FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[bleedpurple]

I think the basic point of Pool B is to give those schools access similar to the Pool A conferences. Those bids are allocated at the exact same ratio and since we make no distinction for the quality of a conference when it comes to handing out automatic bids, we shouldn't for Pool B either, I think.

To date, no Pool B-eligible football team has gotten a Pool C bid, in 14 seasons.

Now, that being said, as we grow in Division III football and our playoff field remains forever capped at 32, we need to do something differently. To me, I think we should think about whether every conference must have an automatic bid every year, or whether we can do what Division II does and let them have an AQ only if they finish in, perhaps, the top 15 of a regional ranking or something like that.

In any given year, that might free up a bid or two. That would be my take. For Division II, they have to finish in the top eight, but I'd like to be a little more forgiving.

It makes sense that the Pool B would create access similar to Pool A teams. I'm just wondering if that should be re-evaluated. Perhaps what you mention about regional rankings might be preferable.   I do think that there is a challenge of being part of a full-fledged conference (familiarity, rivalries, information exchange, etc) that is not necessarily being accounted for with the current set-up. But that being said, it's impossible to account for everything.  I would love to see a re-evaluation with input from different perspectives (including yours). If no changes can be made, at least we are looking at it.  In the meantime, I choose to look at Pool C as a gift (not because a team doesn't deserve to be in, but because they are not one of the deserving teams excluded) and winning the conference nearly mandatory. Everyone has a path to the playoffs. It seems best not to put it in the hands of others.

[KitchenSink]

Should 8 conferences be earmarked for "play-in" games like the NCAA basketball tourney?

[bleedpurple]

Anyone have thoughts on Stevens Point this season? Lost 27-7 to North Central, 24-23 to UWP and 28-21 to UWLC.

Average margin of victory: 18 pts
Average margin of loss: 9 pts

Looks like most games have been close with a couple exceptions.

From what Brian posted, it sounds like they dominated the line of scrimmage against UW-L, but killed themselves with turnovers. I'm sure they are dangerous, but inconsistent. From a WIAC fan's perspective, they are probably the perfect 4th place team. Good enough to remind both the top and bottom programs that the top three are not the stratospheres ahead of the lower teams in the conference that some of us believe is the case.

[Pat Coleman]

Should 8 conferences be earmarked for "play-in" games like the NCAA basketball tourney?

I don't see room in the calendar for play-in games. That would be expanding the calendar (and/or the field) and the Division III membership is unlikely to sign off on that.

Even if we asked those conferences to finish their season a week early, then we are changing their calendar to either play 12 games in a row with no bye or come into camp a week earlier. In many cases, the conferences that would likely play in these games would also be ones where schools and athletic departments would not be amenable to paying to open the dorms a week earlier, etc.

I think a system in which we ask conferences to "earn" that automatic bid by surpassing a relatively low bar, something like having the champ be in the top 15-20 of their region, is a viable alternative as the field gets squeezed. For example, last year, this would have excluded Christopher Newport for sure, probably Mount Ida and St. Scholastica, all of whom got blitzed in the first round.

If a champ of one of those conferences goes 9-0 or 10-0, in, automatically, no questions asked. I have no problem with that. if they go 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, then we should have the ability to reassign that bid as an at-large.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of the idea. Needs more detail around it. But this is the solution I think it worth exploring. It gives those conferences a fair shot at getting into the field, which I think those conferences need in order to improve. But if they don't produce a team that can even pretend to be competitive, then we shouldn't feel obliged to give them a bid every year.

[AO]

Should 8 conferences be earmarked for "play-in" games like the NCAA basketball tourney?

I don't see room in the calendar for play-in games. That would be expanding the calendar (and/or the field) and the Division III membership is unlikely to sign off on that.

Even if we asked those conferences to finish their season a week early, then we are changing their calendar to either play 12 games in a row with no bye or come into camp a week earlier. In many cases, the conferences that would likely play in these games would also be ones where schools and athletic departments would not be amenable to paying to open the dorms a week earlier, etc.

