Bracketology Projection

[IC798891]

An easy potential fix is removing the bye week and adding another round, if not a full 64 teams, maybe 48 with 16 play in games, giving 29 AQs and 19 at large.

That would be a non-starter because a bye week is health and safety related. Lengthening the postseason lengthens the season as a whole. And to be honest, 16 games is a lot of football. Heck, it's longer than the D1 season!

But also...at what point does it get a bit silly that the NCAA playoffs are the length it is, relative to the length of the regular season? Six postseason games to 10 regular season games (and sometimes less than 10) strikes me as a ton. I can't think of other sports where the postseason is 60% the length of the regular season.

[MRMIKESMITH]

An easy potential fix is removing the bye week and adding another round, if not a full 64 teams, maybe 48 with 16 play in games, giving 29 AQs and 19 at large.

That would be a non-starter because a bye week is health and safety related. Lengthening the postseason lengthens the season as a whole. And to be honest, 16 games is a lot of football. Heck, it's longer than the D1 season!

But also...at what point does it get a bit silly that the NCAA playoffs are the length it is, relative to the length of the regular season? Six postseason games to 10 regular season games (and sometimes less than 10) strikes me as a ton. I can't think of other sports where the postseason is 60% the length of the regular season.

DIV FCS has 16 games for their champion.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't think any commissioner would think that nine teams is an ideal. Nobody likes odd numbers. Eight seemed like a reasonable standard for an AQ for football, and generally conferences have preferred 10 teams in the past.

[MRMIKESMITH]

I don't think any commissioner would think that nine teams is an ideal. Nobody likes odd numbers. Eight seemed like a reasonable standard for an AQ for football, and generally conferences have preferred 10 teams in the past.

I agree 8 is reasonable, but if you wanted to make a point, 10 would be great, but require each conference to schedule two OOC games against non conference opponents (or forfeit automatic bid). As such, there would be only 8 automatic bids and 19 Pool C bids. I think the Committee should update it metrics, possibly include members of the media in the discussion regard at-larges, people that actually watch the games. That way you results on the field against your conference and your OOC is heavily valued. 

[Cowboy2]

An easy potential fix is removing the bye week and adding another round, if not a full 64 teams, maybe 48 with 16 play in games, giving 29 AQs and 19 at large.

That would be a non-starter because a bye week is health and safety related. Lengthening the postseason lengthens the season as a whole. And to be honest, 16 games is a lot of football. Heck, it's longer than the D1 season!

But also...at what point does it get a bit silly that the NCAA playoffs are the length it is, relative to the length of the regular season? Six postseason games to 10 regular season games (and sometimes less than 10) strikes me as a ton. I can't think of other sports where the postseason is 60% the length of the regular season.

Apologies, but this kind of stuff is enjoyable to talk about. Maybe should taken it to the Pool C board but it also deals with bracket too I guess.

Anyways, the bye week would be only for  the 27 AQ. The pool C teams would continue playing. That's only 10 teams/5games. So if it actually played out in that two pool C teams made it to the stagg bowl, they would be the only two teams that played a 16th... out of 240. Currently it's 15. I can assure you that HSU would have loved the opportunity to have played 16 games last season instead of 10 or whatever it was.

So as far as safety, it's actually giving players an additional week to recover. I'm sure UMHB had some soreness playing 20 whatever games in one year. I'm just saying adding 48-64 games isn't realistic before it becomes little league participation trophies. Throw out some ideas and make changes or we keep it the way it is and move on. Everyone knows that you have to Win the AQ to guarantee a spot. Everyone is 0-0 going into the season. I think it's more so all of us fans on the board that wish we could see a team come on strong late in the year get in to make some noise.

D3 football has to be one of the best tourneys in the world if you think about. 240 programs. Only 10 try's that are basically do or die to get in the select 32 pretty cool

[jknezek]

I don't think any commissioner would think that nine teams is an ideal. Nobody likes odd numbers. Eight seemed like a reasonable standard for an AQ for football, and generally conferences have preferred 10 teams in the past.

