Pool C

[Ron Boerger]

Heck, ask him why they took Wheaton over DePauw when DePauw had most of the selection criteria in their favor.   

[Ralph Turner]

Frank, please ask him who the four were who were on the table when the last bid was given.

Why not Cal Lu?  Thanks.

Will you have AIM up for questions from the audience?

[K-Mack]

- NCAA Division III Football Championships Committee Chairman and Defiance Athletic Director Dick Kaiser, to discuss the selection process used to arrive at this year's "Field of 32" released just a little while ago;

...

Please join us at 7:30pm EST and ask questions for any of our guests in the chatroom.  The link is at http://blogtalkradio.com/LLRecap -- It should be a great show!

Rossi,
Ask Dick who made the call to switch to Oxy at Willamette after his committee submitted a bracket with Wartburg at Oxy and Aurora at Willamette.

Was that a mistake, or is there a process where after the selection committee does its job, it goes to someone who has to sign off on all the flights?

I'd like to understand.

Dick is pretty open, and I think he wants people to understand how the committees work, and how to be responsive to the D3 membership and fans, so I think he'll give you a straight answer.

I'm at work, I can't listen, but if I can get in the chatroom, I'll remind you to ask.

[Ralph Turner]

Can someone record the program for Frank?

That might be a good one to archive!

[Frank Rossi]

Can someone record the program for Frank?

That might be a good one to archive!

It auto-records and podcasts -- but listen live

[Ralph Turner]

Great interview by Frank Rossi and Eric Ren of Coach Kaiser on "In the HuddLLe"...

Last four teams on the board were Montclair State, Cal Lu, Wooster, DePauw.

He said that the committee determined early in the season that they would honor 10-0 and 9-1 teams when the season was over.  Considering this in all of the conferences that have 9- and 10- teams, Curry finished 9-1 among a tight grouping of teams which be definition pulls the OWP/OOWP to .500.  The committee stayed true to its pre-determined prinicples for Curry.  One loss is better than 2 losses.  (Curry was not penalized because the NEFC "schedules" the games.) 

Husson had the weakest schedule of everyone among the OWP's.  (Their schedule was what they scheduled.)  The OWP/OOWP is the new emphasis of the NCAA.

"OWP/OOWP begins to become significant at 16-17 games in a season."

(My editorial comment --  OWP/OOWP begins to work in Hoops and Baseball!)

Flight restrictions (budget?) from the NCAA caught Oxy/Willamette.

He said they wanted to identify the best four teams:  MUC, Millsaps, Willamette and then NCC.  They build the bracket inside the mileage and trips constraints of the NCAA.  They seeded the brackets as close to the regional brackets as close the regional seedings that they can.

Coach Kaiser said it would have been very hard to bring a MUC into the East Region if Cortland had been undefeated and one of the best four teams in the country...setting us a theoretical "Final Four".

All regional boundaries are broken down once the top 4 teams are chosen.  Fill "Bracket #1", the "Bracket #2", then "Bracket #3", then Bracket "#4."

Thanks to Dr. Kaiser.

That was a great interview. He was very straightforwarded in answering very good questions!  (Eric and Frank did a good job! +1 guys!)

+1! Coach Kaiser!!! 

[redswarm81]

Great interview by Frank Rossi and Eric Ren of Coach Kaiser on "In the HuddLLe"...

Agreed.

He said they wanted to identify the best four teams:  MUC, Millsaps, Willamette and then NCC.  They build the bracket inside the mileage and trips constraints of the NCAA.  They seeded the brackets as close to the regional brackets as close the regional seedings that they can.

I don't know where the Handbook requires or even permits this.  I understand the motivation, but rules is rules.  It would be easy to amend the handbook to empower the Selection Committee to identify the top 4 teams, but that's not the Selection Committee's charter as it's written.

[Mr. Ypsi]

redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

[Ralph Turner]

redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

Yes, that was the context of Dr Kaiser's context.  Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and the structure that is present, would have to be in place someway.

