FB: Empire 8

[sjfcards]

To put it in perspective, did it really matter that UWW killed Macalaster in the first game while UWO, who they beat by 17 earlier in the year was probably one of the last teams left out? Can't imagine that it did.

Tell that to th UWO fans...

Someone is always going to be left out or the last one in. Other than the most rabid UWO fans, even they would have to admit that beating UWW once since 2002 doesn't bode well for having changed the outcome of the tournament last year.

I get the point, and you are right that in or out UWO does not change the outcome of the tournament. However you could say that about almost every team. Does UMHB, Linfield, or NCC getting in or out really change the outcome? Those are extreme examples but I think most fan bases just want to have the chance to keep it close with UWW or UMU in the tournament if they are being honest. I am sure teams like I mentioned (I would add Wesley to that list) believe they can win but the results speak for themselves.

I don't disagree with what you are saying but if I felt my team earned a shot and some AQ From a crap conference kept them out that is a tough pill to swallow.

[jknezek]

To put it in perspective, did it really matter that UWW killed Macalaster in the first game while UWO, who they beat by 17 earlier in the year was probably one of the last teams left out? Can't imagine that it did.

Tell that to th UWO fans...

Someone is always going to be left out or the last one in. Other than the most rabid UWO fans, even they would have to admit that beating UWW once since 2002 doesn't bode well for having changed the outcome of the tournament last year.

I get the point, and you are right that in or out UWO does not change the outcome of the tournament. However you could say that about almost every team. Does UMHB, Linfield, or NCC getting in or out really change the outcome? Those are extreme examples but I think most fan bases just want to have the chance to keep it close with UWW or UMU in the tournament if they are being honest. I am sure teams like I mentioned (I would add Wesley to that list) believe they can win but the results speak for themselves.

I don't disagree with what you are saying but if I felt my team earned a shot and some AQ From a crap conference kept them out that is a tough pill to swallow.

You've missed the entire point of the conversation. The conversation talks about the at-large bids disappearing because there are a growing number of AQs. The point was already conceded that the eventual winner was most likely one of two teams or at most 6 teams, all of whom are exceedingly likely to win an AQ. It has nothing to do with how the fans feel, just the facts about whether the tournament is harmed by having an almost complete field of AQ teams.

I did think you need a bit of wiggle room just in case, one or two at-large teams, but the outcome of the tournament is extremely unlikely to be changed if there are 26 AQs or 30 AQs and it would be a pretty rare year where even 31 AQs would make a difference, though Linfield proved once upon a time that it could happen and pre-NJAC Wesley proves you need an inlet for the best non-AQ team somehow.

Anyway, that's the conversation. Not how the fans or players feel about being the last team out despite being better than an AQ. Surely that is somewhat unfair, but not really relevant to the eventual outcome of the tournament.

[rlk]

You've missed the entire point of the conversation. The conversation talks about the at-large bids disappearing because there are a growing number of AQs. The point was already conceded that the eventual winner was most likely one of two teams or at most 6 teams, all of whom are exceedingly likely to win an AQ. It has nothing to do with how the fans feel, just the facts about whether the tournament is harmed by having an almost complete field of AQ teams.

I did think you need a bit of wiggle room just in case, one or two at-large teams, but the outcome of the tournament is extremely unlikely to be changed if there are 26 AQs or 30 AQs and it would be a pretty rare year where even 31 AQs would make a difference, though Linfield proved once upon a time that it could happen and pre-NJAC Wesley proves you need an inlet for the best non-AQ team somehow.

Anyway, that's the conversation. Not how the fans or players feel about being the last team out despite being better than an AQ. Surely that is somewhat unfair, but not really relevant to the eventual outcome of the tournament.

The big problem, as I see it, is that if a conference has one perennially dominant team (we can all think of some examples...) it all but completely shuts out the other schools in that conference from having any hope of ever playing in the post-season.  No, it may not change the outcome of the tournament, but just playing in the post-season -- even if you're facing Mount Water in the first round -- is exciting, and with the present unbalanced but stable state of D3 football, it's something that teams in conferences with one of the big half dozen or so basically won't have any hope of attaining if there are no at-large bids.

