The decline of the Division III Football Pool C bid

[D3fanboy]

Devil's Advocate...instead of 40 some playoff teams, why not just do the top 4 in a playoff and the other 40 play each other in "bowl games"?  Probably end up in the same place and a lot less NCAA travel $

[jknezek]

Devil's Advocate...instead of 40 some playoff teams, why not just do the top 4 in a playoff and the other 40 play each other in "bowl games"?  Probably end up in the same place and a lot less NCAA travel $

And then we can fight over who 3,4,5, and 6 are? This is stupid for D1 and would be even dumber for a division as large as DIII. Let's face it, NCC doesn't make the top 4 in 2019. Although I would laugh like crazy at your complaining the first time UMU got left out. Frankly Linfield, Wheaton and Hardin-Simmons might all have handled UMU this year, and only one of those teams might have made a 4 team field over UMU, though since one of them couldn't even get in a 32 team field and NCC couldn't even get a home game, UMU would have gotten in thanks to their admittedly deserved reputation.

[D3fanboy]

Devil's Advocate...instead of 40 some playoff teams, why not just do the top 4 in a playoff and the other 40 play each other in "bowl games"?  Probably end up in the same place and a lot less NCAA travel $

And then we can fight over who 3,4,5, and 6 are? This is stupid for D1 and would be even dumber for a division as large as DIII. Let's face it, NCC doesn't make the top 4 in 2019. Although I would laugh like crazy at your complaining the first time UMU got left out. Frankly Linfield, Wheaton and Hardin-Simmons might all have handled UMU this year, and only one of those teams might have made a 4 team field over UMU, though since one of them couldn't even get in a 32 team field and NCC couldn't even get a home game, UMU would have gotten in thanks to their admittedly deserved reputation.

A 4 team playoff in D3 is as likely to happen as a 45 team playoff

[Ron Boerger]

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.

The only problem is that if they don't do this very quickly, they'll wreak havoc with all the six-team conferences that are setting up (like the Landmark, possibly the SCAC, others surely to come) that are moving to take advantage of the new rule.   It makes sense but it's not like the NCAA to undo something that quickly - the soonest would likely be at next year's convention which if four or five conferences have already aligned with six teams would be trying to shut the barn door after a hippopotamus has plopped down in the doorway.

[Oline89]

I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games.  Don't forget the big picture.  There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.

[Jonny Utah]

I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games.  Don't forget the big picture.  There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.

Well this is where I may be confused.  In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:

1.  Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.

2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs? 

Do I have that right?  Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.

[Etchglow]

I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games.  Don't forget the big picture.  There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.

Well this is where I may be confused.  In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:

1.  Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.

2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs? 

Do I have that right?  Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.

In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule.  So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split.  Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in?  We could see a lot more head scratching results then...

[BSCpanthers]

When does this rule take effect, next athletic season(22/23] or later?

[IC798891]

I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games.  Don't forget the big picture.  There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.

This is my thought as well. How can we honestly think that's a good idea? An overwhelming majority of teams lose competition opportunities?

The whole thing needs a hard reset. Frankly, I think the Division as a whole has a bunch of tiers of programs with different goals. Do I think every team is full of a dozen coaches and 100 players who are trying 100% to win every single game they play, up to the Stagg Bowl? Absolutely.

But I think it's very clear that there are programs for whom a deep playoff run, is really not what they're about. I'm not going to name any names, but I think something we can see based on the results of these programs over the last few decades.

And here's the thing: That's okay. Not every program is going to have the resources to do that. There's still a ton of value in providing 100 guys the chance to play a sport for 4 years.

But there's a journey and there's a destination. We can appreciate and value the journey of the regular season. But we really need to decide if it's in the best interest of the Division to have the system pointing all these programs towards the same destination.

[Jonny Utah]

I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games.  Don't forget the big picture.  There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.

Well this is where I may be confused.  In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:

1.  Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.

2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs? 

Do I have that right?  Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.

In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule.  So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split.  Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in?  We could see a lot more head scratching results then...

Ok.  So right now no more than 32 teams can make the playoffs, and any team that wins their conference (that qualifies for a Pool A bud) makes the playoffs.  We know the math with this doesn't always add up.  Something will have to change in one of those concepts (32 teams vs pool a bids making the playoffs)

[jknezek]

I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games.  Don't forget the big picture.  There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.

Well this is where I may be confused.  In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:

1.  Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.

2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs? 

Do I have that right?  Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.

In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule.  So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split.  Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in?  We could see a lot more head scratching results then...

Ok.  So right now no more than 32 teams can make the playoffs, and any team that wins their conference (that qualifies for a Pool A bud) makes the playoffs.  We know the math with this doesn't always add up.  Something will have to change in one of those concepts (32 teams vs pool a bids making the playoffs)

Eventually, yes. But not this year. I think it's likely we will go to some kind of earned access that creates as few Pool Cs, and keeps as many Pool As as possible. So a "perfect system" will eliminate just the right amount of conferences each year to have 32 Pool A teams. That preserves the D3 ethos of access best.

If there are 36 Qualifying Conferences, I suspect the top 32 QCs (not AQs) by some measure will send their champions in about 4 or 5 years.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games.  Don't forget the big picture.  There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.

Well this is where I may be confused.  In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:

1.  Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.

2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs? 

Do I have that right?  Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.

In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule.  So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split.  Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in?  We could see a lot more head scratching results then...

