East Region Fan Poll

[ExTartanPlayer]

I know we've just about moved past the AQ discussion, but a few more comments:

(Disclaimer before this starts: yes, I'm aware that this still does not address the issue of raising the minimum number of teams to 8/9, or forcing "weaker" conferences to stage a "play-in" game just to allow more Pool C's)

Two things from this week's Around the Region columns caught my eye:

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-region/greatlakes/2011/albions-scheduling-pays-off

Albion voluntarily chose to play a VERY tough nonconference schedule.  They were able to do so, in part, because they knew that even if they should stumble against that brutal slate, they would still be able to play their way into the playoffs by winning their conference games.  Remove the AQ bids, and that's no longer the case.  Given the committee's preference for undefeated and one-loss teams, I would argue that most teams from iffy conferences would choose to schedule DOWN in order to preserve their undefeated record. 

You guys have argued, correctly, that we should be rewarding teams that play tougher schedules and penalizing teams that play weaker schedules.  I postulate that taking away AQ's will have the opposite effect; teams that play tough nonconference schedules will now lack the "protection" of being able to win their conference's AQ bid.

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-region/west/2011/constructing-success-at-css

The UMAC is a fairly new (and, by most standards, a fairly "weak" Division III conference; several teams in the upper-echelon of the UMAC played middling CCIW/MIAC teams in a nonconference game and were blown off the field).  However, by the tone of this column, the St. Scholastica coach used the possibility of winning the conference AQ bid as a rallying cry all season.

As I said above: I know that this doesn't directly address the minimum-teams question, or the requirement that weaker conferences stage a "play-in" game.  But after sleeping on it, these arguments came to mind as reasons why keeping the AQ bid is very important, IMHO.

[wesleydad]

ex tartan, i totally agree with you.  i see no reason why any school that is in a conference with an AQ doesnt play tough ooc games.  it can only help your team get ready for the conference games and if you happen to beat a team that maybe you should not have then it looks good on the resume come seeding time.  take away the AQ and why would anyone play a team like wesley knowing that if they lose to them that 1 lose could keep them out of the playoffs.  that is why i cant figure out why more teams in AQ conferences dont take on wesley in non conference games.  wesley has to fill their schedule with non d3 games when there have been several d3 schools contacted about playing and they have turned it down.

[SUADC]

ex tartan, i totally agree with you.  i see no reason why any school that is in a conference with an AQ doesnt play tough ooc games.  it can only help your team get ready for the conference games and if you happen to beat a team that maybe you should not have then it looks good on the resume come seeding time.  take away the AQ and why would anyone play a team like wesley knowing that if they lose to them that 1 lose could keep them out of the playoffs.  that is why i cant figure out why more teams in AQ conferences dont take on wesley in non conference games.  wesley has to fill their schedule with non d3 games when there have been several d3 schools contacted about playing and they have turned it down.

I agree totally with ex tartan and wesleydad on this issue, If you have a chance for an AQ, there is no reason for you not to schedule tough out of conference games. I have seen CNU play both Wesley and Salisbury on many occasions and one occasion MHB, Rowan, and Salisbury in the same season. I believe if you have a chance at the AQ and you believe in your heart (really believe) that your team is one of the top teams in the country that can play with anybody and deserves to be in the playoffs then you should schedule strong ooc opponents, this only makes it good for you, but all of D3 Football. However, for schools that stuggle in their on perspective AQ conferences, the reason not to schedule tough OOC opponents is that you believe that you will not win your conference, so you are trying to settle for an at-large bid from the get go, only indicating that you do not deserve to be in the playoffs because you know in your heart that you are not one of the deserving teams to make the playoffs.

