Pool C -- 2014

[Pat Coleman]

But you could get in a self-fulfilling prophecy situation where a league never gets in, because they don't get respect, because they have no playoff results, because they never get in.

Not in the tweak I would propose, no. I'll dig out the full explanation which I wrote elsewhere so people aren't dismissing it based on assumptions.

[AO]

While men's basketball uses multipliers for home and away games and other sports do not, the change in how the OWP, OOWP, and thus the SOS was calculated was across the board for all sports.

Goodness gracious I hope they don't add the multiplier to the football SOS.
From your talks with Men's basketball coaches do they understand how the NCAA calculates the multiplier?  You're penalized heavily for road games against poor opponents and it doesn't really matter whether you play a .500 teams on the road vs. home.

[hazzben]

But you could get in a self-fulfilling prophecy situation where a league never gets in, because they don't get respect, because they have no playoff results, because they never get in.

No, I don't think that's what we're describing at all. Almost every league putting forward 9-1 or 10-0 champs are getting their teams in. The regional committees aren't keeping MAC out of the Top 15. Even at 8-2, all but the very worst leagues are very likely to get in.

Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.

What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.

And, also, if a team with a couple or three non-conference games schedules up, loses them, and then goes 7-3, why keep them out?

Who's saying they get left out. Let's say North Central went 7-3, with OOC losses to Wartburg, Wabash and UWO. Given their navigation of the CCIW, it's possible they already picked up a RRO W, so maybe they're 1-3 v. RRO or even 1-2. But a 7-3 North Central that's a CCIW champ is very likely to get ranked in the top 15 of the North Region. If for no other reason, the fact they 'scheduled up' is going to give them a nice SoS boost.

[Pat Coleman]

My take on this is that we need to adopt Division II's policy of "earned access" for Division III football. In D-II, the top six teams in each region get playoff bids, but teams ranked No. 7 or No. 8 can steal one of those bids from a conference runner-up if they are a conference champion.

Here's how I would modify this and make it more in line with the Division III philosophy -- primarily by making the bar higher for exclusion. I really just want to reclaim one or two bids per year. So I would say that in order to get a playoff bid, you must win your conference and be in the top 15 in the regional ranking. If not, that bid reverts to at-large.

For example, last year we may have lost St. Norbert from that field. In 2012, Mount Ida, St. Scholastica and Christopher Newport.

We could write in safeguards that say no conference will lose its AQ in more than two consecutive years, ensuring every graduating class has a chance to play for an NCAA bid.

This year Benedictine.

[AO]

But you could get in a self-fulfilling prophecy situation where a league never gets in, because they don't get respect, because they have no playoff results, because they never get in.

No, I don't think that's what we're describing at all. Almost every league putting forward 9-1 or 10-0 champs are getting their teams in. The regional committees aren't keeping MAC out of the Top 15. Even at 8-2, all but the very worst leagues are very likely to get in.

Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.

What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.

And, also, if a team with a couple or three non-conference games schedules up, loses them, and then goes 7-3, why keep them out?

Who's saying they get left out. Let's say North Central went 7-3, with OOC losses to Wartburg, Wabash and UWO. Given their navigation of the CCIW, it's possible they already picked up a RRO W, so maybe they're 1-3 v. RRO or even 1-2. But a 7-3 North Central that's a CCIW champ is very likely to get ranked in the top 15 of the North Region. If for no other reason, the fact they 'scheduled up' is going to give them a nice SoS boost.

The UMAC could get a lot better but still not do well enough in their one non-conference game to boost the SOS to get in the regional rankings.  A 7-3 St. Scholastica in 2017 might be a lot better than the 10-0 Scholastica in 2014 but the SOS and vs RRO might look very similar.

[smedindy]

Who's saying they get left out. Let's say North Central went 7-3, with OOC losses to Wartburg, Wabash and UWO. Given their navigation of the CCIW, it's possible they already picked up a RRO W, so maybe they're 1-3 v. RRO or even 1-2. But a 7-3 North Central that's a CCIW champ is very likely to get ranked in the top 15 of the North Region. If for no other reason, the fact they 'scheduled up' is going to give them a nice SoS boost.

They could. Not North Central, but a MIAA team that scheduled up.

[smedindy]

My take on this is that we need to adopt Division II's policy of "earned access" for Division III football. In D-II, the top six teams in each region get playoff bids, but teams ranked No. 7 or No. 8 can steal one of those bids from a conference runner-up if they are a conference champion.

