My Attempt at Fixing D3 Football Selection Process

[colinsteinke]

How would I do it, in a world where I can do anything I want?

I'd ask institutions (presidents and ADs) for 100% honest answers to a tough two-part question:

Do you really believe your football program should be competing for the same current end goal as programs such as Mount Union, MHB, NCC? Or would it be better served competing with programs on a different tier?

I'd take those responses and create at least one, possibly more divisions.

At the core, there is no way around the fact that we've just got programs who are ostensibly not competing for the same thing. I'm not talking about players or coaches. I'm talking about the institutional willingness to look at the current D3 football landscape and decide: We want to put forth the expense and effort, institutionally, to compete with those handful of teams at the top.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying: Hey, we love having a football program, and we love providing continuing athletic opportunities for student-athletes in football. But yeah, we're not in the Mount, MHB category, and we don't need to be in the same system

There was a time when UWW wasn't good. Where UMHB didn't exist. Where NCC was not the measuring stick.

I don't know if there was a time before UMU, but I assume so.

There's no need to split the division because there are teams who aren't at that level right now. It sound cliche, but any team can become great with the right coaching hire and work ethic.

[IC798891]

How would I do it, in a world where I can do anything I want?

I'd ask institutions (presidents and ADs) for 100% honest answers to a tough two-part question:

Do you really believe your football program should be competing for the same current end goal as programs such as Mount Union, MHB, NCC? Or would it be better served competing with programs on a different tier?

I'd take those responses and create at least one, possibly more divisions.

At the core, there is no way around the fact that we've just got programs who are ostensibly not competing for the same thing. I'm not talking about players or coaches. I'm talking about the institutional willingness to look at the current D3 football landscape and decide: We want to put forth the expense and effort, institutionally, to compete with those handful of teams at the top.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying: Hey, we love having a football program, and we love providing continuing athletic opportunities for student-athletes in football. But yeah, we're not in the Mount, MHB category, and we don't need to be in the same system

There was a time when UWW wasn't good. Where UMHB didn't exist. Where NCC was not the measuring stick.

I don't know if there was a time before UMU, but I assume so.

There's no need to split the division because there are teams who aren't at that level right now. It sound cliche, but any team can become great with the right coaching hire and work ethic.

But the greatness required to win a national championship requires more than coaching and hard work in practice and in games.

It's an institution-wide commitment that extends far beyond the football program. Offices like financial aid, admissions, the President, alumni relations, philanthropy...they all have to be on board with the idea. They have to set the expectation that they want their program to be the best in the country, and they have to support that, in tangible ways. Yes, there was a time where [insert elite program] was not elite...and then something changed.

I mean, let's just take one of the things you brought up: Coaching. Great coaches don't materialize out of nothing. They're attracted, and more importantly, retained, by an institution whose goals match their own.

Is your institution willing to spend the money to hire the best coach possible? Once he's hired, are they going to ensure that he can bring on the staff he wants? To provide him with the recruiting budget he needs? Who else is working with him to help drum up the philanthropic and alumni support he needs and can't do all on his own?

All those things can effect the quality of the coaching staff you attract, your ability to retain them, and their ability to maximize their own talents.

There is so much that goes into having a nationally successful program that isn't just "We've got a great coach and our players work hard"

[MRMIKESMITH]

How would I do it, in a world where I can do anything I want?

I'd ask institutions (presidents and ADs) for 100% honest answers to a tough two-part question:

Do you really believe your football program should be competing for the same current end goal as programs such as Mount Union, MHB, NCC? Or would it be better served competing with programs on a different tier?

I'd take those responses and create at least one, possibly more divisions.

At the core, there is no way around the fact that we've just got programs who are ostensibly not competing for the same thing. I'm not talking about players or coaches. I'm talking about the institutional willingness to look at the current D3 football landscape and decide: We want to put forth the expense and effort, institutionally, to compete with those handful of teams at the top.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying: Hey, we love having a football program, and we love providing continuing athletic opportunities for student-athletes in football. But yeah, we're not in the Mount, MHB category, and we don't need to be in the same system

There was a time when UWW wasn't good. Where UMHB didn't exist. Where NCC was not the measuring stick.

