East Region Fan Poll

[lewdogg11]

You know what?  You are right.  In this day and age, we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so let's just let all teams in the playoffs, but since we won't keep score and all games will end in a tie, we can just have the teams rotate who they play each week.  No one gets eliminated, ever.  No one gets their feelings hurt.  No one feels like they are 'below' another and we can throw all competitive spirit out the window.  That's where this world is going so let's just enforce it now on the D3 football level and break ground.  Sounds kind of like the NESCAC.  Maybe they had it right all along.

[dlippiel]

Dude!!!!  Becker has won 11 games in 9 years against the worst competition in the country!!!!  Comparing them to Union as an opponent is like comparing a turtle with an egg roll.

And did you really want to pump up a win vs. Rochester?  The LL is awful this year. I wouldn't be all that excited about that one.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!!

No, I'm not saying Becker is as good as Union. But I am saying that you guys ALWAYS look for the worst possible framing of teams from the crummy conferences to distort them and make them look as bad as you can. I don't have some agenda - I'm not a Gallaudet fan. I'm a completely unbiased observer when it comes to the East. It's silly that you act like the NEFC and ECFC are the only conferences "stealing" playoff spots - as I noted, there are several conferences in each region clearly a step below their regional competition. You're the only one who acts like it's a grave injustice that they get a playoff bid.

This is a solid post ETP. dlip, who at times has definitely gotton on the beat up ECFC, NEFC, and MASCAC bandwagon really sees what you are saying and supports it. Enough already of our pissing and whining. There has been way too much of that lately anyway. The main beef dlip thinks is that when teams from these two (next year three) conferences get the auto bid in their respective leagues that auto bid prevents a team that plays tougher competition all year from getting in. Many would like to see the "best teams" awarded entry to the tourney year in and year out. dlip supports that thinking however in order to do that the auto bid system would have to be completely wiped out. Also there would have to be many more inter-regional games played across the country to more accurately access SOS, etc. WE KNOW THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN...EVER. So IDHO you are correct that this is the way it is and the bitching and whining should stop. DO other regions face this scenario annually? Yes. Do the very best teams in all the other regions gain entry to the tourney every year? No. So really dlip is with you on this. It's time for many (including dlip) to stop bitching and leave it alone.

Another thought is that much of this comes from ER fans that are frustrated about not having a team in many years make a legit run at the title which in turn really hurts the overall reputation and percieved strength of the region. What we need as a region IDHO is that one or two teams that can really dominate our region and compete with the Mounts of the D3 football world. We have been without that for a long time. Maybe or frustrations should be aimed more at our lack of a dominate team than the current set-up which we know we have no control over.

Plus dlip agrees with ITH and would like to see Gallaudet get a W in the first round. It would be a great story. Honestly as a region we don't have a team that can compete for the national championship so how much of an injustice is all this really?

dlip thinks your previous post was a very good one a spot on. +k for standing up and saying enough is enough.

[MMBucs]

MASCAC does not have an automatic bid in 2014.
There is a mandatory 2 year waiting period.
In 2015, the MASCAC is eligible for the automatic bid.

[AUKaz00]

The main beef dlip thinks is that when teams from these two (next year three) conferences get the auto bid in their respective leagues that auto bid prevents a team that plays tougher competition all year from getting in. Many would like to see the "best teams" awarded entry to the tourney year in and year out. dlip supports that thinking however in order to do that the auto bid system would have to be completely wiped out.

Frank has touched on this in the past, but some progress could be made toward getting more of the "best teams" in while maintaining the AQ system just by increasing the conference minimum from 7 to 8 or 9 teams.  That would probably net a couple more at-large bids, whether they be pool B or C though costing additional OOC games.  Technically, there are enough teams in D3 to fill 34 conferences that would qualify for AQ status, so things could be worse for second place teams.

[Frank Rossi]

I don't think it becomes a problem until you are under 4 Pool C bids. As for options, I don't want to see the AQ limit upped as that will lead to more conference musical chairs. And I don't think the NCAA is going to be real interested in growing the tournament size again, especially if they start losing revenue from some of the lawsuits going around.

