Yes, they are bad for D III football on a number of different levels. I also believe this is a situation that has been manufactured.
So how is this bad for D III. First, for the past 7 years the showcase game has had the attention of the same fan base. I would like to say that the fan base is increasing but the evidence does not indicate that based on the coverage. ESPN does not broadcast the selections, its now on line. The game was moved from Saturday to Friday. These are not good indicators.
Let me explain why I believe this has been manufactured. Going into the 2011 season why were WW and Mt Union 1 and 2 in the polls. WW was the defending national champion no problem there. However, just because Mt. Union was runner up does that make them an automatic 2. The polling situation was then carried over to the NCAA selection process. Where both WW and Mt Union were then given home field advantage throughout the 2011 playoffs. Entering into the 2011 playoffs there were 10, 10/9-0 teams. Certainly one of these teams may have warranted a number 2 ranking. If another team is ranked number 2 the entire dynamics of the backets changes.
Let's move on, in other blogs I have asked "what NCAA championships give the home team an advantage for 51 consecutive non championship games" ? Mt Union has now hosted 51 NCAA games. In D III the home field advantage is huge. I don't remember UCLA playing all their NCAA playoff game at Pauly Pavillion. I don't believe this is fair. I also realize that the NCAA changed the procedure in 2010 where WW was on the road for two games, a move in the right direction.
That being said, look at the tremendous advantage enjoyed by both WW and MU over the vast majority of the 239 D III members. Over the course of the 7 year run both teams have played 35 more games, have had 35 additional weeks of practice. Given the way the backets and home fields are assigned these teams could have as many as 9 home games each season. What a recruiting advantage on both a local and national basis. Imagine how this aids in team development both for the the starters and back ups.
How is this situation remedied ? The NCAA should place them on the same side of the bracket or even in the same quadrant. Both WW and MU were given easy paths to the finals this year. They enjoyed home field advantage and easy draws. There is a college football performance ranking based out of Wisconsin. Based on those rankings, the Mary Hardin Baylor quadrant contained 7 teams ranked in the top 11 teams of that performance ranking. Wesley travelled to Texas only to win and then be given the Mt Union assignment. I wonder how MU would have done under these same circumstances.
So how is this bad for D III. First, for the past 7 years the showcase game has had the attention of the same fan base. I would like to say that the fan base is increasing but the evidence does not indicate that based on the coverage. ESPN does not broadcast the selections, its now on line. The game was moved from Saturday to Friday. These are not good indicators.
Let me explain why I believe this has been manufactured. Going into the 2011 season why were WW and Mt Union 1 and 2 in the polls. WW was the defending national champion no problem there. However, just because Mt. Union was runner up does that make them an automatic 2. The polling situation was then carried over to the NCAA selection process. Where both WW and Mt Union were then given home field advantage throughout the 2011 playoffs. Entering into the 2011 playoffs there were 10, 10/9-0 teams. Certainly one of these teams may have warranted a number 2 ranking. If another team is ranked number 2 the entire dynamics of the backets changes.
Let's move on, in other blogs I have asked "what NCAA championships give the home team an advantage for 51 consecutive non championship games" ? Mt Union has now hosted 51 NCAA games. In D III the home field advantage is huge. I don't remember UCLA playing all their NCAA playoff game at Pauly Pavillion. I don't believe this is fair. I also realize that the NCAA changed the procedure in 2010 where WW was on the road for two games, a move in the right direction.
That being said, look at the tremendous advantage enjoyed by both WW and MU over the vast majority of the 239 D III members. Over the course of the 7 year run both teams have played 35 more games, have had 35 additional weeks of practice. Given the way the backets and home fields are assigned these teams could have as many as 9 home games each season. What a recruiting advantage on both a local and national basis. Imagine how this aids in team development both for the the starters and back ups.
How is this situation remedied ? The NCAA should place them on the same side of the bracket or even in the same quadrant. Both WW and MU were given easy paths to the finals this year. They enjoyed home field advantage and easy draws. There is a college football performance ranking based out of Wisconsin. Based on those rankings, the Mary Hardin Baylor quadrant contained 7 teams ranked in the top 11 teams of that performance ranking. Wesley travelled to Texas only to win and then be given the Mt Union assignment. I wonder how MU would have done under these same circumstances.