FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[robertgoulet]

Interesting post-season comments from NCC Coach Spencer on the D3 Podcast about the best 32 teams in the playoffs.

Linfield not making the playoffs
The bracketing process
The D-3 philosophy of the playoffs
The Geographic Proximity problem

I generally agree with his comments (listened to ATN) but I do think when he says "do what's best for the experience for the kids" he is missing a crucial thing which is if you stay at 32 and get the best 32 you are screwing the kids from those conference champs that are not part of the best 32. There is no real good answer outside of expanding AND allowing travel but the $ just doesn't seem to be there.

[NCC2010]

wanted to say congratulations on a great season to Wheaton.  if both NCC and UWW win this week, and one of them wins the Stagg in convincing fashion, Wheaton could end up having their only 2 losses to the #1 and #2 teams overall in the final polls.

[Gregory Sager]

Interesting post-season comments from NCC Coach Spencer on the D3 Podcast about the best 32 teams in the playoffs.

Linfield not making the playoffs
The bracketing process
The D-3 philosophy of the playoffs
The Geographic Proximity problem

I generally agree with his comments (listened to ATN) but I do think when he says "do what's best for the experience for the kids" he is missing a crucial thing which is if you stay at 32 and get the best 32 you are screwing the kids from those conference champs that are not part of the best 32. There is no real good answer outside of expanding AND allowing travel but the $ just doesn't seem to be there.

Exactly, and, although Brad Spencer's comments were thoughtful and put the stress where it belongs, vis-a-vis D3 -- on the student-athlete experience -- I kinda got the feeling from listening to him that he doesn't seem to be aware that the idea of taking an automatic bid away from a member conference of D3 is a total non-starter. It will never happen. The kids from those conference champs that are not part of the best 32 will never get screwed, because the NCAA membership would never allow those automatic bids to be taken away via annual-meeting legislation. This isn't just a football thing; it's a more acute problem in football, because the limited schedules that football teams play as compared to other sports makes the football Pool C selection process much more difficult and subjective, but I've seen the same complaint raised in other D3 sports as well.

As Pat said, there's basically two alternatives available, neither of which is going to be enacted until the new March Madness TV contract money trickles down to D3 and augments the D3 football playoff budget. One is to nationalize the bracket for truer seeding by using that extra money for more long-distance travel. The other is to keep the travel-restricted, regionally-based system in place and simply lessen the problem by adding as many extra Pool C slots (and, in so doing, granting first-round byes to the higher seeds) as the newly-augmented budget allows. That third alternative -- add more Pool Cs in order to get the "best-32 bracket" by taking away the automatic Pool A bids of weaker conferences -- is not viable, because the membership will never vote for it.

[Cardinal773]

I totally understand when you say removing pool A is a non-starter, but I mean...  we've got Belhaven getting absolutely slammed in the first round and St. John's, Linfield, Muhlenberg sitting at home watching that all go down.  Something's gotta give, here.  I know Belhaven got a plane trip and another week together, but you got to feel for the quality teams sitting on the sidelines year in and year out.  There has to be a fix.  There's something to be said for denying some team the opportunity to get curb-stomped in the first round in favor of a more legit tournament.  Heck, they're being treated like a glorified bye-week.

[hazzben]

As Pat said, there's basically two alternatives available, neither of which is going to be enacted until the new March Madness TV contract money trickles down to D3 and augments the D3 football playoff budget. One is to nationalize the bracket for truer seeding by using that extra money for more long-distance travel. The other is to keep the travel-restricted, regionally-based system in place and simply lessen the problem by adding as many extra Pool C slots (and, in so doing, granting first-round byes to the higher seeds) as the newly-augmented budget allows. That third alternative -- add more Pool Cs in order to get the "best-32 bracket" by taking away the automatic Pool A bids of weaker conferences -- is not viable, because the membership will never vote for it.

I like the D2 system better, with earned access, but understand it's not the D3 philosophy. That said, reset the floor to 8 teams for a conference to get an auto bid and increase the Pool C number. But if I have to choose between more money for a national bracket or a larger field, with travel restrictions, give me the former. What good is a 40 team field if 85% of the Top 15 or the entire Top 5 is all on one side? How deep could Trinity, Wheaton, or Aurora have gone if they were on the other side of the bracket this year? This weekend the quarterfinals may already be (probably are??) matching up the best 4 teams in the country. I'd rather see a system where those teams each have an equitable path to the final 4, than one where we have a bunch more at large selections, but still give half the field a vastly more difficult path to the Stagg.

