Regional Realignment

Started by Dave 'd-mac' McHugh, February 13, 2019, 01:10:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

I am not sure if you guys have discussed this on these boards before or not (my guess is not as other changes didn't really have that much of an affect on football), but there very well could be changes coming.

While I should be linking to a D3sports story, I will post this for now: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-championships-committee-supports-regional-realignment?division=d3

It appears football will be pushed to six regions - something I had been told probably would happen since this was first being discussed. There aren't a lot of details in the story, but you can put two and two together for the most part.

I hope to have someone on Hoopsville Thursday evening to discuss it and better understand all of this.

This is also not set in stone as of yet, but I don't see any reason this wouldn't go through.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

wally_wabash

I think is pretty sweet.  Obviously, how they split up the regions is the thing that makes this better for DIII football or not, but I'm immediately welcoming of more regions meaning more ranked teams and more usable data for at-large selection.  Might be able to do something with the relative imbalance of the West region (like peel off either the WIAC or the MIAC into a different or new region).  I did a quick and dirty what-if realignment of the existing four regions somewhere around here last fall.  I'll see if I can find it and drop it in here as a jump off point for wild speculation. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

wally_wabash

Here it is:
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 27, 2018, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 27, 2018, 12:08:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 25, 2018, 05:02:48 PM
Congrats to JHU, Muhlenberg and UMHB making it to the Round of 8.

I really like JHU's chances. They were fortunate to be sent to a heavily-East Region populated bracket.
Quote from: D O.C. on November 27, 2018, 02:54:07 AM
Yes, they were.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 27, 2018, 08:31:52 AM
I'm sure you guys do actually know where Johns Hopkins is located on a globe.  It's not luck that got them grouped with the teams they're grouped with. 
That is one time when geographic proximity worked to the favor of a South Region team.

You know, something that might need revisiting are the geographic regional designations.  How much sense does it really make for the PAC to be "south"?  I'm going to do a little side project here and get back to you in a little bit. 

I'm back.  So I re-regionalized the conferences in a way that I think more closely mirrors how we've been grouping things together in the tournament.  My four new regions are:

Region 1 - 6 conferences, one IND, 58 total teams:
CC
Thomas More
MAC
OAC
ODAC
PAC
USASC

Region 2 - 8 conferences, 65 teams, NESCAC included:
CCC
ECFC
E8
LL
MASCAC
NESCAC
NEWMAC
NJAC

Region 3 - 7 conferences, 65 teams:
CCIW
HCAC
MIAA
MWC
NCAC
NACC
WIAC

Region 4 - 7 conferences, 62 teams:
ARC
ASC
MIAC
NWC
SAA
SCIAC
UMAC

Fairly balanced, right?  Regions 1-3 make good sense geographically.  Region 4 makes no sense geographically, but why wouldn't it make sense to take your island leagues and group them together?  That's what is being done pretty routinely for the tournament.  So instead of being every year at how the NCAA is cheaping out by lumping all of the flying teams into the same quadrant, we can just use that as a starting point and stop being mad about it every single November. 

It's really just not possible to do much about the cluster of lower-ranked conferences from New England.  There isn't a reasonable way to spread them out.  So for better or worse, that northeast area is just always going to be unpalatable for those that follow the divison's powerhouses.  No way around that.

Now with six buckets to drop these conferences in to, there are a lot of ways to splice this thing together.
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

wally_wabash

#3
My first pass at what a six region football layout might be (click to enlarge):



I'm not sure I like all of this.  Region 5 is heavy, but I'm also not sure what the best way would be to shuffle that around in a way that makes sense geographically.  Maybe you could move the or the NACC (CCIW makes more sense) from 5 to 4, then slide the OAC from 4 to 3.  But the OAC doesn't really fit there.  I think no matter how you slice this up with six regions you're either going to have a really heavy NE/MA/NY region or you're going to have a heavy region somewhere in the GL/MW. 

You *could* also probably put the MIAC or the UMAC from 6 to 5, CCIW from 5 to 4 and then have two heavier regions in the GL/MW.  One thing that I kind of wanted to do here was break up the WIAC and the MIAC and allow those undefeated conference champions have opportunities for #1 seeds through conversations at the national committee level and not strictly inside the regional advisory level.  In the end it may not make sense to the NCAA to stick lump the Minnesota leagues with the island conferences, but I'd be ok with that. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Oline89

Quote from: wally_wabash on February 14, 2019, 10:26:16 AM
My first pass at what a six region football layout might be (click to enlarge):



I like having the LL in a region with MAC and NJAC, however, pretty tough to separate the E8 from the LL since there is so much crossover.  Also both LL and E8 will have 7 teams this season.

wally_wabash

Quote from: Oline89 on February 14, 2019, 10:35:46 AM
I like having the LL in a region with MAC and NJAC, however, pretty tough to separate the E8 from the LL since there is so much crossover.  Also both LL and E8 will have 7 teams this season.

