Playoffs -- 2015

[smedindy]

Win you league, or you face the peril of being 9-1 or 8-2 and sitting home. It's that simple.

Pool C was unusually deep this year, so Guilford at 9-1 was left at the altar, and 9-1 Wartburg and Olivet never even had a first date....

[Coolrey]

I understand and accept the current structure as it is what it is.  I simply was attempting to make the point that with 32 teams in the playoffs and with most conference champions automatically qualifying, there are several worthy contenders that finished either 2nd or 3rd in very strong conferences, or are not in an AQ conference, that could be very legitimate contenders for deep playoff runs or even have a shot at the title.  I 100% believe that the true national champion is typically in the 32 team field, but there are others left out that could fare much better in the playoffs than several of those that are in and I feel that denying them that opportunity primarily based on cost is a shortchange.  Although there is no way that DIII University Presidents would ever approve of it, but with the approximately 250 D-III teams there are in the country, beginning the regular season one week earlier and extending the playoffs by one week with a 64 team field would modify the current structure to a system that would better identify the top teams in DIII and give more DIII student/athletes playing football an even richer experience.  Yes, there would be mismatches (but we have those already and there is no way around that), the NCAA would have a bigger bill (that means the NCAA would need to increase the expenditures it devotes to NCAA DIII from the paltry 3% it allocates now, to maybe 3 1/2 - 4%) and the student/athletes would have an additional week that could impact their classes (as the Presidents would use this as their primary objection by claiming it would deteriorate Division III's "educational mission"...hogwash, in my personal opinion).  Plus, you would have other athletic programs within the division possibly clamoring for a modification of their systems.  This I know is something that the University Presidents, who essentially drive the bus, would rather not want to address for all these reasons and more, and I get all that.  However, an expanded bracket would include those worthy teams that are yearly left out, i.e. this year's examples of UW-P,  North Central, TLU, JCU, Guilford as well as a few others.  64 teams would represent about 25% of the total teams in DIII and after the first week, we would be at a 32 team field at the same point in time that we are now. The bottom line, is it IS the bottom line that drives decisions of this magnitude, while protecting the "educational mission" of DIII institutions is the publicized reason that the Presidents use.    Anyway, its a pipe dream and I know several will blast such a proposal on all kinds of levels, but thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of creating a little "banter". 

[Craft_Beermeister]

I understand and accept the current structure as it is what it is.  I simply was attempting to make the point that with 32 teams in the playoffs and with most conference champions automatically qualifying, there are several worthy contenders that finished either 2nd or 3rd in very strong conferences, or are not in an AQ conference, that could be very legitimate contenders for deep playoff runs or even have a shot at the title.  I 100% believe that the true national champion is typically in the 32 team field, but there are others left out that could fare much better in the playoffs than several of those that are in and I feel that denying them that opportunity primarily based on cost is a shortchange.  Although there is no way that DIII University Presidents would ever approve of it, but with the approximately 250 D-III teams there are in the country, beginning the regular season one week earlier and extending the playoffs by one week with a 64 team field would modify the current structure to a system that would better identify the top teams in DIII and give more DIII student/athletes playing football an even richer experience.  Yes, there would be mismatches (but we have those already and there is no way around that), the NCAA would have a bigger bill (that means the NCAA would need to increase the expenditures it devotes to NCAA DIII from the paltry 3% it allocates now, to maybe 3 1/2 - 4%) and the student/athletes would have an additional week that could impact their classes (as the Presidents would use this as their primary objection by claiming it would deteriorate Division III's "educational mission"...hogwash, in my personal opinion).  Plus, you would have other athletic programs within the division possibly clamoring for a modification of their systems.  This I know is something that the University Presidents, who essentially drive the bus, would rather not want to address for all these reasons and more, and I get all that.  However, an expanded bracket would include those worthy teams that are yearly left out, i.e. this year's examples of UW-P,  North Central, TLU, JCU, Guilford as well as a few others.  64 teams would represent about 25% of the total teams in DIII and after the first week, we would be at a 32 team field at the same point in time that we are now. The bottom line, is it IS the bottom line that drives decisions of this magnitude, while protecting the "educational mission" of DIII institutions is the publicized reason that the Presidents use.    Anyway, its a pipe dream and I know several will blast such a proposal on all kinds of levels, but thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of creating a little "banter".