[Pat Coleman]

I totally understand when you say removing pool A is a non-starter, but I mean...  we've got Belhaven getting absolutely slammed in the first round and St. John's, Linfield, Muhlenberg sitting at home watching that all go down.  Something's gotta give, here.  I know Belhaven got a plane trip and another week together, but you got to feel for the quality teams sitting on the sidelines year in and year out.  There has to be a fix.  There's something to be said for denying some team the opportunity to get curb-stomped in the first round in favor of a more legit tournament.  Heck, they're being treated like a glorified bye-week.

Nothing has to give here. The USA South is a viable conference and its champ deserves to play in the postseason. If it gives, I'd take the AQ away from football conferences which fall below six and remove the two-year grace period.

[robertgoulet]

I totally understand when you say removing pool A is a non-starter, but I mean...  we've got Belhaven getting absolutely slammed in the first round and St. John's, Linfield, Muhlenberg sitting at home watching that all go down.  Something's gotta give, here.  I know Belhaven got a plane trip and another week together, but you got to feel for the quality teams sitting on the sidelines year in and year out.  There has to be a fix.  There's something to be said for denying some team the opportunity to get curb-stomped in the first round in favor of a more legit tournament.  Heck, they're being treated like a glorified bye-week.

You gotta feel for the quality teams sitting on the sidelines but you'd also gotta feel for the teams that won their conferences that were sitting on the sidelines if it were the other way around.

I do agree that the better option of the 2 (expansion vs travel) imo is allowing travel. NCAA bball tournament isn't the best 64 teams.

[Gregory Sager]

But if I have to choose between more money for a national bracket or a larger field, with travel restrictions, give me the former. What good is a 40 team field if 85% of the Top 15 or the entire Top 5 is all on one side? How deep could Trinity, Wheaton, or Aurora have gone if they were on the other side of the bracket this year? This weekend the quarterfinals may already be (probably are??) matching up the best 4 teams in the country. I'd rather see a system where those teams each have an equitable path to the final 4, than one where we have a bunch more at large selections, but still give half the field a vastly more difficult path to the Stagg.

I agree that the first option -- more money for a national bracket -- would make for a better field in terms of quality and competitiveness than the second option could provide, because it would be seeded better (i.e., the midwestern and "island" teams wouldn't all get stuck playing each other in the early rounds, since for generations D3 football's been rather lopsided in terms of most of the good teams being located west of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border). But if I had to place a bet on what the D3 membership would support in an annual meeting vote, it'd be on the second option, because the second option provides access to the D3 football playoff experience to more schools and more student-athletes, and that's what the institutional administrators of D3 schools value.

[Pat Coleman]

But if I have to choose between more money for a national bracket or a larger field, with travel restrictions, give me the former. What good is a 40 team field if 85% of the Top 15 or the entire Top 5 is all on one side? How deep could Trinity, Wheaton, or Aurora have gone if they were on the other side of the bracket this year? This weekend the quarterfinals may already be (probably are??) matching up the best 4 teams in the country. I'd rather see a system where those teams each have an equitable path to the final 4, than one where we have a bunch more at large selections, but still give half the field a vastly more difficult path to the Stagg.

I agree that the first option -- more money for a national bracket -- would make for a better field in terms of quality and competitiveness than the second option could provide, because it would be seeded better (i.e., the midwestern and "island" teams wouldn't all get stuck playing each other in the early rounds, since for generations D3 football's been rather lopsided in terms of most of the good teams being located west of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border). But if I had to place a bet on what the D3 membership would support in an annual meeting vote, it'd be on the second option, because the second option provides access to the D3 football playoff experience to more schools and more student-athletes, and that's what the institutional administrators of D3 schools value.

I haven't run any simulations on this, but I also have some hopes that an extra eight teams would also help us balance the competitiveness of the bracket. Assuming that the committee agrees with what makes for better competitiveness.

[MasterJedi]

NCC is on the road this week??

What a joke!


And equal joke is that the actual final four is being played this week on the left side of the bracket  with UWL vs NCC and UWW vs Wartburg. The right side doesn't have one team that can compete with those 4.