If my understanding is correct, once everything shakes out with existing 7-team conferences that are waiting to qualify and conferences that will shuffle teams around in attempts to create such conferences, we're going to land at:

27 Pool A
1 Pool B
4 Pool C

That's likely in the next four or five years.  I've been the guy for years pounding the table on this subject and predicting that the NEFC would eventually split (the Endicott snubbing was what I predicted would cause it a couple years ago, and it was indeed announced the next year).  I also have been pointing out that four Pool C slots was the danger zone -- the point at which the NCAA might need to step in and move the threshold from 7 teams as a minimum to 8 or 9 teams to preserve Pool C bids.  Why?  Back in the day when there were 7 Pool C bids to give out (I believe this was the maximum), there were about 220 eligible playoff teams:

220 teams - 25 Pool A/B slots = 195 Pool C participants --- 7/195 = 3.59% access

Now, with about 234 teams, just 4 Pool C slots down the line does this to the numbers:

234 teams - 28 Pool A/B slots = 206 Pool C participants --- 4/206 = 1.94% access

That threshold dropping below 2% is not a healthy situation.  I think we are indeed reaching the point in which viable playoff teams that could reach the semifinals could be left out for one bad day/game.  Also, we've reached a point in which two-loss teams will have no chance whatsoever to qualify (even at six, we had to hold our breaths back in the SJF scenario in 2011 -- what happens at four)?  I honestly believe the NCAA will need to raise the minimum teams for Pool A to 9 by the end of the decade, especially if more D3 teams begin playing over the next five years.  It's the only way to force Pool C back open while still ensuring some level of the NCAA access requirements that led to the current system about 15 years ago.

[EDIT: Thanks, Kaz.  Didn't see your post until I was done with mine. ]

[jknezek]

The main beef dlip thinks is that when teams from these two (next year three) conferences get the auto bid in their respective leagues that auto bid prevents a team that plays tougher competition all year from getting in. Many would like to see the "best teams" awarded entry to the tourney year in and year out. dlip supports that thinking however in order to do that the auto bid system would have to be completely wiped out.

Frank has touched on this in the past, but some progress could be made toward getting more of the "best teams" in while maintaining the AQ system just by increasing the conference minimum from 7 to 8 or 9 teams.  That would probably net a couple more at-large bids, whether they be pool B or C though costing additional OOC games.  Technically, there are enough teams in D3 to fill 34 conferences that would qualify for AQ status, so things could be worse for second place teams.

I only know of three conferences that have 7 teams right now, the ASC, MIAA and NWC. To some degree, all three are geographic orphans, though the MIAA less than the other two. It also includes two of the better conferences in D3, so the champion of the ASC and NWC is bid worthy regardless of whether it is an "A" or a "C". Therefore the net result of this is to screw the MIAA out of a bid in years when the champion has 2 or more losses. Does that really make a huge difference in the field?

Going to 9 teams would make a difference, setting off a round of realignment as the three conferences above, and the following 10 more would need extra members:

CCIW, E8, ECFC, IIAC, NEFC, NJAC, SCIAC, WIAC, ODAC, and LL.  Anyone want to join the WIAC? Do you really think, for the sake of allowing extra "second chance" teams into the field, the NCAA is going to set off this type of chaos? It would make 0 sense to the majority of the membership to accommodate another 4 or 5 teams total.

I'm not saying it won't be necessary at some point if D3 football keeps expanding, I'm just saying it would be a huge mess.

[Frank Rossi]

CCIW, E8, ECFC, IIAC, NEFC, NJAC, SCIAC, WIAC, ODAC, and LL.  Anyone want to join the WIAC? Do you really think, for the sake of allowing extra "second chance" teams into the field, the NCAA is going to set off this type of chaos? It would make 0 sense to the majority of the membership to accommodate another 4 or 5 teams total.

I think you just named 10 conferences plus the 3 or 4 seven-team conferences we're facing.  So it's more like 13-14 until realignment, if any, occurs.  And, actually, yes I do think the NCAA would set this off since, 14 years ago, they touched off this exact line of "chaos" (as you call it) by setting up the rules in this way.  The NCAA's biggest issues is balancing access (Pool A/B) with rewarding strength (Pool C).  This isn't unique to football.  However, in football, you can't accomplish both if you have no at-large bids to give out in a sport that can't have its playoff field expand further.  This is where the NCAA needs to rethink forcing football to utilize the same setup as baseball or soccer since you can't simply play an extra game or extra day in football like you can in other sports.

