Pool C -- 2014

[AO]

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?

What changes would this football minded president make?  It's not like Mount Union has a 20,000 seat stadium or spends D-1 money on recruiting budgets. 

St. Thomas traveled all of 200 miles total for their games.  No need to fly to far away destinations to entice recruits or find better competition to improve themselves.

[emma17]

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?

I find myself drifting toward this idea as well.  However, there would probably have to be some sort of easy way to move to and fro the "competitive" division simply because of institutional change.  UWW's Chancellor just announced his retirement.  Who knows what philosophy his replacement will have, or what philosophy the UW system will have. 

[Upstate]

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?

What changes would this football minded president make?  It's not like Mount Union has a 20,000 seat stadium or spends D-1 money on recruiting budgets. 

St. Thomas traveled all of 200 miles total for their games.  No need to fly to far away destinations to entice recruits or find better competition to improve themselves.

It's not like a school would automatically be a national power with a "Pro Athletics" President, but it does help.

St. John Fisher went from an upstate NY doormat to one of the easts best team after they got funds funneled into the athletics department. Yes this included getting a deal with the Bills to host their training camp but the emphasis out on a competitive athletic department and improved facilities made the road easier for St. John Fisher to attract better players.

[D3AlumniParent]

You know, I've thought a lot about this in recent days, and even changed my position.

I love that you said that. Says that you're open minded. 

2.  I also think there are a lot of schools who have no desire to.

Maybe it just says that they're only willing to allocate resources up to a certain point to be competitive on a national level. The President and Board of Trustees likely see D3 athletics as complementary to academics and the overall education of their student athletes. And they likely see that the increased media exposure gained with successful athletics helps with two constant and important objectives: raising money from alumni and attracting new students.

But each set (Pres and Board) must determine their threshold of financial commitment, after which the law of diminishing returns sets in.

What changes would this football minded president make? 

One area of change would be the budget for coaches. Here's just a small sampling:

Berry College- 7 coaches
Hendrix - 7 coaches + 4 student assts
Centre College - 9 coaches
Rhodes - 9 coaches

Mount Union - 14 coaches & 2 student assts.
Wittenberg - 12 coaches
UMHB - 11 coaches, 5 graduate assts &  6 students assistants
UWW - 14 coaches

And some schools pay their coaches better, which generally leads to more stability. I was absolutely shocked to learn what one assistant was paid in another sport where they were the only asst. (Let's just say it was well below poverty level).

More coaches should result in a better prepared team. And recruiting could improve quite a bit with all these coaches able to "touch" the prospects.

[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?

What changes would this football minded president make?  It's not like Mount Union has a 20,000 seat stadium or spends D-1 money on recruiting budgets. 

St. Thomas traveled all of 200 miles total for their games.  No need to fly to far away destinations to entice recruits or find better competition to improve themselves.

I don't know. Maybe it's a change in financial aid packages, or admission requirements. Maybe it's increased financial support for facilities, recruiting, or staff retention. But it happens. In talking to people at Ithaca, I know the institutional focus on athletics has changed drastically.

[wally_wabash]

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.

Isn't this what started the whole conversation?  That we were in danger of filling out the tournament field with only AQs and that runners up in our favored conferences don't get to play in week 12?

[smedindy]

Some teams have people listed as assistants that don't get paid - or don't get paid to coach (they have another on-campus job).

[smedindy]

Schools have added football or made sure their teams stay on the field for male enrollment. However, even if they throw more money at it, some schools can't or won't be playoff contenders just because of who they are.

Examples in the NCAC:

Oberlin - they've improved a great deal over the bad old days. But they don't attract a mass of the typical football player types very often. It's a special kind of kid that wants to go there AND play sports, for good or bad. They will always have small-ish rosters which will preclude them from competing for titles in the NCAC. But they are competitive (as Wabash found a couple of years ago) and will play their guts out. It's just hard to win when sometimes you have 50 on the roster.

