FB: Liberty League

[WashedUp]

Here'd be my crazy suggestion for this situation of diminishing at large bids. Keep in mind I'm shooting from the hip here.

I like the equal access principle of the NCAA. Win your conference and you're in.

I also prefer a strong playoff field.

What if the NCAA implemented a rule saying a conference received its Pool A bid only if its champion had at least 7 wins. However, if either the conference champion had 2 playoff wins in the previous 4 years or the conference had 4 playoff wins in the previous 4 years the requirement would be lowered to a .667 winning percentage. Any time a conference is unable to fill it's Pool A bid, the bid immediately becomes an extra Pool C for that year.

So if a conference champ goes 6-4, 5-4 or 5-5, no Pool A, period.

If they went 6-3 then they need either a recent strong conference or personal playoff history to get in.

It would provide a reasonable way for conferences to get an Auto bid while also ensuring that a total weak sister didn't dilute the field and keep more deserving teams at home. In a year when a particularly strong conference like the WIAC destroyed itself during the regular season, past playoff performance could ensure they still got a team in. It would also give incentive to schedule a full 10 games, while also making sure teams unable to schedule 10 but playing in strong conferences wouldn't be unduly penalized.

Very raw thoughts here. Those numbers and expectations seem reasonable?

Obviously this would

Biggest problem I see is it gives teams incentive to schedule weak non-conference games to boost their record in case they go something like 5-2 and win their conference.  It could really end up hurting the west cost or southern conferences, who have enough trouble scheduling games already.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'd agree with WashedUp's reservations with Hazzben's plan as presented so far.

Any further thoughts on my suggestion (if no wins in four consecutive years, a conference loses the AQ and goes into pool B; if a team goes thru pool B and wins a game, the AQ is restored for at least 4 years)?  While I, too, was 'shooting-from-the-hip', I so far can't find a problem with it as a compromise between the 'access principle' and the desire for somewhere close to the best 32 teams in the playoffs (because I am unlikely to waver from feeling that 8 is the ideal number for a conference, and would hate to see the requirement go to 9 or more just to retain any pool C bids at all).

[Pat Coleman]

I think it would be virtually impossible for a conference to ever win back an automatic bid under that scenario.

Let me proffer an alternative, one I've voiced before, where Division III football borrows a concept from Division II known as "earned access." In Division II, a conference can earn an automatic bid to the 24-team field for its champion if it is within the top eight in its regional rankings, and can bump out an at-large team in the process.

Now, I think top eight for six spots (or 10 for eight spots) is a little strict as a requirement for the Division III philosophy. But I would say that if a conference can't put its champion in perhaps the top 15 of a region, then it shouldn't have a bid in that particular bid.

This would not carry over to another year and everyone would start fresh.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I think it would be virtually impossible for a conference to ever win back an automatic bid under that scenario.

Let me proffer an alternative, one I've voiced before, where Division III football borrows a concept from Division II known as "earned access." In Division II, a conference can earn an automatic bid to the 24-team field for its champion if it is within the top eight in its regional rankings, and can bump out an at-large team in the process.

Now, I think top eight for six spots (or 10 for eight spots) is a little strict as a requirement for the Division III philosophy. But I would say that if a conference can't put its champion in perhaps the top 15 of a region, then it shouldn't have a bid in that particular bid.

This would not carry over to another year and everyone would start fresh.

I don't follow most of the 'bottom' conferences that closely, but don't you think that Trine, Monmouth, and Franklin (just for example) would have all earned pool Bs very recently under that scenario?  (Not positive they would have had to, but if they did?)  And remember that under that scenario there would almost certainly be more pool Bs than just Wesley.

[pg04]

I think it would be virtually impossible for a conference to ever win back an automatic bid under that scenario.

Let me proffer an alternative, one I've voiced before, where Division III football borrows a concept from Division II known as "earned access." In Division II, a conference can earn an automatic bid to the 24-team field for its champion if it is within the top eight in its regional rankings, and can bump out an at-large team in the process.

Now, I think top eight for six spots (or 10 for eight spots) is a little strict as a requirement for the Division III philosophy. But I would say that if a conference can't put its champion in perhaps the top 15 of a region, then it shouldn't have a bid in that particular bid.

This would not carry over to another year and everyone would start fresh.

