Around the Nation board

[emma17]

Well said Coach.
I posted somewhere a list of the playoff teams (and teams considered playoff caliber) that both the CCIW and WIAC played this year.  There simply was no comparison as to what conference played tougher non conference opponents.

To NCC/CCIW fans, my point isn't to bash your conference, team or say UWW is somehow better this year.  The point is, NCC was given the #1 seed for the exact reason HSCoach posted- not because they actually played a tougher schedule. 

I also admit it irks me when I read others that post something to the effect that-based on our disapproval of the way SOS was used this year, teams like NCC and St. Thomas will never get a #1 seed as long as UWW is also 10-0.  WRONG.  Sure they will.  All they have to do is advance further in the playoffs than UWW does.  All they have to do is beat UWW, just like UWW had to go on the road and beat Linfield, Willamette and MHB ON THE ROAD.  When the CCIW or when ST. Thomas advances further in the playoffs, which is a true test of SoS, they will have truly earned a #1 seed when records are equal.  I couldn't imagine any player on NCC or St. Thomas disagreeing with this position. 

[Ralph Turner]

In my opinion there's a point that is being left out of this discussion.  There's a big difference between how the general public views strength of schedule and how the NCAA defines it.  The NCAA looks simply at the number of wins by your opponents and their opponents.  The fan (and reporters) look at the competency of the wins.    

Playing your non-conference games against the ultimate league champions of the ECFC, NATHC and Centennial will get you a lot higher SoS in the NCAA's eyes than playing three middle of the pack WIAC, CCIW and OAC teams even though you played 3 lesser teams on the field.

Outside of trying to take the next step forward and wanting to see how you really stand, I don't see the enticement for anyone to schedule Mount or Whitewater.   When it makes sense to schedule them is when you are clearly the best team in your crappy conference and without a serious test/learning experience, you're going to remain nothing more than an decent team nationally that enters the playoffs 10-0 to only get immediately drilled.  Much like W&J earlier this decade.  A lot of 10-0 regular seasons immediately followed by early round playoff losses because they were simply a good team that made their record on the backs of a weak conference, not being a great team themselves.

We are stuck with the rules as D3 has voted them.  The OWP/OOWP is used in all sports.

Veterans who read and post on multiple sports boards know the arguments and the history.  In men's basketball, the NESCAC seems to have the charmed life with their conference scheduling (mostly single-round robin) and plenty of "high-value OWP" opponents in close proximity.

Here is the benefit for the non-in-region games for a UWW or  MUC.  MUC versus a New York or Pennsylvania school more than 200 miles away, or UWW versus some ambitious Indiana school.

If there ever was a year for the rest of D3 to break the hegemony of Mount Union and UWW, this is it.

[Mugsy]

I also admit it irks me when I read others that post something to the effect that-based on our disapproval of the way SOS was used this year, teams like NCC and St. Thomas will never get a #1 seed as long as UWW is also 10-0.  WRONG.  Sure they will.  All they have to do is advance further in the playoffs than UWW does.  All they have to do is beat UWW, just like UWW had to go on the road and beat Linfield, Willamette and MHB ON THE ROAD.  When the CCIW or when ST. Thomas advances further in the playoffs, which is a true test of SoS, they will have truly earned a #1 seed when records are equal.  I couldn't imagine any player on NCC or St. Thomas disagreeing with this position.  

Until now I have stayed clear of the whole seeding debate, CCIW vs. WIAC, and SoS flaw debates.  Given that we are into the 2nd round of the playoffs, I'd much rather focus on the games at hand.  In my view UWW and UMU are clearly the top programs until someone else can knock them off.

However I must disagree with your assertion that St. Thomas or NCC will not or should not get a #1 seed until they go further into the playoffs or beat UWW or UMU.  Seeding year to year should have nothing to do with past performance.  Seeding should be based on the merit of this years team and this years performance.  Now that is not to say the committee won't be influcenced by past seasons.


I find it interesting that someone from the Augustana national championship run in the 80's mentioned that despite their complete dominance during that timeframe, they still had to go on the road for 2 of their 4 championships seasons.  An indication that "past playoff performance" does not factor into the next season?

[Augie6]

I find it interesting that someone from the Augustana national championship run in the 80's mentioned that despite their complete dominance during that timeframe, they still had to go on the road for 2 of their 4 championships seasons.  An indication that "past playoff performance" does not factor into the next season?

In 1984, we were the #1 ranked team and defending National Champion and had to play our first playoff game at Dayton.  In 1986, we were the 3 time defending national champion, but, because of a tie to start the season, we were not the #1 ranked team.  However, we still had to travel in the first round to Hope (7-1-1 record and lower ranked) and then had to travel to Mt. Union in the second round.  If Central had beaten Concordia in the quarterfinals, we, more than likely, would have travelled to Central for the Semi's.  The NCAA does what the NCAA wants to do, regardless of if it makes sense to most fans.  I understand where UWW fans are a little upset by the seedings, but, frankly, get over it.  If UWW is as good as they seem to be, where they play won't matter. 

