FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:05:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: wally_wabash on September 09, 2014, 03:34:19 PM
Quote from: jknezek on September 09, 2014, 12:33:01 PM
Yes it's ugly since it wouldn't necessarily be fair, the WIAC and MIAC could be paired geographically in a miserably unfair grouping, but it would solve the math problem at the top of the post. It would also solve a "games played" type problem. It's likely that the teams going deepest into the tournament would come from 2 bid leagues, so those going deepest wouldn't necessarily play the opening round while teams that aren't going to progress as deep get an extra game. You could have 37 teams in this format, with 5 pod pairings (10 teams) and 27 byes. With 37 teams given the current numbers you'd have 26 As, 1 B, and 10 Cs. That would buy you an awfully long time of expansion while giving a lot of access to good teams that are crowded out by less good Pool A squads.

The 37 team tournament also requires an extra week of postseason, which I can't imagine D3 presidents are signing up for.  I also can't imagine that the NCAA would love to pay to put on five more games. 

I like the 32 team format.  This comes from a fan of the team that was 33rd last year.

I much, much, much prefer round numbers and would tolerate even further dwindling of Pool C bids rather than expansion.  But it's worth discussing where the tipping point is.  26 AQ conferences with 6 at-larges, I think everyone is still fine with.  But what if we reach 28 AQ conferences with 4 at-larges?  29+3?  Sure, that may be a ways off, but what would the point be where it was necessary to increase either field size or # teams required for a bid?
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

jknezek

Quote from: wally_wabash on September 09, 2014, 03:34:19 PM
Quote from: jknezek on September 09, 2014, 12:33:01 PM
Yes it's ugly since it wouldn't necessarily be fair, the WIAC and MIAC could be paired geographically in a miserably unfair grouping, but it would solve the math problem at the top of the post. It would also solve a "games played" type problem. It's likely that the teams going deepest into the tournament would come from 2 bid leagues, so those going deepest wouldn't necessarily play the opening round while teams that aren't going to progress as deep get an extra game. You could have 37 teams in this format, with 5 pod pairings (10 teams) and 27 byes. With 37 teams given the current numbers you'd have 26 As, 1 B, and 10 Cs. That would buy you an awfully long time of expansion while giving a lot of access to good teams that are crowded out by less good Pool A squads.

The 37 team tournament also requires an extra week of postseason, which I can't imagine D3 presidents are signing up for.  I also can't imagine that the NCAA would love to pay to put on five more games. 

I like the 32 team format.  This comes from a fan of the team that was 33rd last year.

I agree it would add a week, but as I pointed out the teams playing the extra week probably aren't playing on the back end, so it's the same number of games for most teams. I also said the teams playing in the pods should pay their own way. If one forfeits the other goes through. Keeping it between two local conferences minimizes the expense as much as possible. I don't think this scenario is at all likely, but I think it's preferable to what is going to happen if D3 football keeps expanding and we don't do anything. I also prefer it to a blanket 11th game, which I think will absolutely not happen and doesn't solve any problems.

I like symmetrical playoffs as much as the next guy, but when you look at the expansion rate we have a problem that won't be solved by acting like ostriches.

wally_wabash

Quote from: jknezek on September 09, 2014, 03:49:26 PM
I agree it would add a week, but as I pointed out the teams playing the extra week probably aren't playing on the back end, so it's the same number of games for most teams.

It's 5 more games for the NCAA to pay for or as you've postulated...

Quote from: jknezek on September 09, 2014, 03:49:26 PM
I also said the teams playing in the pods should pay their own way. If one forfeits the other goes through.

I mean, what an incredible horrible and impossible position to put a school in.  A school that operates on a particularly limited budget has an incredible season- and we're probably talking about a team that doesn't qualify for the postseason often or ever- now has to blow the budget to play the tournament game or tell that team "sorry, but we can't afford it."  We've created a scenario where the tournament is open to schools that can afford it and not so much schools that have earned it.  That can't be the case. 

And what if BOTH schools in the pod can't pay to play the play-in game?  Does the next week's opponent now get a double bye into the round of 16?  That seems silly. 


Quote from: jknezek on September 09, 2014, 03:49:26 PM
Keeping it between two local conferences minimizes the expense as much as possible. I don't think this scenario is at all likely, but I think it's preferable to what is going to happen if D3 football keeps expanding and we don't do anything. I also prefer it to a blanket 11th game, which I think will absolutely not happen and doesn't solve any problems.

The committee and the NCAA have made some really, really good strides in the last handful of years toward building interregional, reasonably balanced brackets for the football championship.  Forcing neighboring conferences to play leads to situations like the MIAC/WIAC thing you mentioned which makes the tournament not as good as it ought to be.  I don't think adding 5 more teams to the tournament is worth the amount of sacrifice involved in making the 37-team tournament kind of sort of work. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

jknezek

Wally it's not an issue for today, it's an issue for when we have 30 or more AQ conferences. And to some degree you can look at the ECAC games in the northeast/mid-atlantic that teams pay for and opt in to play. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they opt to play but not host. It's not a completely foreign concept.

I don't care about today, the balance A/B/C works just fine for me today. But the day is coming fast when the numbers don't pan out so well. As I pointed out, the only reason it works today is because we have so many 8+ member conferences. If we all went to the minimum, maximizing the chances of earning a bid, you'd already have to hand out 33 bids for a 32 team tournament! The tournament only works now thanks to teams willingly playing in significantly larger than minimum conferences. Losing the seventh at large doesn't bother me. Losing the second or third would start to get on my nerves...

smedindy

We do have to remember that conferences don't solely exist for football, or football playoffs. There are myriad other reasons conferences come together - in D3 most of them are sound, stout reasons based on similar academic missions and geography.

wally_wabash

I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare the ECAC exhibitions to the NCAA tournament.  Those are completely different animals. 

