FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[ExTartanPlayer]

We could /have beat this one up pretty good...  Good thoughts from all sides and ultimately comes down to coaching philosophy/risk. Good stuff and why I brought the original question up in the first place.

Agreed.  +K's all around for good discussion, even with disagreements.

[smedindy]

Something caught my eye:

I don't think the Quick Kick is conservative at all - it's a gamble. Wacky things can happen on unexpected punts. All it would take would be a wayward touch by Wabash and it's a live ball.

An ultra-conservative call is a run up the middle, or a draw, then a punt. He may have gambling on long odds that Wabash would bungle the quick kick and they could get the ball back, with the worst result a punt with no return since no one was back to receive it. Not ultra-conservative in my eye.

[USee]

Something caught my eye:

I don't think the Quick Kick is conservative at all - it's a gamble. Wacky things can happen on unexpected punts. All it would take would be a wayward touch by Wabash and it's a live ball.

An ultra-conservative call is a run up the middle, or a draw, then a punt. He may have gambling on long odds that Wabash would bungle the quick kick and they could get the ball back, with the worst result a punt with no return since no one was back to receive it. Not ultra-conservative in my eye.

Exactly.  That's one scenario. Again I really don't think coaches make that call thinking of a specific outcome.  I think they are trying to change the odds in their favor.  So you have Namce and Walker. What are the odd of completing a jump ball? 10%? 20%. A long interception is a neutral outcome and an incomplete is a negative outcome for reasons I outlined earlier. A more conservative playboys to run it or throw a short pass, get 5-10 yds and then punt.  But the outcome of that would have been arguably worse than the quick kick. 

Good discussion.   

[DPU3619]

If I'm playing a team that I know can't move it on me, I'll kick it on 3rd down because I don't want a return. I want to kick it as far as I can and let that thing roll down the turf all day. I know I'll get a 3 and out from my defense and they'll have to kick it back to me. If they return it, that may put them in a position to get 3 or 7. But, Wabash was having success. So I don't get it.

I don't think taking away a return does any more for you than trying to run a play to get out of the shadow of your goal post. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Desertraider]

I'm not a big fan of the "off-week"
An 11th game, at the start of the season would
be a natural...so, the Bishops get more film
time to look at the Lords...and we're in good
company, Mount Union is off too.....maybe
run up to Alliance and play the Raiders and see
where Watts has the Red & Black...I wish

Sounds good to me! I would welcome an in-state game over trips to WV, Wisconsin, VA, etc...anyday. However - I am not holding my breath.

[formerd3db]

I agree it would add a week, but as I pointed out the teams playing the extra week probably aren't playing on the back end, so it's the same number of games for most teams.

It's 5 more games for the NCAA to pay for or as you've postulated...

I also said the teams playing in the pods should pay their own way. If one forfeits the other goes through.

I mean, what an incredible horrible and impossible position to put a school in.  A school that operates on a particularly limited budget has an incredible season- and we're probably talking about a team that doesn't qualify for the postseason often or ever- now has to blow the budget to play the tournament game or tell that team "sorry, but we can't afford it."  We've created a scenario where the tournament is open to schools that can afford it and not so much schools that have earned it.  That can't be the case. 

And what if BOTH schools in the pod can't pay to play the play-in game?  Does the next week's opponent now get a double bye into the round of 16?  That seems silly. 

Keeping it between two local conferences minimizes the expense as much as possible. I don't think this scenario is at all likely, but I think it's preferable to what is going to happen if D3 football keeps expanding and we don't do anything. I also prefer it to a blanket 11th game, which I think will absolutely not happen and doesn't solve any problems.

The committee and the NCAA have made some really, really good strides in the last handful of years toward building interregional, reasonably balanced brackets for the football championship.  Forcing neighboring conferences to play leads to situations like the MIAC/WIAC thing you mentioned which makes the tournament not as good as it ought to be.  I don't think adding 5 more teams to the tournament is worth the amount of sacrifice involved in making the 37-team tournament kind of sort of work.

Wally:

You have me confused.  How can that situation be i.e. schools not being able to afford to play the playoff game, when the NCAA pays for essentially all the expenses for the team members, coaching staff and support staff via the major television revenues from the DI basketball tournaments?  Did I miss a change in that?   

[ExTartanPlayer]

I agree it would add a week, but as I pointed out the teams playing the extra week probably aren't playing on the back end, so it's the same number of games for most teams.

It's 5 more games for the NCAA to pay for or as you've postulated...

I also said the teams playing in the pods should pay their own way. If one forfeits the other goes through.

I mean, what an incredible horrible and impossible position to put a school in.  A school that operates on a particularly limited budget has an incredible season- and we're probably talking about a team that doesn't qualify for the postseason often or ever- now has to blow the budget to play the tournament game or tell that team "sorry, but we can't afford it."  We've created a scenario where the tournament is open to schools that can afford it and not so much schools that have earned it.  That can't be the case. 

And what if BOTH schools in the pod can't pay to play the play-in game?  Does the next week's opponent now get a double bye into the round of 16?  That seems silly. 

Keeping it between two local conferences minimizes the expense as much as possible. I don't think this scenario is at all likely, but I think it's preferable to what is going to happen if D3 football keeps expanding and we don't do anything. I also prefer it to a blanket 11th game, which I think will absolutely not happen and doesn't solve any problems.

The committee and the NCAA have made some really, really good strides in the last handful of years toward building interregional, reasonably balanced brackets for the football championship.  Forcing neighboring conferences to play leads to situations like the MIAC/WIAC thing you mentioned which makes the tournament not as good as it ought to be.  I don't think adding 5 more teams to the tournament is worth the amount of sacrifice involved in making the 37-team tournament kind of sort of work.