I played at Salisbury when we did not have an AQ or an at-large bid, only Pool-B consideration. We scheduled tough opponents year in and year out, only to be snub from entering the playoffs due to losing two games to top teams (one being Wesley). Moreover, if we would have had schedule weak opponents and went 9-1 every year, many would have criticize that we play a weak schedule and would be prevented from making the playoffs anyway, similar to some of those west coast teams that lost one game and did not make the playoffs. I am a fan of playing tough opponents, I had to do it all four years of my collegiate career and believe if you win or lose, you put yourself above any other team that plays in a conference with an AQ that only plays one or two out of conference games against scrub opponents that either have no chance being their own conference champ or playing the bottom of barrell NAIA, D1AA, D2 schools.

[Charles]

ex tartan, i totally agree with you.  i see no reason why any school that is in a conference with an AQ doesnt play tough ooc games.  it can only help your team get ready for the conference games and if you happen to beat a team that maybe you should not have then it looks good on the resume come seeding time.  take away the AQ and why would anyone play a team like wesley knowing that if they lose to them that 1 lose could keep them out of the playoffs.  that is why i cant figure out why more teams in AQ conferences dont take on wesley in non conference games.  wesley has to fill their schedule with non d3 games when there have been several d3 schools contacted about playing and they have turned it down.

Just wondering, but when Wesley played Husson, did they fly the 600 miles or were the kids on a bus for 10 hours? Maybe they left on Friday and drove all day and stayed in hotels? Who pays for the trip of that length and how do the kids miss a day of classes? Not all schools can afford the travel and some of the schools prefer to have their student athletes in class on Fridays.

[Bombers798891]

I know we've just about moved past the AQ discussion, but a few more comments:

(Disclaimer before this starts: yes, I'm aware that this still does not address the issue of raising the minimum number of teams to 8/9, or forcing "weaker" conferences to stage a "play-in" game just to allow more Pool C's)

Two things from this week's Around the Region columns caught my eye:

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-region/greatlakes/2011/albions-scheduling-pays-off

Albion voluntarily chose to play a VERY tough nonconference schedule.  They were able to do so, in part, because they knew that even if they should stumble against that brutal slate, they would still be able to play their way into the playoffs by winning their conference games.  Remove the AQ bids, and that's no longer the case.  Given the committee's preference for undefeated and one-loss teams, I would argue that most teams from iffy conferences would choose to schedule DOWN in order to preserve their undefeated record. 

You guys have argued, correctly, that we should be rewarding teams that play tougher schedules and penalizing teams that play weaker schedules.  I postulate that taking away AQ's will have the opposite effect; teams that play tough nonconference schedules will now lack the "protection" of being able to win their conference's AQ bid.

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-region/west/2011/constructing-success-at-css

The UMAC is a fairly new (and, by most standards, a fairly "weak" Division III conference; several teams in the upper-echelon of the UMAC played middling CCIW/MIAC teams in a nonconference game and were blown off the field).  However, by the tone of this column, the St. Scholastica coach used the possibility of winning the conference AQ bid as a rallying cry all season.

As I said above: I know that this doesn't directly address the minimum-teams question, or the requirement that weaker conferences stage a "play-in" game.  But after sleeping on it, these arguments came to mind as reasons why keeping the AQ bid is very important, IMHO.

Liked this, wanted to address something.

1) AQ's don't uniformly protect against weak scheduling. Why? Because not all teams aren't Pool A or bust, like Albion was. I mean, let's say you're in the MIAC with St. Thomas. You have to acknowledge the strong possibility you'll lose that game, but you know you're screwed for Pool C if you pick up a second loss. So are you going to schedule two hard OOC games, and make it even more difficult? Or two easier ones to help your Pool C bid?