Yes, I know Whitewater missed the playoffs altogether one year, but that was one year out of 10, and WIAC's a very strong conference and Whitewater had a very unusual down year.  Without any at-large bids, that would mean that even a number of very strong teams would be extreme long shots to make the tournament.

Weaker -- or at least better balanced -- conferences don't have this problem.  NEFC was exciting, at least through week 9, because there were three teams in the playoff hunt: MIT, Endicott, and Western New England.  NEFC obviously wasn't going to get an at-large bid, so it was a matter of playing for the conference championship, and there were a lot of close games that went down to the wire with a lot riding on them (we Engineers aren't going to forget the blocked extra point to preserve the victory over WNE!).  Sure, it came to an end in the second round against Wesley, but we got a taste of the post-season.  With 7 different champions in the past 8 seasons, a lot of teams have real hope.

There will never be enough at large bids to really give #2 teams a good chance, but if there are half a dozen, strong second place teams have at least a fighting chance.  If that goes away, a lot of teams are playing for nothing more than the regular season.

[jknezek]

There is nothing wrong with playing for the regular season. The DIII tournament is about finding a national champion. Generally if you aren't strong enough to win your conference, you aren't going to be strong enough to win the national title. So yes, it's tough for a really good WIAC or OAC team that finishes second to see a much weaker team from a much weaker conference go to the tournament, but there isn't a way around that without going back to smoky backrooms.

The AQ isn't perfect, but it's better than the old alternative. Win and you are in. Not good enough to win? You probably aren't good enough to make a difference in the national title hunt either. Pacific Lutheran in '99 is the only AQ era team to win the title without being a conference champion. Only two other teams in the AQ era have made the title game in the AQ era without being a conference champion, Mary-Hardin Baylor in 2004 and Rowan in 1999.

So even being second place in a really good conference doesn't mean you have a very good shot at affecting the tournament.

[Mr. Ypsi]

There is nothing wrong with playing for the regular season. The DIII tournament is about finding a national champion. Generally if you aren't strong enough to win your conference, you aren't going to be strong enough to win the national title. So yes, it's tough for a really good WIAC or OAC team that finishes second to see a much weaker team from a much weaker conference go to the tournament, but there isn't a way around that without going back to smoky backrooms.

The AQ isn't perfect, but it's better than the old alternative. Win and you are in. Not good enough to win? You probably aren't good enough to make a difference in the national title hunt either. Pacific Lutheran in '99 is the only AQ era team to win the title without being a conference champion. Only two other teams in the AQ era have made the title game in the AQ era without being a conference champion, Mary-Hardin Baylor in 2004 and Rowan in 1999.

So even being second place in a really good conference doesn't mean you have a very good shot at affecting the tournament.

I want to take issue with your second sentence.  Sure, the tourney is about finding the champion, but it is also more than that.  For the majority of D3 schools, even making the second round can be a lifetime thrill.  And for the vast majority, making the E8 or semis is a dream come true.  I realize that for some fans, there is ONE winner and 200+ losers, but I totally reject that line of thinking.

As the number of C spots dwindles towards zero, I like some version of Pat's approach: maintain AQ slots, but they CAN be lost for some period of time if certain criteria are not met.  I don't recall the exact number of C slots this year, but I regret any number below about 6-7.

[jknezek]

There is nothing wrong with playing for the regular season. The DIII tournament is about finding a national champion. Generally if you aren't strong enough to win your conference, you aren't going to be strong enough to win the national title. So yes, it's tough for a really good WIAC or OAC team that finishes second to see a much weaker team from a much weaker conference go to the tournament, but there isn't a way around that without going back to smoky backrooms.

The AQ isn't perfect, but it's better than the old alternative. Win and you are in. Not good enough to win? You probably aren't good enough to make a difference in the national title hunt either. Pacific Lutheran in '99 is the only AQ era team to win the title without being a conference champion. Only two other teams in the AQ era have made the title game in the AQ era without being a conference champion, Mary-Hardin Baylor in 2004 and Rowan in 1999.

