Playoffs -- 2015

[Pat Coleman]

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.

This costs schools quite a bit of money, to house and feed 100-plus student-athletes for an extra week. I suspect this also would be a non-starter.

[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.

This costs schools quite a bit of money, to house and feed 100-plus student-athletes for an extra week. I suspect this also would be a non-starter.

There would be a cost-factor, for sure.  But I would propose that, since D-III is non-scholarship and has very minimal revenue sources, part of the "privilege" of playing D-III would be a required yearly "athletic participation fee" from every participant.  A portion of these funds would be allocated toward assisting the program financially i.e. training table and housing and a portion would be allocated to the NCAA for playoff travel expenses.  Before people go nuts, think about this.  Kids play at D-III because they love the game and want to play for four more years after high school.  Most understand that D-III is not a training ground for the NFL but rather an opportunity to learn from the lessons of athletics and play the game they love while pursuing their college degree.  I know this "fee" would, according to many University Presidents, compromise the integrity of D-III athletics.  I think there would be no threat of that.  With D-I athletes and some university officials clamoring for pay TO athletes, a $50 to $100 per year athletic participation fee FROM the athlete I feel would enhance the point that D-III athletes aren't in it for valuable consideration, but are willing to invest in many ways, including financially, for the benefit of the athletic experience.  Players could fund raise as a team or individually, or work in the off-season or ask mom and dad to help. 

[jknezek]

There would be a cost-factor, for sure.  But I would propose that, since D-III is non-scholarship and has very minimal revenue sources, part of the "privilege" of playing D-III would be a required yearly "athletic participation fee" from every participant.  A portion of these funds would be allocated toward assisting the program financially i.e. training table and housing and a portion would be allocated to the NCAA for playoff travel expenses.  Before people go nuts, think about this.  Kids play at D-III because they love the game and want to play for four more years after high school.  Most understand that D-III is not a training ground for the NFL but rather an opportunity to learn from the lessons of athletics and play the game they love while pursuing their college degree.  I know this "fee" would, according to many University Presidents, compromise the integrity of D-III athletics.  I think there would be no threat of that.  With D-I athletes and some university officials clamoring for pay TO athletes, a $50 to $100 per year athletic participation fee FROM the athlete I feel would enhance the point that D-III athletes aren't in it for valuable consideration, but are willing to invest in many ways, including financially, for the benefit of the athletic experience.  Players could fund raise as a team or individually, or work in the off-season or ask mom and dad to help.

I'm going to put this as nicely as possible. You simply don't have much of a grasp of what is actually happening in higher education right now.  The cost is insanely high. Very few students pay the sticker price as it is because almost no one can afford it. The goal in higher education is to drop expenses while still maintaining tuition. In just about any study of higher education, the single biggest factor in students deciding to go to one school versus another is expense. You don't just add "pay to play" and expect kids and parents to choke it down. Some schools are revenue desperate and would try, others aren't. If your kid got into both and one offered 10K in student aid per year and the other offered nothing and sent a bill to play football, where is the kid going?

Colleges are adding football in a desperate attempt to compete to fill the student body, especially males. You don't make it harder by sending a bill home for the sake of "a more fair" playoff system. It simply isn't going to happen. There isn't going to be a 64 team tournament any time soon and there will always be bubble teams left out. DII's earned access might be the only acceptable modification if we keep losing Pool C bids, but even that will probably be hotly contested until there are more AQs than bids available.

This is a pretty darn good system. I get the idea of tinkering at the margins, but things that add expenses, or revenue raising on the backs of overburdened students, simply are non-starters. This isn't public h.s. where pay to play is growing more common. These are, mostly, extremely expensive private schools and the market place between them for shrinking students is growing fiercer ever year. When you have intense competition, raising costs is a very bad idea.

[Ralph Turner]

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.

But only Southwestern took the opportunity to add football in a very winnable conference, the SCAC. (No purple dynasties!)

Colorado College did not choose to resume a program that had competed for 127 years.

UDallas, Centenary, and Schreiner did not add, football, and I think that their enrollments could have used a boost in men.

Starting one week earlier is problematic for many schools. Getting athletes on campus early as it is now is a crunch for maintenance staffs.

