Best D3 Conferences

[jknezek]

Pool C teams should acquit themselves well in the early round. I don't dispute that they are stronger than the weak conference winners. I just dispute that we need to set up a subjective conference ranking system to allow more at the expense of conference winners.

At this point there is only 1 of six Pool C teams left (my mistake). If the argument is that Pool C teams are more valuable than conference winners, then you should see a much larger percentage of Pool C teams still in the tournament. They made up almost 19% of the original 32 teams and yet they are only 12.5% of the remaining teams. Anyone want to run the math on this for the last few tournaments and see if that holds up into the 3rd round?

In any given year, about 8-10 schools, tops, could win the D3 national title (I actually believe the number is more like 4-6 realistically). With 6 Pool C bids, and the fact that some of those schools will win their conference, we don't miss anyone important by rewarding conference winners. I believe step 1 to a good season should be winning your conference. Reward those teams and keep a small group of second chance schools, which we currently have, to make sure you get those 8-10 possible winners. We don't need a big group of second chance schools since there aren't that many second chance schools with a real chance at winning the title.

Do we really want a system that removes known targets, winning your conference, with susceptible measures like ranking conferences, just to include stronger, but still not strong enough, schools in the tournament? Sure watching W&L get blown out by Thomas More and then watching Thomas More get steamrolled by MHB makes you wonder why W&L was in the tourney, but then you remember W&L comes from the same conference that less than a decade ago produced Bridgewater's Stag Bowl appearance. Most conferences have a similar history of good teams popping up now and then and they shouldn't have to bite nails to see if they get their shot even after winning their conference.

[Ralph Turner]

A point of reference and history...

We have 32 bids in football because the most recent March Madness contract dollars allowed the D3 membership to vote to expand the ratio for bids from 1:7.5 to 1:6.5 eligible teams.

That allowed D3 to increase the field from 28 with four byes to a full 5-week 32-bid bracket.  If we go with a 28-team field we have 2 Pool C bids.

In men's basketball, we have expanded from a roughly 48-team field to nearly 60, all because of the 1:6.5 bid ratio. 

[Ralph Turner]

Pool C teams should acquit themselves well in the early round. I don't dispute that they are stronger than the weak conference winners. I just dispute that we need to set up a subjective conference ranking system to allow more at the expense of conference winners.

At this point there is only 1 of six Pool C teams left (my mistake). If the argument is that Pool C teams are more valuable than conference winners, then you should see a much larger percentage of Pool C teams still in the tournament. They made up almost 19% of the original 32 teams and yet they are only 12.5% of the remaining teams. Anyone want to run the math on this for the last few tournaments and see if that holds up into the 3rd round?

In any given year, about 8-10 schools, tops, could win the D3 national title (I actually believe the number is more like 4-6 realistically). With 6 Pool C bids, and the fact that some of those schools will win their conference, we don't miss anyone important by rewarding conference winners. I believe step 1 to a good season should be winning your conference. Reward those teams and keep a small group of second chance schools, which we currently have, to make sure you get those 8-10 possible winners. We don't need a big group of second chance schools since there aren't that many second chance schools with a real chance at winning the title.

Do we really want a system that removes known targets, winning your conference, with susceptible measures like ranking conferences, just to include stronger, but still not strong enough, schools in the tournament? Sure watching W&L get blown out by Thomas More and then watching Thomas More get steamrolled by MHB makes you wonder why W&L was in the tourney, but then you remember W&L comes from the same conference that less than a decade ago produced Bridgewater's Stag Bowl appearance. Most conferences have a similar history of good teams popping up now and then and they shouldn't have to bite nails to see if they get their shot even after winning their conference.

Yes, and Pool C teams have gone 3-2 against non-Pool A (i.e., Pool A) competition.  Both losses have come against #1 seeds.  Pool C is 3-3 against itself, 3-2 against Pool A and has one survivor.  Their current record is 6-5.  Pool B has a record of 2-2; both wins are by Wesley.  Pool A has a record of 16 wins and 17 losses.

As for Washington and Lee from the ODAC, we in the ASC believe that the ODAC has been weaker since the Bridgewater teams, early in the last decade.  We in the ASC and Texas match very favorably against Pres AC teams such as Thomas More and Washington and Jefferson.

[wally_wabash]

So the PAC's champion eventually gets steamrolled by an ASC team.  The NCAC's champ gets steamrolled by an OAC team.  The HCAC's champ gets rolled by the WIAC.  If we "know" that the champions from certain leagues are eventually going to play champions from other leagues that will inevitably stomp them, then why do we have a tournament that includes anybody that doesn't come from one of those 6-7 leagues? 