So even being second place in a really good conference doesn't mean you have a very good shot at affecting the tournament.

I want to take issue with your second sentence.  Sure, the tourney is about finding the champion, but it is also more than that.  For the majority of D3 schools, even making the second round can be a lifetime thrill.  And for the vast majority, making the E8 or semis is a dream come true.  I realize that for some fans, there is ONE winner and 200+ losers, but I totally reject that line of thinking.

As the number of C spots dwindles towards zero, I like some version of Pat's approach: maintain AQ slots, but they CAN be lost for some period of time if certain criteria are not met.  I don't recall the exact number of C slots this year, but I regret any number below about 6-7.

Fine, the primary goal of the tournament is about finding a champion. I agree others get satisfaction out of making it and winning each game, as they should. Just like a good year for a team that usually goes under .500 is 6-4, that is celebrated as well. In any sport like DIII football there is one champion, but lots of winners. The fact remains, having 6-8 "C" bids has almost no effect in the D3 tournament. The division is so ridiculously tiered all you are doing is adding a value judgement that doesn't matter (a chosen "C") in place of a value judgement neutral decision (an AQ) that doesn't matter.

So I won't panic about the AQ until there are none left. And I will always prefer the value judgement neutral system over what we had prior to the AQ. Can we structure a hybrid if necessary, sure. I just wouldn't do it until all the C's are gone.

[rlk]

There is nothing wrong with playing for the regular season. The DIII tournament is about finding a national champion. Generally if you aren't strong enough to win your conference, you aren't going to be strong enough to win the national title. So yes, it's tough for a really good WIAC or OAC team that finishes second to see a much weaker team from a much weaker conference go to the tournament, but there isn't a way around that without going back to smoky backrooms.

The AQ isn't perfect, but it's better than the old alternative. Win and you are in. Not good enough to win? You probably aren't good enough to make a difference in the national title hunt either. Pacific Lutheran in '99 is the only AQ era team to win the title without being a conference champion. Only two other teams in the AQ era have made the title game in the AQ era without being a conference champion, Mary-Hardin Baylor in 2004 and Rowan in 1999.

So even being second place in a really good conference doesn't mean you have a very good shot at affecting the tournament.

I want to take issue with your second sentence.  Sure, the tourney is about finding the champion, but it is also more than that.  For the majority of D3 schools, even making the second round can be a lifetime thrill.  And for the vast majority, making the E8 or semis is a dream come true.  I realize that for some fans, there is ONE winner and 200+ losers, but I totally reject that line of thinking.

As the number of C spots dwindles towards zero, I like some version of Pat's approach: maintain AQ slots, but they CAN be lost for some period of time if certain criteria are not met.  I don't recall the exact number of C slots this year, but I regret any number below about 6-7.

+1

Indeed.  The postseason is a completely different atmosphere from the regular season, and it's something people rally around.  The Wesley people certainly noticed that about MIT, even if the game was a complete mismatch (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3576.msg1636761#msg1636761).  There aren't any national powers in New England, so everyone has a shot at the conference titles, but if your conference has one of those teams (and you're not it), eliminating pool C bids basically means that you don't have a meaningful shot at the postseason.  This isn't the NFL (where everyone's a professional and the league rules are designed to make it hard to maintain long-term dominance) or the FBS (where there are ample postseason games to go around).

It's the nature of football and the calendar that expanding the tournament would be an extremely difficult problem, but having some way of ensuring that there are some wild card spots is important to reward teams that have the misfortune to be in a conference with a dominant team.  One way might be to increase the requirement for an automatic bid from 7 to 8 teams per conference, with enough lead time to allow for consolidation.

[sjfcards]

There is nothing wrong with playing for the regular season. The DIII tournament is about finding a national champion. Generally if you aren't strong enough to win your conference, you aren't going to be strong enough to win the national title. So yes, it's tough for a really good WIAC or OAC team that finishes second to see a much weaker team from a much weaker conference go to the tournament, but there isn't a way around that without going back to smoky backrooms.

