East Region Fan Poll

[Pat Coleman]

St. Thomas remains a West Region team. The comparison is likely between St. Thomas and UW-Whitewater in the West, but only UWW can be in a bracket with mostly North teams because of where UWW is. That kicks UWW into a bracket where Mount Union would normally be.

For those new to this discussion, the MO has been for years now to draw a bracket around the eight easternmost teams. What changed a few years ago was the committee no longer felt it necessary to protect the top team in the East Region and give them the top seed if Mount Union was better.

We were advocating this as early as 1999, when it first became possible under the rules. It took the committee a while to pull the trigger.

[SUADC]

St. Thomas remains a West Region team. The comparison is likely between St. Thomas and UW-Whitewater in the West, but only UWW can be in a bracket with mostly North teams because of where UWW is. That kicks UWW into a bracket where Mount Union would normally be.

For those new to this discussion, the MO has been for years now to draw a bracket around the eight easternmost teams. What changed a few years ago was the committee no longer felt it necessary to protect the top team in the East Region and give them the top seed if Mount Union was better.

We were advocating this as early as 1999, when it first became possible under the rules. It took the committee a while to pull the trigger.

Pat,

You hit it on spot. So are we protecting Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater from playing each other before the championship?

[Bombers798891]

No Jonny, that is not the question we have been discussing...the problem I raised and we have been discussing is the TOP of the East bracket, #1, and not the bottom.  I dont think anyone is arguing that some East team deserves to be in the play-offs, that didnt get in (that argument starts in a few weeks when the third world AQ's get handed out in New England  )

The premise behind my stance is that no other team (save MUC/UWW of course) in the Country has shown on the field that they deserve a #1 anymore than a 9-1 or 10-0 East team.  The 10-0 West teams that replace UWW as the West #1, so that UWW can move North to replace a 10-0 MUC, either lose before they even get out of their play-off bracket or end up getting creamed by MUC just like the East teams do.  In some years I believe it has been a North 10-0 team that 'needed' a #1, so that MUC gets shipped over. 

And as I also presented, and my co-counsel Rossi and Dlip backed, which way does the NCAA want it   Regional or Non-Regional?

I've got a co-worker who thinks the whole philosophy about access to the playoffs needs to be scrapped and a handful of these conferences need to lose auto bids and earn them back.

In his mind (and no, this is not me making my own argument but saying it was  my hypothetical "Co-worker") it's odd to him that we have a system that emphasizes trying to determine the "Best" out of a handful of unbeaten teams, but is set up in such a way that we're letting in a 5-5 St. Lawrence instead of a 9-1 Rowan. When I told him we've been saying "Are you regional or not regional?" he told me "It's a similar thing. Do you care about the best teams or not? If it doesn't matter who the best teams are when it comes to determining a 32-team field, why does it matter so much the best four teams are in that field? If it's really about positioning the best teams, why not go all in and have a system that truly looks to identify the best 32?"

I think what he's getting at plays nicely off what Pat said:

What changed a few years ago was the committee no longer felt it necessary to protect the top team in the East Region and give them the top seed if Mount Union was better.

But from a philosophical standpoint, we "protect" teams the top teams in crappy conferences and "give" them playoff berths, even though other teams are clearly better.

[Frank Rossi]

I can accept the balance of automatic bids, but I believe we oversaturated the country with them with an access ration of 6.5/1 (meaning seven-team conferences get autobids).  The number should be at 8 or 9.  Listen, if you don't think your teams are good enough in your confernce to merit a Pool B or C bid, then band together with 7 or 8 other similar teams and we'll give you a bid.  I'd lean more toward 9 total, to be honest.

That right there should only account for, at most, 20 bids (probably less).  That means the remainder would be granted in a Pool B/Pool C structure that would ensure a lot more depth in the playoffs.  Sure, we will still be subject to subjectivity, but our margin for error will be a lot more forgiving since we are going to be more comprehensive in selecting those 13th-20th ranked teams.  Strong two-loss teams would finally have a chance to get into the playoffs if they played a strong schedule.  Weak undefeated teams would still get in, but at least they'd have to consider their own strength of schedule going forward enough to avoid question marks in future years.  This achieves the balance that was intended by the NCAA but has been eliminated by too many automatic bids in a sport that has a 32-team limitation.  For those that want to say "football should be treated like any other sport, even in access ratio," I'd tell you that you don't have any clue about what's going on here and shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Now, as for regions, etc.  REDRAW THE LINES if we're not going to break out of the regional structure in the regular season.  That's the first thing I would do.  I would return to mainly regional brackets, but with regions that make more geographic sense so that the whole 500-mile fiction wouldn't need to keep playing a role in things.  Why isn't Salisbury in the East in the first place?  Why isn't Whitewater in the North?  There can definitely be better deliniations here.  If Mount Union were redrawn into the East with the OAC, then so be it.  THAT would justify the next step, just like I suggested about Rowan.

