University Athletic Association

[ADL70]

Just got back from running an errand.  And while doing that I realized that the UAA will most likely no longer be considered as sponsoring football after 2013 as XTP points out.

Would CWRU and Chicago become South Region ala Depauw when it was in the SCAC?  Maybe by then this whole in region nonsense will be abolished rather than just being ignored, as seems to be the case.

Seems silly that Chicago and WUStL can't get scheduled into the new SAA before 2015, even though not eligible for Pool A.

Ironically the PAC began as a four team conference in 1955.

Also just ventured over to the PAC board.  This season there's been little conversation.  The one reply regarding the afilliation was not welcoming.

Let's hope the PAC doesn't consult with the NCAC on making a non-round-robin schedule, unless it's to see what not to do.

I wonder if the three UAA games will be on consecutive weeks, preferably the last three weeks with the in-conference meetings in week eleven.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I wonder if the three UAA games will be on consecutive weeks, preferably the last three weeks with the in-conference meetings in week eleven.

Not sure that this will happen.

I expect that CMU/CWRU might become a Week 11 rivalry game, since that will be a PAC game and it's already got a rivalry-game name (Academic Bowl).

I suspect that the "non-conference" UAA games will occur in Weeks 1-2, however, to accommodate the PAC and SAA schedules.  Otherwise, the UAA schools might have to take a Week 1 bye and play ten straight weeks.

[DagarmanSpartan]

Actually, according to THIS link:

http://cwru-daily.com/news/?p=4500

CWRU will, beginning in 2014 compete in the President's Athletic Conference for football, together with Carnegie-Mellon BUT will continue to play Chicago and Wash-U, St. Louis in UAA football.  The CMU game will count towards the conference standings in BOTH conferences.

This gives CWRU the best of both worlds: membership in an "automatic qualifying" conference for football AND a continuation of its UAA football tradition.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Actually, according to THIS link:

http://cwru-daily.com/news/?p=4500

CWRU will, beginning in 2014 compete in the President's Athletic Conference for football, together with Carnegie-Mellon BUT will continue to play Chicago and Rochester in UAA football.  The CMU game will count towards the conference standings in BOTH conferences.

This gives CWRU the best of both worlds: membership in an "automatic qualifying" conference for football AND a continuation of its UAA football tradition.

Long time no see, Jagran.  Are you in the Middle East at the moment?

Thanks for the link.  I was wondering if they'd still award a UAA championship (as long as the schools continue to play a round-robin).  Frankly, I'm a little pessimistic that arrangement will prove sustainable in the long run, although I'd like to see it continue.  It would be nice to have the four UAA schools playing one another & awarding a de facto UAA title.

I know that Rochester had an awkward arrangement towards the end of their time in the UAA when they were listed both in UAA standings and in the Upsate College Athletic Association standings (now the Liberty League).  I think that 2003 was the last year they were both UAA and UCAA members; eventually the Liberty League expanded enough to get an AQ and Rochy completely withdrem from the UAA.

[DagarmanSpartan]

I've been in Afghanistan for the last eight and a half months.

The way that I read that article suggests that the UAA will continue to sponsor football and award a football championship, BUT that CMU and CWRU will also compete for the PAC title and an automatic bid.

Ya know what's ironic?

One of my other alma maters, the University of Houston, just joined a "BCS automatic qualifier" conference, the Big East, for football, and now my undergrad alma mater, CWRU, has just joined an "automatic qualifier" conference, the PAC, in Division III football.

For JagranSpartan's alma maters, conference shake-ups are becoming an almost weekly occurrence.

[ADL70]

Jagran

You mistyped Rochester when you meant Washington.

I wonder if the NCAA will continue to recognize the UAA as a conference and hence those games "in-region."  Or will CWRU and Chicago become South Region as a result of the new conference affiliations.

Would be nice to affiliate with the PAC for baseball, too.

[DagarmanSpartan]

Oops!!!

Good catch!!!

Thanks!

Corrected!

Ya know what's funny?  We CWRU fans are going to have DOUBLE posting responsibilities.  We'll have to post on both the UAA and the PAC football boards.  The fans of the other 3 UAA football schools will also have a similar increase in posting responsibilities.

[ADL70]

On the PAC board from August thru December 12 there were only 16 posts.

Yesterday and today there have been 23.

[DagarmanSpartan]

Ya know.  I just thought of something.

The series with Oberlin is presumably coming to an indefinite end in 2014.

With that in mind, Oberlin has only two more chances to end its 25+ year losing streak against us.

Let's hope that we retire that series with a winning streak in our favor!

