2019 Pool C

[Ithaca798891]

They had their chance. I don't want to deny a team that won their league and played a tough non-conference game or two a route to the playoffs even if they are 8-0, 8-2 or something like that.

Yes, a 9-1 team had a chance to win their league. A 6-4 conference winner that isn't regionally ranked (to use Pat's example), had a chance to not lose four games. Deciding which missed chances we want to consider disqualifying for the playoffs is what the fun of this debate is. Obviously, a lot of people prefer the current setup, which is fine. But it's not our only option

[wally_wabash]

The Pool C table would be stacked like this:
Wesley, Union/Cortland/WNE
NCC, JCU/BW
Susquehanna, RMU
Redlands, UWP, Bethel

This Pool C situation looks brutal this year.

In the east, I think Union, with a loss, is probably not a Pool C contender.  They'll get SOS help, but without an RRO win, I think they're on the wrong side of the bubble.  WNE is in a similar position- if they lose to Endicott it's hard to see where they have profile points to get one of the five golden tickets.  I think your two legitimate C candidates in the East are Wesley and then either 9-1 Ithaca (loss to Union, win vs. Cortland) or 9-1 Cortland (loss to Brockport, win vs. Ithaca). 

In the South you've got Susquehanna and then Bridgewater if they lose to RMC.  RMC will not be a C contender if they lose the ODAC.  If Birmingham-Southern runs out the string and gets the SAA AQ, Berry may be the South's next best at-large option when we get to selection Sunday. 

And you're right, the West is, per usual, loaded with great runners up.  Bethel and Platteville have significant challenges left, though so that may thin itself out before we get to the end.

You are right that this could sort itself out over the next few weeks. It also could go from bad to worse if some of the front runners lose and fall into Pool C.

Indeed.  Some teams that aren't in the barn quite yet:
- Whitewater has some toughies left
- Chapman's last real test is going to be this weekend when they visit P-P.  The Sagehens have a fantastic talent at QB, so you can't count them out.  If they can get any kind of defense at all, they could upend, and possibly torpedo, the SCIAC. 
- Wartburg has a test or two before they get in the clubhouse
- And of course I don't think we can take UMHB's winning out for granted either

[smedindy]

They had their chance. I don't want to deny a team that won their league and played a tough non-conference game or two a route to the playoffs even if they are 8-0, 8-2 or something like that.

Yes, a 9-1 team had a chance to win their league. A 6-4 conference winner that isn't regionally ranked (to use Pat's example), had a chance to not lose four games. Deciding which missed chances we want to consider disqualifying for the playoffs is what the fun of this debate is. Obviously, a lot of people prefer the current setup, which is fine. But it's not our only option

One of the main parts of the D3 philosophy is championship access.

[hazzben]

They had their chance. I don't want to deny a team that won their league and played a tough non-conference game or two a route to the playoffs even if they are 8-0, 8-2 or something like that.

Yes, a 9-1 team had a chance to win their league. A 6-4 conference winner that isn't regionally ranked (to use Pat's example), had a chance to not lose four games. Deciding which missed chances we want to consider disqualifying for the playoffs is what the fun of this debate is. Obviously, a lot of people prefer the current setup, which is fine. But it's not our only option

One of the main parts of the D3 philosophy is championship access.

I like to think of my system as "earned access" ... aka, if you are unbeaten or lost to a regionally ranked opponent or are regionally ranked or beat a regionally ranked opponent, you earned your access. I understand perspectives differ given the conferences we are used to. But I wonder how your perspective might different if your team wasn't within one of the middling conferences and played in, say the CCIW, OAC, MIAC, or WIAC. How many pool A bids does Wabash earn over the last 20 years in one of those leagues?

It's easy to say "win your league if you want to make the playoffs," when the bar for winning your league is lower (in several cases significantly so) than it is for half of the division.

[hazzben]

To answer my own question ... when would Wabash's best teams have earned a Pool A bid in the top 4-5 leagues:

2015: Nope ... Crushed by UST (MIAC Pool A) 38-7
2011: Maybe ... beat a one loss North Central team (CCIW Pool A) by one at home, lost to Mount (OAC Pool A)
2007: Nope ... lost in regular season to a rival, crushed by UWW (WIAC A)
2005: Nope ... lost to Capital (2 loss OAC runner up) at home
2002: Probably not ... got a very weak team rd 1, a team they'd already beaten in the regular season rd 2, lost to Mount (OAC Pool A)

Spitballing, but removing the OAC (since Mount is an outlier), I'm saying there's maybe one Pool A appearance if Wabash played in the MIAC, CCIW, or WIAC. Their best bet was probably 2011. And even there they only beat NCC by 1 at home. The point of the tougher leagues is that they'd have to play 2-4 opponents of that quality to win the league every year.