I don't know if there was a time before UMU, but I assume so.

There's no need to split the division because there are teams who aren't at that level right now. It sound cliche, but any team can become great with the right coaching hire and work ethic.

But the greatness required to win a national championship requires more than coaching and hard work in practice and in games.

It's an institution-wide commitment that extends far beyond the football program. Offices like financial aid, admissions, the President, alumni relations, philanthropy...they all have to be on board with the idea. They have to set the expectation that they want their program to be the best in the country, and they have to support that, in tangible ways. Yes, there was a time where [insert elite program] was not elite...and then something changed.

I mean, let's just take one of the things you brought up: Coaching. Great coaches don't materialize out of nothing. They're attracted, and more importantly, retained, by an institution whose goals match their own.

Is your institution willing to spend the money to hire the best coach possible? Once he's hired, are they going to ensure that he can bring on the staff he wants? To provide him with the recruiting budget he needs? Who else is working with him to help drum up the philanthropic and alumni support he needs and can't do all on his own?

All those things can effect the quality of the coaching staff you attract, your ability to retain them, and their ability to maximize their own talents.

There is so much that goes into having a nationally successful program that isn't just "We've got a great coach and our players work hard"

I agree, it is definitely more than coaching. I like to think locale is a factor as well. The administration support is a different animal, especially since you have to be able to get at least 20-30 players each recruiting year and have the financial aid packages for those possible D'twoers and D'oners. I think where you see programs that are very successful in multiple sports, I believe administration is very supportive, but sometimes football requires to much of budget to get over to the next tier. Some administrations are fine with being good or just simply happy with just fielding teams to help with Student Morale. I'd say for the latter schools, those schools and players are focused more on life after football. Regarding Coaches, sometimes Coaching changes can be detrimental regardless of reasons (i.e Wesley). IMHO, with the passing of Coach Drass and prior to the financial issues, Wesley level of play decreased from being a tier 1b program to tier 2. On the flipside, I saw a Frostburg team go from being the runt of the ACFC/E8/ to dominating the NJAC and reaching Tier 2 stratosphere (Granted the announcement of going DII helped). I do think innovation can help teams get from 5 wins to 8 to 11 once in a while, but to get to the Stagg, has to definitely start at the Top (Administration).

[IC798891]

Some administrations are fine with being good or just simply happy with just fielding teams to help with...

This is exactly my point, though I would add some other things to that end point. I had a friend who worked in D3 athletics who told me that football is great for enrollment, because even if the recruited players don't stay on the team, they stay at the school. What school is going to turn down increased yield and retention?

And the ties that students have to their institution from being an athlete (in all sports, not just football) and a love of athletics in general, can be beneficial in other ways. IC's Giving Day from this past spring saw them raise $2.2 million, and almost 50% of that went to athletics.  This same spring, they got a gift of $600,000 to endow women's sports.

I think there are schools out there who see all these positives, and more, as reasons to have a football program, or even to having a good one. But, like you said, there's a level of tangible support that's required to push programs above certain levels, and that just might not be a priority for the institution.

Which doesn't make football or athletics, different from anything else in higher ed. You want to have the best anything in the country? You don't get that way by just telling everyone who is already there to work really hard and hope it works out. You survey the national landscape, and invest in that at an appropriate level.

[jknezek]

Here's my question... How many schools do we actually think, out of the 240 or so football schools in D3, are investing this way to actually compete for a National Title? I'd be surprised if it was more than 50. I'd say about 100-150 or so more D3 schools are investing/playing to win their conference, and then there are 50-100 schools that just want a team for the ancillary benefits of enrollment and simply don't worry too much so long as they can hit numbers and the team rolls a .500 season every now and then.

