2016 Playoffs

Started by Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat, November 04, 2016, 03:41:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

smedindy

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 08, 2016, 10:57:54 AM
- minimum number of losses: my biggest problem with this is that it would discourage teams in those lesser leagues from playing up.  We've seen a nice trend from the MIAA recently where teams like Albion and Adrian have been willing to step up a class and play teams like Wabash, St. John Fisher, UW-Stevens Point, some other WIAC and CCIW teams.  As one of the more evenly-matched leagues in D3, the MIAA also tends to have some league-play carnage (seriously, check out the standings from one year to the next...) and occasionally ends up with a champion that's carrying one or two losses in league play.  If they know that being 6-4 or 7-3 is a disqualifier for receiving an auto-bid, doesn't that turn them back into filling the schedule with other creampuffs to make sure that they finish at least 8-2 or 9-1 should they win the league.

I agree totally. If you win the league, you're in. I'd rather schedule aspirationally than defensively.

emma17

I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?
 

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?

It depends precisely what the "change" is.

Reference my earlier post: if the change was "No team with three or more losses can get an AQ" then no, I think those leagues would absolutely not start scheduling better non-conference opponents.  Why would Albion, typically an MIAA contender, schedule games with Wabash and UW-Stevens Point if that put them at risk of going 7-3 or 6-4 and missing out even if they won their league?  It would have the direct opposite effect.  Nobody would ever want to step out and play tough non-league games because, without the safety net of guaranteed Pool A for winning a league, staying above that cutoff would be critical.

If the change was "A team must appear in the final regional rankings" or something of that nature...much tougher to tell.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

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

wally_wabash

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?


All of you "schedule better non-conference opponent" guys completely take for granted the availability of these "better" games (not ever guaranteed, btw...you never know when your alleged quality opponent is going to pipe in a 3-7 year) and the feasibility of playing those games.  There are not unlimited numbers of these games around and you can't dial one or two up on demand every year.  It isn't as easy as just saying "hey, play better teams out there, Husson.".  Money matters.  Playing like-minded institutions matter to a lot of schools (this, I suspect is one HUGE reason why you all in the WIAC have a tough time filling out a schedule).  Visibility in recruiting areas of interest matter.  It's not just about gaming the SOS. 

So to answer your question, yes, ANY conference champion- regardless of record- deserves to be in the tournament more than non-champion John Carroll, no matter who John Carroll lost to and how much or how little they lost by. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

emma17

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?m

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?


All of you "schedule better non-conference opponent" guys completely take for granted the availability of these "better" games (not ever guaranteed, btw...you never know when your alleged quality opponent is going to pipe in a 3-7 year) and the feasibility of playing those games.  There are not unlimited numbers of these games around and you can't dial one or two up on demand every year.  It isn't as easy as just saying "hey, play better teams out there, Husson.".  Money matters.  Playing like-minded institutions matter to a lot of schools (this, I suspect is one HUGE reason why you all in the WIAC have a tough time filling out a schedule).  Visibility in recruiting areas of interest matter.  It's not just about gaming the SOS. 

So to answer your question, yes, ANY conference champion- regardless of record- deserves to be in the tournament more than non-champion John Carroll, no matter who John Carroll lost to and how much or how little they lost by.

Well, I meant for this to be a discussion.
Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the current system, but from a player's perspective, I think discussion is needed.
Here is a for instance- UWP (this isn't a WIAC thing), beat Lakeland 56-0. The players from Lakeland get to enjoy the playoffs by winning conference while the players from UWP don't.

I'm just raising the issue from a player's perspective.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:38:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?m

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?


All of you "schedule better non-conference opponent" guys completely take for granted the availability of these "better" games (not ever guaranteed, btw...you never know when your alleged quality opponent is going to pipe in a 3-7 year) and the feasibility of playing those games.  There are not unlimited numbers of these games around and you can't dial one or two up on demand every year.  It isn't as easy as just saying "hey, play better teams out there, Husson.".  Money matters.  Playing like-minded institutions matter to a lot of schools (this, I suspect is one HUGE reason why you all in the WIAC have a tough time filling out a schedule).  Visibility in recruiting areas of interest matter.  It's not just about gaming the SOS. 