It just shifts the bye week around but I get what you are saying. I don't care if it's 8, 9, 10, I still think that realizing they made a mistake using a blanket 6 and fixing it is the easiest and cheapest solution. It would stink for those newly formed conferences, but simple math and commonsense should have been applied in the first place.

[wally_wabash]

Until they have a year or two where multiple Pool Cs are in the semis or finals, I doubt it will be addressed by the NCAA. I Didn't do research but in recent memory a number of annual programs in discussion or that are awarded, have been in R6 R5 R3 usually. Correct me if I'm wrong if I left a region out. But a team is always salty when they don't get in Pool C because they didn't do enough to obtain the AQ. Which is a double edged sword when looking SOSs and common opponents of those that get in. Whatever it is what is.

I'd propose this...for player safety.

Season starts week 1. Everyone plays 5 games. Nationwide bye week on week 6. Teams play out remaining 5 games and end week 11 how they do now anyways.

Week 12. Wild card round of 32! Top 16 teams get a bye based on SOS, national rankings, regional ranking or whatever by quadrant. 16 pool c teams make it in. If a team doesn't make it in, well then they didn't do enough to justify it. Right now there's arguments when a 9-1 deserving team, who would be fun to see, is left out. So call it a bye week. Put  Those 16 teams are on the road. None of the 500-600 rule. If they want to play they go that first round. If not the team forfeits and the host has a bye.

Week 13: round one of 32 teams
Week 14: round two of 16 teams
Week 15: round three quarter finals
Week 16: round four - semis
Week 17: Stagg Bowl Finals

Technically you extend the season one week. Have a Christmas bowl in the name of player saftey. NCAA isnt out any extra money either...outside of say officiating. Allows a team that slipped up on week to a top 10-15 program to still make it in. Heck they do it in D1 each year with that bogus selection instead of a true playoff. Probably have 3/4 of the teams from the SEC this year. What they make off that game would sponsor plenty of D3 playoffs games for years to come!

Most likely this  schedule for the champions is still 15 games. Maybe a 16 game wild card team runs the table. But it would break it up and allow teams a chance to have an extra bye week prior to a big playoff run.

Just my thoughts.. crown it

Coming from a fan of a team that is consistently behind the budgetary 8 ball, proposing 16 more games plus an exhibition is....ambitious. 

[smedindy]

I don't think any commissioner would think that nine teams is an ideal. Nobody likes odd numbers. Eight seemed like a reasonable standard for an AQ for football, and generally conferences have preferred 10 teams in the past.

I agree 8 is reasonable, but if you wanted to make a point, 10 would be great, but require each conference to schedule two OOC games against non conference opponents (or forfeit automatic bid). As such, there would be only 8 automatic bids and 19 Pool C bids. I think the Committee should update it metrics, possibly include members of the media in the discussion regard at-larges, people that actually watch the games. That way you results on the field against your conference and your OOC is heavily valued.

No. I think you should play every team in your conference in possible. Otherwise you get weird situations like the PAC a couple years ago with a couple of undefeated teams standing at the end.

[Inkblot]

There is no defensible reason for the Pool A minimum in a given sport to ever be smaller than the access ratio. Football's access ratio is currently 7.2.

[Inkblot]

It's worth noting, though, that both of the conferences that have announced the addition of football since the minimum was lowered have (a) gotten at least seven members immediately and (b) caused another conference to fall below six.

