FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[emma17]

NCC vs Wesley- very exciting and I'll do my best to attend as UWW isn't playing Saturday.
Wesleydad- it would be fun to hang at the tailgate (although I'll be sitting on the NCC side).

IMO the playoff impact solution to games like this is to balance out a loss based upon recent previous playoff performance against the best teams. In a game such as this, both teams have proven they can compete w the best of D3 (an exception will have to be granted to 2014 Wesley) and as such, they shouldn't be punished in post season consideration.

[wally_wabash]

IMO the playoff impact solution to games like this is to balance out a loss based upon recent previous playoff performance against the best teams. In a game such as this, both teams have proven they can compete w the best of D3 (an exception will have to be granted to 2014 Wesley) and as such, they shouldn't be punished in post season consideration.

How does the selection committee define "the best of D3"?  Where do you draw that line?

[New Tradition]

http://d3football.com/top25/2015/preseason

First 2015 top 25 poll out.  Wheaton comes in at 7 and NCC at 11. 

Wesley at 5.  Really excited for this season.

[emma17]

IMO the playoff impact solution to games like this is to balance out a loss based upon recent previous playoff performance against the best teams. In a game such as this, both teams have proven they can compete w the best of D3 (an exception will have to be granted to 2014 Wesley) and as such, they shouldn't be punished in post season consideration.

How does the selection committee define "the best of D3"?  Where do you draw that line?

I admit it's not the easiest task, but I do believe there is a solution when people share ideas.
The first task is determining the goal of the selections for Pool C.  Is the goal to reward a team for having a good season, or is the goal to create the most competitive playoff field?  If it's the former, I guess the current process is working.  If it's the latter, than I think the process should at least include some of the following:
-A team's performance in recent playoff appearances (three years previous).  When they lost, did they lose competitively?  Are their only wins or competitive games against teams ranked 10 (not sure if this is the right number) and lower? Wash and Jeff would not fare well in this model.  Widener would not fare well in this model.  Muhlenberg would not fare well in this model.  NCC, St. Thomas, St. John's, UWO would have fared well in this model.
-A team's performance during the regular season against playoff proven teams (in last three years).  TLU would not have fared well in this model (yes, I know they played UMHB very tough in the playoffs, but the manner of their regular season loss would have disqualified them).  UWO and NCC would have fared well in this model. 

This model does require greater subjectivity, but with it there must be complete transparency.  A voter must be prepared to explain why they believe their choice would enhance the competition of the playoffs.

IMO there is a lesser chance of UWW meeting Mt Union in the Stagg for so many years if the selection committee used criteria similar to the above.  A team's recent performance against the proven top teams is the best indicator of playoff worthiness.

Heck, you can even take the top 6-7 of the final D3 rankings of the last three or four years and use performance against those teams as a barometer.   

[Gregory Sager]

The first task is determining the goal of the selections for Pool C.  Is the goal to reward a team for having a good season, or is the goal to create the most competitive playoff field?

Section 9-1 of the D3 football championship handbook spells this out:

The Division III championships philosophy is to field the most competitive teams possible while minimizing missed class
time; to emphasize regional competition in regular-season scheduling; and to provide representation in NCAA championship
competition by allocating berths to eligible conferences, independent institutions and a limited number of at-large teams,
realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving out some championship-caliber teams.

The selection criteria themselves are spelled out in detail on pages 20 and 21 of the D3 football championship handbook. I recommend to anybody who is interested at all in the D3 football playoffs process to bookmark this link.

[emma17]

Gregory
I'm not sure of the purpose of your above post.
If it's just to provide the site that explains the current process- thanks for the link.
In my response to Wally, I was making a suggestion of how the current process can be improved if the goal is solidified in addressing Pool C selections.

I find the opening paragraph statement to be unclear.

[Gregory Sager]

Gregory
I'm not sure of the purpose of your above post.
If it's just to provide the site that explains the current process- thanks for the link.

Well, there's that. But my primary purpose was to answer your question. You asked what was the goal of the selections for Pool C, and I gave you the response of the people who decide the goals as well as dictate the process for the selections.

