D3 Top 25 Fan Poll

[ExTartanPlayer]

I think it's more apparent that "everyone gets a ribbon" when you take a team that choked away their conference and give them another shot at winning a championship. Second best, but we want them to get the ribbon so give them another go at it, right?

Bingo.  QED.  End of discussion.

(or, it should be)

[HSCTiger74]

I think it's more apparent that "everyone gets a ribbon" when you take a team that choked away their conference and give them another shot at winning a championship. Second best, but we want them to get the ribbon so give them another go at it, right?

Bingo.  QED.  End of discussion.

(or, it should be)

   XTP, if people still used dictionaries I think that your picture would be in there next to the word "optimist".   

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

It is much easier to "choke" away your conference title if you are a good team in a good conference than if you are a good team in a weak conference.  I don't know how any of you can argue against that.

Then add to that very few other programs are all that willing to play the perennial playoff power programs so that they end up playing each other for non-conference games and you easily have a recipe for 2 losses. 

The rankings provided by the experts at D3football.com give us the best basis from which to make broad generalizations regarding conference strength and then playoff results either confirm or negate that analysis.  As they are annual rankings and I've used a 3 year average it would seem that any improvement an individual program has made would have been accounted for.

[jknezek]

It is much easier to "choke" away your conference title if you are a good team in a good conference than if you are a good team in a weak conference.  I don't know how any of you can argue against that.

And you are still second best, so what's the big deal? Stop whining you want a ribbon when you can't win your conference

Then add to that very few other programs are all that willing to play the perennial playoff power programs so that they end up playing each other for non-conference games and you easily have a recipe for 2 losses. 

None of which affects your access to the tournament since you can still win your conference, so stop whining you want a ribbon and win your conference

The rankings provided by the experts at D3football.com give us the best basis from which to make broad generalizations regarding conference strength and then playoff results either confirm or negate that analysis.  As they are annual rankings and I've used a 3 year average it would seem that any improvement an individual program has made would have been accounted for.

Yeah, because polls are so good at predicting order of finish and have no flaws regarding anchoring, bias, or dozens of other things that are studied ad nauseum by social scientists. Wartburg certainly was as good a team last week as they are this week right? The poll last week wasn't wrong, and neither is the one this week! Wartburg just is and the games don't count. Just use the polls people!!!!!! We can crown the champion in the pre-season and if it's the same one as last year, that's ok. We averaged it!!!!

[USee]

JKnezek,

While I am sympathetic to your point that you keep pounding home, you are oversimplifying the issue. Of course it's easy to say "just win your conference". That solution requires zero thought and may provide the best candidate for the title. But it may not. Let's use Major League Baseball as an example. There are flaws with this and it's obviously easier because the data set is so much larger with 182 games but the St Louis Cardinals, Pittsburgh Pirates and Chicago Cubs were the 3 best teams in the entire league by record. Using your approach we can tell them "just win your division" and you can get to the post season. Last season we saw the SF Giants win the title as a wild card, in the NFL we have seen the Steelers win the Super Bowl as a wild card.

I think we can all agree there are second place teams in some conferences that are better than first place teams in other conferences. We just can't decide on how to fairly determine that. So ignoring the issue by saying "just win your conference" is the easy way out. Emma, and others, are trying (flawed as the ideas may be) to see if there is a way out of this issue.

[jknezek]

There are still wildcards in DIII! What is the problem here? We have 5 or 6 these days. There are barely 5 or 6 title contenders in all of DIII. It is almost impossible for a legitimate DIII contender to be left out. Win your conference and you're in. With the exception of UWW in '08 and Linfield in '03 (undefeated Pool B and a conference champion), every champion since '00 has come from Pool A. The most likely place to find a champion? Among the conference winners, by far.

If you can't win your conference, you most likely can't win the title. If you can still win the title, you most likely have 1 loss, came from a power conference, and are getting a Pool C. About the sole exception I can think of to this rule is last year UWO. And that's because they only lost 1 game if don't count 20% of their schedule. Everyone else had to play 10 games that counted. People here like to think they should have played 8 games that counted and 2 that only counted if they won.

Play 10 games, win your conference, lose only 1, and have some big time competition. That's how you get into the tournament and if you can't do these things, it's no great loss that you aren't there.

Pool C hardly matters except as a ribbon. I admit the current process isn't really good. I also think they rest of what you guys keep coming up with is solely designed to favor DIII's version of the Yankees (if you want to stick with baseball, here you go). Unless you are a Yankees fan, you don't want them having a step up on everyone else at the beginning of the year and you are really darn happy when the Royals and Astros go from the worst team over 20 year periods to playoff teams. That's hard to make happen if the Yankees only have to win 90% as many games to crowd them out every year.

[smedindy]

The "C" bids (and the "B") make a great discussion for the coffee table, but frankly, most everyone in D-3 is playing for a playoff participation ribbon. That's great for a program, whether you are St. Scholastica or Wartburg. If you're not a Purple or Wesley, you're gonna need a lot of luck and help to make it to Salem.

