Pool C -- 2011

[DanPadavona]

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

You say this.

I say, Endicott should have played Kean, or Hobart, or Fisher...and proven that they could post a 1-loss season by playing a challenging schedule. Period. Until then, no Pool C soup for you.

[DanPadavona]

What Endicott did in 2004 means nothing now. Nothing. What Endicott did in 2010 means nothing to 2011.

Sure it does, unless you think nothing which occurred in history should challenge us to think about how we interpret the present.

[smedindy]

Now is it "avoiding"? That's the language that infuriates me.

Do you know if the AD and football coach are going out of their way to avoid certain teams?

In 2010, SUNY Maritime had three non-conference games. Two were against Mass. Maritime and Merchant Marine. Why WOULDN'T they play them?

The other was Western Connecticut. When were those games scheduled? It could have been five or six years ago? But that's an NJAC school, not exactly a weak conference. Yeah, they're the dregs of that conference, but it's possible that when that game was scheduled, it was when Western was not a doormat. Who knows?

[smedindy]

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

You say this.

I say, Endicott should have played Kean, or Hobart, or Fisher...and proven that they could post a 1-loss season by playing a challenging schedule. Period. Until then, no Pool C soup for you.

And what if there are no room in those schedules? What if Kean or SJF decides its not in THEIR interest to play Endicott? Why would Kean play Endicott? Thus, you create a system where teams like Endicott are automatically excluded from a "C" because teams would avoid playing them.

[smedindy]

What Endicott did in 2004 means nothing now. Nothing. What Endicott did in 2010 means nothing to 2011.

Sure it does, unless you think nothing which occurred in history should challenge us to think about how we interpret the present.

History informs, but the men playing football in 2004 have nothing to do with the men playing football in 2011.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'!  Afterall, being considered for Pool C, almost by definition, means you lost a conference game.

[Frank Rossi]

People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

It's a lot different when there are 25-30 games being used for SOS purposes.  The Committee Chair, Dr. Solomen, said it on our show last year and probably will say it again this year:  the SOS devised for all sports is not statistically sound for a sport with such a small sample set.  Yet, the Committee is forced to use it as an explicit directive from the NCAA.  Don't shoot the messenger, and won't be shooting her tonight if Endicott is the sixth team standing in Pool C.  However, it needs to be stated and that statement shows a definite flaw in the system that conferences like the NEFC are exploiting, whether intended or unintended.  I have coaches telling me regularly now that they have no incentive to schedule tough OOC games based on the this one-loss must (you must run the table for the Pool C fallback in OOC games).  If Endicott gets in, it will only further that view and have potential long-range effects until something finally changes.

[smedindy]

Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

[Frank Rossi]

Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

There are 25 bids that say otherwise in a 32-bid system.  I think it's a BS argument to sit there and suggest elitism when these conferences are already being guaranteed slots in Pool A while teams in the OAC, WIAC, etc. have to pray for one of six at-large bids based on the Mount Union/Whitewater effect.  You can't be suggesting this with a straight face.

[DanPadavona]

I'm not disagreeing with that, Pat. But at some point the ECFC should be allowed a bid. And if its three years from now some would still have the same argument against their inclusion.

I don't think you give us enough credit. I am far more accepting of the NEFC now that they at least have two wins to show for their efforts. I may still believe they are a weak conference, but I welcome their Pool A bid. If the ECFC challenged quality competition outside of conference during the season, and showed success as a Pool B, we would welcome them too.

What if Kean or SJF decides its not in THEIR interest to play Endicott? Why would Kean play Endicott? Thus, you create a system where teams like Endicott are automatically excluded from a "C" because teams would avoid playing them.

I seriously doubt Endicott would not be able to find one competitive team to put on their schedule if they made an effort. Union and Montclair were willing to give Salve Regina a game. I doubt Salve Regina was close to scheduling D2 and FCS teams to fill 10 games.

Actually Salve is a perfect example to use, since they took the time to raise their level of competition and nobody else in conference did.

I think it is funny that you think maybe SUNY Maritime chose to play West Conn several years in advance, because they thought West Conn was better back then. No seriously, it was very funny. The entire ECFC and NEFC failed to schedule a respectable out of conference opponent, with the exception of Salve Regina. It's not coincidence. They know what they are doing. They know a lot of committee members think like you...that all that matters is final record and not who you play.