I took the opportunity here to separate the E8 from the NJAC.  I really emphasized taking the really strong leagues and isolating them from one another.  The one place you really couldn't do it is in the midwest.  The MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, and OAC (and maybe toss the ARC in there also) are going to share regions with at least one of the others on that list.  No reasonable way around that. 

Good catch on the numbers of teams...I didn't update conference membership for future seasons.  This was a quick and dirty pass at this using conference membership from 2018 (except Thomas More who I didn't bother to account for).  I think one or two teams moving to another conference in 2019 doesn't drastically alter this exercise. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Ralph Turner

Quote from: wally_wabash on February 14, 2019, 10:42:14 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on February 14, 2019, 10:35:46 AM
I like having the LL in a region with MAC and NJAC, however, pretty tough to separate the E8 from the LL since there is so much crossover.  Also both LL and E8 will have 7 teams this season.

I took the opportunity here to separate the E8 from the NJAC.  I really emphasized taking the really strong leagues and isolating them from one another.  The one place you really couldn't do it is in the midwest.  The MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, and OAC (and maybe toss the ARC in there also) are going to share regions with at least one of the others on that list.  No reasonable way around that. 

Good catch on the numbers of teams...I didn't update conference membership for future seasons.  This was a quick and dirty pass at this using conference membership from 2018 (except Thomas More who I didn't bother to account for).  I think one or two teams moving to another conference in 2019 doesn't drastically alter this exercise.
+1!

With respect to the imbalance, the average conference membership is almost 9 teams.

So, you have 4 conferences of ~9 teams = 36 schools in the region
OR
5 conferences of ~ 9 teams = 45 schools in the division.

We have few options.

I want to distribute the power conferences as evenly as possible, so your Region 6 does not bother me.

IMHO, the strengths of Regions goes like this:

Region 6 > Region 5 > the OAC heavy Region 4 > Region 3 > Region 2 > Region 1

thinking that ASC + MIAC + NWC powers (slightly >) WIAC + CCIW + ARC powers.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh



It is now or never.

The last week of the Division III basketball regular season is here. Conferences will decide who will earn automatic bids to the NCAA Tournaments and teams try and position themselves for at-large bids, hosting opportunities, and bracketing considerations.

For teams who have been faltering, this is the last chance to right the ship. For programs which have underachieved, this is the last opportunity to live up to expectations. And of course for those with Cinderella dreams, this is the chance to try on the glass slipper.

Sunday's Hoopsville will cover it all in a special, extended, episode which for the first time (outside of Marathon programming) will feature a guest from each of the eight regions. We will also discuss which teams may be on the bubble, who has most likely secured at-large bid, and which teams need to win the AQs. Plus, we talk about how regions as we know it now could very well change in the future.

Hoopsville is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's show will hit the air at 6:00 p.m. ET. It can be watched live right here: http://bit.ly/2EeG5ZE (and simulcast on Facebook Live and Periscope).

If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options below.

Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
- Katherine Bixby, Johns Hopkins women's coach
- Jonathan Crosthwaite, Occidental men's junior
- Marc Brown, NJCU men's coach
- Justin LeBlanc, Millsaps women's coach
- Jamie Seward, SUNY New Paltz women's coach
- Marcos Echevarria, No. 17 Nichols men's senior
- Herman Carmichael, La Roche men's coach
- Klay Knueppel, Wisconsin Luthern women's coach
- Brad Bankston, ODAC Commissioner
- Pat Coleman & Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com (Bubble Talk)

If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville




Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

hazzben

Quote from: wally_wabash on February 14, 2019, 10:26:16 AM
My first pass at what a six region football layout might be (click to enlarge):



I'm not sure I like all of this.  Region 5 is heavy, but I'm also not sure what the best way would be to shuffle that around in a way that makes sense geographically.  Maybe you could move the or the NACC (CCIW makes more sense) from 5 to 4, then slide the OAC from 4 to 3.  But the OAC doesn't really fit there.  I think no matter how you slice this up with six regions you're either going to have a really heavy NE/MA/NY region or you're going to have a heavy region somewhere in the GL/MW. 

