FB: Liberty League

[unionpalooza]

I think there is way too much national focus in D3; I can still remember when even the tournament was regionalized, and the Lambert Cup was a real-deal prize that meant a lot, regardless of who made/won the Stagg Bowl.

Yes, but it's not the 1990s anymore and we can do and are doing better.

Genuine question - better how, and for whom?

Better for at-large teams who couldn't make the 16-team field.
Better for all Division III conferences aside from the top 10 or so who would generally populate that field.
Better in terms of exposure on ESPN platforms.
Better in terms of competitive balance, travel restrictions aside.
Better for student-athletes who get to see someone else in the postseason other than the same teams from their region all the time.
Better for student-athletes who don't have their postseason hopes live in a proverbial smoke-filled room and can compete for an automatic bid on the field.

By the way, the Lambert Cup could still exist. It was run as a labor of love by one guy (a D-III guy at that) who passed away in 2019, and the ECAC took it over but apparently it did not come back for D-III after COVID.

OK, I'll climb on my soapbox and then promise to shut up for the day.

This all seems to pre-suppose that the primary goal of D3 football is to win a Stagg Bowl and the highest value is therefore to ensure that each team has as "fair" a chance as possible to complete for and advance in the tournament.  I don't think that's true, and I don't think the moves in that direction are good for the average student-athlete experience, which is the actual point of D3 athletics.

For starters, expanding access does not require a nationalized tournament; you could have a regionalized tournament of however many teams you want, based on AQs or not.

But yes, a regionally-selected tournament may mean that you leave out a team that is not in the Top X regionally but would be in the Top X*4 nationally, and it may also mean that sometimes we see less competitive quarter or semifinal round games.  But we only traded the old smoke-filled room for a new room that (at first) picked crude selection criteria that was not uniformly applied and (more recently) that picked a fancy algorithm that, while more predictable, few believe will be more "accurate."  The reality is that it is already hard to make in-region comparison between teams like 2023 Union and Muhlenberg, where the data is apples to oranges; comparing 2023 Union with 2023 Hope and Wheaton is comparing apples to okra.  We're throwing darts.  I have a lot more faith in our ability to select the best X teams in a region than the best X*4 teams in the country.  I think a lot of the "fairness" of national selection is either junk science or junk art.

Second, are national tournament games against non-regional opponents a "better" students-athlete experience?  I dunno.  Union played Cortland and Montclair in the first round of the 1989 tourney; they played Case Western and Salisbury in 2019. The first two games were a much bigger deal precisely because of the regional component. Similarly, Union's battles against Ithaca in the tournament in the 1980s and 2005 were meaningful in a way that out of region playoffs games against teams like Ferrum were not.  Regional tournament games might mean more, not less.

Third, do regional tournaments really mean that student athletes are deprived of seeing "new" programs?  Under the old regional format in the 1980s/90s, Union's first round games were Hofstra, Ithaca (twice), Plymouth St., UMass-Lowell, Cortland St. and William Patterson.  With the exception of the second Ithaca game, Union had never played any of those teams.  And given travel restrictions, most early round games under the current "national" bracket are more or less regional any way.  Don't really see a big difference here.

And what have we gotten along with all this? A diminished sense of regional competition, and of accomplishment for all but the tiniest elite.  A frankenmonster season that goes on four months. Teams flying cross country during the regular season to play games to boost their playoff selection odds and seeding. Does anyone think RPI's trip to UWL next year will "mean more" to the players than the first trip to Cortland St. under the new E8/LL pact? Or that traveling a few thousand miles a season is even good for athletes trying to juggle academics? This will definitely all make D3 football much more like the FBS and FCS experience.  But maybe that's a bug, and not a feature.

