East Region Fan Poll

[Ralph Turner]

In our part of the country, in 1998, Hardin-Simmons (9-1) lost to D-2 Midwestern State and it kept the school out of the 16 team format when four schools were selected from each region.  That was a great miscarriage of justice.  The next season,  HSU beat (highly regarded) Wash U 28-21, W&J ( a perennial favorite with a great reputation) 51-3 and finally lost to Trinity 40-33.  Not getting a bid in 1998 under the non-AQ format was not fun!

So what about Rowan last year? They went 9-1 and missed out on the playoffs because a 5-5 St. Lawrence had to go. Seems to me we've got great miscarriages of justice in this format too.

Except that in this format Rowan had a way to guarantee its playoff spot: Win the automatic bid. In the old system, someone could go 10-0 and stay home. And several teams did.

Not even sure how this is relevant.  Nobody is suggesting going back to 16 teams.  Nobody is suggesting completely removing AQs.  We're suggesting revising the system based on the unintended consequences we've seen, stopping the sword and shield use of "regions" the NCAA has been doing of late and explaining why the "Top 4" concept is bogus under current circumstances.  If you were around since 1995, you would probably understand our institutional knowledge of such issues...

The use of regional committees is a logical way to get the opinion of 40 people across the country to determine the best 7 (the Pool B/C) teams to get the at-large bids.  The opinions of those 40-odd go to the national committee where another 8-10 get to consider the information that they have for the final bracket.

Aside from a BCS computer model, I need someone to suggest something else that the 430 members of D-III would think is better so they could vote to change the system by which the championships are determined.

I am fully confident that the 6th Pool C bid will be worthy, and be somewhere around the 20th best team in a 32 team field.  In fact, the next teams left on the table might be the 21st and 22nd best team in the country.

[Frank Rossi]

I've been Ralph, for three years.

[Ralph Turner]

Well the pool a thing has kind of forced d3 teams to join leagues which means there will be less undefeated teams.  That needs to be factored in as well.

And creates great head-to-head match-ups!

I believe that there were only 15 Pool A conferences in 1999. Now we have 25.

There were a lot of Pool B bids going to teams that could arrange an undefeated schedule.

The new Pool A leagues since 1999 include the ASC, Empire 8, the Liberty League, the Pres AC, the Northwest Conference, the USA South, the MIAA, the ECFC, the UMAC, and I believe the SCIAC.  (The NATHC morphed out of the Illini-Badger Conference.)

[Bombers798891]

There were a lot of Pool B bids going to teams that could arrange an undefeated schedule.

The new Pool A leagues since 1999 include...the ECFC

Let's take a look at the ECFC

Three teams—Castleton State, Becker, and Anna Maria—just recently started D-III programs and aren't even remotely competitive.

Husson is so bad it's only had one game this year where it's even played close

Mount Ida has never won more than six games in a season since 1999

Gallaudet was 4-25 prior to joining the ECFC

SUNY Maritime was 7-19 prior to the ECFC

Norwich was an E8 doormat four years running, 9-31 in the four years prior the the ECFC

How is this any less of an "arrangement" Ralph? These 8 teams arranged a conference to take advantage of a Pool A bid. Maritime got it. And what happened when that Maritime team was in the playoffs? They played a home game and trailed 50-0 at halftime. They had four offensive yards in the first half and four turnovers! What great matchups has the ECFC given us?

[Bombers798891]

I guess what I'm wondering is why does every conference with a minimum of members have to automatically be given the Pool A bid? Can't we apply standards for earning it?

Picking on the ECFC in this one because frankly, it's an egregious offender, but why can't their be some sort of minimum requirement? Why not make all teams in the conference have a program for at least a certain number of years with one exception? That way, you don't have a conference made up of multiple teams who've just started programs simply to pad membership numbers. (Seriously, what's the combined number of years all those ECFC teams have had programs? It's gotta be insanely low.)

Or what about performance-based Pool A bids for a conference? Should a conference that has gone 3-13, 2-12, or 2-11 in the playoffs automatically have a Pool A bid? Why not try something like "A conference has to win at least one NCAA playoff game over a five year span" or it loses the auto-bid until it does? (the spot then becomes a Pool B/C bid)

[pumkinattack]

The LL may be considered a new conference as of the early 2000's, but it's really the core UCAA of Hobart, UofR, SLU, RPI and Union plus whatever else is around.  These schools have generally all played each other between 50 and 100 times historicaly over the past century or so.  Not sure if those other conferences are similar in that way, or closer to the artificial construct that Bombers has pointed out with the ECFC.