[usee]

Agree Mugsy. There is no, and should never be, anybentitlement in d3. Th e d1 ball tourney doesn't work that way, heck even the flawed BCS doesn't consider past success. Nor does the NFL, baseball, the NBA, on and on. It's a ridiculous assertion that anyone deserves a higher seed, home game etc bases on anything but the current seasons merits. That's sports in the USA.

[Titan Q]

Note that the Handbook states that rotation of sites is a consideration.  See #2...

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_3_football.pdf
(page 7)

Site Selection
The Championships Committee has prioritized the following site-selection criteria for all championships:

1. Quality and availability of the facility and other necessary accommodations;
2. Geographical location (which may include such factors as rotation of sites, weather, accessibility and transportation costs);
3. Seeding; and
4. Attendance history and revenue potential, which shall be considered necessary to
assure fiscal responsibility.


This is the same wording that's in the basketball handbook and I think there have a been a few times when this has factored in.  So instead of letting, for example, Wooster host a sectional every year, every now and then they'll send them on the road...even though the numbers suggest they should host.  

I could be wrong, but it seems like that has come into play in basketball.

[emma17]

Usee- what's up with the "ridiculous assertion" bit?  We disagree (on most things)- we can do so respectfully. 

Just because past performance (and let's keep in mind, we are only going back to Nov/Dec of 2009 to determine whether a team was capable of playing at a #1 seed caliber) isn't a part of the current criteria doesn't mean there isn't some merit to adding it in some fashion.  Three 10-0 teams in a close region of the country.  The committee has to pick 2.  In my opinion, rejecting anything that has to do with recent (2009) performance- AND basing a decision on a SoS that nearly every poster has identifed as flawed, is choosing to live in a vacuum.  There is Context out there that helps inform decisions- for those that want to be informed. 

I'll ask the question, how many current players on the NCC or St. Thomas team do you feel would actually support UWW being a #2 seed?  How many do you feel would support the idea that no thought whatsoever should be put into considering a teams recent success against other highly rated teams when deciding if they are worthy of a #1 seed?  I suggest the number would be very, very, very lo

[attachment deleted by admin]

[usee]

Emma17- I don't think you will find anyone that agrees that UWW should be anything other than a #1 seed. Repeat, NO ONE. I certainly think they should be a #1 seed. But I don't think and won't ever think it should be based AT ALL on what happened last year. Do you think the Lakers believe they should be a #1 seed because they won last year? Do you think the Yankees feel ripped off they didn't get home field for the baseball playoffs? Does Duke think they deserve the #1 seed in the NCAA tourney this year because they won it last year? Show me a sport where last year gives anyone any entitlement to something this year. Boise State? Alabama?

The issue on UWW as a #1 seed could have been made based on what the committee had available to them this year. They chose to use strict SOS numbers inconsistently. that's not NCC or St Thomas' fault, nor is it UWW's fault. There is no entitlement here nor should there be any. UWW has to go on the road just like many returning champions do in many other sports. I think UWW fans have made a mountain out of a mole hill on this.

And I do think the assertion is ridiculous (but not you). That doesn't mean I don't respect you. It's not personal, its a simple debate. Sorry if I implied anything other than that.

[emma17]

USee, I'll try to make this my last post on the subject. No, I don't think the Lakers would expect to be #1 Because of last year- just as I don't think UWW should be #1 Because of last year. I do think it's reasonable to use recent performance as One component of the overall criteria, especially when logic suggests the SoS may not be reliable.
As i said before, my issue isn't the impact of home field on the game itself, it's about doing what's right.  Entitlement would only apply if UWW, or any other team in their position, didn't earn it.   

[usee]

Recent performance= 2010. If that's the case then I completely agree.

[redswarm81]

How about just steering teams towards scheduling tougher opponents, period, and forget the 'in-region' distinction ?   

I've been trumpeting the end to "in-region" preferential treatment for several years.  Glad to see the thought it gaining support.

Not sure how to go about "steering teams towards scheduling tougher opponents."  But if anything, currently you could say that the incentive is to play such teams if they are not "in-region" (at least a loss theoretically wouldn't hurt as much).

Ron, it sounds to me as if you're asking Division III consciously to take a first step onto a very slippery slope.

Count me out.  This is Division III, not Division 1.  I applaud the NCAA for encouraging regional competition, and in that respect, NESCAC football appears to have a healthier attitude towards Division III competition than possibly every other DIII conference.  Find me a conference with better rivalries than Williams/Wesleyan/Amherst and Colby/Bates/Bowdoin.  You can't do it--it doesn't exist.