[MRMIKESMITH]

Updated based upon todays Ranking Release - https://d3football.com/playoffs/2022/first-regional-ranking

Region 1 Projected RR: 1. Delaware Valley (8-0)(2-0)(.588) 2. Endicott (8-0)(0-0)(.501) 3. Mass-Dartmouth (8-1)(0-0)(.432) 4. Kings (7-1)(1-1)(.528) 5. Stevenson (7-2)(1-2)(.587) 6. Springfield (6-2)(0-0)(.526) 7. Plymouth State (7-1)(0-0)(.445)
Region 2 Projected RR: 1. Cortland State (8-0)(1-0)(.551) 2. Susquehanna (8-0)(1-0)(.521) 3. Carnegie Mellon (9-0)(0-0)(.570) 4. Ithaca (8-0)(0-0)(.509) 5. Utica (7-1)(0-1)(.573) 6. Johns Hopkins (7-1)(0-1)(.549) 7. Salisbury (6-1)(0-1)(.488)
Region 3 Projected RR: 1. Trinity (TX) (8-0)(1-0)(.586) 2. R-MC (8-0)(1-0)(.510) 3. Huntingdon (7-1)(1-1)(.555) 4. UMHB (7-1)(1-1)(.522)  5. Hardin-Simmons (6-1)(1-1)(.530) 6. Bridgewater (7-1)(0-1)(.467) 7. Belhaven (7-1)(0-1)(.404)                                             
Region 4 Projected RR: 1. Mount Union (8-0)(1-0)(.432) 2. Albion (8-0)(1-0)(.528) 3. MSJ (8-0)(0-0)(.423) 4. DePauw (7-1)(0-0)(.481) 5. Alma (8-0)(1-0)(.445) 6. John Carroll (7-1)(0-0)(.528)  7. Trine (6-2)(0-2)(.613)
Region 5 Projected RR: 1. NCC (8-0)(2-0)(.525) 2. Wartburg (8-0)(0-0)(.536) 3. Ripon (8-0)(1-0)(.548) 4. Wheaton (6-2)(0-2)(.586) 5. Lake Forest (7-1)(0-1)(.522) 6.  Aurora (7-1)(0-0)(.484) 7. WASH-U (7-1)(0-1)(.466)   
Region 6 Projected RR:  1. Linfield (7-0)(1-0)(.620) 2. Bethel (7-1)(1-1) 3. St. John's (7-1)(1-1)(.633) 4. UW-W (6-2)(2-1)(.672) 5. UW-L (5-1)(0-1)(.560) 6. C-M-S (6-1)(0-0)(.414) 7. UW-P (4-3)(2-1)(.637) 

Week 9 WAY TOO EARLY (BASED ON 1st RANKINGS) Unofficial DIII Bracketology

[FCGrizzliesGrad]

Still a couple west coast games that could change things but here's where we stand with one week to go.





Pool A scenarios
Region 1
MASCAC: Mass-Dartmouth @ Plymouth St winner
NEWMAC: Springfield @ Catholic winner

Region 2
NJAC: Chris Newport @ Salisbury winner

Region 4
HCAC: Rose-Hulman @ MSJ winner
MIAA: Albion @ Alma winner
NCAC: Wabash @ DePauw winner
OAC: Mount Union win @ Baldwin Wallace / Baldwin Wallace win plus John Carroll win means 3 way tie

Region 5
ARC: Wartburg win @ Coe / Coe win plus Dubuque win means 3 way tie
MWC: Ripon def Lake Forest def Monmouth def Ripon
NACC: Concordia (WI) @ Aurora winner

Region 6
MIAC: St John's vs Bethel winner
SCIAC: C-M-S @ Pomona-Pitzer winner
WIAC: Whitewater win vs Stevens Point / La Crosse win vs Platteville AND Whitewater loss

[MRMIKESMITH]

