Official 2010 PLAYOFFS reaction thread

[jknezek]

Personally I disagree. Win your conference and you are in. If you can't win your conference, how can you be a national title holder? There may be better teams left out by the current system, but those teams didn't get the job done during the season. If you pull out the AQs and just select 32 teams it becomes much too subjective. I'd be much more inclined to ONLY allow conference champions. Will this make for the 32 (or approx 25 as it stands now in pool A plus a few pool B) best teams? No. But I don't think the teams that get to the final of that structure will be worse than some team that couldn't win its own conference.

Bottom line... win and you're in. Lose your conference, submit to the vagaries of the committee. Every team knows what it needs to do and that should not be taken away. It's easy to say some conferences are harder than others, and there is no doubt about it. However, the second best team in a hard conference doesn't have much of a case for trying for a national title... they've already proven to be second best this year...

[retagent]

I agree that some teams who are left out, are better than some of the teams who are in. However, I don't bellieve that any team who could win the Championship is left out. If there was an objective way to assure that the best 32 teams were chosen, I would be all for it. I believe that the system, such as it is, is better than another arbitrary method. This comes from a backer of a team that, this year, I believe, is better than maybe 10 - 12 teams who are in the playoffs. I do not think that they would get farther than possibly the second round. I understand that this is preferable to a subjective selection.

[HScoach]

I strongly disagree with GT.  The selection of teams is by Pool A is perfect.  Win your conference regardless of strong or weak, and you're in. 

The only suggestion I have is to get rid of Poll B and make the everything past Pool A an at-large bid.  If a Pool B team goes 10-0, as in Wesley, then they're easily win.  However a marginal 8-2 Pool B team shouldn't go before a 9-1 Pool C.

[AUPepBand]

Alfred gets pretty good support on the road. While parents form the nucleus of the AU crowd (and AU parents are the best!), there's also a good following of "locals" and alumni. Alfred is likely to have a good crowd at Cortland, which is an easy trip compared to Springfield, St. Lawrence, RPI, etal.

Pep was pleased with the crowd at Merrill Field Saturday, considering the increase in ticket prices (NCAA) for both students (usually free) and general admission. Pep noticed the Cortland-Endicott game drew a crowd of only 822 and wondered whether that was unusual for an NCAA Playoff. Not really. Of the 16 playoff games on Saturday, here are the games listed in order by attendance (3 games did not list attendance):

Bethel at Wartburg 3100
Trine at DePauw     2400
Christopher Newport at Mary Hardin-Baylor  2115
SUNY Maritime at Alfred  2008
Benedictine at St. Thomas  1620
(Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney 1554)
Salisbury at Delaware Valley  1500
Franklin at Whitewater  1468
Wittenberg at Ohio Northern 1380
St. Norbert at North Central 1100
Muhlenberg at Wesley   918
W&L at Thomas More  863
Endicott at Cortland   822
St. Lawrence at Mt. Union n/a
Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney n/a
Coe at Wheaton n/a
Cal Lutheran at Linfield n/a

Not a great take at the gate for the NCAA.

[Toby Taff]

Alfred gets pretty good support on the road. While parents form the nucleus of the AU crowd (and AU parents are the best!), there's also a good following of "locals" and alumni. Alfred is likely to have a good crowd at Cortland, which is an easy trip compared to Springfield, St. Lawrence, RPI, etal.

Pep was pleased with the crowd at Merrill Field Saturday, considering the increase in ticket prices (NCAA) for both students (usually free) and general admission. Pep noticed the Cortland-Endicott game drew a crowd of only 822 and wondered whether that was unusual for an NCAA Playoff. Not really. Of the 16 playoff games on Saturday, here are the games listed in order by attendance (4 games did not list attendance):

Bethel at Wartburg 3100
Trine at DePauw     2400
Christopher Newport at Mary Hardin-Baylor  2115
SUNY Maritime at Alfred  2008
Benedictine at St. Thomas  1620
Salisbury at Delaware Valley  1500
Franklin at Whitewater  1468
Wittenberg at Ohio Northern 1380
St. Norbert at North Central 1100
Muhlenberg at Wesley   918
W&L at Thomas More  863
Endicott at Cortland   822
St. Lawrence at Mt. Union n/a
Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney n/a
Coe at Wheaton n/a
Cal Lutheran at Linfield n/a

Not a great take at the gate for the NCAA.

That's a small crowd for the Cru.  I know we stayed away because 1) I thought the game would go the way it did and 2) I have to make that trip this coming week for Thanksgiving so we save the gas money.  I'll be there Saturday though

[Ryan Tipps]

Box score listed the Montclair/Sydney game at 1,554.

[AUPepBand]

NCAA D3 Championships First Round Attendance (updated--Pep could not locate attendance for 2 games):

Bethel at Wartburg 3100
Trine at DePauw     2400
Christopher Newport at Mary Hardin-Baylor  2115
SUNY Maritime at Alfred  2008
St. Lawrence at Mt. Union 1973
Benedictine at St. Thomas  1620
Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney 1554
Salisbury at Delaware Valley  1500
Franklin at Whitewater  1468
Wittenberg at Ohio Northern 1380
St. Norbert at North Central 1100
Muhlenberg at Wesley   918
W&L at Thomas More  863
Endicott at Cortland   822

Coe at Wheaton n/a
Cal Lutheran at Linfield n/a

Not a great take at the gate for the NCAA.

