FB: Liberty League

[Bombers798891]

They defeated the teams they had to defeat to win the conference, hence they deerved the bid.

Here's the thing though: We're not claiming that St. Lawrence didn't do that. To put it one way, it's about redefining what games teams "have to" win to make the playoffs. My main problem with the auto-bid system is that it awards playoff spots to teams based on, in some cases, 40-50% of their games. If we do what Frank suggested, and make the requirement for auto bid conferences 8 or 9 teams, that's a step in the right direction, but even then you'd have 20-30% of your games irrelevant when it comes to the auto bid.

I just don't like that. Why can't we de-emphasize the results of conference games while still keeping the value of the conference? Why not do it like the pros? You still get an auto bid if you win your conference (just like you get one for winning your division in the pros) but winning your conference would be determined by your overall record, making all the games equally important when it comes to qualifying, regardless of if you want to do it by auto-bid or at large.

[Jonny Utah]

They defeated the teams they had to defeat to win the conference, hence they deerved the bid.

Here's the thing though: We're not claiming that St. Lawrence didn't do that. To put it one way, it's about redefining what games teams "have to" win to make the playoffs. My main problem with the auto-bid system is that it awards playoff spots to teams based on, in some cases, 40-50% of their games. If we do what Frank suggested, and make the requirement for auto bid conferences 8 or 9 teams, that's a step in the right direction, but even then you'd have 20-30% of your games irrelevant when it comes to the auto bid.

I just don't like that. Why can't we de-emphasize the results of conference games while still keeping the value of the conference? Why not do it like the pros? You still get an auto bid if you win your conference (just like you get one for winning your division in the pros) but winning your conference would be determined by your overall record, making all the games equally important when it comes to qualifying, regardless of if you want to do it by auto-bid or at large.

Yea but the NFL has more of an even playing field.  If you do what you suggest, there would be no incentive to play good teams right?

[dlippiel]

Everything mentioned is difficult, because in the Alfred case mentioned above(losing to a good Union, Hobart, and RPI) but going 7-0 in their conference, this discourages teams from scheduling tough opponents.  They shouldn't be screwed out of a playoff spot with 3 OOC losses to good teams if they swept their division. 

Let's just make it easy and eliminate 2 auto-bids, 1 for the NEFC and 1 for the ECFC.  They COULD get in with an at-large bid of course.  An undefeated team should never miss the playoffs.

Oddly enough, with all of this talk, it's kind of geared at St. Lawrence having no right to make the playoffs last year, but seriously, who would've made it that would have even done anything?  Probably no one.  So giving St. Lawrence a chance to play in the playoffs is something special for that program and I think they did what was needed.

dlip thinks Lew makes a good point here. This is an interesting discussion and one that many of us seem to see differently. What some of us want, or think should happen seems to be in contrast with what realistically can happen. Yet, Utah makes a valid point regarding if enough colleges get behind an idea they most likely can make it happen. All in all it wil be interesting to see if any changes come down the pike.

dlip disagrees with some here who say that a 5-5 team should "never" make the NCAA's. To dlip, this possibility, the possibility of any team having an opportunity to make the tourney is what makes D3 so great. Every team from every auto-bid conference starts out with the same possibility at the beginning of the season. **** if you look at SLU who went into LL play last year at 0-3, they still had something "real" to play for. The only problem dlip had with SLU going to play MUC, UMU, or whatever the **** they are called, is that the record, and their OOC results, made the LL look piss ****ing poor (which as Lew points out in a round about way was true anyway). Honestly, dlip was very happy for the program and the players at SLU. It was a great accomplishment, one they earned. They defeated the teams they had to defeat to win the conference, hence they deerved the bid. Once you take out the auto-bid you leave all tourney selection decisions up to commitees and numbers. Needless to say to dlip, we have seen how these commitees can **** up (look at the BCS system) and how numbers can take away the "heart" aspect of the game. To dlip SLU showed heart last year, they fought, against an 0-3 start, against a very poor recent program history, against many challenges when it comes to recruiting, and so on. They fought and they won and to dlip, that is what makes D3 football beautiful. Once we start to take away the automatic conference champion's bid to the NCAAs we start to take away heart, faith, and hope from all 230 some teams...minus U Dub and MUC (dlip kids, he kids  ).

