Pool C -- 2009

[MUCheats]

What you say is true, and we need look no further back than last year to see it.  Wheaton got a Pool C with two losses, and made it all the way to the national semis.  This year they would apparently not have even been seriously considered.

I very much like Pool A, giving every conference champion a shot at the title (despite knowing full well that many of them are destined to lose by 4+ TDs).  And it is not a problem in many sports, where there are still plenty enough at large spots to assure that no legitimate threats to go very far get left out.  But with only 32 total slots, and 23 (soon to be 25) Pool A teams, it IS a problem in d3 football.

Alas, I have no solution to offer.

I agree on both counts.  Expanding the tournament certainly isn't feasible.  But I still don't fully understand how Division III chooses Pool C teams.  It seems like things like travel distance and the "spirit of competition" are still getting in the way of Division III selecting the best conference runners-up to compete in the postseason.  If they're not going to get it right, they may as well eliminate Pool C altogether and at least then, to me, the ideals of the division would be put into action.

[golden_dome]

While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

[MUCheats]

While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."

[golden_dome]

While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."

f

I understand that part of it, I'm associated with Mississippi College who also plays in a very tough conference. Until this year we've never been able to beat Mary Hardin-Baylor and Hardin-Simmons, and several years they both were top 10 teams. In 2007 we went 8-2 and didn't get close to getting in because of the criteria, and that was with a team with a future NFL wide receiver, a future AFL receiver and arguably one of the most talented QB's in the country. And that with a pretty good defense and last second loss to HSU.

But, here's another way to look at it. It's not exactly fair to ask the conference champions to beat a team twice, once in the regular season and again to advance in the playoffs. It does cheapen the regular season somewhat by that win not mattering. The way it is now teams are playing deciding games in the regular season, conference races are part of the playoffs

And like I said, there are six additional bids to very strong teams that might have played poorly one game during the regular season.

[Mr. Ypsi]

While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."

f

I understand that part of it, I'm associated with Mississippi College who also plays in a very tough conference. Until this year we've never been able to beat Mary Hardin-Baylor and Hardin-Simmons, and several years they both were top 10 teams. In 2007 we went 8-2 and didn't get close to getting in because of the criteria, and that was with a team with a future NFL wide receiver, a future AFL receiver and arguably one of the most talented QB's in the country. And that with a pretty good defense and last second loss to HSU.

But, here's another way to look at it. It's not exactly fair to ask the conference champions to beat a team twice, once in the regular season and again to advance in the playoffs. It does cheapen the regular season somewhat by that win not mattering. The way it is now teams are playing deciding games in the regular season, conference races are part of the playoffs

And like I said, there are six additional bids to very strong teams that might have played poorly one game during the regular season.

Recently MUC and UWW so pulled away from the pack that we could have a one-game BCS fiasco and the Stagg would be unchanged anyway.  But that DOES also raise the question of 1-loss vs. 2-loss teams in certain circumstances.  Both ONU and Ott had only 1 loss (other than MUC) and Stevens Point and Stout had only 1 loss (other than UWW, and for UWSP also excluding a non-d3 loss).  All four teams would be ahead of several Pool C teams except for having two losses.  Should that matter?

(IMO, St. Norb's definitely was screwed (by the published criteria) by the selection of W & J; since there is no specification of the relative weight of the primary criteria, I believe ONU should have gone in ahead of either W & J OR St. Norbert.)

[D O.C.]

Well let us begin thinking ahead to how the WIAC is going to play into selection next year with their budget saving two-time-go-around.

[K-Mack]

Mentioned earlier that W&J would play Delaware Valley in the 2010 season.
PAC/MAC offices released the complete schedule earlier:

September 11, 2010 (MAC default home team unless switched by mutual agreement)
PAC #1 Washington & Jefferson (9-1, 5-1 PAC) at MAC #1 Delaware Valley (9-1, 7-0 MAC)
PAC #2 Geneva (7-3) at MAC #2 Albright (9-1, 6-1 MAC)
PAC #3 Grove City (5-5, 4-2 PAC) at MAC #3 Lebanon Valley (8-2, 5-2 MAC)
PAC #4 Waynesburg (5-5, 2-4 PAC) at MAC #4 Wilkes (6-4, 3-4 MAC)
PAC #5 Westminster (4-6, 2-4 PAC) at MAC #5 Lycoming (4-6, 3-4 MAC)
PAC #6 Bethany (3-7, 1-5 PAC) at MAC #6 King's (3-7, 2-5 MAC)
PAC #7 Thiel (3-7, 1-5 PAC) at MAC #7 Widener (3-7, 1-6 MAC)
PAC #8 Saint Vincent (0-10) at MAC #8 FDU-Florham (2-8, 1-6 MAC)

I read the release ... it said all games at MAC sites next year and all games at PAC sites the year after.

My question is do the matchups stay the same in 2011, or do they reset based on 2010 results? I would think they would, but the release read like maybe they were just home-and-home series.