The Midwest Conference chose to cut the season to 9 games so as not to impact the academic year.

The very academic NESCAC does not participate in the post-season and only plays 8 regular season games.

[Coolrey]

There would be a cost-factor, for sure.  But I would propose that, since D-III is non-scholarship and has very minimal revenue sources, part of the "privilege" of playing D-III would be a required yearly "athletic participation fee" from every participant.  A portion of these funds would be allocated toward assisting the program financially i.e. training table and housing and a portion would be allocated to the NCAA for playoff travel expenses.  Before people go nuts, think about this.  Kids play at D-III because they love the game and want to play for four more years after high school.  Most understand that D-III is not a training ground for the NFL but rather an opportunity to learn from the lessons of athletics and play the game they love while pursuing their college degree.  I know this "fee" would, according to many University Presidents, compromise the integrity of D-III athletics.  I think there would be no threat of that.  With D-I athletes and some university officials clamoring for pay TO athletes, a $50 to $100 per year athletic participation fee FROM the athlete I feel would enhance the point that D-III athletes aren't in it for valuable consideration, but are willing to invest in many ways, including financially, for the benefit of the athletic experience.  Players could fund raise as a team or individually, or work in the off-season or ask mom and dad to help.

I'm going to put this as nicely as possible. You simply don't have much of a grasp of what is actually happening in higher education right now.  The cost is insanely high. Very few students pay the sticker price as it is because almost no one can afford it. The goal in higher education is to drop expenses while still maintaining tuition. In just about any study of higher education, the single biggest factor in students deciding to go to one school versus another is expense. You don't just add "pay to play" and expect kids and parents to choke it down. Some schools are revenue desperate and would try, others aren't. If your kid got into both and one offered 10K in student aid per year and the other offered nothing and sent a bill to play football, where is the kid going?

Colleges are adding football in a desperate attempt to compete to fill the student body, especially males. You don't make it harder by sending a bill home for the sake of "a more fair" playoff system. It simply isn't going to happen. There isn't going to be a 64 team tournament any time soon and there will always be bubble teams left out. DII's earned access might be the only acceptable modification if we keep losing Pool C bids, but even that will probably be hotly contested until there are more AQs than bids available.

This is a pretty darn good system. I get the idea of tinkering at the margins, but things that add expenses, or revenue raising on the backs of overburdened students, simply are non-starters. This isn't public h.s. where pay to play is growing more common. These are, mostly, extremely expensive private schools and the market place between them for shrinking students is growing fiercer ever year. When you have intense competition, raising costs is a very bad idea.

Point well-taken. I do understand the dilemma you described and i know that an expanded playoff is a pipe dream. But on a boring Sunday following the first idle Saturday for most of us, I thought I'd throw something out there to garner some banter. But I do feel that if cost was not a factor, a 64 team format would be best. Thanks and have a great week!

[Ralph Turner]

There would be a cost-factor, for sure.  But I would propose that, since D-III is non-scholarship and has very minimal revenue sources, part of the "privilege" of playing D-III would be a required yearly "athletic participation fee" from every participant.  A portion of these funds would be allocated toward assisting the program financially i.e. training table and housing and a portion would be allocated to the NCAA for playoff travel expenses.  Before people go nuts, think about this.  Kids play at D-III because they love the game and want to play for four more years after high school.  Most understand that D-III is not a training ground for the NFL but rather an opportunity to learn from the lessons of athletics and play the game they love while pursuing their college degree.  I know this "fee" would, according to many University Presidents, compromise the integrity of D-III athletics.  I think there would be no threat of that.  With D-I athletes and some university officials clamoring for pay TO athletes, a $50 to $100 per year athletic participation fee FROM the athlete I feel would enhance the point that D-III athletes aren't in it for valuable consideration, but are willing to invest in many ways, including financially, for the benefit of the athletic experience.  Players could fund raise as a team or individually, or work in the off-season or ask mom and dad to help.

