FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[desertcat1]

Regional "rankings" are out.  I did not foresee CMS bring in there.

In alphabetical order:
Bethel
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps
Linfield
St. John's
UW-La Crosse
UW-Platteville
UW-Whitewater

Man, what as mess.  UWP is an odd duck.  Best ranking criteria but for the fact that they are a .500 club.  I think they would fall in this order.

School,  Record, RRO, SOS

SJU, 7-1, 1-1, .663
BU,  7-1, 1-1, .591
LIN, 7-0, 0-0, .620
UWW, 6-2, 1-2, .672
UWLC, 7-1, 0-1, .560
CMS, 6-1, 0-0, .414
UWP, 4-4, 2-0, .637

EDIT:  Or we had better hope that UWP is on the bottom of the list come selection time or else the whole region will get log-jammed behind them for the three at large bids on Selection Sunday.

You over looked linfield win against Huntington?   RRO 1-0. Which some think is better than a rro of 1-1 ? 

[OzJohnnie]

Thanks.  Fixed below.

[desertcat1]

  Last math class I had 7-0 tops 7-1 but sos will fall big time next two weeks with  two more in the win column if all goes well.
That might have been on my abacus? 

[OzJohnnie]

Last math class I had 7-0 tops 7-1 but sos will fall big time next two weeks with  two more in the win column if all goes well.
That might have been on my abacus? 

Heh. 

Yeah, lot's of play to go yet.  I think LIN, SJU and BU are secure on the list but the conference championship game between SJU and BU is a big one.  The WIAC carnage is more chaotic than normal this year so their last two weeks could make anything happen there.  If UWP beats UWLC then that could cause some real issues for the loser of the BU/SJU conference championship game.

[desertcat1]

I agree good luck  ,   

[OzJohnnie]

ZOMG, WTF and GTFOH!  UST is ranked 25th in the FCS top 25 poll.

[D O.C.]

Conference Championships make me nervous. A scenario where the undefeated team loses that championship by a fluke. The NWC does not have such a thing.
desertcat1. . . these MIAC/WIAC fans are hoping the LINFIELD SOS will decrease because Lewis and Clark and Willamette are teetering programs.

Just win the conference, baby.

[GoldandBlueBU]

I'm really hating the possibility that they might only be three at large bids for the NCAA playoffs come 2024/2025. If you thought good teams were being left out before, it's about to get a ton worse. I'm sure someone could go back and find plenty of quarterfinal, semifinal, and, heck, maybe even a national finalist that was an at-large team.

Surprising myself, I think I disagree with you.  I mean I think that fewer at-large bids may be a good thing.  I say that because it makes winning the conference really important again.  In the last 15 years or so, winning the conference has become significantly less important, in my opinion, as eyes were always focused on the post-season.  With it more and more likely that the only way to the post season is via the conference championship then that breathes life back into the title.


On the other hand, if only one gets to go and it takes a big investment and student commitment to reach that level, then it could be quite discouraging and costly for the second place team to come up empty when they would be very competitive against at least 80% of the auto-bids into the post-season.  If that post-season glory isn't shared around a little then teams will have a difficult time maintaining a program that can get there.


So I say "I think" because I'm not quite sure I do disagree with you.  But I may be willing to as we see how things work out.

I'm kind of mixed.  I do like the importance of taking your conference, but I also like the idea of the national playoffs being an event that captures all, or at least most of the best teams.  There are too many conferences where the second place team would be a legitimate national threat that are left at home because poorer conferences have their entitlement / birth-right to a playoff spot, even though they'll never see the second round.

[hazzben]

I'm really hating the possibility that they might only be three at large bids for the NCAA playoffs come 2024/2025. If you thought good teams were being left out before, it's about to get a ton worse. I'm sure someone could go back and find plenty of quarterfinal, semifinal, and, heck, maybe even a national finalist that was an at-large team.

