Around the Nation board

Started by Pat Coleman, September 22, 2005, 03:16:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jknezek

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 28, 2011, 10:23:50 AM
One thing to keep in mind is that Division III does things the same for every sport, jknezek, so some things that apply well to sports with large seasons don't necessarily do so for football. The committee seems to counter this in football by going to the secondary criteria more often.

Interesting. Of course, the most successful people I know don't fall into the trap of saying "because this is how we have always done it." Thank you for providing a forum where these ideas can be discussed and the sites that store the information on which we build our arguments.

Pat Coleman

Well, I think one of the unspoken tenets of Division III is that all sports are treated equitably and no one sport is super-elevated above the rest.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

fightingscots13

RE:  Tanney conversation - Thanks for the comments and links.  Appreciate the responses.  Someone needs to look at more than the front page of the site... :-[
"Surprised?  If I woke up tomorrow morning with my head sewn to the carpet I wouldn't be more surprised than I am right now."

hazzben

Quote from: K-Mack on October 28, 2011, 03:02:51 AM
Quote from: jknezek on October 26, 2011, 11:43:19 AM
It is nice that they list the criteria. All I can say, however, is there are enough loopholes in the headline paragraph for each grouping to let the committee do whatever they want.

I am continually surprised by the emphasis on regional results and yet the lack of emphasis on actual region when building the brackets. Focusing on teams playing in region seems to be the best way for the committee to get enough data to come up with a logical way to set up regional brackets. However, by continually violating the regions with the seedings, I no longer see the point in emphasizing "in region" games. The committee is just picking the 4 best national teams, in their opinion, and building around them. Clearly they don't have much use for all the regional results to help set up the brackets, they just want the 4-12 best teams nationally and the related travel distances of every other qualifier.

The more I think about it, the bigger problem I have with this. If the rules are going to continue to specify teams should play "in-region" to get the best consideration, then we shouldn't be moving teams around when seeding the playoffs. Not that I think it matters in the end, it just seems like a logical conclusion to the guidelines. Otherwise, get rid of the unneccessary "in-region" designation and continue to build brackets based on the assumed best teams. I don't really care what they choose, either method can be hammered or defended, I just want some consistency between the guidelines and the results.

I see it completely differently.

The emphasis on in-region games I always interpreted for football to mean that a team doesn't have to blow its travel budget searching far and wide for games. D-III doesn't want to get in a situation where teams feel compelled to spend more than they have to get the wins that impress the committee. Play the good teams that are close to you and win and you'll get in.

Once the field is being established though, I think they're absoultely doing the right thing with number one seeds. If a team is within 500 miles of one another, why wouldn't we try to get the Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 teams in the country as top seeds rather than Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 15? I mean I know those numbers are arbitrary, and the East folks argue that they should have their "own" bracket a lot, but I don't agree.

You have to beat the best to make a Stagg Bowl anyway. Why should we penalize a great team because it's in a loaded region just to make a subpar 9-1 team a No. 1 because of where it's located?

It is a national championship tournament.

As for getting rid of the regional distinction entirely, I think for football I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's definitely something of a stretch, as the regions, the in-region games and the four not-regional brackets can confuse people.

I imagine though for other sports the focus on in-region competition makes sense. Basketball teams can play in Christmas tournaments or whatever without damaging their playoff chances. Anyone but me could probably speak more knowledgeable about that though

Exactly. I think this nails it. The regional emphasis encourages teams to play the best competition in the closest proximity. Yet it has enough flexibility to take into account that sometimes an arbitrary definition of what constitutes a region should be flexible enough to recognize when an 'out of region' team is also pretty close (less than 200 miles) and is hence considered 'in region.'

And I think it is absolutely the right move to make sure the best teams get the best seeds. There have been years when 4 or 5 top 10 teams were in the West with 2 in the top 4. To move none of those teams to another region leaves things out of wack for a national playoff. You'll never have a perfectly balanced regions (even the D1 NCAA B-ball Tourney has stronger and weaker regions) but they should do everything they reasonably can to get us close. Building around clear cut #1 seeds is a good start.

hazzben

#2254
Quote from: jknezek on October 28, 2011, 10:16:34 AM
I agree that it won't affect the outcome in the long term, but over the last decade or so NOTHING has affected the outcome of the tournament. I've also said that the vast majority of teams that make the playoffs are essentially bracket fillers. There is little to no hope of a team ranked lower than 3rd in any region winning.

So essentially we could pair the tournament down to say 12 teams and get the same results we get now.


Completely disagree with this statement. Sure some teams get blown out, but plenty of low seeds have made big runs.