Would you feel the same if a 5-5 Mt. Ida made it to the playoffs over a 8-2 Union though?

A god point but as frustrated as dlip would be it would be an obvious opportunity for a Mt. IDA team that stumbled with five loses but won enough to get a second shot and "keep hope alive" (sorry dlip had to use the line). Bombers makes a good point about overall records along with conference wins making up conference winners (like the pros). With that format you may run into the head to head argument though when a team in one conference defeats a conference rival. They then possibly fail to make the tourney because the rival had a better overall record and played cupcakes. Food for thought.

[Jonny Utah]

In somewhat related news to the discussion, Notre Dame just joined the Hockey East conference.  That makes 11 teams.....is RPI still looking that way?

[mattvsmith]

This is one of the best discussions we've had on the LLPP board in a while. The Rev's two cents:

Don't change a thing. I understand that the system is flawed and we would all like to see a system that would be more just and bring the best, most deserving teams to the playoffs. It's a noble goal. I don't think that we can create a better system, or a system that is truly and substantially better than what we have. No matter what system we have good teams and good kids aren't going to have a chance to play in the playoffs.

The problem really stems from the fact that D3 schools are a crazy odd mix. Generally, this is a good thing, but it is a bad thing when trying to create a system. Systems don't like anomalies; systems like uniformity. I'm not saying anything bad about the NCAA here. It's not a conscious decision on their part to gyp schools. They have the unenviable task of taking apples and comparing them to potatoes and then having the apples play bananas while the potatoes sit out the play-offs with the oranges and cumquats.

Finally, while changes seem like a good idea before they happen, often after a massive change the b!tching and moaning is worse than before and people complain bitterly that the old way was better and we should never have changed. I think that is what would happen if we changed the D3 playoff system. It is flawed, but it usually does a pretty good job of lining up the right teams.

[SJFF82]

This is one of the best discussions we've had on the LLPP board in a while. The Rev's two cents:

Don't change a thing. I understand that the system is flawed and we would all like to see a system that would be more just and bring the best, most deserving teams to the playoffs. It's a noble goal. I don't think that we can create a better system, or a system that is truly and substantially better than what we have. No matter what system we have good teams and good kids aren't going to have a chance to play in the playoffs.

The problem really stems from the fact that D3 schools are a crazy odd mix. Generally, this is a good thing, but it is a bad thing when trying to create a system. Systems don't like anomalies; systems like uniformity. I'm not saying anything bad about the NCAA here. It's not a conscious decision on their part to gyp schools. They have the unenviable task of taking apples and comparing them to potatoes and then having the apples play bananas while the potatoes sit out the play-offs with the oranges and cumquats.

Finally, while changes seem like a good idea before they happen, often after a massive change the b!tching and moaning is worse than before and people complain bitterly that the old way was better and we should never have changed. I think that is what would happen if we changed the D3 playoff system. It is flawed, but it usually does a pretty good job of lining up the right teams.

Are you trying to say that St. John Fisher can't beat a cumquat.....oh boy, them are fightin words...

[Bombers798891]

They defeated the teams they had to defeat to win the conference, hence they deerved the bid.

Here's the thing though: We're not claiming that St. Lawrence didn't do that. To put it one way, it's about redefining what games teams "have to" win to make the playoffs. My main problem with the auto-bid system is that it awards playoff spots to teams based on, in some cases, 40-50% of their games. If we do what Frank suggested, and make the requirement for auto bid conferences 8 or 9 teams, that's a step in the right direction, but even then you'd have 20-30% of your games irrelevant when it comes to the auto bid.

I just don't like that. Why can't we de-emphasize the results of conference games while still keeping the value of the conference? Why not do it like the pros? You still get an auto bid if you win your conference (just like you get one for winning your division in the pros) but winning your conference would be determined by your overall record, making all the games equally important when it comes to qualifying, regardless of if you want to do it by auto-bid or at large.

Yea but the NFL has more of an even playing field.  If you do what you suggest, there would be no incentive to play good teams right?

But what's the incentive to do so now? Two losses practically eliminates you from Pool C discussion, so you pretty much HAVE to schedule weak OOC competition if you're going to get a Pool C bid because you really need to run the table to get that at-large bid. (If someone like Pat or Frank know how many two-loss teams have gotten Pool C bids the last few years, that would be awesome)

Sure, you might have a couple of 9-1 schools where SOS becomes the tipping point, but I'd rather at least be in that debate as opposed to being 8-2 and hoping it overcomes the record.

[Frank Rossi]

Good discussion.  I wanted to respond to some of the points in a linear argument order.  So, here it goes:

---

Rev:  The beginning of the discussion was the back and forth I had with Bombers concerning the need in the near future to make changes since the seven-team access ratio is not sustainable if there is a desire to sustain Pool C in any meaningful way.  If every conference had seven teams, and we maximized the number of conferences based on the number of teams in Division 3, then there wouldn't even be enough bids available for Pool A.  Little by little, this is starting to occur.  If Wesley helps form a new conference and the NEFC should ever split, we would be down to either four or five Pool C bids -- and we have more teams coming to Division 3 in the offing.  My point is that in 5-10 years, we are going to HAVE TO make a change.

Let me put it this way -- if you're a member of the OAC, why would you stay in there in football if there were only two Pool C bids available?  The only thing that makes it acceptable for the teams now is that if any run the table except for their game against Mount Union, they stand at least a reasonable chance for a Pool C bid.  If only two Pool C bids exist, because of the size of the OAC presently, the OAC would never have an SoS that would allow for a Pool C bid, purely on the mathematics we know behind the SoS.  I don't think this is an acceptable scenario.

---

Yanks: we presently are in an 11-week, 10-game system.  Union is playing 10 games this year, utilizing the opening weekend for the first time in years.  The team has a single bye and plays to the end of the season.  You're not gaining a week in your plan -- and the Stagg Bowl will never be moved to Christmas week (along with Semis moving deeper into December, etc.).  It's just not going to happen based on the cost to the schools involved.  Same problem at the beginning of the season (it costs money to extend the season/preseason by a week, and administrators would never accept this).  This is why the NCAA has locked us at 32 teams -- the nature of the game and the present schedule are already maximized.  We need to figure out alterations within the present 32-team, 5-week setup.

---

LD: If we force conferences to have 8 or 9 teams for automatic bids, the chances for 5-5 teams and even 6-4 teams getting to the playoffs would be minimized.  Nine-team conferences mean 8 league games and 2 OOC games.  If every team in a conference of that size were to lose their OOC games, how frequently would a conference see a champion crowned with worse than a 6-2 record since all teams' W/L records internally in a conference average out to .500?  Thus, we would at least be ensuring some level of W/L consistency for playoff teams while unlocking a few more Pool B and Pool C bids to reward truly strong X-1 teams.

---

Overall, here's my issue:  I don't mind the 29th, 30th, 31st and 32nd teams in the playoffs being, in reality, the 50th, 75th, 90th and 150th teams in Division III in Week 1.  The #1 seeds will likely win those games regardless.  The problem I see is in the second round -- if those teams aren't playing (assuming both sides made it through Week 1) teams no worse than the 16th team in the nation because that team (and any team inside #16) didn't even get into the playoffs, the system is not serving it's dual purpose of access while ensuring competitiveness (remember 1/8 doesn't always play 4/5 in the brackets based on geography, and brackets can be imbalanced in the first place).  The less Pool B and C bids available, the more chance that begins to occur because of single upsets inside conferences and quasi-anomalies like the SLU circumstance becoming more widespread.  Could Rowan have made some noise in the playoffs last year?  If Cortland and Montclair were any proof, then they probably could have won at least a game or two.  Their bid may have been lost due to a seven-team conference being given an automatic bid, specifically St. Lawrence in the Liberty League.