And last but not least, we should not pretend that we have anything like competitive balance across the sport; whether we pick/seed the tournament on a national or regional basis is the least of our "fairness" problems.  This is a division where 500-student Thiel is competing against UW schools with 8,000 students and D2 facilities, and some programs have more incoming freshman that the average D3 school has on its entire roster.  It seems wild to me that we see righteous anger about competitive balance when North Central has to play UW Lacrosse in the third rather than fourth round, but no one bats an eyelid at shipping Alfred St. out to Mt. Union for a first round game.  Yet the only level playing field issue people seem to spill ink over is the injustice of the WIAC not getting enough bids, or the defending champion having to play a top opponent too early.  While fascinating to all of us D3 football hobbyists, these problems have almost no impact on the average student athlete experience across D3 football.

(PS:  IC798891 should free to disavow all my comments, but my take on these issues have shifted a lot of the past year, mostly due to his thoughtful points about how the "Stagg Bowl or Bust" mentality is not good for D3 football at all. So thanks to him for that.)

[Pat Coleman]

This all seems to pre-suppose that the primary goal of D3 football is to win a Stagg Bowl and the highest value is therefore to ensure that each team has as "fair" a chance as possible to complete for and advance in the tournament.  I don't think that's true, and I don't think the moves in that direction are good for the average student-athlete experience, which is the actual point of D3 athletics.

I think there could be a good, reasonable debate on the primary goal of D-III football. However, the primary goal of the D-III football championships should be to ensure an undisputable national champion and give all Division III teams a reasonable pathway to reach the championships, and a fair chance to advance once they do. I think there is much less room for debate on that part.

[Pat Coleman]

Meanwhile, there's lots of points here, obviously, so just some brief responses: The value of traveling as a team is not just the value of a game to a win-loss record or a playoff resume ... actually, lots of people batted an eye at the 1-vs.-8 matchups in those tournaments and it was discussed by the coach of an 8 seed on our podcast in our playoff roundtable a year and a half ago and the 40-team tournament keeps the typical ECFC champ from having to play a top seed in the first round ... "meaningful" is a metric that is different to each person and what's meaningful to someone from a different era may not be meaningful to someone playing today ... we've never had that competitive balance and the way we avoided talking about it in the past is by simply never letting schools from some conferences in the postseason at all. But Mount Union won a bunch of its titles while being smaller than the average D-III school, and beat a bunch of schools with much larger enrollments along the way.

[IC798891]

Like, I'm not really a fan of how often the d3football people just parrot "It's not a standings page" (reductive) or "It's better than the AFCA poll" (low bar) any time someone disagrees with their ranking placement of a team with a poor record, or vice versa, but they're 100% right that not all wins are created equal.

Similarly, I'm not really a fan of how often people complain that their unbeaten team isn't ranked while teams with losses are. (And yes, I understand that nobody here is advocating for ranking based on winning percentage alone.)

Right, I believe there's a middle ground between where both of those opinions reside.

Regardless, I'm fine with the non-ranking of Hobart and, by extension, the LL.

[IC798891]

Re: the D3/Stagg Bowl debate.

This isn't really an original thought or even a hot take, but:

How many schools do we think are really competing for a national championship? Forget coach and player-speak about always wanting to win, and put aside your "Miracle on Ice" type upset fever dreams.

How many schools do we think are really devoting the resources in terms of financial aid, admissions support, program support, etc. that a team could reasonably expect to have the talent needed to win the tournament in the somewhat near future?

I suspect, if we're being honest, 80-90% of programs probably don't have that as a realistic goal. It is, quite possibly, a ceiling winning the conference/qualifying for the playoffs and then maybe winning a round or two.

Look at a program like Fisher, who at one point, did have a team that challenged for a title. Now, they're a decade removed from a winning season. But we don't have boosters wanting to like, buy out Paul Vosburgh.

In a D1 world, Mike Welch probably doesn't survive the perpetual 8-2/7-3 seasons the Bombers' churned out from 1995-2000 following his semifinal run in Year 1, to say nothing of the 4-6 2011 season that ended their infamous consecutive winning seasons streak.