Let's look at what other schools in the MIAC played OOC

St. Olaf: 2-6 Luther, 4-4 Simpson
Bethel: 4-4 Simpson, 3-5 Concordia
Concordia Morehead: 3-6 Dickinson State, 1-7 Buena Vista
Augsburg: 3-5 Concordia, 0-8 Hamline
St. John's: 6-3 Northwestern, 4-4 Eau Claire
Carelton: 5-3 Carthage, 3-5 Macalester
Gustavus Adolphus: 6-2 Wartburg, St. Mary's

(Hamline's been terrible forever, so I doubt they had Pool C aspirations. I'm just guessing, considering that they've been shut out six times this year)

For the most part, pretty unassuming. Now yes, some of these may be long standing things (I confess to not knowing anything about the MIAC) but it's odd, given the "protection" the supposedly AQ provides, that these teams chose to play a relatively unimpressive slate. Could it be possible that schools are saying, "Hey, we might very well lose to St. Thomas, so we need to be careful who we schedule OOC if we want to make the playoffs?"

I mean, coaches want to win and you'll never get one to say "Yeah, we don't think we can win against this team" on record. But they're also realists. Lots of coaches may very well understand that a Pool A bid is slim, and that Pool C is their only way to go.

[Jonny Utah]

I know we've just about moved past the AQ discussion, but a few more comments:

(Disclaimer before this starts: yes, I'm aware that this still does not address the issue of raising the minimum number of teams to 8/9, or forcing "weaker" conferences to stage a "play-in" game just to allow more Pool C's)

Two things from this week's Around the Region columns caught my eye:

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-region/greatlakes/2011/albions-scheduling-pays-off

Albion voluntarily chose to play a VERY tough nonconference schedule.  They were able to do so, in part, because they knew that even if they should stumble against that brutal slate, they would still be able to play their way into the playoffs by winning their conference games.  Remove the AQ bids, and that's no longer the case.  Given the committee's preference for undefeated and one-loss teams, I would argue that most teams from iffy conferences would choose to schedule DOWN in order to preserve their undefeated record. 

You guys have argued, correctly, that we should be rewarding teams that play tougher schedules and penalizing teams that play weaker schedules.  I postulate that taking away AQ's will have the opposite effect; teams that play tough nonconference schedules will now lack the "protection" of being able to win their conference's AQ bid.

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-region/west/2011/constructing-success-at-css

The UMAC is a fairly new (and, by most standards, a fairly "weak" Division III conference; several teams in the upper-echelon of the UMAC played middling CCIW/MIAC teams in a nonconference game and were blown off the field).  However, by the tone of this column, the St. Scholastica coach used the possibility of winning the conference AQ bid as a rallying cry all season.

As I said above: I know that this doesn't directly address the minimum-teams question, or the requirement that weaker conferences stage a "play-in" game.  But after sleeping on it, these arguments came to mind as reasons why keeping the AQ bid is very important, IMHO.

Liked this, wanted to address something.

1) AQ's don't uniformly protect against weak scheduling. Why? Because not all teams aren't Pool A or bust, like Albion was. I mean, let's say you're in the MIAC with St. Thomas. You have to acknowledge the strong possibility you'll lose that game, but you know you're screwed for Pool C if you pick up a second loss. So are you going to schedule two hard OOC games, and make it even more difficult? Or two easier ones to help your Pool C bid?

Let's look at what other schools in the MIAC played OOC

St. Olaf: 2-6 Luther, 4-4 Simpson
Bethel: 4-4 Simpson, 3-5 Concordia
Concordia Morehead: 3-6 Dickinson State, 1-7 Buena Vista
Augsburg: 3-5 Concordia, 0-8 Hamline
St. John's: 6-3 Northwestern, 4-4 Eau Claire
Carelton: 5-3 Carthage, 3-5 Macalester
Gustavus Adolphus: 6-2 Wartburg, St. Mary's

(Hamline's been terrible forever, so I doubt they had Pool C aspirations. I'm just guessing, considering that they've been shut out six times this year)

For the most part, pretty unassuming. Now yes, some of these may be long standing things (I confess to not knowing anything about the MIAC) but it's odd, given the "protection" the supposedly AQ provides, that these teams chose to play a relatively unimpressive slate. Could it be possible that schools are saying, "Hey, we might very well lose to St. Thomas, so we need to be careful who we schedule OOC if we want to make the playoffs?"