I'm OK with that. Past the first round, you usually have no flakes or rummys, even though Purples have a tendency to make good teams look foolish at times.

If D-3 did without the auto qualifiers, I think a lot of what makes D-3 special goes away. Before the pool format, there was a guarantee that the committee would be called into question for backroom deals and back scratching in the smoke filled rooms. Win your league, make the playoffs. We should celebrate successes big or small.

[emma17]

Again, the ethos and mission of D3 is inclusion. The UMAC is an example of that and I embrace it.  I'd rather see the UMAC in instead of a 3-loss third place team. The end result will be exactly the same.

I wonder if the bolded statement above isn't a sort of demarcation line for those that have opinions on the subject of Pool C.

From a Pool C standpoint only, I interpret the positions of some others as to agree entirely with the statement- that is, if you came in through Pool C, you don't have a chance to change the final (Stagg) outcome. 
Last year St. Scholastica came in through AQ and played St. John's and was beat 35-7 (not a horrible mismatch though).
Is it that Smed and perhaps many others believe that had it been NCC or UWO coming in through Pool C and playing St. John's the end result would have been exactly the same?

If Smed is speaking bigger picture and referring to the Stagg Bowl as the end result, I still cannot hop on that train.  How can people be certain that UWO or NCC doesn't beat St. John's, and then go on to beat Wartburg?  What results occurred in 2014 or recent years suggest that neither UWO or NCC were capable of beating those teams?

My belief is that the more competitive the Pool C teams are, the greater the chance teams like UWW and Mt. Union will be pushed into the 4th quarter, and if that happens, the chance for upsets increases dramatically.
 
   

[USee]

There are still wildcards in DIII! What is the problem here? We have 5 or 6 these days. There are barely 5 or 6 title contenders in all of DIII. It is almost impossible for a legitimate DIII contender to be left out. Win your conference and you're in. With the exception of UWW in '08 and Linfield in '03 (undefeated Pool B and a conference champion), every champion since '00 has come from Pool A. The most likely place to find a champion? Among the conference winners, by far.

If you can't win your conference, you most likely can't win the title. If you can still win the title, you most likely have 1 loss, came from a power conference, and are getting a Pool C. About the sole exception I can think of to this rule is last year UWO. And that's because they only lost 1 game if don't count 20% of their schedule. Everyone else had to play 10 games that counted. People here like to think they should have played 8 games that counted and 2 that only counted if they won.

Play 10 games, win your conference, lose only 1, and have some big time competition. That's how you get into the tournament and if you can't do these things, it's no great loss that you aren't there.

Pool C hardly matters except as a ribbon. I admit the current process isn't really good. I also think they rest of what you guys keep coming up with is solely designed to favor DIII's version of the Yankees (if you want to stick with baseball, here you go). Unless you are a Yankees fan, you don't want them having a step up on everyone else at the beginning of the year and you are really darn happy when the Royals and Astros go from the worst team over 20 year periods to playoff teams. That's hard to make happen if the Yankees only have to win 90% as many games to crowd them out every year.

No, you are wrong. People here like to think there could be the SF Giants or Pittsburgh Steelers, or how about Ohio State Buckeyes? Many thought they shouldn't have been in the NCAA playoffs last year. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't, unless we all use your easy way out and say "just win your conference". I think Cubs fans are glad MLB doesn't think like you. If you use past history as your sole data to determine the future, history will surely repeat itself.

[jknezek]

There are still wildcards in DIII! What is the problem here? We have 5 or 6 these days. There are barely 5 or 6 title contenders in all of DIII. It is almost impossible for a legitimate DIII contender to be left out. Win your conference and you're in. With the exception of UWW in '08 and Linfield in '03 (undefeated Pool B and a conference champion), every champion since '00 has come from Pool A. The most likely place to find a champion? Among the conference winners, by far.

If you can't win your conference, you most likely can't win the title. If you can still win the title, you most likely have 1 loss, came from a power conference, and are getting a Pool C. About the sole exception I can think of to this rule is last year UWO. And that's because they only lost 1 game if don't count 20% of their schedule. Everyone else had to play 10 games that counted. People here like to think they should have played 8 games that counted and 2 that only counted if they won.

Play 10 games, win your conference, lose only 1, and have some big time competition. That's how you get into the tournament and if you can't do these things, it's no great loss that you aren't there.

Pool C hardly matters except as a ribbon. I admit the current process isn't really good. I also think they rest of what you guys keep coming up with is solely designed to favor DIII's version of the Yankees (if you want to stick with baseball, here you go). Unless you are a Yankees fan, you don't want them having a step up on everyone else at the beginning of the year and you are really darn happy when the Royals and Astros go from the worst team over 20 year periods to playoff teams. That's hard to make happen if the Yankees only have to win 90% as many games to crowd them out every year.

