MBB: St. Louis Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[hopefan]

To stretch the idea further, would also be fun to imagine a 3 day championship weekend as in D2 -  A semis and AA semis,  A finals and AA finals, and an ultra championship game on the 3rd day between the A champ and AA champ. 

[FU Fan]

What is the current number of Division II teams ?

[dansand]

What is the current number of Division II teams ?

About 278 for basketball this past season.

[pantherpride06]

What is the SLIAC posters vote here.  Do you like the idea of the 2 NCAA III groups?  Does the SLIAC go Division III-A or III-AA?  Does the SLIAC want to split?  What are your thoughts?

[sully309]

I personally don't feel that the fact that it's tough for teams to receive an at large bid for postseason play is a good enough reason to split D3. Unlike D1-A football, each sport in D3 already has a built in postseason tournament. It's called a conference tournament. If you lose in the conference tourney and don't get an at large bid...too bad. You had your chance. Boise St.'s foootball team from last year can't say that.

Now, if schools want to split because of philosophical differences, that's a different story. From reading the article, it seems the newer members of the NCAA are complaining that the NCAA rules are too restrictive. I can understand where they're coming from, but I guess my question would be why did they join then? Were they not aware of any NCAA regulations before they joined?

I have mixed feelings about a split, but I suppose I'm leaning toward being against it at this point. In the end, it will probably come down to money and hopefully the best decision for all involved will be made. I just hope the SLIAC can stay together.

[Ralph Turner]

Interesting article about what may be in store for Division III.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059546/site/newsweek/page/0/

I borrowed the link and posted it on the Future of Division III board.

There are some good comments there.

http://www.d3sports.com/post/index.php?topic=3880.952

Thanks and +1!   

[y_jack_lok]

I tend to agree with almost everything eureka_sid said.

I know that Division III does not make money for the NCAA, so this idea probably won't fly, but one solution to the problem would be to expand the number of teams in the tournament to at least the 65 that Division I gets. That would mitigate things somewhat.

[Gregory Sager]

I tend to agree with almost everything eureka_sid said.

I know that Division III does not make money for the NCAA, so this idea probably won't fly, but one solution to the problem would be to expand the number of teams in the tournament to at least the 65 that Division I gets. That would mitigate things somewhat.

That won't happen. D3 is not going to bend its rules about championship participation rates in order to accommodate the men's basketball tournament, even though everyone acknowledges that the tournament setup is clearly askew and is competitively damaged by the shortage of at-large bids. D3 is all about fairness, and the D3 philosophy is that it wouldn't be fair to the lacrosse players and the volleyball players and the softball players and the field hockey players if men's basketball got a better championship participation rate (i.e., a higher ratio of teams in the tournament per teams participating overall) than did those other sports.

[FU Fan]

I would be more in favor of a expanded field to 65. Are some Div. III schools possibly playing at a level that realistically should be Div. II. Should the regulations be changed to force some up a level. The sleeper teams always make a tournament more interesting. If you go to the top teams ( someone's opinion that is of the top) you take all the excitement out of it.
Expand the field. At large bids, well you should have won your tournament or you have to wait on the roll of those calculated dice.

[y_jack_lok]

I wasn't aware that there was a percentage formula used to determine how many teams in each sport at the D3 level get to participate in their respective sport's tournament. Very interesting piece of information. Thanks.

[Gregory Sager]

I would be more in favor of a expanded field to 65.

As I explained above, that isn't going to happen.

Are some Div. III schools possibly playing at a level that realistically should be Div. II. Should the regulations be changed to force some up a level.

That would go against the NCAA's philosophy. The NCAA believes that each school should be allowed to choose its own level of participation, provided it can meet the requirements for that level.

The sleeper teams always make a tournament more interesting. If you go to the top teams ( someone's opinion that is of the top) you take all the excitement out of it.

Huh?

Five of the Top 25 teams in the nation (#9 UW-Oshkosh, #13 Elmhurst, #16 UW-LaCrosse, #17 Wittenberg, and #24 NYU) were denied bids on Selection Sunday. How in the world do you figure that the 2007 tournament was more exciting because those teams did not participate? Try telling people that the D1 tournament would've been more exciting if Kansas, Butler, Southern Illinois, Air Force, and Indiana (the #9, #13, #16, #17, and #24 teams in the AP Top 25 on D1's Selection Sunday) had been shut out of the tournament this past March.

