2016 Playoffs

[smedindy]

You earn access by winning your league.

[wabndy]

If you are posting here under the belief that the NCAA would pay for a 32 team field without the vast majority of teams being AQs then you are fooling yourself.  In 15 of the 17 years long AQ era, the national champion was (probably) the 1 or 2 overall seed in the tournament.  In only one year, the first year in 1999 did we get an oddball result that probably wouldn't have happened in the invitation only bracket.    After 1999, you could have held an eight team tournament and come up with the same result.  Scrap the hard AQs and you'll get at least a 16 team tourney.  The D3 philosophy is to primarily promote intra-region and intra-conference play.  The fact that we have at large bids at all is in deference to the fact that your John Carroll's and W-Oshkoshes of the world deserve something to play for too, as do non Pool A conferences and those that don't do full round robin.  Anybody else lucky enough to get in is gravy.  That's why I probably won't be crying too much if Wabash doesn't get an invite on Sunday. 

[emma17]

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.

I wholeheartedly agree with all the bolded parts of your post.
September 24, 2016:  The game on the field.  UWP 56, Lakeland 0.

[wally_wabash]

Bummer that UWP doesn't play in the NACC.  They probably could have won that league and qualified.  Instead, they get to sweat it out this weekend. 

[Ryan Stoppable]

September 24, 2016:  The non-conference game on the field.  UWP 56, Lakeland 0.

Lakeland: 1st place in its conference (assuming they beat Rockford this weekend)
UWP: 3rd place in its conference

If your argument is that non-conference games should be considered more important than conference games, you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point.

(edited to correct a misspelling)

[Ralph Turner]

I am amused at the contrast of D-3 folks complaining about the way we have a tournament for champions and its not being the "Best D3 Teams" in the country, like FBS.

Then, in the next internet meme that the person sees is someone complaining how the head football coach at the state university is the highest paid official in the state.  Well DUH, the head football coach for the Texas Longhorns is responsible for $60-80Million in revenue to the athletic department alone!

In the WIAC, I am excited for the Student-Athletes at UW-Superior moving to the UMAC. Perhaps they will be more competitive in that league.

Finally, in the final year of the 16-team playoff, 1998, one undefeated South Region team did not receive one of the 4 bids!  THAT is an injustice.

[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.

I wholeheartedly agree with all the bolded parts of your post.
September 24, 2016:  The game on the field.  UWP 56, Lakeland 0.

The games on the field. UWP, 2 conference losses, not a champion. Lakeland, no likely conference losses, likely a champion. It's just time to disagree. We aren't subjectively making a 32 team "supposed best" tournament. Every year this comes up, and every year it's debated by the same people. The conferences in all of DIII aren't going to pay for a 32 team tournament populated by schools from less than 1/2 the conferences. And you can't blame them. It isn't going to happen in football or any other sport. If everyone is going to pay, and they do even though most is financed by DI Basketball, then everyone needs a way to have access. Complain and moan how crappy it is for UWP or anyone else all you want, it's a dead issue. You want to get in the playoffs? Win your conference.

I'm a big believer we need at least 2 C possibilities to make sure that no real championship quality competitors are likely to be left out. But the moaning and groaning that occurs has me believing it might be better to do away with everything but the A and B bids. Then there is no ambiguity. You want in? Win your conference.

[Ryan Stoppable]

Lakeland, no likely conference losses, likely a champion.

For the sake of accuracy, Lakeland has 1 conference loss and will win a head-to-head tiebreaker if they take care of business. But the fact that they are likely the weakest team who will make the playoffs isn't the point.

But the question becomes then, where and how do you draw the line? How do you decide which conference Champions "deserve" to get in and which "don't"? And then, in the interest of "fairness", don't you have to apply the same logic to other sports as well?

[smedindy]

UW-P had two chances to make the playoffs, realistically. That's a lot more than many teams have.

