Great Lakes Region

[KnightSlappy]

btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.

How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.

I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.

But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.

I, for one, would prefer the reverse!

[ziggy]

btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.

How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.

I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.

But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.

I'm not anti-UAA and I'm not necessarily against the D3 philosophy. It's just that the two are hard to reconcile.

[smedindy]

Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.

All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...

[smedindy]

btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.

How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.

I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.

But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.

I'm not anti-UAA and I'm not necessarily against the D3 philosophy. It's just that the two are hard to reconcile.

What's the alternative? Force teams into leagues where they have nothing in common with any of the teams there?

A case could be made for C-M and Case in the NCAC academically and athletically. But where does Wash U. fit in? Chicago in the CCIW? Emory? The days of the independent are long gone...

[KnightSlappy]

Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.

All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...

Many times the best teams don't win the AQ, but that's any entirely different discussion.

[ziggy]

btw the UAA gets 5 teams ranked, one of them is 14-7, no other conference gets to have this advantage and that's just wrong.

How is it wrong if they are deserving of being ranked? Appling to appling, maybe those 5 teams are amongst the best 40 or so. Yeah, NYU is in a weak region, but I've always thought some of the NE should move to the East.

I'm on the fence about this. If you look at NYU, they clearly deserve to be ranked since they have a crazy-high SOS and a WP that is in the ballpark of others in their region below the top two. The problem is that the rankings fit them into their region when their schedule is a-regional and really bares no resemblance to that of those they are in competition for regionally. It's really an issue with the UAA, which flies in the face of the overall D3 philosophy.

But then, having the UAA is good for D-3 as a whole. Those institutions add more to us than they take away with their national approach. And as many advantages they have in hoops, perhaps, they have none in football.

I'm not anti-UAA and I'm not necessarily against the D3 philosophy. It's just that the two are hard to reconcile.

What's the alternative? Force teams into leagues where they have nothing in common with any of the teams there?

A case could be made for C-M and Case in the NCAC academically and athletically. But where does Wash U. fit in? Chicago in the CCIW? Emory? The days of the independent are long gone...

Not at all. The UAA is an idiosyncracy I am willing to live with but it does present a unique set of circumstances in terms of setting up opportunities for their league members to rack up more games against regionally ranked opponents than would otherwise be typical.

[smedindy]

Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.

All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...

Many times the best teams don't win the AQ, but that's any entirely different discussion.

Yeah, the conference tourney conundrum.

Me, I wish the actual league winner got the bid and conference tourneys went away in D-3. They're a money grab and ESPN programming for D-1, but in D-3? Not as such...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Per next year... I don't think regional criteria will change despite all games count (as long as a team plays 70% of their games in region). It will give coaches more data to understand and more games to figure out. It will also force coaches to get a better understanding of more than their team, conference, or region - I will admit, I get frustrated with coaches when I ask them about just their region and they flat out say they don't care about anything outside of their conference. While I understand that in the basic sense of it, not understanding the scope of things in your region or even the country isn't helping your team in the long run.

As for the UAA argument... that could be one of the reasons driving school presidents to want their conferences all in one region when talking about regional realignment. However, this is also the biggest thing, in my opinion, that is making the process more complicated (not counting dealing with all sports on this issue). Believe it or not, there are several conferences besides the UAA in more than one region: Landmark, AMCC, NEAC, both MACs and I think there are one or two others I can't remember off the top of my head. Certainly the UAA is a much bigger scale in terms of regions, but honestly there is nothing you can do about this. The UAA was formed a long time ago and there is no solution that will work to isolate them a bit more.

Let's also keep one more thing in mind... if NYU gets on the board during Pool C consideration... they could just sit there the entire time and not get picked. Just because a team is in the regional rankings doesn't mean they are in position to assuredly get into the tournament. Now, I could see someone arguing that they could block a team behind them from getting in. This isn't going to happen either because if the team behind them deserves to be in the tournament more than an UAA team ahead of them... they should have been ranked ahead of that UAA team accordingly.

Also, using NYU or being concerned about them in the East Region is a waste of time. The East Region is weak and that is clearly shown by the fact that NYU is fourth out of just 6 teams that can be ranked. Sure, they get an SOS boost because of their conference and that allows them to be ranked a little easier than if the UAA was all in one region, but we know the teams behind them (Hobart, Geneseo, and others) are not getting into the tournament unless it is via the automatic bid.

And finally, when was the last time the UAA got, say, three teams in the tournament? I can only find the years 2007 and 2008 dating back to just this century when this has happened and both times it was the Midwest Region that produced the extra bids for the UAA (Wash U and Chicago).

[KnightSlappy]

Well, what is the goal of "C", anyway? It's to select the best teams of the ones that weren't good enough to win their league, right? I know all y'all are hung up on seeding and hosting, but when you get to this level, you're just worried about are you good enough to make the tourney. And while I carry the banner for those that are slighted because they're not in a 'power conference' there's a difference between taking a team that is clearly one of the best at large teams to one that's on the edge and just getting rep from being in a league.

All that said, NYU is in extreme bubble-land...

Many times the best teams don't win the AQ, but that's any entirely different discussion.

Yeah, the conference tourney conundrum.

Me, I wish the actual league winner got the bid and conference tourneys went away in D-3. They're a money grab and ESPN programming for D-1, but in D-3? Not as such...

Some conferences probably do generate revenue from the tournament (MIAA for one), but with so few at-large bids available, upsets are to the detriment of the quality of the D3 tournament.

Regular season champions getting the AQ (and Pool C's going to the most deserving non-AQ's) would certainly make for a better national tournament.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Though the coaches that tell me they want a tournament for their teams and players at the end of the season outweighs any coach who says he wants the regular season champ to get the AQ maybe 10:1.

[ziggy]

Non-UAA fans in the Midwest would be right to be concerned about NYU getting ranked in the weak East region. Those are two more games against a regionally ranked opponent for a school like Wash U, and that has an impact on every team fighting with them in the MW.

[KnightSlappy]

Though the coaches that tell me they want a tournament for their teams and players at the end of the season outweighs any coach who says he wants the regular season champ to get the AQ maybe 10:1.

Selection bias, of course. Removing the coaches of teams that have little to no chance of winning an outright league title would have a significant impact on that ratio, I presume.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

No... a lot of coaches that are at the top of the leagues also like the tournaments.

[Pat Coleman]

A reason for that may be that you can't always count on being at the top of the standings every year.

[smedindy]

No... a lot of coaches that are at the top of the leagues also like the tournaments.

I still think that's pretty self-serving, though. Coaches will always back something that can give them any edge. I'm sure that Witt and OWU are very much in favor of an NCAC tourney now and evermore.