I do see what you're saying about a multitude of minimum member conferences with the purpose of maximizing chances at qualifying for the postseason but I don't think there is evidence that that is happening.  The MWC and PAC have recently expanded and they were already well over the magic number.  To smedindy's point, I don't think schools form and join conferences of any particular size based on football tournament access.  That's probably the last thing those schools have in mind when they form conference alliances.  Now there are certainly instances that we've seen where teams that are orphans are finding affiliate membership opportunities and THAT certainly has a lot to do with tournament access (and also ensuring a reliable, full 10-game schedule), but I don't think we're likely to see a bunch of conferences splinter and realign in order to have seven and only seven teams playing for an AQ. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

smedindy

In fact, I think the conference 'hopping' will be outlier programs (like Finlandia) trying to hook into a conference so they avoid "B" in almost all sports, not just football. Each sport has its requirements, but in the Men's Hoops board, I think we nailed down that these schools were "B" and some of them chose to go to their other affiliation:

Maine Presque - Isle
St. Joseph's Brooklyn
Rust
Finlandia
UC - Santa Cruz

The SAA was "B" in hoops last year but I think they get an auto bid this year. UMPI and Finlandia were in the GSAC in other sports. "In the GSAC" as in they were in the conference tourney in a backdoor way to get an auto bid.

I think next season, we'll have Six B eligible in football: the four eligible SCAC squads, Maranatha and Finlandia - since there's a shuffle going on with Wesley to the NJAC, Wash U and Chicago to the SAA, Macalester in the MWC and Alfred State not eligible yet.

I don't think there will be a clamor to form new conferences - we may have teams join existing conferences and then they can do creative scheduling like the MWC.

jknezek

I don't think we will see a conference re-alignment down to 7 team conferences either. The point was that we are already, by the rules, in a situation where we could have more A requirements than slots in the tournament. Therefore it isn't real far fetched to assume that some point in the future, given the growth of D3 football, you will find yourself in a position where it is going to be a real close thing even given the above minimum conferences.

The SAA is a case in point. When Hendrix and Berry added football the other members of what became the SAA bolted and formed a new conference since there was now enough teams to earn an AQ. Those teams shared mission and values and it made sense in all respects, but it was possible because there were two more teams playing D3 football. I expect to GRADUALLY see more of this. Another good example is the New England conferences. For years they played two divisions and shared a bid, eventually they got tired and split into two bids. If the MWC grows bigger that kind of action becomes a reasonable assumption. Same with the PAC.

Your posts are predicated upon D3 never reaching the tipping point. My posts are predicated upon the very real and supportable growth of the division causing an inevitable approach to that point in the future. I simply offered a workable, though distasteful, set of alternatives. I believe, with the increasing imbalance between male and female students, football will continue to be added to existing schools. The injury and concussion data may eventually take a toll in the other direction, but I think football is more likely to grow on D3 campuses than shrink for the foreseeable future. The economic and diversity issues are paramount at the moment.

Does anyone know how many D3 football programs there were in 1999 when the AQ began? I would be interested to compare to today's number.

Li'l Giant

I thought the number of teams in the tournament based on a percentage of total D3 programs in that sport. It doesn't have anything to do with conferences at all, right? I'll throw up the Pat Signal™ and see if he can correct me on this. Or anyone else for that matter.
"I believe in God and I believe I'm gonna go to Heaven, but if something goes wrong and I end up in Hell, I know it's gonna be me and a bunch of D3 officials."---Erik Raeburn

Quote from: sigma one on October 11, 2015, 10:46:46 AMI don't drink with the enemy, and I don't drink lattes at all, with anyone.

wally_wabash

We need somebody to create a Pat Signal™ image. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

jknezek



Geezer Citizen

Quote from: bashbrother on September 08, 2014, 03:39:43 PM
One more comment on the Wabash/HSC game on Saturday..

How much did HSC learn to respect the defensive pressure that Wabash was applying?  How about HSC punting (quick kick) on a 3rd and 26 from their 4 yard line...  White flag moment or smart play?

I've seen field goal attempts on 3rd down,  but don't think I have seen a punt.

Back in the day when men were men and women were darn glad of it, Wabash played the single wing under Ken Keuffel. One quote attributed to him:  "The quick kick is an offensive weapon." I believe he was saying that it could significantly change field position.
When better women are made, Wabash men will make them.

BashDad

Ugh. I couldn't even get to your point.

Not really a great week for the good 'ol boy, women-ha-ha-ha routine.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: jknezek on September 09, 2014, 07:23:56 PM
Does anyone know how many D3 football programs there were in 1999 when the AQ began? I would be interested to compare to today's number.

I can't give you that number for certain, but I can spitball at it.

D3football.com's FAQ page (http://d3football.com/interactive/faq/general#16) suggests that at least 31 schools have added Division III football from 1997-2014, 29 of them since 1999.  I know we've lost a handful of schools (Colorado College in the mid-00's, and McMurry jumped up a Division - although I think they're coming back - plus I'm sure another handful that I just don't know about because they're before my time), but still, there must have been a net gain of 20 or so schools.

Now, whether there are another 20 schools out there who will add in the next two decades, I don't know, we might be approaching the tail-end of a boom growth period.  I'm not qualified to comment there.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa