Pool C -- 2014

[joelmama]

You could also have a situation where if there were more than 32 AQ conferences force certain conference champions to play a "playoff" in the 11th week and the winners of these couple of games are in the 32 team field.  Sort of like the play in games the NCAA D1 BB tourney has.  The selection committee the year before selects the lowest ranked conferences for this "honor"  Better yet the D3.com crew should be the selectors.

[D3AlumniParent]

We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!

Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.

Except, "The playoffs will sort themselves out" doesn't actually solve the problem we could be facing. Just because you don't want to address the issue doesn't mean it just goes away or gets fixed.

Look, if we are going to keep the playoffs at 32 teams because we don't want to add another week to the season, that means we can't have more than 32 conferences, because then we're not giving auto-access through the AQ, which is a tenet of Division III athletics.

How do we add a "boatload" of teams while keeping the conference total under 32? Eventually, something has to change. You either have to cut off opportunity, or add another week. There's no way around it

Most all of those teams can't or won't support football. Some may, but many won't.

The point was that if an Oglethorpe or Calvin decided to add football, they should be allowed to easily without people getting their shorts in a knot.

I realize you were just using Oglethorpe as an example, smed, but just so you know, they're in the SAA. I'd also venture to guess that most other schools that would potentially add football also have current conference affiliations, though maybe not necessarily all in D3.

There really aren't that many independents, so I can't imagine how long it would take before 6 more entire conferences were formed. But if it were to get to that level of participation, I'd consider splitting D3 in half. Not sure how: regionally, school-size, haves/have-nots, alphabetically  , whatever. But perhaps that split would be so difficult to define that it wouldn't happen. Curious as to others' thoughts on how that split might be defined.

[hazzben]

It will remain at 32 ... because it would take a change in the Division III rules to grow any bigger. Football is capped at 32. And honestly... where in the world are you going to find another week to fit in an extra week of playoffs? And growth in Division III is actually slowing a bit, which isn't a bad thing to be honest.

To be honest, the growth is the thing that I think needs to be capped. If we are locked in at 32 teams, we should lock in the number of schools in D3. Just a thought...

We can't. There are a boatload of schools that don't play football that are D3. If they decide to add football, like Hendrix and George Fox, we must, allow them in!

Growth for D3 helps us ALL! The playoffs will sort themselves out; the key is access and opportunity to intercollegiate athletics.

Of course, that objection is based on the assumption that I'm against current D3 schools adding football. But, looking back, I seem to recall saying I was opposed to adding schools to D3, until we're willing to deal with the playoffs and keeping the ratio in balance.

If Calvin wants to jump in, go for it (personally, I think it'd be great for them as a school)! And because schools like Pacific, George Fox or even Calvin are already D3 and part of auto bid conferences, it actually has little bearing on who gets into the playoffs.

At some point, adding schools to D3 (i.e. entire athletic departments that compete in the NAIA, etc.) does pinch on the playoffs. I'm not against equal access. But I think it works well because it's balanced by a degree of opportunity for good teams to get in via the at large arrangement.

I don't want a system where it's just the 'Top 32 teams' decided on by some committee or subjective standard. But neither do I want a system where there are 32 teams in the field, 20 of whom are weak sisters, while loads of 1 loss runners up, who would be great teams from a competitive standpoint are left home.

We don't have that right now. But we aren't far off from it. I'd like to see Pool C stay at 5 or 6 teams. If it gets to the point of 3 or less, I think we'll have greatly diminished the product in the field. The reason this is a concern...if we think finances are constrained in the NCAA Division 3 world, you should see how constrained they are in the NAIA world.

Thinking out loud. How hard would it be to say, you can't jump to D3 unless you jump to an auto-bid conference? If say, Northwestern (IA) wanted to go D3 (and I know they've batted it around) they can't just go independent. They'd have to join the IIAC. Or is there something to be said for raising the threshold for how many teams you need to have in your conference to gain an auto-bid (I'm actually not sure I like that idea though).

[smedindy]

I knew Oglethorpe is in the SAA - I used them as an example just for this purpose.

Oh, they've already yapped a lot about "Division IV" or whatever...don't go there again.

There are 43 conferences in Men's Hoops right now. There are some football only leagues, too. But I don't think a lot of those conferences that don't have a football componement will want to sponsor football, or have the schools that can sponsor football that don't already. The Little East and NEWMAC have a lot of teams that have football, but they have football leagues for them already. Is there a rumbling for Emerson or Babson to add football?

It would help the ASC greatly in football to have some of their non-football schools play the sport. Can you see Texas-Dallas, College of the Ozarks, LeTourneau, or Concordia (TX) (to name some) adding it in the near future?