The DIII Playoff system isn't prefect and the tournament selection as setup doesn't select the top 32 teams in DIIII.  There already is a significant difference between overall skill level from top on down.  Going to 64 teams and adding another week to the playoffs would result in even more mismatches.

[Coolrey]

As it was this year, around 60% of the first round games were wins by 28 or more points.  I think that percentage would probably remain similar if you expanded the field and then it would diminish as the rounds would advance.  The tricky part would be the pairings due to the geographical landscape of DIII programs as some programs would be burdened more with greater travel than others.  But as you noted, no system is perfect.

I understand and accept the current structure as it is what it is.  I simply was attempting to make the point that with 32 teams in the playoffs and with most conference champions automatically qualifying, there are several worthy contenders that finished either 2nd or 3rd in very strong conferences, or are not in an AQ conference, that could be very legitimate contenders for deep playoff runs or even have a shot at the title.  I 100% believe that the true national champion is typically in the 32 team field, but there are others left out that could fare much better in the playoffs than several of those that are in and I feel that denying them that opportunity primarily based on cost is a shortchange.  Although there is no way that DIII University Presidents would ever approve of it, but with the approximately 250 D-III teams there are in the country, beginning the regular season one week earlier and extending the playoffs by one week with a 64 team field would modify the current structure to a system that would better identify the top teams in DIII and give more DIII student/athletes playing football an even richer experience.  Yes, there would be mismatches (but we have those already and there is no way around that), the NCAA would have a bigger bill (that means the NCAA would need to increase the expenditures it devotes to NCAA DIII from the paltry 3% it allocates now, to maybe 3 1/2 - 4%) and the student/athletes would have an additional week that could impact their classes (as the Presidents would use this as their primary objection by claiming it would deteriorate Division III's "educational mission"...hogwash, in my personal opinion).  Plus, you would have other athletic programs within the division possibly clamoring for a modification of their systems.  This I know is something that the University Presidents, who essentially drive the bus, would rather not want to address for all these reasons and more, and I get all that.  However, an expanded bracket would include those worthy teams that are yearly left out, i.e. this year's examples of UW-P,  North Central, TLU, JCU, Guilford as well as a few others.  64 teams would represent about 25% of the total teams in DIII and after the first week, we would be at a 32 team field at the same point in time that we are now. The bottom line, is it IS the bottom line that drives decisions of this magnitude, while protecting the "educational mission" of DIII institutions is the publicized reason that the Presidents use.    Anyway, its a pipe dream and I know several will blast such a proposal on all kinds of levels, but thought I'd throw it out there for the sake of creating a little "banter".

The DIII Playoff system isn't prefect and the tournament selection as setup doesn't select the top 32 teams in DIIII.  There already is a significant difference between overall skill level from top on down.  Going to 64 teams and adding another week to the playoffs would result in even more mismatches.

[SaintsFAN]

Royal85 -

I couldn't help but notice you have Guilford as an example of a team left out but was deserving and I'm wondering why you chose them when the team who beat them was rolled out of the tournament yesterday??

[Coolrey]

Royal85 -

I couldn't help but notice you have Guilford as an example of a team left out but was deserving and I'm wondering why you chose them when the team who beat them was rolled out of the tournament yesterday??

I based those examples primarily off of D3 Football's top 25 rankings and the projected bracket they published.  Point being, an expansion of the field would include those teams that are typically on the bubble and then some.  I think some 3 loss teams would be as far as the bracket should go.  Consider that there are always teams that may drop a couple of games early and then vastly improve as the season progresses but don't get a sniff for a bid when playoffs arrive.

[SaintsFAN]

Royal85 -

I couldn't help but notice you have Guilford as an example of a team left out but was deserving and I'm wondering why you chose them when the team who beat them was rolled out of the tournament yesterday??

I based those examples primarily off of D3 Football's top 25 rankings and the projected bracket they published.  Point being, an expansion of the field would include those teams that are typically on the bubble and then some.  I think some 3 loss teams would be as far as the bracket should go.  Consider that there are always teams that may drop a couple of games early and then vastly improve as the season progresses but don't get a sniff for a bid when playoffs arrive.

I never had Guilford on my ballot this year.  But, I get what you're saying.  I just don't think that team would've added much to this tournament, based upon what I saw out of their league champ yesterday.  Obviously a tournament with NC and UW-P would've been deeper, though, so I concede your point on them.

