Pool C -- 2014

[emma17]

The little guy who plays by the rules, and gets quashed, won't get in under your proposal. That's unfair.

Many teams lose non-conference games to non-playoff teams and get in the playoffs anyway. Because they win their league. Everyone knows what they have to do to secure a spot. Why is that so contentious, unless you don't want the little guys a chance to get in there to allow the fat-cats a third chance even though they lost twice.

The stories of these smaller teams are compelling, and without them we lose some of the fabric of what makes D3 great!

Here are the teams who did things the right way (won their league) and also lost to a non-playoff team:

Husson (lost to Alfred)
Adrian (lost to Wisconsin Lutheran)
Franklin (lost to Illinois Wesleyan)
Christopher Newport (lost to Salisbury)
Maclaester (lost to Hamline)
Benedictine (lost to Central and Carroll)

All of these teams but Adrian lost in game one or two to these non-conference non-playoff teams. They regrouped and won their league.

The tournament is richer because of the stories of Macalester and Husson, and I'd argue even a Benedictine. It's a great story, it celebrates the spirit of athletics and D3. Let's not lose that.

Again, why is it contentious for a team that wins its league NOT qualify, while a team that fails to do so gets in. They had their chance.

A fair question. 
Let me first say I've not made up my mind that that I'm in favor of changing the AQ part of the system, I see a lot of merit in your position. I also haven't decided whether I'm an Option 1, 2 or 3 guy (in terms of the primary mission of the playoffs)- I want to hear support for the different options like you just provided.

As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently.  There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3.  I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist". 
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team. 

Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game.  Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet.  Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.     
So why is there contention?  Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified.  Benedictine cannot say the same. 

[wally_wabash]

As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently.  There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3.  I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist". 
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team. 

Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game.  Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet.  Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.     
So why is there contention?  Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified.  Benedictine cannot say the same.

At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field? 

[smedindy]

People feel that way about any tournament. They complain about the MEAC and SWAC in the NCAA hoops tournament, and it's shame they jettison those teams to the 'first round' when they won their league, and blah teams do not have to do that.  The fact is that you exclude MORE qualified teams by putting an arbitrary factor in, and you exclude teams that haven't had that chance to 'prove' themselves against some arbitrary standard . It chooses the perceived 'strong' over the perceived 'weak. Thus, it IS elitist.

You also need more nuance. An E8 or OAC runner up with one loss, thanks to their leagues, will get in. JCU did even though they had an 0-1 record against RR opponents and a blah SOS thanks to their one non conference loss to St. Vincent. So your scenario isn't likely. If JCU lost twice, and finished second, then it's their own fault they lost to a 7-3 or 6-4 or 5-5 team as well as Mt. Union.

4

[emma17]

As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently.  There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3.  I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist". 
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team. 

Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game.  Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet.  Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.     
So why is there contention?  Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified.  Benedictine cannot say the same.

At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?

Wally, that's an impossible question to answer.  But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year. 
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  I'd imagine your answer is yes.  Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have. 
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games.  I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too. 

[AO]

As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently.  There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3.  I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist". 
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team. 

Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game.  Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet.  Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.     
So why is there contention?  Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified.  Benedictine cannot say the same.

At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?

Wally, that's an impossible question to answer.  But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year. 
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  I'd imagine your answer is yes.  Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have. 
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games.  I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.

I am not certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW.  I am certain that UWW beat UWO.

[D3AlumniParent]

You know, maybe these schools are happy where they are athletically and academically and are not going to spend money to try to be a Whitewater. Or they don't have the budget; many state schools in the East do not and can't travel much because of budget issues. Or they need to focus on the 15+ OTHER sports they have programs for. The world does not revolve around football.  Yet they want to be part of a playoff process because that's what D3 is.

I couldn't agree more.

They could be. Playoffs don't roll around for every program every year.

I think this is a very important point that should not be overlooked.

With 244 schools represented, this is a huge division. And there is great disparity among the football playing schools with regard to school enrollments, athletic/football budgets and just where football "fits" in the hierarchy of priorities for each institution - where it fits in relation to their mission.

