2016 Playoffs

[sigma one]

Incorrect interpretation--in your judgment.  Wally doesn't know what you think, but you know what the NCAA philosophy statement means.  No, in your judgment the NCAA philosophy statement means whatever supports your point of view; in mine, and perhaps others, the statement means what supports our argument.  Only the NCAA knows what they think it means, maybe. We are just going to disagree on the basic premise that governs playoff selections.  Despite your believe that only the "best" teams should compete in the playoffs, that's not what is going to happen, all interpretations of the philosophy statement aside.  If there are future adjustments to the system it will be at best to slightly widen the field while keeping the conference champions in the mix.  And I'm not all all sure that given the NCAA's tightfisted approach to sponsoring DIII even a small expansion is likely to happen because of what other complications, in season and post season, such a change would entail.  Reduce to nine (or for a few schools eight) games:  won't happen.  Talk about denying competition access for member schools.  Add a week to the playoffs:  won't happen because of the calendar.  Start the season a week earlier to make space for a six-week playoff:  doubtful.  Make schools themselves pay for the first round opportunity to host a game (or for more than the first round):  a pipe dream.    Many schools already have financial problems making that untenable, and most schools would have to defend paying for those games vis a vis what they do to fund other sports.  (The NAIA already has a pay for play in the post season; the NCAA is not the NAIA).  (As an aside, in a worst case scenario I can see the NCAA powers deciding to reduce funding to Division III, not increase it.)
     Emma, really, I understand your side of it.  In a "perfect system" your way makes a lot of sense.  But we are not talking about a "perfect system"; too much human input is involved in picking the "best" teams.  Further, I don't see anyone saying the system is perfect; it is equitable.    With the human input we have now with Pool C, there's already enough disagreement on the last couple of schools included.    However the playoff teams are selected good players, some more talented than others, will be left looking through the fence at the end of the regular season.  We all agree, I hope, that (most) DIII players care just as much about their sport as (most) DI players.  It would hurt the players from the winner of a "lesser" conference not to make the playoffs just as much as it would for players from a non-conference-winner not to make the playoffs.  Who is going to be the person to tell those conference winners that they just don't count as much as players from teams who have not done as well in other conferences?   
     From the beginning, the idea of DIII has been to promote an egalitarian approach to sports, and this is what the current playoff selection system, with its several flaws, provides. 
     
     
         
 

[emma17]

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.

You got me.  My whole sinister plan is to create a WIAC only national championship tournament.   

[jknezek]

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.

You got me.  My whole sinister plan is to create a WIAC only national championship tournament.

We all know that's not true. You'd never forget about UMU.

[emma17]

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?

From the get-go I stated that I'm not opposed to the AQ for conference champions. 
From the get-go I've tried to express that my primary concern is for the player.
You argue that a team has "already proved its merits...".  Ok, in the sense of winning their conference, yes, they proved it.  They also got beat 56-0 by a team of  players that feel "they proved their merits". 
The point of all this was simply to ask, is there another way to accomplish all we want to accomplish?  I don't care how other divisions do it.  Can D3 make changes that make it even better for the student athletes?

I've done my best to explain what I think and why I think it, I'll let it go at that.     

[jknezek]

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?

From the get-go I stated that I'm not opposed to the AQ for conference champions. 
From the get-go I've tried to express that my primary concern is for the player.
You argue that a team has "already proved its merits...".  Ok, in the sense of winning their conference, yes, they proved it.  They also got beat 56-0 by a team of  players that feel "they proved their merits". 
The point of all this was simply to ask, is there another way to accomplish all we want to accomplish?  I don't care how other divisions do it.  Can D3 make changes that make it even better for the student athletes?

I've done my best to explain what I think and why I think it, I'll let it go at that.     

The trouble is that we don't agree on "what is best for the student athlete." I think, and DIII clearly agrees, the current system is best for the student athlete. I certainly can't think of anything better and don't believe that your ideas are better than what we have.

[Ryan Stoppable]

I believe I've made my feelings clear, so I'm going to step out as well before I become too emotionally invested in it that I can only spout off angry gibberish.

But thanks everyone, there's been more discussion of Lakeland's season in this thread than there probably has been in the actual NACC thread all year!

[wally_wabash]

From the get-go I stated that I'm not opposed to the AQ for conference champions. 
From the get-go I've tried to express that my primary concern is for the player.
You argue that a team has "already proved its merits...".  Ok, in the sense of winning their conference, yes, they proved it.  They also got beat 56-0 by a team of  players that feel "they proved their merits". 
The point of all this was simply to ask, is there another way to accomplish all we want to accomplish?  I don't care how other divisions do it.  Can D3 make changes that make it even better for the student athletes?