[Frank Rossi]

Bombers, Maritime travelled last year to Alfred.  Otherwise, you're spot on.

That said, what's to stop the NEFC from splitting to ensure two bids under the current system?  Again, this seven-team conference structure is not helping maintain at-large bids going forward.  We keep adding more and more teams nationally, and it will begin to eat into Pool C over the next 5-10 years more than most people will be able to stomach.

[AUKaz00]

These 8 teams arranged a conference to take advantage of a Pool A bid. Maritime got it. And what happened when that Maritime team was in the playoffs? They played a home game and trailed 50-0 at halftime. They had four offensive yards in the first half and four turnovers! What great matchups has the ECFC given us?

Bombers, Maritime travelled last year to Alfred.  Otherwise, you're spot on.

And they were a Pool B bid.

[Bombers798891]

These 8 teams arranged a conference to take advantage of a Pool A bid. Maritime got it. And what happened when that Maritime team was in the playoffs? They played a home game and trailed 50-0 at halftime. They had four offensive yards in the first half and four turnovers! What great matchups has the ECFC given us?

Bombers, Maritime travelled last year to Alfred.  Otherwise, you're spot on.

And they were a Pool B bid.

I stand corrected, but aren't they Pool A eligible this year? Has anything really changed in the ECFC? Norwich is leading the conference, and they got blown out by a last place E8 team.

[Jonny Utah]

I guess what I'm wondering is why does every conference with a minimum of members have to automatically be given the Pool A bid? Can't we apply standards for earning it?

Picking on the ECFC in this one because frankly, it's an egregious offender, but why can't their be some sort of minimum requirement? Why not make all teams in the conference have a program for at least a certain number of years with one exception? That way, you don't have a conference made up of multiple teams who've just started programs simply to pad membership numbers. (Seriously, what's the combined number of years all those ECFC teams have had programs? It's gotta be insanely low.)

Or what about performance-based Pool A bids for a conference? Should a conference that has gone 3-13, 2-12, or 2-11 in the playoffs automatically have a Pool A bid? Why not try something like "A conference has to win at least one NCAA playoff game over a five year span" or it loses the auto-bid until it does? (the spot then becomes a Pool B/C bid)

I think in theory it is a good idea in most sports but in football it is much harder to field nationally competitive teams than it is in sports like basketball or lacrosse.

[pg04]

Of course if we did all this, we'd probably get even less Eastern Teams into the playoffs (who's to say that the conferences like the ECFC who would lose a bid would be replaced by any eastern team?).  We could eventually end with a situation where the NEFC and ECFC don't get bids, and then they are replaced by another team from the OAC and WIAC.

[Ralph Turner]

Bombers, Maritime travelled last year to Alfred.  Otherwise, you're spot on.

That said, what's to stop the NEFC from splitting to ensure two bids under the current system?  Again, this seven-team conference structure is not helping maintain at-large bids going forward.  We keep adding more and more teams nationally, and it will begin to eat into Pool C over the next 5-10 years more than most people will be able to stomach.

Yes. If the MASCAC wants to be the core conference and sponsor the sport for its teams and the affiliates (I believe it will need 1 or 2), then they can get a bid.  The Bogan becomes the MASCAC.  The other teams can then do what the ECFC did and form a new conference, if the CCC does not want to sponsor it is. 

I don't have any trouble with this. In fact the dissolution of the NEFC is about the only conference that I can see that will affect the number of Pool A bids. 

Does anyone hear any rumors that the Presidents of the NEFC institutions are dissatisfied with the arrangement and the legacy that the NEFC has.  It has a conference playoff game, just like the Big Ten, the Pac -10, the SEC, the ACC, just like D1 FBS!

This is D3. This is about the experience of the student-athlete.  What is happening in the ECFC or the NJAC or the NCAC or the WIAC is about the experiences that are afforded these student athletes. Yes, there are probably6 ASC teams that are better than the NEFC champion, but I like D3 for what it is provinding to the student-athlete.

I cannot think of any other area in the conference where a new conference with similiar visions and missions can find 7 football playing members to set up its own arrangement, without pulling from the current Pool B, or new schools joining or adding football in the conference.