To some it may seem that D3 football is a sort of catch-all of teams that chose not to participate in D1 & D2. But there is a defined purpose of Division III athletics, as reflected in its mission statement:

http://www.ncaa.org/governance/division-iii-philosophy-statement

I just want to point out a few of these:

2.  Place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators and place greater emphasis on the internal constituency (e.g., students, alumni, institutional personnel) than on the general public and its entertainment needs;

17. Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and

18. Support student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching and appropriate competitive opportunities.

Until there comes a time when there are more AQs than currently available tournament spots (32), then the discontent with an AQ-driven tournament primarily comes from the camps of teams that lost games and did not win their conference title. My argument is that at least those results were decided on the field and not by some subjective criteria, as well-thought out as it may have been.

Win your conference (#17) and you are in. If the tournament isn't "competitive enough" in the opinions of some, then refer to #2 (entertainment) or #18 -"may include" (not will include) and..."all teams". To leave out a conference champ, like an Adrian or Husson or Benedictine, because they weren't deemed competitive enough, would go against the mission statement. The NCAA is probably not going to change or stray from the current mission statement of Division III.

I realize most people rationalizing a scenario where an AQ team was left home are doing so under the future hypothetical time when D3 football has more AQ conferences than available tournament spots. My knowledge is limited here, but I'd still guess that time is a long way off. The fact that there are still eight Pool B/C opportunities I see as a huge bonus. If it were only four, I'd look at it the same way.

I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence or diminish opinions of anyone disagreeing with my viewpoint. This is, by far, the most well-intentioned, open-minded rational group of sports enthusiasts that I've encountered on the web or elsewhere. I'm blown away at how many years this community has been together.

And I appreciate how enthusiastic everyone is with regards to the best sport ever created, football, and with regards to the improvement of the football championship tournament.  That said, I look forward to continuing my education here and hearing any alternate viewpoints. I just think it's important to keep remembering that D3 is different. And that's a good thing.

[emma17]

People feel that way about any tournament. They complain about the MEAC and SWAC in the NCAA hoops tournament, and it's shame they jettison those teams to the 'first round' when they won their league, and blah teams do not have to do that.  The fact is that you exclude MORE qualified teams by putting an arbitrary factor in, and you exclude teams that haven't had that chance to 'prove' themselves against some arbitrary standard . It chooses the perceived 'strong' over the perceived 'weak. Thus, it IS elitist.

You also need more nuance. An E8 or OAC runner up with one loss, thanks to their leagues, will get in. JCU did even though they had an 0-1 record against RR opponents and a blah SOS thanks to their one non conference loss to St. Vincent. So your scenario isn't likely. If JCU lost twice, and finished second, then it's their own fault they lost to a 7-3 or 6-4 or 5-5 team as well as Mt. Union.

4

You almost got through the post without print screaming 

I agree that people feel that way about nearly every tournament- it doesn't mean you shouldn't look to improve. 
I don't agree that I need more nuance.  Replace UWO for SJF and JCU, it's the same story.  In fact UWO is an even better story.  The whole WIAC story is a better story.  UWO didn't get in, they only lost one game.  And pleassssseeee people, don't use the non conf record as support.  If you do, then please be prepared to explain why  Wesley is the number one seed.

Like I said, I'm not certain which way I'll go on this AQ thing, but there is nothing elitist about the philosophy of a playoffs consisting of the most capable teams. 
In fact, you can look at all kinds of sports, and I imagine walks of life, where there are plenty of examples of a filtering process that allows only the best to compete.
I'm no golfer, but as I understand it, a person with a great handicap isn't getting into a big time tourney unless he earned it on USGA high rated courses. 
I'm no gymnast, but I know there are all kinds of Levels within girl's gymnastics.  A level 5 girl won't be competing with a level 10 girl in a tournament.

[wally_wabash]

As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently.  There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3.  I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist". 
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team. 

Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game.  Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet.  Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.     
So why is there contention?  Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified.  Benedictine cannot say the same.

At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?

Wally, that's an impossible question to answer.  But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year. 
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  I'd imagine your answer is yes.  Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have. 
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games.  I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.