In my response to Wally, I was making a suggestion of how the current process can be improved if the goal is solidified in addressing Pool C selections.

I find the opening paragraph statement to be unclear.

I'm honestly not sure why. It appears to me that the D3 football championship handbook directly answered your question, using your own words. Here's your question again, followed by the NCAA's answer, with the key words bolded:

The first task is determining the goal of the selections for Pool C.  Is the goal to reward a team for having a good season, or is the goal to create the most competitive playoff field?

The Division III championships philosophy is to field the most competitive teams possible while minimizing missed class
time; to emphasize regional competition in regular-season scheduling; and to provide representation in NCAA championship
competition by allocating berths to eligible conferences, independent institutions and a limited number of at-large teams,
realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving out some championship-caliber teams.

The key words in common are "most competitive ... field."

[emma17]

Gregory,
I see how you're approaching my post, but let me clarify.
I wasn't really asking what the Pool C goal of the selection committee is now.  I'm suggesting that, if there is going to be a change in the selection process, the goal of Pool C needs to be clearly stated, or better stated. 

You bolded the words "create the most competitive playoff field", yet you didn't comment on the last words of that paragraph "realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving our some championship-caliber teams."

This last sentence conflicts with the first part, at least to me.
My preference would be that for Pool C, the sole goal of the committee is to award those spots to teams that have clearly displayed an ability to compete with Top 7-8 teams in recent years and the current year.  If this was the stated goal, then there would likely be many more 8-2, 7-3 and even 6-4 teams making the Pool C over 9-1 teams.     

[Pat Coleman]

Gregory,
I see how you're approaching my post, but let me clarify.
I wasn't really asking what the Pool C goal of the selection committee is now.  I'm suggesting that, if there is going to be a change in the selection process, the goal of Pool C needs to be clearly stated, or better stated. 

You bolded the words "create the most competitive playoff field", yet you didn't comment on the last words of that paragraph "realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving our some championship-caliber teams."

Emma, that part refers to the automatic bids, not the selection of Pool C teams.

[Gregory Sager]

OK, emma, now I see where you're coming from.

My first thought in response, though, is this: Do we know if D3 is even considering changing the selection process? This conversation arose out of a discussion between you and Wally regarding Kovo's lament about North Central overstocking its non-conference slate with good competition. Unless I missed something, it seems to me that this discussion is completely hypothetical. If the people who run the D3 football championship aren't looking to change things, then what you're proposing is nothing more than a thought experiment. Nothing wrong with that, of course; this is the place for that sort of thing.

I suppose that the possibility exists that the NCAA might consider tweaking the selection criteria if it becomes plain to them that league expansion has teams so locked into league play, schedule-wise, that current-season non-conference games are becoming a statistically implausible way to determine Pool C bids. But, again, I haven't heard of anything like that being in the wind as of now.

I'm suggesting that, if there is going to be a change in the selection process, the goal of Pool C needs to be clearly stated, or better stated. 

You bolded the words "create the most competitive playoff field", yet you didn't comment on the last words of that paragraph "realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving our some championship-caliber teams."

This last sentence conflicts with the first part, at least to me.

The whole "leaving out some championship-caliber teams" disclaimer comes off as bit of a CYA move on the NCAA's part, although I tend to doubt that in reality there are consistently teams left out of the playoffs that would give Purple One or Purple Two a run for their money in the Stagg Bowl. The fact of the matter is that the 32-team cap on the D3 football playoff field is always going to leave only a very small number of berths available for Pool C, so the NCAA really has to make that statement.

Honestly, I don't see the conflict of which you speak. I think that the "realizing that this may be done at the expense ..." disclaimer qualifies the stated goal ("create the most competitive playoff field") rather than contradicts it. "Most" is a comparative word, and in this case, it's comparing the fields they choose with any other fields that they could've chosen, given the boundaries of the 32-team bracket, automatic bids (as Pat just pointed out), Pool B, geographical and financial limitations, etc., that hem them in. It's not "most competitive in an ideal world in which we could take the 32 best teams in D3," in other words, or anything like that. "Most competitive," in this case, carries an implication of constraints. The "realizing that ..." disclaimer is like a footnote to the stated goal that says, "While we are creating the most competitive playoff field possible, keep in mind that there's only just so many Pool C berths to go around." In other words, it's the NCAA's way of saying that what's ideal and what's possible aren't the same thing.