Which doesn't even get into a school like Hartwick which [gestures at Hartwick's post-Boltus results]

Everything in D3, in my opinion, has to be filtered through that lens.

[unionpalooza]

This all seems to pre-suppose that the primary goal of D3 football is to win a Stagg Bowl and the highest value is therefore to ensure that each team has as "fair" a chance as possible to complete for and advance in the tournament.  I don't think that's true, and I don't think the moves in that direction are good for the average student-athlete experience, which is the actual point of D3 athletics.

I think there could be a good, reasonable debate on the primary goal of D-III football. However, the primary goal of the D-III football championships should be to ensure an undisputable national champion and give all Division III teams a reasonable pathway to reach the championships, and a fair chance to advance once they do. I think there is much less room for debate on that part.

We don't have to debate the goals of Division III sports; they are written down. (https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/5/11/our-division-iii-priorities.aspx). And in a vacuum, yes, the goal of any tournament is to produce the best winner.  My point is that there are tensions between the stated goals of Division III and the "best" process for identify the best winner, and we increasingly resolve that tension in favor of the latter. 

For example, "Division III practice and playing seasons and regional competition minimize conflicts between athletics and academics, keeping student-athletes on a path to graduation."  Is a four-month season and a championship whose format and selection is completely indifferent to region really consistent with that goal?

Similarly, "Division III places primary emphasis on regional in-season and conference competition, while also holding 28 national championships annually."  While conference AQs remain, is there a single aspect of the current tournament seeding format that emphasizes regional competition at all?

One could absolutely debate whether Division 3's current priorities are wrong, of course.  As you can tell, I happen to think they are good for student-athletes, and worry that a myopic focus on designing the very best way to identify the very best team is undermining them.

[Ice Bear]

Just going to say some REALLY good points made here today by all. Points which have really got me rethinking all of this. I applaud unionpalooza for his very well thought out and written perspective. I'm sure that all took some time to type and I appreciate it. Definitely one of the reasons why I enjoy these boards.

[Pat Coleman]

No doubt -- indeed, Division III membership has voted to make all these changes to championships over the years and the philosophy hasn't been revisited. There's been talk about it, but it will be a long process, since I suspect consensus may not be easily achieved.

[Bartman]

Here's what a voter sees on Hobart's resume:

Hobart (6-1) Last week: # votes: 1 ()   
Sep. 6    7:00 PM    Alfred (3-3) •    W, 10-7
Sep. 14    12:00 PM    at Randolph-Macon (5-1) •    L, 14-7 OT
Sep. 21    1:00 PM    Moravian (4-2) •    W, 27-12
Sep. 28    12:00 PM    at Keystone (1-6) •    W, 52-9
Oct. 5    1:00 PM    Ithaca (3-3) * •    W, 16-7
Oct. 12    3:00 PM    at Buffalo State (2-4) * •    W, 31-3
Oct. 19    1:00 PM    at St. Lawrence (2-4) * •    W, 39-3
Oct. 26    1:00 PM    Union (2-4) * •   
Nov. 2    3:00 PM    at RPI (3-4) * •   
Nov. 16    1:00 PM    Rochester (5-1) * •   

I see a team that is two feet wide left from being undefeated and has one of the top defenses in D3 and deserves your vote instead of all those PAC teams.... But I'm just a non voting homer

It's not worth poll votes exactly, but I'm featuring Hobart this week in ATN. I hope you'll enjoy that.   

Thanks Wally, I'm sure the families, friends, players and coaches of Hobart will appreciate that more than a very old alum whining about a vote or two in the poll.
 Thanks to everyone's contribution to the board today. I'm just happy that D3 football survives without the drama of NIL deals and conference expansions on a bi-coastal basis. My little Hobart College is privileged to be part of a league with some old and even historic rivalries, where a player can make it to the NFL like Ali Marpet, become the best Athletic Director in the NCAA like my classmate/teammate Jeremy Foley at U of Florida or just get to be part of the team.Oh, and just maybe, we can earn a vote in the poll this year.       