[K-Mack]

While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."

f

I understand that part of it, I'm associated with Mississippi College who also plays in a very tough conference. Until this year we've never been able to beat Mary Hardin-Baylor and Hardin-Simmons, and several years they both were top 10 teams. In 2007 we went 8-2 and didn't get close to getting in because of the criteria, and that was with a team with a future NFL wide receiver, a future AFL receiver and arguably one of the most talented QB's in the country. And that with a pretty good defense and last second loss to HSU.

But, here's another way to look at it. It's not exactly fair to ask the conference champions to beat a team twice, once in the regular season and again to advance in the playoffs. It does cheapen the regular season somewhat by that win not mattering. The way it is now teams are playing deciding games in the regular season, conference races are part of the playoffs

And like I said, there are six additional bids to very strong teams that might have played poorly one game during the regular season.

Recently MUC and UWW so pulled away from the pack that we could have a one-game BCS fiasco and the Stagg would be unchanged anyway.  But that DOES also raise the question of 1-loss vs. 2-loss teams in certain circumstances.  Both ONU and Ott had only 1 loss (other than MUC) and Stevens Point and Stout had only 1 loss (other than UWW, and for UWSP also excluding a non-d3 loss).  All four teams would be ahead of several Pool C teams except for having two losses.  Should that matter?

(IMO, St. Norb's definitely was screwed (by the published criteria) by the selection of W & J; since there is no specification of the relative weight of the primary criteria, I believe ONU should have gone in ahead of either W & J OR St. Norbert.)

I enjoyed this discussion.

While it's true MUC and UWW have pulled away, keep in mind that they were not ranked 1-2 all four years they met in the Stagg Bowl. Linfield was No. 1 in '05 and UWW lost a game last season and fell behind North Central and Millsaps, etc.

So under a BCS system, we would not even be able to make the statement that MUC and UWW have pulled away.

File under Reason No. 8,467 why playoffs are better.

[Bob.Gregg]

[My question is do the matchups stay the same in 2011, or do they reset based on 2010 results? I would think they would, but the release read like maybe they were just home-and-home series.

According to the PAC ED, matchups are the same in 2011, sites flip.

[K-Mack]

[My question is do the matchups stay the same in 2011, or do they reset based on 2010 results? I would think they would, but the release read like maybe they were just home-and-home series.

According to the PAC ED, matchups are the same in 2011, sites flip.

Gotcha, makes scheduling easy ... although if they guaranteed every MAC team was still playing an away game against a PAC team on the same weekend, I guess it wouldn't matter if the matchups reset again.

Either way, I think this is good for both conferences, but better for the PAC. The MAC has been able to schedule NJAC and other good teams in the mid-Atlantic, the PAC not as much. Having a good game early will negate arguments about weak schedules, IF it's a team that's good this year against a team that remains good. As you I'm sure already know.

[1990 Champs]

The discussion regarding Pool C fascinates me, especially considering that I played during the 16 team regional ranking era.  Then, even winning the conference was not an automatic in to the playoffs, and there were often a couple of undefeated teams left out and more than a few one-loss squads.  Despite the subjective nature of the regional rankings, I never got the feeling that a potential champion was left out of the playoffs.

Now that there are two possible paths to entry for every team in the country, at least one of which is objective - win your conference and you're in, I do not see how there can be complaints about the system.  I think the selection (and seeding) process should be more transparent than it was this year, but every team had a chance to take care of business on the field and take the selection out of the hands of a committee (except, technically, for the pool B's). 

No system, other than an open tournament for all teams, will guarantee that the bracket consists of the top 32 (16, 8, 2, etc.) teams.  But a bracket that allows each team to decide their fate largely on the field is the most we can ask for.  Division III consistently provides that kind of bracket.   

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

Well said 1990!  +K4U

[HScoach]

1990 Champs:  Check your PM's.

[K-Mack]

The discussion regarding Pool C fascinates me, especially considering that I played during the 16 team regional ranking era.  Then, even winning the conference was not an automatic in to the playoffs, and there were often a couple of undefeated teams left out and more than a few one-loss squads.  Despite the subjective nature of the regional rankings, I never got the feeling that a potential champion was left out of the playoffs.

Now that there are two possible paths to entry for every team in the country, at least one of which is objective - win your conference and you're in, I do not see how there can be complaints about the system.  I think the selection (and seeding) process should be more transparent than it was this year, but every team had a chance to take care of business on the field and take the selection out of the hands of a committee (except, technically, for the pool B's). 

No system, other than an open tournament for all teams, will guarantee that the bracket consists of the top 32 (16, 8, 2, etc.) teams.  But a bracket that allows each team to decide their fate largely on the field is the most we can ask for.  Division III consistently provides that kind of bracket.   

I think almost everyone agrees with the gist of your post and 90 percent of the points made in it.