I don't follow most of the 'bottom' conferences that closely, but don't you think that Trine, Monmouth, and Franklin (just for example) would have all earned pool Bs very recently under that scenario?  (Not positive they would have had to, but if they did?)  And remember that under that scenario there would almost certainly be more pool Bs than just Wesley.

The conferences this would happen to, like the NEFC, MASCAC, and ECFC... I'm fairly certain that Pat is right...  If they did somehow get a pool B with their weak schedules (i.e SUNY-Maritime 2010), then I very much doubt that they will get a win in the playoffs, especially since they'll probably be placed as a low seed and go on the road.  I think Pat's point is dead on. 

They'll continue to lose in the playoffs and never regain their bid. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

I think it would be virtually impossible for a conference to ever win back an automatic bid under that scenario.

Let me proffer an alternative, one I've voiced before, where Division III football borrows a concept from Division II known as "earned access." In Division II, a conference can earn an automatic bid to the 24-team field for its champion if it is within the top eight in its regional rankings, and can bump out an at-large team in the process.

Now, I think top eight for six spots (or 10 for eight spots) is a little strict as a requirement for the Division III philosophy. But I would say that if a conference can't put its champion in perhaps the top 15 of a region, then it shouldn't have a bid in that particular bid.

This would not carry over to another year and everyone would start fresh.

I don't follow most of the 'bottom' conferences that closely, but don't you think that Trine, Monmouth, and Franklin (just for example) would have all earned pool Bs very recently under that scenario?  (Not positive they would have had to, but if they did?)  And remember that under that scenario there would almost certainly be more pool Bs than just Wesley.

The conferences this would happen to, like the NEFC, MASCAC, and ECFC... I'm fairly certain that Pat is right...  If they did somehow get a pool B with their weak schedules (i.e SUNY-Maritime 2010), then I very much doubt that they will get a win in the playoffs, especially since they'll probably be placed as a low seed and go on the road.  I think Pat's point is dead on. 

They'll continue to lose in the playoffs and never regain their bid.

But if they NEVER regain a bid, do they deserve an automatic one?  I'm trying to point out that really good teams from generally weak conferences CAN regain an AQ for their conference.

(And, again, I'm unsure whether this would apply to those particular teams/conferences, but the MIAA, MWC, and HCAC are definitely relatively 'weak'.)

For the really weak conferences, maybe they will NOT regain an AQ; but the OPPORTUNITY to do so still is there.  All it takes is a Curry.

[pg04]

I think it would be virtually impossible for a conference to ever win back an automatic bid under that scenario.

Let me proffer an alternative, one I've voiced before, where Division III football borrows a concept from Division II known as "earned access." In Division II, a conference can earn an automatic bid to the 24-team field for its champion if it is within the top eight in its regional rankings, and can bump out an at-large team in the process.

Now, I think top eight for six spots (or 10 for eight spots) is a little strict as a requirement for the Division III philosophy. But I would say that if a conference can't put its champion in perhaps the top 15 of a region, then it shouldn't have a bid in that particular bid.

This would not carry over to another year and everyone would start fresh.

I don't follow most of the 'bottom' conferences that closely, but don't you think that Trine, Monmouth, and Franklin (just for example) would have all earned pool Bs very recently under that scenario?  (Not positive they would have had to, but if they did?)  And remember that under that scenario there would almost certainly be more pool Bs than just Wesley.

The conferences this would happen to, like the NEFC, MASCAC, and ECFC... I'm fairly certain that Pat is right...  If they did somehow get a pool B with their weak schedules (i.e SUNY-Maritime 2010), then I very much doubt that they will get a win in the playoffs, especially since they'll probably be placed as a low seed and go on the road.  I think Pat's point is dead on. 

They'll continue to lose in the playoffs and never regain their bid.

But if they NEVER regain a bid, do they deserve an automatic one?  I'm trying to point out that really good teams from generally weak conferences CAN regain an AQ for their conference.

(And, again, I'm unsure whether this would apply to those particular teams/conferences, but the MIAA, MWC, and HCAC are definitely relatively 'weak'.)

That's not the same as what you were saying with your previous post.  You just said you didn't think Pat's bolded statement was true.  His statement is certainly true. 