Suddenly more Pool C access might mean that Wabash gets a few shots at the playoffs if they played in a better league and didn't get to navigate one where 80-90% of their games are against very weak teams.

[wally_wabash]

To answer my own question ... when would Wabash's best teams have earned a Pool A bid in the top 4-5 leagues:

2015: Nope ... Crushed by UST (MIAC Pool A) 38-7
2011: Maybe ... beat a one loss North Central team (CCIW Pool A) by one at home, lost to Mount (OAC Pool A)
2007: Nope ... lost in regular season to a rival, crushed by UWW (WIAC A)
2005: Nope ... lost to Capital (2 loss OAC runner up) at home
2002: Probably not ... got a very weak team rd 1, a team they'd already beaten in the regular season rd 2, lost to Mount (OAC Pool A)

Spitballing, but removing the OAC (since Mount is an outlier), I'm saying there's maybe one Pool A appearance if Wabash played in the MIAC, CCIW, or WIAC. Their best bet was probably 2011. And even there they only beat NCC by 1 at home. The point of the tougher leagues is that they'd have to play 2-4 opponents of that quality to win the league every year.

Suddenly more Pool C access might mean that Wabash gets a few shots at the playoffs if they played in a better league and didn't get to navigate one where 80-90% of their games are against very weak teams.

So, do you think that presidents of 37 36 football schools in these four leagues are going to ever convince the other 210 or so presidents of football sponsoring institutions to sign away their tournament access so that the third and fourth place teams from these leagues can participate in the postseason?  And that's just half the division.  Lump in the other half that doesn't sponsor football.  They've all got to go along with it also.  What are the chances that this, or any version of this, is even remotely feasible? 

Also, swiping at Wabash's 2011 win "only by 1 at home" against North Central is weaksauce.  Beating a CCIW champion in the playoffs is never a thing that should be marginalized that way.  Absolutely terrible take, man. 

[USee]

Hell hath no fury like a Wabash alum scorned. 

Hazz, peace be with you man.

[hazzben]

Also, swiping at Wabash's 2011 win "only by 1 at home" against North Central is weaksauce.  Beating a CCIW champion in the playoffs is never a thing that should be marginalized that way.  Absolutely terrible take, man.

I'm not denigrating the CCIW. I'm noting that this wasn't one of their stronger Pool A reps. It wasn't an unbeaten CCIW champ. It was a North Central team that entered the postseason with a loss (to Redlands, the SCIAC's eventual Pool C rep). And you had them at home. And you won by one point.

It's still a playoff win. It's not a rip on the CCIW or North Central to recognize that wasn't North Central's best Pool A team, or the CCIW's. But the point still stands, even that year Wabash probably isn't likely to have been favored in any power conference. E.g. I don't think Wabash beats UST (a pickem against St. Olaf or Bethel) or UWW (a pickem against UWO or UWP) and we know they lost to Mount.

I'm also not saying it's likely it ever gets voted into existence. But that's in part because there is a whole swath of teams with a far easier path to the postseason than other schools who like keeping their path to the postseason as unencumbered as possible. On the flip side, if Wabash was in GAC or St. Olaf's shoes, they would probably feel differently about how many Pool C bids there were. Or be less likely to throw out the "weaksauce take" of "just win your conference and you're in." Winning the CCIW, MIAC, OAC, and WIAC is just a wee bit harder every. single. year. than winning the NCAC.

[UfanBill]

It's not likely the 27A, 5C setup is going to change much. With that, deserving teams are going to be left out while other "less deserving" conference champs fill the field. We have a very familiar model to follow that would rectify much of that and it comes from the NCAA itself.

How about play in games. March Madness has used play in games successfully for years now. Teams that are low seeds get an opportunity to play another low seed and with that a chance to actually win a tourney game before being fed to the top seeds. Logistically it's probably a nightmare but it's worth a discussion.

[wally_wabash]

Also, swiping at Wabash's 2011 win "only by 1 at home" against North Central is weaksauce.  Beating a CCIW champion in the playoffs is never a thing that should be marginalized that way.  Absolutely terrible take, man.

