East Region Fan Poll

[Oline89]

Or it would encourage them to consolidate for football.

The problem is that you are now limiting two of the best conferences to one bid, thereby diluting the pool even more.  The weaker teams that left the LL/E8 go out form their own conference and get an automatic bid, with a weaker team.  I like your proposal of conference winner, as long as they are in the regional top 10 or 15. 

[Machiavelli]

Setting a winning percentage floor would really hurt the quality of non-conference scheduling. You're basically telling teams they better not lose a non-conference game.

It is possible for every team in a league to just be mediocre in any given season. Case in point...2010 Liberty League. St.Lawrence won the automatic qualifier despite being only 5-5. They lost all 4 OOC games. RPI was second best 4-2, 6-4. St. Lawrence was noncompetitive in the tourney against MTU losing 49-0.

While the Larries 'earned' their bid that year(I guess), I don't think anyone would've been upset if they were denied a bid due to some criteria.

[TheOsprey]

I'm good with conf. champs getting into the playoffs.  However, there should be a SOS min. avg. that qualifies a team.  It makes schools find better competition.  I always rooted for CNU, when their ooc opponents were Rowan, Wesley, and others.  They would be 1-2, or 0-3 before they began USA play and win most years.  Not sure their SOS #'s,  but ya would think it was strong.

[ccd494]

I'm torn between (1) rolling my eyes, (2) asking why you care which team it is that loses by 20 in the first round so much and (3) asking whether the logical conclusion to "ONLY THE TOP TEAMS" is just a four team round robin tournament between Mount Union, Whitewater, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and a rotating fourth team based upon the year's results.

[Pat Coleman]

Or it would encourage them to consolidate for football.

The problem is that you are now limiting two of the best conferences to one bid, thereby diluting the pool even more.  The weaker teams that left the LL/E8 go out form their own conference and get an automatic bid, with a weaker team.  I like your proposal of conference winner, as long as they are in the regional top 10 or 15.

CCC and ECFC would also be consolidated under one bid, and there would be more at-larges as a result.

[Pat Coleman]

I'm good with conf. champs getting into the playoffs.  However, there should be a SOS min. avg. that qualifies a team.  It makes schools find better competition.  I always rooted for CNU, when their ooc opponents were Rowan, Wesley, and others.  They would be 1-2, or 0-3 before they began USA play and win most years.  Not sure their SOS #'s,  but ya would think it was strong.

In a ten-team conference, your SOS can never drift too far from .500 and if you, say, play Albright this year and they go at best, 2-8, while they were 8-3 when you scheduled them last year ... then what?

[TheOsprey]

Got the point.  I was very surprised at how low the SOS numbers looked for the east region reps. Better beat them big, I'd say.

[ITH radio]

Games we've secured rights to for tmw's D3BlitzER show:

WNE vs. EC
NIC vs. SALV
GAL vs. HUS
CORT vs. BP
SLU vs. RPI
DVC vs. KINGS
STE vs. LYCO
MIS vs. ALB
USMMA vs. CUA
MMA vs. SC
AMH vs. TRIN
WES vs. SALS
ROW vs. MONT
FSU vs. KU
Lake Erie vs. TMU

Hey Hobart and NU - get back to us!

[Bombers798891]

I'm torn between (1) rolling my eyes, (2) asking why you care which team it is that loses by 20 in the first round so much and (3) asking whether the logical conclusion to "ONLY THE TOP TEAMS" is just a four team round robin tournament between Mount Union, Whitewater, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and a rotating fourth team based upon the year's results.

I've sort of changed my tune on the AQs. Used to hate them, now I'm fine with them.

That said, to point #2: When I did want to see the at-large pool expanded to get "better" 8-2 teams in over say, the 6-4 AQs or the AQs from lousy conferences, I didn't argue for that because I thought those teams were actually going to beat say, UMHB, Mount, Whitewater, etc. Stronger teams are stronger teams, whether they're likely to pull off the upset or not. There's nothing wrong with wanting to create a stronger overall playoff field, even if it doesn't change the end result.

