2019 Pool C

[Ralph Turner]

My apologies to Albion, a venerable member of the Society of the Purple (along with UMU, UWW, UMHB, and Linfield).

[wally_wabash]

And then, if history is an indicator, we'll have to endure whinging about how Mount Union got the easy path to the finals because they squashed a bunch of East region teams.  And the East region slander will be perpetuated because they can't ever beat Mount Union.  It's a vicious cycle.  BTW, Mount Union is the outlier in that equation, not the top teams in the East region.  It's really not fair to them to have to meet Mount Union's standard or else be garbage.  There's middle ground there.

Wally,

Your argument is more true for the North #2 for the past 20 years. Every year they get Mt Union and don't have a path to the Quarters or semis. Wait a couple of times Mt Union gets sent east....but then we get UWW. There are good teams in the North besides Mt Union....I promise. Its a much more compelling argument than the occasional East snub.

This is true, but I don't think we endure annual slander against the rest of the North region in the way that we do the East region.  What you're saying is, sort of, tangentially related.

In a way I think you're buttressing my point- that results against Mount Union shouldn't be the definitive measurement of an entire region's worth.  It's worth reiterating an earlier point: Mount Union is the outlier here, not everybody else. 

[wally_wabash]

I find this discussion fascinating every year. Every year we break down the criteria and make the arguments. Try to anticipate how the committees will choose to split the hairs.  But, without a rule to support it, the committee takes the previous years' Stagg Bowl participants and gives them the Top two seeds as long as they are undefeated. I don't have a particular problem with that. But I would like to hear the rationale because people who are so adamant about criteria later in the process seem to have zero problem with criteria being thrown out the window at the top of the process.

UMHB is a completely different team this year without KJ and Markeith Miller, no? They have played one decent, not great, team and barely won. They beat 1-6  Belhaven by 10 with no weather mitigation. The NCAA seem to be sticklers for the criteria. Why don't they change the criteria for the top "seeds" or follow the criteria that's  in place?

Anyone who is a stickler regarding the criteria and has no problem with "looking the other way" at UMHB's pathetic SOS, I'd love to hear your reasoning. I'm not even sure I disagree, but I am not comfortable with the inconsistency.

They added the ability to consider the previous year's championship so that we wouldn't repeat the injustice done to UWW  in 2010.  It's literally the UWW rule.

Trust me. I remember and I get it. I guess I wish they would codify it. Otherwise it feels like USee is right. It matters unless it doesn't. And maybe that's OK, if it's really clear that level of subjectivity by the committee is perfectly acceptable. For example, let's say UW-P ends the season at 9-1 and are in second place in the WIAC. The rest of the WIAC cannibalizes each other and no opponent other than UW-W is regionally ranked. Criteria-wise, not so good.  But UW-P went 9-1 as part of the strongest conference in the country. Is that a "no brainer", we aren't going to leave them out because the criteria doesn't serve us well? Or is that a case, too bad UW-P, this other 9-1 team played a bunch of teams between 100 and 150th best in the country but a couple snuck into the bottom of a different region's rankings so you are out?  And I guess my ultimate question is, are we OK either way because there's no right answer?

It's written in the handbook.  It isn't a secret, off the books thing that gets trotted out when convenient. 

In your hypothetical, I would hope that UW-P gets in.  They'd deserve it.  And I think the people on the conference call know that.  The criteria are there to guide discussion and ultimately selection, but the criteria aren't refined enough to be completely cut and dry.  If they were, we could probably just plug data into an algorithm, rank teams, and calculate the at-large selections and seedings. 

[Ralph Turner]

And then, if history is an indicator, we'll have to endure whinging about how Mount Union got the easy path to the finals because they squashed a bunch of East region teams.  And the East region slander will be perpetuated because they can't ever beat Mount Union.  It's a vicious cycle.  BTW, Mount Union is the outlier in that equation, not the top teams in the East region.  It's really not fair to them to have to meet Mount Union's standard or else be garbage.  There's middle ground there.

Wally,

Your argument is more true for the North #2 for the past 20 years. Every year they get Mt Union and don't have a path to the Quarters or semis. Wait a couple of times Mt Union gets sent east....but then we get UWW. There are good teams in the North besides Mt Union....I promise. Its a much more compelling argument than the occasional East snub.

This is true, but I don't think we endure annual slander against the rest of the North region in the way that we do the East region.  What you're saying is, sort of, tangentially related.

In a way I think you're buttressing my point- that results against Mount Union shouldn't be the definitive measurement of an entire region's worth.  It's worth reiterating an earlier point: Mount Union is the outlier here, not everybody else.

... and then in 2018, JHU hosts the "East Regional" and wins by 49, 31 and 23 points before losing to UMU by 8.

I do give the "East" credit for picking up Wesley and Salisbury out of the South Region, when Wesley and Salisbury joined the NJAC. Those were strong teams in the South Region, back in the day. Let's see when/if Wesley gets back up to the previous heights of success seen under Coach Drass.  They "won the East" in 2014, 2013 and 2012 when they were Independents.