In 2010 the NCC faithful were generally convinced that it did belong in Naperville and not Whitewater. (it wasn't right then or now) so I guess you guys get to experience that fun now too lol

[Cowboy2]

But if I have to choose between more money for a national bracket or a larger field, with travel restrictions, give me the former. What good is a 40 team field if 85% of the Top 15 or the entire Top 5 is all on one side? How deep could Trinity, Wheaton, or Aurora have gone if they were on the other side of the bracket this year? This weekend the quarterfinals may already be (probably are??) matching up the best 4 teams in the country. I'd rather see a system where those teams each have an equitable path to the final 4, than one where we have a bunch more at large selections, but still give half the field a vastly more difficult path to the Stagg.

I agree that the first option -- more money for a national bracket -- would make for a better field in terms of quality and competitiveness than the second option could provide, because it would be seeded better (i.e., the midwestern and "island" teams wouldn't all get stuck playing each other in the early rounds, since for generations D3 football's been rather lopsided in terms of most of the good teams being located west of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border). But if I had to place a bet on what the D3 membership would support in an annual meeting vote, it'd be on the second option, because the second option provides access to the D3 football playoff experience to more schools and more student-athletes, and that's what the institutional administrators of D3 schools value.

I haven't run any simulations on this, but I also have some hopes that an extra eight teams would also help us balance the competitiveness of the bracket. Assuming that the committee agrees with what makes for better competitiveness.

I'm all for winning your conference and getting in. I also feel the root of the problem every year is the pool C process. Someone will always be left out. Going to 40 teams, you will probably have team like UWRF who is left out that would beat 1/3 of the field. So that wouldn't change things. It would be nice to add 8 teams, but In reality only 2 teams would have an extra week of playing, so I see it isn't really a safety issue either. However, if the money could be better spent on structuring a bracket that makes sense, I feel that would be the best end product to be able to showcase the best 32 teams who "qualified" to make the tournament. If you don't win your conference outright, shame on you. This doesn't need to change. Consequentially, I feel the best way to ensure you have a shot at still making it into the tournament is with a strong Pool C resume. This is where the ultimate problem is. Teams that have trouble scheduling OOC opponents, want better OOC competition, or that want to boost SOS should be taken into consideration. When you succeed in this, it should boost RRO W/Ls and help reward those schools for taking the risk. If the committee does not review that then we will start to lose the treat of OOC jewel matchups we have all grown accustomed to the last few seasons. Besides a wacky mac n cheese bracket this year, we still don't really have any final concrete understanding of what teams need to do to get into the tournament, other than win your Pool A bid. That is the first thing that needs to be figured out before they ever discuss expansion or properly seeded brackets. In reality, based on D3FB and ACFA, how often do we see a team not ranked navigate to the national championship? Was NCC ranked when they were Pool C and won it?

Let's not take away access for someone who has won a seat at a table. However, let's ensure the guidelines are set and everyone knows prior to the season what is needed to get in if you're a Pool C team. Then you can ensure the best qualified non conference teams still get selected. Add in comparatives with common scores, eye test, etc and get rid of a win is a win and L is an L. If a coach wants to hang 100 on a weak program, well they run the risk of hurting a key contributor. I understand stats are only stats, but not all wins and losses are the same. Just as not all conference champions are the same. And not all #2 seeds are the same lol. Congrats NCC on a dominant playoff win for the second week in a row.

[Gregory Sager]

But if I have to choose between more money for a national bracket or a larger field, with travel restrictions, give me the former. What good is a 40 team field if 85% of the Top 15 or the entire Top 5 is all on one side? How deep could Trinity, Wheaton, or Aurora have gone if they were on the other side of the bracket this year? This weekend the quarterfinals may already be (probably are??) matching up the best 4 teams in the country. I'd rather see a system where those teams each have an equitable path to the final 4, than one where we have a bunch more at large selections, but still give half the field a vastly more difficult path to the Stagg.

I agree that the first option -- more money for a national bracket -- would make for a better field in terms of quality and competitiveness than the second option could provide, because it would be seeded better (i.e., the midwestern and "island" teams wouldn't all get stuck playing each other in the early rounds, since for generations D3 football's been rather lopsided in terms of most of the good teams being located west of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border). But if I had to place a bet on what the D3 membership would support in an annual meeting vote, it'd be on the second option, because the second option provides access to the D3 football playoff experience to more schools and more student-athletes, and that's what the institutional administrators of D3 schools value.