I think there are probably 100 or so schools who, if they stumble on the right admin/coach combo and start winning would take a shot at it short term, I'm thinking Bridgewater in the early 2000s and Rowan with Keeler in the late 90s, maybe SJF in the early 2010s?  But how many teams are actively trying, year in and out, over say a 10 year timeline? Not too many.

UMU, Linfield, UMHB, SJU, St. Thomas until they were booted, Bethel, NCC, Wheaton, Salisbury, Wesley until they were subsumed, half of the WIAC, Del Val, Hardin-Simmons all come to mind.

Then you get JCU, JHU, Muhlenberg, W&J, then there are a few who aren't as successful but probably try to be. Parts of the ASC, parts of the SAA, parts of the NJAC. That's maybe 30 teams? Scatter in a few more who are trying but not really breaking through, maybe you get to 50. I might have been generous.

[IC798891]

Here's my question... How many schools do we actually think, out of the 240 or so football schools in D3, are investing this way to actually compete for a National Title? I'd be surprised if it was more than 50. I'd say about 100-150 or so more D3 schools are investing/playing to win their conference, and then there are 50-100 schools that just want a team for the ancillary benefits of enrollment and simply don't worry too much so long as they can hit numbers and the team rolls a .500 season every now and then.

I think there are probably 100 or so schools who, if they stumble on the right admin/coach combo and start winning would take a shot at it short term, I'm thinking Bridgewater in the early 2000s and Rowan with Keeler in the late 90s, maybe SJF in the early 2010s?  But how many teams are actively trying, year in and out, over say a 10 year timeline? Not too many.

UMU, Linfield, UMHB, SJU, St. Thomas until they were booted, Bethel, NCC, Wheaton, Salisbury, Wesley until they were subsumed, half of the WIAC, Del Val, Hardin-Simmons all come to mind.

Then you get JCU, JHU, Muhlenberg, W&J, then there are a few who aren't as successful but probably try to be. Parts of the ASC, parts of the SAA, parts of the NJAC. That's maybe 30 teams? Scatter in a few more who are trying but not really breaking through, maybe you get to 50. I might have been generous.

I think, broad strokes, you're probably in the ballpark. I think the tricky part is what to do with those teams like Fisher, who was certainly thinking nationally in the late 2000s (Home and homes with Mount!), but probably aren't anymore. You might have to be more flexible with allowing teams to move up/down.

But couldn't we essentially call your tiers, broadly speaking, as similar to the Power 5/Mid Major/FCS system we have in D1? You probably don't hav e much beyond 50 teams competing for a title either. A few mid majors, most of your Power 5s, sure. But we know Northwestern and Vanderbilt are not interested in competing for a title the way Ohio State and Alabama are.

I think there's a way, if you wanted, to make the regular season work with scheduling between tiers if they need to, and then give each tier access to their own postseason.

But to be honest, I really liked your point about the solution being fewer Pool C bids, not more. I think you hit the nail on the head, with it causing more problems than it solves. That's certainly the more likely solution, going forward. I'd give you a K+ for it if I could

[IC798891]

I think Northwestern is a great example of how Tiers work actually.

From 1972-1994, they never won more than 4 games. Probably what we'd call the low tier. Then they grew a bit, started winning some more.

In 2006, they hired Fitzgerald, who has driven them to unheard of (for them) success. He's responsible for 10 of their 15 Bowl appearances and all five of their wins. He's very clearly moved the program from where it was.

And yet, in 2 of the last 3 seasons, they've gone 3-9. They've never won more than 10 games. They've had 1 Top 10 season (which they followed up with one of those 3-9 seasons)

Maybe Fitzgerald can conjure up some magic and win a title, but it's been 17 years. It seems more likely that Northwestern is very happy where they are. He's an alum (and a legend). He seems like a good guy who holds up the ideals of the university. Sometimes they win 9 to 10 games. Sometimes they win 6 or 7. Sometimes they win 3 to 5. But he's not going anywhere, and they don't want him to, so they kind of accept the good with the bad as far as W/L goes

[Ron Boerger]

I think using anything D1 as an example for how D3 should run its business is an exercise doomed to failure.  D3 is about championship *access*, not championship success, based on winning your conference which more than likely are going to be peer schools with similar values.  Anything else is gravy.  The schools that have the administrative, financial, community, and alumni support to be successful will be successful.  The schools that have other priorities (the majority, obviously), are happy doing their thing, whatever that may be. 

