FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

Thank you for you staying up with us on Saturday!  I've got applause for anybody who did that...that's some real diehard dedication to have gone the distance with us in the mock selection show.  I'm glad you found it interesting and enjoyable enough to hang in there with us.   

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

I'm very much in agreement with a lot of what you've said here.  I don't think the criteria do a good job of putting the best at-large teams in the field.  I think SOS is a seriously flawed metric.  I think limiting the scope of regionally-ranked results to only that group of 40 teams ranked (secretly) after week 11 is silly.  I also agree that the "four at the table" method of selecting teams creates roadblock situations that can be really, really unfair.  For instance, UWO- if they were ranked behind St. Thomas by the West and St. Thomas was the last team in, UWO never got discussed (I don't know if that's how it went down...just hypothesizing).  But if the process for discussion allowed UWO to be considered in that same group, maybe the input of the six committee members from outside the West would have resulted in UWO getting in.

Ultimately, I think the criteria are very slim and in trying to keep them as objective as possible, they get stripped of important context.  You've identified a lot of stuff that I think could be talked about and addressed and changed for future tournaments. 

[WarhawkDad]

Now, if the beef is that Oshkosh is better than Muhlenberg and therefore Oshkosh makes the tournament field better, you'll get no argument from me.  Totally agree.  I think Oshkosh beats the brakes off of Muhlenberg.  Your beef is with the selection criteria which don't always do a good job of identifying the teams of the best quality.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

Do you have answer that is better? It's easy to criticize a "flawed" system. We can all agree its flawed. But until you, or someone, comes up with something better it's not very productive to criticize the system we have.

Usee

Who says it has to be productive?  This is a chatroom!      If everything postulated on D3Boards had to be productive the Boards would go out of business.   No matter how empirical the system becomes, it will always be flawed because it will be judged by the human element with biases for teams, conferences and regions.   

WarhawkDad

[footballfan413]

Hello, Gentlemen,
    With my, "other," team finishing up their season, we will be making plans to get to the Perk, for the first time this season during the next few weeks.  Damn, I hate those words.  The, "other," team had a very good season, finishing 8-2 but, unfortunately, lost to the wrong team and the, eventual, MWC champs who have earned a trip to the Perk on Saturday. It would have been a hoot, to head there this Saturday with #33, up in the box, coaching against his old coaching staff and program. The silver lining is that we don't have to be conflicted as to which side of the field to sit on.     Have a few schedules to work out but hope to see you boys soon!   

GO HAWKS!!!!

WOW, this is post #3333!  Coincidence???  I think not!   

[02 Warhawk]

Hello, Gentlemen,
    With my, "other," team finishing up their season, we will be making plans to get to the Perk, for the first time this season during the next few weeks.  Damn, I hate those words.  The, "other," team had a very good season, finishing 8-2 but, unfortunately, lost to the wrong team and the, eventual, MWC champs who have earned a trip to the Perk on Saturday. It would have been a hoot, to head there this Saturday with #33, up in the box, coaching against his old coaching staff and program. The silver lining is that we don't have to be conflicted as to which side of the field to sit on.     Have a few schedules to work out but hope to see you boys soon!   

GO HAWKS!!!!

WOW, this is post #3333!  Coincidence???  I think not!   

as if......



Congrats on the great season in the MWC!

[bleedpurple]

Now, if the beef is that Oshkosh is better than Muhlenberg and therefore Oshkosh makes the tournament field better, you'll get no argument from me.  Totally agree.  I think Oshkosh beats the brakes off of Muhlenberg.  Your beef is with the selection criteria which don't always do a good job of identifying the teams of the best quality.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

Do you have answer that is better? It's easy to criticize a "flawed" system. We can all agree its flawed. But until you, or someone, comes up with something better it's not very productive to criticize the system we have.