I think a system in which we ask conferences to "earn" that automatic bid by surpassing a relatively low bar, something like having the champ be in the top 15-20 of their region, is a viable alternative as the field gets squeezed. For example, last year, this would have excluded Christopher Newport for sure, probably Mount Ida and St. Scholastica, all of whom got blitzed in the first round.

If a champ of one of those conferences goes 9-0 or 10-0, in, automatically, no questions asked. I have no problem with that. if they go 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, then we should have the ability to reassign that bid as an at-large.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of the idea. Needs more detail around it. But this is the solution I think it worth exploring. It gives those conferences a fair shot at getting into the field, which I think those conferences need in order to improve. But if they don't produce a team that can even pretend to be competitive, then we shouldn't feel obliged to give them a bid every year.

I'd worry that you'd encourage even weaker scheduling with an undefeated rule.   I don't see a big competitive difference between a team that's regionally ranked #15 or #30, they're both probably in for a beat down when facing one of the top 3 from the region.

[retagent]

I think that it's a positive that those who have a handle on this "problem" are looking to find a solution. As we see on here with regularity, no system, or tweak to that system, is perfect. But, as the saying goes, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Pat Coleman]

Should 8 conferences be earmarked for "play-in" games like the NCAA basketball tourney?

I don't see room in the calendar for play-in games. That would be expanding the calendar (and/or the field) and the Division III membership is unlikely to sign off on that.

Even if we asked those conferences to finish their season a week early, then we are changing their calendar to either play 12 games in a row with no bye or come into camp a week earlier. In many cases, the conferences that would likely play in these games would also be ones where schools and athletic departments would not be amenable to paying to open the dorms a week earlier, etc.

I think a system in which we ask conferences to "earn" that automatic bid by surpassing a relatively low bar, something like having the champ be in the top 15-20 of their region, is a viable alternative as the field gets squeezed. For example, last year, this would have excluded Christopher Newport for sure, probably Mount Ida and St. Scholastica, all of whom got blitzed in the first round.

If a champ of one of those conferences goes 9-0 or 10-0, in, automatically, no questions asked. I have no problem with that. if they go 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, then we should have the ability to reassign that bid as an at-large.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of the idea. Needs more detail around it. But this is the solution I think it worth exploring. It gives those conferences a fair shot at getting into the field, which I think those conferences need in order to improve. But if they don't produce a team that can even pretend to be competitive, then we shouldn't feel obliged to give them a bid every year.

I'd worry that you'd encourage even weaker scheduling with an undefeated rule.   I don't see a big competitive difference between a team that's regionally ranked #15 or #30, they're both probably in for a beat down when facing one of the top 3 from the region.

In the conferences we're talking about I don't think it will have a particular effect on scheduling. Those teams that try to schedule even weaker teams in order to run the table are going to have just as much trouble in their conference as they do now.

I'd like to give teams a reasonable path to the playoffs, even if they're in a bottom five conferences. Will they still get rolled in Week 12? Absolutely. But the top seed in each bracket will probably roll about 80% of Division III.

[Retired Old Rat]

I think the basic point of Pool B is to give those schools access similar to the Pool A conferences. Those bids are allocated at the exact same ratio and since we make no distinction for the quality of a conference when it comes to handing out automatic bids, we shouldn't for Pool B either, I think.

To date, no Pool B-eligible football team has gotten a Pool C bid, in 14 seasons.

Now, that being said, as we grow in Division III football and our playoff field remains forever capped at 32, we need to do something differently. To me, I think we should think about whether every conference must have an automatic bid every year, or whether we can do what Division II does and let them have an AQ only if they finish in, perhaps, the top 15 of a regional ranking or something like that.

In any given year, that might free up a bid or two. That would be my take. For Division II, they have to finish in the top eight, but I'd like to be a little more forgiving.

This is good.  If you're not one of the 15 best teams in the region you are not deserving.  The current system leaves too many clearly deserving teams out of the playoffs.

[thrunt01]

Can someone from Oshkosh tell me what UW-UO is suppose to mean?  Prior to the game they showed a recruiting video and the students in it kept chanting UW-UO.  Did they add a word to their name that I don't know about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUN4aorM8nw

I assume that's the video you're talking about. They are just fully saying double-u slowly. You-double-you-oh if you will. Hope that clears up any confusion.