[jknezek]

Here's my question... How many schools do we actually think, out of the 240 or so football schools in D3, are investing this way to actually compete for a National Title? I'd be surprised if it was more than 50. I'd say about 100-150 or so more D3 schools are investing/playing to win their conference, and then there are 50-100 schools that just want a team for the ancillary benefits of enrollment and simply don't worry too much so long as they can hit numbers and the team rolls a .500 season every now and then.

I think there are probably 100 or so schools who, if they stumble on the right admin/coach combo and start winning would take a shot at it short term, I'm thinking Bridgewater in the early 2000s and Rowan with Keeler in the late 90s, maybe SJF in the early 2010s?  But how many teams are actively trying, year in and out, over say a 10 year timeline? Not too many.

UMU, Linfield, UMHB, SJU, St. Thomas until they were booted, Bethel, NCC, Wheaton, Salisbury, Wesley until they were subsumed, half of the WIAC, Del Val, Hardin-Simmons all come to mind.

Then you get JCU, JHU, Muhlenberg, W&J, then there are a few who aren't as successful but probably try to be. Parts of the ASC, parts of the SAA, parts of the NJAC. That's maybe 30 teams? Scatter in a few more who are trying but not really breaking through, maybe you get to 50. I might have been generous.

I think, broad strokes, you're probably in the ballpark. I think the tricky part is what to do with those teams like Fisher, who was certainly thinking nationally in the late 2000s (Home and homes with Mount!), but probably aren't anymore. You might have to be more flexible with allowing teams to move up/down.

But couldn't we essentially call your tiers, broadly speaking, as similar to the Power 5/Mid Major/FCS system we have in D1? You probably don't hav e much beyond 50 teams competing for a title either. A few mid majors, most of your Power 5s, sure. But we know Northwestern and Vanderbilt are not interested in competing for a title the way Ohio State and Alabama are.

I think there's a way, if you wanted, to make the regular season work with scheduling between tiers if they need to, and then give each tier access to their own postseason.

But to be honest, I really liked your point about the solution being fewer Pool C bids, not more. I think you hit the nail on the head, with it causing more problems than it solves. That's certainly the more likely solution, going forward. I'd give you a K+ for it if I could

I think in any college sport, at any level, from JUCO to FBS, there are teams competing to win nationally, teams competing to win their conference, and teams that just exist for money or reputation or history. I think trying to sort that into static, or even mostly static tiers, is a pipedream.

The vote for a D4 didn't even come close the last time it came up, and it hasn't been kicked around seriously since. I like what we have now. Every school has a chance at a miracle season. The fact that miracles are few and far between is as it should be. But at the beginning of every football season, DIII schools all have a chance and know exactly what they need to do to turn dreams into reality. That, to me, is the best possible system.

The fact that it clearly doesn't reward the 32 best teams in the country, which is impossible to determine anyway though we could do a better job than the AQ system, is a minor problem. I firmly believe this minor problem doesn't outweigh the benefits of everyone being on the same page that first weekend after a long summer camp. Win and you are in.

Seriously, D3 football has the most relevant regular season of any American sport I can think of. Due to our squeezed access ratio, nothing is more important than winning your conference. How much better can it get than every conference game, week in and out, being important to a team's chances to be a champion? And every non-conference game is almost as important for seeding and a sniff at one of those second-chance opportunities.

It's a fantastic season from start to finish because every bit of it matters, almost exclusively in a non-discretionary way.