I'll rephrase- has any tournament since 1999 left the Division III community feeling like the best team didn't win?  I don't think I can say that.  Maybe there are people that can chime in that think otherwise.  But mostly, and by a wide, wide margin, I think most people are going to feel like the Division III tournament, as constructed currently, produces  a champion that we can generally agree is the best team. 

Re: UWO and UWW- I don't know who would win if those two teams played tomorrow.  I do know that UWW beat UWO already once this season, and that's good for me.  I don't need to see UWW "prove it" by beating them a second time.  I've got no problem with the idea that being a conference champion should be a prerequisite for being a national champion. 

Re: UWO, UWW, and Benedictine (those poor guys)- No, I don't think Benedictine would beat UWW, but that would make one helluva story for the Stagg Bowl.    I don't disagree that UWO could probably have more "impact" on the tournament (they could also lose their first game just like Benedictine), but if we're saying that UWO not being included is a bad thing, I'm not guying.  UWO got their shot at the king and they missed.  Had they been invited, then they get a second chance and more power to the Titans.  That they didn't get in doesn't really bother me or doesn't make me feel like the field is tainted. 

And FWIW, I voted for UWO as the last team in during our mock selection last weekend, but UWO got outvoted by NCC by our mini-committee.  It was really, really close.  And there are a couple of really, really good teams that got left out.  You could make good cases for UWO, NCC, SJF, Framingham State, Thomas More...there was a lot of quality sitting just outside of the hot tub last weekend. 

[emma17]

As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently.  There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3.  I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist". 
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team. 

Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game.  Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet.  Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.     
So why is there contention?  Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified.  Benedictine cannot say the same.

At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?

Wally, that's an impossible question to answer.  But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year. 
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  I'd imagine your answer is yes.  Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have. 
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games.  I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.

I am not certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW.  I am certain that UWW beat UWO.

That goes nowhere AO.  We already established in the original scenario that SJF beat Benedictine.  In this scenario, Smed is of the mindset that Benedictine should get into the tourney ahead of SJF. 

[D3AlumniParent]

The little guy who plays by the rules, and gets quashed, won't get in under your proposal. That's unfair.

The tournament is richer because of the stories of Macalester and Husson, and I'd argue even a Benedictine. It's a great story, it celebrates the spirit of athletics and D3. Let's not lose that.

Again, why is it contentious for a team that wins its league NOT qualify, while a team that fails to do so gets in. They had their chance.

Yes. Yes. And Yes.

D3 athletics does not equal D1 athletics, only played by slightly smaller, slower, less athletic competitors. The mission statement is different.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Re: UWO and UWW- I don't know who would win if those two teams played tomorrow.  I do know that UWW beat UWO already once this season, and that's good for me.  I don't need to see UWW "prove it" by beating them a second time.  I've got no problem with the idea that being a conference champion should be a prerequisite for being a national champion. 

This.  I hated it when Alabama got the second-chance-against-LSU national title.

[AO]

As to your question, the reason there is contention, IMO, is because people view the mission of the playoffs differently.  There are some that feel the playoffs should absolutely be about getting the best competition in to find the best team in D3.  I don't think those people deserve to be tagged as "elitist". 
From their perspective, they too have a fair argument if in fact the mission of the playoffs is to create the most competitive tournament to crown the best team. 

Going back to the scenario, let's change SJF to JCU simply because of the recent game.  Many believe that JCU has a good chance of beating Mt Union the second time around, if they meet.  Most, if not all, do not believe Benedictine has any chance whatsoever of beating Mt Union.     
So why is there contention?  Because JCU's loss to Mt during the season may have happened for a variety of reasons that could be rectified.  Benedictine cannot say the same.

At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?