Yes, I do. And to be clear, this is regarding Pool C candidates. Not everyone is in favor of the "access principle" of automatic qualifying of conference champions, but I am in favor. It is part of the fabric of D3 and I truly believe that every team starting out the season with a chance at the championship is important. My Pool C "Solution"

1. Re-set the vision and charge for the Selection Committee:  "After the Automatic Qualifiers have been determined your charge is to put the best remaining football teams into the tournament." Reset the vision of the institutions: "The only guaranteed access to the tournament is to win your league. Pool C is an unearned invitation given to X number of schools as a reward for a fine season. These invitations are gifts, not entitlements.  None of the Pool C teams 'earned their way in'.  These gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Selection Committee."
2.  The criteria is to be used as a guideline, not as a yoke. No flawed statistics to build a case or to hide behind.  However, one of the "guideline criteria" is definitely the D3football.com poll. 
3. The selection committee shall be comprised of 3 members of D3football.com staff, 3 retired NFL Scouts of high integrity who have no natural rooting interests, and one representative of an NCAA member school from each of the four geographic regions. The NCAA representatives must be highly recognized for both football knowledge and integrity.
4.  The selection committee shall have access to HUDL video services and is expected to watch video of the teams expected to contend throughout the year. 
5.  The selection committee shall select whatever procedure they want to select the x number of teams. They are distributing gifts, not entitlements, so they are free to make football decisions as they see fit. As people of integrity, they are counted on to stay true to the vision, pick the BEST x number of teams to fill the bracket.  They then rank the teams 1-32.  They send the rankings to the "BRACKETING COMMITTEE" who will have had all but the Pool C teams already in hand.  The "BRACKETING COMMITTEE", made  up of 2 members of each region and 2 members of D3football.com staff.  This committee sets the brackets. 

[emma17]

Now, if the beef is that Oshkosh is better than Muhlenberg and therefore Oshkosh makes the tournament field better, you'll get no argument from me.  Totally agree.  I think Oshkosh beats the brakes off of Muhlenberg.  Your beef is with the selection criteria which don't always do a good job of identifying the teams of the best quality.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

Do you have answer that is better? It's easy to criticize a "flawed" system. We can all agree its flawed. But until you, or someone, comes up with something better it's not very productive to criticize the system we have.

Yes, I do. And to be clear, this is regarding Pool C candidates. Not everyone is in favor of the "access principle" of automatic qualifying of conference champions, but I am in favor. It is part of the fabric of D3 and I truly believe that every team starting out the season with a chance at the championship is important. My Pool C "Solution"

1. Re-set the vision and charge for the Selection Committee:  "After the Automatic Qualifiers have been determined your charge is to put the best remaining football teams into the tournament." Reset the vision of the institutions: "The only guaranteed access to the tournament is to win your league. Pool C is an unearned invitation given to X number of schools as a reward for a fine season. These invitations are gifts, not entitlements.  None of the Pool C teams 'earned their way in'.  These gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Selection Committee."
2.  The criteria is to be used as a guideline, not as a yoke. No flawed statistics to build a case or to hide behind.  However, one of the "guideline criteria" is definitely the D3football.com poll. 
3. The selection committee shall be comprised of 3 members of D3football.com staff, 3 retired NFL Scouts of high integrity who have no natural rooting interests, and one representative of an NCAA member school from each of the four geographic regions. The NCAA representatives must be highly recognized for both football knowledge and integrity.
4.  The selection committee shall have access to HUDL video services and is expected to watch video of the teams expected to contend throughout the year. 
5.  The selection committee shall select whatever procedure they want to select the x number of teams. They are distributing gifts, not entitlements, so they are free to make football decisions as they see fit. As people of integrity, they are counted on to stay true to the vision, pick the BEST x number of teams to fill the bracket.  They then rank the teams 1-32.  They send the rankings to the "BRACKETING COMMITTEE" who will have had all but the Pool C teams already in hand.  The "BRACKETING COMMITTEE", made  up of 2 members of each region and 2 members of D3football.com staff.  This committee sets the brackets.

Bleed, great job on providing detail on your idea. I like the foundation very much as I'm very much in favor of a common sense approach with the guiding focus of putting the best teams in.