I mean, coaches want to win and you'll never get one to say "Yeah, we don't think we can win against this team" on record. But they're also realists. Lots of coaches may very well understand that a Pool A bid is slim, and that Pool C is their only way to go.

I've argued this for years.  The NCAA usually makes the right decision when it comes to these pool C bids, especially when it comes to teams that lose non conference games.  If Albion joins the MIAC, then loses to St. Thomas in a close game, but blows out everyone else in the league and loses two more non conference games to the Northern Iowa and Grand Valley State (by close scores lets say), do we really think the NCAA is going to put a 9-1 NEFC in over them
?  I say they wouldn't.

[dlippiel]

+k Frank, dlip thinks he knows who this karma sniper is...maybe who it's been all along  .

[Bombers798891]

I've argued this for years.  The NCAA usually makes the right decision when it comes to these pool C bids, especially when it comes to teams that lose non conference games.  If Albion joins the MIAC, then loses to St. Thomas in a close game, but blows out everyone else in the league and loses two more non conference games to the Northern Iowa and Grand Valley State (by close scores lets say), do we really think the NCAA is going to put a 9-1 NEFC in over them
?  I say they wouldn't.

You may be right Jonny, but would you risk you and a 9-1 NEFC being the last two on the board?

Last year, in the regular season, you had Ohio Northern losing to #2 Mount, Wheaton losing to #5 North Central, Pacific Lutheran losing to #9 Linfield, W&J losing to #10 Thomas More, Coe losing to #11 Wartburg, and two 9-1 runners up in the NJAC. So right there, you've got five teams with their only loss being against a Top 11 team. Then you throw in the two 9-1 runner up NJAC schools and you're staring at seven pretty good one loss teams fighting for six spots.

There's no weak NEFC school you can easily make a strength of schedule argument over in this scenario. Best hope is jumping the pair of 9-1 NJAC schools

[Jonny Utah]

I've argued this for years.  The NCAA usually makes the right decision when it comes to these pool C bids, especially when it comes to teams that lose non conference games.  If Albion joins the MIAC, then loses to St. Thomas in a close game, but blows out everyone else in the league and loses two more non conference games to the Northern Iowa and Grand Valley State (by close scores lets say), do we really think the NCAA is going to put a 9-1 NEFC in over them
?  I say they wouldn't.

You may be right Jonny, but would you risk you and a 9-1 NEFC being the last two on the board?

Last year, in the regular season, you had Ohio Northern losing to #2 Mount, Wheaton losing to #5 North Central, Pacific Lutheran losing to #9 Linfield, W&J losing to #10 Thomas More, Coe losing to #11 Wartburg, and two 9-1 runners up in the NJAC. So right there, you've got five teams with their only loss being against a Top 11 team. Then you throw in the two 9-1 runner up NJAC schools and you're staring at seven pretty good one loss teams fighting for six spots.

There's no weak NEFC school you can easily make a strength of schedule argument over in this scenario. Best hope is jumping the pair of 9-1 NJAC schools

Again, it depends on who you lose to and by how much.

[Bombers798891]

I've argued this for years.  The NCAA usually makes the right decision when it comes to these pool C bids, especially when it comes to teams that lose non conference games.  If Albion joins the MIAC, then loses to St. Thomas in a close game, but blows out everyone else in the league and loses two more non conference games to the Northern Iowa and Grand Valley State (by close scores lets say), do we really think the NCAA is going to put a 9-1 NEFC in over them
?  I say they wouldn't.

You may be right Jonny, but would you risk you and a 9-1 NEFC being the last two on the board?

Last year, in the regular season, you had Ohio Northern losing to #2 Mount, Wheaton losing to #5 North Central, Pacific Lutheran losing to #9 Linfield, W&J losing to #10 Thomas More, Coe losing to #11 Wartburg, and two 9-1 runners up in the NJAC. So right there, you've got five teams with their only loss being against a Top 11 team. Then you throw in the two 9-1 runner up NJAC schools and you're staring at seven pretty good one loss teams fighting for six spots.

