East Region Fan Poll

[Jonny Utah]

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.

Frank, I may be missing your big picture here.  You want to raise the pool A conference minimums for what main reason?  More Pool C bids?  What if the LL accepts Ithaca, St. John Fisher and Cortland and all those 11 teams have to fight for one spot (with the NEFC spitting into 2)?  Or you know that won't happen so you don't care or have to worry about that? 

[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.

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.

Unless they play Whitewater?

[Charles]

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.
[/quote]

and you know that Salve would have lost by 28 because?

[Jonny Utah]

And doesn't playing a tough OCC matter for many college sports?  Look at d1 football.  Those schools schedule some teams they know they are going to beat.

Look at Alabama.  They play a tough Penn State team non conference, and then they have Kent State, North Texas, and Georgia Southern.  Even having Penn State on that schedule leaves them the chance of not making the national championship game.

I think in the end you need balance, but you need some hope that the NCAA is going to do the right thing.

[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.

Frank, I may be missing your big picture here.  You want to raise the pool A conference minimums for what main reason?  More Pool C bids?  What if the LL accepts Ithaca, St. John Fisher and Cortland and all those 11 teams have to fight for one spot (with the NEFC spitting into 2)?  Or you know that won't happen so you don't care or have to worry about that?

Three reasons:

1) Because we have to eventually since Pool A would be unsustainable at a 7 minimum when we reach around the 260 team mark, perhaps even sooner;

2) Because to ensure a certain number of Pool C bids even at 245 teams, we will need to do something soon; and

3) Mandating eight-team AQ conferences will prevent, or at least make extremely more rare, 5-5 teams from gaining entry, and makes 6-4 a rarity.  Do the math: how often in eight-team conferences does the winner lose more than two games in conference?  Very, very infrequently (and more often than not, there is a one-loss team).  If the team were to lose all three OOC games, sure, they would finish 5-5, but that would become much more rare.  Look, if Hobart loses two games, Union could make it in this year at 5-5 still.  Again, it's not a pretty situation.  What's worse, SLU almost made it in with a 4-6 record last year.  That's the problem of seven-member conferences... they allow for too much danger in the team that comes out because of the margin of error allowed.

[Jonny Utah]

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.

and you know that Salve would have lost by 28 because?
[/quote]

Because I've seen them play and I don't think they are that good.

[Jonny Utah]

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.

Frank, I may be missing your big picture here.  You want to raise the pool A conference minimums for what main reason?  More Pool C bids?  What if the LL accepts Ithaca, St. John Fisher and Cortland and all those 11 teams have to fight for one spot (with the NEFC spitting into 2)?  Or you know that won't happen so you don't care or have to worry about that?

Three reasons:

1) Because we have to eventually since Pool A would be unsustainable at a 7 minimum when we reach around the 260 team mark, perhaps even sooner;

2) Because to ensure a certain number of Pool C bids even at 245 teams, we will need to do something soon; and

3) Mandating eight-team AQ conferences will prevent, or at least make extremely more rare, 5-5 teams from gaining entry, and makes 6-4 a rarity.  Do the math: how often in eight-team conferences does the winner lose more than two games in conference?  Very, very infrequently (and more often than not, there is a one-loss team).  If the team were to lose all three OOC games, sure, they would finish 5-5, but that would become much more rare.  Look, if Hobart loses two games, Union could make it in this year at 5-5 still.  Again, it's not a pretty situation.  What's worse, SLU almost made it in with a 4-6 record last year.  That's the problem of seven-member conferences... they allow for too much danger in the team that comes out because of the margin of error allowed.

Ok thanks.

To your points 1 and 2:
The system isn't set in stone where you have to always have pool A conferences and always have pool C and B bids.  I mean, what happens if you have 100 more d3 teams add football in the next 30 years?  You have to change and adapt the current structure.  I think many of your arguments are based on what the current system is.  You can always make minor tweaks down the road if you have too many teams or too many conferences. 

To point 3:
I'm not sure I really agree with you on this one.  The problem with the LL last year is that you simply didn't have a clear "great" team and all the teams played some tough non conference games that the NEFC teams didn't.  If you added in Springfield, Ithaca, and Utica to the LL last year, what would the records have been?  Couldn't everyone have been 5-5?