[wally_wabash]

Games we've secured rights to for tmw's D3BlitzER show:

WNE vs. EC
NIC vs. SALV
GAL vs. HUS
CORT vs. BP
SLU vs. RPI
DVC vs. KINGS
STE vs. LYCO
MIS vs. ALB
USMMA vs. CUA
MMA vs. SC
AMH vs. TRIN
WES vs. SALS
ROW vs. MONT
FSU vs. KU
Lake Erie vs. TMU

Hey Hobart and NU - get back to us!

Are you sure this is enough content?    

[Machiavelli]

I'm torn between (1) rolling my eyes, (2) asking why you care which team it is that loses by 20 in the first round so much and (3) asking whether the logical conclusion to "ONLY THE TOP TEAMS" is just a four team round robin tournament between Mount Union, Whitewater, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and a rotating fourth team based upon the year's results.

I've sort of changed my tune on the AQs. Used to hate them, now I'm fine with them.

That said, to point #2: When I did want to see the at-large pool expanded to get "better" 8-2 teams in over say, the 6-4 AQs or the AQs from lousy conferences, I didn't argue for that because I thought those teams were actually going to beat say, UMHB, Mount, Whitewater, etc. Stronger teams are stronger teams, whether they're likely to pull off the upset or not. There's nothing wrong with wanting to create a stronger overall playoff field, even if it doesn't change the end result.

Roll your eyes all you want. The concept isn't about 'who is going to get beaten by 20', it's about a really good team having a great year at 8-2 or 9-1 with a tough schedule and getting the shaft because 10-0 Husson plays a bunch of Pop Warner teams and would lose to said 8-2/9-1 team by 40. That's the discussion. Giving everyone a shot is all fine and good. But when it's your squad that gets left off the playoff list, you'll probably look at it differently.

[MRMIKESMITH]

I'm torn between (1) rolling my eyes, (2) asking why you care which team it is that loses by 20 in the first round so much and (3) asking whether the logical conclusion to "ONLY THE TOP TEAMS" is just a four team round robin tournament between Mount Union, Whitewater, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and a rotating fourth team based upon the year's results.

I've sort of changed my tune on the AQs. Used to hate them, now I'm fine with them.

That said, to point #2: When I did want to see the at-large pool expanded to get "better" 8-2 teams in over say, the 6-4 AQs or the AQs from lousy conferences, I didn't argue for that because I thought those teams were actually going to beat say, UMHB, Mount, Whitewater, etc. Stronger teams are stronger teams, whether they're likely to pull off the upset or not. There's nothing wrong with wanting to create a stronger overall playoff field, even if it doesn't change the end result.

Roll your eyes all you want. The concept isn't about 'who is going to get beaten by 20', it's about a really good team having a great year at 8-2 or 9-1 with a tough schedule and getting the shaft because 10-0 Husson plays a bunch of Pop Warner teams and would lose to said 8-2/9-1 team by 40. That's the discussion. Giving everyone a shot is all fine and good. But when it's your squad that gets left off the playoff list, you'll probably look at it differently.

First, I know how it feels getting left out the playoffs to lesser teams, however players have no control over what coaches and administration does. The coaches and administration wants to do what's best for its players. So if a team goes undefeated, I would never leave them out. As I mentioned above, in what i would do to eliminate administration and coaches from only doing what's necessary to acquire bids is to set a SOS floor and minimum win, that would help eliminate some of those bad teams from participating, because if a team is truly bad, they aren't going to go undefeated and if they do, they'll get exposed. If you were to set of SOS floor, then you'll have a good amount of teams going into Pool C and not making it anyway. There are ways to fix the system without excluding team and giving them a valuable entrance to the playoffs without counting them out because of affiliation. If that was the case DIII should move to the FBS model and only take the best 8 teams and have its subjective data account for 90% of the points.

