FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

I'm not saying that the NCAC-UAA agreement won't be extended beyond 2011, but given the way the conferences have been gung-ho about announcing this thing yet nothing official has been released and the fact that CWRU is shopping for games for all but the last 3 weeks of 2012, I'm guessing nothing has been determined beyond 2011. 

DPU coming into the league does in fact free up a non-conference game for Wabash.  I couldn't say for sure if Wabash has some obligation to fill that spot with a UAA team or not.  The point may be moot if there is no agreement in 2012.  If it does get extended, I'd hope that Wabash can keep one elective game open as Wittenberg, Allegheny, Wooster, and Hiram have done.  Of course, that's IF the agreement is extended....until there is an announcement, we can hope that it doesn't come to that. 

[maripp2002]

OK, for the record I don't hate the UAA/ NCAC agreement. I just look at it two ways. First, if we are going to do this why don't we just extend football membership to the four teams? Break it into two divisions like the NEFC and this way we avoid the two biggest problems with this whole agreement.

1.) CWRU has had a great football team the last three or four seasons (not hating here) BUT they didn't have to play Wab/Witt in the regular season. Not saying CWRU wouldn't have won those games, but to get a Pool B you pretty much have to run the table and not having the top 2 teams in the NCAC can't hurt those chances. Whereas Chicago and Wash U. got kind of hosed on the deal. At least this way all involved have a pretty fair shot at a playoff bid.

2.) Having the two division system opens up a few out of conference games which the top teams in both leagues could use to test themselves outside of conference play. Not saying they would schedule tough, but now with DPU joining what once was an out of conference game becomes even more meaningful for Wab and they lose that measuring stick against the SCAC. 

It just seems to me that the way this already plays out it is really dumb not to just make the NCAC one big football conglomerate and then the lower and upper tier teams get the same benefits. 1 maybe 2 playoff spots every year and fairer scheduling for all.

[bishopowu]

7:00 Saturday Selby Stadium OWU vs. Wooster...Big game fellas...Biggest game in OWU history?

[BashDad]

Biggest game in history? Because it's at night? Really?

[bishopowu]

First night game ever at Historic Selby Field...not just any regular night game BashDad.

[wally_wabash]

While expanding the football league to 14 teams solves a couple of problems, it presents other problems that don't exist currently. 

- The core NCAC teams' access to the tournament is reduced (1 in 10 would reduce to 1 in 14).  I don't know if I'm comfortable sharing the league's guaranteed spot in the tournament with affiliate members.   

- Two divisions means a winner-take-all championship game to see who gets the league's AQ which is an opportunity for the league to send somebody other than the best team in the league to the playoffs.  I'll pass. 

- A week 11 championship game also pushes the Monon Bell game and other traditional week 11 rivalry games off of week 11. 

It seems to me that there is an awful lot of downside to mega-expansion.  There's a lot of sacrifice by the core membership of the NCAC for the sake of throwing the UAA teams a bone and giving them a full ten game schedule.  The fact is that those four teams knew what time it was when they decided to be in a four-team league.  They had to have known that it was going to be hard to get games once conference play started.  The UAA is a vast league geographically, and they travel far and wide for every other sport that they sponsor.  When it comes to football, they balk.  It really isn't the NCAC's responsibility to fill the gaping holes in the schedules of these UAA teams.  You can't be in a league like the UAA and pretend like travel for games matters.  If it matters that much, it's time to rethink your affiliation (as RHIT and, eventually, DePauw did with their SCAC affiliation). 

[maripp2002]

I see some of the points you make, but I will point out something about just one bullet point. Every game in a 10 game season is a chance to send a team that isn't the best to the playoffs.

As a hypothetical let us say the two best teams in a conference meet in a game, we'll call it week six, and one team is missing their two time offensive player of the year QB because he... I don't know punctured his lung the week before. These two teams play and it ends up 10-7 with the team missing a QB losing. In this situation you have to say the best team got to the playoffs because they won the big game.

Now, did either team like it that way? No. But every week is a risk to not send the "best" team onward. Same goes with the playoffs. If you win you're better - regardless of wins and losses. After all we have seen some 1 and 2 seeds go down in this fashion.

[BashBacker#16]

Bishopowu,

Are you being serious? 

BB16

[ExTartanPlayer]

For what it's worth, wally, I agree about avoiding the "superconference" model  The drawbacks you pointed out all make sense - and I even think the playoff argument could be extended further; the UAA teams would have a harder time getting a playoff berth in that conference than under the current alignment.

CMU 2006 and CWRU 2007-09 all made it through the Pool B "loophole" by going undefeated against relatively weak schedules.  It's a stretch to think that all four of those teams would have made the playoffs in a 14-team NCAC (simply because I doubt any of them could have beaten Bash/Witt depending on the year).

I, too, dislike the notion of Week 11 conference title games in Division III.  This isn't the SEC, there's no money to be made from a conference title game...let the teams win it in the regular season.

In summary, I completely agree.  I really DON'T see any benefit to the UAA teams joining as football-only members (nor do I think the UAA schools want that, either).

[maripp2002]

ExTartanPlayer I applaud your honesty, but you just reaffirm why the whole UAA/NCAC model has to be an all or nothing proposition. If the agreement isn't really beneficial for anyone at the top be it Witt, Wab, CWRU, or CMU - then why lock into it? It seems that from the UAA whatever teams don't have to play Wab/Witt are in the drivers seat for the Pool B bid, and playing the lower tiers of either conference doesn't prepare the top dogs for the playoffs so why do it?

