems the combination of RMC men’s basketball, Transylvania women’s basketball, the women’s hockey situation with River Falls and Gustavus referenced above have made for three days of serious discussion on this overarching topic. What I have seen is that while there are varying opinions in terms of degree and approach on how best to fix this, the consensus is that something has to change. Or at the very least, efforts need to be made to start the process to hopefully create more balanced opportunities for deserving teams across the country to host, especially in the later rounds of a national tournament, when hosting becomes an even more significant factor.
It just isn’t right to continue to have a system that doesn’t fairly reward the country’s best teams with opportunities to host in the second weekend of the tournament because of their location. I get why it exists, and why it happened this year. But that isn’t an excuse for just accepting this reality as the status quo.
Zac Snyder of the D3 Datacast suggested this proposal on X/Twitter today:
“Add a section to the host application where the school can indicate if they would be willing to pick up the additional travel cost rather than lose out on hosting due to geography. Can allow them to indicate yes/no. If yes they can indicate how many teams (1-3 for a bball pod).
“So if the top seed would host but it would take a flight or flights whereas it could be hosted elsewhere with no or fewer flights, they could have essentially first right of refusal to not lose out due to geography by picking up the extra cost.”
Perhaps that is an idea worth thinking more about.
Agree? Disagree? Would appreciate hearing opinions on this. The public comments section is below. You’re also welcome to email me at rileyzayas@gmail.com, directly send me a message using the button below, or direct message me on X/Twitter at (@ZayasRiley).
Well said Riley. Issues in DIII golf, too. Not exactly the same, but rooted in the same thing to be sure. It needs to change.
So I can't disagree with any of this, you've summarized the historical situation quite well along with this weekend's sudden viral discussion of the issue. And I guess that's why I have a hard time with this suddenly being a Big ****ing Deal - we have been dealing with this situation basically the entire century and it's only now, because of a single team involved and the fact that a school president has expressed his displeasure with the situation (and gotten coverage) that Some People Think Fixing Something That Didn't Impact Them Until This Week is the thing to do.
Maybe it's simply jealousy that something so many of us have talked about fruitlessly for so long may finally be addressed thanks to a handful of people who never knew it was a problem to begin with. Making things fair for all teams, not just those you can bus everyone to, is certainly the goal, and if it happens thanks to this single undeserved plane trip, we should (and I will) count it as a win.
OK, on second thought there is something I could pick a bone with. The "we'll pay tens of thousands to host" idea would favor the schools that largely don't need favoring (e.g. the ones with money) and would you want to be the administrator that has to tell the program "sorry, we don't have the money for this" which could so easily be interpreted as "we don't think you're important enough". I like the idea but I don't know how you could make it fair to the have-nots which is in a way what Division III is all about.