Division III, where athletics takes a back seat to academics.  National playoffs are not the raison d'être of Division III athletics.

I realize that my opinion is a minority opinion, and I can understand if you wish to call me a Cassandra (but if you do, please offer evidence to support your opposing argument).  However, if we encourage DIII schools to add significant additional travel expenses to their athletic budgets by scheduling games out of region in order to play tougher opponents, how different is that from steering schools toward offering athletic scholarships?  Hint: a lot less different than steering teams toward regional competition.

[Mr. Ypsi]

How about just steering teams towards scheduling tougher opponents, period, and forget the 'in-region' distinction ?   

I've been trumpeting the end to "in-region" preferential treatment for several years.  Glad to see the thought it gaining support.

Not sure how to go about "steering teams towards scheduling tougher opponents."  But if anything, currently you could say that the incentive is to play such teams if they are not "in-region" (at least a loss theoretically wouldn't hurt as much).

Ron, it sounds to me as if you're asking Division III consciously to take a first step onto a very slippery slope.

Count me out.  This is Division III, not Division 1.  I applaud the NCAA for encouraging regional competition, and in that respect, NESCAC football appears to have a healthier attitude towards Division III competition than possibly every other DIII conference.  Find me a conference with better rivalries than Williams/Wesleyan/Amherst and Colby/Bates/Bowdoin.  You can't do it--it doesn't exist.

Division III, where athletics takes a back seat to academics.  National playoffs are not the raison d'être of Division III athletics.

I realize that my opinion is a minority opinion, and I can understand if you wish to call me a Cassandra (but if you do, please offer evidence to support your opposing argument).  However, if we encourage DIII schools to add significant additional travel expenses to their athletic budgets by scheduling games out of region in order to play tougher opponents, how different is that from steering schools toward offering athletic scholarships?  Hint: a lot less different than steering teams toward regional competition.

"In-region" is a nice idea; but, currently, also a crock.  Just for example, in basketball next weekend Wheaton will play Calvin (as they do every season) - they are 202 miles apart, but NOT 'in-region'.  A couple of days ago Carthage played Whitman in Honolulu; it WAS an in-region game!   And schools in the 'islands' (Texas and the left coast) routinely have to travel many hundreds of miles for ANY games.  With the economics of d3, I doubt any school is going to start national tours, but omitting games against d3 opponents is just silly.

And I'd refrain from using the NESCAC as a 'positive' example.  Just because they have effectively chosen to leave d3 for football (no playoffs is one thing, no non-con games at all is another ), they certainly delight in touting their all-sports trophies!  If they are so 'pristine' in football, does that make them 'whores' in all other sports?!

[Ralph Turner]

How about just steering teams towards scheduling tougher opponents, period, and forget the 'in-region' distinction ?   

I've been trumpeting the end to "in-region" preferential treatment for several years.  Glad to see the thought it gaining support.

Not sure how to go about "steering teams towards scheduling tougher opponents."  But if anything, currently you could say that the incentive is to play such teams if they are not "in-region" (at least a loss theoretically wouldn't hurt as much).

Ron, it sounds to me as if you're asking Division III consciously to take a first step onto a very slippery slope.

Count me out.  This is Division III, not Division 1.  I applaud the NCAA for encouraging regional competition, and in that respect, NESCAC football appears to have a healthier attitude towards Division III competition than possibly every other DIII conference.  Find me a conference with better rivalries than Williams/Wesleyan/Amherst and Colby/Bates/Bowdoin.  You can't do it--it doesn't exist.

Division III, where athletics takes a back seat to academics.  National playoffs are not the raison d'être of Division III athletics.

I realize that my opinion is a minority opinion, and I can understand if you wish to call me a Cassandra (but if you do, please offer evidence to support your opposing argument).  However, if we encourage DIII schools to add significant additional travel expenses to their athletic budgets by scheduling games out of region in order to play tougher opponents, how different is that from steering schools toward offering athletic scholarships?  Hint: a lot less different than steering teams toward regional competition.

"In-region" is a nice idea; but, currently, also a crock.  Just for example, in basketball next weekend Wheaton will play Calvin (as they do every season) - they are 202 miles apart, but NOT 'in-region'.  A couple of days ago Carthage played Whitman in Honolulu; it WAS an in-region game!   And schools in the 'islands' (Texas and the left coast) routinely have to travel many hundreds of miles for ANY games.  With the economics of d3, I doubt any school is going to start national tours, but omitting games against d3 opponents is just silly.