I haven't run any simulations on this, but I also have some hopes that an extra eight teams would also help us balance the competitiveness of the bracket. Assuming that the committee agrees with what makes for better competitiveness.

I would think that it'd depend upon where those extra eight teams are located. If it's John Carroll or even Muhlenberg, I think it'd help, just for the sake of being able to move more teams east or west. If it's Linfield or St. John's, I don't think it helps nearly as much, because teams like that are so geographically constrained.

[robertgoulet]

NCC is on the road this week??

What a joke!


And equal joke is that the actual final four is being played this week on the left side of the bracket  with UWL vs NCC and UWW vs Wartburg. The right side doesn't have one team that can compete with those 4.

In 2010 the NCC faithful were generally convinced that it did belong in Naperville and not Whitewater. (it wasn't right then or now) so I guess you guys get to experience that fun now too lol

At least that was undefeated vs undefeated. I thought the trips to Muhlenberg and Mt Union in 19 were payback for 2010. That should have made us even! 

[Pat Coleman]

But if I have to choose between more money for a national bracket or a larger field, with travel restrictions, give me the former. What good is a 40 team field if 85% of the Top 15 or the entire Top 5 is all on one side? How deep could Trinity, Wheaton, or Aurora have gone if they were on the other side of the bracket this year? This weekend the quarterfinals may already be (probably are??) matching up the best 4 teams in the country. I'd rather see a system where those teams each have an equitable path to the final 4, than one where we have a bunch more at large selections, but still give half the field a vastly more difficult path to the Stagg.

I agree that the first option -- more money for a national bracket -- would make for a better field in terms of quality and competitiveness than the second option could provide, because it would be seeded better (i.e., the midwestern and "island" teams wouldn't all get stuck playing each other in the early rounds, since for generations D3 football's been rather lopsided in terms of most of the good teams being located west of the Pennsylvania-Ohio border). But if I had to place a bet on what the D3 membership would support in an annual meeting vote, it'd be on the second option, because the second option provides access to the D3 football playoff experience to more schools and more student-athletes, and that's what the institutional administrators of D3 schools value.

I haven't run any simulations on this, but I also have some hopes that an extra eight teams would also help us balance the competitiveness of the bracket. Assuming that the committee agrees with what makes for better competitiveness.

I would think that it'd depend upon where those extra eight teams are located. If it's John Carroll or even Muhlenberg, I think it'd help, just for the sake of being able to move more teams east or west. If it's Linfield or St. John's, I don't think it helps nearly as much, because teams like that are so geographically constrained.

If Linfield gets in, then Chapman probably plays someone like Belhaven in the first round and you have Round of 32 games between Linfield and Trinity and Whitworth and Hardin-Simmons -- at the worst. At least it breaks up the islands a smidge. Or maybe in a 40-team field Berry gets in and Chapman goes somewhere different, or hosts Minnesota-Morris in a 7 vs. 10 game.

[NCC2010]

NCC is on the road this week??

What a joke!


And equal joke is that the actual final four is being played this week on the left side of the bracket  with UWL vs NCC and UWW vs Wartburg. The right side doesn't have one team that can compete with those 4.

In 2010 the NCC faithful were generally convinced that it did belong in Naperville and not Whitewater. (it wasn't right then or now) so I guess you guys get to experience that fun now too lol

2010 was different because there were 6 undefeated teams that were deserving of 1 seeds (UWW, Mount Union, St Thomas, NCC, Wesley, UMHB.  UWW had the lowest strength of schedule it was sub .500 somehow).  Wesley and UMHB were paired in the same quad, and i thought NCC and St Thomas would be paired together, leaving Mount and UWW as the two remaining 1 seeds, which seemd obvious, since they were the only 2 teams going to the Staggs for years running.  i was on the team so i vividly remember lol.  we did not think we deserved the 1 seed over UWW (cant speak for the entire fanbase here but i know my fellow teammates were just as perplexed by the decision as everyone else), we thought we deserved one in general though, or at worse a 2 seed in the non-Mount Union/UWW quads. 

the end result is the same as this year however, teams going home a round or multiple rounds earlier than they deserve.