[AUKaz00]

I agree that some teams who are left out, are better than some of the teams who are in. However, I don't bellieve that any team who could win the Championship is left out. If there was an objective way to assure that the best 32 teams were chosen, I would be all for it. I believe that the system, such as it is, is better than another arbitrary method. This comes from a backer of a team that, this year, I believe, is better than maybe 10 - 12 teams who are in the playoffs. I do not think that they would get farther than possibly the second round. I understand that this is preferable to a subjective selection.

From a big picture perspective, a dozen years ago we had a subjective, 16 team tournament without AQs.  Today we're up to 32 teams with the AQ.  If we take the D3football Week 11 poll as our subjective selection we have the top 16 teams in this year's tournament with #17 Pacific Lutheran as the best team out.  Outside of a miraculous run, how many teams in the lower half of the top 25 have a real chance at winning the tournament.  I think the current tournament structure allows for equitable access while also crowning the best team as champion.

[Toby Taff]

AUKaz00

I think you're right.  As a fan of UMHB I can say that in 2004 the Cru may or may not have been left out of a subjective playoff because they didn't win the conference AQ because they were monkey stomped by HSU in the regular season.  They had to go on the road @ Trinity, HSU, W&J, and MUC to make the Stagg Bowl.  The glory run may not always happen, but they do happen.

[SaintsFAN]

NCAA D3 Championships First Round Attendance (updated--Pep could not locate attendance for 2 games):

Bethel at Wartburg 3100
Trine at DePauw     2400
Christopher Newport at Mary Hardin-Baylor  2115
SUNY Maritime at Alfred  2008
St. Lawrence at Mt. Union 1973
Benedictine at St. Thomas  1620
Montclair State at Hampden-Sydney 1554
Salisbury at Delaware Valley  1500
Franklin at Whitewater  1468
Wittenberg at Ohio Northern 1380
St. Norbert at North Central 1100
Muhlenberg at Wesley   918
W&L at Thomas More  863
Endicott at Cortland   822

Coe at Wheaton n/a
Cal Lutheran at Linfield n/a

Not a great take at the gate for the NCAA.

Most of the people at the Thomas More game did not go inside the stadium.  The vantage point from the parking lot is very good and they sell tailgate spots.

[Ralph Turner]

I agree that some teams who are left out, are better than some of the teams who are in. However, I don't bellieve that any team who could win the Championship is left out. If there was an objective way to assure that the best 32 teams were chosen, I would be all for it. I believe that the system, such as it is, is better than another arbitrary method. This comes from a backer of a team that, this year, I believe, is better than maybe 10 - 12 teams who are in the playoffs. I do not think that they would get farther than possibly the second round. I understand that this is preferable to a subjective selection.

From a big picture perspective, a dozen years ago we had a subjective, 16 team tournament without AQs.  Today we're up to 32 teams with the AQ.  If we take the D3football Week 11 poll as our subjective selection we have the top 16 teams in this year's tournament with #17 Pacific Lutheran as the best team out.  Outside of a miraculous run, how many teams in the lower half of the top 25 have a real chance at winning the tournament.  I think the current tournament structure allows for equitable access while also crowning the best team as champion.

Well stated...

The "bottom 16" had a lot of "Cinderellas". The 2010 season will be one of great memories for those teams who will likely stand out in the repesective athletic histories of their institutions.  Just winning the conference and earning a bid to the playoffs is the central theme of American sports culture.  And, with the Pool System, the strength is that every player knows what it takes at the beginning of the season.

[firstdown]

Having tasted the bitter ashes of the old system in 1982 when an undefeated Wabash team that had been ranked number 1 during the season was denied entry into the playoffs, I can attest that the curent system of AQ's, no matter its short comings, is infinitely better than the old subjective system.  The first goal of a team each year is to win the conference and that's the way it should be.  It is also great to have some Pool C "Wildcard" teams as well.  Otherwise you could end up with some ho hum mail it in games at the end of the season.  The Colts tried that a year or to back, and it didn't work out very well.

[d-train]

I think Keith had a far more 'workable' option in his Around the Nation piece, George.  Requiring an 80% winning percentage isn't likely, but there might be room to throw the auto-bid into the at-large pool if a league champ has more than 3 D3 losses (and throw that champ into the pool of hopefuls...for whatever that's worth).   

(BTW - with Linfield and PLU only playing 9 games - a 7-2 record leaves you on the 'outside' in your 80% plan even if you win the NWC!)   

[nccfac]

I think Keith had a far more 'workable' option in his Around the Nation piece, George.  Requiring an 80% winning percentage isn't likely, but there might be room to throw the auto-bid into the at-large pool if a league champ has more than 3 D3 losses (and throw that champ into the pool of hopefuls...for whatever that's worth).   

(BTW - with Linfield and PLU only playing 9 games - a 7-2 record leaves you on the 'outside' in your 80% plan even if you win the NWC!)   

Rather than 80% (no more than 2 losses for a team with 10 games) why not just no more than 2 losses period.
Why are so many happy to see the kind of lopsided scores from the first round with the AQs that are not competitive?  Seriously, is there a reason to see your team beat by 40 or 50 points so they can keep that memory? There have been teams that have been in the top 16 ranked teams that have not made the playoffs (ONU last year). After all of their excellent work and hard play, the answer for some is that they did not win the conference, so too bad? Even though their teams would be decimated by them. It is clear why they would want these teams to make the playoffs and face them.

[CrashDavisD3]

My preference is to give Pool A AQ playoff spots only to teams with zero or 1 loss. Next chosen would be Conference champs with 2 losses and then all others are at large bids picked with the current Pool C criteria. We need to reward winning.   More deserving teams will get in. Others stay home.  

If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score? Vince Lombardi ...