[jknezek]

CCIW, E8, ECFC, IIAC, NEFC, NJAC, SCIAC, WIAC, ODAC, and LL.  Anyone want to join the WIAC? Do you really think, for the sake of allowing extra "second chance" teams into the field, the NCAA is going to set off this type of chaos? It would make 0 sense to the majority of the membership to accommodate another 4 or 5 teams total.

I think you just named 10 conferences plus the 3 or 4 seven-team conferences we're facing.  So it's more like 13-14 until realignment, if any, occurs.  And, actually, yes I do think the NCAA would set this off since, 14 years ago, they touched off this exact line of "chaos" (as you call it) by setting up the rules in this way.  The NCAA's biggest issues is balancing access (Pool A/B) with rewarding strength (Pool C).  This isn't unique to football.  However, in football, you can't accomplish both if you have no at-large bids to give out in a sport that can't have its playoff field expand further.  This is where the NCAA needs to rethink forcing football to utilize the same setup as baseball or soccer since you can't simply play an extra game or extra day in football like you can in other sports.

Yes, it is 13. But most of those conference champions are going to get bids anyway, so that won't "add" to second chance Pool C bids. Just look at the list and the ASC, NWC, CCIW, E8, IIAC, NJAC, SCIAC, WIAC and LL are generally going to have a worthy 1 or 2 loss champion at worst. So how many conference champs are being replaced with second chance teams if the conference champs in these leagues are 1 or 2 losses or worse? MIAA, ECFC, NEFC, and ODAC. Sure some might flit back and forth as power teams rise and fall, but mostly you are talking about trying to screw 3 or 4 conferences in any given year if no realignment happens. I suppose that's a value judgement some would make. It wouldn't really interest me, especially when you'd still have the MASCAC, USASC, UMAC and other traditionally weaker champions making the field.

Again, it might become necessary at some point, but I think a few more conferences will have to form and drive the B/C combined slots under 4 before I'd get real interested in it.

[Bombers798891]

Y'all act like the NEFC and ECFC are stealing playoff bids that should go to some other East teams

My personal belief is that the ECFC's formation was designed to, yes ,"steal" a Pool A bid none of those teams had a hope of winning in the conferences they were previously in. That's how Norwich went from going 1-23 on the E8 from 2005-2008 to 6-0 in the ECFC in 2009. Considering in 2009 they lost 28-7 to a Hartwick team that finished 2nd to last in the conference, it's pretty clear they never actually got any better, they just jumped to the top of a list that was made up exclusively of bad teams.

Now, 2009 is irrelevant to today, but I bring it up to point out that, to me, since that's how it was formed, in order to move beyond that, they need to show evidence of improvement.

Have they? I guess, if you consider beating a mediocre Rochester team, or hanging with a decent Springfield team improvement. But that's marginal improvement at best. Getting embarrassed in the NCAAs every year (and not by the Mounts of the world either) ain't helping.

As far as to if bids "should" to go to other teams, that's strictly nothing more than disagreeing about the purpose of the playoffs. If you believe that the goal should be to identify and reward the best however many teams, then yes, the ECFC is taking a bid that should go to another team, because the teams that win it are not one of the best 32 teams in the country. The powers that be may want to reward teams for winning their conference, but that doesn't mean we have to agree. I recognize that there's no way to figure out the "best" 32 teams in the country given how D-III works, but I'm pretty confident that, if we were ranking them, these ECFC winners wouldn't be in there.

And, at least to me, this is a personal distaste for auto-bids in general. I wasn't a fan of a 5-5 St. Lawrence making the playoffs, because I didn't think they were one of the best 32 teams in the country either. But at least St. Lawrence won a conference with a reputation, against teams with a history of success. It was a really down LL that year, but there's enough of a difference there, IMO

Would the ECFC winner finish last in other conferences? I'll stick to the E8 since that's what I know best:

2009: Yes. They lost by 21 points to the team that finished in 2nd to last, and the Wick did not dominate Utica, which finished in last. To me, Norwich probably loses to Utica as well

2010: The last place team in the E8 (Utica) had two common opponents with Maritime. Here were the results

Castleton State: Maritime wins by 13, Utica wins by 37
Becker:  Maritime wins by 23, Utica wins by 59

Considering that Maritime didn't even belong in the stadium with Alfred, and they don't even favorably compare to Utica, I'm going to say they lose to everyone

2011: No. Norwich beat the Wick, but I don't think they beat anyone else in that conference. Way to go.