Kenyon - Swimming is king there, of course. Football fortunes change with the winds. They get some good classes and then those cycle through and they go through some rough stretches. The administration at times has looked at football as a nuisance but now seem to be committed for it to stick around. Sometimes they have small rosters, too.

Hiram - Again, the type of school it is, and the seeming lack of prior commitment to football means that it's struggled. (Their academic program is kind of unique). Football is important to keep males coming there, but they do have some roster churn. Finishing 5-5 this year was a great feat, but it's going to be a while before they get their entire program together.

These three schools are valuable members of the NCAC. They add character to the league. They're not going to compete for football glory as long as Witt and Wabash maintain their level, and DPU, OWU and Wooster are lurking around (though those 3 programs have struggled some too at times). There's only so much athletics budget around, and so much you can do if you want to fit in the right kind of student athlete into your program.

[retagent]

emma, I think the reason for smed's capitalization is that it's the only way to emphasize in print. Words, and phrases take on slightly different meaning when one word is emphasized, as opposed to when it is not. I find that when I read his posts, I can actually hear a voice speaking the words, which lends to my better understanding what he's ACTUALLY ( ) saying.

Also, I've tried to get this across before, but I'll try again. OWO's losses to non D III competition just restricts what we know about them as a team. If they had played an all D III schedule, it would give us more upon which to evaluate them. Or, in the same vein, if other D III teams had played the same opponent, it might also tell us more. As it is, it's a big nothing burger. Maybe they are better than teams that made it, but, there's no way to tell.

Just as an example, though St John's beat River Falls by a greater margin than did UWW, it doesn't tell us that the Johnnies are a better team than UWW, but it does tell us that they are somewhere in the vicinity. But just that without the results against Bethel, St Thomas and Gustavus and Augsburg, would tell us a whole lot less.

[D3AlumniParent]

Some teams have people listed as assistants that don't get paid - or don't get paid to coach (they have another on-campus job).

Agreed. And this can be true of any of the schools.

[smedindy]

Maybe Oshkosh would have been 9-1. Maybe 8-2. Maybe 7-3. It all depends on who they could have slotted in there. If they played a non-conference slate like Bethel they may have gone 7-3. If they beat up on the MWC and NAC and MIAA they may have gone 9-1. They almost lost to LAX, who wasn't setting everything on fire this year. Almost loss isn't the same as losing, but still...

I looked up the Massey ratings for those three teams. Obviously South Dakota St is far superior to anyone in D3, and I hope the check cleared. Bob Morris is rated around Platteville's neighborhood, and Marian is rated right with John Carroll.

I think the dagger for them was Platteville probably falling out of the ratings (we'll never know). No RR win, unlike St. Thomas. Just six wins. Danger, high voltage.

[smedindy]

As for splitting D3, gawd NO!

We've had that talk before. Remember we're not just dealing with football, but over 400+ institutions, 40+ conferences, and all kinds of stuff. I'll go back to Kenyon. D3 football, not so much. D3 swimming, hell yeah. You gonna move them around in divisions based on how good they are in one sport or another?

[D3AlumniParent]

As for splitting D3, gawd NO!

We've had that talk before. Remember we're not just dealing with football, but over 400+ institutions, 40+ conferences, and all kinds of stuff. I'll go back to Kenyon. D3 football, not so much. D3 swimming, hell yeah. You gonna move them around in divisions based on how good they are in one sport or another?

Would it be possible to split only football into two championships, D3 Large and D3 Small?

[Bombers798891]

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.

Isn't this what started the whole conversation?  That we were in danger of filling out the tournament field with only AQs and that runners up in our favored conferences don't get to play in week 12?

Favored? Try better. Look, you can disagree with eliminating the AQ. As I said, I'd prefer we keep it. But don't misconstrue the debate

[smedindy]

No, favored. Remember, Curry won a game as a "C" and some don't want that conference even to get an auto bid.

Saying a "C" can only come from 'better' conferences means the others have no chance, even if they do things right (win their non-cons and they scheduled up, and lose one game)