In the D3football.com era (13 years) multiple teams ranked outside the top 12 seeds have made significant runs. To name just a few:

1999 PLU - West 7 seed (then the lowest seed in the region)...National Champion
2000 SJU - West 7 seed (lowest seed)...National Runner Up to Mount, lost 10-7
2008 Wheaton - North 6 seed...National Semifinalist
2010 Bethel - West 5 seed (maybe lower??)...National Semifinalist

These are just a couple examples of teams that were outside the top 12 and completely affected the results of entire regions and twice the national championship matchup.

Ralph Turner

Great post, hazzben!  +1!

From the South Top 10 Teams board...

IMHO, the best South Region Team, since the new format began in 1999, was considered the "5th best team" in the South in the 2004 playoffs.  Look at how they "filled the bracket".

Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 01, 2007, 07:41:31 PM


1)  2004 UMHB -- (13-2) Did it Ginger Rogers style.  (Refers to the old joke, who was the better dancer...Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers?  Rogers did everything that Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.)  Was a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3.  Beat #7 Trinity by 29, #3 HSU by 14, #5 W&J by 36 and #1 Mount Union by 3 on the road.  Lost to Elliott's #2 Linfield in the Stagg, 21-28.

FCGrizzliesGrad

Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2011, 09:56:35 PM

Completely disagree with this statement. Sure some teams get blown out, but plenty of low seeds have made big runs.

In the D3football.com era (13 years) multiple teams ranked outside the top 12 seeds have made significant runs. To name just a few:

1999 PLU - West 7 seed (then the lowest seed in the region)...National Champion
2000 SJU - West 7 seed (lowest seed)...National Runner Up to Mount, lost 10-7
2008 Wheaton - North 6 seed...National Semifinalist
2011 Bethel - West 5 seed (maybe lower??)...National Semifinalist

These are just a couple examples of teams that were outside the top 12 and completely affected the results of entire regions and twice the national championship matchup.
Wheaton was the 7 seed in 2008... they beat Franklin who was a 5 seed in the North final... and UWW was a 5 seed that year and beat 7 seed Wartburg in the West final and went on to be runners up 26-31.

Also... Bethel is already in the national semi-finals this year? When did that happen?  ;D
Football picker extraordinaire
5 titles: CCIW, NJAC
4x: ODAC:S
3x: ASC, IIAC, MIAA:S, NACC:S, NCAC, OAC:P, Nat'l
2x: HCAC, MIAC, ODAC:P, WIAC
1x: Bracket, OAC:S

Basketball
2013 WIAC Pickem Co-champ
2015 Nat'l Pickem
2017: LEC and MIAA Pickem
2019: MIAA and WIAC Pickem

Soccer
2023: Mens Pickem

hazzben

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 29, 2011, 10:16:38 PM
Great post, hazzben!  +1!

From the South Top 10 Teams board...

IMHO, the best South Region Team, since the new format began in 1999, was considered the "5th best team" in the South in the 2004 playoffs.  Look at how they "filled the bracket".

Quote from: Ralph Turner on July 01, 2007, 07:41:31 PM


1)  2004 UMHB -- (13-2) Did it Ginger Rogers style.  (Refers to the old joke, who was the better dancer...Fred Astaire or Ginger Rogers?  Rogers did everything that Astaire did, backwards and in high heels.)  Was a Pool C bid, back when there were only 3.  Beat #7 Trinity by 29, #3 HSU by 14, #5 W&J by 36 and #1 Mount Union by 3 on the road.  Lost to Elliott's #2 Linfield in the Stagg, 21-28.

I had the 04 UMHB team in the back of my head but couldn't be sure what they were seeded.

hazzben

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 29, 2011, 10:28:27 PM
Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2011, 09:56:35 PM

Completely disagree with this statement. Sure some teams get blown out, but plenty of low seeds have made big runs.

In the D3football.com era (13 years) multiple teams ranked outside the top 12 seeds have made significant runs. To name just a few:

1999 PLU - West 7 seed (then the lowest seed in the region)...National Champion
2000 SJU - West 7 seed (lowest seed)...National Runner Up to Mount, lost 10-7
2008 Wheaton - North 6 seed...National Semifinalist
2011 Bethel - West 5 seed (maybe lower??)...National Semifinalist

These are just a couple examples of teams that were outside the top 12 and completely affected the results of entire regions and twice the national championship matchup.
Wheaton was the 7 seed in 2008... they beat Franklin who was a 5 seed in the North final... and UWW was a 5 seed that year and beat 7 seed Wartburg in the West final and went on to be runners up 26-31.

