FB: Liberty League

[JT]

Yeah, wrong area for Ypsi-JT arguments.  Moving on.   

It was Mr. Ypsi doing the drive-by on me.

[JT]

Just spent another day in DC in August, not in a touristy area. Shockingly, I survived just fine. Brookland isn't a ****hole.

There is a big difference in the amount of crime around Catholic University vs. GWU.

But you tarred ALL of DC as a ****hole. 

As managed, yes.  Overall murder and crime rates, yep.

[JT]

Outside of the tourist areas, DC is in fact a sh*thole.

Spoken like someone who's never been outside the tourist areas.

I've been around DC.  Many areas remind me of Atlantic City once one steps off the boardwalk.  Sad.

[JT]

At the risk of being attacked by the NJAC, and I've spent plenty of time in various parts of the state when I lived in Manhattan, but don't you live in Jersey?

Northwest Jersey about 15-20 miles from the Delaware Water Gap.  Very rural in Warren County, growing up my closest neighbors were Holsteins and Jerseys.  Most people not from NJ never make it out here, it is not off the Turnpike.

Bet you are glad to be out of JC.

[Knightstalker]

At the risk of being attacked by the NJAC, and I've spent plenty of time in various parts of the state when I lived in Manhattan, but don't you live in Jersey?

Northwest Jersey about 15-20 miles from the Delaware Water Gap.  Very rural in Warren County, growing up my closest neighbors were Holsteins and Jerseys.  Most people not from NJ never make it out here, it is not off the Turnpike.

Bet you are glad to be out of JC.

Glad does not even come close to how I feel about not being in JC.  Now when I hear a gunshot at night I know it is only a local shooting critters.

[Bombers798891]

Is Union capable of pulling off a St. Lawrence and winning the conference while going winless in out of conference play? I ask because I think this was one of the things that really hurt the LL in national perception this season, and it looks like that's a possibility again. Hobart would clearly seem to be the class of the conference, but I see no reason why Union couldn't beat them, and then run the table in the LL before playing Springfield, where I feel the Pride would be favored.

This isn't to say Union would be any less entitled to the Pool A bid than St. Lawrence was, so please, Frank, don't go tattling on me to the Union coaches and players. It simply means that I think, especially when a conference is already struggling, and is a one-bid conference (Unless a 7-1 Hobart gets in as a Pool C, which seems incredibly unlikely) getting your "best" team that Pool A bid is key. When you have a stronger conference, that will get that 2nd or even 3rd place team in as a Pool C, it can be viewed as a sign of the depth of the conference (The Wick winning the E8 in 2007, despite Fisher probably being the "best" team in the conference, is one example), but in the case of the LL last year, I think that wasn't the case last year, and won't be this season.

Now, I say this knowing that this Hobart team is, IMO a better team than any of the LL teams last season. But that's why I think it's so important that they win the conference title, to ensure the LL gets its strongest team in the NCAA's.

[Frank Rossi]

This isn't to say Union would be any less entitled to the Pool A bid than St. Lawrence was, so please, Frank, don't go tattling on me to the Union coaches and players.

I didn't take it that way -- it isn't like you assumed that Union's self-respect is on the line based on the result of this weekend's game (I mean, who on Earth would ever suggest...oh, wait, nevermind)...

What you're saying doesn't fall on deaf ears.  We've been discussing this issue a bunch on "In the HuddLLe" of late (and did do a segment about Hobart's scenarios in the middle of last night's show).  I don't think this whole "Win the League" Goal is unique anymore to just the Liberty League, and I don't think it's going to get any better over time -- meaning, the average win percentages of Pool A teams, I believe, will continue to trend lower going forward.  It took some time for the whole Pool A bid scenario to work its way into conferences in a way that would make teams that couldn't contend when 9-0 or 10-0 was a must say, "Win the league, and we're in the playoffs, regardless of our OOC results."  Now, teams do believe this credo.  Now, one big upset could turn the win-loss standings upsidedown when it comes to a team that didn't take care of OOC business vs. one that did.  In other words, on a macro level, welcome to the new normal, I truly believe.

I'm actually a proponent of raising the Pool A minimum for FOOTBALL to 8 or 9 teams in order to force more at-large choices and to somehow allow for a better overall field in the playoffs.  We may be at 32 teams, but I'm not so sure anymore that the teams that would've been #15 and #16 in the old 1990s system are always getting into the tournament.  And, yes, I think that DOES matter.  That means that teams like Mount Union and Whitewater now get two walkovers before playing stronger opponents they would've seen in the old system.  Yes, I do believe we have overdone it in football since we can't stretch to a sixth week of playoffs.  While I'm excited that Union is still fighting for a playoff slot right now, my honest assessment is that internally, the school feels that to compete IN THE LEAGUE (a new concept since 2003 for Union), there are less resources needed in terms of the football program, especially as more sports are added and less admissions spots are available to a sport like football as a result.  I don't think this is unique to Union.  However, I honestly believe it's leveled the playing field, but at the same time, helped dilute the pool.  What's happened in Salem for six straight years is part of my evidence of this.  Plus, mathematically, we're running out of playoff slots as Pool A grows -- so we almost HAVE to jump to 8 teams per conference for Pool A (or change the associate membership rules).

I spoke with someone influential last week (not naming names here) who said, when I suggested the access ratio may need to change, that since the ratio is the same for all sports, it won't change for football -- that football is no different than any other sport.  I, with the help of a friend in attendance, stated politely that that idea was wrong -- the nature of football makes it impossible to just extend the field like you could in baseball, basketball, lacrosse or any other sport I can think of.  The NCAA appears to be content with only 32 teams as the max.  Something's gotta give, and in so doing, we might be able to create a better scenario for the Division as a whole in football.  I'm not thrilled by the prospect of three-loss teams or worse getting bids as much as you're not -- however, the system has actually helped create it in many ways, as shown here.  Until it's fixed or altered slightly, we need to get excited for the teams that do get to taste the playoffs, regardless of how it happened.

[dlippiel]

Now, I say this knowing that this Hobart team is, IMO a better team than any of the LL teams last season. But that's why I think it's so important that they win the conference title, to ensure the LL gets its strongest team in the NCAA's.

First off Bombers dlip thinks your entire post was a damn good one. dlip concurrs 100% on a couple fronts. To dlip, the LL most most definitely a one bid conference and may be for quite some time now. With that said, any LL fan would love to see the strongest team represent the conference in the NCAA's. Here is where the issue s though as a fan. To dlip, Hobart seems like a much better team than Union, and, at least looking at it's three victories and comparing them to Union's 2-3 record, the Pumkinheads would have a much better shot at making a little noise in the NCAAs than Union. Yet, dlip obviously wants Union to win Saturday regardless of what is best for the conference. He will say this though, if Union does lose, he is Bart fan for the rest of the year and not just because of the cool ass pumpkin uni's.

dlip feels last years LL winner in SLU did contribute greatly to the lack of respect of the LL this year and really was a culmination of the leagues strength in relation to the rest of the nation decreasing over the past few years. Don't get dlip wrong, he was very happy for SLU, but he knew that when a conference winner goes to the tourney representing it's conference but having lost all of it's OOC games it looks like ****. From Susquehanna the year before to SLU last year the LL continues to nose dive strength wise in comparison to the nations elite. Yet within itself, the LL continues to be a great conference with historic rivalries and some decent football talent. This talent is just notheavy enough to take it back to where it was thats all.

[Pat Coleman]

I spoke with someone influential last week (not naming names here) who said, when I suggested the access ratio may need to change, that since the ratio is the same for all sports, it won't change for football -- that football is no different than any other sport.  I, with the help of a friend in attendance, stated politely that that idea was wrong -- the nature of football makes it impossible to just extend the field like you could in baseball, basketball, lacrosse or any other sport I can think of. 

This is true. No other sport is so far over its cap already. Only women's basketball is really close, being at its cap of 64 teams now. Football is about 20 teams over its cap, and that's only because the NESCAC cuts us a break by not taking a bid.

[AUKaz00]

I'm actually a proponent of raising the Pool A minimum for FOOTBALL to 8 or 9 teams in order to force more at-large choices and to somehow allow for a better overall field in the playoffs. 

At 9 teams for a Pool A, we'd nullify the usefulness of SoS.  Then we'd have a struggle evaluating the, presumably, larger Pool B eligible teams and the Pool A eligible teams when it came to Pool C.  A minimum of 8 does seem more reasonable in this regard and likely that's where the NCAA would move to if they do at all.