So to answer your question, yes, ANY conference champion- regardless of record- deserves to be in the tournament more than non-champion John Carroll, no matter who John Carroll lost to and how much or how little they lost by.

Well, I meant for this to be a discussion.
Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the current system, but from a player's perspective, I think discussion is needed.
Here is a for instance- UWP (this isn't a WIAC thing), beat Lakeland 56-0. The players from Lakeland get to enjoy the playoffs by winning conference while the players from UWP don't.

I'm just raising the issue from a player's perspective.

If they wanted to enjoy the playoffs that badly, they were welcome to go play for Lakeland.

*edited for clarity
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

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

wally_wabash

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:38:28 PM
Well, I meant for this to be a discussion.
Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the current system, but from a player's perspective, I think discussion is needed.
Here is a for instance- UWP (this isn't a WIAC thing), beat Lakeland 56-0. The players from Lakeland get to enjoy the playoffs by winning conference while the players from UWP don't.

I'm just raising the issue from a player's perspective.

Denison beat Wittenberg, but Wittenberg is going to play in the tournament and Denison is not.  Is that fair?  Of course it is.  Does it suck for the players that get that close but don't get in?  Sure does, but that's the game. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Ryan Stoppable

Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:38:28 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 01:22:24 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 08, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I don't oppose the current AQ system, but I think there is value in discussion.
I would think we all agree that this is about the players.

Is a player on an 8-2 JCU team that lost to UWO and MT less deserving of participating in a playoff game than a player on a 6-4, 7-3 or 8-2 conference champion?m

To teams that place greater emphasis on "winning a conference championship", that opportunity is available to every conference team, even if the playoffs aren't. 

If the current AQ system were changed, is it possible that teams from conferences most likely to be impacted by the loss of the AQ would start scheduling better non conf opponents?


All of you "schedule better non-conference opponent" guys completely take for granted the availability of these "better" games (not ever guaranteed, btw...you never know when your alleged quality opponent is going to pipe in a 3-7 year) and the feasibility of playing those games.  There are not unlimited numbers of these games around and you can't dial one or two up on demand every year.  It isn't as easy as just saying "hey, play better teams out there, Husson.".  Money matters.  Playing like-minded institutions matter to a lot of schools (this, I suspect is one HUGE reason why you all in the WIAC have a tough time filling out a schedule).  Visibility in recruiting areas of interest matter.  It's not just about gaming the SOS. 

So to answer your question, yes, ANY conference champion- regardless of record- deserves to be in the tournament more than non-champion John Carroll, no matter who John Carroll lost to and how much or how little they lost by.

Well, I meant for this to be a discussion.
Again, I'm not entirely opposed to the current system, but from a player's perspective, I think discussion is needed.
Here is a for instance- UWP (this isn't a WIAC thing), beat Lakeland 56-0. The players from Lakeland get to enjoy the playoffs by winning conference while the players from UWP don't.

I'm just raising the issue from a player's perspective.
First of all, I thought we all agreed never to speak of that awful day ever again. ;D

But Platteville also enjoys advantages in that scenario. A second place team in the WIAC is very likely to get in, where a Lakeland or a Benedictine has no such safety net. And that second place WIAC team, due to the strong conference they play in, won't have to play a powerhouse on the road in the 1st round, while Lakeland is likely headed to Whitewater (and rightfully so).
Lakeland Muskies: Fear the Fish!

NCAA Appearances
Football: 17, 16, 15, 09, 05
MBB: 04
WBB: 17, 10, 06, 04, 02, 01, 99
Baseball: 03, 02 (College World Series)

USee

You have to be careful to qualify your examples. The John Carroll one hard to quantify because there are probably 220 teams that could lose to UWO and UMU the way John Carroll did (and is about to presumably). That's why we have to focus on who you beat as well. Just because JCU lost to only those two teams doesn't make any kind of argument they should be considered in a playoff field. It seems to me a team like Wabash, should they win this weekend, has only one loss to a playoff team (Witt) and will have defeated 2 other teams that are better than any of the wins that JCU has put up. The current system isn't recognizing that either. The Lakeland example is much more illustrative but also limiting, as Wally points out, because there are going to be teams in the playoffs that lost to other teams that are not in the playoffs. hopefully not 0-56.  (e.g. Ohio State may well be in the CFP after losing to Indiana). For the purpose it serves, the AQ system currently seems fairly efficient in establishing a playoff field. There is nothing wrong with conversation and trying to find a better solution though, admittedly, I haven't seen one yet.

Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat

Tons of great conversation which is great!

Is there a minimum number of Pool C bids that should always be available out of the 32 teams?  If more schools add football that would seem to potentially increase the number of AQ conferences to the point that there are few if any Pool C bids.

And many of the current AQ conferences have had terrible results in the playoffs year after year. I'm not sure that winning a conference is good enough of a criteria by itself when there are going to be fewer and fewer Pool C bids.

Do we shorten the regular season to 9 games? Add an extra round to the playoffs?  Give the Top 6 seeds of each bracket a bye.  Add 16 more teams to the bracket. It would seem highly unlikely that any of the last 16 teams would play more than 2 extra games (if teams were seeded relatively accurately.. UWP this year would be at worst a 3 seed for example...). 

Maybe teams pay to host in the Play-in Round as well as Round 1?

Doesn't the NCAA have a desired ratio in terms of teams and playoff berths?

UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

jknezek

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
Tons of great conversation which is great!

Is there a minimum number of Pool C bids that should always be available out of the 32 teams?  If more schools add football that would seem to potentially increase the number of AQ conferences to the point that there are few if any Pool C bids.

And many of the current AQ conferences have had terrible results in the playoffs year after year. I'm not sure that winning a conference is good enough of a criteria by itself when there are going to be fewer and fewer Pool C bids.

Do we shorten the regular season to 9 games? Add an extra round to the playoffs?  Give the Top 6 seeds of each bracket a bye.  Add 16 more teams to the bracket. It would seem highly unlikely that any of the last 16 teams would play more than 2 extra games (if teams were seeded relatively accurately.. UWP this year would be at worst a 3 seed for example...). 

Maybe teams pay to host in the Play-in Round as well as Round 1?

Doesn't the NCAA have a desired ratio in terms of teams and playoff berths?

UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

As long as there are 2 pool C bids I don't have a problem with the current format. Do you need some breathing room? Yes. But how much do you need? UWP is going to be 3rd in their conference. Not really needed to determine a National Champion when you are third in your conference. Don't care they are top 10 in the polls, if you finish 3rd in your conference you aren't really part of the national title chase. Sure a lot of the Pool A bids aren't either, but we don't KNOW that. They won their conference, so no one in their conference, let alone 2 teams in their conference, aren't already demonstrably better on the field.

We aren't going to 9 games. It's not fair to the vast majority of student athletes to play fewer games so only a small percentage can play one more. Not a good concept.

Pay to play sucks. How does that have anything to do with how good a team is and whether they have done enough to compete in the tournament? It doesn't. It's a horrible idea that has nothing to do with sports.

A desired ratio? I don't know. An access ratio, yes. Conference needs 7 teams. I expect that number will go up by 2 in the next decade or so if we keep expanding. That will set off another round of combinations and free up a few spots once it becomes critical.

Earned Access has some merit, but I'm not sure how to define it. I could easily see the Regional Ranking Committee's making sure this concept doesn't work well by playing with the bottom of the regions. No region has more than 10 conferences, so it would be easy to do. Using Polls is a bad idea. The polls simply aren't accountable and each one is different. That's why the BCS did away with them and turned to a committee.

wally_wabash

Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

We don't have any idea whether or not this is true.  We don't know who the ten best teams are and we won't know even after the tournament is over.   We're just guessing.  Platteville lost two games in a universe where win percentage is one of the 2-3 biggest slices of selection criteria.  Platteville didn't win a game against anybody who is going to be ranked.  They finished in third place in their own league.  I happen to be of the opinion that Platteville probably should be in the tournament, but if they aren't, it is hardly a travesty. 

