2016 Playoffs

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

Personally, I think my student-athlete experience would have been enhanced much more by the presence of hotter cheerleaders.

Can we look into the NCAA regulations on that one?

[bleedpurple]

I should know the answer to this, but I don't. Are the criteria used by the National Committee in "arranging the bracket" the same as the criteria used in selecting Pool C candidates? I know the NCAA doesn't admit to seeding, so I avoided that word. But it seems like they have arranged 8 team pods around four #1's the last few years.

If the same criteria is used, then does that mean it could be a big deal to UMHB that East Texas Baptist is no longer regionally ranked?  I ask this solely in terms of where they might be ranked among #1 teams. If the top four teams in the d3football.com poll are the top four seeds, will the dropping out of ETBU (if it stays unranked in the secret ranking) affect how the CRU stacks up against UW-W, St. Thomas, and Mount? I know  Mount, STU, and UW-W all have the "previous year playoff performance" edge over UMHB. 

Or does the committee just do what they want and with everything so secret and complicated, they can always find one piece of criteria to justify it.   

[wally_wabash]

I should know the answer to this, but I don't. Are the criteria used by the National Committee in "arranging the bracket" the same as the criteria used in selecting Pool C candidates? I know the NCAA doesn't admit to seeding, so I avoided that word. But it seems like they have arranged 8 team pods around four #1's the last few years.

If the same criteria is used, then does that mean it could be a big deal to UMHB that East Texas Baptist is no longer regionally ranked?  I ask this solely in terms of where they might be ranked among #1 teams. If the top four teams in the d3football.com poll are the top four seeds, will the dropping out of ETBU (if it stays unranked in the secret ranking) affect how the CRU stacks up against UW-W, St. Thomas, and Mount? I know  Mount, STU, and UW-W all have the "previous year playoff performance" edge over UMHB. 

Or does the committee just do what they want and with everything so secret and complicated, they can always find one piece of criteria to justify it.   

Yes, it's the same criteria used for selection and seeding with one addition- the committee may use the results of last year's championship tournament to break ties amongst undefeated teams. 

I still don't think Mount Union's criteria is good enough that you can reasonably stretch it to say they are in a "tie" with UW-W or UMHB.  I also still think Mount Union is going to wind up being the top seed in the tournament in spite of their criteria. 

[ITH radio]

We were told in a past Committee Chair interview that basically they try to pair the best 1-2 per region and build out from there. Should be interesting depending on certain school locations, e.g., in 2012 Hobart was effectively the two in the UST region, which worked bc Bart was far enough west to get schools like Witt up / over for example. Maybe we'll see something similar with Alfred, if they finish 10-0 and have a very high SOS.

[Ralph Turner]

Personally, I think my student-athlete experience would have been enhanced much more by the presence of hotter cheerleaders.

Can we look into the NCAA regulations on that one?

Whew!  Gotta be careful about that one!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/sports/harvard-mens-soccer-season-canceled.html

[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.

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.

-I think the more student-athletes that experience the playoffs (or bowl games), the better their college experience.
-NCAA D3 Philosophy Statement #17

Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and

doesn't specifically refer to the playoffs.  You and others have used the statement as though it is specific to the rules of playoff participation, it is not.  I could easily argue this statement has nothing to do with playoffs and its primary intent is to encourage regional play and allow for the season to conclude with a conference championship, much like the NESCAC.     
-Philosophy Statement 17 is followed by Statement 18:   

Support student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching and appropriate competitive opportunities.

"Which may include participation in national championships".

Is there is a D3 Philosophy Statement that links "conference champion with auto birth in a national championship playoff", especially for those student athletes that have reached "high levels of athletics performance"? 

 

[wally_wabash]

-I think the more student-athletes that experience the playoffs (or bowl games), the better their college experience.
-NCAA D3 Philosophy Statement #17

Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and

doesn't specifically refer to the playoffs.  You and others have used the statement as though it is specific to the rules of playoff participation, it is not.  I could easily argue this statement has nothing to do with playoffs and its primary intent is to encourage regional play and allow for the season to conclude with a conference championship, much like the NESCAC.     
-Philosophy Statement 17 is followed by Statement 18:   

Support student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching and appropriate competitive opportunities.

"Which may include participation in national championships".

Is there is a D3 Philosophy Statement that links "conference champion with auto birth in a national championship playoff", especially for those student athletes that have reached "high levels of athletics performance"? 

I'm glad that you mentioned the NESCAC, because that's exactly where you're kind of telling on yourself here a bit.  You haven't said it directly, but invoking the NESCAC is revealing.  You want these smaller leagues that are noncompetitive to just kind of get out of the way and play in their own sandbox separate from what you think is legitimate championship competition.  That's been the undercurrent of this entire 2-3 season rant you've been on.  What you want is Division IV, basically. 