[ITH radio]

Games we've secured rights to for tmw's D3BlitzER show:

WNE vs. EC
NIC vs. SALV
GAL vs. HUS
CORT vs. BP
SLU vs. RPI
DVC vs. KINGS
STE vs. LYCO
MIS vs. ALB
USMMA vs. CUA
MMA vs. SC
AMH vs. TRIN
WES vs. SALS
ROW vs. MONT
FSU vs. KU
Lake Erie vs. TMU

Hey Hobart and NU - get back to us!

Are you sure this is enough content?   

Well, maybe now that we confirmed IC vs. HOB and MIT vs. NU is also on the docket, it probably is

[wesleydad]

I'm torn between (1) rolling my eyes, (2) asking why you care which team it is that loses by 20 in the first round so much and (3) asking whether the logical conclusion to "ONLY THE TOP TEAMS" is just a four team round robin tournament between Mount Union, Whitewater, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and a rotating fourth team based upon the year's results.

I've sort of changed my tune on the AQs. Used to hate them, now I'm fine with them.

That said, to point #2: When I did want to see the at-large pool expanded to get "better" 8-2 teams in over say, the 6-4 AQs or the AQs from lousy conferences, I didn't argue for that because I thought those teams were actually going to beat say, UMHB, Mount, Whitewater, etc. Stronger teams are stronger teams, whether they're likely to pull off the upset or not. There's nothing wrong with wanting to create a stronger overall playoff field, even if it doesn't change the end result.

Roll your eyes all you want. The concept isn't about 'who is going to get beaten by 20', it's about a really good team having a great year at 8-2 or 9-1 with a tough schedule and getting the shaft because 10-0 Husson plays a bunch of Pop Warner teams and would lose to said 8-2/9-1 team by 40. That's the discussion. Giving everyone a shot is all fine and good. But when it's your squad that gets left off the playoff list, you'll probably look at it differently.

First, I know how it feels getting left out the playoffs to lesser teams, however players have no control over what coaches and administration does. The coaches and administration wants to do what's best for its players. So if a team goes undefeated, I would never leave them out. As I mentioned above, in what i would do to eliminate administration and coaches from only doing what's necessary to acquire bids is to set a SOS floor and minimum win, that would help eliminate some of those bad teams from participating, because if a team is truly bad, they aren't going to go undefeated and if they do, they'll get exposed. If you were to set of SOS floor, then you'll have a good amount of teams going into Pool C and not making it anyway. There are ways to fix the system without excluding team and giving them a valuable entrance to the playoffs without counting them out because of affiliation. If that was the case DIII should move to the FBS model and only take the best 8 teams and have its subjective data account for 90% of the points.

great conversation and points.  I get the AQ for all conference champs.  I know that some leagues purposely got together because they could not compete in their prior league so that they could play teams of similar levels.  Should they get in with an AQ, probably not.  Should those leagues have to play each other in a play in game, hmmmm.  Most years they get crushed, but some have stepped up and shown they belonged.  In the end only 3 or 4 teams really have a chance to win it all and it would be nice if we could get more teams into that group.

[UfanBill]

Roll your eyes all you want. The concept isn't about 'who is going to get beaten by 20', it's about a really good team having a great year at 8-2 or 9-1 with a tough schedule and getting the shaft because 10-0 Husson plays a bunch of Pop Warner teams and would lose to said 8-2/9-1 team by 40. That's the discussion. Giving everyone a shot is all fine and good. But when it's your squad that gets left off the playoff list, you'll probably look at it differently.

Say what you want about Husson but it must be noted that they are moving from the pathetic ECFC to the much tougher CCC next season. They are limited by geography but have taken the challenge.  They should be commended. Remember they won a NCAA tourney game against Springfield last season and showed well competitively the next week in a 37-15 (not 40 point) loss to Delaware Valley.