I've done my best to explain what I think and why I think it, I'll let it go at that.     

Just so I'm clear- you think the current system is disenfranchising the student-athlete, very specifically those that play at UW-Platteville, and your solution is to....build an alternative system that disenfranchises the student-athletes at Lakeland?  Or from your POV, you wouldn't disenfranchise Lakeland's players, but you would have them go play in a completely meaningless exhibition game in Week 12, at the institution's own expense no doubt, and pretend like that's the same as playing in the national championship tournament.  The "good" teams get to play with Transformers.  The Lakelands of the world get to play with Go-Bots and you think that's equitable?  Tell me that you're not totally oblivious to the zero-sum game you're playing here. 

Somebody's going to be bummed out when the tournament field gets selected.  Division III's member institutions have agreed that the group of people that get to be bummed out are not conference champions- it's going to be the team that finished second or third.  That's what the Division has agreed on.  This isn't in dispute. 

[smedindy]

We've had this same argument in 2014 and 2015 (at least), and I've spent all I care to spend on it. The system could be better, but the AQ's aren't going anywhere, and if you don't win your league, you get what you deserve.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

Here is some statistical information regarding the recent playoff projection by the D3 gurus:

Rankings are D3 preseason and Top 25 current - if no Top 25 ranking I used the preseason ranking (and not votes received)

MHB

17.75/14.625 average

St. Thomas bracket

80.75/70.125

UWW

46/43.375

MUC

47/44.875

[emma17]

Here is some statistical information regarding the recent playoff projection by the D3 gurus:

Rankings are D3 preseason and Top 25 current - if no Top 25 ranking I used the preseason ranking (and not votes received)

MHB

17.75/14.625 average

St. Thomas bracket

80.75/70.125

UWW

46/43.375

MUC

47/44.875

Interesting numbers.
When it comes to actual teams to get through, the MUC bracket looks to be the toughest w UWO, St. John's/NCC.
I'd rank the UMHB bracket as the third hardest and the St. Thomas bracket as the least difficult.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

The MUC bracket has 3 unranked teams but does include the 1, 5, 6, and 8 ranked teams... the 1st round game of St J and North Central would be one of the best games of the round... HSU and MHB being the other.

Is Wesley a dark horse with the way that they've been playing since two early losses?  They and JHU seem to be two teams that at some point will make serious runs in the playoffs.

It would seem that the St Thomas bracket is pretty light but the UWW bracket is just as light... lots of unranked teams..

This bracket would give us likely quarters of UWW vs Linfield, MUC vs UWO, St Thomas vs Alfred, and MHB vs Wesley/Johns Hopkins.

[Ralph Turner]

Incorrect interpretation--in your judgment.  Wally doesn't know what you think, but you know what the NCAA philosophy statement means.  No, in your judgment the NCAA philosophy statement means whatever supports your point of view; in mine, and perhaps others, the statement means what supports our argument.  Only the NCAA knows what they think it means, maybe. We are just going to disagree on the basic premise that governs playoff selections.  Despite your believe that only the "best" teams should compete in the playoffs, that's not what is going to happen, all interpretations of the philosophy statement aside.  If there are future adjustments to the system it will be at best to slightly widen the field while keeping the conference champions in the mix.  And I'm not all all sure that given the NCAA's tightfisted approach to sponsoring DIII even a small expansion is likely to happen because of what other complications, in season and post season, such a change would entail.  Reduce to nine (or for a few schools eight) games:  won't happen.  Talk about denying competition access for member schools.  Add a week to the playoffs:  won't happen because of the calendar.  Start the season a week earlier to make space for a six-week playoff:  doubtful.  Make schools themselves pay for the first round opportunity to host a game (or for more than the first round):  a pipe dream.    Many schools already have financial problems making that untenable, and most schools would have to defend paying for those games vis a vis what they do to fund other sports.  (The NAIA already has a pay for play in the post season; the NCAA is not the NAIA).  (As an aside, in a worst case scenario I can see the NCAA powers deciding to reduce funding to Division III, not increase it.)
     Emma, really, I understand your side of it.  In a "perfect system" your way makes a lot of sense.  But we are not talking about a "perfect system"; too much human input is involved in picking the "best" teams.  Further, I don't see anyone saying the system is perfect; it is equitable.    With the human input we have now with Pool C, there's already enough disagreement on the last couple of schools included.    However the playoff teams are selected good players, some more talented than others, will be left looking through the fence at the end of the regular season.  We all agree, I hope, that (most) DIII players care just as much about their sport as (most) DI players. It would hurt the players from the winner of a "lesser" conference not to make the playoffs just as much as it would for players from a non-conference-winner not to make the playoffs.  Who is going to be the person to tell those conference winners that they just don't count as much as players from teams who have not done as well in other conferences?   
     From the beginning, the idea of DIII has been to promote an egalitarian approach to sports, and this is what the current playoff selection system, with its several flaws, provides. 
   

