FB: American Southwest Conference

[SW1]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

[SW1]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

This was according to Logan Hanson. Tells you a lot about how they view the football played in our bracket.

[SW1]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

This was according to Logan Hanson. Tells you a lot about how they view the football played in our bracket. Guess that means only 5 other teams have it easier and I would venture to bet they are in our bracket.

[UMHB03]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

[justafan12]

Some thoughts on 2021 DIII playoff format.   
It is VERY flawed (and usually is).   

1.   It is very biased for Upper Midwest and Eastern teams.    They can travel  easily to many teams.   Not so for the west coast conferences.    SOS is unfair for that reason.

2.   Upper left bracket has five unbeaten teams, three ranked in the top 7 teams.   And, as usual, they place Linfield in the toughest bracket.   
      Lower left bracket has two.   Why wasn't Linfield placed here?
      Upper right bracket has two.   



      Lower right bracket has two.    Why was Hardin-Simmons not placed at all?  
      Why:  Each bracket should be as balanced as possible.    Fairness to all.

3.   If possible, teams should meet teams they have never played before.   
      Why?   Variety and makes playoffs as fair as possible.   

4.   How about a new format:
      A.   Top 16 teams (D3.com poll) have first playoff game at home.
            Why?   An independent poll determines those 16.    Minimal NCAA regional bias.     
      B.   Top 16 teams are spread equally among the four brackets.
            Why?   Fairness to all.   
      C.   First round:  Minimize travel costs.     Otherwise, lower 16 teams are random draws to meet the top 16 teams.
            Why?   Again, fairness to all.           
      D.   Second round: Minimize travel costs.     Otherwise, lower 8 teams are random draws to meet the top 8 teams.    Coin flip determines home team.
             Why?   Every team has a fair chance for a home game.                        
      E.    Third round and fourth rounds: coin flip determines home team.
             Why?   Every team has a fair chance for a home game.
   
These are only my thoughts and not anyone else.   

Is it possible to ever change this bad current playoff selection, which is so, so subjective and NOT based on fairness to all?

George Thompson

I think those are all great ideas but the fact is the NCAA is not interested in fairness at the D3 level (probably at the D2 level as well).  I relate it to an old school superintendent comments about cheerleaders; "I know I have to have cheerleaders I just don't want to have anything to do with them." It costs the NCAA money to run the championships as they pick up the tab for travel, etc.  There is where the issue begins and ends.  I know there is a budget for championships but why not increase it.  I don't think the NCAA is about to run out of money.

People talk a lot on these boards about rankings and how an HSU can be ranked all year and not be selected.  The issue is the NCAA does not care nor pay any attention to any outside groups rankings.  They publish their regional rankings and that is all we get to see as far the selections.  We can see a SOS ranking but other than that we have no idea how the selection is done. 

As I have stated on here before, my background is softball.  My daughters played in the final 8 championship tournament (can't call it a World Series) 4 different times.  The best 8 teams NEVER had the opportunity to make it to the finals.  Overall the games where much tougher at the regional level than the final 8 because teams were grouped regionally with no thought of a ranking system.  Why because to properly seed teams in a 60+ team bracket would cost big time money. 
My best example is there was a school that made it to the final 8 one year that never played a "ranked" team all year (rankings done by the NFCA). Regular season I could see that given a team's conference but when it came to regionals and super regionals you would think they would play another ranked team.  Nope, all based on geography and money. 

We can dream of fairness in the selection process but I doubt it will ever happen.

[Etchglow]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

We needed to get more use out of that fancy new video board!

[HSUCowboy2015]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

[AO]

Rather than making the text bubble keep growing jknezek I will just say I agree with you that I don't really have a problem with HSU being left out (based on criteria).

With that said, on the pod Pat and Greg essentially laid the blame on HSU for not playing a D3 non conference opponent, saying the cost of doing business just might have to include spending more money to find a D3 opponent willing to play them. On behalf of HSU I am not sure I like that logic, since the NCAA themselves uses cost savings as a way to make the playoffs less expensive. Why shouldn't a school be able to use the same excuse that the NCAA does?

Haven't listened to the pod yet, but playing a D3 non-conference opponent with a record under. 500 would make HSU's SoS even worse than it already was.  Playing an NAIA or D2 opponent would be smart in that case.  There's no conspiracy against Hardin-Simmons they just had a low strength of schedule relative to the other pool C hopefuls, and there's no easy way to fix that when you play a 9 game conference schedule.  Many teams are in the same position, going 9-1 is just not good enough to be guaranteed a spot.

[Pat Coleman]

Washington & Lee loses on Saturday and only drops one spot in the regional ranking.  That seems odd plus 2 of their wins were against non D3 teams; the point many are saying hurt HSU.

W&L wasn't an at-large candidate, and would not have been an at-large candidate with that resume.

So Bethel, with 2 losses to #5 team, gets in over HSU, with 1 loss to #2 UMHB.  Hummm.

Also has a win.

[Pat Coleman]

If you want a lot of talk about the HSU situation, here's 14 minutes I spent talking to KTXS yesterday about it:

https://ktxs.com/sports/college-sports/looking-into-hsu-footballs-playoff-snub-with-d3-football-expert

There are two video boxes on this page. The full interview is the second one on the page.

[UMHB03]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

[George Thompson]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

Agree 100%.

George Thompson

[George Thompson]

We can dream of fairness in the selection process but I doubt it will ever happen.

Yes, I agree; it likely will not ever happen.   The system is not at all fair.   It favors the Upper midwest and the East.


George Thompson

[MUC57]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

I don't really understand many aspects of the selection process, but I do know SOS plays a part.
Given that, I offer the following for what it's worth:
     TEAM       POSITION         SOS
    UMU              45               0.535
   UMHB            163              0.481

Mount Union - deserves a top seed. Mary Hardin-Baylor -

[George Thompson]

I don't think this is the year for ASC/UMHB fans to complain about bracketing. They have the 27th easiest path to the semis in the whole bracket.

My problem is not with the opponents, but with the seeding in general.

UMHB was a clear top 4 seed, and now they'll likely have to play their 3rd round game in the arctic tundra when they should be playing it in the comfy confines of Crusader Stadium.

I think UMHB was accurately seeded according to how the rest of the bracket played out. UMHB's low SOS and a win over only 1 RRO probably played a huge factor. Those same factors kept HSU out of the playoffs. Unfortunately beating teams along the lines of 77-3 and 65-0 apparently don't carry as much weight as they used to. The only team UMHB could've jumped would have been North Central but they held the tie breaker since they won it all the last time we had a playoff.

I think they got most of the top seeds right, but there is no way a team that almost lost to Ohio Northern, and exited the 2019 playoffs earlier than the Crusaders, should get a top 4 seed ahead of UMHB. That was just clear bias and favoritism by the committee.

You are right!   Very unfair selections.

George Thompson