[Frank Rossi]

True, Kaz, although we need to also find a better method of SoS since that, too, is broken when applied to the uniqueness of football (far too few data points to apply a purely mathematical formula).  That's been stated directly by the former Committee Chairwoman.

One thing to think about when trying to explain this overarching point on a more national basis:  what if Mount Union lost a game to ONU in a year that ONU goes 8-2 and Mount goes 9-1 -- and ONU wins the automatic bid if there are only 1 or 2 Pool C bids left because of continued expansion and shuffling by conferences?  By the numbers, Mount Union could be in big trouble -- yet, with sufficient Pool C at-large bids available, they would still easily (and rightfully) make the playoffs.  I think some people need to begin to wake up to this very potential problem soon and begin to address what to do with it.

[pg04]

I get your point in general, but I don't think MUC is a good example to use.  I must say that a 9-1 Mount Union (in present time) would likely be the one who gets the Pool C bid, number-deserving or not. 

[Frank Rossi]

I get your point in general, but I don't think MUC is a good example to use.  I must say that a 9-1 Mount Union (in present time) would likely be the one who gets the Pool C bid, number-deserving or not.

It would depend on their SoS.

[Bombers798891]

True, Kaz, although we need to also find a better method of SoS since that, too, is broken when applied to the uniqueness of football (far too few data points to apply a purely mathematical formula).  That's been stated directly by the former Committee Chairwoman.

One thing to think about when trying to explain this overarching point on a more national basis:  what if Mount Union lost a game to ONU in a year that ONU goes 8-2 and Mount goes 9-1 -- and ONU wins the automatic bid if there are only 1 or 2 Pool C bids left because of continued expansion and shuffling by conferences?  By the numbers, Mount Union could be in big trouble -- yet, with sufficient Pool C at-large bids available, they would still easily (and rightfully) make the playoffs.  I think some people need to begin to wake up to this very potential problem soon and begin to address what to do with it.

Something similar happened in lacrosse in 2008. A number of highly-ranked teams lost in conference tournaments, and some missed out on the NCAA's (Ithaca was ranked #3 prior to the conference tourney loss and didn't go)

I think Frank, you bring up an interesting point with at-large bids helping to get a "better" field into the playoffs. At-large bids do that, although I feel like the nature of D-III football makes picking at large bids really difficult. The game is so regional--especially with shrinking budgets--so there's often no common way to differentiate between schools, and with so many schools, how much can we know about two schools on opposite coasts? The ways we try to compare these schools--like by SOS--have their own issues as well. Auto-bids are far from a perfect system, but no matter who gets left out, or what their situation, at least we can always say, "You didn't win game X. If you had, you'd be in."

While that may be tough to hear, it might go down easier than some complex formula for selecting a large bids that determines your fate.

[Frank Rossi]

The Committee is asking for subjectivity, and they did get some piece of it -- starting this year, they can take prior season success in the playoffs into consideration for the purpose of seeding teams.  This could be called the "U-Dub-Dub Rule" after the undefeated defending champs were not placed first in their bracket based on the SoS numbers.  That, in and of itself, is a part admission by the NCAA that the strength of schedule system is already problematic.

The regional nature of the system is sustained by drawing boundaries in a way that doesn't allow for a disproportionate number of Pool A bids in each region.  Obviously, in a larger minimum system, the boundaries might get strained -- too tough to tell presently, though.

My problem isn't with the autobid system.  My problem is that we're going too far in that direction -- and that doesn't seem to be consistent with the intent of playoff brackets or even bowl systems (even the BCS added a game in order to honor the fact that automatic bids and other rules were limiting the pool of teams).

Let me pose the question this way, Bombers (and everyone else who wants to answer):

What aspects of a playoff system are most important to you concerning the makeup of the pool of teams, especially in Division III Football?  I think you've suggested in the post that tipped this discussion off that 5-5 teams don't help the entire system at the end of the day -- and that we might be falling into a trend.  So, instead of dwelling on the negative (i.e., what we don't want in the system), I'm asking you to dwell instead on the positive (i.e., what we do want in the system).  I think that becomes a bigger challenge to answer, but it is more important in trying to shape alternatives or even slight changes.