The bad part about this, is that we'll no longer have the "Baird Brothers" game against Wooster, for the most unique trophy in all of college sports.

If we win the last matchup in 2013, then does the trophy merit a permanent spot in our "Hall of Fame" room?

[ExTartanPlayer]

I wonder if the NCAA will continue to recognize the UAA as a conference and hence those games "in-region."  Or will CWRU and Chicago become South Region as a result of the new conference affiliations.

Interesting question, since the it sounds like the UAA is planning to continue as a de facto "secondary" conference. 

The only games that are affected, if I remember correctly, are CMU vs. Chicago and CWRU vs. WashU.

Nonetheless, ADL, in light of this year's playoff debate re: CWRU, I doubt that it will matter much as far as playoff berths go.  Consider it this way: in some hypothetical future season, if CWRU loses to WashU ("out-of-region") but goes 9-0 otherwise, they'll still win the PAC autobid.  If they lose to WashU and lose a PAC game, they'll be 8-2 and probably won't even be considered for a Pool C bid (no way an 8-2 PAC runner-up gets into the playoffs).

[jam40jeff]

Consider it this way: in some hypothetical future season, if CWRU loses to WashU ("out-of-region") but goes 9-0 otherwise, they'll still win the PAC autobid.

There's no guarantee of that since the PAC won't be able to play a full round-robin.

[SaintsFAN]

On the PAC board from August thru December 12 there were only 16 posts.

Yesterday and today there have been 23.

Thats what happens when one team has dominated the past three seasons.  It happened that way when it was W&J in the early 2000s.  This will be good for TMC, if they are sticking around.  Who knows what is going on.  TMC did add St. John Fischer to their non-conference schedule as the season opener for 2012, though.

[ExTartanPlayer]

On the PAC board from August thru December 12 there were only 16 posts.

Yesterday and today there have been 23.

Thats what happens when one team has dominated the past three seasons.  It happened that way when it was W&J in the early 2000s.  This will be good for TMC, if they are sticking around.  Who knows what is going on.  TMC did add St. John Fischer to their non-conference schedule as the season opener for 2012, though.

Yeah, there used to be a bunch of W&J posters.  Notice that (except for Bob) they all disappeared in a 6-4 season for the Presidents.  Fair-weather fans...a couple of losses to TMC and they took their ball and went home.

Are you hinting that a TMC move is in the offing?  What does the St. John Fisher game have to do with anything?  It's just a nonconference game, right?

[SaintsFAN]

On the PAC board from August thru December 12 there were only 16 posts.

Yesterday and today there have been 23.

Thats what happens when one team has dominated the past three seasons.  It happened that way when it was W&J in the early 2000s.  This will be good for TMC, if they are sticking around.  Who knows what is going on.  TMC did add St. John Fischer to their non-conference schedule as the season opener for 2012, though.

Yeah, there used to be a bunch of W&J posters.  Notice that (except for Bob) they all disappeared in a 6-4 season for the Presidents.  Fair-weather fans...a couple of losses to TMC and they took their ball and went home.

Are you hinting that a TMC move is in the offing?  What does the St. John Fisher game have to do with anything?  It's just a nonconference game, right?

Incomplete thoughts --- They are trying to strengthen the schedule.  I know they've tried before, but I think the HCAC is a great fit for TMC. 

[jknezek]

I would assume someone is leaving the PAC and TMC is the obvious candidate. I don't think the PAC at 11 teams makes sense, and 12 team plus conferences are just pointless at the D3 level. You lose money by having a conf champion, you have a good shot at costing your undefeated or one loss team a high seed or a spot at all in the playoffs, and you're over 50% above the threshold for a single bid without getting a second one. You also still need to find the same number of OOC games as an 8 or 10 team conference, depending on how many divisional crossovers you allow. Completely pointless from any perspective.

Similarly an 11 team conference is almost as bad. Unbalanced schedule, the possibility of a split championship... just messy business. The only reason I see the PAC accepting (re-accepting?) the two UAA schools is if they believe a member is leaving or can be convinced to move. TMC, geographically, is the obvious candidate. While I think 8 team conferences make the most sense, slightly over the limit and easy to schedule, I can see a 10 team conference being attractive for only having to find 1 OOC per year. 11 or 12 teams? Very strange.

I'd be interested if anyone could come up with analysis that makes sense for an 11 or 12 team conference? The only two I've been able to come up with is if you combine two conferences that are too small for an autobid but are unable/unwilling to poach or strand members, or if one of your non-football full-conference members decides to add football. Clearly this was not the PAC's issue...