[Just Bill]

What I'd like to see is for the conference to enter into some sort of contract with another conference to provide out of conference games for each other.  In Wisconsin this is done at the high school level.  I suppose it probably wouldn't be too popular at the collegiate level.

I realize they're not "power" conferences, but the NathCon and the MIAA do this. They have a designated week they all play generally based on last year's standings. 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc. One conference hosts the games in even years and the other in odd years.

Since they're seven-team leagues, they've also added an "interlock" to the schedule so when teams for the two leagues have a mutual conference bye week, they play.

http://www.naccsports.org/sports/fball/2013-14/releases/20130923j0pmhl

[bleedpurple]

Should 8 conferences be earmarked for "play-in" games like the NCAA basketball tourney?

I don't see room in the calendar for play-in games. That would be expanding the calendar (and/or the field) and the Division III membership is unlikely to sign off on that.

Even if we asked those conferences to finish their season a week early, then we are changing their calendar to either play 12 games in a row with no bye or come into camp a week earlier. In many cases, the conferences that would likely play in these games would also be ones where schools and athletic departments would not be amenable to paying to open the dorms a week earlier, etc.

I think a system in which we ask conferences to "earn" that automatic bid by surpassing a relatively low bar, something like having the champ be in the top 15-20 of their region, is a viable alternative as the field gets squeezed. For example, last year, this would have excluded Christopher Newport for sure, probably Mount Ida and St. Scholastica, all of whom got blitzed in the first round.

If a champ of one of those conferences goes 9-0 or 10-0, in, automatically, no questions asked. I have no problem with that. if they go 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, then we should have the ability to reassign that bid as an at-large.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of the idea. Needs more detail around it. But this is the solution I think it worth exploring. It gives those conferences a fair shot at getting into the field, which I think those conferences need in order to improve. But if they don't produce a team that can even pretend to be competitive, then we shouldn't feel obliged to give them a bid every year.

I think it's a great idea.  It continues to honor the value of access and it also will provide a few more openings to deserving teams. I"m not sure where the resistance would come from. I think the first step is getting someone's attention at the NCAA and see if there is/could be a process to evaluate the criteria after the season. Maybe it is done annually for all I know, but it would be nice if they would be willing to explore these kind of ideas.

[Pat Coleman]

I have actually mentioned this idea, but the powers that be turn over often in recent years and I'm sure the new people haven't heard it. I'll write about it at some point. I need to do some legwork and pull up examples of how it would have worked in previous years.

[speedybigboy]

Should 8 conferences be earmarked for "play-in" games like the NCAA basketball tourney?

I don't see room in the calendar for play-in games. That would be expanding the calendar (and/or the field) and the Division III membership is unlikely to sign off on that.

Even if we asked those conferences to finish their season a week early, then we are changing their calendar to either play 12 games in a row with no bye or come into camp a week earlier. In many cases, the conferences that would likely play in these games would also be ones where schools and athletic departments would not be amenable to paying to open the dorms a week earlier, etc.

I think a system in which we ask conferences to "earn" that automatic bid by surpassing a relatively low bar, something like having the champ be in the top 15-20 of their region, is a viable alternative as the field gets squeezed. For example, last year, this would have excluded Christopher Newport for sure, probably Mount Ida and St. Scholastica, all of whom got blitzed in the first round.

If a champ of one of those conferences goes 9-0 or 10-0, in, automatically, no questions asked. I have no problem with that. if they go 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, then we should have the ability to reassign that bid as an at-large.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of the idea. Needs more detail around it. But this is the solution I think it worth exploring. It gives those conferences a fair shot at getting into the field, which I think those conferences need in order to improve. But if they don't produce a team that can even pretend to be competitive, then we shouldn't feel obliged to give them a bid every year.

First of all, I like your idea.  But I question why there isn't room for the play in weekend.  It appears that even the teams with 10 games all have a bye week this year?  Doesn't look like the season would need to start sooner.  Just end quicker.  10 weeks, 10 games.

