2019 Pool C

[02 Warhawk]

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.

5 or 6 teams to win the Stagg Bowl this year?? I would say MHB, Mount and SJU are the only ones I think realistically have a shot. With Wheaton and UWW having outside chances....at best. Other than those 5, I can't buy into any other teams to consider. The top tier is just too damn good to get upset by an Ithaca or Muhlenberg...it's been this way for awhile now with the same three teams winning the Stagg Bowl since in 2005. Unless there's another version of the 2005 Warhawks that plan on emerging into the top tier sometime soon. 

[USee]

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 5 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.

You need to collaborate with Emma.

[hazzben]

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.

5 or 6 teams to win the Stagg Bowl this year?? I would say MHB, Mount and SJU are the only ones I think realistically have a shot. With Wheaton and UWW having outside chances....at best. Other than those 5, I can't buy into any other teams to consider. The top tier is just too damn good to get upset by an Ithaca or Muhlenberg...it's been this way for awhile now with the same three teams winning the Stagg Bowl since in 2005. Unless there's another version of the 2005 Warhawks that plan on emerging into the top tier sometime soon. 

Should have clarified. Capable of making it to the Stagg bowl, with the right matchups.

[Pat Coleman]

I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

[repete]

I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

Have liked this idea for years.

[hazzben]

I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

I had the D2 process in the back of my mind as well Pat. Just not sure if they have as many conferences that have essentially no recent playoff success to speak of. I'd imagine their competitive balance (i.e. the gap between the playoff floor and ceiling) is a bit narrower year over year. At least from a conference standpoint.

You need to collaborate with Emma.

I'm not sure how to take that 

[Pat Coleman]

I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

[Ralph Turner]

I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

I had the D2 process in the back of my mind as well Pat. Just not sure if they have as many conferences that have essentially no recent playoff success to speak of. I'd imagine their competitive balance (i.e. the gap between the playoff floor and ceiling) is a bit narrower year over year. At least from a conference standpoint.

You need to collaborate with Emma.

I'm not sure how to take that 

I've championed an "earned access" qualifier for AQ status which is a spin on what is used in D2. Short version, it would allow us to claw back some bids for use as at-large in the event that a conference cannot produce a champion which would be ranked in the top 20 or so of a region.

Rare events, and I think they should be rare, but this would definitely be one.

hazzben, your answer may be found in question #9.

https://www.d3football.com/interactive/faq/playoffs

The reason that I suggested D-IV that the "D-III" concept of participation could be modified to fit the "mission and vision" of a significant number of schools, and we could get to the 1:6.5 ratio that we have in other sports.

I really like that we have the opportunity for conferences below the Mendoza Line (mixed metaphor during the World Series) to make the playoffs.  That is a thrill for those players.

MWC           4   21   .160
CCC           4   22   .154
MIAA           3   19   .136
SCIAC   2   18   .100
ECFC           1   9   .100
NEWMAC   0   2   .000
MASCAC   0   5   .000
IBC *   0   8   .000
UMAC   0   8   .000
NACC   0   11   .000




We only seem to be 3-4 Pool C bids shy of getting truly worthy at-large schools for the playoffs, i.e. teams that could win a game or two. We have that balance in Hoops and Baseball.  Having 247 divided by 6.5 = 38 bids.

Who knows, perhaps the NESCAC would choose to participate in "D-IV".   

[hazzben]

I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

Fair point Pat. I think it's mitigated by a couple things:
1. Any time that conference has a team that is unbeaten they are in. So their best teams, most capable of a W and a better seed, will always see the dance, regardless of conference history.
2. I'd probably add the RRO criteria. So if the conf champ has a W against a RRO they are in. Or if their lone L is against a RRO, they are in.
3. I'd also advocate bringing back the "Once Ranked, Always Ranked" factor to the RRO.

So if you've got a SCIAC team sitting at 9-1, but their only loss is to the NWC champ, who is regionally ranked. They are in. Or if they are 9-1, but they have a W over an NWC team that was at some point ranked in the 7-10 range (where we expect the NWC 2nd place team to typically sit), they are in.

My only concern with just adopting the D2 rule is that ranking 20 teams per region is pretty onerous for the Regional Committees (I've listened in on a few of these calls in the past). Adding the extra criteria might alleviate the need for this. Effectively adding in probably 3-6 teams that are ranked each year per region. It also still encourages Non-con matchups for teams in the NWC/SCIAC without penalizing them if they drop that game.

[UfanBill]

I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

I like the earned access concept. I think hazzben's model provides access. Win all their games. If a team from one of the conferences that doesn't have tournament success has an undefeated season they earn a Pool A regardless. Nobody wants to deny a "once a decade" type team. A team that strong might reasonably also have some tournament success.   

[Inkblot]

I think the NCAA needs to rethink the Pool A waiting period and grace period, and this season's ECFC is a walking example of why.

[repete]

I think clawing back at-larges from conferences who haven't won games induces a never-ending cycle. How would a conference show its improvement without playoff access?

Perhaps by pushing fringe teams to up their NC schedule?

[Baldini]

I might be in the minority here and I may get blasted for this, but I think the NCAA has got it right as it is. It is regressive thinking to take opportunity away from those at a disadvantage. The structure is the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that did not win their conferences. Simple enough. For those that call for a system of the top 32, but why the top 32? Several have stated here that 3-7 teams are the only ones that can win it all (and I agree), so why bother than with a round of 32, 16 or 8 for that matter? Just go to the D-1 format and have a final 4 and save a bunch of money.

After the first round of games, for the most part we are left with the best 16 teams and things will playout from there. All the real contenders still alive for their ultimate goal and those in the bottom 16 or so conferences have their memories of a lifetime. Life is about opportunity and a chance with hope and dreams, everyone deserves that chance regardless of how small that chance may be. IMHO     

   

[bluestreak66]

I like Hazzben's idea. Maybe a slight caveat would be to bring back pool B in some capacity. I don't know how this would work, but maybe use the prior year's overall results (playoff performance, OOC record, ect.) and designate 4-6 conferences to be "Pool B" that year. Then, have 1 pool B bid for every 2 pool b designated conference. For example, if you choose 6, there would be 3 bids to go to those conference champions automatically, while the other 3 would bounce to pool c. This way, every team in every conference has access to the playoff, but you are creating 3 extra at large bids

[02 Warhawk]

I might be in the minority here and I may get blasted for this, but I think the NCAA has got it right as it is. It is regressive thinking to take opportunity away from those at a disadvantage. The structure is the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that did not win their conferences. Simple enough. For those that call for a system of the top 32, but why the top 32? Several have stated here that 3-7 teams are the only ones that can win it all (and I agree), so why bother than with a round of 32, 16 or 8 for that matter? Just go to the D-1 format and have a final 4 and save a bunch of money.

After the first round of games, for the most part we are left with the best 16 teams and things will playout from there. All the real contenders still alive for their ultimate goal and those in the bottom 16 or so conferences have their memories of a lifetime. Life is about opportunity and a chance with hope and dreams, everyone deserves that chance regardless of how small that chance may be. IMHO     

Even though I'm one that said only 2-3 teams have a realistic chance on winning the Stagg each year, I like the current format as it is as well. I think it's great accomplishment for a lower-conference team to compete in the tournament after winning their conference. It gives them to opportunity to practice one more week which further develops their players for next season.

For those that felt they were snubbed from a Pool C bid, well....play better next year.