Surprising myself, I think I disagree with you.  I mean I think that fewer at-large bids may be a good thing.  I say that because it makes winning the conference really important again.  In the last 15 years or so, winning the conference has become significantly less important, in my opinion, as eyes were always focused on the post-season.  With it more and more likely that the only way to the post season is via the conference championship then that breathes life back into the title.


On the other hand, if only one gets to go and it takes a big investment and student commitment to reach that level, then it could be quite discouraging and costly for the second place team to come up empty when they would be very competitive against at least 80% of the auto-bids into the post-season.  If that post-season glory isn't shared around a little then teams will have a difficult time maintaining a program that can get there.


So I say "I think" because I'm not quite sure I do disagree with you.  But I may be willing to as we see how things work out.

I'm kind of mixed.  I do like the importance of taking your conference, but I also like the idea of the national playoffs being an event that captures all, or at least most of the best teams.  There are too many conferences where the second place team would be a legitimate national threat that are left at home because poorer conferences have their entitlement / birth-right to a playoff spot, even though they'll never see the second round.

What I don't like is a diluted field and some teams taking advantage of the opportunity to break off and form a small conference to grab an auto bid. It's a broken piece of the NCAA playoff field formula that doesn't fairly account for how football works. But it is what it is, or will be what it will be in this case.

[AO]

I'm really hating the possibility that they might only be three at large bids for the NCAA playoffs come 2024/2025. If you thought good teams were being left out before, it's about to get a ton worse. I'm sure someone could go back and find plenty of quarterfinal, semifinal, and, heck, maybe even a national finalist that was an at-large team.

Surprising myself, I think I disagree with you.  I mean I think that fewer at-large bids may be a good thing.  I say that because it makes winning the conference really important again.  In the last 15 years or so, winning the conference has become significantly less important, in my opinion, as eyes were always focused on the post-season.  With it more and more likely that the only way to the post season is via the conference championship then that breathes life back into the title.


On the other hand, if only one gets to go and it takes a big investment and student commitment to reach that level, then it could be quite discouraging and costly for the second place team to come up empty when they would be very competitive against at least 80% of the auto-bids into the post-season.  If that post-season glory isn't shared around a little then teams will have a difficult time maintaining a program that can get there.


So I say "I think" because I'm not quite sure I do disagree with you.  But I may be willing to as we see how things work out.

I'm kind of mixed.  I do like the importance of taking your conference, but I also like the idea of the national playoffs being an event that captures all, or at least most of the best teams.  There are too many conferences where the second place team would be a legitimate national threat that are left at home because poorer conferences have their entitlement / birth-right to a playoff spot, even though they'll never see the second round.

What I don't like is a diluted field and some teams taking advantage of the opportunity to break off and form a small conference to grab an auto bid. It's a broken piece of the NCAA playoff field formula that doesn't fairly account for how football works. But it is what it is, or will be what it will be in this case.

It also doesn't make sense to create big conferences where you don't play 2 of the teams.  For me college football is all about the conference.  The playoffs are fun, but the conference rivalries are what makes it great.  If there are going to be at-large bids to the playoffs let's get the best teams those bids, but a playoff with just conference champs makes a ton of sense to me. 

[timmyturtle]

I'm really hating the possibility that they might only be three at large bids for the NCAA playoffs come 2024/2025. If you thought good teams were being left out before, it's about to get a ton worse. I'm sure someone could go back and find plenty of quarterfinal, semifinal, and, heck, maybe even a national finalist that was an at-large team.

Surprising myself, I think I disagree with you.  I mean I think that fewer at-large bids may be a good thing.  I say that because it makes winning the conference really important again.  In the last 15 years or so, winning the conference has become significantly less important, in my opinion, as eyes were always focused on the post-season.  With it more and more likely that the only way to the post season is via the conference championship then that breathes life back into the title.


