2019 Pool C

[Ralph Turner]

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     

+1, baldini

Your sentiments reflect a large portion of D-III, especially the some-odd bottom 16 conference who are unlikely to move to the 3rd round. Here are records for the last 10 years.  The conferences with more than 10 losses had 2 bids one year.  The SAA, UMAC, NEWMAC and  MASCAC are "new" conferences

PAC   6   12   .333
SAA   3   6   .333
HCAC   3   10   .231
MIAA   3   10   .231
SCAC   1   4   .200
USAC   2   10   .167
ODAC   2   11   .154
MWC   2   11   .154
NEFC/CCC   2   12   .143
ECFC   1   9   .100
UAA   0   2   .000
NEWMAC   0   2   .000
MASCAC   0   4   .000
UMAC   0   8   .000
NACC   0   10   .000
SCIAC   0   11   .000

[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     

+1, baldini

Your sentiments reflect a large portion of D-III, especially the some-odd bottom 16 conference who are unlikely to move to the 3rd round. Here are records for the last 10 years.  The conferences with more than 10 losses had 2 bids one year.  The SAA, UMAC, NEWMAC and  MASCAC are "new" conferences

PAC   6   12   .333
SAA   3   6   .333
HCAC   3   10   .231
MIAA   3   10   .231
SCAC   1   4   .200
USAC   2   10   .167
ODAC   2   11   .154
MWC   2   11   .154
NEFC/CCC   2   12   .143
ECFC   1   9   .100
UAA   0   2   .000
NEWMAC   0   2   .000
MASCAC   0   4   .000
UMAC   0   8   .000
NACC   0   10   .000
SCIAC   0   11   .000

How many of those are against Linfield? 9?

[OzJohnnie]

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.

And in one innocent sentence the entire argument of the last five pages has been distilled. If there are four or fewer teams with a realistic shot (as all reasonable opinion agrees), how can any of them be a number 2 seed?

[02 Warhawk]

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.

And in one innocent sentence the entire argument of the last five pages has been distilled. If there are four or fewer teams with a realistic shot (as all reasonable opinion agrees), how can any of them be a number 2 seed?

You know why....even though we don't agree with the logic.

[Ithaca798891]

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.

And in one innocent sentence the entire argument of the last five pages has been distilled. If there are four or fewer teams with a realistic shot (as all reasonable opinion agrees), how can any of them be a number 2 seed?

I feel like there has to be some objective criteria in determining seeds, beyond "Come on, we all know Ithaca isn't winning a Stagg Bowl"

I'm not necessarily even advocating for IC with that point. I just feel like your statement is a little to reliant on the eye test (even if, ultimately, you'll be proven right.)

[OzJohnnie]

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.

Sounds good. Someone would have to make the effort and apply this model to the last five years to see if it makes a difference or not, though.

[Ralph Turner]

How many of those are against Linfield? 9?

4 Linfield
4 UMHB

One each for the Tommies, North Central and Whitworth

Actually the conference is very balanced; 5 different conference champs in the last 7 years
2009 CLU vs Linfield
2010 CLU vs Linfield
2011 CLU vs Linfield
        Redlands vs UMHB
2012 CLU vs North Central
2013 Redlands vs UMHB
2014 Chapman vs Linfield
2015 LaVerne vs Tommies
2016 Redlands vs UMHB
2017 Chapman vs UMHB
2018 CMS vs Whitworth

[Ithaca798891]

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.

Again, I feel like it's "simple enough" now because the lack of parity in the sport renders those at-large teams mostly moot for the national title conversation.

That doesn't mean a 27-5 split is the best way to go forward (if we ever return to a world where the best 2-3 teams aren't light years ahead of everyone else).

[AO]

I feel like there has to be some objective criteria in determining seeds, beyond "Come on, we all know Ithaca isn't winning a Stagg Bowl"

I'm not necessarily even advocating for IC with that point. I just feel like your statement is a little to reliant on the eye test (even if, ultimately, you'll be proven right.)

The objective criteria they use with seeding/bracketing is geography.  They will certainly try to give the best teams better seeds, but if they have too many teams that can't bus to Mount, we're going to get a more regional bracket.

[Ithaca798891]

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

Seems like this is an argument we could apply to a 4/5-loss ECFC team a heck of a lot easier than we can to a 9-1 team

[hazzben]

How many of those are against Linfield? 9?

4 Linfield
4 UMHB

One each for the Tommies, North Central and Whitworth

Actually the conference is very balanced; 5 different conference champs in the last 7 years
2009 CLU vs Linfield
2010 CLU vs Linfield
2011 CLU vs Linfield
        Redlands vs UMHB
2012 CLU vs North Central
2013 Redlands vs UMHB
2014 Chapman vs Linfield
2015 LaVerne vs Tommies
2016 Redlands vs UMHB
2017 Chapman vs UMHB
2018 CMS vs Whitworth

The SCIAC for the most part is covered by my model. If their champ is undefeated, they are in. If their champ's only loss came to a NWC champ in the non-con (who would almost assuredly be ranked in the West), they are in. If the SCIAC champ lost a game in conference, but beat a ranked NWC team (or someone else), they are in. All of that failing, at 9-1 they with no RRO, they could still rely on SOS and the potential of one of the Pool C bids.

[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.

Sounds good. Someone would have to make the effort and apply this model to the last five years to see if it makes a difference or not, though.

Having built the model, I now nominate Oz to prove it's validity. Aka, you asked for proof, I take that as you volunteering to provide said proof. Aka, at 10,000+ posts, clearly you have more time than me 

[Pat Coleman]

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

Seems like this is an argument we could apply to a 4/5-loss ECFC team a heck of a lot easier than we can to a 9-1 team

Except that the Division III philosophy references championship access, and you would be expressly counteracting that philosophy by disenfranchising an entire conference.

[hazzben]

For another example. Aurora is currently sitting atop the NACC standings. Not unbeaten, but they are covered on multiple fronts (which is great since they are having a great year and an improving team). 1 - Their only loss is to Hope, who is likely to be a RRO. 2 - They are likely to be ranked in the Top 10 of the North region. So Aurora would be covered twice and in the field.

[OzJohnnie]

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.

Sounds good. Someone would have to make the effort and apply this model to the last five years to see if it makes a difference or not, though.

Having built the model, I now nominate Oz to prove it's validity. Aka, you asked for proof, I take that as you volunteering to provide said proof. Aka, at 10,000+ posts, clearly you have more time than me 

I can touch-type. I'm just more productive.