[kiko]

FWIW, I read:

"by allocating berths to eligible conferences, independent institutions and a limited number of at-large teams, realizing that this may be done at the expense of leaving out some championship-caliber teams"

...as simply a way of saying 'every conference gets representation, even though filling so much of the field in this manner means we will leave out championship-caliber teams at the expense of lower-caliber conference AQ teams'.

So I don't think that it is inconsistent with "create the most competitive playoff field".  I read it as "equal access, and with the remaining slots, use them to make the field as competitive as possible".

Now, whether the current selection criteria uses those slots this way is debatable.

What I would not want to see, though, is for the selection criteria to weigh heavily on prior years' performance.  Thinking of the journey that North Central and Augustana have been on over the past ten years, there was a point where the Cards pivoted from not meriting selection to being in the mix, and Augie went in the reverse direction.

In this instance, it was a pretty clean process as North Central went from 7-3 overall to 9-1, and stayed around this level, while one year after this, Augie went from 9-1 to 7-3 and hasn't emerged as a top echelon team since.  (In the rearview mirror, it was an interesting changing-of-the-guard period.  At the time, nobody could really have foreseen the arc the two programs would embark upon.) 

Had they both been 8-2 during that juncture, and the choice for whatever reason came down to one of the two -- that's not necessarily realistic for two teams in the same conference, I know, but it works as two familiar teams for example purposes -- then Augie would have gotten the nod in that era based largely on what previously graduated seniors had done rather than what the current class had done.  That's a tough pill to swallow, especially for seniors who outperformed their school's prior level.  And this decision would be all the more difficult if you were comparing an ascendent North Central to someone in a completely different region with no common opponents within Kevin Bacon-approved degrees of separation.

There is no easy way to make that comparison.  We can point to teams that were granted Pool C bids and then underwhelmed in the tournament, and say that someone left out would have performed better.(*)  But if we rely too much on the past, we cement the status quo, and ascendent teams will have an even more difficult time getting access to the tournament.  That's not, IMO, a better solution than what we currently have, as it just changes the problem we are wrestling with.

-----

(*) - this is an argument some have made for including North Central in the field last year, and to be completely transparent, I have zero issue with the selection committee's choice to bypass the Cardinals for other options.

[emma17]

Thanks Gregory and Kiko
I didn't really want to get into the wording of the current stated selection process, I should have just left that alone.

In responding to Wally, I was coming from the perspective of offering improviements to the Pool C selection process. I'm not aware that the committee is actually looking for suggestions- so it's all hypothetical.


Kiko, I appreciate your position on NCC of last year. However, in my scenario they would have been an excellent choice. I understand your concern that you don't want to "cement the status quo", however, I feel the AQ is the answer to that. I am only speaking about what teams should be consdidered for Pool C and as such, I'd like to see the committee select teams that have recently and currently shown demonstrated that they won't get whipped by a top 10 team.
NCC and UWO surely played their current and recent year schedules in a manner that would give confidence to the committee that their inclusion in the tourny would likely elevate competition.
As a reminder, I take this stance believing full well that this selection process I favor would have made life very much more difficult for UWW and Mt.
I don't have access to my desktop right now but I'd love to see a list of the Pool C teams over the past 4 years or so.

[kiko]

To be clear, I agree that North Central would have been an excellent (read as: deserving) choice last year.  There were a number of teams with strong credentials when we got to the final choices, so I wouldn't have viewed the Cards as a reach.  And, I think they were probably more likely to win a game or two than some of the teams that were picked instead of them, depending on where U-dub-dub and Mount landed in the draw.  (Or more accurately, where the Cardinals landed, as those two were going to be loitering in the corners of the bracket...)