[IC798891]

I think using anything D1 as an example for how D3 should run its business is an exercise doomed to failure.  D3 is about championship *access*, not championship success, based on winning your conference which more than likely are going to be peer schools with similar values.  Anything else is gravy.  The schools that have the administrative, financial, community, and alumni support to be successful will be successful.  The schools that have other priorities (the majority, obviously), are happy doing their thing, whatever that may be.

I understand the difference between D1 and D3. I was attempting to explain to colin why I don't think national success is just a matter of waiting around for the right coach, and why I think one solution could be to split up the Division. And I wanted to do that without using calling out a D3 program

[sigma one]

I've looked at the D3FB Top 25 for the last 10 seasons, beginning in 2011 (2020 no poll).
     This is how hard it is to finish in the Top 25, let alone the Top 10: 
     Four teams have finished in the TOP 25 every year:  Linfield, Mary Hardin-Baylor, Mt Union, North Central 
     Three teams  have appeared  9X:  Johns Hopkins, Wheaton, Whitewaterr.
     One team has appeared 8X:  Oshkosh.
     One team has made 7 appearances:  St John's.
     Three teams have been there 6X:   Bethel, Delaware Valley, John Carroll.
     Five have been in the Top 25 5X:   Hardin-Simmons, Hobart, Wartburg, Wittenberg, Wabash.
     Six made it 4X:  Franklin, Illlinois Wesleyan, Muhlenberg, Platteville, Salisbury, St John Fisher.e
     Four have finished there 3X:  Centre, Cortland, Heidelberg, Redlands.

    Of the teams listed above, only 9 have been in the Top 10 3X or more (about roughly one-third of the time):   Mary Hardin-Baylor 10), Mount Union (10), Linfield (10), North Central (10),Whitewater (8),  St John's (5), Oshkosh (4),  Johns Hopkins (3), Wheaton (3).



 
     Twenty teams have been in the Top 25 twice.   Twenty-three have been there 1X.  Among these 43 teams, only 6 have been inside the Top 10 even once.
     Four, of course, have won the National Title in the last 10 Years:  Mary Hardin-Baylor (3), Mt Union (3), North Central (1), Whitewater  (3)    To those above, add these teams who have finished in the Top 4 at least once:   Oshkosh (3X),  John Carroll, Linfield, St John's (once each).

     So, who would you put in the Gold, Silver and Bronze categories (you can name more than one in each position); or in Tiers 1, 2, 3, if you want to see it that way.
     Adding this all up:  Only 59 teams have been in the Final Poll Top 25 in the last 10 years.  That's about 25% of the teams that will play this year.
     In the interest of fairness, a few teams that would qualify left the Division for other (not necessarily greener) pastures:  Frostburg St, Louisiana College, St Thomas, Thomas More, and Wesley.       
     If you see any errors (hey, I've checked but I'm fallible), please let me know. 




i've done
         
 


     

[IC798891]

The fact that it clearly doesn't reward the 32 best teams in the country

To me, it's not so much about "rewarding" the best. I don't think Hardin-Simmons needs to be "rewarded" at the expense of [weak autobid team A] by taking away the Pool A and turning it into a Pool C for Simmons to take.

This isn't about giving rewards, or who "deserves" one of the 32 spots, or creating the "best" possible tournament. It goes back to the idea of a program's goals.

If a program doesn't want to compete for a Stagg Bowl, then what's wrong with asking why they're part of system that creates the tournament that culminates in the Stagg Bowl? Why not have some other end goal for them to compete for that more closely aligns with their goals?

[IC798891]

And hey, before you think I'm picking on the little guy, since the D3 philosophy statement talks about giving:

"primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships"

Perhaps it is the teams that aren't thinking nationally that are more in line with the D3 ethos. Perhaps the programs playing 10 teams in their state/region and being happy with going 7-3 are embodying that spirit more than teams flying to the other side of the country to take on a Top 5 team to prepare for a deep NCAA run.

When I think of a hypothetical D4, I see it as being a sort of hybrid d3 model. Still no scholarships, but more of an emphasis on a national game than the regional one. To me, it's not "better" or "worse" than d3.