And I'd refrain from using the NESCAC as a 'positive' example.  Just because they have effectively chosen to leave d3 for football (no playoffs is one thing, no non-con games at all is another ), they certainly delight in touting their all-sports trophies!  If they are so 'pristine' in football, does that make them 'whores' in all other sports?!

+1!

[redswarm81]

. . . I applaud the NCAA for encouraging regional competition, and in that respect, NESCAC football appears to have a healthier attitude towards Division III competition than possibly every other DIII conference.  Find me a conference with better rivalries than Williams/Wesleyan/Amherst and Colby/Bates/Bowdoin.  You can't do it--it doesn't exist.

Division III, where athletics takes a back seat to academics.  National playoffs are not the raison d'être of Division III athletics.

I realize that my opinion is a minority opinion, and I can understand if you wish to call me a Cassandra (but if you do, please offer evidence to support your opposing argument).  However, if we encourage DIII schools to add significant additional travel expenses to their athletic budgets by scheduling games out of region in order to play tougher opponents, how different is that from steering schools toward offering athletic scholarships?  Hint: a lot less different than steering teams toward regional competition.

. . . And I'd refrain from using the NESCAC as a 'positive' example.  Just because they have effectively chosen to leave d3 for football (no playoffs is one thing, no non-con games at all is another ), they certainly delight in touting their all-sports trophies!  If they are so 'pristine' in football, does that make them 'whores' in all other sports?!

I mentioned the NESCAC only with respect to Division III football.  Your discussion of NESCAC's "virtue" and/or "promiscuity" in other sports is irrelevant to my statement.

Nonetheless, you are of course free to refrain from using whatever you wish to refrain from using.
 
From where I sit, NESCAC hasn't left Division III for football--on the contrary, their policy with respect to football appears more consistent with the principles of Division III athletics than even the NCAA's Division III national playoff.

I should have clarified my applause for the NCAA's encouragement of regional competition.  I'm not defending the NCAA's geographical line-drawing that they call "regions."  I'm especially not defending the two different definitions that the NCAA uses for "in-region."  I should have used the word "local."  I'm applauding the practice of encouraging local competition.

[Mr. Ypsi]

. . . I applaud the NCAA for encouraging regional competition, and in that respect, NESCAC football appears to have a healthier attitude towards Division III competition than possibly every other DIII conference.  Find me a conference with better rivalries than Williams/Wesleyan/Amherst and Colby/Bates/Bowdoin.  You can't do it--it doesn't exist.

Division III, where athletics takes a back seat to academics.  National playoffs are not the raison d'être of Division III athletics.

I realize that my opinion is a minority opinion, and I can understand if you wish to call me a Cassandra (but if you do, please offer evidence to support your opposing argument).  However, if we encourage DIII schools to add significant additional travel expenses to their athletic budgets by scheduling games out of region in order to play tougher opponents, how different is that from steering schools toward offering athletic scholarships?  Hint: a lot less different than steering teams toward regional competition.

. . . And I'd refrain from using the NESCAC as a 'positive' example.  Just because they have effectively chosen to leave d3 for football (no playoffs is one thing, no non-con games at all is another ), they certainly delight in touting their all-sports trophies!  If they are so 'pristine' in football, does that make them 'whores' in all other sports?!

I mentioned the NESCAC only with respect to Division III football.  Your discussion of NESCAC's "virtue" and/or "promiscuity" in other sports is irrelevant to my statement.

Nonetheless, you are of course free to refrain from using whatever you wish to refrain from using.
 
From where I sit, NESCAC hasn't left Division III for football--on the contrary, their policy with respect to football appears more consistent with the principles of Division III athletics than even the NCAA's Division III national playoff.

I should have clarified my applause for the NCAA's encouragement of regional competition.  I'm not defending the NCAA's geographical line-drawing that they call "regions."  I'm especially not defending the two different definitions that the NCAA uses for "in-region."  I should have used the word "local."  I'm applauding the practice of encouraging local competition.

Since the NESCAC plays NO other d3 teams, however local they may be, in my view they are not a part of d3 for football.

Local is to be preferred (as I'm sure both the 'academics' and the 'bean counters' at every d3 school agree), but why such arbitrary (and contradictory) rules?  Can't schools be trusted to do what is in their interests (including economic interests)?  Calling some games 'in-region' (even if between schools 2,000 miles apart, in a location an additional 2,000 miles away), yet a rivalry game 202 miles away (which isn't even 202 miles, but that is what the NCAA software says) 'non-region' is insane.

Using an 'in-region' rule requires that rules be set.  But such rules will inevitably be arbitrary, capricious, and sometimes downright stupid.  All games between d3 opponents should count for SoS and Pool B and C; to do otherwise invites ridicule.  IF some rich school(s) start abusing the 'open' system, the topic can be revisited.

But I doubt any school will desire to both waste resources and be subjected to vituperation.