2012: Given that Mt. Ida hung with a Springfield team that whipped a decent Alfred team, I think there's evidence that they probably win a couple of E8 games.

2013: Gallaudet doesn't have anything we can compare to directly, but the 2nd place team in the ECFC (Husson) lost to the 6th place team in the E8 (Hartwick) by 26. Gallaudet beat Husson by 3 points.

So they've made some progress, but yeah, I think the winner finishes last or 2nd to last in the E8 every year except 2012, where they probably in that mess of four teams that went 6-4

[dlippiel]

Any way we look at it it seems quite challenging to say the least to close in on the "best" 32 teams in the country out of over 230 something teams each season. Could D3 do better? Absolutely and dlip can't imagine anyone in their right mind being against reworking the system to create a playoff set-up that is as close to representing the best 32 teams each season as possible.

With that said dlip's earlier point was in regards to the constant whining and beating down of these conferences day in and day out (which again dlip has been guilty of) when in fact this scenario, in some form, is happening in all four regions every year. dlip attempted to play the "these guys are gettting better card" and he believes they are...a little but clearly not enough to where a comparison to a top 10 east region team holds water.

[ExTartanPlayer]

That's good analysis, Bombers, and you're right.  I do agree with much of what you say in the previous post, in particular the discussion of the best 32 teams and all that (which we talk about in circles every year).  I do think it's worth noting that in the most recent years, since the conference was only formed a few years ago, that's a distinction worth making; you're right that from 2009-2011 the ECFC champ gets killed by every team in the E8, but 2012-2013 they may have escaped the cellar and finished in the lower-middle part of the pack (although you seem to imply that's more due to E8 mediocrity than improvement by the ECFC champ, which may be true).  I know the E8 is notably stronger than the LL, but there IS tangible evidence that in 2013 the ECFC champ would probably finish in the middle of the LL, which is certainly down but is still "a conference with a reputation" and has "teams with a history of success" to use your phrasing.

Sorry for repeating myself but my point that I keep trying to hammer home (and I know your distaste for autobids isn't uniquely applied to the East, which I respect) is that every region has a bottom-feeder conference or two soaking up an AQ bid, but the East is the only place where it gets whined about so much.  LewDogg, since you're a big fan of using the "every kid gets a trophy" complaint about today's youth, here's something we agree on - in every game/season there are winners and losers, and someone has to be on the bottom of the heap.  All 20-some conferences are never going to be equal strength.  Some conferences are not as good as others.

The difference I keep trying to define is that in the East, the NEFC and ECFC are vilified for "stealing" an AQ bid, and from what I've seen as somewhat of a multi-regional fan due to my alma mater's region (South), favorite region to follow (North), and roots (East; I grew up 5 minutes from Albright's campus and am quite familiar with the MAC; my high-school QB and good friend went on to play WR at Moravian; I visited University of Rochester and that was my second-choice school; and we played several East teams while I was at CMU, including games at Rochy and Hobart) - the East is the only region where this complaint is so persistently and whin-ily raised.

In the North, fans of the third-place CCIW team don't whine that the MIAA is stealing a playoff bid because their fifth-place team is better than the MIAA champion, even though that's often true.  The HCAC was a whipping boy for years until Franklin turned up the heat recently (and the rest of the conference largely still is), but no one complains that Franklin doesn't belong in the field.  In the West, Minnesotans aren't complaining that St. Scholastica goes to the dance when they'd probably lose to the third-best MIAC team by 40 points.  Seriously.  If Wheaton misses the playoffs this year because they finished third in the CCIW, their fans won't whine that they should have made the playoffs instead of the NACC champ, they'll say Wheaton's team just should have played better and beaten Illinois Wesleyan or North Central.  The East is the only board where this is raised every goddamn year come playoff time.

I do think dlip's prior point (which others of you have made as well in the past) is the frustration of East fans in general because the region is perceived as weak overall due to the long drought since the East had a serious national title contender.  He's right, but let me assure you guys that nobody thinks the East is weak because the NEFC and ECFC champions aren't good enough; any one that says the East is weak says that because the best teams in the North/West/South have generally blown out the last East team standing.  It has little to do, in my mind, with the fact that the NEFC and ECFC champions get a bid.