[Frank Rossi]

Jonny... No offense, but all three points are based on simple math of the situations we are experiencing.  It would be like me defending 2+2=4 right now.

[lewdogg11]

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.

How about if Salve beat Montclair with the same schedule?  Can't fault them for scheduling Union.  Union has been historically good. 

[Pat Coleman]

If Endicott finishes 9-1 and doesn't get a bid, it's going to help raise questions internally, I would guarantee.

What it should do is raise questions about who they are scheduling out of conference and why, although I understand some administrators will look at it as "how can we game the system to get into the playoffs" rather than "how can we perform better to make a playoff bid more likely."

[SJFF82]

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.

How about if Salve beat Montclair with the same schedule?  Can't fault them for scheduling Union.  Union has been historically good.

Havent followed the thread thoroughly here, so forgive me if i am missing some point here...

...you cant fault them, but is that the real issue?  Or is the real issue, did they play and beat teams good enough to be considered for pool C?  I mean, the traditionally weaker conferences already get the benefit an AQ even if they go 7-3, so now we are supposed to also worry if a Salve Regina squad thought they were scheduling strong enough opponents, but it turns out a historically good team aint so good this year, so their record isnt as impressive as they hoped it would be before the season started?

You play who you play, you beat who you beat, and then AFTER the season a committee analyzes those wins/losses to determine the net outcome.  Its subjective in many ways and should be?  Who really thinks Salve should get consideration if they are not an AQ? 

[lewdogg11]

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.

How about if Salve beat Montclair with the same schedule?  Can't fault them for scheduling Union.  Union has been historically good.

Havent followed the thread thoroughly here, so forgive me if i am missing some point here...

...you cant fault them, but is that the real issue?  Or is the real issue, did they play and beat teams good enough to be considered for pool C?  I mean, the traditionally weaker conferences already get the benefit an AQ even if they go 7-3, so now we are supposed to also worry if a Salve Regina squad thought they were scheduling strong enough opponents, but it turns out a historically good team aint so good this year, so their record isnt as impressive as they hoped it would be before the season started?

You play who you play, you beat who you beat, and then AFTER the season a committee analyzes those wins/losses to determine the net outcome.  Its subjective in many ways and should be?  Who really thinks Salve should get consideration if they are not an AQ?

Not what I was getting at.  Utah said 'if they schedule Hobart instead of Union'.  i don't think it matters.  They had Union and Montclair.  Had they beat Montclair, i think they would be in good shape if they had 1 loss.

[Frank Rossi]

If Endicott finishes 9-1 and doesn't get a bid, it's going to help raise questions internally, I would guarantee.

What it should do is raise questions about who they are scheduling out of conference and why, although I understand some administrators will look at it as "how can we game the system to get into the playoffs" rather than "how can we perform better to make a playoff bid more likely."

We're in agreement here -- I'm just stating a very likely scenario after this all plays out, assuming Endicott misses at 9-1.  Remember that with 2 weeks left, the NEFC is one of just 13 conferences (including Pool B as a "conference") that have potential one-loss runners-up.  If we get down to six or seven, Endicott's powers that be will begin asking the first question more than the second, I presume.

[Jonny Utah]

Jonny... No offense, but all three points are based on simple math of the situations we are experiencing.  It would be like me defending 2+2=4 right now.

Ok so maybe I am still missing your big picture.  You just said these are situations we are experiencing but in your points 1 and 2 you mention the phrases "we have to eventually", and "we will need to do something soon".

Thats why I said we can deal with that when the situation comes and we don't have to play by the same rules we are playing by now. 

Unless we are just discussing for the sake of discussing which is fine.

[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.

How about if Salve beat Montclair with the same schedule?  Can't fault them for scheduling Union.  Union has been historically good.

No you are right.  I forgot they played Monclair and lost.

But I am talking about 1 loss teams here.  If they beat both Montclair and Union they might have a small chance.  If they beat Hobart and Montclair then they would have a good chance.