Also... Bethel is already in the national semi-finals this year? When did that happen?  ;D

Good catch on Wheaton. I wasn't sure if they were 6 or 7 and wasn't sure what Franklin was either. Another perfect example. And the Wartburg - UWW one as well.

As for 2011 Bethel...Maybe that was a prophetic slip up (a guy can dream can't he)!  ;) ;D

I'm guessing there have been a couple examples from the East Region as well.

jknezek

Quote from: hazzben on October 29, 2011, 09:56:35 PM
Quote from: jknezek on October 28, 2011, 10:16:34 AM
I agree that it won't affect the outcome in the long term, but over the last decade or so NOTHING has affected the outcome of the tournament. I've also said that the vast majority of teams that make the playoffs are essentially bracket fillers. There is little to no hope of a team ranked lower than 3rd in any region winning.

So essentially we could pair the tournament down to say 12 teams and get the same results we get now.


Completely disagree with this statement. Sure some teams get blown out, but plenty of low seeds have made big runs.

In the D3football.com era (13 years) multiple teams ranked outside the top 12 seeds have made significant runs. To name just a few:

1999 PLU - West 7 seed (then the lowest seed in the region)...National Champion
2000 SJU - West 7 seed (lowest seed)...National Runner Up to Mount, lost 10-7
2008 Wheaton - North 6 seed...National Semifinalist
2010 Bethel - West 5 seed (maybe lower??)...National Semifinalist

These are just a couple examples of teams that were outside the top 12 and completely affected the results of entire regions and twice the national championship matchup.

When you're wrong, you're wrong. '04 and '08 definitely make this statement wrong:

So essentially we could pair the tournament down to say 12 teams and get the same results we get now.

I stand corrected and appreciate it guys. Thanks! I will say that a decade, however, is 10 years. Pretty sure '99 and '00 would be 11 and 12 championships back. I also wouldn't count Bethel in '10 or Wheaton in '08. Both lost by 3 scores to Mt Union. Their runs, while very nice, didn't affect the end result. UWW as a 5 seed in '08 and UMHB in '04 certainly did.

Not that it matters since they WERE a 5 seed, but UWW was 9-1 that year with a 1 point conference loss to UW-SP who was also 9-1 and the 4 seed (out in round 1). An interesting bracket that year paired seeds 1 and 2 in the West (Willamette and Occidental) in the first round. Monmouth was the 3 seed and the only other undefeated in the bracket, with UWW, UWSP and Aurora all coming in with one loss.

smedindy

How do you 'pair' a tournament down. Yank two teams out at a time?  ;)

I would never ever pare the tournament down, nor insinuate that it's a good thing. The 32-team bracket is perfection for D-3. Every conference that qualifies gets into the tournament. There's drama and conversations for the at-large teams. Even if you have a first-round game against one of the Purple, you get an extra week of practice. Those things are all good.

FCGrizzliesGrad

On College Football Final on ESPN they were discussing whether Boise St should play for the championship with their weak schedule compared to the other teams and while both were arguing no, Lou Holtz said something to the effect that if you were going to allow that... that Mount Union and Wisconsin Whitewater win year in and year out, why not let them have a shot.
Football picker extraordinaire
5 titles: CCIW, NJAC
4x: ODAC:S
3x: ASC, IIAC, MIAA:S, NACC:S, NCAC, OAC:P, Nat'l
2x: HCAC, MIAC, ODAC:P, WIAC
1x: Bracket, OAC:S

Basketball
2013 WIAC Pickem Co-champ
2015 Nat'l Pickem
2017: LEC and MIAA Pickem
2019: MIAA and WIAC Pickem

Soccer
2023: Mens Pickem

hazzben

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on October 30, 2011, 08:41:45 AM
On College Football Final on ESPN they were discussing whether Boise St should play for the championship with their weak schedule compared to the other teams and while both were arguing no, Lou Holtz said something to the effect that if you were going to allow that... that Mount Union and Wisconsin Whitewater win year in and year out, why not let them have a shot.

Is it possible Lou is getting wiser the more senile he gets  ;D

DBQ1965

Pat ... what is the relationship (if any) between seeding and who gets to host a play-off game ... since hosting (as I understand it) is up to who offers to host a game?
Reality is for those who lack imagination 😀

Pat Coleman

It is up to who offers to host a game but almost everyone files to host a game. I hope Dubuque did, because you never know how the bracket will look.

Higher seeds host. In the West there is often a little finagling of the first-round matchups because of geography.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.