Here's how I would modify this and make it more in line with the Division III philosophy -- primarily by making the bar higher for exclusion. I really just want to reclaim one or two bids per year. So I would say that in order to get a playoff bid, you must win your conference and be in the top 15 in the regional ranking. If not, that bid reverts to at-large.

For example, last year we may have lost St. Norbert from that field. In 2012, Mount Ida, St. Scholastica and Christopher Newport.

We could write in safeguards that say no conference will lose its AQ in more than two consecutive years, ensuring every graduating class has a chance to play for an NCAA bid.

This year Benedictine.

Still don't like it. At. All. Because of politics or shenanigans. Or a team that schedules up, loses three in a row, then wins their league and gets better.

Putting ANY restrictions where someone may have to vote if a conference champ gets in or not can lead us back into a bad place.

[smedindy]

Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.

What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.

A 9-1 UMAC team may not get the votes. And that's not fair or right or just for them.

[hazzben]

Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.

What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.

A 9-1 UMAC team may not get the votes. And that's not fair or right or just for them.

or just?? Didn't realize who made the playoffs was a justice issue 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I happen to agree with smedindy here.  I'd rather keep all conference champs getting AQ's with no subjectivity from the RR's.  If that means your occasional 5-5 St. Lawrence or  6-4 Benedictine gets into the field, so be it.  Under Pat's suggestion, it looks like there'd be 1-2 teams per year (and with the rule that your conference can't lose the AQ two years in a row, some of those wouldn't happen) who would fail to earn the AQ despite winning their conference.  Is this kind of hand-wringing really worth it for one extra at-large bid a year?

[smedindy]

Also, the UMAC has a nine-game league schedule, so there is a legit winner there, and they only have one chance out of conference. That's not really that fair.

What's not fair? If a UMAC team is playoff caliber, they'll be able to navigate that conference schedule. CSS is 10-0...and they're likely to get smoked for the third or fourth straight year. If the UMAC is producing a 7-3 conference champ, that's not an impressive team.

A 9-1 UMAC team may not get the votes. And that's not fair or right or just for them.

or just?? Didn't realize who made the playoffs was a justice issue 

It's rather an injustice if a qualified team is excluded because of elitism. Not on a civil or human rights scale, of course, but the little guys deserve it as much as the so-called elites.

[Mr. Ypsi]

That's fine for the foreseeable future; as Ralph noted, we should remain at 6 Cs for a while.  But D3 IS still growing (albeit more slowly than before) and schools ARE still taking up football.  At some point in the future AQs will reach or even exceed 32.

May as well discuss options for when that day arrives.  I like Pat's plan (or something very similar), especially with the proviso that no conference can lose their AQ for more than two consecutive years.  Another possibility to delay the inevitable is to raise the AQ minimum from 7 to 8 or 9.

[PA_wesleyfan]

Pat
 
   If it comes down to eliminating whole conferences because of strength, wont that bring discussions back of dividing DIII into a fourth division?

[art76]

I took a few moments this morning to look at the bracket a little more closely and have a couple of tidbits to share. As in years past I have assigned D3's latest top 25 rankings to the entire field, including down through all the teams that received votes. Teams that received no votes got a placement of 42 attached to them, as Rowan got the last vote at placement number 41. (Yes, I know this is not very scientific, just something to consider.) So what does that get us? Well, the thinking is that the tougher bracket would have the fewer points. So here are those results:

UW-Whitewater bracket = 166 points
Mary Hardin-Baylor bracket = 147 points
Wesley bracket = 210 points
Mount Union bracket = 150

As you can see, three of the brackets are close enough to one another and one has a disproportionate number of lower ranked teams. We can all thank the 500 mile travel restriction for this.

Further, for others that might want to know, just what ranks are playing one another?

UW-Whitewater bracket we have:
1 vs. 42
14 vs. 29
13 vs. 42
5 vs. 20

Mary-Hardin-Baylor bracket we have:
11 vs. 25
16 vs. 42
10 vs. 17
2 vs. 24

Wesley bracket we have:
4 vs. 38
36 vs. 42
7 vs. 41
9 vs. 33

Mount Union bracket we have:
8 vs. 42
6 vs. 18
12 vs. 19
3 vs. 42

More cooler talk cannon fodder...

And a reminder/disclainer - this is according to the D3 Top 25  - it is NOT what the NCAA uses to set up the brackets.

[Pat Coleman]

Pat
 
   If it comes down to eliminating whole conferences because of strength, wont that bring discussions back of dividing DIII into a fourth division?

I wonder if there is more interest in subdividing Division III football more than it already is. (You know, into D-III playoff teams and NESCAC teams.)