[Wabash Hokie]

Is there going to be some kind of announcement or press release to formally communicate the designated hosts for next weekend's games?  Most of the articles I read yesterday indicated that the sites would be announced early on Sunday.  Has anything been published?

[smedindy]

If you expand the tournament then you won't eliminate bubble teams, they'll move down to 3 and maybe 4 loss teams versus 2 loss teams. The same arguments would ensue, but it would be if a 4-loss UWSP team would offer more 'competition' than a 7-3 Denison and the like.

The Presidents and AD's would never vote for it either - it would make the post season 60% or 67% of the season for the winner (9 or 10 game season).

[Pat Coleman]

Is there going to be some kind of announcement or press release to formally communicate the designated hosts for next weekend's games?  Most of the articles I read yesterday indicated that the sites would be announced early on Sunday.  Has anything been published?

We posted the updated bracket this morning and posted to Twitter.

[Coolrey]

If you expand the tournament then you won't eliminate bubble teams, they'll move down to 3 and maybe 4 loss teams versus 2 loss teams. The same arguments would ensue, but it would be if a 4-loss UWSP team would offer more 'competition' than a 7-3 Denison and the like.

The Presidents and AD's would never vote for it either - it would make the post season 60% or 67% of the season for the winner (9 or 10 game season).
[/quote

Absolutely agree.  The "bubble" argument will always be there regardless of the system unless you have no at-large bids and advance the top 2 from each conference, however that wouldn't eliminate protests from those who didn't qualify.  But there will always be the some level of discourse involving who got in vs. who didn't.   Going to a 6 game playoff vs a 5 game playoff is insignificant in my view.  Start the season a week earlier.

[Coolrey]

Absolutely agree.  The "bubble" argument will always be there regardless of the system unless you have no at-large bids and advance the top 2 from each conference, however that wouldn't eliminate protests from those who didn't qualify.  But there will always be the some level of discourse involving who got in vs. who didn't.   Going to a 6 game playoff vs a 5 game playoff is insignificant in my view.  Start the season a week earlier. 

[Ralph Turner]

Part of this discussion about the number of teams in the playoffs reminds me of the "every kid deserves a trophy" mindset.  The life lesson for D3 is that there is one game upon which your performance demands the utmost effort, concentration and preparation, and that was the game that kept you out of the playoffs.  Fortunately, it is only a game.  Borrowing the cliche, it is preparation for "going pro in life".

The Championship Committee decides Championships for every sport!  Sacrificing one week of competition for the (~247 minus 64) teams who would have to give up a week of play to permit a 64-game playoff is not worth it to me.

[Coolrey]

Not really about "every kid deserves a trophy".  More about providing opportunity to chase the trophy.  UW-P, as an example, is a quality enough team that could have very possibly advanced 2 - 3 rounds deep in the playoffs this year, maybe further, maybe not.  But expanding I think would enrich DIII programs and enhance the DIII experience.  DIII-level institutions are thirsty for students and we all should agree that a football program is a great recruiting tool.  Offering an expanded playoff field could very likely entice some institutions with no programs to consider initiating them which would increase student enrollment.  So it isn't about giving a participation trophy to make men feel better about themselves.  Better teams will beat lesser teams most of the time and losing teams will always fill the sting whether it's in the first round or the final game.  Not sure what you mean by "sacrificing one week of competition".  If you start the regular season one week earlier, teams could still get their 10 games and then 6 weeks in the playoffs would put the national championship game on the same weekend as it is right now.  I would also put that game in a more suitable climate.  Other than cost, could never figure out why the NCAA puts the game in a high school-stadium in a winter-weather state.  I respect and understand the current format and I know there are negative implications with expanding.  But I believe the positives would outweigh the negatives if expanding was a feasible possibility, which I know most would say it is not.

[Coolrey]

I think I was unintentionally a bit harsh on Salem.  I know they do a great job and have for a long time.  DIII is fortunate to have hosts that do so much for the championships.  It would be shameful to uproot without good reason and if the DIII membership is happy with Salem and are willing to face the risk that weather could have a significant impact in the final game, than I'm all for it.  Didn't mean to come across disrespectfully as I am sure that game means a lot to that town and DIII should be fortunate to be so welcomed.