The fun of March Madness is to watch the #4 /#13 and #3/#14 games. The effect of the tournament has to bring parity the Men's D1 hoops.

Husson vs Alfred a few years ago was just that.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Incorrect interpretation--in your judgment.  Wally doesn't know what you think, but you know what the NCAA philosophy statement means.  No, in your judgment the NCAA philosophy statement means whatever supports your point of view; in mine, and perhaps others, the statement means what supports our argument.  Only the NCAA knows what they think it means, maybe. We are just going to disagree on the basic premise that governs playoff selections.  Despite your believe that only the "best" teams should compete in the playoffs, that's not what is going to happen, all interpretations of the philosophy statement aside.  If there are future adjustments to the system it will be at best to slightly widen the field while keeping the conference champions in the mix.  And I'm not all all sure that given the NCAA's tightfisted approach to sponsoring DIII even a small expansion is likely to happen because of what other complications, in season and post season, such a change would entail.  Reduce to nine (or for a few schools eight) games:  won't happen.  Talk about denying competition access for member schools.  Add a week to the playoffs:  won't happen because of the calendar.  Start the season a week earlier to make space for a six-week playoff:  doubtful.  Make schools themselves pay for the first round opportunity to host a game (or for more than the first round):  a pipe dream.    Many schools already have financial problems making that untenable, and most schools would have to defend paying for those games vis a vis what they do to fund other sports.  (The NAIA already has a pay for play in the post season; the NCAA is not the NAIA).  (As an aside, in a worst case scenario I can see the NCAA powers deciding to reduce funding to Division III, not increase it.)
     Emma, really, I understand your side of it.  In a "perfect system" your way makes a lot of sense.  But we are not talking about a "perfect system"; too much human input is involved in picking the "best" teams.  Further, I don't see anyone saying the system is perfect; it is equitable.    With the human input we have now with Pool C, there's already enough disagreement on the last couple of schools included.    However the playoff teams are selected good players, some more talented than others, will be left looking through the fence at the end of the regular season.  We all agree, I hope, that (most) DIII players care just as much about their sport as (most) DI players. It would hurt the players from the winner of a "lesser" conference not to make the playoffs just as much as it would for players from a non-conference-winner not to make the playoffs.  Who is going to be the person to tell those conference winners that they just don't count as much as players from teams who have not done as well in other conferences?   
     From the beginning, the idea of DIII has been to promote an egalitarian approach to sports, and this is what the current playoff selection system, with its several flaws, provides. 
   

The fun of March Madness is to watch the #4 /#13 and #3/#14 games. The effect of the tournament has to bring parity the Men's D1 hoops.

Husson vs Alfred a few years ago was just that.

Yes and the rare #15 over #2 upsets.   #16 has put a scare in #1 several times, but I'm not sure I'll live long enough to see that much desired upset actually happen.

And THAT is why no AQ (however bad the beat-down will PROBABLY be) should be excluded.  It would take away the possibility of the greatest moment in sports - the 'Bad News Bears' 'Rocky Balboa' upset!  

[USee]

The MUC bracket has 3 unranked teams but does include the 1, 5, 6, and 8 ranked teams... the 1st round game of St J and North Central would be one of the best games of the round... HSU and MHB being the other.

Is Wesley a dark horse with the way that they've been playing since two early losses?  They and JHU seem to be two teams that at some point will make serious runs in the playoffs.

It would seem that the St Thomas bracket is pretty light but the UWW bracket is just as light... lots of unranked teams..

This bracket would give us likely quarters of UWW vs Linfield, MUC vs UWO, St Thomas vs Alfred, and MHB vs Wesley/Johns Hopkins.

I think UWO @ NCC is a pickem game. Wouldn't surprise me at all to see NCC in the quarters.

[Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat]

North Central is going to be a tough out... Would seem that they could do some damage in the playoffs... It will be interesting to see how good they WIAC schools are this year if the bracket allows 3 into the tourney and has them playing other teams early...

Has D3 ever had two teams from the same conference in the semis or finals? Would have to be prior to MUC's dominance....