Pool C -- 2014

[bashgiant]

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.

We should never put an artificial limit on AQs, lest we return to the 90's where teams were left out for purely political reasons and undefeated teams were left home. That cannot and should not happen again. PERIOD.

WHAT?!? Guess I need to rethink some things.

[emma17]

Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.

This is rather uncalled for.   Smed's a well-known poster here for many years and does not need advice on what he should and should not post.

Yes I agree, Smed's a well-known poster. 
My point remains, the discussion on this topic is best had with open minds.   

[Pat Coleman]

Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.

This is rather uncalled for.   Smed's a well-known poster here for many years and does not need advice on what he should and should not post.

LOL -- this is completely true, emma and your post is off base.

[emma17]

Smed
This is an interesting discussion and I look forward to your reply to Pat.
For the sake of a polite debate, I'd like to recommend that you do your best not to use all caps as well as refrain from using words like never and always. The use of all caps and words like always and never tend to create the perception that you are unwilling to consider viewpoints other than your own.

This is rather uncalled for.   Smed's a well-known poster here for many years and does not need advice on what he should and should not post.

LOL -- this is completely true, emma and your post is off base.

I understand my post isn't popular and I'm open for criticism, all I ask is you criticize for my intent and not an assumption:

It's not my intent to discredit Smed's opinion or credibility in any way.  I value his depth of knowledge and his willingness to voice his opinions.  I believe Smed represents one end of the spectrum on the playoff debate and his opinion is critical to a comprehensive discussion on the topic.

I also happen to think the discussion would be more productive if all posters keep an open mind while also demonstrating a willingness to dialogue on differing opinions.   

[ExTartanPlayer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGd0gD0QNE

[smedindy]

Smed, I think your equating having 24 or 25 or so conference champions in the field with the previous playoff system is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. This isn't some slippery slope.

I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.

I think where a lot of this comes from are the yakkers and mediots who only want to reserve chances for at-large bids in other sports to 'big names', and thus denying the little guys with better credentials a shot. George Mason would have never happened a few years ago if bloviating elitists got their way.

That's why I'm passionate about it. All deserve a chance and they get their chance by winning their league. Then, the best credentialed teams no matter what league they are in get the at larges.

[Pat Coleman]

I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.

Well, under my proposal, no team will always be on the outside looking in.

[wesleydad]

Smed, I think your equating having 24 or 25 or so conference champions in the field with the previous playoff system is more than a little bit of an exaggeration. This isn't some slippery slope.

I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.

I think where a lot of this comes from are the yakkers and mediots who only want to reserve chances for at-large bids in other sports to 'big names', and thus denying the little guys with better credentials a shot. George Mason would have never happened a few years ago if bloviating elitists got their way.

That's why I'm passionate about it. All deserve a chance and they get their chance by winning their league. Then, the best credentialed teams no matter what league they are in get the at larges.

I agree with Smed here.  If you win your league you should be in the tournament.  If we get to point where there are more leagues than spots, I agree with Pat.  No one should be out based on perceived level of play. 

[AO]

I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.

Well, under my proposal, no team will always be on the outside looking in.

Macalester hadn't won a conference championship since 1947, could they be counted on to win it 2 years in a row if they don't qualify the year they finally win it?  Maybe in hoops you could at least point to multiple non-conference games where it was clear that your team was not playing at the same level as their perhaps more playoff worthy at-large candidates. 

[emma17]

I continue to believe that a governing mission statement regarding the purpose of the D3 football playoffs is the beginning to the solution here. 
Is the guiding mission of the D3 playoffs to (I can use some help on better defining these):

-Maximize opportunity to all D3 programs for participation, without consideration of comparative strength?
-Create a tournament consisting of the most competitive teams (per some established criteria) with the sole purpose of finding the best D3 football team?
-Or is it a combination of both?

A scenario may help. 
Assume that St. John Fisher played and beat Benedictine in a non-conference game.  Assume Benedictine goes on to win its conference with a final record of 6-4.  Assume also that SJF loses only one game in conference, finishing in 2nd place. 

Which team has priority in terms of getting into the playoffs.   

 

[smedindy]

I disdain slippery slope equivocations in most everything else. Here, though, I fear for the teams that will always be on the outside looking in just because who they are.

Well, under my proposal, no team will always be on the outside looking in.

They could be. Playoff caliber teams don't roll around for every program every year. It would be a shame if a great senior class for Greenville or Aurora were denied a chance for the post-season because of this rule.

[smedindy]

I continue to believe that a governing mission statement regarding the purpose of the D3 football playoffs is the beginning to the solution here. 
Is the guiding mission of the D3 playoffs to (I can use some help on better defining these):

-Maximize opportunity to all D3 programs for participation, without consideration of comparative strength?
-Create a tournament consisting of the most competitive teams (per some established criteria) with the sole purpose of finding the best D3 football team?
-Or is it a combination of both?

A scenario may help. 
Assume that St. John Fisher played and beat Benedictine in a non-conference game.  Assume Benedictine goes on to win its conference with a final record of 6-4.  Assume also that SJF loses only one game in conference, finishing in 2nd place. 

Which team has priority in terms of getting into the playoffs.   

Benedictine won their league. SJF did not. Winning the league is paramount.

[emma17]

I continue to believe that a governing mission statement regarding the purpose of the D3 football playoffs is the beginning to the solution here. 
Is the guiding mission of the D3 playoffs to (I can use some help on better defining these):

-Maximize opportunity to all D3 programs for participation, without consideration of comparative strength?
-Create a tournament consisting of the most competitive teams (per some established criteria) with the sole purpose of finding the best D3 football team?
-Or is it a combination of both?

A scenario may help. 
Assume that St. John Fisher played and beat Benedictine in a non-conference game.  Assume Benedictine goes on to win its conference with a final record of 6-4.  Assume also that SJF loses only one game in conference, finishing in 2nd place. 

Which team has priority in terms of getting into the playoffs.   

Benedictine won their league. SJF did not. Winning the league is paramount.

I appreciate your consistency.  I want to ask you a question without you taking offense.
Would you consider me an elitist if I felt SJF should have playoff priority in the scenario presented?

[AO]

I continue to believe that a governing mission statement regarding the purpose of the D3 football playoffs is the beginning to the solution here. 
Is the guiding mission of the D3 playoffs to (I can use some help on better defining these):

-Maximize opportunity to all D3 programs for participation, without consideration of comparative strength?
-Create a tournament consisting of the most competitive teams (per some established criteria) with the sole purpose of finding the best D3 football team?
-Or is it a combination of both?

A scenario may help. 
Assume that St. John Fisher played and beat Benedictine in a non-conference game.  Assume Benedictine goes on to win its conference with a final record of 6-4.  Assume also that SJF loses only one game in conference, finishing in 2nd place. 

Which team has priority in terms of getting into the playoffs.   

Benedictine won their league. SJF did not. Winning the league is paramount.

I appreciate your consistency.  I want to ask you a question without you taking offense.
Would you consider me an elitist if I felt SJF should have playoff priority in the scenario presented?

In your scenario, Concordia-Moorhead would get the bid.  the EAST IS WEAK!!!! the West is ELITE

[smedindy]

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.