Official 2010 PLAYOFFS reaction thread

[Titan Q]

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.  

But wouldn't this encourage a lot of teams to play a bad non-conference schedule and/or NAIA games?  For example, why would Benedictine ever play a CCIW team (they played the last place CCIW this year and lost) if 2 losses means you're out of the playoffs?  Wouldn't they just play 3 NAIA teams in the non-conference (games that don't count) and hope to only lose 0 or 1 in the NathCon?

[jknezek]

[/quote]
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.
[/quote]

Ask the NCAA DI basketball teams that qualify from the NEC and other conferences that are almost always the 16th seed and get blown out by Duke etc. It's getting to the dance that matters, and getting there means winning your conference. Period. It's an honor to go to the dance, even losing in the first round by a lopsided score. Lets face it, in any given year there are only 6 or 8 (3-5 more likely) teams tops with a chance of winning the DIII playoffs. Everyone else is more or less cannon fodder. There is a huge disparity in the leagues and teams and that isn't going to go away. Reward the AQs like we do in every other division (except DI football). That's a reward for a season goal achieved, a shot at a very (long)shot dream...

[Toby Taff]

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 ...

The AQ as it stands does reward winning.  You get it for winning conference games.  What do you do when a conference is even top to bottom so that multiple teams end up with multiple losses.  The ASC is on the verge of having 4 very good teams: UMHB and HSU, perennial top 25 teams; Louisiana College, who finished 2nd in conference this season; and McM, whose air raid offense took UMHB and LC to the wire this season.  You could also throw in Mississippi College that was conference co-champ last season but fell off this year.  I could see a scenario, with all of the talent available in the area, where each team could finish with 2 losses and a 4 way tie at the top.  What?  You leave out the team that is deemed winner of the conference when all four could probably beat a number of 1 loss teams and maybe a few unbeatens?  

The AQ as it stands does what is intended; it rewards excellence within the conference.  Isn't that the coach speak, goal one is win the conference.  Games outside of conference are meant to prepare the team for conference.  The playoff trip is bonus.  If the conference title shouldn't be that important then do away conferences and just have a D3 pool.  Everyone sets 10 games and goes with it.  How easy do you think it would be for UMU or UWW or UMHB or Linfield or HSU or pick your perennial top 25 team to get a full schedule?

[CrashDavisD3]

 

Teams that got playoff bids
Christopher Newport(6-4) 
Franklin and Marshall(5-5)
St Lawerence (5-5) 


Teams left out
Pacific Lutheran((8-1) 
Redlands(8-1) 
Hardin-Simmons(8-2)

Tell me this makes senses........

[altor]

 
Teams that got playoff bids Teams that won their conference
Christopher Newport(6-4) 
Franklin and Marshall(5-5) (9-1)
St Lawerence (5-5) 


Teams left out Teams that did not win their conference
Pacific Lutheran((8-1) 
Redlands(8-1) 
Hardin-Simmons(8-2)

I can make make arbitrary headings on my lists too...and I can use the correct data.

[Ralph Turner]

Teams that got playoff bids

Christopher Newport(6-4)  Won their conference AQ!  Lost to Wesley, Salisbury and Frostburg State, all of which needed non-conference games.  Went 6-1 in conference.  Under a "two-loss rule", they probably should have scheduled Southern Virginia, UVA-Wise and some other non-D-3 team.

Franklin and Marshall(5-5)  Did not make the NCAAs. They played an ECAC playoff game.

St Lawerence (5-5) They won the Liberty League AQ with a 5-1 record. They started the season 0-3 and then lost a mid-season non-conference game to Utica.


Teams left out

Pacific Lutheran((8-1)  Yes, the West Coast is isloated and never can get a good OWP/OOWP.  For the ASC, SCIAC and NWC, you really must win your conference to get a bid.  Those schools conferences won't get any help from the criteria in any other way.  This is a fact of life in all sports. 

Redlands(8-1)  -  Ditto

Hardin-Simmons(8-2)  Had a Pool C bid wrapped up, but missed  FG's at the end of each half against Louisiana College to lose by 2 points.

Tell me this makes senses........

[Toby Taff]

Teams that got playoff bids
Christopher Newport(6-4) 
Franklin and Marshall(5-5)
St Lawerence (5-5) 


Teams left out
Pacific Lutheran((8-1) 
Redlands(8-1) 
Hardin-Simmons(8-2)

Tell me this makes senses........