Hmmm....championship access limited to 6-7 leagues that are arbitrarily determined to the be "strong".  A discriminatory system like that already exists and it stinks.  Ours is a tournament of champions, with a handful of extras invited to round things out nicely.  It works.  When week 1 kicks off, the championship is available to everybody.  That's a pretty cool situation...why screw with that? 

[HScoach]

^ well said.  I agree 100%.

[Toby Taff]

Exactly right Wally.  Every champ deserves a shot.  UMHB didn't always get past the first round.  In fact Trinity smacked the crew down several times.  What UMHB did was progressively improve because they took advantage of the extra work the playoffs give.  Finally in 2004 the Cru broke through and made it to the Stagg by winning every game on the road.  I guess what makes me scratch my head is why comparitively a W&J team that makes the playoffs and advances a few rounds doesn't improve against the ASC teams they see regularly in the 2nd round.

[Ralph Turner]

So the PAC's champion eventually gets steamrolled by an ASC team.  The NCAC's champ gets steamrolled by an OAC team.  The HCAC's champ gets rolled by the WIAC.  If we "know" that the champions from certain leagues are eventually going to play champions from other leagues that will inevitably stomp them, then why do we have a tournament that includes anybody that doesn't come from one of those 6-7 leagues? 

Hmmm....championship access limited to 6-7 leagues that are arbitrarily determined to the be "strong".  A discriminatory system like that already exists and it stinks.  Ours is a tournament of champions, with a handful of extras invited to round things out nicely.  It works.  When week 1 kicks off, the championship is available to everybody.  That's a pretty cool situation...why screw with that? 

+1!   

[roocru]

So the PAC's champion eventually gets steamrolled by an ASC team.  The NCAC's champ gets steamrolled by an OAC team.  The HCAC's champ gets rolled by the WIAC.  If we "know" that the champions from certain leagues are eventually going to play champions from other leagues that will inevitably stomp them, then why do we have a tournament that includes anybody that doesn't come from one of those 6-7 leagues? 

Hmmm....championship access limited to 6-7 leagues that are arbitrarily determined to the be "strong".  A discriminatory system like that already exists and it stinks.  Ours is a tournament of champions, with a handful of extras invited to round things out nicely.  It works.  When week 1 kicks off, the championship is available to everybody.  That's a pretty cool situation...why screw with that? 

+1!   

+1 from me too!

[K-Mack]

Do we really want a system that removes known targets, winning your conference, with susceptible measures like ranking conferences, just to include stronger, but still not strong enough, schools in the tournament?

No.

The problem with trying to go "strongest 32" is you prevent teams from ever being able to prove they belong, because the playoffs are what moves the bar as much as anything in terms of conference strength.

You and others already made all the germane points.

If we have had in D3 and have in I-A a system that locks certain teams from ever getting to prove themselves, and we currently have a system in D-III where every team knows exactly what it must do to win it all, then we have in place a system that is fair, if not perfectly balanced. 

[Gray Fox]

Do we really want a system that removes known targets, winning your conference, with susceptible measures like ranking conferences, just to include stronger, but still not strong enough, schools in the tournament?

No.

The problem with trying to go "strongest 32" is you prevent teams from ever being able to prove they belong, because the playoffs are what moves the bar as much as anything in terms of conference strength.

You and others already made all the germane points.

If we have had in D3 and have in I-A a system that locks certain teams from ever getting to prove themselves, and we currently have a system in D-III where every team knows exactly what it must do to win it all, then we have in place a system that is fair, if not perfectly balanced. 

It also gives teams an opportunity to "experience" what it takes to win and move in that direction.  I know it has helped the SCIAC (except they keep "experiencing" Linfield.

[DoubleDomer]

Isn't the answer really to make that WIAC play at a level that better reflects its enrollments? Whitewater's undergrad enrollment (and LaCrosse's and Eau Claire's . . . ) is within a stone's throw of 10,000! Compare that to the enrollments of the other D3 schools in the 32. Indeed, there are entire CONFERENCES of schools playing DIVISION 1 football with smaller enrollments (Patriot League, Pioneer League, Ivy League). Meanwhile, ALL of our neighboring states (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan) play their non-flagship state universities at D1 or D2 (so much for the sad songs about scholarship funds). Indeed, name me ANOTHER state where ALL the state extensions play in Division 3. But--all hail, mighty WIAC! Right.  IMHO--and as a Wisconsin resident, I might add--pound for pound, the WIAC is a freaking joke.

[K-Mack]

No.

The WIAC (and NJAC) have 100-man roster limits, so competitively, Whitewater has fewer players in its program than all four of the teams in beat in the playoffs (according to players-in-camp numbers provided in Kickoff '10).

The roster limit somewhat nullifies the effects of the giant enrollment; certainly state schools have more students from which to draw activity fees and a greater funding source for facilities, but at the same time, plenty of Division III privates have large endowments and supportive alumni and don't have to cut through the bureaucratic red tape to spend that money.