You keep wanting to make this tournament something that it is not.  You want the best 32 teams, whatever "best" means (as far as I can tell, it means teams that play in the 4-5 leagues that you think are good and basically nobody else).  But that's not the goal of this tournament.  It is a tournament of champions, no matter how much you think somebody else's champion stinks.  It's not the best 32 teams, it's never aspired to be the best 32 teams, and it's never posed as the best 32 teams. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

AO

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

We don't have any idea whether or not this is true.  We don't know who the ten best teams are and we won't know even after the tournament is over.   We're just guessing.  Platteville lost two games in a universe where win percentage is one of the 2-3 biggest slices of selection criteria.  Platteville didn't win a game against anybody who is going to be ranked.  They finished in third place in their own league.  I happen to be of the opinion that Platteville probably should be in the tournament, but if they aren't, it is hardly a travesty. 

You keep wanting to make this tournament something that it is not.  You want the best 32 teams, whatever "best" means (as far as I can tell, it means teams that play in the 4-5 leagues that you think are good and basically nobody else).  But that's not the goal of this tournament.  It is a tournament of champions, no matter how much you think somebody else's champion stinks.  It's not the best 32 teams, it's never aspired to be the best 32 teams, and it's never posed as the best 32 teams.
I think everybody's missing the consequences to the regular season.  We've had some great matchups between Whitewater-Oshkosh-Platteville and St. Thomas-St. John's-Concordia, but they wouldn't have near the importance or fun if all six teams made it to the playoffs.

emma17

Quote from: jknezek on November 08, 2016, 04:15:17 PM
Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
Tons of great conversation which is great!

Is there a minimum number of Pool C bids that should always be available out of the 32 teams?  If more schools add football that would seem to potentially increase the number of AQ conferences to the point that there are few if any Pool C bids.

And many of the current AQ conferences have had terrible results in the playoffs year after year. I'm not sure that winning a conference is good enough of a criteria by itself when there are going to be fewer and fewer Pool C bids.

Do we shorten the regular season to 9 games? Add an extra round to the playoffs?  Give the Top 6 seeds of each bracket a bye.  Add 16 more teams to the bracket. It would seem highly unlikely that any of the last 16 teams would play more than 2 extra games (if teams were seeded relatively accurately.. UWP this year would be at worst a 3 seed for example...). 

Maybe teams pay to host in the Play-in Round as well as Round 1?

Doesn't the NCAA have a desired ratio in terms of teams and playoff berths?

UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

As long as there are 2 pool C bids I don't have a problem with the current format. Do you need some breathing room? Yes. But how much do you need? UWP is going to be 3rd in their conference. Not really needed to determine a National Champion when you are third in your conference. Don't care they are top 10 in the polls, if you finish 3rd in your conference you aren't really part of the national title chase. Sure a lot of the Pool A bids aren't either, but we don't KNOW that. They won their conference, so no one in their conference, let alone 2 teams in their conference, aren't already demonstrably better on the field.

We aren't going to 9 games. It's not fair to the vast majority of student athletes to play fewer games so only a small percentage can play one more. Not a good concept.

Pay to play sucks. How does that have anything to do with how good a team is and whether they have done enough to compete in the tournament? It doesn't. It's a horrible idea that has nothing to do with sports.

A desired ratio? I don't know. An access ratio, yes. Conference needs 7 teams. I expect that number will go up by 2 in the next decade or so if we keep expanding. That will set off another round of combinations and free up a few spots once it becomes critical.

Earned Access has some merit, but I'm not sure how to define it. I could easily see the Regional Ranking Committee's making sure this concept doesn't work well by playing with the bottom of the regions. No region has more than 10 conferences, so it would be easy to do. Using Polls is a bad idea. The polls simply aren't accountable and each one is different. That's why the BCS did away with them and turned to a committee.

Really, you don't know that UWP has a better chance of being a national champion than Lakeland?  I think we do KNOW that.
I find it interesting how when it comes to pool C discussion, many people cling to the idea that if a team didn't win their conference (or finish 2nd), that they cannot win a national championship.  Yet, when it comes to rankings, some people are more than willing to rank Thomas More ahead of Franklin, or Wabash ahead of Wittenberg.
 