You *could* also probably put the MIAC or the UMAC from 6 to 5, CCIW from 5 to 4 and then have two heavier regions in the GL/MW.  One thing that I kind of wanted to do here was break up the WIAC and the MIAC and allow those undefeated conference champions have opportunities for #1 seeds through conversations at the national committee level and not strictly inside the regional advisory level.  In the end it may not make sense to the NCAA to stick lump the Minnesota leagues with the island conferences, but I'd be ok with that.

I understand the challenge of making this work. But I think the MIAC and UMAC are clear geographic losers in this scenario. They lose the MWC, WIAC, and ARC. Pick up SCIAC & ASC. Oofta! Basically Region 6 can be called the "Geographic Bastards."

MIAC teams would basically be scheduling almost all non-con games "out of region." It's still better for the budget to play ARC, WIAC, MWC, CCIW teams than it is to fly to TX or the coast.

wally_wabash

Quote from: hazzben on April 26, 2019, 01:00:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 14, 2019, 10:26:16 AM
My first pass at what a six region football layout might be (click to enlarge):



I'm not sure I like all of this.  Region 5 is heavy, but I'm also not sure what the best way would be to shuffle that around in a way that makes sense geographically.  Maybe you could move the or the NACC (CCIW makes more sense) from 5 to 4, then slide the OAC from 4 to 3.  But the OAC doesn't really fit there.  I think no matter how you slice this up with six regions you're either going to have a really heavy NE/MA/NY region or you're going to have a heavy region somewhere in the GL/MW. 

You *could* also probably put the MIAC or the UMAC from 6 to 5, CCIW from 5 to 4 and then have two heavier regions in the GL/MW.  One thing that I kind of wanted to do here was break up the WIAC and the MIAC and allow those undefeated conference champions have opportunities for #1 seeds through conversations at the national committee level and not strictly inside the regional advisory level.  In the end it may not make sense to the NCAA to stick lump the Minnesota leagues with the island conferences, but I'd be ok with that.

I understand the challenge of making this work. But I think the MIAC and UMAC are clear geographic losers in this scenario. They lose the MWC, WIAC, and ARC. Pick up SCIAC & ASC. Oofta! Basically Region 6 can be called the "Geographic Bastards."

MIAC teams would basically be scheduling almost all non-con games "out of region." It's still better for the budget to play ARC, WIAC, MWC, CCIW teams than it is to fly to TX or the coast.

Aside from all of the ways they have made it virtually impossible to play an out-of-region D-III game- Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and even New Mexico are places where MIAC teams can play regional games.  Minnesota belongs to an immense administrative region.  It's like the Louisiana Purchase of administrative regions. 

When I did this exercise a couple of months ago, I lumped the Minnesota's in with the more obvious island conferences because, well, somebody had to get in that group to make it work.  Tournament bracketing recently has shown this to be the most natural cluster of conferences that otherwise look like unnatural fits.  I admit fully that it isn't perfect, but it was a first pass and is something that I think would get looked at. 

In a week-old update on this, the hyperspeed jump to realignment has been postponed, for a minute anyway.  Seems apparent from the blurb here that there was some pushback to this from certain sports (would be very surprised if football wasn't one of them) and they're going to take time to consult with sport committees and figure out how to move this along in a way that satisfies most. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Ralph Turner

Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.

Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)

Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.

wally_wabash

Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.

Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)

Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.

That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline.  I forget now.  Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me.  Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them.  Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year?  I don't think that would have been a just thing to do. 

In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports.  Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought.  I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

hazzben

Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM

In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports.  Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought.  I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.

There's the key IMO.

Oline89

Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.

Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)

Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.

That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline.  I forget now.  Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me.  Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them.  Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year?  I don't think that would have been a just thing to do. 

In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports.  Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought.  I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.

If I understand this correctly, the benefit to expansion is that there will be fewer teams in each region.  Fewer teams allows for a more accurate regional ranking of those teams.  Am I correct?  Is there another benefit (in football only) to expansion?

wally_wabash

Quote from: Oline89 on April 29, 2019, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.

Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)

Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.

That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline.  I forget now.  Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me.  Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them.  Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year?  I don't think that would have been a just thing to do. 

In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports.  Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought.  I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.

If I understand this correctly, the benefit to expansion is that there will be fewer teams in each region.  Fewer teams allows for a more accurate regional ranking of those teams.  Am I correct?  Is there another benefit (in football only) to expansion?

I believe, at the administration level, the main purposes for this are:
1) standardize regions across all sports - not that all sports have the same teams in the same regions, but that regions in each sports have roughly the same number of teams.  250 lacrosse teams shouldn't be in just two regions. 
2) Using this "access ratio" kind of model for determining how many regions a sport should have allows a roadmap for how to deal with growth
3) Balance the regions


How those changes would manifest themselves in the rankings and in at-large selection is the big hypothetical. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire