The decline of the Division III Football Pool C bid

[Ron Boerger]

And the first domino has fallen ... Lycoming and Wilkes are moving to the Landmark, which is starting up football as a conference sport in Fall 2023 and will qualify for a new Pool A bid. 

https://www.landmarkconference.org/general/2021-22/releases/14102022-landmark-expansion

[Pat Coleman]

Yes. This is the conference confirming what we reported yesterday.
https://www.d3football.com/notables/2022/02/landmark-to-add-two-take-football-automatic-bid

[Ron Boerger]

Yes. This is the conference confirming what we reported yesterday.
https://www.d3football.com/notables/2022/02/landmark-to-add-two-take-football-automatic-bid

I figured this would be an ongoing topic with other conferences doing similar things    Thanks for the link to your story which I somehow missed!

[Pat Coleman]

It's a good place for that speculation.

I think this likely takes the "split the MAC apart into two AQs" concept out of play.

I floated a concept where three SAA teams join three USAC teams and snag a bid that way. I don't have any evidence or any reporting on that but it's a place that could happen. Lyon joining D-III aids that process.

[Inkblot]

I don't think Lyon meets the SCAC academic standards, but if they did that would give the SCAC six once Centenary starts football.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Anyone want to speculate on what happens if or when the number of AQs exceeds 32?

[Pat Coleman]

I think before we get there, the D-III membership would recognize that there needs to be change.

[Ron Boerger]

I don't think Lyon meets the SCAC academic standards, but if they did that would give the SCAC six once Centenary starts football.

The SCAC isn't what it was academically before the SAA teams split off.  I had a quick look at Lyon and they're at least comparable to some SCAC schools, superior to others (in terms of admission standards like SATs/ACTs, at least).  Lyon only accepted 44% of applicants, according to Niche, which is quite competitive compared to many SCAC schools, too.  But it's a long way to travel for the rest of the SCAC and would likely add plane trips for many schools due to the distance involved.  The ASC will be in play, too, as they need a replacement for Belhaven in all sports to keep their East division from shrinking to four schools (there are six in the west but the closest to the East schools would be UMHB, which isn't close).   

[Mr. Ypsi]

I think before we get there, the D-III membership would recognize that there needs to be change.

Well, yeah - I don't consider that D3 administrators are totally blithering idiots (unlike some D1 administrators).

I guess my question was too vague.  WHAT would be the nature of the change if D3 exceeds 32?  Find some way to expand the playoffs?  Make some AQs contingent on the conference record in the playoffs?  Other?

EDIT:  And I don't think this is a question that can be put off much longer.  At the rate conferences seem to be mutating, 32+ AQs may happen within the 2020s.

[Caz Bombers]

I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.

I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.

[Jonny Utah]

I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.

I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.

Well if you expand it would only be for 2-4 games right?  For instance, lets say there are 35 conferences which qualify in d3 for the tournament.  How do you break that up?  The only solution I see is having 2-4 play in games right?  That doesn't seem ideal seeing the schedule goes from week 1 to week 11 and then the playoffs.  Even if you do what you suggest by having 9 games (It looks like you could still have 10 without a bye), you would have a playoff week where 2-4 games are played and the other 32 teams sit it out? 

I'm not an expert on bracket type stuff like that either but that was my first impression.

[MRMIKESMITH]

I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.

I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.

Well if you expand it would only be for 2-4 games right?  For instance, lets say there are 35 conferences which qualify in d3 for the tournament.  How do you break that up?  The only solution I see is having 2-4 play in games right?  That doesn't seem ideal seeing the schedule goes from week 1 to week 11 and then the playoffs.  Even if you do what you suggest by having 9 games (It looks like you could still have 10 without a bye), you would have a playoff week where 2-4 games are played and the other 32 teams sit it out? 

I'm not an expert on bracket type stuff like that either but that was my first impression.

I'm a supporter of moving to 9 season games, as teams have issues filling out 10. Reducing to 10 weeks (9 game season) is an issue for conferences with "10" conference members. The conference would lose their OOC game, which effects the At-large factor. Can the conference play a 8 conference schedule with 1 conference game, yes. Would that lead to issues that the PAC and MAC had faced some year's ago, Yes. However, with the at-large pool expanding, that's a risk I think majority of DIII would be willing to make. I initially adding only 8 teams to get to 40 teams, however, I'd think the championship committee and football committee would have to move to 48 teams an additional 8 games, two per quadrant bracket (not region). If we get 35 AQs, we'd have a baker's dozen worth at AQ bids. I don't think the additional At-large will help the island schools, however it can weed out some of teams from weaker conferences early in the 1sr round ("play-in") section.

[Ron Boerger]

With football being the most expensive sport to fund playoffs in, and money being tight, I just can't see them adding three or four flights for a play-in round which very well would be required if you simply (and logically, in the world we don't live in) took the lowest-seeded eight teams for said round.  I hope and pray that if a play-in round comes to pass that the division doesn't end up saying something like "eight teams that can play without flights in the first round will be selected for the play-in round" because we *all* know which teams would be impacted the most: the ones in the island areas who already end up getting faced off early because of the almighty travel dollar. 

[MRMIKESMITH]

With football being the most expensive sport to fund playoffs in, and money being tight, I just can't see them adding three or four flights for a play-in round which very well would be required if you simply (and logically, in the world we don't live in) took the lowest-seeded eight teams for said round.  I hope and pray that if a play-in round comes to pass that the division doesn't end up saying something like "eight teams that can play without flights in the first round will be selected for the play-in round" because we *all* know which teams would be impacted the most: the ones in the island areas who already end up getting faced off early because of the almighty travel dollar.

Unfortunately, that may be the case. You are most likely going to see more regional type games in the 1st (Play-In") round in this hypothetical scenario? Adding any additional at-large bids was not going to eliminate the island issue. I know there was something regarding DIII controlling its own budget or indirect funds without having to get permission from its D1 and D2 counterparts, not sure if that would help. With covid last year and how the brackets were setup, the football/championship committee were all for "experience", just because we moved to the 600 mile mark, they'd rather have Team A that's 150 miles away play Team B, while Team C & D inherently ranked lower play each other being that they are 100 miles apart. Although Team A is 575 miles from Team C and Team B is 530 from Team D. If they can get teams to play without having overnight stays, that's what it's going to be for the most part.

Yet in last year's case, had we had a 48 team playoff. Teams like Hardin-Simmons,  Ithaca, Ohio Northern, UW-Oshkosh, Merchant Marine, UW-River Falls, Randolph Macon, Susquehanna, basically everyone ranked in the final regional rankings would be playoff participants. Now how those 1st round matchups are selected, would the committee had pitted Trinity at Hardin-Simmons during the 1st weekend, probably. Possible conference rematches https://challonge.com/fidhb7b3

[crufootball]

I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.

I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.

Option C is out there as well, D3 could not require the one size fits all approach to conferences earning AQs. If they made it sport specific, it could be guided by the landscape of that sport, in footballs case they could make the number 7 or 8 which would make it harder to piece together than just 6 and would free up some more at-large bids if you conference isn't at the required number.