Wally, that's an impossible question to answer.  But the fact that you posed the question actually supports those that aren't in favor of AQ across the board.
As an example, and it's not because I'm all WIAC all the time, but it's recent and it's meaningful.
The tournament failed to invite UWO this year.
Wally, are you certain that UWO couldn't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  Yet, it's certainly possible UWW could go on and win the national championship this year. 
Are you certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW in the playoffs this year?  I'd imagine your answer is yes.  Thus, there is basically zero chance that Benedictine could influence the tournament this year, while there is a very decent chance that UWO could have. 
I attended both the UWW-UWP and UWW-UWO games.  I wouldn't want UWW to have to play them again in the playoffs.
I'm sure I can find similar situations every year prior too.

I am not certain that Benedictine can't beat UWW.  I am certain that UWW beat UWO.

That goes nowhere AO.  We already established in the original scenario that SJF beat Benedictine.  In this scenario, Smed is of the mindset that Benedictine should get into the tourney ahead of SJF.

Maybe SJF should pull a Macalester and join a lesser conference if they're upset about not getting 2nd and 3rd chances.

[emma17]

Re: UWO and UWW- I don't know who would win if those two teams played tomorrow.  I do know that UWW beat UWO already once this season, and that's good for me.  I don't need to see UWW "prove it" by beating them a second time.  I've got no problem with the idea that being a conference champion should be a prerequisite for being a national champion. 

This.  I hated it when Alabama got the second-chance-against-LSU national title.

Interesting.  I think you're the third poster to state that you don't like the second chance to win idea.  I get that.  But that is kind of a different discussion as it's a Pool C thing.  In reality I think all Pool C teams get a second chance, right?  I mean, maybe we should open up the topic of Eliminating Pool C.  That way we won't have to worry again about a team getting a second chance.  We won't have any JCU's and SJF's and St Thomas' and TLU's (thankfully) and all those others that didn't win their conference. 

I think the main discussion is the whole AQ thing, well really, it's the whole mission of the D3 tournament thing. 
As D3 parent provided, the current mission is pretty clearly stated and in line with Option 1.

To this point on the board, it seems the current AQ system is favored over an Option 2 approach.   

[Bombers798891]

You know, I've thought a lot about this in recent days, and even changed my position. I've come to the following two conclusions:

1. Keep the AQ system: Are we always getting the "best" teams in the playoffs? Probably not. But so what? Not everything should be about figuring out the best teams, and honestly, no playoff system will ever determine who the best team is anyway, simply the team that won whatever system they were put in. The concept of best is one we attach after the fact. If Whitewater wins the Stagg Bowl, we say that they're "better" than Mary-Hardin Baylor, even though the two teams never played each other.

There are other things that are more important to Division III than determining who the best is, access being one of them. I kind of think that's refreshing.

2. I really wonder though, if Division III football needs to split up. Pat (among others) often says that the other 240 teams in D-III football need to get better if we want to see change at the top. But, not only do I think it's essentially impossible for many schools to raise their game to that level, I also think there are a lot of schools who have no desire to. I mean, I went to a college with a fantastic football history, and recently they had a President who could not have cared less about athletics. It just wasn't a big deal.

One of the reasons I think we get so many blowouts of the 70-0 variety at this level is because while in theory, all 242 schools are competing for the same thing, in practice, there are simply schools for whom losing 70-0 to Mount Union or whoever just doesn't matter to enough people to impact change. Coaches and players? Sure. But institutionally? Not at all. So what's gained by having them compete directly?

[d-train]

At what point in the AQ era (1999-present) has this tournament not only failed to identify the best team in Division III, but failed to even include the best team in the field?

There have been some very close calls, though.  PLU was a conference runner-up and #7 seed in a 28 team field in 1999.  They won four playoff games on the road and the Stagg Bowl.  SJU was the West #7 the next year and gave Mount all it could handle in the Stagg.  Who's to say that one of those teams just outside the cut couldn't have done the same?  So in theory you don't 'know' for sure. 

That said, I mostly support the current system.  I fully support the Saints and Scots being in, even if they end up losing by 40.  But I'd have some type of 3rd or 4th loss clause, that would affect Benedictine.  If you win a conference (with an AQ) but have 3+ D3 losses - you are evaluated against the other at-large (Pool C) teams for that bid.  I know that not everyone supports the idea (and I understand why).  And of course a 4th loss policy is easier to take than a 3rd loss one.