[retagent]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

[bleedpurple]

I find this discussion fascinating every year. Every year we break down the criteria and make the arguments. Try to anticipate how the committees will choose to split the hairs.  But, without a rule to support it, the committee takes the previous years' Stagg Bowl participants and gives them the Top two seeds as long as they are undefeated. I don't have a particular problem with that. But I would like to hear the rationale because people who are so adamant about criteria later in the process seem to have zero problem with criteria being thrown out the window at the top of the process.

UMHB is a completely different team this year without KJ and Markeith Miller, no? They have played one decent, not great, team and barely won. They beat 1-6  Belhaven by 10 with no weather mitigation. The NCAA seem to be sticklers for the criteria. Why don't they change the criteria for the top "seeds" or follow the criteria that's  in place?

Anyone who is a stickler regarding the criteria and has no problem with "looking the other way" at UMHB's pathetic SOS, I'd love to hear your reasoning. I'm not even sure I disagree, but I am not comfortable with the inconsistency.

They added the ability to consider the previous year's championship so that we wouldn't repeat the injustice done to UWW  in 2010.  It's literally the UWW rule.

Trust me. I remember and I get it. I guess I wish they would codify it. Otherwise it feels like USee is right. It matters unless it doesn't. And maybe that's OK, if it's really clear that level of subjectivity by the committee is perfectly acceptable. For example, let's say UW-P ends the season at 9-1 and are in second place in the WIAC. The rest of the WIAC cannibalizes each other and no opponent other than UW-W is regionally ranked. Criteria-wise, not so good.  But UW-P went 9-1 as part of the strongest conference in the country. Is that a "no brainer", we aren't going to leave them out because the criteria doesn't serve us well? Or is that a case, too bad UW-P, this other 9-1 team played a bunch of teams between 100 and 150th best in the country but a couple snuck into the bottom of a different region's rankings so you are out?  And I guess my ultimate question is, are we OK either way because there's no right answer?

It's written in the handbook.  It isn't a secret, off the books thing that gets trotted out when convenient. 

In your hypothetical, I would hope that UW-P gets in.  They'd deserve it.  And I think the people on the conference call know that.  The criteria are there to guide discussion and ultimately selection, but the criteria aren't refined enough to be completely cut and dry.  If they were, we could probably just plug data into an algorithm, rank teams, and calculate the at-large selections and seedings.

I Agree 100% and I'm glad we don't use an algorithm. I am just fascinated and trying to figure out the process. I agree with Retagent (ouch) that it is great that we have a 32 team playoff system at all. I also don't consider those teams that are "snubbed" to be teams that are "robbed". I'm sure it really hurts to be left on the bubble. But at the same time, "Win your Conference".  I think the Pool A teams earned their way in (even if they are not among the Top 32).  If you land in Pool C, you land in a pool in which you have no control.

[02 Warhawk]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

I don't. Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant. PLU in '99 being the exception to that.

[Ralph Turner]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

Yes, because our "Boise State's" and our "Central Florida's" have a chance!

[Ralph Turner]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

Highly unlikely. Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant. PLU in '99 being the exception to that.

Or the 2004 UMHB team.  Went on the road in the 28-team bracket. I believe that Trinity was the #4 seed and HSU had gotten the bye. W&J was the #2 seed in the region. The Rankings are from D3football.com.

1)  2004 UMHB -- (13-2) Did it Ginger Rogers style.  (Refers to the old joke, who was the better dancer...Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers?  Rogers did everything that Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.)  Was a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3.  Beat #7 Trinity by 29, #3 HSU by 14, #5 W&J by 36 and #1 Mount Union by 3 on the road.  Lost to Elliott's #2 Linfield in the Stagg, 21-28.

[Ithaca798891]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix?

No, but the fact that none of the left behind Pool C candidates are legitimate Stagg Bowl contenders strikes me as a bug of Division III—the near complete absence of parity—rather than a positive feature of how the playoffs are constructed.

[Oline89]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

I don't. Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant. PLU in '99 being the exception to that.

No breaking news here, but it is the same 3 teams that win almost (17/19) and those same 3 in the finals (30/38) since 2000.  It is way more interesting (and no coach will ever admit, but probaby more realistic goal) to track the Final Four teams.  When looking at these, the pool is a little more diverse, the East actually has a team 14/19 years....

[USee]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

I hope we are not ok saying that because only 3-4 teams are capable of winning the Stagg each year the process doesn't matter for the other 28? The process matters and I have the same question: Are the criteria relevant until they aren't? The current answer, which is that it's part art, part science, is ok.

The problem for teams, coaches and fans is the inconsistency on the art part of it. When a new committee rolls in every 2 years they interpret things differently than the previous group and we get different results from the process. That inconsistency causes missed expectations for teams and fans. The D3.com team is usually right on 30 or 31 of 32 teams every year and often pretty accurate in their bracketing. But when the guys at D3.com who look at it every year and know the criteria get surprised, that's not a consistent process.

To me it's not ok to say the process doesn't really matter because the last 3-4 teams can't win it all. That's the wrong approach. 