I, too, played in the 16-team era and saw a 10-0 team from my conference get left out, which left teams from certain conferences wondering what they could possibly do to get in. The AQ era has made it very clear to most teams what they have to do to get in.

And while I agree that no matter the size of the field, there will always be bubble teams who think they're deserving, I disagree with you on two major points.

1) That there should be no complaints about at-large bids. The Division III handbook lists the criteria for at-large selection. When different selection committees apply those criteria differently from year to year, it leads to the exact opposite of what you like so much about the AQs, which is clarity on what a team must do to make the playoffs.

2) That a "bubble" team can't win a championship. The recent dominance of Mount Union and UW-Whitewater has established a definite ruling class in Division III which makes it hard for some people to remember what it was like when any team in the playoffs could feasibly win it. But in 1999, Pacific Lutheran was the lowest seed in the West Region and presumably one of the last teams in, and won four road games and a fifth in Salem to win it all. They beat Rowan, who beat Mount Union in the semis.

Also I think anymore the definition of a "bubble" team, given the scarcity of Pool C bids (six for 23 conferences) is any team with one loss. And I took a fast look back to the mid-80s, when that run of unbeaten Augustana teams was winning it all ... about half the national champions had a loss or tie.

I'm in total agreement that no one we were discussing in this year's 'last team in' discussion seemed like much of championship contender, but I don't think we can make a blanket statement and say every team on the Pool C bubble isn't going to make a run. Wheaton went to the semis as a two-loss last team in last year; this year, Pool C St. Thomas and Albright are alive and well in the final 8.

And while we might never have the 32 "best" teams, there's no harm in striving to have the "best"/"strongest" field our system allows.

I think it's fine to have the arguments over the at-large spots, as long as we keep in perspective what you originally mentioned, that whatever we end up with beats the heck out of the 16-team system.

[1990 Champs]

The discussion regarding Pool C fascinates me, especially considering that I played during the 16 team regional ranking era.  Then, even winning the conference was not an automatic in to the playoffs, and there were often a couple of undefeated teams left out and more than a few one-loss squads.  Despite the subjective nature of the regional rankings, I never got the feeling that a potential champion was left out of the playoffs.

Now that there are two possible paths to entry for every team in the country, at least one of which is objective - win your conference and you're in, I do not see how there can be complaints about the system.  I think the selection (and seeding) process should be more transparent than it was this year, but every team had a chance to take care of business on the field and take the selection out of the hands of a committee (except, technically, for the pool B's). 

No system, other than an open tournament for all teams, will guarantee that the bracket consists of the top 32 (16, 8, 2, etc.) teams.  But a bracket that allows each team to decide their fate largely on the field is the most we can ask for.  Division III consistently provides that kind of bracket.   

I think almost everyone agrees with the gist of your post and 90 percent of the points made in it.

I, too, played in the 16-team era and saw a 10-0 team from my conference get left out, which left teams from certain conferences wondering what they could possibly do to get in. The AQ era has made it very clear to most teams what they have to do to get in.

And while I agree that no matter the size of the field, there will always be bubble teams who think they're deserving, I disagree with you on two major points.

1) That there should be no complaints about at-large bids. The Division III handbook lists the criteria for at-large selection. When different selection committees apply those criteria differently from year to year, it leads to the exact opposite of what you like so much about the AQs, which is clarity on what a team must do to make the playoffs.

2) That a "bubble" team can't win a championship. The recent dominance of Mount Union and UW-Whitewater has established a definite ruling class in Division III which makes it hard for some people to remember what it was like when any team in the playoffs could feasibly win it. But in 1999, Pacific Lutheran was the lowest seed in the West Region and presumably one of the last teams in, and won four road games and a fifth in Salem to win it all. They beat Rowan, who beat Mount Union in the semis.

Also I think anymore the definition of a "bubble" team, given the scarcity of Pool C bids (six for 23 conferences) is any team with one loss. And I took a fast look back to the mid-80s, when that run of unbeaten Augustana teams was winning it all ... about half the national champions had a loss or tie.

I'm in total agreement that no one we were discussing in this year's 'last team in' discussion seemed like much of championship contender, but I don't think we can make a blanket statement and say every team on the Pool C bubble isn't going to make a run. Wheaton went to the semis as a two-loss last team in last year; this year, Pool C St. Thomas and Albright are alive and well in the final 8.

And while we might never have the 32 "best" teams, there's no harm in striving to have the "best"/"strongest" field our system allows.

I think it's fine to have the arguments over the at-large spots, as long as we keep in perspective what you originally mentioned, that whatever we end up with beats the heck out of the 16-team system.

Well said, K-Mack.  I do want to clarify that I was not saying that there should be no complaints about at-large bids.  I think the chief complaint I would make, especially this year, is the transparency of the process.  The criteria LISTED certainly make those selections appear to be as objective as possible.  Unfortunately, the Criteria ACTUALLY USED is not known.