Pool A solves the access issue, as you suggest, but only in some conferences.  If you've got a St. Thomas-, Whitewater-, Linfield- Mount-type of gorilla in your conference, your path to the playoffs is via Pool C and not Pool A, and you've probably got a 40-point loss on your resume.  It doesn't strike me as the best option to judge an unknown quantity who is blocked by a perennial conference power to be inferior to other teams based on historical track records.  To use a similar example as Oshkosh or North Central, Augie historically played their schedule in a way that would give the committee confidence they could beat very good teams -- until one day they couldn't.  I by no means think the current system is perfect, but there are too few at-large berths in my mind to let history influence where those bids go.

[wally_wabash]

Kiko, I appreciate your position on NCC of last year. However, in my scenario they would have been an excellent choice. I understand your concern that you don't want to "cement the status quo", however, I feel the AQ is the answer to that. I am only speaking about what teams should be consdidered for Pool C and as such, I'd like to see the committee select teams that have recently and currently shown demonstrated that they won't get whipped by a top 10 team.

The sense that I have is that the only teams not getting routinely beat up by top 10 teams are other top 10 teams.  That's how you get to be in the top 10.  I really like the idea of giving a great deal of weight to teams that have beaten other playoff teams, preferably in the current season.  But really how long should North Central be able to collect Pool C royalties from the Mount Union snow game (that they didn't win)? 

I don't have access to my desktop right now but I'd love to see a list of the Pool C teams over the past 4 years or so.

This is easy enough:
2011 - Illinois Wesleyan, St. John Fisher, Illinois College, Centre, McMurry, Redlands
2012 - Louisiana College, Heidelberg, Elmhurst, Bridgewater State, Rowan, Pacific Lutheran, Bethel
2013 - Pacific Lutheran, John Carroll, St. John Fisher, UW-Platteville, Illinois Wesleyan
2014 - John Carroll, Wabash, Muhlenberg, Centre, St. Thomas, Delaware Valley

If the assertion is that the committee is leaving out teams that could reasonably win the tournament, then I would disagree.  We can quibble about whether or not UW-P or NCC is better than Muhlenberg in 2014, but neither of those teams were going to win the tournament or beat either of the eventual finalists along the way.  Wasn't happening. 

[emma17]

Kiko,
I'd actually go the other way on your point about the power conferences.  I believe UWO from the WIAC has proven itself quite capable of beating UWW.  JCU did the same with Mt.  Multiple teams have done it in the MIAC vs St T.  Willamette and sometimes Pac Luth give Linfield a run for the money.  All of the power schools nearly lost to very strong teams in their conference.  Those are the teams I would rather see fill Pool C as opposed to:
2014 Pool C Teams:
Centre:  Lost 63-28
Muhl: Lost 36-35 to Widener, who lost 45-7 to Linfield.
Del Val: Lost to Chris Newport, who lost to Widener, see above.

Some may think I'm pushing for more WIAC schools or some may feel I'm creating to great an obstacle for other schools on the brink to break through.
I just don't see it that way.  I think the way to breakthrough is to:
#1- Win your conference.
#2- Perform well vs top teams when you play them.

At some point, all the big dogs of today had to do that.  I believe we are a lot less likely to see 9 Stagg Bowl meetings between UWW and Mt if Pool C was filled differently. I can tell you with certainty that I and many UWW fans would be much more uncomfortable seeing UWO or NCC or Bethel as a Round Two matchup in comparison to many of the Pool C teams that have made the playoffs.   

Wally, in reply to your specific question about how long NCC should be able to collect royalties from their close game with Mt.   At least 2 or 3 years based on cumulative info.  They lost twice last year- by 1 TD to an incredibly hot (I watched the game) UWSP and by 3 points to Wheaton- a 2 point loser to JCU.  In 2013 they lost by 1 to Mt. In 2012 they lost 30-14 to Linfield- in a game that was much, much closer than the score appears. In 2011 they lost by 1 to Wabash.  In 2010 they lost by 10 to UWW.  Is there any doubt whatsoever that they would enhance the level of competition in the playoffs compared to Muhl, Centre or Del Val?