Playoffs -- 2015

[ExTartanPlayer]

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

Yes, sorry.  I was counting them down from "least" to "most" interesting, haha.  Sorry for the unclear wording.

[D3MAFAN]

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

Yes, sorry.  I was counting them down from "least" to "most" interesting, haha.  Sorry for the unclear wording.

Also, Albright has played in alliance this year. Never less, the result will be the same.

[ExTartanPlayer]

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

Yes, sorry.  I was counting them down from "least" to "most" interesting, haha.  Sorry for the unclear wording.

Also, Albright has played in alliance this year. Never less, the result will be the same.

The last time Albright played in Alliance, the current seniors on each team would have been sophomores in high school.  I don't really think that has much bearing on Albright's level of experience playing against Mount Union caliber opposition.

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

My own answers here:

1. OVER
2. OVER
3. UNDER
4. OVER
5. OVER

[K-Mack]

In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

[K-Mack]

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....

I actually finally compiled the spreadsheet on this. 9-1 teams left out is common. Many years there are more 9-1s than at-large bids, and in recent years, we've seen committees really reward strength of schedule and say that all 9-1 records are not created equal, or even equal to a very good 8-2.

[Mr. Ypsi]

In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

It would not be hard to come up with 8 (or 20, for that matter) better teams than some of the very weakest AQs.  Royal85 just cannot accept that many if not most of us think a guaranteed path to access to the tourney is more important than having the 'best' field (heck, even D1's 'March Madness' makes no pretense of being the 'best' 68 teams in the country).  I like the way things are, though since the field is unlikely to ever expand beyond 32, if AQs ever start taking 28,29,30 slots, I'd certainly be open to discussion of some sort of modified AQs (e.g., if no team in a conference is in the top 25% of regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that year, or whatever).

[wabndy]

Some nice Washington Post ink for D3 football, discussing Wabash's Mason Zurek and his victory beverage of choice:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/11/23/the-top-25-its-hard-to-know-where-to-rank-mark-dantonio-seeing-how-he-dislikes-praise/

17. MASON ZUREK IN THE SNOW FOR WABASH. Two weeks ago, the Wabash back gained 278 rushing yards in the rivalry against DePauw, then mentioned possibly drinking some of the six-pack of 3 Floyds Gumballhead in his refrigerator from the Monon Bell that goes to the victor. Last weekend, against Albion in the Division III playoffs, he gained 312, which is going to give some people the impression that these players are so young that beer does not hinder performance.

[Coolrey]

In all but 3, every first round game was a blow out. Says a lot about the top to bottom quality of the 32 playoff teams. At least 8 teams that were left out are much better than several of those that qualified. The best D3 team in the country will prevail, but the path to the title isn't as formidable as it could be or perhaps should be. Conference champions don't always project as a top 32 team.

You're not wrong, at least on the latter point, but I'd like to hear the at least eight teams that you would put in, and in place of whom.

It would not be hard to come up with 8 (or 20, for that matter) better teams than some of the very weakest AQs.  Royal85 just cannot accept that many if not most of us think a guaranteed path to access to the tourney is more important than having the 'best' field (heck, even D1's 'March Madness' makes no pretense of being the 'best' 68 teams in the country).  I like the way things are, though since the field is unlikely to ever expand beyond 32, if AQs ever start taking 28,29,30 slots, I'd certainly be open to discussion of some sort of modified AQs (e.g., if no team in a conference is in the top 25% of regional rankings, the conference loses its AQ for that year, or whatever).

I think an expanded bracket, although will not happen, would be great for Division III football and for Division III institutions.  As suggested earlier, it is not about a "participation trophy" or an "everybody is a winner" mentality.  It would be about giving an opportunity to more programs and more players to chase a championship.  I know costs can be a factor and that is the primary reason there are 32 teams in the bracket now.  No one can convince me otherwise that expanding the field would be a bad thing.  The good teams are still going to advance most of the time, but not every time.  Allowing the 9-1's and the 8-2's the shot to advance as well as bringing excitement and vigor to more DIII campuses is a great thing and would promote DIII participation.   It would provide an opportunity for that team that lost early in the season and then plays lights out later in the year a chance to compete for a title or at least make a deep run.  I know, costs and other considerations will never allow it to happen, but my point is that involving more teams in the playoffs, just a 1/4th of all DIII teams in the country, would be beneficial to the division as well as the institutions.  I do believe in a guaranteed path to the tourney with the AQ.  But I also believe that there are more than 6 additional teams that are worthy of the opportunity to have a shot in the tourney as well.   A team could drop 2 or even 3 games and still be a conference champion and qualify, and I believe they should.  But a non-AQ team or a conference runner-up that loses 1 or 2 has a good chance of being on the outside looking in just because the field is limited to 32.  These guys are playing for the love of the game and not for the "next level". Again, if cost weren't a factor.    My opinion. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I think an expanded bracket, although will not happen, would be great for Division III football and for Division III institutions.  As suggested earlier, it is not about a "participation trophy" or an "everybody is a winner" mentality.  It would be about giving an opportunity to more programs and more players to chase a championship.  I know costs can be a factor and that is the primary reason there are 32 teams in the bracket now.  No one can convince me otherwise that expanding the field would be a bad thing.  The good teams are still going to advance most of the time, but not every time.  Allowing the 9-1's and the 8-2's the shot to advance as well as bringing excitement and vigor to more DIII campuses is a great thing and would promote DIII participation.   It would provide an opportunity for that team that lost early in the season and then plays lights out later in the year a chance to compete for a title or at least make a deep run.  I know, costs and other considerations will never allow it to happen, but my point is that involving more teams in the playoffs, just a 1/4th of all DIII teams in the country, would be beneficial to the division as well as the institutions.  I do believe in a guaranteed path to the tourney with the AQ.  But I also believe that there are more than 6 additional teams that are worthy of the opportunity to have a shot in the tourney as well.   A team could drop 2 or even 3 games and still be a conference champion and qualify, and I believe they should.  But a non-AQ team or a conference runner-up that loses 1 or 2 has a good chance of being on the outside looking in just because the field is limited to 32.  These guys are playing for the love of the game and not for the "next level". Again, if cost weren't a factor.    My opinion.