Region 1 Projected RR: 1. Delaware Valley (9-0)(2-0)(.589) 2. Endicott (9-0)(0-0)(.494) 3. Kings (8-1)(1-1)(.508) 4. Stevenson (8-2)(1-2)(.592)   5. Mass-Dartmouth (8-1)(0-0)(.441) 6. Springfield (7-2)(0-0)(.509) 7. Plymouth State (8-1)(0-0)(.444)
Region 2 Projected RR: 1. Susquehanna (9-0)(1-0)(.533)  2. Cortland State (9-0)(1-0)(.522)  3. Carnegie Mellon (9-0)(0-0)(.571) 4. Ithaca (9-0)(0-0)(.533) 5. Johns Hopkins (8-1)(0-1)(.521) 6. Utica (8-1)(0-1)(.547) 7. Salisbury (7-1)(0-1)(.477)
Region 3 Projected RR: 1. Trinity (TX) (9-0)(1-0)(.567) 2. R-MC (9-0)(1-0)(.496) 3. Huntingdon (8-1)(1-1)(.542) 4. UMHB (8-1)(1-1)(.540)  5. Hardin-Simmons (7-1)(1-1)(.489) 6. Bridgewater (8-1)(0-1)(.478) 7. Belhaven (8-1)(0-1)(.424)                                             
Region 4 Projected RR: 1. Mount Union (9-0)(2-0)(.471) 2. Albion (9-0)(0-0)(.534) 3. Alma (9-0)(0-0)(.461)  4. MSJ (9-0)(1-0)(.436) 5. John Carroll (7-2)(1-1)(.528) 6. Baldwin Wallace (7-2)(0-2)(.613)  7. DePauw (8-1)(0-0)(.448)
Region 5 Projected RR: 1. NCC (9-0)(2-0)(.538) 2. Wartburg (9-0)(1-0)(.503) 3. Wheaton (7-2)(0-2)(.586) 4. Lake Forest (8-1)(1-1)(.484) 5. Monmouth (7-2)(1-1)(.551) 6.Ripon (8-1)(1-1)(.566)   7.  Aurora (8-1)(0-0)(.469)
Region 6 Projected RR:  1. Linfield (8-0)(1-0)(.578) 2. Bethel (8-1)(1-1)(.600) 3. St. John's (8-1)(1-1)(.624) 4. UW-W (7-2)(2-1)(.663) 5. UW-L (6-1)(0-1)(.560) 6. C-M-S (7-1)(0-0)(.431) 7. UW-P (5-3)(2-1)(.595) 

Week 10 WAY TOO EARLY (BASED ON 1st RANKINGS) Unofficial DIII Bracketology

[hazzben]

Week 10 WAY TOO EARLY (BASED ON 1st RANKINGS) Unofficial DIII Bracketology

Thanks for putting in the work to do this, fun to prognosticate on this stuff.

FWIW, if these were the actual teams selected (I'm sure there will be some surprises Saturday), I hope the committee does something different than this projected bracket. The "West" bracket is insanely top heavy and deep IMO. I know budget handcuffs this some, but I'd love to see some creativity to balance things a little more than this.

Top 25 dispersion of this projection:
"West": 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
"East": 2, 12, 13, 19
"North": 1, 9, 10, 15, 20
"South": 11, 14, 17, 18

Top 25 has no technical bearing on who makes the playoffs or how brackets are constructed, but to have 6 of the current Top 10 in one quad is tough to swallow. The South is glaringly shallow and lacks any elite teams in the current construction (not that I'm proposing how to fix this).

[HOPEful]

Region 4 Projected RR: 1. Mount Union (9-0)(2-0)(.471) 2. Albion (9-0)(0-0)(.534) 3. Alma (9-0)(0-0)(.461)  4. MSJ (9-0)(1-0)(.436) 5. John Carroll (7-2)(1-1)(.528) 6. Baldwin Wallace (7-2)(0-2)(.613)  7. DePauw (8-1)(0-0)(.448)

This weekend, every region 4 conference has de facto conference championships.

OAC - Mount Union (RR1) v. Baldwin Wallace (RR6)
MIAA - Albion (RR2) v. Alma (RR3)
HCAC - Mount St. Joseph (RR4) v. Rose Hulman (NRR but HCAC2)
NCAC - DePauw (RR7ish) v. Wabash (NRR but next in lineish)

Point is... 2 for sure, and potentially 4, RRs in region 4 will be handed Ls this weekend. The battle for that 6 and 7 spot could be very murky. Meaningless for the teams involved but could very much decide the number of games against regionally ranked opponents Mount or Albion have on their resume.