2016 Playoffs

[jknezek]

No. I'm sure UWP is better than Lakeland. I don't think either is a title threat.  But one won their conference, an achievement worthy of reward, and the other, quite frankly, proved themselves third best in their conference. This isn't everyone gets a medal time. Finish third? Sitting home isn't a problem. It's a logical outcome. Does anyone think a one loss runner up to Lakeland sniffs the playoffs? No. Does anyone think a one loss runner up in the WIAC isn't a serious playoff possibility?  What do you know, the WIAC does get extra consideration for being really darn good. I'm not sad that extra consideration doesn't extend to a third team. That's just unnecessary.

[USee]

I am not so sure quoting Mr. Ypsi gives much credence to your rant, but I get it. and HS Coach is an OAC guy who didn't watch a single snap of CCIW football in 2013 before the playoffs.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I am not so sure quoting Mr. Ypsi gives much credence to your rant, but I get it. and HS Coach is an OAC guy who didn't watch a single snap of CCIW football in 2013 before the playoffs.

Of course, I know Ypsi is an IWU guy and that HScoach is an OAC guy, and tbh the smack talk was fairly light.  They're just a couple quotes I could find that showed IWU was considered a pretty heavy favorite in that game (I should try to find the first-round picks from the 2013 playoffs, too) and no one really seemed to think of Wartburg as anything more than a speed bump en route to a second-round showdown with Bethel.  It wasn't quite three-WIAC-teams-in-the-top-10 like this year but the CCIW had three (presumed) heavy hitters that year and certainly few expected that Wartburg would win.  It's one example of why we probably shouldn't just say "Well, we know who the best teams are, so if you're not ranked in the top 25, no soup for you!" or assume that just because one league has three teams we think are really good, we should start kicking other conference champions out to make more room for them.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I am not so sure quoting Mr. Ypsi gives much credence to your rant, but I get it. and HS Coach is an OAC guy who didn't watch a single snap of CCIW football in 2013 before the playoffs.

Et tu, USee.

That result was even more painful than two years earlier when Alex Tanney's Monmouth team edged IWU (who was IMO much better than the 2013 team).

[Ralph Turner]

Sadly I don't think we had started a Pool C thread back then, but I'm sure it would also have given some choice quotes about how strong the CCIW was and what a shame it was that Wheaton, with only losses against #4 and #14 in the country, could be left out, and surely we should have kept those losers from Wartburg, not even ranked in the final top 25, out to make space for...wait, what?

Wartburg 41, Illinois Wesleyan 7.

That, folks, is why it's bull**** to say that "we know" who the best teams are or that being unranked should DQ a team from receiving their auto-bid to make way for more Pool C's.  We can guess, but we don't know.  And that's why it is better to settle this on the field than to start drawing lines about which league can have an auto-bid and which doesn't deserve one.  Everyone gets an auto-bid.  Beyond that, all bets are off.

Pool C thread for the 2013 season is posted below.  I am so grateful that Pat keeps the old threads alive on these boards.  There is so much "corporate memory" stored there....
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=8060.0

[smedindy]

Coach Mora said it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHipzGL4dwM

[wally_wabash]

Really, you don't know that UWP has a better chance of being a national champion than Lakeland?  I think we do KNOW that.
I find it interesting how when it comes to pool C discussion, many people cling to the idea that if a team didn't win their conference (or finish 2nd), that they cannot win a national championship.  Yet, when it comes to rankings, some people are more than willing to rank Thomas More ahead of Franklin, or Wabash ahead of Wittenberg.

Thomas More ahead of Franklin is fair given Franklin's other results.  While it's a flattering piece of validation of how good Wabash has been for a decade or so, I don't think people should be ranking Wabash in front of Wittenberg.  I'm not sure Wabash has earned that this season compared directly to Wittenberg.  Not complaining though.   

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

I believe in earned access.  How to make a workable definition is the problem given how little teams play against other conferences...

And come on guys... we do "know" that the top teams in the WIAC and MIAC are good as they have repeatedly proven it in the playoffs year in and year out.  Until proven otherwise any team that hangs with UWW is a very good team.  Any team that plays with St Thomas or St Johns is really good (although not at the same level as the WIAC year in year out). 

Saying that we don't "know" which teams are good is bull****.  We know that the following teams are good - Top 2-3 teams in the MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, Mary Hardin Baylor, Linfield, of course Mt Union, and normally Wesley, maybe JHU... These are teams and leagues that have proven time and again in the playoffs that they have good programs that reload each season.  Doesn't D3 do a ranking of each team each season...surely this gives us an idea of what teams are good on an average basis...

[ExTartanPlayer]

I believe in earned access.  How to make a workable definition is the problem given how little teams play against other conferences...

And come on guys... we do "know" that the top teams in the WIAC and MIAC are good as they have repeatedly proven it in the playoffs year in and year out.  Until proven otherwise any team that hangs with UWW is a very good team.  Any team that plays with St Thomas or St Johns is really good (although not at the same level as the WIAC year in year out). 

Saying that we don't "know" which teams are good is bull****.  We know that the following teams are good - Top 2-3 teams in the MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, Mary Hardin Baylor, Linfield, of course Mt Union, and normally Wesley, maybe JHU... These are teams and leagues that have proven time and again in the playoffs that they have good programs that reload each season.  Doesn't D3 do a ranking of each team each season...surely this gives us an idea of what teams are good on an average basis...

Under your proposed system (must be ranked in the Top 25 to get an AQ bid), the Wartburg team that got a Pool A bid, went on the road, and hosed 14th-ranked Illinois Wesleyan (#2 in the CCIW) 41-7 would not have been allowed into the playoffs.