It's a different argument altogether to talk about "deserving" 

[Mr. Ypsi]

See my edited post, posted less than a second before your response!

[pg04]

See my edited post, posted less than a second before your response!

Yes that one in a million game..

[Mr. Ypsi]

See my edited post, posted less than a second before your response!

Yes that one in a million game..

The d3 philosophy promises everyone a fair opportunity, not a result.

Curry did it.  (And Trine, Monmouth, Franklin?)

Other than Pat's response of 'virtually impossible' (already refuted?), I haven't seen a response.

[Pat Coleman]

You're going to nitpick, huh?

USAC/Dixie    3    13    .188
MWC    3    14    .176
SCIAC    2    11    .154
MIAA    2    12    .143
NEFC    2    14    .125
UMAC    0    1    .000
ECFC    0    2    .000
NATHC    0    4    .000
IBC (defunct)    0    8    .000
Total 12-79.

I also submit, for example, that without playoff experience, it's unlikely Curry wins future playoff games.

[jknezek]

Rather than all this convoluted reasoning to try and figure out which conferences winners are weak, wouldn't it just be better to do away with the uncertainty of Pool C's and reward strong conferences? Before anyone gets there panties in a twist, think of it as a way to reward a strong conference instead of trying to determine whether a "second-chance" team in a strong conference is better than a champion of a weaker conference.

With 32 playoff spots, lets say we have 27 Pool A, two Pool B, and 3 leftover spots (I know that's not right, but lets just run with the numbers). In any given year, before the season starts, you can take the 3 best conferences from the previous 5 years and give them a second bid. Now all bids are distributed ahead of time and basically every team in D3 knows what it needs to do to get to the playoffs.

Benefits, 1) historically good conferences get rewarded. 2) open-access remains for all. 3) good teams have fewer problems scheduling, since there are no Pool C effects of losing an OOC to a top team. 4) up and coming teams are more willing to test themselves against OOC better teams. 5) system is flexible for however many Pool Cs there are. No rule changes, no regional junk, just a known fact for however many "second-chance" bids are available. 6) great conferences that feast on each other (I'm looking at you WIAC!) would probably get a second bid. 7) weak conferences like the NEFC wouldn't get in the mix for a C, even if it was a 1-loss team 8) if your conference wants that second bid, it's going to have to prove its good. which means scheduling and winning tough OOCs and winning playoff games in my mind. 9) groups like-minded schools together. those that want that second bid better group up, because if you have those horrible bottom feeders, its going to kill you in the metrics.

Drawbacks, 1) in any given year, a second place team in a non-2 bid conference could be very good and still shafted (possible Fischer this year -- E8 versus MIAC, WIAC, ASC, etc. would be interesting by metrics). Not much different from now, except that going into the year they knew what they needed to do and didn't do it. Now it's a guessing and hoping game. 2) Conferences need to be evaluated by some criteria. if it's known before the season and the criteria is well-known, that's not really a problem. 3) hurts a good team in a weak conference. possibly, but if they are good in a weak conference, then they should have won it anyway. 4) weak conference winners still get in. yeah, but everyone agreed that was a better plan than what we had in the 90s when you could be a conference winner and not even get a sniff. why would we go back to that? no one liked that system.

I'm always going to be more concerned with Conference winners than "second-chance" teams. I want the conference winners in, even weak versus strong conferences, and don't much care about the Pool C teams. However, I think we could do a better job of making Pool C reward the best conferences. All of this, however, would require "de-coupling" football from other sports in the D3 universe. Something D3 has seemed reluctant, at best to do. So I don't expect much change at all, just a continued loss of Pool C bids. Not something that really bothers me...

[dlippiel]

Hey fellas and grove, hope all is well with everyone during this off-season. dlip just put together a blog (a work in progress for sure) that will mostly focus on D3 Football and Union (of course). dlip will also touch upon some other **** on there as well (all sports related) throughout the off-season. dlip thinks this will be fun and maybe something that might be enjoyable (might be) for others. Feel free to check it out if you are bored. Who knows it may develop into something decent, or it may cease to exist tomorrow. Again, hope everyone is well, and dlip is looking forward to seeing two NEFC teams getting automatic bids in 2013   

http://dlipthedutchman.blogspot.com/

[pg04]

O....K.... ?

[mattvsmith]

Good blog, dlip. +k