For brackets, as I said, go region-centric, with the top teams in each region placed in their slots, and the lower ranked teams being the ones with mobility, as discussed earlier.  There would be less of these teams.  We guaranteed and granted them access.  That's all we need to offer them at that point.  Why should the #1 team in a region be forced, because of the rotation of TOP teams in brackets, to travel at all before the semifinals?  There are times in history when 9-1 teams were actually better than 10-0 teams in the Division.  If the #1 seed at 9-1 gets through to the Semis, then they will get to test that theory.  Yet, they did what they were asked to do -- perform the best in their REGION.  Rotation of top teams based on the Top 4 Fiction doesn't impress me, and actually has helped maintain the dual-dynasty lock we're in.  It doesn't take a genius to understand how.

[lewdogg11]

St. Thomas remains a West Region team. The comparison is likely between St. Thomas and UW-Whitewater in the West, but only UWW can be in a bracket with mostly North teams because of where UWW is. That kicks UWW into a bracket where Mount Union would normally be.

For those new to this discussion, the MO has been for years now to draw a bracket around the eight easternmost teams. What changed a few years ago was the committee no longer felt it necessary to protect the top team in the East Region and give them the top seed if Mount Union was better.

We were advocating this as early as 1999, when it first became possible under the rules. It took the committee a while to pull the trigger.

Pat,

You hit it on spot. So are we protecting Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater from playing each other before the championship?

Protecting them from playing before the Final 4 atleast.  Makes total sense to me since they are obviosuly the 2 best teams.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I feel that St. Thomas is overrated in regards to points. St. Thomas hasn't had a great history of doing damage in the playoffs and proved itself as a force, so why do they deserve a #1 seed over an undefeated Del Val team.

?

St. Thomas has won four playoff games in the last two years.  Delaware Valley has won one in that time frame (and don't give me the excuse about losing to Mount Union - Del Val was eliminated by Albright in 2009).

Meanwhile, in 2011, St. Thomas is clearly the best team in the MIAC, which has a history of playoff success.  The MIAC has produced at least one team that went deep into the playoffs in four of the past five years: 2006 St. John's (quarterfinalist), 2007 Bethel (semifinalist), 2009 St. Thomas (quarterfinalist - and they weren't even the MIAC champ that year, St. John's was), 2010 St. Thomas (quarterfinalist - eliminated by...), 2010 Bethel (semifinalist).

In 2011, St. Thomas has steamrolled through the MIAC (including a 49-14 win over a very tough St. Olaf team).  You're seriously suggesting that the clear-cut conference champ from a conference that's produced five quarterfinalists and two semifinalists in the last five seasons isn't deserving of a #1 seed, but Delaware Valley is?

Del Val has a one-point win over 5-3 Muhlenberg, a one-point win over 4-4 Washington & Jefferson (who just lost to winless Grove City), and a 20-10 win over Albright (a team that gave up 60 points to Widener), and somehow I'm supposed to take that as a team that's more deserving of a #1 seed than St. Thomas, who hasn't played a game closer than 13 points all season in one of the toughest conferences in Division III?

[Pat Coleman]

But from a philosophical standpoint, we "protect" teams the top teams in crappy conferences and "give" them playoff berths, even though other teams are clearly better.

Well, this is a different argument, now. This conversation is already pretty chaotic as it is but remember, this is the Division III philosophy, and the "strong conferences" had to agree to allow the "crappy conferences" to have this access. They had to vote for it in order for it to pass back in the late '90s.

[Frank Rossi]

I feel that St. Thomas is overrated in regards to points. St. Thomas hasn't had a great history of doing damage in the playoffs and proved itself as a force, so why do they deserve a #1 seed over an undefeated Del Val team.

?

St. Thomas has won four playoff games in the last two years.  Delaware Valley has won one in that time frame (and don't give me the excuse about losing to Mount Union - Del Val was eliminated by Albright in 2009).