Wally:

You have me confused.  How can that situation be i.e. schools not being able to afford to play the playoff game, when the NCAA pays for essentially all the expenses for the team members, coaching staff and support staff via the major television revenues from the DI basketball tournaments?  Did I miss a change in that?

Sorry for the confusion, Doc. The NCAA does pay for now. We were bandying about hypotheticals in the event of continues growth of Division III (and the possibility that one day the number of Pool A conferences would creep up to 32, or near enough that maintaining any number of at large bids would require expanding the playoff field). Jknezek alluded to a pod system used in other sports (admittedly something I know little about) - wherein I gather that the schools have to pay for what amounts to "play in" games, it sounds like - but I'll defer to someone else to better explain that.

[tigerfanalso]

Wabash Fans

Congrats on the win this past Saturday. Tough day for a young HSC OL. Your defense is one of the best I've seen in D3 and certainly as good as advertised. Although the officials did their best to ruin the game (no advantage to either team) it was a great experience and learning curve for HSC going forward. Best team won and good luck to the LGs rest of the way.

[jknezek]

Sorry for the confusion, Doc. The NCAA does pay for now. We were bandying about hypotheticals in the event of continues growth of Division III (and the possibility that one day the number of Pool A conferences would creep up to 32, or near enough that maintaining any number of at large bids would require expanding the playoff field). Jknezek alluded to a pod system used in other sports (admittedly something I know little about) - wherein I gather that the schools have to pay for what amounts to "play in" games, it sounds like - but I'll defer to someone else to better explain that.

To be clear, teams do not currently pay to take part in these pods. Once you make the NCAA tournament it is paid for. Pods in basketball, soccer, etc. are extremely regional making them unbalanced at times even if they are technically seeded. With the cost cutting that is going on, and the most recent focus on trying to bring the division into a balanced budget, I was talking about a way to expand the tournament, without letting costs get out of hand. Pairing two conferences that are closest together in a "play in" type game that is paid for by the schools is an unlikely and distasteful possible solution. I don't like it, but I could see it being implemented if and only if D3 continues to grow and money continues to be an issue...

[formerd3db]

ExTartan and jknezek:

No problem and obviously not your fault at all.  My mistake in not having gone back far enough in the previous posts regarding the topic of discussion-that's the risk in jumping in the middle of these discussions on the various boards as we all have done so at one time or another I'm sure. 

Regardless, thanks for the clarification.  As to the hypothetical scenarios, you all have some good points of concern.  It will be interesting to see how DIII structure might play out in the next few years. Recall that Pat and his colleagues and others had some great articles on their thoughts regarding NCAA DIII structure (at least with the playoff system) not too long ago in the early 2000's when much of that was being discussed by the NCAA administrators/the Pres. Council, etc.  As Pat and others had mentioned also, and from what we've (not) seen, there hasn't been much talk about that of recent.  No doubt that will be revisited in upcoming years, if they (NCAA) aren't doing it already "behind the scenes".

[formerd3db]

Diff topic...

BTW, ExTartan, are you going to the Central Michigan/Syracuse game tomorrow or are you taking in a DIII game?  I am surprised that Syracuse agreed to come to Mt. Pleasant as Central Michigan usually goes to the bigger school's places (like they are going to Kansas the next week), although Boston College, Navy, etc. have come this way on occasion.

Another random thought I had was the similarity of the abbreviations your alma mater and this MAC school you now have an interest in i.e. "CMU".  But...I know you didn't make that a "like" just because of the same initials!!!   We know there is another reason for that-and a much better one for that matter!

[Pat Coleman]

Sorry -- been away from the boards for a couple of days dealing with editing columns and (sigh) punching in basketball schedules.

SAA doesn't get an automatic bid until 2015-16. And then we went back to the quick kick so I got lost in whatever else you wanted my take on.

[jknezek]

Sorry -- been away from the boards for a couple of days dealing with editing columns and (sigh) punching in basketball schedules.

SAA doesn't get an automatic bid until 2015-16. And then we went back to the quick kick so I got lost in whatever else you wanted my take on.

My main question was what is the net positive gain in D3 football schools since the beginning of the AQ era.

[Pat Coleman]

Does anyone know how many D3 football programs there were in 1999 when the AQ began? I would be interested to compare to today's number.

I can't give you that number for certain, but I can spitball at it.

D3football.com's FAQ page (http://d3football.com/interactive/faq/general#16) suggests that at least 31 schools have added Division III football from 1997-2014, 29 of them since 1999.  I know we've lost a handful of schools (Colorado College in the mid-00's, and McMurry jumped up a Division - although I think they're coming back - plus I'm sure another handful that I just don't know about because they're before my time), but still, there must have been a net gain of 20 or so schools.

Now, whether there are another 20 schools out there who will add in the next two decades, I don't know, we might be approaching the tail-end of a boom growth period.  I'm not qualified to comment there.

When we first started doing Kickoff a decade ago, there were 229 teams.

If we're at 244, subtract the 29 to get to 215. But we also had teams at Blackburn, Colorado College, Mass-Boston, McMurry, Mississippi College, Swarthmore. And we've also transitioned a bunch of schools into the NCAA since then as well, who are not on that list. (St. Vincent, Westminster (Pa.), Texas Lutheran among them.)

[jknezek]

When we first started doing Kickoff a decade ago, there were 229 teams.

If we're at 244, subtract the 29 to get to 215. But we also had teams at Blackburn, Colorado College, Mass-Boston, McMurry, Mississippi College, Swarthmore. And we've also transitioned a bunch of schools into the NCAA since then as well, who are not on that list. (St. Vincent, Westminster (Pa.), Texas Lutheran among them.)

So a net gain of just under 2 per year. Heck of a trend if it continues...