I agree with altor...won their conference.  As for HSU, ralph touched on it.  they were a pool C lock (if there is such a thing) but lost to LC in a close game a LC team, which would have beat UMHB had the Cru not intercepted a pass in the endzone to secure the win.  BTW LC lost 3 games this season and by your criteria would have been left out if they had beat UMHB 

[Ralph Turner]

If LC had beaten UMHB,  then LC is the AQ from the ASC!

[d-train]

Probably would have been a stronger case if CrashDavisD3 had mentioned Rowan and not HSU or Franklin and Marshall.

[CrashDavisD3]

Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.

But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.

This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.

We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.

[altor]

Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.

But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.

This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.

We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.

Now I'm confused.  Isn't this pretty much what we have now?

[CrashDavisD3]

Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.

But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.

This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.

We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.

Now I'm confused.  Isn't this pretty much what we have now?

Merge Pool B, Pool C into a non conference winner pool. Add to conference winners pool any conferences(if any) that do not get AQ Pool A bids.

[Ralph Turner]

Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.

But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.

This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.

We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.

Now I'm confused.  Isn't this pretty much what we have now?

Merge Pool B, Pool C into a non conference winner pool. Add to conference winners pool any conferences(if any) that do not get AQ Pool A bids.

Pool B leftovers can still get Pool C bids, as happened in baseball about 4-5 years ago.

Pool B has changed so much in the last decade due to all of the non-aligned and small conferences aggregating into larger units.

The challenges in Pool B saw teams leave for other divisions, eg CSU-East Bay and Menlo in baseball.

We saw the creation of the Association of D-III Independents to represent the needs of those schools.  

The Capital AC went from dominating Pool B with 2-3 bids of the 6-7 available to a single Pool A bid as teams added baseball in the conference.

Once again for new readers, the number of Pool B schools (coming from conferences that don't have at least 4 full members and at least 7 full and affiliate members) is divided by the access ratio.  That number comes from the number of teams in Pool A conferences divided by the number of Pool A conferences.  Pool B is like one big national conference with the same ratio of teams per bid.

And remember, a new conference spends its first 2 years competing for Pool B bids, as the Landmark Conference (non-football), the New England Collegiate Conference (non-football), the Upper Midwest Athletic Conference and the East Coast Football Conference (a single sport conference) have done.

[d-train]

Merge Pool B, Pool C into a non conference winner pool. Add to conference winners pool any conferences(if any) that do not get AQ Pool A bids.

Wait...your proposal has changed quite a bit.  You do realize that 6-4 CNU and 5-5 St.L. were Pool A teams, right?  Salisbury (with two losses) might have been left home for Rowan if Pools B and C were merged.

[CrashDavisD3]

Bottom line is win your conference to get a playoff bid with current rules. # of losses have no meaning if you win your conference.

But change current system to include
All conferences winners are in. If necessary fill the remaining spots with non conference winner pool. This makes the non conference winner pool very small #. This will be filled with the 1 or 2 loss teams that did get in by being a conference winner.

This rewards conference winners and rewards very small number of non conference winners. As we have already seen conferences vary in size and should not be a factor nor the strength of the conference.

We end up with Conference winners pool and non conference winners pool.

Now I'm confused.  Isn't this pretty much what we have now?

Merge Pool B, Pool C into a non conference winner pool. Add to conference winners pool any conferences(if any) that do not get AQ Pool A bids.

Pool B leftovers can still get Pool C bids, as happened in baseball about 4-5 years ago.

Pool B has changed so much in the last decade due to all of the non-aligned and small conferences aggregating into larger units.

The challenges in Pool B saw teams leave for other divisions, eg CSU-East Bay and Menlo in baseball.

We saw the creation of the Association of D-III Independents to represent the needs of those schools. 

The Capital AC went from dominating Pool B with 2-3 bids of the 6-7 available to a single Pool A bid as teams added baseball in the conference.

Once again for new readers, the number of Pool B schools (coming from conferences that don't have at least 4 full members and at least 7 full and affiliate members) is divided by the access ratio.  That number comes from the number of teams in Pool A conferences divided by the number of Pool A conferences.  Pool B is like one big national conference with the same ratio of teams per bid.

And remember, a new conference spends its first 2 years competing for Pool B bids, as the Landmark Conference (non-football), the New England Collegiate Conference (non-football), the Upper Midwest Athletic Conference and the East Coast Football Conference (a single sport conference) have done.

Thanks again for your excellent information on this topic...