Meanwhile, in 2011, St. Thomas is clearly the best team in the MIAC, which has a history of playoff success.  The MIAC has produced at least one team that went deep into the playoffs in four of the past five years: 2006 St. John's (quarterfinalist), 2007 Bethel (semifinalist), 2009 St. Thomas (quarterfinalist - and they weren't even the MIAC champ that year, St. John's was), 2010 St. Thomas (quarterfinalist - eliminated by...), 2010 Bethel (semifinalist).

In 2011, St. Thomas has steamrolled through the MIAC (including a 49-14 win over a very tough St. Olaf team).  You're seriously suggesting that the clear-cut conference champ from a conference that's produced five quarterfinalists and two semifinalists in the last five seasons isn't deserving of a #1 seed, but Delaware Valley is?

Del Val has a one-point win over 5-3 Muhlenberg, a one-point win over 4-4 Washington & Jefferson (who just lost to winless Grove City), and a 20-10 win over Albright (a team that gave up 60 points to Widener), and somehow I'm supposed to take that as a team that's more deserving of a #1 seed than St. Thomas, who hasn't played a game closer than 13 points all season in one of the toughest conferences in Division III?

Bethel.  2010.  It's science.

[Ralph Turner]

I can accept the balance of automatic bids, but I believe we oversaturated the country with them with an access ration of 6.5/1 (meaning seven-team conferences get autobids).  The number should be at 8 or 9.  Listen, if you don't think your teams are good enough in your confernce to merit a Pool B or C bid, then band together with 7 or 8 other similar teams and we'll give you a bid.  I'd lean more toward 9 total, to be honest.

That right there should only account for, at most, 20 bids (probably less).  That means the remainder would be granted in a Pool B/Pool C structure that would ensure a lot more depth in the playoffs.  Sure, we will still be subject to subjectivity, but our margin for error will be a lot more forgiving since we are going to be more comprehensive in selecting those 13th-20th ranked teams.  Strong two-loss teams would finally have a chance to get into the playoffs if they played a strong schedule.  Weak undefeated teams would still get in, but at least they'd have to consider their own strength of schedule going forward enough to avoid question marks in future years.  This achieves the balance that was intended by the NCAA but has been eliminated by too many automatic bids in a sport that has a 32-team limitation.  For those that want to say "football should be treated like any other sport, even in access ratio," I'd tell you that you don't have any clue about what's going on here and shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Now, as for regions, etc.  REDRAW THE LINES if we're not going to break out of the regional structure in the regular season.  That's the first thing I would do.  I would return to mainly regional brackets, but with regions that make more geographic sense so that the whole 500-mile fiction wouldn't need to keep playing a role in things.  Why isn't Salisbury in the East in the first place?  Why isn't Whitewater in the North?  There can definitely be better deliniations here.  If Mount Union were redrawn into the East with the OAC, then so be it.  THAT would justify the next step, just like I suggested about Rowan.

For brackets, as I said, go region-centric, with the top teams in each region placed in their slots, and the lower ranked teams being the ones with mobility, as discussed earlier.  There would be less of these teams.  We guaranteed and granted them access.  That's all we need to offer them at that point.  Why should the #1 team in a region be forced, because of the rotation of TOP teams in brackets, to travel at all before the semifinals?  There are times in history when 9-1 teams were actually better than 10-0 teams in the Division.  If the #1 seed at 9-1 gets through to the Semis, then they will get to test that theory.  Yet, they did what they were asked to do -- perform the best in their REGION.  Rotation of top teams based on the Top 4 Fiction doesn't impress me, and actually has helped maintain the dual-dynasty lock we're in.  It doesn't take a genius to understand how.

Frank,thanks for the comment.  You will recall most of these points.

The 6.5:1 ratio only applies to selected sports and is not universal for all team sports in D-III.

Football is roughly 1:7.5 at 32 bids for "240" schools.

Before the current NCAA March Madness contract, we were at 28 bid for about "230" schools for a long time or a little more than 8.2:1.

I believed that the paucity of Pool C bids, only 3 some years, did not get enough quality Pool C teams in the playoffs.  I know that you must draw the line somewhere, but 3 was too tight.

The 1:6.5 ratio has worked great in basketball and baseball. I think that we are close to "perfect" for football at this 32-team bracket. I cannot foresee too many conferences being formed in the country.  If some "Pool B" teams consolidate into a UAA/SCAC conference, then the leftovers will be considered in a Pool B/C model.