[Machiavelli]

Last week's RPI/Ithaca game kind of took the wind out of my sails for the regular season. We still have Union to get up for, but otherwise, I'm looking forward to the tournament. But I guess I should finish predictions the next few weeks, I guess...

Mach's Uninspired Predictions:

Season Record: 30-5

Week 8

St. Lawrence - 24
Rochester - 28
I very much considered taking the Larries as I think their offense is half decent. But Rochester loves 28 points, so I'll give the nod in a close one.

Union - 6
Hobart - 24
I know Union is all hyped up after the big Buff St. win, but this isn't another pop-warner team. I think Union's offensive struggles return.

Ithaca - 56
Buffalo St. - 0
Feels almost like a bye week for Ithaca. Gonna go out on a limb and say Ithaca puts most of these points up in the first half and rests the starters in the 2nd half.

RPI - Bye(Hopefully they let the defense have the week off and kept the offense there doing double sessions)

[Bartman]

Week 8 LL Picks (28-5 record YTD)

Union  @. Hobart  Coach Drach's return to The Boz starts well as Patch Flanagan scores on the first possession shocking the Geneva crowd. Hobart DC, Coach Green makes adjustments and only gives up a FG the rest of the way. The Hobart rush offense is able to control the TOP time and mixes in some "keep em honest" passes as Hobart  beats the Chargers 28-10.

Saint Lawrence @ Rochester; The YellowJackets keep pace in the league race with a 35=14 victory and keep alive for  showdown at THE BOZ on 11/19.

Ithaca  @  Buffalo State ; The Bengals meet a highly motivated Bombers team that wants to make a statement in every game until the end of the season. The Bombers roll 42-6.

[JacketsPride]

Rochester- 24  Shocked we got the nod from Machiavelli, with support like that we can't lose!
SLU- 14        Heard SLU RB is out, will have to throw vs a tough UR secondary.

Hobart- 28     Best team in LL rolls
Union- 7

Ithaca- 41     Could get ugly quick
Buff St- 10

RPI- needs the rest

[UfanBill]

I spent a couple of glorious days at the Cape so I'm a little behind on this...In reference to the discussion of the LL teams being ranked. I'd say as has been discussed in past years, just keep winning and eventually they'll find us. I've asked Pat about who/where the pollsters are and that's not happening but I think we're correct in that they're midwest oriented. Look at Union last year. Unranked all season and receiving very few votes but the committee saw their worth when the pollsters didn't. Got in, won and finished at #21...As for the PAC. I watched much of the Grove City/W&J game and was impressed by both teams. Seemed very well coached. Case Western Reserve is leading the PAC at 6-0 but their schedule shows that they could easily end 6-4 with Westminster, W&J, Grove City and Carnegie Mellon (all with 1 PAC loss) upcoming. It's understandable that they're getting votes. Tie breakers seem inevitable.

After another 3-0 week I'm 29-6 and closing on the great Mach. 

Ithaca 41 - Buffalo St. 3...Nothing to see here folks.

Rochester 31 - St. Lawrence 20...A good game and another Yellowjacket W.

Union 22 - Hobart 20...Is this the week that Union fully embraces coach Drach or wishful thinking? 

[Bartman]

UfanBill, this is a huge game for Coach Drach where he helped put together some of the best offensive game plans with some great talent(AA Shane Sweeney to name one ) His talent might not be deep but he is a smart coach . The Hobart coaching staff is highly motivated to snuff Drach's return.

[Pat Coleman]

I've asked Pat about who/where the pollsters are and that's not happening but I think we're correct in that they're midwest oriented.

I give the same answer every time -- there are 24 voters, four voters in each region plus myself as the 25th voter. There are eight coaches, eight SIDs and eight media members and yes, they are. Distributed. Nationally.