[smedindy]

People complain about the SOS numbers of the NESCAC in hoops, because they stay in-region and mop up on the other teams around them and only have one conference game. It works both ways.

And really, if you are complaining about Endicott being a Pool C, then you shouldn't have lost that second game. Wheaton shouldn't have lost to IWU. Baldwin-Wallace shouldn't have lost to Capital. St. Olaf shouldn't have lost to St. John's. Period.

It's a lot different when there are 25-30 games being used for SOS purposes.  The Committee Chair, Dr. Solomen, said it on our show last year and probably will say it again this year:  the SOS devised for all sports is not statistically sound for a sport with such a small sample set.  Yet, the Committee is forced to use it as an explicit directive from the NCAA.  Don't shoot the messenger, and won't be shooting her tonight if Endicott is the sixth team standing in Pool C.  However, it needs to be stated and that statement shows a definite flaw in the system that conferences like the NEFC are exploiting, whether intended or unintended.  I have coaches telling me regularly now that they have no incentive to schedule tough OOC games based on the this one-loss must (you must run the table for the Pool C fallback in OOC games).  If Endicott gets in, it will only further that view and have potential long-range effects until something finally changes.

But...

Wheaton lost two CCIW games.
St. Olaf lost two MIAC games.
Baldwin - Wallace lost two OAC games.
Montclair State lost two NJAC games.

Why would their non-conference schedule affect their "C" chances?

[DanPadavona]

The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'! 

Exactly. Plus K.

[smedindy]

Maybe teams put together schedules not worrying about the playoffs, you know.

Maybe it's long-time non-conference rivals, academic peers, aspirational peers, or they were left at the altar by a team and need to scramble for a game?

By reserving "C" for the elite, you turn D3 into D1, where to become bowl eligible you pick on D-1AA schools and side-step the better teams from lesser conferences. It's really evident in D1 Hoops. Why would a Big 10 school schedule Butler now?

There are 25 bids that say otherwise in a 32-bid system.  I think it's a BS argument to sit there and suggest elitism when these conferences are already being guaranteed slots in Pool A while teams in the OAC, WIAC, etc. have to pray for one of six at-large bids based on the Mount Union/Whitewater effect.  You can't be suggesting this with a straight face.

I can. Being near the OAC, they know if they win the rest of their OAC games they go to the playoffs. Much like any other conference. Same with the WIAC. Any worthy OAC or WIAC team that can run the table outside of the purple won't lose a non-conference game, except if they decide to schedule a team like North Central or St. Thomas.

And if they do schedule a North Central or a St. Thomas, it may give them a chance to compete against the Purples. They proved this year they're not invincible. They CAN be beaten if played hard for 60-minutes. it just didn't happen.

[smedindy]

The problem with two-loss teams being virtually automatically excluded is it translates into 'don't play any non-con games you might lose'! 

Exactly. Plus K.

Except that most all of the best two-loss candidates had their two losses in league. So there goes that argument.

[Ralph Turner]

And Illinois College shouldn't have ... what?

Enjoying this argument. Haven't weighed in because I can see both sides of the discussion. I would be in favor of a longer probationary period for new single-sport conferences.

I, too, am enjoying the debate.  A 2-year probation is what is required of the other all-sport conferences when they are forming.

Practically, there are so few other options for the schools that eventually land in single-sport conferences, e.g., geography, mission-vision, other non-affiliated schools, that I just don't see the problem.  Two years is one-half of the athlete's experience.  The probationary period should not be as long as moving between divisions, which is 4 years in most cases (3 in some).

The adoption of the AQ model for D-III has made for more opportunities for student-athletes in everything from football to lacrosse to men's and women's golf.  A deficiency in providing effect opportunities that could be solved by Single-Sport Conferences was identified, voted and implemented by the 430-member institutions in D-III. 

More student-athletes are participating!  That is D-III, not how many at-large "do-over" chances we have in Pool C in the national tournament

Personally, I am not looking forward to D-II where the AQ is not used in several sports, including football.