As for the SoS issues that fewer OOC games cause, it's time to allow for subjectivity.  There are two national polls out there that would aid the Committee in making comparisons week to week.  Between those, win/loss records, conference strength ratings and the existing SoS formula, we can easily combine things to make more cogent choices possible for the Committee.  That's still possible in 9-team conferences.  Heck, the OAC and NJAC are 10-team conferences, and they seem to do fine.  That said, I still wouldn't place the minimum above 9.  If conferences didn't want to increase to that level, then Pool B would still be available for them (and Pool C).

I want to see the best possible field we can achieve while sustaining accessibility -- I think it's the only way we get out of the lock we see in the top 3 slots every year lately.

(By the way, for whoever asked, only one two-loss team has won a Pool C bid in the last four or five years, if memory serves -- Ithaca).

[Pat Coleman]

 UW-Eau Claire did also, the same year, 2007.

[Frank Rossi]

UW-Eau Claire did also, the same year, 2007.

Had to be a really odd year, but what caused it in particular?  Did any 1-loss teams stay on the board?

[Jonny Utah]

They defeated the teams they had to defeat to win the conference, hence they deerved the bid.

Here's the thing though: We're not claiming that St. Lawrence didn't do that. To put it one way, it's about redefining what games teams "have to" win to make the playoffs. My main problem with the auto-bid system is that it awards playoff spots to teams based on, in some cases, 40-50% of their games. If we do what Frank suggested, and make the requirement for auto bid conferences 8 or 9 teams, that's a step in the right direction, but even then you'd have 20-30% of your games irrelevant when it comes to the auto bid.

I just don't like that. Why can't we de-emphasize the results of conference games while still keeping the value of the conference? Why not do it like the pros? You still get an auto bid if you win your conference (just like you get one for winning your division in the pros) but winning your conference would be determined by your overall record, making all the games equally important when it comes to qualifying, regardless of if you want to do it by auto-bid or at large.

Yea but the NFL has more of an even playing field.  If you do what you suggest, there would be no incentive to play good teams right?

But what's the incentive to do so now? Two losses practically eliminates you from Pool C discussion, so you pretty much HAVE to schedule weak OOC competition if you're going to get a Pool C bid because you really need to run the table to get that at-large bid. (If someone like Pat or Frank know how many two-loss teams have gotten Pool C bids the last few years, that would be awesome)

Sure, you might have a couple of 9-1 schools where SOS becomes the tipping point, but I'd rather at least be in that debate as opposed to being 8-2 and hoping it overcomes the record.

Yea but the way I am reading your point is that overall record would count towards the pool a?

So if Salisbury goes 7-3 overall this year and 7-0 in the league, but Springfield ends up 8-2 and 5-2 in the league, Springfield would get the bid?

[dlippiel]

I want to see the best possible field we can achieve while sustaining accessibility -- I think it's the only way we get out of the lock we see in the top 3 slots every year lately.

A good line here Frank, dlip likes this, and feels if this is the focus eventually the best system will be implemented.

[Yanks 99]

Good discussion.  I wanted to respond to some of the points in a linear argument order.  So, here it goes:

Yanks: we presently are in an 11-week, 10-game system.  Union is playing 10 games this year, utilizing the opening weekend for the first time in years.  The team has a single bye and plays to the end of the season.  You're not gaining a week in your plan -- and the Stagg Bowl will never be moved to Christmas week (along with Semis moving deeper into December, etc.).  It's just not going to happen based on the cost to the schools involved.  Same problem at the beginning of the season (it costs money to extend the season/preseason by a week, and administrators would never accept this).  This is why the NCAA has locked us at 32 teams -- the nature of the game and the present schedule are already maximized.  We need to figure out alterations within the present 32-team, 5-week setup.