One aspect I'd add is the requirement for complete transparency. The committee must publicly explain the rationale behind their Pool C selections as well as the bracket decisions.
Transparency and accountability are key to this approach.

[WarhawkDad]

Now, if the beef is that Oshkosh is better than Muhlenberg and therefore Oshkosh makes the tournament field better, you'll get no argument from me.  Totally agree.  I think Oshkosh beats the brakes off of Muhlenberg.  Your beef is with the selection criteria which don't always do a good job of identifying the teams of the best quality.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

Do you have answer that is better? It's easy to criticize a "flawed" system. We can all agree its flawed. But until you, or someone, comes up with something better it's not very productive to criticize the system we have.

Yes, I do. And to be clear, this is regarding Pool C candidates. Not everyone is in favor of the "access principle" of automatic qualifying of conference champions, but I am in favor. It is part of the fabric of D3 and I truly believe that every team starting out the season with a chance at the championship is important. My Pool C "Solution"

1. Re-set the vision and charge for the Selection Committee:  "After the Automatic Qualifiers have been determined your charge is to put the best remaining football teams into the tournament." Reset the vision of the institutions: "The only guaranteed access to the tournament is to win your league. Pool C is an unearned invitation given to X number of schools as a reward for a fine season. These invitations are gifts, not entitlements.  None of the Pool C teams 'earned their way in'.  These gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Selection Committee."
2.  The criteria is to be used as a guideline, not as a yoke. No flawed statistics to build a case or to hide behind.  However, one of the "guideline criteria" is definitely the D3football.com poll. 
3. The selection committee shall be comprised of 3 members of D3football.com staff, 3 retired NFL Scouts of high integrity who have no natural rooting interests, and one representative of an NCAA member school from each of the four geographic regions. The NCAA representatives must be highly recognized for both football knowledge and integrity.
4.  The selection committee shall have access to HUDL video services and is expected to watch video of the teams expected to contend throughout the year. 
5.  The selection committee shall select whatever procedure they want to select the x number of teams. They are distributing gifts, not entitlements, so they are free to make football decisions as they see fit. As people of integrity, they are counted on to stay true to the vision, pick the BEST x number of teams to fill the bracket.  They then rank the teams 1-32.  They send the rankings to the "BRACKETING COMMITTEE" who will have had all but the Pool C teams already in hand.  The "BRACKETING COMMITTEE", made  up of 2 members of each region and 2 members of D3football.com staff.  This committee sets the brackets.

Bleed, great job on providing detail on your idea. I like the foundation very much as I'm very much in favor of a common sense approach with the guiding focus of putting the best teams in.

One aspect I'd add is the requirement for complete transparency. The committee must publicly explain the rationale behind their Pool C selections as well as the bracket decisions.
Transparency and accountability are key to this approach.

Great idea Bleed, but what you are suggesting is that the NCAA allow outsiders to contribute.   How dare YOU!      Don't you know that the NCAA knows everything there is to know about collegiate athletics?     I mean really....suggesting that pro scouts might know something about football and that the D3 football staff would know anything about D3 football - how presumptuous.     

All kidding aside, your process is outstanding, but unfortunately makes to much common sense.   

WarhawkDad

[footballfan413]

Now, if the beef is that Oshkosh is better than Muhlenberg and therefore Oshkosh makes the tournament field better, you'll get no argument from me.  Totally agree.  I think Oshkosh beats the brakes off of Muhlenberg.  Your beef is with the selection criteria which don't always do a good job of identifying the teams of the best quality.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

Do you have answer that is better? It's easy to criticize a "flawed" system. We can all agree its flawed. But until you, or someone, comes up with something better it's not very productive to criticize the system we have.