The AQ isn't perfect, but it's better than the old alternative. Win and you are in. Not good enough to win? You probably aren't good enough to make a difference in the national title hunt either. Pacific Lutheran in '99 is the only AQ era team to win the title without being a conference champion. Only two other teams in the AQ era have made the title game in the AQ era without being a conference champion, Mary-Hardin Baylor in 2004 and Rowan in 1999.

So even being second place in a really good conference doesn't mean you have a very good shot at affecting the tournament.

I want to take issue with your second sentence.  Sure, the tourney is about finding the champion, but it is also more than that.  For the majority of D3 schools, even making the second round can be a lifetime thrill.  And for the vast majority, making the E8 or semis is a dream come true.  I realize that for some fans, there is ONE winner and 200+ losers, but I totally reject that line of thinking.

As the number of C spots dwindles towards zero, I like some version of Pat's approach: maintain AQ slots, but they CAN be lost for some period of time if certain criteria are not met.  I don't recall the exact number of C slots this year, but I regret any number below about 6-7.

+1

Indeed.  The postseason is a completely different atmosphere from the regular season, and it's something people rally around.  The Wesley people certainly noticed that about MIT, even if the game was a complete mismatch (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3576.msg1636761#msg1636761).  There aren't any national powers in New England, so everyone has a shot at the conference titles, but if your conference has one of those teams (and you're not it), eliminating pool C bids basically means that you don't have a meaningful shot at the postseason.  This isn't the NFL (where everyone's a professional and the league rules are designed to make it hard to maintain long-term dominance) or the FBS (where there are ample postseason games to go around).

It's the nature of football and the calendar that expanding the tournament would be an extremely difficult problem, but having some way of ensuring that there are some wild card spots is important to reward teams that have the misfortune to be in a conference with a dominant team.  One way might be to increase the requirement for an automatic bid from 7 to 8 teams per conference, with enough lead time to allow for consolidation.

Agreed, but I would take one step further and say that you don't necessarily have to be from one of the conferences with one of the few major powers for no AQ's to matter.

Look at the 2006 Fisher team. They got in as an at large after losing one regular season game to a really good Springfield team. They ended up losing a close game (lost by 12) to UMU in the national semis. Had things gone a little different they could have won a national title as an at large (I know they lost by 12, but they had a first and goal inside the 5, down by 4 late in that game. The next week UMU beat UWW something like 35-14, so it isn't totally unreasonable).

[Bombers798891]

There is nothing wrong with playing for the regular season. The DIII tournament is about finding a national champion. Generally if you aren't strong enough to win your conference, you aren't going to be strong enough to win the national title.

So even being second place in a really good conference doesn't mean you have a very good shot at affecting the tournament.

Right now, not being one of say, five or six teams means you aren't strong enough to win the national title. I wouldn't use the current state of D-III football playoff results to make any sort of judgement about the need for AQ's and at-large's and affecting the tournament.

Honestly, right now, the entire regular season and first two rounds of the playoffs borders on pointlessness when it comes to the national title. The best teams win, almost always in a boring blowout, and then finally we get to the quarters, where someone might have a chance to get knocked off, and then we just wind up with Mount and Whitewater anyway.

My concern is that eventually we'll see a flattening out of D-III at around the same time we lose another couple AQs, and then we won't know what we won't know.

[Pat Coleman]

There is nothing wrong with playing for the regular season. The DIII tournament is about finding a national champion. Generally if you aren't strong enough to win your conference, you aren't going to be strong enough to win the national title.

So even being second place in a really good conference doesn't mean you have a very good shot at affecting the tournament.

Right now, not being one of say, five or six teams means you aren't strong enough to win the national title. I wouldn't use the current state of D-III football playoff results to make any sort of judgement about the need for AQ's and at-large's and affecting the tournament.

Honestly, right now, the entire regular season and first two rounds of the playoffs borders on pointlessness when it comes to the national title. The best teams win, almost always in a boring blowout, and then finally we get to the quarters, where someone might have a chance to get knocked off, and then we just wind up with Mount and Whitewater anyway.

My concern is that eventually we'll see a flattening out of D-III at around the same time we lose another couple AQs, and then we won't know what we won't know.