[Pat Coleman]

Should 8 conferences be earmarked for "play-in" games like the NCAA basketball tourney?

I don't see room in the calendar for play-in games. That would be expanding the calendar (and/or the field) and the Division III membership is unlikely to sign off on that.

Even if we asked those conferences to finish their season a week early, then we are changing their calendar to either play 12 games in a row with no bye or come into camp a week earlier. In many cases, the conferences that would likely play in these games would also be ones where schools and athletic departments would not be amenable to paying to open the dorms a week earlier, etc.

I think a system in which we ask conferences to "earn" that automatic bid by surpassing a relatively low bar, something like having the champ be in the top 15-20 of their region, is a viable alternative as the field gets squeezed. For example, last year, this would have excluded Christopher Newport for sure, probably Mount Ida and St. Scholastica, all of whom got blitzed in the first round.

If a champ of one of those conferences goes 9-0 or 10-0, in, automatically, no questions asked. I have no problem with that. if they go 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, then we should have the ability to reassign that bid as an at-large.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of the idea. Needs more detail around it. But this is the solution I think it worth exploring. It gives those conferences a fair shot at getting into the field, which I think those conferences need in order to improve. But if they don't produce a team that can even pretend to be competitive, then we shouldn't feel obliged to give them a bid every year.

First of all, I like your idea.  But I question why there isn't room for the play in weekend.  It appears that even the teams with 10 games all have a bye week this year?  Doesn't look like the season would need to start sooner.  Just end quicker.  10 weeks, 10 games.

I think if we forced those conferences to play their 10 games straight through without a bye then there would be some legitimate concerns raised for the safety of the student-athletes. Very few schools choose to schedule this way and for good reason.

[speedybigboy]

Should 8 conferences be earmarked for "play-in" games like the NCAA basketball tourney?

I don't see room in the calendar for play-in games. That would be expanding the calendar (and/or the field) and the Division III membership is unlikely to sign off on that.

Even if we asked those conferences to finish their season a week early, then we are changing their calendar to either play 12 games in a row with no bye or come into camp a week earlier. In many cases, the conferences that would likely play in these games would also be ones where schools and athletic departments would not be amenable to paying to open the dorms a week earlier, etc.

I think a system in which we ask conferences to "earn" that automatic bid by surpassing a relatively low bar, something like having the champ be in the top 15-20 of their region, is a viable alternative as the field gets squeezed. For example, last year, this would have excluded Christopher Newport for sure, probably Mount Ida and St. Scholastica, all of whom got blitzed in the first round.

If a champ of one of those conferences goes 9-0 or 10-0, in, automatically, no questions asked. I have no problem with that. if they go 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, then we should have the ability to reassign that bid as an at-large.

This is just a thumbnail sketch of the idea. Needs more detail around it. But this is the solution I think it worth exploring. It gives those conferences a fair shot at getting into the field, which I think those conferences need in order to improve. But if they don't produce a team that can even pretend to be competitive, then we shouldn't feel obliged to give them a bid every year.

First of all, I like your idea.  But I question why there isn't room for the play in weekend.  It appears that even the teams with 10 games all have a bye week this year?  Doesn't look like the season would need to start sooner.  Just end quicker.  10 weeks, 10 games.

I think if we forced those conferences to play their 10 games straight through without a bye then there would be some legitimate concerns raised for the safety of the student-athletes. Very few schools choose to schedule this way and for good reason.

I disagree for two reasons:
1. A quick look at bye's for this season shows the bulk of the bye's falling in to two categories.  The first being totally random throughout the league season for conferences with an odd number of teams.  The second being predominately towards the beginning of the season, case in point, the OAC where most members took the second week as a bye.  If the conference was concerned about injuries they would have taken off a week in the middle.  No offense intended to either the conference or the teams.  It doesn't appear to be a factor in the decision making process.
2. My second reason is that I've seen no reason (studies or articles) to indicate that a longer season increases the rate of injury.  More injuries sure, but do injuries INCREASE in the latter weeks of a season.

Respectfully submitted.  And I apologize for hijacking the WIAC board and I'll leave the last word on this to Pat.