In the Regional Committees, you have knowledgeable parties close to the teams who do the evaluation.

I cannot imagine a better structure to do this than we have now.

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

[redswarm81]

redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

Yes, that was the context of Dr Kaiser's context.  Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and the structure that is present, would have to be in place someway.

In the Regional Committees, you have knowledgeable parties close to the teams who do the evaluation.

I cannot imagine a better structure to do this than we have now.

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

This year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.

I wouldn't mind if the rules were amended to eliminate the necessary incompatibility between REGIONAL Rankings and non-regional brackets.  Practically speaking, you could lay that out in the Handbook, it seems to me.

[Pat Coleman]

To move significantly away from regional anything would really require a change in the Division III philosophy, which is not very likely.

[Ralph Turner]

redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

Yes, that was the context of Dr Kaiser's context.  Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and the structure that is present, would have to be in place someway.

In the Regional Committees, you have knowledgeable parties close to the teams who do the evaluation.

I cannot imagine a better structure to do this than we have now.

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.  And as soon as you do not designate 8 bids to each region you will have that problem.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

But the way that the committees in all sports have been moving has been to this model.  I don't think that they have violated the spirit of the Handbook with the practical application of the data that the committee has.


This year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.  And I think that Coach Kaiser was very hesitant to say that MUC would have been moved into the east with a 10-0 Cortland State.  10-0 Cortland State generates a whole new combination of OWP/OOWP and Regional Rankings.  That would have required a different analysis by the Selection Committee.  10-0 Cortland State looks very viable as an East #1 and a creditable team to be considered as one of the four best in the country.  In some ways, MUC moved into the "power vacuum" that existed in the East.

I wouldn't mind if the rules were amended to eliminate the necessary incompatibility between REGIONAL Rankings and non-regional brackets.  Practically speaking, you could lay that out in the Handbook, it seems to me.

I, for one, am reluctant to tie the hands of the committee with too much designated process and have something that takes the judgment away from conscientious volunteers on the committees to the process.  I know the outgoing Baseball Chair.  He was professionally committed to building the best playoff bracket that he could in 2008.  I do not want to hinder his decades of experience in the process by a mishmash of rules.   

My response is in bold in the third segment. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

This is not a pool C comment, per se, but this seems to be where the postmortem is.  I'm having trouble with NCC as the overall #4 seed.  I have my suspicions that, believing (quite reasonably) that MUC wll host a semi-final game, the bean-counters, not the committee, put NCC 4th since MUC could host any North champ without a plane ride, but not many likely South or West teams.  Comments?

[K-Mack]

redswarm,

I interpreted that comment as AFTER selection, the BRACKETS are formed around the top 4 seeds.  If they actually select teams to fill the geographical brackets, that would be a violation, but that's not how I understood it.

Yes, that was the context of Dr Kaiser's context.  Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and the structure that is present, would have to be in place someway.

In the Regional Committees, you have knowledgeable parties close to the teams who do the evaluation.

I cannot imagine a better structure to do this than we have now.

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.  And as soon as you do not designate 8 bids to each region you will have that problem.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

But the way that the committees in all sports have been moving has been to this model.  I don't think that they have violated the spirit of the Handbook with the practical application of the data that the committee has.


This year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.  And I think that Coach Kaiser was very hesitant to say that MUC would have been moved into the east with a 10-0 Cortland State.  10-0 Cortland State generates a whole new combination of OWP/OOWP and Regional Rankings.  That would have required a different analysis by the Selection Committee.  10-0 Cortland State looks very viable as an East #1 and a creditable team to be considered as one of the four best in the country.  In some ways, MUC moved into the "power vacuum" that existed in the East.

I wouldn't mind if the rules were amended to eliminate the necessary incompatibility between REGIONAL Rankings and non-regional brackets.  Practically speaking, you could lay that out in the Handbook, it seems to me.

I, for one, am reluctant to tie the hands of the committee with too much designated process and have something that takes the judgment away from conscientious volunteers on the committees to the process.  I know the outgoing Baseball Chair.  He was professionally committed to building the best playoff bracket that he could in 2008.  I do not want to hinder his decades of experience in the process by a mishmash of rules.   