[Frank Rossi]

Now, in all seriousness, Tartan, I honestly don't know if St. Thomas or St. Olaf is better or not, since we haven't seen an East opponent in the semis since 2007.  I have no data that would give me a clear indication.  I can guess, and I do in my ballot each week, but that's not objective bases at play.

[Ralph Turner]

But from a philosophical standpoint, we "protect" teams the top teams in crappy conferences and "give" them playoff berths, even though other teams are clearly better.

Well, this is a different argument, now. This conversation is already pretty chaotic as it is but remember, this is the Division III philosophy, and the "strong conferences" had to agree to allow the "crappy conferences" to have this access. They had to vote for it in order for it to pass back in the late '90s.

I am all for the "crappy" conferences sending their champion to the playoffs.  It is about access. Those student-athletes have the same clear goal ahead of them in August just as they do in Alliance Ohio, Belton TX or Whitewater WI.

[Frank Rossi]

I'll also say that it's a little disingenuous to say the strong conferences voted for crappy conferences to get bids, so deal with it... What the schools voted on was the idea of broader overall access.  16 teams was woefully insufficient with D3 football's growth since the early 70s -- I still wonder what having 8 teams was like in the 80s.  I highly doubt that many schools focused on how the mechanism of Pool A would play out the way it has.  Unintended consequences, like the growth in number of crappy conferences, 4- and 5-loss teams entering the tournament and a shrinkage of Pool C bids since we grew to 32 were not necessarily foreseeable.  All many schools saw was 12 extra slots.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Bethel.  2010.  It's science.

OK, I'll play...so Bethel defeated St. Thomas in the quarterfinals of the 2010 playoffs, after St. Thomas defeated them in the regular season.  I think that further supports my point - considering that the MIAC's top two teams last year both advanced to the quarterfinals, with signature wins over current top-20 teams Linfield and Wheaton, it seems pretty logical that an undefeated MIAC champ is more than deserving of a top seed.

I see your point that there's no direct comparison of St. Thomas and/or other MIAC teams to the Eastern teams, but I still think it's pretty disingenuous to argue that an undefeated (in impressive fashion) MIAC champion is less worthy of a top seed than an undefeated MAC champion when the MIAC has more recent playoff success than any conference save the WIAC/OAC, whose numbers are inflated by the Purple Powers.

[Frank Rossi]

Bethel.  2010.  It's science.

OK, I'll play...so Bethel defeated St. Thomas in the quarterfinals of the 2010 playoffs, after St. Thomas defeated them in the regular season.  I think that further supports my point - considering that the MIAC's top two teams last year both advanced to the quarterfinals, with signature wins over current top-20 teams Linfield and Wheaton, it seems pretty logical that an undefeated MIAC champ is more than deserving of a top seed.

I see your point that there's no direct comparison of St. Thomas and/or other MIAC teams to the Eastern teams, but I still think it's pretty disingenuous to argue that an undefeated (in impressive fashion) MIAC champion is less worthy of a top seed than an undefeated MAC champion when the MIAC has more recent playoff success than any conference save the WIAC/OAC, whose numbers are inflated by the Purple Powers.

First, remember that the Bethel comment was a joke, a la LLPP glory days. 

That said, is St. Thomas any better than UMHB?  Wesley?  Salisbury?  DelVal (regardless of playoff record)?  Hobart?  Again, direct AND indirect comparisons are so lacking here, how do we make the statement with any level of clarity.  SoS figures aren't helpful at all, although the NCAA would have you believe they should be.  That's my point -- the Top 4 is a fiction, and we're achieving a fiction with some pretty awkward movements that defy the rest of the season and that are only perpetuating the Top 2 being the Top 2.  St. Thomas is no doubt a very good team -- I don't take that away from the Tommies at all.  It's just a question of HOW GOOD NATIONALLY?  We can't make that statement with any certainty year to year.

[Bombers798891]

But from a philosophical standpoint, we "protect" teams the top teams in crappy conferences and "give" them playoff berths, even though other teams are clearly better.

Well, this is a different argument, now. This conversation is already pretty chaotic as it is but remember, this is the Division III philosophy, and the "strong conferences" had to agree to allow the "crappy conferences" to have this access. They had to vote for it in order for it to pass back in the late '90s.

I am all for the "crappy" conferences sending their champion to the playoffs.  It is about access. Those student-athletes have the same clear goal ahead of them in August just as they do in Alliance Ohio, Belton TX or Whitewater WI.

But why wouldn't this apply without autobids?