It would help the SCAC if Schreiner, Centenary or the University of Dallas would add football. But will they?

I think we'll need to address this when we have a couple more leagues form out of whole cloth and qualify. But after the SAA and MASCAC, are there any rumblings out there? The only really unwieldy league is the MWC but Carroll is jumping back to the CCIW. Then they'll have 11 teams with Macalester.

[smedindy]

Hazzben,

We should encourage the growth of D3, not just in football, but in general. I say that because I think D3 is the superior model for small college athletics and we should encourage more to participate in it and emulate it.

And remember, D3 is NOT ALL about football. It's about ALL sports. We're just one piece of it, and we have to think what's good for the entire division...and the post season is just one sliver of it.

Would it be so bad if the GPAC as a whole abandoned NAIA and joined Nebraska Wesleyan in D3? I think the move to D3 has helped the HCAC (long ago they moved almost en masse, then Taylor backed out but Anderson, Hanover, Manchester and Frankin stuck around) and the NWC to name a couple that moved as a whole or mostly as a whole.

[AO]

I really don't think we're going to see some sudden growth in the number of d3 college football teams or conferences but I think that over the long term the AQ leads to more parity.  The lower conferences need to take some harsh losses in order to improve themselves.  If you lower the bar for them and put them in another division or play in game against other bad teams there will be less motivation.  Might also be a little harder to recruit kids to "power conference" teams who will see the playoffs less with fewer at-large bids.

[hazzben]

Hazzben,

We should encourage the growth of D3, not just in football, but in general.

And remember, D3 is NOT ALL about football. It's about ALL sports. We're just one piece of it, and we have to think what's good for the entire division...and the post season is just one sliver of it.

Would it be so bad if the GPAC as a whole abandoned NAIA and joined Nebraska Wesleyan in D3? I think the move to D3 has helped the HCAC (long ago they moved almost en masse, then Taylor backed out but Anderson, Hanover, Manchester and Frankin stuck around) and the NWC to name a couple that moved as a whole or mostly as a whole.

Not necessarily. And if the entire GPAC jumped ship, I think we might start seeing the death rattle of NAIA (that'd be the loss of a lot of schools and a high caliber athletic conference - across all sports).

But is it in the best interest of D3 to simply continue growing? Serious question. Is bigger and bigger necessarily better and better? Especially if, across all sports, we're dipping into a diminishing pot of gold (i.e. the NCAA getting O'Bannoned). I'm not ready to agree that the bigger we get the better it is for our member institutions. I'm not advocating getting smaller either, just to be clear. Nor am I advocating a 'split' ... please no more division IV talks 

[smedindy]

That was a hypothetical, though as you know. And D2 may have more skin in the game if the NAIA starts going topsy-turvy.

Out here at CWU, our conference is trying to get Carroll (MT) to join and then try to get another school in so we can get a football AQ (of course). That may be the College of Idaho. It would almost make too much sense for the football NAIA schools to join D2 so that neither the Frontier or the GNAC (West Coast Version) would have to schedule teams a second time to fill out schedules. Silly me...

[emma17]

Emma,

Competitive is in the eye of the beholder. Again, I say that and I mean it. What is a 'competitive' team to you may not be. You need criteria, as the eye test leads to cronyism and the inability of teams to break through a closed system. "They can't be good; they've not been good before. I haven't heard of them. The last time they played a big game they got poleaxed, in 2007."

Muhlenberg, BTW, has an excellent Massey rating. Right below St. John's. Better than Platteville. Better than SJF. So are they NOT competitive? Wish to retract the statement about Muhlenberg not being as competitive? Why wouldn't you want to see what they could do?

TLU's Massey rating is near Platteville's. It's certainly good enough.

My only gripe with Muhlenberg is that they may keep Centre off the board. 10-0 teams need to be considered. If Centre gets in and Muhlenberg is on the board, then fine, consider them.

I'd love to have a TLU or Muhlenberg in the playoffs if qualified to give a new perspective. The committee selects the teams that best fit the criteria. You have to have a special case to be a two loss team and get in. To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE. To not gripe about being left out, DON'T LOSE TWICE.

In the future, we could be down to 4 or 5 "C" teams when the SAA and MASCAC get their bids squared away. B's will go away I believe.