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: AO on November 08, 2016, 05:08:12 PM
I think everybody's missing the consequences to the regular season.  We've had some great matchups between Whitewater-Oshkosh-Platteville and St. Thomas-St. John's-Concordia, but they wouldn't have near the importance or fun if all six teams made it to the playoffs.

Outstanding.  Totally agreed.  If we just want to replay the WIAC and MIAC title games in the playoffs and then let the winner play the OAC champion, why bother with D3 playoffs at all?  Just let the WIAC and MIAC hold a season-long series and declare the winner the national champion.  Part of what makes the regular season so great is the fact that the chase for a conference title matters to your playoff hopes, right?

Likewise, part of the fun of the playoffs is testing yourself against other leagues and regions; as wally put it, a "tournament of champions" for the best from any and all leagues to battle until only one team is left standing.  Kicking the UMAC and NACC out of the playoffs might mean a more competitive field from 1-32 this year, but that isn't the point of the playoffs.  The only way to know when the balance of power starts to shift is for those teams to be allowed into the playoffs, right?  This touches on another key point, which is that we should minimize the use of data from a past season to influence who makes the playoffs this season.

(I am fine with using past season's playoff results to break what are effectively ties at the top of the rankings between undefeated teams for seeding purposes, but not for using past season's data to actually select the teams).

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2016, 04:38:14 PM
Quote from: Andy Jamison - Walla Walla Wildcat on November 08, 2016, 03:57:11 PM
UWP missing out on the playoffs this year when they are one of the Top 10 teams in the nation is an indication of a system that needs tweaks.

We don't have any idea whether or not this is true.  We don't know who the ten best teams are and we won't know even after the tournament is over.   We're just guessing.  Platteville lost two games in a universe where win percentage is one of the 2-3 biggest slices of selection criteria.  Platteville didn't win a game against anybody who is going to be ranked.  They finished in third place in their own league.  I happen to be of the opinion that Platteville probably should be in the tournament, but if they aren't, it is hardly a travesty. 

^This. 

It's not quite a perfect example, but one of my favorite cautionary tales from the "We just KNOW who the best teams are" files was the 2013 Illinois Wesleyan team, runner-up of the CCIW, ranked #14 in the Week 11 D3football.com Top 25, with a lone loss to #4 North Central, hosting 8-2 IIAC champion Wartburg (ranked 33rd in the final poll, receiving just 13 total points) in the first round.  Hell, CCIW bronze medalist Wheaton was #19 in the poll, a situation not that far removed from this year's purported WIAC-has-three-of-the-top-10-teams-and-it's-so-awful-that-one-of-them-will-miss-the-playoffs sorrow.  Here, let's go back in time to the 2013 CCIW board and check out some of the chatter:

Quote from: HScoach on November 17, 2013, 07:21:07 PM
Interesting bracket.   Round 1 is cupcakes (as they should be), but Round 2 has quality matchups.   NCC vs Platteville and Bethel vs Ill Wesleyan could be some good games.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 17, 2013, 07:28:37 PM
Hosting Wartburg is as good a draw as we could reasonably hope for.  Going in, I figured it was no better than 50-50 that we would host at all.  Bethel in round two would definitely be an uphill climb, but all in all, I'm very pleased.

Sadly I don't think we had started a Pool C thread back then, but I'm sure it would also have given some choice quotes about how strong the CCIW was and what a shame it was that Wheaton, with only losses against #4 and #14 in the country, could be left out, and surely we should have kept those losers from Wartburg, not even ranked in the final top 25, out to make space for...wait, what?

Wartburg 41, Illinois Wesleyan 7.

That, folks, is why it's bull**** to say that "we know" who the best teams are or that being unranked should DQ a team from receiving their auto-bid to make way for more Pool C's.  We can guess, but we don't know.  And that's why it is better to settle this on the field than to start drawing lines about which league can have an auto-bid and which doesn't deserve one.  Everyone gets an auto-bid.  Beyond that, all bets are off.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

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