There's no weak NEFC school you can easily make a strength of schedule argument over in this scenario. Best hope is jumping the pair of 9-1 NJAC schools

Again, it depends on who you lose to and by how much.

Right, but my point is, it's a risky call to make when there are only six slots available. I think a number of schools would play it safe

[ExTartanPlayer]

Bombers, nice post above.  You've pointed an interesting paradox:

The proverbial "big fish in a small pond"  probably should try to schedule "up" in OOC games.  Good examples this year include Albion in the MIAA and Franklin in the HCAC.  Realistically, both teams know that if they don't win their Pool A, they aren't good enough for a Pool C anyway, so they may as well test themselves OOC and bank on winning the Pool A bid.

My argument is that by taking away the AQ, those teams will no longer be encouraged to do so; they'll be in a situation where it's now crucial to go undefeated in OOC games because they don't have the Pool A to fall back on.  So keeping AQ access uniformly protects THESE teams.  But...as you've said...

The "second banana"-type teams in really strong conferences (Baldwin-Wallace/Ohio Northern in the OAC, UW-Anything in the WIAC, Bethel/St. Olaf in the MIAC) probably are better off scheduling "down" in nonconference games knowing that they will have a brutal conference slate, but that they'll be a strong Pool C candidate if they go 9-1 with a sole loss to UMU, UWW, et cet. 

So, I see your point: AQ access does NOT necessarily encourage those teams in strong conferences to "schedule up" in OOC games.  With that said, I'm all right with that; they will be tested several times in-conference.  The teams that really SHOULD be trying to schedule up are teams that will NOT be tested in conference, and THEY are protected by AQ access.

So...with that in mind...doesn't that create a situation where everyone's happy?  Franklin is happy because they can schedule UW-Whitewater for a nonconference game, knowing they still have a shot to get in through Pool A.  UW-Whitewater is happy to oblige because they know that they should beat Franklin & they'll be ready for the WIAC schedule.

Again, good discussion, +k.

[Bombers798891]

The teams that really SHOULD be trying to schedule up are teams that will NOT be tested in conference, and THEY are protected by AQ access.

Except...

What of the "Big Fish, Small Pond" people who don't follow your advice?

Norwich schedules WNEC, St. Lawrence and Hartwick. Maritime schedules W. Conn, Merchant Marine, and Massachusetts Maritime. St. Scholastica schedules Lawrence. These things happen, and you get teams into the playoffs that never get tested at all. Then you get games like the Maritime/Alfred game where you've got a team that clearly doesn't belong, and have no clue what it's like going up against an elite team.

[Frank Rossi]

Remember, though, that nobody is really advocating the complete removal of Pool A bids.  Some people are suggesting mandating a certain W/L percentage for it.  Some are advocating increasing the Pool A conference minimum to artificially create a more legitimate batch of Pool A teams (based on what mathematically becomes a higher winning percentage for larger conferences).  Ultimately, the problem we have to remember is this:

Soon there will be about 245 D3 teams -- about 235 when you remove the NESCAC.  Divide 235 by 7 (the Pool A minimum) and get 33.6.  That means that if every team belonged to a 7-member conference, Pool A would require 33 bids.  As we know, that's impossible.  So, Pool A at 7 teams may not be sustainable.  It wouldn't require that extreme case -- if we were to drop below 4 Pool C bids (an average of 1 per region), I think the demand would be to change something.  For everyone that wants to say the current system is sustainable, the numbers don't lie.  As D3 continues to grow, the numbers get more gruesome.  And while Ralph suggested the NESCAC is happy being at its current structure, I'm sure there are some NESCAC ADs looking at the ECFC with an access ratio of 8:1 and thinking that teams that may be weaker than the NEFC teams actually have a better chance to make the NCAA Playoffs.  Why WOULDN'T splitting the NEFC make sense in some ways to at least level out that access ratio under current circumstances, eating up another Pool C bid?  If Endicott finishes 9-1 and doesn't get a bid, it's going to help raise questions internally, I would guarantee.