On the other hand, if only one gets to go and it takes a big investment and student commitment to reach that level, then it could be quite discouraging and costly for the second place team to come up empty when they would be very competitive against at least 80% of the auto-bids into the post-season.  If that post-season glory isn't shared around a little then teams will have a difficult time maintaining a program that can get there.


So I say "I think" because I'm not quite sure I do disagree with you.  But I may be willing to as we see how things work out.

I'm kind of mixed.  I do like the importance of taking your conference, but I also like the idea of the national playoffs being an event that captures all, or at least most of the best teams.  There are too many conferences where the second place team would be a legitimate national threat that are left at home because poorer conferences have their entitlement / birth-right to a playoff spot, even though they'll never see the second round.

What I don't like is a diluted field and some teams taking advantage of the opportunity to break off and form a small conference to grab an auto bid. It's a broken piece of the NCAA playoff field formula that doesn't fairly account for how football works. But it is what it is, or will be what it will be in this case.

What I don't like is a diluted field and some teams taking advantage of the opportunity to break off and form a small conference to grab an auto bid. It's a broken piece of the NCAA playoff field formula that doesn't fairly account for how football works.

I agree with this completely, and I get every college/university needs to what's in the best interest of their institution and for their student athletes, and nobody is breaking any rules by doing this, but creating new conferences to increase the chance of an automatic bid creates a situation of one institutions gain is another's loss

[SagatagSam]

Here's my proposal:

Conferences with eight or more members get an automatic bid (Pool A).
Under the current arrangement there would be 18 Pool A bids.

Conferences with seven or fewer members would be placed in Pool B. There are currently nine conferences that fall into the Pool B category. The top 6 conference champions from Pool B as determined by the committee get a bid to the Tournament.

The remaining at-large bids (Pool C) would be determined by the committee consistent with the current practice.

So, under my proposal there would be:
18 conferences with Pool A automatic bids
6 Pool B bids selected from nine conference champions, and
8 At-large Pool C bids.

Note: I'm somewhat flexible on the size of Pool B and would be open to debate on that point. Could it be seven bids? Sure. I just think you would want to cap Pool B bids around 75% of the number of Pool B conferences.

[Pat Coleman]

Here's my proposal:

Conferences with eight or more members get an automatic bid (Pool A).
Under the current arrangement there would be 18 Pool A bids.

Conferences with seven or fewer members would be placed in Pool B. There are currently nine conferences that fall into the Pool B category. The top 6 conference champions from Pool B as determined by the committee get a bid to the Tournament.

The remaining at-large bids (Pool C) would be determined by the committee consistent with the current practice.

So, under my proposal there would be:
18 conferences with Pool A automatic bids
6 Pool B bids selected from nine conference champions, and
8 At-large Pool C bids.

Note: I'm somewhat flexible on the size of Pool B and would be open to debate on that point. Could it be seven bids? Sure. I just think you would want to cap Pool B bids around 75% of the number of Pool B conferences.

This is what I have advocated for as well. Doesn't break the current system.

[Ice Bear]

Here's my proposal:

Conferences with eight or more members get an automatic bid (Pool A).
Under the current arrangement there would be 18 Pool A bids.

Conferences with seven or fewer members would be placed in Pool B. There are currently nine conferences that fall into the Pool B category. The top 6 conference champions from Pool B as determined by the committee get a bid to the Tournament.

The remaining at-large bids (Pool C) would be determined by the committee consistent with the current practice.

So, under my proposal there would be:
18 conferences with Pool A automatic bids
6 Pool B bids selected from nine conference champions, and
8 At-large Pool C bids.

Note: I'm somewhat flexible on the size of Pool B and would be open to debate on that point. Could it be seven bids? Sure. I just think you would want to cap Pool B bids around 75% of the number of Pool B conferences.

Ice Bear says very thought out and sensible. +k

[Retired Old Rat]

Sam,  seems like an equitable plan to me.  Select the Pool B times using the same criteria as Pool C.  Stays within the D3 principle of inclusiveness.