I'm not denigrating the CCIW. I'm noting that this wasn't one of their stronger Pool A reps. It wasn't an unbeaten CCIW champ. It was a North Central team that entered the postseason with a loss (to Redlands, the SCIAC's eventual Pool C rep). And you had them at home. And you won by one point.

It doesn't matter what you think or don't think of the CCIW- although you did anoint them as one of your four power conferences that all of the division's lessers should sacrifice their postseason access to.  It's a bad take because it's incredibly unsporting to retroactively dump on a pretty monumental moment in a program's history.  What your brief review of 2011 W/L records doesn't tell you, is that 2011 North Central absolutely had the goods to go to Alliance and give Mount Union the business.  Except they didn't get there because Wabash stopped them.  North Central, despite their loss to Redlands, was ranked #6 entering the tournament.  Is the #6 ranked team, not one of the CCIW's best?  One of the nation's best?! Something lesser than what we're generally used to?  It isn't.  That team was excellent, and you're out of line to assume that they weren't simply because they weren't 10-0 and then use that logic to marginalize a tremendous program moment for Wabash. 

Conference membership is about a heck of a lot more than access to the football tournament.  Wabash isn't in the NCAC because it offers the path of least resistance to the playoffs.  If that's what they wanted, they'd have hung out in the HCAC and ruled that roost for two decades.  But I find this:

I'm also not saying it's likely it ever gets voted into existence. But that's in part because there is a whole swath of teams with a far easier path to the postseason than other schools who like keeping their path to the postseason as unencumbered as possible. On the flip side, if Wabash was in GAC or St. Olaf's shoes, they would probably feel differently about how many Pool C bids there were. Or be less likely to throw out the "weaksauce take" of "just win your conference and you're in." Winning the CCIW, MIAC, OAC, and WIAC is just a wee bit harder every. single. year. than winning the NCAC.

absolutely wild coming from a fan of a school in the conference that literally threw a team out of the league because they were too good.  Who exactly is looking for the path of least resistance?

Wabash has been on the wrong side of Pool C a few times.  I haven't ever felt like it was unfair that a 7-3 or 6-4 league champion got to play in Week 12 and 9-1 Wabash didn't. 

[OzJohnnie]

absolutely wild coming from a fan of a school in the conference that literally threw a team out of the league because they were too good.  Who exactly is looking for the path of least resistance?

That made me spit my coffee.  That was the Tommie media campaign's message immediately after the event, yes, but that wasn't the reason.  Anti-competitive behaviour in recruiting across all sports, competitive philosophy on the football field, institutional appropriateness for an association of liberal arts colleges.  Those were the reasons.  Football was the flashpoint, yes, but the reasons were far more substantial.

The Tommies were going inside five years anyways. They just wanted to step on their conference partners a little more to make the jump easier.

BU and SJU were their only friends, by the way, but eventually gave in when the rest of the conference said they would rather blow the whole thing up than retain UST as a member.

[hazzben]

absolutely wild coming from a fan of a school in the conference that literally threw a team out of the league because they were too good.  Who exactly is looking for the path of least resistance?

BU and SJU were their only friends, by the way, but eventually gave in when the rest of the conference said they would rather blow the whole thing up than retain UST as a member.

Ummm, swing and miss Wally. Bethel's coaches and players and SID and AD are on record with multiple local media outlets about being totally against the ouster. SJU and Bethel, as Oz mentioned, wanted UST to stay. But ya know, democracy and all 

I'm not trying to dump on 2011 Wabash. It was a very good team that made a very nice run in the playoffs and ran into Mount. But the bottom line is that you and yours tend to trumpet the "just win your league" argument to teams that have a much more difficult path to Pool A than you do. And yeah, you might not complain about a 9-1 Wabash team getting left out, but most seasons that 9-1 team is not the same as a 9-1 CCIW, MIAC, or WIAC team because of the difficulty of teams they face on the whole (that 1 loss WIAC school has faced 5+ opponents who are good to great on the year). That's not to say a 9-1 Wabash team isn't good or at times better than a 9-1 rep from one of those conferences. I realize you won't admit it, but I'm unmoved from the notion that "just win your league" is a little rich from teams from weaker leagues.