The SCAC will be stuck, and I cannot imagine which football schools would be acceptable to the SCAC to be admitted to the SCAC as an affiliate.

[pg04]

Bombers, Maritime travelled last year to Alfred.  Otherwise, you're spot on.

That said, what's to stop the NEFC from splitting to ensure two bids under the current system?  Again, this seven-team conference structure is not helping maintain at-large bids going forward.  We keep adding more and more teams nationally, and it will begin to eat into Pool C over the next 5-10 years more than most people will be able to stomach.

I don't have any trouble with this. In fact the dissolution of the NEFC is about the only conference that I can see that will affect the number of Pool A bids. 

Does anyone hear any rumors that the Presidents of the NEFC institutions are dissatisfied with the arrangement and the legacy that the NEFC has.  It has a conference playoff game, just like the Big Ten, the Pac -10, the SEC, the ACC, just like D1 FBS!

This is D3. This is about the experience of the student-athlete.  What is happening in the ECFC or the NJAC or the NCAC or the WIAC is about the experiences that are afforded these student athletes. Yes, there are probably6 ASC teams that are better than the NEFC champion, but I like D3 for what it is provinding to the student-athlete.

I agree with this.  Great post, Ralph.  +K.

[ExTartanPlayer]

This is D3. This is about the experience of the student-athlete.  What is happening in the ECFC or the NJAC or the NCAC or the WIAC is about the experiences that are afforded these student athletes. Yes, there are probably 6 ASC teams that are better than the NEFC champion, but I like D3 for what it is provinding to the student-athlete.

Couldn't agree more.

I completely support AQ's for all conferences with at least seven teams.  Ultimately, if it means that there are "only" six spots for teams that don't win their conference, that's fine with me.

I feel the same way about the NCAA Division I basketball tournament - what makes it great is that EVERY TEAM has a chance to get into the tournament.  Do some have to traverse a more difficult path than others?  Of course. 

But I have a fundamental issue with NOT granting playoff access to a conference champion because we've just decided that their conference isn't good enough.  Every conference champ should get a playoff berth - period.

After that?  Any extra teams that get in should thank their lucky stars that they get a chance to play for the NATIONAL title when they did not win their CONFERENCE title.

I've seen arguments that the playoffs should be composed of the 32 "best" teams.  I disagree - I think that the playoffs should be about a) the experience of the student-athletes and b) crowning the national champion. 

If you did not win your conference, you have not "earned" the right to compete for the national championship, no matter what your excuse is (our QB was hurt, we lost in overtime on the road, etcet).  Yes, occasionally this will omit a VERY GOOD team from the playoffs, but how is that any better than arbitrarily deciding that a weak-conference champion isn't good enough just because we said so?

Furthermore, if you take AQ's away from weak conferences, that's going to perpetuate the problem.  Teams that play in conferences without an AQ will find it difficult to recruit against teams that can offer AQ access.  The gap between the leagues will widen even further - and, when a team from one of those leagues goes 10-0 against a schedule that we deem to be "too weak", there will be howls from strong-conference fans to take 8-2 (insert NJAC/E8 team here) over that team, so how will we ever know if they are getting better?

I actually celebrated Curry's playoff win in 2008 because it showed that the gap was ever-so-slowly closing; the NEFC is still clearly an inferior overall league, but perhaps they can produce a team that's capable of competing once in a while.  If we eliminate AQ's for that kind of conference, how will we ever know when they DO produce the kind of team like Curry in 2008?

[Bombers798891]

This is D3. This is about the experience of the student-athlete.

I like this post too Ralph. But I am going to make a comparison that might upset people, but I'm not trying to make anyone angry. Maybe however, it will explain my position on this issue. I'm disabled, and I've never played organized disabled sport. (I was a skiier for a long time, but that's an individual thing) One of the reasons I didn't like disabled sport was so often it was about the "experience" and winning/losing or even keeping score wasn't emphasized.

(This is true even at the supposedly higher levels like the Paralympics. The national media always makes the fact that disabled athletes are so "heroic" and "Brave" more important than the results.)

I know we don't go anywhere near that level at the D-III, but sometimes I feel a similar mentality in D-III when we start talking about "experiences". The fact that Rowan was clearly better than St. Lawrence, or that all those ASC teams have easily proven more deserving of a playoff spot than Norwich/Maritime should matter more than making sure everyone's "experience" was as good as we could make it, at least in my view.