[ExTartanPlayer]

With that said dlip's earlier point was in regards to the constant whining and beating down of these conferences day in and day out (which again dlip has been guilty of) when in fact this scenario, in some form, is happening in all four regions every year.

^this was posted while I was typing and basically makes the same point in far fewer words.  Read my long post for the long version, read this for the main point.

[Knightstalker]

All this whining and bitching about crappy teams in the East just means that we are happier than everybody in the other regions.  We had a saying in the Navy, the only happy sailor is a bitching sailor.  I am revising it to the only happy posters are bitching posters.  Crappy teams make the playoffs by winning their conference or division every year in all sports on all levels.  KS old HS made the NJ state playoffs last year and got to the sectional finals last year with a losing regular season record.  This year the NFC East my very well be won by a team with an 8-8 record or even  possibly a 7-9 record.  Guess what, they make the playoffs and host a wild card game.

[Bombers798891]

The difference I keep trying to define is that in the East, the NEFC and ECFC are vilified for "stealing" an AQ bid...the East is the only region where this complaint is so persistently and whin-ily raised.

Here's the thing. My personal issue with the ECFC stealing a bid has little to do with the national perception of the East. I agree with you and Dlip that your national perception is based on your best playoff teams, not your worst.

I think however, that the insanely top-heavy nature of D-III has changed the reality for a lot of teams. Success is no longer defined solely by national success because in many ways, national success is being swallowed up by a handful of teams (Mount, Whitewater, Linfield, MHB, etc.) Now, some people believe that we should all aspire to a national title. I'm on record as saying that's a flat out unrealistic pipe dream for many schools.

But that means that for me success isn't about winning a national title, or even being in that conversation. It's redefined, IMO, to making the playoffs, maybe winning a round or two if you're lucky, before bowing out to one of those few teams that we all knew was going to be in the final 4 anyway. And I hate seeing good teams, 8-2/9-1 type teams that are playoff caliber and capable of, if not winning, giving teams half a game, staying home because the system has decided it's easier to have Norwich and Maritime get dominated from the opening kickoff (literally, in Maritime's case).

Exchanging good Pool C teams with mediocre-to-bad Pool A teams doesn't change the national picture. But I think it affects the quality of the playoffs as a whole, in this region more than others. I think it's good if teams lower in the bracket are capable of winning/playing tough games. I'll give you an example, albeit from a different time, with the caveats inherent therein:

In 2001, Ithaca was one of the last teams in the playoffs, as an independent. On the road as the 6 seed, missing their starting quarterback and too many defensive backs to count, the Bombers won two games, 35-23 and 27-10, before being obliterated by Rowan 48-0, in the quarters. Obviously, Ithaca's inclusion did not alter the national picture. Rowan lost in the semis to the team that lost the Stagg. But them being in there made the playoffs better IMO, because it improved the bottom half of the bracket. (The No. 7 seed in the East also won their first round game, 8-7 FWIW)

In 2010, we still get to see teams lose big to national powers in the quarters. But this time, rather than getting lower seeded teams that are competitive, we get to see Alfred beat the ECFC rep 60-0, and Cortland beat the NEFC rep 49-35, (after leading 42-14 in the 4th). Alfred lost 37-7 to Mount, but the path to that Saxons-Alfred matchup was less interesting and of a lower-quality

To me, this is what we're missing out on. Compelling early-round games featuring good teams. That's unfortunate, IMO

[ExTartanPlayer]

The difference I keep trying to define is that in the East, the NEFC and ECFC are vilified for "stealing" an AQ bid...the East is the only region where this complaint is so persistently and whin-ily raised.

And I hate seeing good teams, 8-2/9-1 type teams that are playoff caliber and capable of, if not winning, giving teams half a game, staying home because the system has decided it's easier to have Norwich and Maritime get dominated from the opening kickoff.  Exchanging good Pool C teams with mediocre-to-bad Pool A teams doesn't change the national picture. But I think it affects the quality of the playoffs as a whole, in this region more than others. I think it's good if teams lower in the bracket are capable of winning/playing tough games.

To me, this is what we're missing out on. Compelling early-round games featuring good teams. That's unfortunate, IMO

Well said.  Already +K'd you earlier but would do so again for this post.  Thanks for fleshing this out a little more.  I still am a big fan of AQ's for every qualified conference, but I see/understand your point much better now.