To use an analogy ... Everyone has to jump over a bar to get into the playoffs. A few teams get access to the playoffs because they just nicked the bar and it fell off. A few of those teams also don't make the field. What people fail to realize is the bar is set at different levels. Some teams are jumping over a 5 ft bar, some 6ft, some 7 ft. And if your bar/league is of the 5ft variety, don't wag a finger at the teams having to clear a 7 ft bar and saying "should have jumped a little higher, you had your chance."

And just to clarify, my system is not about making it so teams that aren't from power leagues can't make the playoffs. It's about trying to ensure that a 3+ loss team from a weak league doesn't unnecessarily dilute the field. I realize we disagree on how access should happen, and that's fine. I just think there's a middle ground.

[WW]

It's not likely the 27A, 5C setup is going to change much. With that, deserving teams are going to be left out while other "less deserving" conference champs fill the field. We have a very familiar model to follow that would rectify much of that and it comes from the NCAA itself.

How about play in games. March Madness has used play in games successfully for years now. Teams that are low seeds get an opportunity to play another low seed and with that a chance to actually win a tourney game before being fed to the top seeds. Logistically it's probably a nightmare but it's worth a discussion.

Heyyyyy I like this. Give two play-in games to each region, following the D1 basketball model. Lets use the West as an example. One play-in game for what would be pool C runner-ups, for sake of argument let's say it's LaCrosse and Gustavus Adolphus, which both appear presently on the outside looking in. One play-in game involving two lowest-ranked pool A teams. Lets say that's the UMAC champ vs the MWC champ. Winner of that one then gets fed to UWW or SJU, which they would've been devoured by anyway, but at least they get a competitive game reward before that happens. And in the case of the pool C entries, I think you're opening up the field to two potential Stagg Bowl candidates, no, not favorites to get there, but good teams with a puncher's chance.

Only downside is you're adding a week to the season, and the NCAA probably doesn't want to do that

[wally_wabash]

absolutely wild coming from a fan of a school in the conference that literally threw a team out of the league because they were too good.  Who exactly is looking for the path of least resistance?

That made me spit my coffee.  That was the Tommie media campaign's message immediately after the event, yes, but that wasn't the reason.  Anti-competitive behaviour in recruiting across all sports, competitive philosophy on the football field, institutional appropriateness for an association of liberal arts colleges.  Those were the reasons.  Football was the flashpoint, yes, but the reasons were far more substantial.

The Tommies were going inside five years anyways. They just wanted to step on their conference partners a little more to make the jump easier.

BU and SJU were their only friends, by the way, but eventually gave in when the rest of the conference said they would rather blow the whole thing up than retain UST as a member.

I understand that there were reasons beyond football for what the MIAC did- indeed, I'm not even sure football was the principle reason.  Which illustrates my point that D3 schools cluster in conferences with their institutional peers for 10,000 reasons other than football.  In the MIAC, school presidents decided St. Thomas was no longer a peer (not sure I disagree, tbh), and used athletics as the lever to get them out. 

With that said, that's a pretty poor backdrop from which hazzben to launch y'all-aren't-worthy grenades at (who he thinks are) the division's lessers. 

To use an analogy ... Everyone has to jump over a bar to get into the playoffs. A few teams get access to the playoffs because they just nicked the bar and it fell off. A few of those teams also don't make the field. What people fail to realize is the bar is set at different levels. Some teams are jumping over a 5 ft bar, some 6ft, some 7 ft. And if your bar/league is of the 5ft variety, don't wag a finger at the teams having to clear a 7 ft bar and saying "should have jumped a little higher, you had your chance."

Absolutely nobody doesn't realize this.  There is not perfect parity amongst the Division's 27 football conferences- this isn't revelatory.  Unlike track and field, to use your own analogy, there isn't a universal minimum qualifying standard for the championship tournament.  The automatic qualifying standard, agreed upon legislatively by the Division, is to be a conference champion.  I agree that there could be less finger wagging and more sympathy for teams buried behind national elites in certain leagues, but I don't think it's reason to blow up the divisional philosophy for championship access.

[Pat Coleman]

About play-in games and the logistics -- there's a ton of issues with adding a week all the way around. We can't really start a week earlier because it's a burden to house all of those student-athletes on campus for an additional week before classes start. We don't want to go a week later because of the holidays. We don't want to go after Jan. 1 because of the expense, and because there are still some two-sport athletes (and even if there aren't, we don't want to make it impossible). We can't play games more than once every seven days.

In addition, there is a hard cap by legislative vote on the football playoffs at 32 teams.