Every team already has the chance to chase a championship.  It starts with this thing we have called the regular season, where teams compete against others in their conference for the right to play for the national championship.  We even have a special bonus that lets a few special snowflakes who don't win their conference championship in on a second-chance bid, like the kids who get voted off the Voice but get "saved" and still gets another chance!

I may be in the minority here, but I happen to believe that an expanded playoff would devalue the regular season.  Some rivalries, like the Johnnie-Tommie game, stand on their own as big stuff no matter what.  But other rivalries have grown out of competition for that league title and playoff berth (Wabash-Wittenberg being one good example) and part of what makes week 9, 10, and 11 so much fun is that you have teams battling it out for those precious AQ tickets to the playoffs; a pair of 8-0 or 7-1 teams playing late in the season with an automatic bid on the line is a really amazing atmosphere.  That same pair of 8-0 and/or 7-1 teams playing in week 8 knowing that the loser probably gets into the playoffs anyway?  Much less special, if you ask me.

We just have a philosophical difference about this.  I don't believe that leaving 9-1 or 8-2 teams out of the tournament is a tragedy.  Those teams that lost early in the season and then played lights out later in the year?  They should have started playing lights out from the beginning of the season (and I say this as a fan of a team that started 1-3 and finished this year on a seven-game winning streak).  Games in week 1 should count just as much as games in week 11. 

[Pat Coleman]

Every team already has the chance to chase a championship. It starts with this thing we have called the regular season, where teams compete against others in their conference for the right to play for the national championship. 

Exactly what I was about to say. Then I scrolled down and saw you'd already said it!

[Coolrey]

I would be interested in what the coaches and players think.  DIII is certainly about playing for the love of the game rather than for generating revenue and for a chance for players to get to the league.   Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if there was the feeling among DIII coaches and players that more teams in the field would enhance the DIII experience for the players. I also wouldn't be surprised if fans overall would rather not change.  I would be interested to hear the perspective of those coaches and players when asked, if it were a possibility, would they be in favor of expanding the playoff field.  And again, I'm not saying the current system is wrong or bad or evil.  I only suggest that more teams in the playoffs offers more opportunity for players to play, schools to showcase their campuses and programs to prospective student/athletes and coaches to recruit players.  The best teams will always rise to the top, most of the time.  I don't think it would diminish rivalry games and you would still have intense and exciting games that would determine playoff berths.  All this is moot, I understand, but it's interesting to get perspective on this topic  from those who follow DIII just for the fun of it.

[crufootball]

I would be interested in what the coaches and players think.  DIII is certainly about playing for the love of the game rather than for generating revenue and for a chance for players to get to the league.   Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if there was the feeling among DIII coaches and players that more teams in the field would enhance the DIII experience for the players. I also wouldn't be surprised if fans overall would rather not change.  I would be interested to hear the perspective of those coaches and players when asked, if it were a possibility, would they be in favor of expanding the playoff field.  And again, I'm not saying the current system is wrong or bad or evil.  I only suggest that more teams in the playoffs offers more opportunity for players to play, schools to showcase their campuses and programs to prospective student/athletes and coaches to recruit players.  The best teams will always rise to the top, most of the time.  I don't think it would diminish rivalry games and you would still have intense and exciting games that would determine playoff berths.  All this is moot, I understand, but it's interesting to get perspective on this topic  from those who follow DIII just for the fun of it.

I would imagine coaches would be favor of expanding the playoffs because it could potentially make them look better. I am interested in the theory that Pat and Keith talked about on the podcast of more post season bowl games like the ECAC. Probably won't ever catch on down here in the South since we play almost everyone already, but I could see that being a fun alternative if schools really want an 11th game.

[emma17]

Ex,
Your ONU @ UWO write-up intrigued me.  From what I read about ONU, it seems they are somewhat of an improved team since their loss to Mt.  The QB, Ricardo Johnson, appears to be quite the athlete.   
I think there may be a third explanation if the game is close, and that is- ONU is a team on the rise. 
I'm curious to hear from anybody that may have seen ONU lately with Ricardo running the show. 

[smedindy]

Every player and coach would want another game, sure. Right now, though, they have to really earn it.