Ok.  So right now no more than 32 teams can make the playoffs, and any team that wins their conference (that qualifies for a Pool A bud) makes the playoffs.  We know the math with this doesn't always add up.  Something will have to change in one of those concepts (32 teams vs pool a bids making the playoffs)

Eventually, yes. But not this year. I think it's likely we will go to some kind of earned access that creates as few Pool Cs, and keeps as many Pool As as possible. So a "perfect system" will eliminate just the right amount of conferences each year to have 32 Pool A teams. That preserves the D3 ethos of access best.

If there are 36 Qualifying Conferences, I suspect the top 32 QCs (not AQs) by some measure will send their champions in about 4 or 5 years.

I suspect you are correct that this will be the solution chosen by D3.  Last I checked, a significant number of "AQ" conferences who had been D3 members ever since AQs were invented had NEVER had their AQ win a tournament game!

Another possibility (though in my view less likely) would be a revival of the "D4" option.  IIRC, that got defeated fairly soundly, but there were SOME conferences that clearly indicated that they simply had no interest in competing (and/or no ability for competing) for national D3 titles - if so, that might be a 'compromise' position to forcing some conferences into 'play-in' games (or being excluded entirely), while still allowing reasonable access to excellent teams who happen to be in conferences with the UMUs, UMHBs, UWWs, and NCCs of D3.

Another scenario I hope would be taken into consideration:  how to handle teams who have a once-in-a-lifetime team in a generally terrible conference?  (I'm thinking Alex Tanney et. al. at Monmouth or Watts(?) at Trine(?) - some suggested solutions would give them no access, which would be like giving (to switch divisions and sports) Indiana State with Larry Byrd no access to the tourney! )

[BSCpanthers]

Could just make all conference champs with eight D3 wins get in first.  After that, it goes off some sort of rankings. That way if there is a 5-5 conference champ, they may just miss out that year.

[jknezek]

I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games.  Don't forget the big picture.  There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.

Well this is where I may be confused.  In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:

1.  Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.

2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs? 

Do I have that right?  Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.

In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule.  So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split.  Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in?  We could see a lot more head scratching results then...

Ok.  So right now no more than 32 teams can make the playoffs, and any team that wins their conference (that qualifies for a Pool A bud) makes the playoffs.  We know the math with this doesn't always add up.  Something will have to change in one of those concepts (32 teams vs pool a bids making the playoffs)

Eventually, yes. But not this year. I think it's likely we will go to some kind of earned access that creates as few Pool Cs, and keeps as many Pool As as possible. So a "perfect system" will eliminate just the right amount of conferences each year to have 32 Pool A teams. That preserves the D3 ethos of access best.

If there are 36 Qualifying Conferences, I suspect the top 32 QCs (not AQs) by some measure will send their champions in about 4 or 5 years.

I suspect you are correct that this will be the solution chosen by D3.  Last I checked, a significant number of "AQ" conferences who had been D3 members ever since AQs were invented had NEVER had their AQ win a tournament game!

Another possibility (though in my view less likely) would be a revival of the "D4" option.  IIRC, that got defeated fairly soundly, but there were SOME conferences that clearly indicated that they simply had no interest in competing (and/or no ability for competing) for national D3 titles - if so, that might be a 'compromise' position to forcing some conferences into 'play-in' games (or being excluded entirely), while still allowing reasonable access to excellent teams who happen to be in conferences with the UMUs, UMHBs, UWWs, and NCCs of D3.

Another scenario I hope would be taken into consideration:  how to handle teams who have a once-in-a-lifetime team in a generally terrible conference?  (I'm thinking Alex Tanney et. al. at Monmouth or Watts(?) at Trine(?) - some suggested solutions would give them no access, which would be like giving (to switch divisions and sports) Indiana State with Larry Byrd no access to the tourney! )

This is what I fear the most. Once you label a conference "hopeless", it is hard to shed that label. Even if that great team comes around. I don't know how you design a system for this, but so long as there are only a few conferences left out, it's pretty unlikely. I think the best way is simply to use the existing Regional Committees to rank Conference Champions. Then the National Committee goes around selecting 32 teams, putting the highest ranked team on the table from each Region until they come off and then moving on to the next team. That hopefully still allows some human element as opposed to simply labelling some Conferences as no-go.

[IC798891]

Another possibility (though in my view less likely) would be a revival of the "D4" option.  IIRC, that got defeated fairly soundly, but there were SOME conferences that clearly indicated that they simply had no interest in competing (and/or no ability for competing) for national D3 titles - if so, that might be a 'compromise' position to forcing some conferences into 'play-in' games (or being excluded entirely), while still allowing reasonable access to excellent teams who happen to be in conferences with the UMUs, UMHBs, UWWs, and NCCs of D3.

Another scenario I hope would be taken into consideration:  how to handle teams who have a once-in-a-lifetime team in a generally terrible conference?  (I'm thinking Alex Tanney et. al. at Monmouth or Watts(?) at Trine(?) - some suggested solutions would give them no access, which would be like giving (to switch divisions and sports) Indiana State with Larry Byrd no access to the tourney! )

1. This is exactly the problem. Individual programs (and possibly whole conferences) are simply not playing for the same goal. There needs to be a hard look at what we're doing there. If a conference's members don't want to commit to competing for the Stagg Bowl — which is 100% fine and honestly, refreshing — should it be entitled automatic access to the tournament that awards the Stagg Bowl?

2. There strikes me a fairly straightforward solution: Rather than deciding ahead of time which conferences are your autobid conferences, you let your regional rankings do the work. If your conference is represented in the regional rankings, it qualifies for the autobid. If you aren't, you don't. Yes, it means there will be more uncertainty heading into the final week. And it means they'll need to make that last ranking public. But these are the people entrusted with heavily influencing the Pool C bids already. There's no reason to think they're less qualified to determine Pool A teams.