No, you are wrong. People here like to think there could be the SF Giants or Pittsburgh Steelers, or how about Ohio State Buckeyes? Many thought they shouldn't have been in the NCAA playoffs last year. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't, unless we all use your easy way out and say "just win your conference". I think Cubs fans are glad MLB doesn't think like you. If you use past history as your sole data to determine the future, history will surely repeat itself.

I'm so confused by this. We HAVE wildcards. Why is this something you won't accept?  The Buckeyes were conference champions. In the D3 system they would have made the playoffs. What is this nonsense you spew?  The Cubs? Great. They would have made a Pool C. They had the record. Honestly, your examples are useless. Wildcards exist in D3 and conference champions get AQs just like in MLB. IThere isn't a difference except people want to tilt the D3 wildcards to only a few conferences. That doesnt exist in MLB or you can be sure ESPN would make sure the Yankees and Redsox always made the playoffs. I can't make a link of sense off your last post.

[USee]

There are still wildcards in DIII! What is the problem here? We have 5 or 6 these days. There are barely 5 or 6 title contenders in all of DIII. It is almost impossible for a legitimate DIII contender to be left out. Win your conference and you're in. With the exception of UWW in '08 and Linfield in '03 (undefeated Pool B and a conference champion), every champion since '00 has come from Pool A. The most likely place to find a champion? Among the conference winners, by far.

If you can't win your conference, you most likely can't win the title. If you can still win the title, you most likely have 1 loss, came from a power conference, and are getting a Pool C. About the sole exception I can think of to this rule is last year UWO. And that's because they only lost 1 game if don't count 20% of their schedule. Everyone else had to play 10 games that counted. People here like to think they should have played 8 games that counted and 2 that only counted if they won.

Play 10 games, win your conference, lose only 1, and have some big time competition. That's how you get into the tournament and if you can't do these things, it's no great loss that you aren't there.

Pool C hardly matters except as a ribbon. I admit the current process isn't really good. I also think they rest of what you guys keep coming up with is solely designed to favor DIII's version of the Yankees (if you want to stick with baseball, here you go). Unless you are a Yankees fan, you don't want them having a step up on everyone else at the beginning of the year and you are really darn happy when the Royals and Astros go from the worst team over 20 year periods to playoff teams. That's hard to make happen if the Yankees only have to win 90% as many games to crowd them out every year.

No, you are wrong. People here like to think there could be the SF Giants or Pittsburgh Steelers, or how about Ohio State Buckeyes? Many thought they shouldn't have been in the NCAA playoffs last year. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't, unless we all use your easy way out and say "just win your conference". I think Cubs fans are glad MLB doesn't think like you. If you use past history as your sole data to determine the future, history will surely repeat itself.

I'm so confused by this. We HAVE wildcards. Why is this something you won't accept?  The Buckeyes were conference champions. In the D3 system they would have made the playoffs. What is this nonsense you spew?  The Cubs? Great. They would have made a Pool C. They had the record. Honestly, your examples are useless. Wildcards exist in D3 and conference champions get AQs just like in MLB. IThere isn't a difference except people want to tilt the D3 wildcards to only a few conferences. That doesnt exist in MLB or you can be sure ESPN would make sure the Yankees and Redsox always made the playoffs. I can't make a link of sense off your last post.

Honestly, if you don't understand the larger point, the only thing that is useless is you, since you seem to think that using those types of names are the cool thing. You don't get it. I see that. I am moving on.

[jknezek]

Probably a good plan.

[emma17]

The consideration for me is whether a 9-1, 2nd place team that played a weaker schedule and has little to no history of being competitive with the stronger teams they will see in the playoffs is a better choice for Pool C than an 8-2 (or 6-1/6-4) 2nd or even 3rd place team that played a stronger schedule and has a history of being competitive with the stronger teams they will see in the playoffs.

They both "choked" (I don't agree with this term) their conference bids away.  How should the 6 Pool C slots be filled?

[smedindy]

History means nothing to this year, really. This year's team didn't achieve those results 3-5 years ago - good or bad.

[jknezek]

I simply don't care that much about the history. A 9-1 team I'd put in on a "C" before a 7-3 or 6-4 team every time. Winning has to count for something. Otherwise just give all the bids to one conference and be done with it. No. You have to win or why play the season? Now it comes to 8-2/9-1, and here is where I simply lose a lot of interest.

To be honest if UWP and UWW win out, and UWO only loses to UWP, I have no problems at all with the WIAC having 3 teams in the playoffs. If the MIAC runner up is 9-1, I have no problems with the West having 3 or 4 of the 6 "C"s. I don't really see how it could happen, but I'd be fine with the West having all the "C"s if that's what it came down to. But it won't.

In the end, all I really care about is all the conferences have an AQ. No back room deals. At the beginning of the season every team has a shot. After that, they can play eenie-meenie-miney-moe among the 9-1/8-2 teams with at least 1 win versus an RRO for those 5 or 6 slots. It's all second chance and I'd just as soon have some limited qualification and have it be the "Loser Lottery" than build in an advantage to only a few year over year.