Being a state school doesn't automatically mean success in football (ask 0-10 Western Conn. State, for example). Nor does being a small private (Wabash, with an enrollment of 883) mean you can't compete.

So I'm not sure what your point is with the enrollment figures.

It's not possible to create a completely level playing field between 237 Division III schools with differing academic missions. Johns Hopkins and Chicago and RPI and Carnegie Mellon and Washington & Lee are recruiting from a different pool of kids than some of those they play against. So are Norwich and Merchant Marine and the Maritime academies and Coast Guard. Some have the advantages of history (Mount Union, St. John's, Linfield) or location (it's pretty balmy in SCIAC and ASC country). There are conference rules that limit preseason practice or roster limits, travel difficulties, the East thinking its road to the playoffs is blocked by having to play each other so much, etc. etc.

Each school has its unique set of challenges. Harping on enrollment alone does not paint the complete picture.

Certainly Wisconsin has an advantage when it comes to recruiting the athletes who don't get scholarships to Madison. With no in-state I-AA or II presence, you can leave the state and take a partial scholarship (36 to split among entire D2 teams) or stay close to home and pay in-state tuition. The same kids that end up in the WIAC might end up at Richmond or JMU or Virginia Union if they grew up in Va. or Shippensburg or IUP or West Chester if they grew up in Pa. or Grand Valley or Saginaw or EMU/WMU/CMU if they grew up in Michigan.

Certainly schools have advantages and disadvantages. If the WIAC schools don't want to offer athletic scholarships and want to play by Division III rules and impose their own 100-man limits to negate the potential effect of hoarding players ... why do they HAVE to move?

I can't say if "the answer" is to make the WIAC move up though because I'm not entirely sure what the question is. What are you proposing it would accomplish?

[Mr. Ypsi]

K-Mack, a VERY good well-rounded response.

It always astounds me that so many people are hung up on enrollment.  Folks, this isn't high school!  Teams are NOT assembled by posting notices in the dorms for open try-outs.   These are recruited athletes (well, 95% of them) and a 500 student body school can recruit just like a 10,000 student body school.

If enrollment mattered that much, we'd be talking about NYU (well, we would if they had a football team! ), not UMU or UWW!

[DoubleDomer]

Well, actually, no--a school of 500 cannot recruit like a school of 10,000. For several reasons.

First: Admissions criteria. A good many non-WIAC conferences simply could not accept a good many WIAC commits. Look at http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4EGLC_enUS405US405&q=uw%2dwhitewater+retention+rate. Whitewater accepts more than 4500 applicants from a pool of just over 6000--a yield rate that annually ranges between 75-80%. Compare that to the yield rate of less than 20% in the NESCAC.  But you don't have to go to the top of the line to see the difference. A good many D3 conferences (MIAC, SCIAC, SCAC, certainly the better schools in the IIAC) have yield rates below 50%. So, before the game even starts, Whitewater has an immediate advantage in defining its population. Which leads to the . . .

Second reason: Greyshirting. Call it what you want: Greyshirting, oversigning, etc., etc. It's well known in these parts (by which I mean Southern Wisconsin, where I live, and where Whitewater finds its most fertile recruiting among my sons' teammates and peers), that UWW WAY oversubscribes its incoming class. Yes, WIAC has a roster limit of 100. But that's ACTIVE roster. By oversubscribing, Whitewater again enjoys the advantage of a larger population.

Third reason: Retention rate.  Whitewater's is just under 75%--a rate unheard of among D3 schools that are at ALL selective, and indeed one that would be frankly be fatal to a school with an enrollment of 2000. You simply cannot give up 25% of your freshman class in those schools and expect to stay in business. In the WIAC, however, a large and highly fluid student body in the state university system--fueled principally by transfer enrollments from UW-Madison--allows those schools to replenish enrollments at an exceptionally robust rate.

Fourth reason: common sense.  If it doesn't make a difference, then why do NEARLY all schools with the profile of WIAC institutions play in D2? According to the NCAA's website, the average endergraduate enrollment in D3 schools is 2250; in D2 schools it's 4600. In other words, most of the WIAC schools would be bullies on the block in Division II!

Sorry to burst the bubble of those who insist it's all about roster size.  It's not. It's about the size of your active talent population, the probability of mainitaining top-level talent within the population, and the risk of erosion in that population--and Whitewater and the WIAC enjoy insuperable advantages in all of these areas.

[retagent]

DD. It appears that you have elicited some negative karma as a result of your well reasoned, non-emotional and rational arguments. Unless, with one of your other 3 posts, you were dinged. It seems as though if you even broach this subject, some get upset. I, for one, have mo problem with stating what seems to be obvious to the most casual observer. Those who have a problem with such argumentation, and would rather engage in name calling and invective. Look in the mirror.