This whole thing either needs to be tossed out or made into a super conference. Otherwise it is unfair to the teams that don't play Wab/Witt/CWRU and it's not fair to Wab/Witt they can't try to schedule big games in hopes of the Pool C bid. All in all the whole things stinks as it is and both groups need to examine what they get out of it.

[joelmama]

   

- Two divisions means a winner-take-all championship game to see who gets the league's AQ which is an opportunity for the league to send somebody other than the best team in the league to the playoffs.  I'll pass. 

Now I certainly agree that the tradition of the Depauw Wabash game should not be altered from the last week of the season but you could look at it this way if  the division winners played each other and the rest of the teams matched up with the other divisions teams this could be looked at as a playoff for all and thus not "ruining" the Wabash-Depauw tradition.  I mean what could happen if both Depauw and Wabash were made playoff teams (one being an at-large team) and they met again in week 12 or 13. Would that ruin the traddition?

Also if  there were two divisions IMO if the winners play head to head and the winner gets the AQ berth then the best will get into the playoffs 100% of the time.  There is no better test than a head to head match-up.

[joelmama]

For what it's worth, wally, I agree about avoiding the "superconference" model  The drawbacks you pointed out all make sense - and I even think the playoff argument could be extended further; the UAA teams would have a harder time getting a playoff berth in that conference than under the current alignment.

CMU 2006 and CWRU 2007-09 all made it through the Pool B "loophole" by going undefeated against relatively weak schedules.  It's a stretch to think that all four of those teams would have made the playoffs in a 14-team NCAC (simply because I doubt any of them could have beaten Bash/Witt depending on the year).

I, too, dislike the notion of Week 11 conference title games in Division III.  This isn't the SEC, there's no money to be made from a conference title game...let the teams win it in the regular season.

In summary, I completely agree.  I really DON'T see any benefit to the UAA teams joining as football-only members (nor do I think the UAA schools want that, either).

I think the number of teams making it through this loophole  is shrinking and that would make the chances more difficult.

[ExTartanPlayer]

ExTartanPlayer I applaud your honesty, but you just reaffirm why the whole UAA/NCAC model has to be an all or nothing proposition. If the agreement isn't really beneficial for anyone at the top be it Witt, Wab, CWRU, or CMU - then why lock into it? It seems that from the UAA whatever teams don't have to play Wab/Witt are in the drivers seat for the Pool B bid, and playing the lower tiers of either conference doesn't prepare the top dogs for the playoffs so why do it?

Before I begin (just because my post SOUNDS argumentatitve) - generally speaking, I agree that the arrangement is clunky and probably ought to be discontinued.

First bolded part - I think you've (unintentionally) hit on a point here.  The NCAC has 10 teams, not 2, and for the eight teams not named Wabash/Wittenberg this arrangement works fine.  Sure, it stinks for the top two, but you really think that Oberlin/Hiram/Kenyon/Denison care that much?

The second part that I bolded, I agree, is a problem.  There's no way to adequately "balance" the schedule, and whichever UAA team misses Bash/Witt has an easier road to the playoffs.  To address the point about CWRU being matched up against the bottom of the league - when the schedules were drawn up, Case wasn't any good!  I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.  Case was 5-5 in 2006, and that was their BEST season in a couple years.  I don't think anyone really expected CWRU to have three straight playoff seasons.

Finally, re: the playoff preparation comment - when the idea was first conceived, the UAA hadn't had a playoff team since the 1990's.  I doubt that playoff preparation was much of a consideration for any UAA teams - they were probably a lot more concerned with securing nonconference games , period.

After typing all of that, it's got me thinking...I'm not really sure why the NCAC ever agreed to this.  The UAA teams "need" it way more than the NCAC teams.  As we've mentioned, it would be fairly easy for the NCAC teams that so desire to grab a nonconference game with a UAA team, given that the UAA teams are DESPERATE to fill out their schedule...and that would leave Bash/Witt free to schedule a tougher noncon opponent (paging CCIW & OAC teams not named Mount Union...)

[wally_wabash]

I guess I would have been thinking of an instance where the two teams in the "championship" game had played already in a divisional crossover game and undefeated team A had already beaten Team B.  But Team B wins their division and then wins a rematch.  Or we could have a situation where one team in the league has been clearly dominant and is undefeated and the opponent in the championship game has two losses...but the planets align and the two-loss team wins.  Are we doing everything we can to make sure that the NCAC is being represented by the best team?  You can see how this thing can get messy awfully quickly.  

I also think the two-division thing really hurts a league's chances for two bids.  How many teams get in after losing their last game?  It can't be many because when you lose, you get squashed by the regional rankings.  It takes a couple of games and some other teams losing to reverse that momentum.  The best chance for a second team getting in is actually a single loss, second place divisional team...and that comes with it's own set of head-scratching.  

One last point...the NCAA requirement for an automatic bid is 7 teams in a league.  Why would we want to split one league into two seven team leagues, only to have those champions NOT qualify for the tournament, but rather qualify for what basically amounts to the self-imposed equivalent of the play-in game for the D-I hoops tournament (which is universally loathed by everybody except the city of Dayton)?  I can't find an upside to a divisional format.  

[wally_wabash]

After typing all of that, it's got me thinking...I'm not really sure why the NCAC ever agreed to this.  The UAA teams "need" it way more than the NCAC teams.  As we've mentioned, it would be fairly easy for the NCAC teams that so desire to grab a nonconference game with a UAA team, given that the UAA teams are DESPERATE to fill out their schedule...and that would leave Bash/Witt free to schedule a tougher noncon opponent (paging CCIW & OAC teams not named Mount Union...)

This paragraph perfectly summarizes my rants about this topic that have been going on for about five years now.