In the process of this discussion, I'm reminded of a story I wrote for the Stagg Bowl game program back in 2004.
http://www.d3football.com/notables/2004/playoff-system-gives-programs-chance-to-grow

Also, I tracked the history of Pool A, B and C over the 16 years of this system and added it to the FAQ:
http://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs#11

[AUPepBand]

It may not be the Stagg Bowl but Alfred University is going to Salem, VA, the Championship City!!

So AU softball's season continues to the NCAA Division III World Series where the Saxons will face two-time national champ Linfield in the double-elimination tournament at 1:30 p.m. Thursday, May 21. AU (40-5) has already captured the Empire 8 championship, Regional championship and now the Super Regional Championship. It's down to eight teams of some 400 Division III softball programs. It's been an incredible season...Congratulations to Coach Gino Olivieri and all the Saxons!! Best of luck in Salem!

On Saxon Warriors!

[D3viewer]

With the new season upon us, the E9 version 2.0 debuts (FSU/SU out, Cortland/Morr in). I view this swapout as somewhat of a wash. With the slight edge going to the "out", because of the traditional strength/success of Salisbury. FSU is a downish program slightly on the rise. Cortland is  a strong program on a bit of down swing. Morrisville had a tremendous season last year, but that success could  mostly dissipate due to the graduation of 2X NJAC Offensive Player of the Year; QB Lemar Johnson. However, Moo St has  a solid foundation in 2nd year HC Kurt Fitzpatrick.
Once again..the 9 team format leaves each team with 2 non conf games. I thought a good place to begin the analysis of the 2015 season is with a comparison of each teams 2 NC games.
I'll list the E9 teams alphabetically first with their NC games (w '14 record) & conf affiliation

Alfred           Husson (ME) 8-2 (ECFC)/ RPI 6-5 (LL)
Brockport      Oberlin (OH) 2-8 (NCAC)/ Alfred St 1-7 (IND)
Buff St          Otterbein (OH) 5-5 (OAC)/ Findlandia (MI) 0-0 (IND ?) This is a new program which will begin play this season. PS..Find also plays UW-W
Cortland        Heidelberg (OH) 8-2 (OAC)/ Framingham St (MA) 10-1 (MASCAC)
Hartwick        W. Conn St 7-4 (MASCAC)/ Newport News Apprentice (VA) 1-8 (unaffiliated/IND, not in NCAA or NAIA (no degrees))
Ithaca           Union 2-8 (LL)/ Hobart 12-1 (LL)
Morrisville      St Lawrence 8-2 (LL)/ Alfred St 1-7 (IND)
SJF               Thomas More (KY) 8-2 (PAC)/ Alfred St 1-7 (IND)
Utica             Misercordia (PA) 1-9 (MAC)/ Ohio Northern 7-3 (OAC)

Now I'll attempt to rank the teams in order of non conf strength of schedule (easiest (#1) to hardest (#9)..since this post is already too long I'll not explain each pick.you can kinda figure it out by looking above. Instead of being nit picky about the exact order, it should at least give a rough idea os the relative NC SOS's.

1. Brockport
2.Hartwick  (also note (I think) Hartwick is the only E9 team to have both NC games at home)
3. Buff St
4. Morr
5. SJF
6. Utica
7. Alfred
8. Ithaca
9. Cortland

[BomberJeff]

One possible thing to keep an eye on that the NCAA did last week...

The NCAA has issued new requirements on what opponents are eligible to be counted for official records.  Basically, the new requirements are that a college be a 4 year, degree granting institution AND THEN either be a member of the NCAA, NAIA or NCCAA OR be a college that is regionally accredited by one of the 6 regional accreditation bodies.  This takes effect on August 1st, so any games this season will fall under the new guidelines.

If you want an example of this from last year, the Wesley v College of Faith-Charlotte game would not count under the new standard.

There is potentially one E8 game that could be affected by this in the form of Hartwick v Newport News Apprentice.  I did not see it listed on the Reddit College Football board as a game that won't count, but they were basing it on lists that the NCAA and NAIA both said were not complete, and if Newport News Apprentice does not grant 4 year degrees, then it would flunk the new standard regardless of accreditation or membership.  We'll see if anything new comes in on that in the next few weeks.