Actually, in my plan, you may not be gaining a week...but by allowing teams the option to start Week #1 during the last week of August and having the last game be played on first weekend of November, you maintain the possibility of an 11-week timeframe and 10-game system.  If a team only wants to schedule 9 games during the potential 11-Week timeframe, that is fine too.  Personally, I see nothing wrong with playing 10 straight weeks.  Alfred is doing it this year (started on 9/10 and ending on 11/12).  Mount Union is on the same schedule as well.  In my plan, they could simply start on 9/3 (shouldn't be a big deal as 210 teams played on 9/3 this year) and be done on 11/5...keeping 10 games as the maximum if a school didn't want to start in late August, and opening up the second weekend of November as the new "first round" games for the additional 16 teams added to the tournament.  Doing this would ensure that the Stagg Bowl schedule (one week before Christmas) would stay the same.  Here's how:

11/12:  8 x first round playoff games (top 4 seeds from each region get a bye)
11/19:  16 x second round playoff games
11/26:  8 x "Sweet 16" games
12/3:   4 x "Quarterfinal" games
12/10:  2 Semi-Final games
12/17:  Stagg Bowl


I can't argue whether the cost to the schools involved would be the deciding factor.  I do think though that if schools like Springfield (8-2 last year) and St. John Fisher (8-2 last year) were willing to pay the costs associated with an ECAC game last year, that they certainly would have paid the cost for "first round" playoff game in order to get into the NCAA field of 32 teams.  I am sure other schools would do the same...while I am also sure that there are other schools who wouldn't want to do this.

If cost is the deciding factor (which it probably is), then this wouldn't work.  But from a scheduling standpoint, it absolutely could work/fit without really having a huge impact on the overall regular season.

[Bombers798891]

They defeated the teams they had to defeat to win the conference, hence they deerved the bid.

Here's the thing though: We're not claiming that St. Lawrence didn't do that. To put it one way, it's about redefining what games teams "have to" win to make the playoffs. My main problem with the auto-bid system is that it awards playoff spots to teams based on, in some cases, 40-50% of their games. If we do what Frank suggested, and make the requirement for auto bid conferences 8 or 9 teams, that's a step in the right direction, but even then you'd have 20-30% of your games irrelevant when it comes to the auto bid.

I just don't like that. Why can't we de-emphasize the results of conference games while still keeping the value of the conference? Why not do it like the pros? You still get an auto bid if you win your conference (just like you get one for winning your division in the pros) but winning your conference would be determined by your overall record, making all the games equally important when it comes to qualifying, regardless of if you want to do it by auto-bid or at large.

Yea but the NFL has more of an even playing field.  If you do what you suggest, there would be no incentive to play good teams right?

But what's the incentive to do so now? Two losses practically eliminates you from Pool C discussion, so you pretty much HAVE to schedule weak OOC competition if you're going to get a Pool C bid because you really need to run the table to get that at-large bid. (If someone like Pat or Frank know how many two-loss teams have gotten Pool C bids the last few years, that would be awesome)

Sure, you might have a couple of 9-1 schools where SOS becomes the tipping point, but I'd rather at least be in that debate as opposed to being 8-2 and hoping it overcomes the record.

Yea but the way I am reading your point is that overall record would count towards the pool a?

So if Salisbury goes 7-3 overall this year and 7-0 in the league, but Springfield ends up 8-2 and 5-2 in the league, Springfield would get the bid?

Correct. Yes, in my design, Salisbury wouldn't have an incentive to schedule tough teams because they need wins for a Pool A bid, but right now, teams don't do it because they need them for a Pool C bid. It's the same lack of incentive, the only difference is which bid you're stacking your win total for. At least this way, all the games count equally.

[Bombers798891]

(By the way, for whoever asked, only one two-loss team has won a Pool C bid in the last four or five years, if memory serves -- Ithaca).

That was me. So basically, there's no incentive to schedule tough teams OOC as it is. Currently, you need to go undefeated in OOC play to make the playoffs as a Pool C. So there's no added downside to making those games count for Pool A bids, with the upside being you can use it to eliminate those 5-5, 6-4, 7-3 schools and let in 9-1 teams that are clearly better. That improves the whole field.

Yes, accessibility is important, but this doesn't make the playoffs any less accessible for anyone. Sure, a team that goes unbeaten in conference and loses out in OOC play loses out, but currently, teams that go undefeated in OOC play, but lose one or two in conference play have that happen to them. Is there that big of a difference?