I'm going to put this as nicely as possible. You simply don't have much of a grasp of what is actually happening in higher education right now.  The cost is insanely high. Very few students pay the sticker price as it is because almost no one can afford it. The goal in higher education is to drop expenses while still maintaining tuition. In just about any study of higher education, the single biggest factor in students deciding to go to one school versus another is expense. You don't just add "pay to play" and expect kids and parents to choke it down. Some schools are revenue desperate and would try, others aren't. If your kid got into both and one offered 10K in student aid per year and the other offered nothing and sent a bill to play football, where is the kid going?

Colleges are adding football in a desperate attempt to compete to fill the student body, especially males. You don't make it harder by sending a bill home for the sake of "a more fair" playoff system. It simply isn't going to happen. There isn't going to be a 64 team tournament any time soon and there will always be bubble teams left out. DII's earned access might be the only acceptable modification if we keep losing Pool C bids, but even that will probably be hotly contested until there are more AQs than bids available.

This is a pretty darn good system. I get the idea of tinkering at the margins, but things that add expenses, or revenue raising on the backs of overburdened students, simply are non-starters. This isn't public h.s. where pay to play is growing more common. These are, mostly, extremely expensive private schools and the market place between them for shrinking students is growing fiercer ever year. When you have intense competition, raising costs is a very bad idea.

Point well-taken. I do understand the dilemma you described and i know that an expanded playoff is a pipe dream. But on a boring Sunday following the first idle Saturday for most of us, I thought I'd throw something out there to garner some banter. But I do feel that if cost was not a factor, a 64 team format would be best. Thanks and have a great week!

As a 15 year veteran of these boards, I understand.

I recommend a 12-step program near your local D3 campus.

"Hello, my name is Royal85 and I am a D3football-oholic."   

[AO]

The Midwest Conference chose to cut the season to 9 games so as not to impact the academic year.

They didn't cut a week, they just call the last week championship week and play the team in the opposite division with the same place.

[bluestreak66]

might be a little off topic, but I was just looking at the DII playoff bracket. Did anyone know that only like five teams make the playoffs there?

[Ralph Turner]

The Midwest Conference chose to cut the season to 9 games so as not to impact the academic year.

They didn't cut a week, they just call the last week championship week and play the team in the opposite division with the same place.

Thanks, AO.  +1! (I did not see the "undercard" when I checked a schedule earlier last week.)

Gotta get you off the 1000 applauds.   

[Ralph Turner]

might be a little off topic, but I was just looking at the DII playoff bracket. Did anyone know that only like five teams make the playoffs there?

I believe that there are 28 teams in the D2 playoffs.

http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/d2/

[wabndy]

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. 

Platteville already played and lost to two likely quarterfinalists during the regular season.  The only thing really compelling on their resume is that they beat the only other team not in this tournament who would have had a decent shot at making it to the quarterfinals.  I don't think the fate of Platteville or NC are good arguments.  They both had plenty of opportunity to play and beat the best and fell short.  We have a 32 team field in part because in the 8 or 16 team era - we had undefeated or powerhouse one loss schools that didn't have the political connections and/or didn't play in a strong enough conference to be deemed "worthy." It stunk because teams didn't have a chance to show on the field whether they deserved or not to win at the next level. 


Your example of platteville shows that really good teams that don't make the tournament basically only lose out because they lost to more than one even better team during the regular season.  The playoffs as structured give every team that opportunity to really measure yourself against the best in the country regardless of what conference you are in.  They aren't really designed to give every solid second tier teams a second bite at the apple - although occasionally it does happen - there are a few bids left over every year. 

[bluestreak66]

might be a little off topic, but I was just looking at the DII playoff bracket. Did anyone know that only like five teams make the playoffs there?

I believe that there are 28 teams in the D2 playoffs.

http://www.ncaa.com/interactive-bracket/football/d2/

haha oops. I didn't see the bottom half of that bracket. i think that means it's time to turn off the computer and go to sleep!