[Bombers798891]

So, I got to thinking about something the other day, and I wanted to see what you guys thought of it. It's the offseason, so why not?

I was reading about this whole A-Rod/Ruth RBI thing, and I realized that something similar went on with IC football.

Jamie Donovan is Ithaca's career rushing leader, with 3,844 yards. Jeff Wittman is 2nd with 3,410. But of course, Donovan's totals include his postseason numbers, and Wittman's don't.

If we include postseason rushing totals for Wittman, his number goes up to 4,091, making him the leader. However, if we take away the postseason numbers for Donovan, he has 3,631, so he'd still be ahead of Wittman.

So, "officially" Donovan is IC's all-time leading rusher. But is he really?

I mean, I could go either way on whether or not the postseason stats should be included. (Personally, I lean towards no, at least for D-III football) But, if we're going to include them, it kind of seems stupid that we're not going back and including them for everyone.

Sure, there's always going to be things we can't know and can debate. Games change and rules change, and it becomes easier/harder to rack up certain numbers in whatever context. But right now, the way playoffs stats count for some guys and not for others seems like willfully ignoring history to me. It's one thing to accept that everyone's career is different. Some guys got to play all four years of their career when there were 10 game regular seasons and five playoffs rounds. Others guys got hurt, or were buried on the depth charts for a year. That can't be helped. Everyone's career is different.

But this is different. This isn't about saying some guys' careers take a different path, or that we might not have accurate records. This is simply counting all of some guys' careers and only parts of others. This strikes me as profoundly stupid.

[Jonny Utah]

So, I got to thinking about something the other day, and I wanted to see what you guys thought of it. It's the offseason, so why not?

I was reading about this whole A-Rod/Ruth RBI thing, and I realized that something similar went on with IC football.

Jamie Donovan is Ithaca's career rushing leader, with 3,844 yards. Jeff Wittman is 2nd with 3,410. But of course, Donovan's totals include his postseason numbers, and Wittman's don't.

If we include postseason rushing totals for Wittman, his number goes up to 4,091, making him the leader. However, if we take away the postseason numbers for Donovan, he has 3,631, so he'd still be ahead of Wittman.

So, "officially" Donovan is IC's all-time leading rusher. But is he really?

I mean, I could go either way on whether or not the postseason stats should be included. (Personally, I lean towards no, at least for D-III football) But, if we're going to include them, it kind of seems stupid that we're not going back and including them for everyone.

Sure, there's always going to be things we can't know and can debate. Games change and rules change, and it becomes easier/harder to rack up certain numbers in whatever context. But right now, the way playoffs stats count for some guys and not for others seems like willfully ignoring history to me. It's one thing to accept that everyone's career is different. Some guys got to play all four years of their career when there were 10 game regular seasons and five playoffs rounds. Others guys got hurt, or were buried on the depth charts for a year. That can't be helped. Everyone's career is different.

But this is different. This isn't about saying some guys' careers take a different path, or that we might not have accurate records. This is simply counting all of some guys' careers and only parts of others. This strikes me as profoundly stupid.

Did Whitman play as a freshman?  Are you sure they aren't including postseason stats for him?  Assuming your are correct, I would say the stats should be the same for both players, as that's really more common sense than anything in terms of records.

http://athletics.ithaca.edu/sports/2015/1/28/FB_RecordBook.aspx?id=2816

Ithaca has revamped their website with these new links to records, but if you go online to the media guides, you can see they are broken down into playoff game records as well.  That might lead me to believe that the person who put these new records up didn't double check with how the records should be listed?

On a related note, I actually held an obscure record that had shown up in all the media guides, and my photo was actually up there for a few years  .  I noticed one year that my record was beaten out by a person from 1979 or 1981.  I haven't checked in a few years, but that led me to believe that other people might add input or information for various reasons.  I would find it hard to believe that an SID or intern would go back to 1979 and find this obscure stat which had to do with a single game.