At large bids, well you should have won your tournament or you have to wait on the roll of those calculated dice.

That's not the point. The point is that, while fairness dictates that the lesser conferences should all be represented, no national tournament worth its salt should be leaving out any teams that are strong enough to conceivably make it all the way to the Final Four. And, unfortunately, the dearth of at-large bids available in the D3 tourney (both because it's smaller than the D1 and D2 tourneys and because D3 has a considerably larger number of conferences that get automatic bids than do either of the two scholarship divisions) means that teams such as UWO and Elmhurst that were good enough to make some noise in March never got the chance.

The D1 tourney had 35 at-large bids to distribute among D1's 334 participating schools. That's a ratio of one at-large bid for every 8.5 D1 schools. The D3 tourney had 18 at-large bids to distribute among D3's 405 participating schools. That's a ratio of one at-large bid for every 21 D3 schools.

It's a problem that has no ready answer.

[sully309]

I know what you're trying to say, Sager...that Elmhurst and Oshkosh did not have a chance in the NCAA tournament, but they did in fact have their chance. They were both beaten in their conference tournaments (Oshkosh didn't even make the WIAC title game). I guess it depends on how you look at it, but if they were so good, then they should have been able to play their way in without the assistance of a selection committee.

You make a good point in that a similar D1 team would have easily been selected for that tourney. I guess if it's that big of a deal to these teams, they should just transition to D1. There are no rules that I know of that force a team to play at a certain division if they don't like the postseason arrangements.

If I were a CCIW fan, I would look at this situation as the glass is half full. You get to watch 4 NCAA Tournament worthy teams play "win or go home" playoff games in your own backyard every year before we even get to the NCAA tournament. As a fan, I think it takes something away from the conference tournament when you know that everyone will be advancing to the NCAA Tournament no matter who wins, but maybe that's just me.

[y_jack_lok]

It's very clear, as Sager says, that this is a problem with no ready solution. That being the case, I concur with eureka_sid about the importance of the post season tournament. The SLIAC had dropped its post season tournament until 3 years ago. When it was re-instituted I was not in favor. However, having had the opportunity to see the tournaments I now support it. While it is possible that a weak team can win a conference tournament and get an automatic bid, in the SLIAC, with only a four team tournament, that's not as likelly. I think in each of the three seasons the team playing the best at the end of the season won the tournament.

[Ralph Turner]

...
It's a problem that has no ready answer.

Good morning Greg!
I can give the "ready answer".  The Championship Committee of Division III recommends and the National Convention adopts a rule change that the basis for the Championship bids will be amended to provide one at large bid for every 8.5 remaining schools, for all sports.

The problem that arises from this is that it throws the brackets to the next level, "128" contestants in basketball, volleyball and soccer and to the 6th weekend in football.

Problem #2 is funding.

[pantherpride06]

It's fantastic seeing all the idea that we have brought to the table.  Lots of good ideas.  When talking about post-season tournaments, I am glad the SLIAC re-instated that tourney as well.  I'd also say I agree with FU Fan in saying that you should win your conference tournament.

Yes, I understand that the tourney isn't going to be what it would be without Kansas, Butler, Indiana like schools.  However...

Florida won SEC in Football -- National Champion
Florida won SEC in MBasketball -- National Champion
Tennessee won SEC in WBasketball -- National Champion
DePauw won SCAC in WBasketball -- National Champion
Amherst lost NESCAC in MBasketball by 1 pt in the final -- National Champion
UW-Stevens Point (05) won WIAC -- National Champion

All this to say, if you win your conference tournament, that helps the odds to winning the National Champion.  That doesn't count out the cinderella story.  However, win the conference tournament and it helps your chances out and don't have to sit around and wait on Sunday.

More team or not, it's not going to change much in the SLIAC so, I'm not sure an argument from us pertaining the tournament helps much.  There will be a few arguments for Maryville in 2005 when they lost the SLIAC touney in 2005 but win the game.

Just my two cents.