Yes, I do. And to be clear, this is regarding Pool C candidates. Not everyone is in favor of the "access principle" of automatic qualifying of conference champions, but I am in favor. It is part of the fabric of D3 and I truly believe that every team starting out the season with a chance at the championship is important. My Pool C "Solution"

1. Re-set the vision and charge for the Selection Committee:  "After the Automatic Qualifiers have been determined your charge is to put the best remaining football teams into the tournament." Reset the vision of the institutions: "The only guaranteed access to the tournament is to win your league. Pool C is an unearned invitation given to X number of schools as a reward for a fine season. These invitations are gifts, not entitlements.  None of the Pool C teams 'earned their way in'.  These gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Selection Committee."
2.  The criteria is to be used as a guideline, not as a yoke. No flawed statistics to build a case or to hide behind.  However, one of the "guideline criteria" is definitely the D3football.com poll. 
3. The selection committee shall be comprised of 3 members of D3football.com staff, 3 retired NFL Scouts of high integrity who have no natural rooting interests, and one representative of an NCAA member school from each of the four geographic regions. The NCAA representatives must be highly recognized for both football knowledge and integrity.
4.  The selection committee shall have access to HUDL video services and is expected to watch video of the teams expected to contend throughout the year. 
5.  The selection committee shall select whatever procedure they want to select the x number of teams. They are distributing gifts, not entitlements, so they are free to make football decisions as they see fit. As people of integrity, they are counted on to stay true to the vision, pick the BEST x number of teams to fill the bracket.  They then rank the teams 1-32.  They send the rankings to the "BRACKETING COMMITTEE" who will have had all but the Pool C teams already in hand.  The "BRACKETING COMMITTEE", made  up of 2 members of each region and 2 members of D3football.com staff.  This committee sets the brackets.

Fabulous approach, but you all are forgetting the one, "criteria," that the NCAA will never give up, change or forsake........the all mighty dollar, the one which requires contests to be less than 500 miles apart, whenever possible. They love their busses, not planes!   Hell, they don't even care to use common sense, put the best teams in the country in a bracket, at the cash-cow Division 1 level!  At the non-cash cow that is Division 3 level, common sense would only be considered if it came with it's own money tree, unlimited inheritance or a big pot of gold!  And then again, probably, not even then.  Common sense and the NCAA is an oxymoron!!    . At least, we HAVE a flawed play off system!  "Winning it on the field," regardless of how the bracket is filled, is such a brilliant result!!  The NCAA got that right anyway!!   

[bleedpurple]

Now, if the beef is that Oshkosh is better than Muhlenberg and therefore Oshkosh makes the tournament field better, you'll get no argument from me.  Totally agree.  I think Oshkosh beats the brakes off of Muhlenberg.  Your beef is with the selection criteria which don't always do a good job of identifying the teams of the best quality.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

Do you have answer that is better? It's easy to criticize a "flawed" system. We can all agree its flawed. But until you, or someone, comes up with something better it's not very productive to criticize the system we have.

Yes, I do. And to be clear, this is regarding Pool C candidates. Not everyone is in favor of the "access principle" of automatic qualifying of conference champions, but I am in favor. It is part of the fabric of D3 and I truly believe that every team starting out the season with a chance at the championship is important. My Pool C "Solution"

1. Re-set the vision and charge for the Selection Committee:  "After the Automatic Qualifiers have been determined your charge is to put the best remaining football teams into the tournament." Reset the vision of the institutions: "The only guaranteed access to the tournament is to win your league. Pool C is an unearned invitation given to X number of schools as a reward for a fine season. These invitations are gifts, not entitlements.  None of the Pool C teams 'earned their way in'.  These gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Selection Committee."
2.  The criteria is to be used as a guideline, not as a yoke. No flawed statistics to build a case or to hide behind.  However, one of the "guideline criteria" is definitely the D3football.com poll. 
3. The selection committee shall be comprised of 3 members of D3football.com staff, 3 retired NFL Scouts of high integrity who have no natural rooting interests, and one representative of an NCAA member school from each of the four geographic regions. The NCAA representatives must be highly recognized for both football knowledge and integrity.
4.  The selection committee shall have access to HUDL video services and is expected to watch video of the teams expected to contend throughout the year. 
5.  The selection committee shall select whatever procedure they want to select the x number of teams. They are distributing gifts, not entitlements, so they are free to make football decisions as they see fit. As people of integrity, they are counted on to stay true to the vision, pick the BEST x number of teams to fill the bracket.  They then rank the teams 1-32.  They send the rankings to the "BRACKETING COMMITTEE" who will have had all but the Pool C teams already in hand.  The "BRACKETING COMMITTEE", made  up of 2 members of each region and 2 members of D3football.com staff.  This committee sets the brackets.