So, the fact is that something needs to be considered as we get closer to a saturation point in Division 3 football.  I like the AQ structure.  I just think we can refine it slightly to point it toward certain goals and elimination of some unintended consequences we've experienced over the last decade.

[Jonny Utah]

I've argued this for years.  The NCAA usually makes the right decision when it comes to these pool C bids, especially when it comes to teams that lose non conference games.  If Albion joins the MIAC, then loses to St. Thomas in a close game, but blows out everyone else in the league and loses two more non conference games to the Northern Iowa and Grand Valley State (by close scores lets say), do we really think the NCAA is going to put a 9-1 NEFC in over them
?  I say they wouldn't.

You may be right Jonny, but would you risk you and a 9-1 NEFC being the last two on the board?

Last year, in the regular season, you had Ohio Northern losing to #2 Mount, Wheaton losing to #5 North Central, Pacific Lutheran losing to #9 Linfield, W&J losing to #10 Thomas More, Coe losing to #11 Wartburg, and two 9-1 runners up in the NJAC. So right there, you've got five teams with their only loss being against a Top 11 team. Then you throw in the two 9-1 runner up NJAC schools and you're staring at seven pretty good one loss teams fighting for six spots.

There's no weak NEFC school you can easily make a strength of schedule argument over in this scenario. Best hope is jumping the pair of 9-1 NJAC schools

Again, it depends on who you lose to and by how much.

Right, but my point is, it's a risky call to make when there are only six slots available. I think a number of schools would play it safe

Right, but those NEFC and ECFC schools don't benefit by playing it safe do they?  Now if Salve Regina beat Hobart instead of Union and only had one loss, they might have a pool C chance.  Then again, we would all be thinking twice about Hobart as well.

But it kind of shows us that it all works out in the end.  Salve didn't play Hobart, and if they did, would have lost by 28 points.

[Bombers798891]

I've argued this for years.  The NCAA usually makes the right decision when it comes to these pool C bids, especially when it comes to teams that lose non conference games.  If Albion joins the MIAC, then loses to St. Thomas in a close game, but blows out everyone else in the league and loses two more non conference games to the Northern Iowa and Grand Valley State (by close scores lets say), do we really think the NCAA is going to put a 9-1 NEFC in over them
?  I say they wouldn't.

You may be right Jonny, but would you risk you and a 9-1 NEFC being the last two on the board?

Last year, in the regular season, you had Ohio Northern losing to #2 Mount, Wheaton losing to #5 North Central, Pacific Lutheran losing to #9 Linfield, W&J losing to #10 Thomas More, Coe losing to #11 Wartburg, and two 9-1 runners up in the NJAC. So right there, you've got five teams with their only loss being against a Top 11 team. Then you throw in the two 9-1 runner up NJAC schools and you're staring at seven pretty good one loss teams fighting for six spots.

There's no weak NEFC school you can easily make a strength of schedule argument over in this scenario. Best hope is jumping the pair of 9-1 NJAC schools

Again, it depends on who you lose to and by how much.

Right, but my point is, it's a risky call to make when there are only six slots available. I think a number of schools would play it safe

Right, but those NEFC and ECFC schools don't benefit by playing it safe do they?  Now if Salve Regina beat Hobart instead of Union and only had one loss, they might have a pool C chance.  Then again, we would all be thinking twice about Hobart as well.

But it kind of shows us that it all works out in the end.  Salve didn't play Hobart, and if they did, would have lost by 28 points.

True, they don't. But your example was an school joining the MIAC. For those types of schools, playing it safe is the better option, in my view.