[hazzben]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

I'm all for the Pool A system where conference champs get an auto-bid. Sure there are teams from the UMAC (et. al) that are going to lose by 50+ points in the first round. I'd rather have that than the wild west of the 60's NAIA system where there were hundreds of teams and a 4 team playoff, with loads of unbeaten teams left home. In the current system, if you win all your regular season games, you are gonna be in the playoffs. Pool C gives a pathway to very good teams from very good conferences another shot. In 2010 Bethel had a team that lost to UST in a great game. Made the playoffs, beat UST in the rematch and made a run to the Semi's (where they ran into the machine). The 2010 bracket was better because it had a Pool C team like Bethel in it. I wish we had more than 5 Pool C bids, but as has been stated, I'm grateful for the ones we do have.

But if the admission is that there are only a handful of teams capable of winning it all, within a system ensuring access to teams who's only real hope is to win a game or two, I'd like to see us committing to what we can accomplish...Not a perfectly balanced bracket in terms of strength, but one where the top 4 teams are given a region to anchor.

FWIW, I think last year there were 3 Stagg capable teams (UMHB, SJU, Mount), where if they were given a 1 seed they could have made a run to the final game (I.e. I think SJU v. Mount in the Semi's was a pick em last year). And this year I suspect there might be as many as 5-6 (UMHB, Mount, SJU, Wheaton, UWW, maybe Muhlenberg/Ithaca). Only 4 can get a 1 seed, but I'm all about saying let's make it the best 4 to the best of our ability.

To Ralph's point about Division IV ... part of me would love to see this. Some schools just have no desire to compete or would be more than happy play for "Bowl Game" matchups with regional teams. And I'd love to see our playoffs include the best 28-32 teams, what a tourney that would be. But I wonder how you fund something like that?

[repete]

Not that I don't find these discussions interesting and worthy of our time, but does anyone really think that a team that could have WON the Stagg has been left out of the mix? I also realize that even making the playoffs is an accomplishment, and being "snubbed" hurts, it is good to know that in D III there is a playoff with 32 teams - not necessarily the 32 BEST teams, and we all should know that every year, good teams that could win a game or two in the playoffs are left out

Highly unlikely. Only 3-4 teams each year have a realistic chance of winning it, and they are always the top 1-2 "seeds" in their quadrant. PLU in '99 being the exception to that.

Or the 2004 UMHB team.  Went on the road in the 28-team bracket. I believe that Trinity was the #4 seed and HSU had gotten the bye. W&J was the #2 seed in the region. The Rankings are from D3football.com.

1)  2004 UMHB -- (13-2) Did it Ginger Rogers style.  (Refers to the old joke, who was the better dancer...Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers?  Rogers did everything that Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.)  Was a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3.  Beat #7 Trinity by 29, #3 HSU by 14, #5 W&J by 36 and #1 Mount Union by 3 on the road.  Lost to Elliott's #2 Linfield in the Stagg, 21-28.

Or, I believe, the 2000 SJU team, MIAC runner-up to Bethel, which lost on a last-minute FG to Mt. Union.

[hazzben]

And not to really stir the hive, maybe there's a middle ground to access and a more competitive playoff field.

What if we had a system where every conference maintains their Pool A bid provided they meet one of two criteria:
1. Their conference champion is undefeated (minimum of 8 D3 games).
2. A conference rep has won a playoff game in the past 10 years.

[Currently the bottom conferences from a playoff success perspective and with no wins are the NEWMAC, MASCAC, UMAC, NACC, SCIAC. Less competitive conferences who are safe due to at least one or two wins include ECFC, MWC, NEFC/CCC, ODAC, and USAC.]

If a conference doesn't meet one of the three criteria, their Pool A bid goes into the Pool C Bucket, increasing the number of available Pool C bids. And their conference champ is eligible for a Pool C bid.

So in this scenario, this year the MASCAC, UMAC, ECFC, and NACC bids goes to Pool C since the conferences have no wins in the last 10 years, and currently have no unbeaten conference champ. >> 9 Pool C Bids (at 9 bids Aurora might have a shot at Pool C).

NEWMAC and SCIAC champs are currently on pace for a bid since they are unbeaten.

The best teams from these conferences would still have access provided they remained unbeaten. It also prevents dilution of the playoff by keeping teams from the worst conferences with multiple losses out of the field. You could also amend this that if the conference champ from a winless postseason conference has a single loss, but it was to a Regionally Ranked opponent they retain their bid. This would allow teams to still schedule a competitive team in the non-con. Or a third criteria, champ gets in if ranked in the Top 10 of their region.

There will still be arguments about who didn't get the last Pool C bid. But it helps to strengthen the field, while still maintaining a clear path of access for the best conference champs from the worst conferences. It also makes early upsets for those conferences drastically more exciting, because now if WPI wins in Rd 1, they not only pulled off an upset, they just assured their entire conference access for the next 9 seasons. I'd be all for swapping out years where one of these conferences is putting forward a 2 or 3 loss team, and we are leaving home a 1 or 2 loss team from a much stronger league. We wouldn't be sweating NCC being left home or GAC (with a win over UST) suddenly has a more realistic shot at the field and could make the playoffs for the first time in decades. GAC is a good example of a team that could win a game or two, but is stuck in a league producing semi-final capable champs/runners up.