Fabulous approach, but you all are forgetting the one, "criteria," that the NCAA will never give up, change or forsake........the all mighty dollar, the one which requires contests to be less than 500 miles apart, whenever possible. They love their busses, not planes!   Hell, they don't even care to use common sense, put the best teams in the country in a bracket, at the cash-cow Division 1 level!  At the non-cash cow that is Division 3 level, common sense would only be considered if it came with it's own money tree, unlimited inheritance or a big pot of gold!  And then again, probably, not even then.  Common sense and the NCAA is an oxymoron!!    . At least, we HAVE a flawed play off system!  "Winning it on the field," regardless of how the bracket is filled, is such a brilliant result!!  The NCAA got that right anyway!!   

Looking forward to seeing you one of these weeks 413!

Anyway, didn't address the financial component because that is what the separate Bracketing Committee is for. Let them sort all that out. The Selection Committee is just that, getting the best Pool C teams in.

Let us know when you will be heading to the Perk!! And bring chili! 

[bleedpurple]

Cool videos added to the page dedicated to Macalester on Warhawkfootball.com. Includes the viewing party reaction of the Macalester team to drawing Whitewater. Link on first page to "About Macalester" page. That is where the video vault is located.

www.warhawkfootball.com

[BoBo]

Cool videos added to the page dedicated to Macalester on Warhawkfootball.com. Includes the viewing party reaction of the Macalester team to drawing Whitewater. Link on first page to "About Macalester" page. That is where the video vault is located.

www.warhawkfootball.com

bleed, has your intel discovered their team GPA?  I suppose that's their only advantage on the "Tale of the Tape!!"

[footballfan413]

Now, if the beef is that Oshkosh is better than Muhlenberg and therefore Oshkosh makes the tournament field better, you'll get no argument from me.  Totally agree.  I think Oshkosh beats the brakes off of Muhlenberg.  Your beef is with the selection criteria which don't always do a good job of identifying the teams of the best quality.

First, I just wanted to say thank you for all the time you put in and all the work you do and for what you post over at the Pool C board. It is outstanding stuff. Also, it was fun listening to you and the guys LATE Saturday night.

As far as the bolded statement above, yes and no. Personally, I disagree with many in that  I support the access of the tournament by conference champions. Are they the best 32, no. But the idea of the tournament is to crown a Champion and the conference Champions having access is a good thing IMO.

However, having said that. I believe the Pool C candidates should be the best and most competitive teams. My "yes" portion of the "yes and no"  is that the criteria is clearly flawed.  The "four at the table" process is flawed. It's all flawed. Having a team "not at the table" that is better than a team selected as an at large is a flawed system. Period.

However, the "no" part is that as much as the Committees cling to the "criteria", they tend to ignore portions of the instructions as well.  Pat acknowledged this the other night when he said "No Way they put in a 6-4 team". If UW-O HAD been up against Centre or whoever, they probably wouldn't not have been put in based on that.  But the instructions clearly say, even in bold, "If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed."  Sure seems to me a lot of people feel very comfortable using that secondary criteria as an excuse to NOT make a decision that should have been made based on the primary criteria. The whole process is a mess.  In fact, it's messy enough that the committees can do pretty much whatever they want to do, which defeats the purpose of the flawed criteria. Sometimes, I think people lose the forest for the trees and get so caught up in the math of the flawed criteria that they actually start believing some of these weaker teams are as good at the teams they are leaving out.

Do you have answer that is better? It's easy to criticize a "flawed" system. We can all agree its flawed. But until you, or someone, comes up with something better it's not very productive to criticize the system we have.