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

As far as squeezing in another week for an additional round of the playoffs... why not just shorten the regular season to 10 weeks. Season starts at the same time, and ends at the same time. The biggest problem would be for the conferences that have an odd number of teams but the MIAA and NACC have that figured out by having a nonconference game all season.
Then the playoffs could grow to say 48 teams allowing the top 16 a bye week which would be good because it still rewards the best teams with that extra rest time. There would be plenty of pool C bids for all the 9-1 teams who's only loss was in a torrential downpour or had their QB injured early in the game etc. Yes there would still be discussion of the last team in/first team out but there would be much less sympathy for the team who was left out.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Moving on to the round of 16...if I'm ranking the games from (EDIT FOR CLARITY) "least interesting" to "most interesting" this week, here's how I rank it:

8) Albright @ Mount Union: I grew up 10 minutes from Albright and I'm rooting like heck for the Lions this week.  I also think they're very, very, very badly outmanned.  For a team that has never played against one of the D3 powerhouses before, after a season's worth of playing "regular" D3 teams, I think it's just an absolute shock and you can find yourself behind 21-0 before you realize the game has started.  Mount rolls.

7) Huntingdon @ UMHB: so it's definitely possible that UMHB isn't quite the powerhouse we've seen the last few years.  I still think it's unlikely that this ends up a highly competitive game.

6) Cortland @ Linfield: Cortland has been very inconsistent this year, especially on defense.  Linfield is looking title worthy.  I don't see this one being close.

5) ONU @ UWO: here's the first game with just a smidgen of intrigue to me.  I don't think ONU is really national-caliber, no.  But this is our first chance to figure out any connection between 2015 Mount vs. another real power team.  Will ONU keep this remotely competitive?  They couldn't against Mount.  Likewise, I'm not sure that we know UWO/UWW are the usual powerhouse that we've come to expect as the WIAC champs are always national-title-worthy...maybe they are, but the flip side...what if UWO beat UWW this year because UWW just isn't quite as good?  While I expect UWO to roll here, this is the first game where things start to get interesting for me.  If UWO is as good as I think, and ONU is not-good as I think, this should be a romp.  If this is close, perhaps that tells us that the top-WIAC dogs are a hair behind the last few years, or maybe it means Mount is even better than we think.

4) St. John's @ St. Thomas: maybe this should be higher, but the lopsided margin in the first game just has me feeling like the Tommies are too much for the Johnnies.  This is one of the few games that features two real semifinal contenders but I don't know that it's going to be as competitive as the next three.

3) Wesley @ Johns Hopkins: I think this is an important game for the Hopkins program.  They've been so consistently "good" the last decade but have never managed to break through against a top-8 caliber team.  If they're going to beat Wesley, doesn't it have to happen this year, with a Hopkins team that was as dominant as any they've had, against a Wesley team with a few holes in it?

2) Thomas More @ Wabash: definitely one of the most competitive games this week.  I think Wabash is a favorite by about 10, but would not count the Saints out by any stretch.  I look forward to some in-depth analysis from the fans of the respective teams on these boards.  Not sure either team is a Stagg contender but I do expect some solid competition in this game.

1) UWW @ Wheaton: As a neutral fan, hands down my favorite round 2 matchup.  The Wheaties have been very solid this year, even with some injury woes.  UWW is on the road in the playoffs.  You can definitely argue that Wheaton got robbed on the draw here, but them's the breaks.  I think this is a game most everyone looks at and sees the winner as a potential Stagg representative from that quadrant.

This week, let's try a different tack on the questions.  Let's go with some over/unders:

1. Halftime margin in the Mount/Albright game: 34.5 points
2. Rushing yards for Mason Zurek (Wabash): 150
3. Final margin in the Tommie/Johnnie rematch: 14.5 points
4. Total combined score in the Wesley/Johns Hopkins game: 78.5 points
5. Total combined score in the Wheaton/Whitewater game: 39.5 points

Place your bets, folks.

[retagent]

Did you have the most to least flipped? It seems that way in your analysis.

Also, I believe the Johnnies have improved significantly from the first go-round. There was speculation that Dubuque had improved quite a bit since the first game of the season, and had a couple returned from injury/whatever impact players since then. The Johnnies widened the margin of victory. There was also the ESPN On The Road circus at Collegeville the first time, which may have been a distraction. It was 7-7 at the half - although it has been said, the Johnnies were lucky to be that close.

My thoughts are that it will be a one score margin, whoever wins.