I'm not going to parse the DIII manual to find specific language about conference championships and postseason participation.  But I think the fact that the NCAA so directly and overwhelmingly ties a conference championship to tournament access (win and you're in) clears up whatever loose/strict construction argument you're trying to make.  Of course the Division thinks that a conference champion deserves to play in the national championship tournament- we know this because every league gets a ticket.  I don't think this philosophy is ambiguous in any way. 

[Ralph Turner]

emma17, I see that you registered in 2010.

Back in 2005 thru 2009, we had the Division IV discussions in which D3 finally realized who it was.

Here is the link beginning in October 2005.

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.0

[AUKaz00]

At this point, we really should change the name of this thread to portray what the posts are about.

[Ralph Turner]

At this point, we really should change the name of this thread to portray what the posts are about.

Sorry for the diversions.  We will get back on track after Sunday...

[AUKaz00]

At this point, we really should change the name of this thread to portray what the posts are about.

Sorry for the diversions.  We will get back on track after Sunday...

Haha. No worries; everyone is welcome to talk about whatever they want. I just keep getting suckered into checking new posts expecting them to be about, you know, the 2016 playoffs.

[emma17]

-I think the more student-athletes that experience the playoffs (or bowl games), the better their college experience.
-NCAA D3 Philosophy Statement #17

Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships; and

doesn't specifically refer to the playoffs.  You and others have used the statement as though it is specific to the rules of playoff participation, it is not.  I could easily argue this statement has nothing to do with playoffs and its primary intent is to encourage regional play and allow for the season to conclude with a conference championship, much like the NESCAC.     
-Philosophy Statement 17 is followed by Statement 18:   

Support student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of athletics performance, which may include opportunities for participation in national championships, by providing all teams with adequate facilities, competent coaching and appropriate competitive opportunities.

"Which may include participation in national championships".

Is there is a D3 Philosophy Statement that links "conference champion with auto birth in a national championship playoff", especially for those student athletes that have reached "high levels of athletics performance"? 

I'm glad that you mentioned the NESCAC, because that's exactly where you're kind of telling on yourself here a bit.  You haven't said it directly, but invoking the NESCAC is revealing.  You want these smaller leagues that are noncompetitive to just kind of get out of the way and play in their own sandbox separate from what you think is legitimate championship competition.  That's been the undercurrent of this entire 2-3 season rant you've been on.  What you want is Division IV, basically. 

I'm not going to parse the DIII manual to find specific language about conference championships and postseason participation.  But I think the fact that the NCAA so directly and overwhelmingly ties a conference championship to tournament access (win and you're in) clears up whatever loose/strict construction argument you're trying to make.  Of course the Division thinks that a conference champion deserves to play in the national championship tournament- we know this because every league gets a ticket.  I don't think this philosophy is ambiguous in any way.

And you want to tell me what I think.  That's your style.  I have almost zero knowledge of the NESCAC except that they don't participate in the playoffs.  For their player's sake, I wish they would.  And I certainly have no interest in a Division 4.

What I do think is that several of you have wrapped yourself in an incorrect interpretation of a D3 Philosophy Statement- and you've attached your incorrect interpretation to the D3 playoffs.  I think they are two separate issues.  I don't believe Statement 17 acts as a "requirement" for how a playoffs should be structured, as many of you seem to think.  I think Statement 17 stands on its own, and I think a playoff structure stands on its own as well.  I think Statement 18 indicates such.   

If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits. 
If it's acceptable to point to D3 Philosophy Statements to support an opinion, I point to Statement 18.

[wally_wabash]

And you want to tell me what I think.  That's your style.  I have almost zero knowledge of the NESCAC except that they don't participate in the playoffs.  For their player's sake, I wish they would.  And I certainly have no interest in a Division 4.

The second that a NESCAC team played in the tournament and lost a game by 30, you'd want to throw them right back out and keep them out forever.  That's your style. 

[Ralph Turner]

If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits. 
If it's acceptable to point to D3 Philosophy Statements to support an opinion, I point to Statement 18.

The members of the ECAC do have "bowl games". I cannot remember a case in which the ECAC eligible member which had earned a  conference Pool A bid or a Pool B recipient declined the NCAA bid and opted for the ECAC bowl game.

[Ryan Stoppable]

If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits.

I would argue that a team has already proven its merits by proving itself the best team in its conference over the course of the conference season.

This isn't just a Division III football thing - it goes across sports and across divisions. You win your conference, you get a berth in the NCAA tournament. Why do you feel that Division III football alone should be different?