Yes, we generally know which teams are good in a given season.  We don't know for sure that a Pool A team from some league that's not part of the Cool Kids Club you just named will not beat one of those teams in a given season. 

*Clarification: the problem isn't whether the teams in the WIAC, MIAC, CCIW, etc named are good.  We do know that they're almost always going to be good.  But you're looking at this from the wrong angle: what we don't know (and as you pointed out, usually don't have enough true inter-regional play to guess)  is what about that second tier of teams, and when one of them is good enough to make a surprising run.  Using an earlier example, if we were making a rule that one had to be ranked in the top 25 to receive an AQ to the playoffs, how are we supposed to meaningfully compare teams like Redlands and Thomas More and Franklin (those lingering near the bottom of the Top 25) when there is nothing resembling a common opponent, or even two-degrees-of-separation?  If that's going to be used as a standard for who gets in, how reasonable is it that voters' (almost none of whom would have actually seen all of these teams play) determination about whether Frostburg State is better than Redlands could determine whether Redlands stays in the top 25 and gets a Pool A bid?

[emma17]

Really, you don't know that UWP has a better chance of being a national champion than Lakeland?  I think we do KNOW that.
I find it interesting how when it comes to pool C discussion, many people cling to the idea that if a team didn't win their conference (or finish 2nd), that they cannot win a national championship.  Yet, when it comes to rankings, some people are more than willing to rank Thomas More ahead of Franklin, or Wabash ahead of Wittenberg.

Thomas More ahead of Franklin is fair given Franklin's other results.  While it's a flattering piece of validation of how good Wabash has been for a decade or so, I don't think people should be ranking Wabash in front of Wittenberg.  I'm not sure Wabash has earned that this season compared directly to Wittenberg.  Not complaining though.   

You've ignored the point though. Obviously many voters believe that both Thomas More and Wabash can beat teams they lost to.

[emma17]

No. I'm sure UWP is better than Lakeland. I don't think either is a title threat.  But one won their conference, an achievement worthy of reward, and the other, quite frankly, proved themselves third best in their conference. This isn't everyone gets a medal time. Finish third? Sitting home isn't a problem. It's a logical outcome. Does anyone think a one loss runner up to Lakeland sniffs the playoffs? No. Does anyone think a one loss runner up in the WIAC isn't a serious playoff possibility?  What do you know, the WIAC does get extra consideration for being really darn good. I'm not sad that extra consideration doesn't extend to a third team. That's just unnecessary.

As expected this discussion gets laser focused to the WIAC. I guess it's my fault for using UWP as an example, I had hoped we could be objective enough to discuss the concept and stay clear of the conference.
As a reminder, the point simply is that players from a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion (that might have been smoked in a non con game) get the AQ playoff game while players from a second or third place team with a dramatically stronger schedule sit home.
This isn't an argument for UWP it's simply discussion that for all your good intentions to protect the little team, players are impacted regardless.

[wally_wabash]

Really, you don't know that UWP has a better chance of being a national champion than Lakeland?  I think we do KNOW that.
I find it interesting how when it comes to pool C discussion, many people cling to the idea that if a team didn't win their conference (or finish 2nd), that they cannot win a national championship.  Yet, when it comes to rankings, some people are more than willing to rank Thomas More ahead of Franklin, or Wabash ahead of Wittenberg.

Thomas More ahead of Franklin is fair given Franklin's other results.  While it's a flattering piece of validation of how good Wabash has been for a decade or so, I don't think people should be ranking Wabash in front of Wittenberg.  I'm not sure Wabash has earned that this season compared directly to Wittenberg.  Not complaining though.   

You've ignored the point though. Obviously many voters believe that both Thomas More and Wabash can beat teams they lost to.

No, I got your point, I just don't know what else I can say that adds to the conversation.  You and some others see different classes of teams in Division III and think what's best is to actively exclude those that you deem as unworthy from the postseason.  I think Division III is great because everybody has access.  We're probably not going to find common ground on this. 

[jknezek]

This isn't an argument for UWP it's simply discussion that for all your good intentions to protect the little team, players are impacted regardless.

Of course players are affected. That's the problem with subjective measures. The great thing about the AQ is it is completely objective.  Every player on all 230 plus playoff eligible teams starts the season knowing they have a shot at the dream. Win your conference.  It is as open as it gets. There is nothing fairer than that system. Win on the field and no one can take away your shot.  It blows my mind that people think smoky back room decisions are somehow more fair and less impacting to players than the simple concept of win on the field, where the game is actually played, and you can keep going until you lose. Somehow we should take away the champions right to keep playing and give it to more teams that are already losers? How does that make sense? I don't think I will ever get the logic of let's let someone decide it off the field, not on it.

[Ralph Turner]

+1! Wally and JK.

D3 is about local experiences. The conferences and peer institutions are strengthened by common mission and visions. Participation in D3 athletics in all sports has blossomed since the Pool System was implemented across the board nearly 20 years ago.

[HansenRatings]

My two cents:

I agree with Ralph & Wally--the mission of Division III is that of inclusion, and the student-athlete experience. Removing auto-bids from conferences, for a reason other than insufficient membership, is contrary to what DIII sports are supposed to stand for.

In my ideal world, we would see an expansion of Pool C, by maybe about 4 teams. I would propose this mostly as a means to further include deserving teams. I think of Muhlenberg, where it's not inconceivable that a player could go 36-4 over their tenure, and never get a chance at the playoffs.

As a last note, a lot of people have been talking about the Wartburg/IWU game from 2013 as an example of why removing Pool A bids from "undeserving" conferences is a bad idea. The concept that the IIAC, or any conference champion from there, is on the same level as the Lakelands, Hussons, and Northwesterns of the world is unbelievably aggravating to me. That game was barely an upset. My model gave Wartburg 1-in-3 odds to win.