Smed,
Yes, competitive is in the eye of the beholder, yet there is certainly a high degree of common sense that can be applied in the process.  Criteria might suggest TLU or Muhl over a team like UWP or Bethel or SJF.  However, I'm hopeful that if the majority of the D3 world was asked the following question: "How would you rank the strength of TLU, Muhl, UWP, Bethel and SJF (using likelihood to compete strongly with any team they are matched up with in the playoffs)"- the overwhelming majority would list Muhl and TLU in the last spots. 
Is that necessarily "fair" from your perspective, maybe not.  Yet, you state "To not complain about the playoffs, WIN YOUR LEAGUE".  That's right, and it applies to TLU and Muhl as well. 

My whole point here is if we applied the question of "Which team is most likely to provide a competitive game against any playoff team they are matched up with" - I think the selection process would be a bit easier.  And if Muhl got passed over for a UWP or a SJF, then you can tell Muhl- HEY WIN YOUR LEAGUE and then once Muhl follows that advice and performs well in the playoffs, they can prove they are worthy for the next year they are on the bubble. 

As for Massey, I really don't follow and I really don't see any reason.  What I do know is that SJF's two losses and UWP's two losses and Bethel's two losses are to significantly more impressive teams than Muhl's one loss to Franklin and Marshall.  As such, I'd give SJF, UWP and Bethel a playoff spot 10 out of 10 times in comparison to teams like TLU and Muhl.



 

[jknezek]

As for Massey, I really don't follow and I really don't see any reason.  What I do know is that SJF's two losses and UWP's two losses and Bethel's two losses are to significantly more impressive teams than Muhl's one loss to Franklin and Marshall. As such, I'd give SJF, UWP and Bethel a playoff spot 10 out of 10 times in comparison to teams like TLU and Muhl.

Muhlenberg's one loss is to Johns Hopkins who has played at least 11 games since 2008.

[smedindy]

As for Massey, I really don't follow and I really don't see any reason.  What I do know is that SJF's two losses and UWP's two losses and Bethel's two losses are to significantly more impressive teams than Muhl's one loss to Franklin and Marshall.  As such, I'd give SJF, UWP and Bethel a playoff spot 10 out of 10 times in comparison to teams like TLU and Muhl.

Muhlenberg lost to Johns Hopkins. They beat F&M 42-7. They've also had a five year record of 38-14. They wouldn't be competitive?

Massey uses comparative, real data that indicates the competitiveness of teams, not some janky eye test that's self-serving, selfish, and unscientific. Right now, there are enough games under everyone's belt to use it as a real measuring stick. So it SHOWS competitive-ness using real DATA, not some old wives tales.

So you're for the old guard ALWAYS getting playoff spots, no matter if they earn it or not? You don't care about the rest of the country and how competitive they can be? Never ever ever letting someone else in? How narrow minded. Good football is played outside of the Upper Midwest, you know. Good football exists in the South, the East and in the West. Teams YOU NEVER HEARD OF can be really good.

Again, what you say about Curry, of all teams, beating an E8 team as a "C". Under your thinking, they'd never get that chance, and only the fat cats would have that chance.

It's also blatantly against the ethos and mission of D3 to reserve playoff spots for the so-called elite, and those who have already had playoff success. The last part is total bollocks. Under your system, NO ONE else would get in, because they can't prove themselves, because they can't get in. Sorry TLU, sorry Thomas More, sorry Illinois College. You don't meet the criteria of a stacked deck.

It's not easy to make the field of 32. It's not supposed to be. Why throw more barriers at teams on the rise? Why do that?

Yes, WIN YOUR LEAGUE, failing that, LOSE ONCE with great criteria, or be at your peril. That applies to Bethel, UW-W, and St. John's as much as it does Moravian, McDaniel, or Sewanee.

[PA_wesleyfan]

 All these projections are great and the reading is very interesting but we don't know what the last rankings are after this week  because they are not published. Correct me if I am wrong Pat. So in the end these teams on the bubble so to speak may or may not be ranked regionally.

[jknezek]

All these projections are great and the reading is very interesting but we don't know what the last rankings are after this week  because they are not published. Correct me if I am wrong Pat. So in the end these teams on the bubble so to speak may or may not be ranked regionally.

We'll never know. Thanks NCAA...

[smedindy]

All these projections are great and the reading is very interesting but we don't know what the last rankings are after this week  because they are not published. Correct me if I am wrong Pat. So in the end these teams on the bubble so to speak may or may not be ranked regionally.

We'll never know. Thanks NCAA...

It's the same in every sport. There's discussion on the Hoops B board about basketball wanting to have the final rankings released but no dice. Many of the other sports are against it.

[PA_wesleyfan]

  I would guess that some teams that are not ranked and get in because of winning a conference could start a hailstorm. Then we would see some crazy posts from the people who are new to the playoff system