Yes, I do. And to be clear, this is regarding Pool C candidates. Not everyone is in favor of the "access principle" of automatic qualifying of conference champions, but I am in favor. It is part of the fabric of D3 and I truly believe that every team starting out the season with a chance at the championship is important. My Pool C "Solution"

1. Re-set the vision and charge for the Selection Committee:  "After the Automatic Qualifiers have been determined your charge is to put the best remaining football teams into the tournament." Reset the vision of the institutions: "The only guaranteed access to the tournament is to win your league. Pool C is an unearned invitation given to X number of schools as a reward for a fine season. These invitations are gifts, not entitlements.  None of the Pool C teams 'earned their way in'.  These gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Selection Committee."
2.  The criteria is to be used as a guideline, not as a yoke. No flawed statistics to build a case or to hide behind.  However, one of the "guideline criteria" is definitely the D3football.com poll. 
3. The selection committee shall be comprised of 3 members of D3football.com staff, 3 retired NFL Scouts of high integrity who have no natural rooting interests, and one representative of an NCAA member school from each of the four geographic regions. The NCAA representatives must be highly recognized for both football knowledge and integrity.
4.  The selection committee shall have access to HUDL video services and is expected to watch video of the teams expected to contend throughout the year. 
5.  The selection committee shall select whatever procedure they want to select the x number of teams. They are distributing gifts, not entitlements, so they are free to make football decisions as they see fit. As people of integrity, they are counted on to stay true to the vision, pick the BEST x number of teams to fill the bracket.  They then rank the teams 1-32.  They send the rankings to the "BRACKETING COMMITTEE" who will have had all but the Pool C teams already in hand.  The "BRACKETING COMMITTEE", made  up of 2 members of each region and 2 members of D3football.com staff.  This committee sets the brackets.

Fabulous approach, but you all are forgetting the one, "criteria," that the NCAA will never give up, change or forsake........the all mighty dollar, the one which requires contests to be less than 500 miles apart, whenever possible. They love their busses, not planes!   Hell, they don't even care to use common sense, put the best teams in the country in a bracket, at the cash-cow Division 1 level!  At the non-cash cow that is Division 3 level, common sense would only be considered if it came with it's own money tree, unlimited inheritance or a big pot of gold!  And then again, probably, not even then.  Common sense and the NCAA is an oxymoron!!    . At least, we HAVE a flawed play off system!  "Winning it on the field," regardless of how the bracket is filled, is such a brilliant result!!  The NCAA got that right anyway!!   

Looking forward to seeing you one of these weeks 413!

Anyway, didn't address the financial component because that is what the separate Bracketing Committee is for. Let them sort all that out. The Selection Committee is just that, getting the best Pool C teams in.

Let us know when you will be heading to the Perk!! And bring chili! 

True, but the choice of the pool C candidates would dictate and limit the distance options for the bracketing committee. When it comes to $$$, don't see the NCAA leaving cost to chance.  I will tell the, "head chili maker," about your request!  Pretty sure, it can be accommodated.   

[02 Warhawk]

Speaking of chili...that's what we're doing on Saturday. 

[NewHawk]

Cool videos added to the page dedicated to Macalester on Warhawkfootball.com. Includes the viewing party reaction of the Macalester team to drawing Whitewater. Link on first page to "About Macalester" page. That is where the video vault is located.

www.warhawkfootball.com

bleed, has your intel discovered their team GPA?  I suppose that's their only advantage on the "Tale of the Tape!!"

according to the team Facebook page as of May 30, 2014 3.4 Team GPA!!!
84% of team members at a 3.0 or higher!!! 

[emma17]

Cool videos added to the page dedicated to Macalester on Warhawkfootball.com. Includes the viewing party reaction of the Macalester team to drawing Whitewater. Link on first page to "About Macalester" page. That is where the video vault is located.

www.warhawkfootball.com

Bleed,
I've been meaning to tell you- Great job on the website.  As the UWRF announcer would say, the new look and functionality of War Eagle.com, I mean White Hawk.com, er, I mean Warhawkfootball.com is fantastic!!!