[sigma one]

The NCAA Division III Philosophy statement is clear:  "Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships."
     Beyond in-season regional play and conference championships everything else is gravy (and in DIII certainly results from  the generosity of the NCAA such as it is).  I know there is a long-ago decided well-established national championship competition in Division III that sort of mirrors the other, scholarship permitting, divisions.  OK.  But with the emphasis on conference championships, it is logical that those champions go to the playoffs no matter the many first-round blow outs.  This arrangement grows right out of the philosophy statement.  I'm on the wrong side of history here, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if after the regular season student-athletes would hand in their equipment and go on to do what else interests them.  We're way too far down the road for that to happen given that for many schools recruiting in part relies on the potential for making post-season play, even when that possibility is remote.  And student-athletes from early on, high school and before, are accustomed to post-season play. 
    While the yearly debate is fine, the Division III football playoffs are in line with Division III philosophy.  While the powers that be might decide to tinker with some aspects of what they are now doing, we are just not going to see a change to someone's idea of who the best teams are ever come seriously into play.  I don't think such a proposal would ever even make it to the NAA Convention floor for a vote--and that's how change comes about.   

[HansenRatings]

Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

[emma17]

Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

[wally_wabash]

Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

Dude, no.  No it isn't.  The D-III philosophy as noted literally 20 minutes ago on this very same page is:

The NCAA Division III Philosophy statement is clear:  "Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships."

Nowhere does it say "the best teams".  It does say conference champions very specifically.  Winning your conference matters more.  That's what D3 is.  You want something completely different. 

[jknezek]

Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

Except it doesn't work very well. Care to guess how many 7 team conferences are left? There's the ODAC and the MIAA. Add that to the LL remnants and you have 20 teams. Add the 2 remaining independents, I think Alfred State has a new home soon, and that gives you 22 teams. With an 8:1 ratio, you have two Pool B bids and have earned 1 Pool C back by killing two AQs and combining that with the one Pool B currently available. 3 to 2. You have to go to 9 team leagues to make real hay. Of course, that then throws the WIAC and NWC into the non-AQ mix. While I have no doubt those league champions get a "B" bid all things being equal, it will get a lot more difficult for the West Regional Committee to have all those 2nd, and 3rd teams ranked compared to other regions so that they keep getting in over other champions. But it might happen.

All of that presupposes that you wouldn't get a whole lot of mixing and matching, which I think is very likely. We saw it happen with the first access ratio, I think you'd see it again with conferences distilling to get the magic number. But a conference like the WIAC is going to be left out. Because there simply isn't anyone else to add easily. So then you have no AQ for the WIAC, a small Pool B that they probably win, or at least scrap over with the NWC champion who also has no easy addition, and then back into Pool C you go.

Regardless, you aren't getting rid of the weak "A" bids, or at least not many of them, this way. Many of those "A" conferences have 9 or 10 teams. The UMAC has 10. The MWC has 11!

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

"A lot of people" has just been me, and I just want to clarify why I brought that game up.

I know Wartburg was/is not on the same level as a generic NACC, UMAC, or ECFC champion.

I'm using it as an example because that does hit a couple of the check boxes that walla walla wildcat threw out there - Pool A team with two losses, ranked outside the top 25 (in fact, barely receiving any votes - does anyone know where the 2013 RR's were archived?  Would love to see if that Wartburg team was RR'd, I am guessing they scraped in but probably at #9 or #10).  That's one of the ideas floated in this thread, that you should have to be ranked in the top 25 to receive an AQ.

Meanwhile, Illinois Wesleyan was the classic "strong Pool C" as a 9-1 team from a traditionally-powerful conference with a signature win over a traditionally-powerful team and the lone loss vs. the #4 team in the country.  Although your model may have barely registered this as a mismatch, this is a pairing of exactly the type of team we're arguing about putting more of into the tournament (IWU, the strong-Pool-C) against the type of team that supposedly doesn't belong (Wartburg, the unranked-Pool-A).

It is fair to point out that Wartburg is several leagues better than the Lakeland / Northwestern / Husson tier.  If you want to let the Wartburgs in but throw the Lakelands out, though...

But the question becomes then, where and how do you draw the line? How do you decide which conference Champions "deserve" to get in and which "don't"? And then, in the interest of "fairness", don't you have to apply the same logic to other sports as well?

Apologies for aggravating you, Hansen.