My response is in bold in the third segment. 

Redswarm,
Are you arguing just to argue again?

I don't see where the handbook prevents the building of brackets around No. 1 seeds either. As long as they put the 32 teams in first, then build four brackets ... seems like they're doing something helpful by using whatever wiggle room is allowed in the rules. Would you prefer Mount Union and North Central stay in the North together and Ithaca be the 1 seed in the East?

Not sure I understand what the beef is with the use of regional rankings, beyond a general nitpick. An East Region team's win over an RRO from the South is still considered the same by the selection committee. It seems to me that the point of regional rankings is to take advantage of the expertise of the eight volunteers from each region who report to the selection committee (and two of whom from each region are on it).

[redswarm81]

Get the 32 teams in first!  Then seed and bracket.

Practically speaking, you have to analyze the field of teams someway, and . . .

Remember, D-III's central philosophy is about "regional" competition.  This is what the membership has determined (by legislation) that it wants to determine the champions.

Okay, but there's still an incompatibility: the seedings are determined by REGIONAL rankings, but the brackets aren't regional.  And as soon as you do not designate 8 bids to each region you will have that problem.

There's nothing in the Handbook that says anything about ranking or seeding teams outside of REGIONAL rankings.  There IS something in the Handbook prohibiting the use of any national polls in seeding and selecting teams.

But the way that the committees in all sports have been moving has been to this model.  I don't think that they have violated the spirit of the Handbook with the practical application of the data that the committee has.

Fine.  Then amend the Handbook so that we can distinguish between the "D-III's central philosophy" and "the spirit of the Handbook."  As it stands, picking the top 4 teams regardless of their Region is inconsistent with the emphasis on regional competition.

I think it would be simple enough to say "use the Regional Rankings to gather the 32 teams, then select the top 4 teams nationally and create brackets around each of the top 4."  The travel restrictions will, as a practical matter, force each bracket to retain a regional flavor.

This year especially, it's not a big deal, thanks especially to Cortland, and also Muhlenberg.  But it would be a big deal if Cortland had won on Saturday and Mount Union were still the top seed in Cortland's bracket.  And I think that Coach Kaiser was very hesitant to say that MUC would have been moved into the east with a 10-0 Cortland State.  10-0 Cortland State generates a whole new combination of OWP/OOWP and Regional Rankings.  That would have required a different analysis by the Selection Committee.  10-0 Cortland State looks very viable as an East #1 and a creditable team to be considered as one of the four best in the country.  In some ways, MUC moved into the "power vacuum" that existed in the East.

You're absolutely right about the "power vacuum" in the East.

You might be right as to his thinking, but your description inflated Dr. Kaiser's answer a bit.  The most direct answer to the question about a 10-0 Cortland State would be exactly what Bob Gregg has been saying: there's nothing in the Handbook that would permit the Selection Committee even to contemplate importing a team--any team, from out of region as a number one seed over a 10-0 Cortland St. with very good OWP/OOWP numbers, and stellar results v. RROs.

I, for one, am reluctant to tie the hands of the committee with too much designated process and have something that takes the judgment away from conscientious volunteers on the committees to the process.  I know the outgoing Baseball Chair.  He was professionally committed to building the best playoff bracket that he could in 2008.  I do not want to hinder his decades of experience in the process by a mishmash of rules.   

I'm not doubting anyone's allegiance to D-III, and I'm sure you're not suggesting that I am.

Still, I  am reluctant to ask over 200 teams to schedule and play according to a handbook that grants the Selection Committee the power to make decisions that affect those teams based on rules that don't exist, AND that are decided in secret.

That said, Dr. Kaiser was very forthcoming in his interview.   I still would have loved to ask him such questions as whether he understands that the rules require the Selection Committee to attempt to pick a winner based only on the Primary Criteria, before the Committee can look at Secondary Criteria.