Around the Nation board

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

K-Mack

Reposting this here because all my favorite people tend to check this thread.

In short, rather than me compiling a rivalries list, I need to do some more reporting and storytelling.

Post your replies on the rivalries thread or e-mail me. Thanks.

QuoteHi all,
Doing a little research on Division III rivalries. I've been asking about it in ATN but I'm not asking the question right. In the early pages of this thread are running lists, and we have written about rivalries many times.

For a fresh look at ANY rivalry you want to nominate, can you please tell me a story about the rivalry's greatest (in your opinion) on-the-field moment, and off-the-field moment.

For instance, in the case of R-MC/H-SC, someone might say back in 1978 there was a kickoff return by Macon's Jimmy Whoseewhatsit that clinched the game and ODAC title, where the guy did a backflip after scoring (that story is kind of true). And the best off-field moment could be when those chumpzillas from H-SC broke off their own goalpost after the 100th meeting and threw it in the lake next to the field.

Or it could be off-the-field stories like stealing of the Bronze Turkey or Victory Bell, or a touching moment from the Courage Bowl or Soup Bowl or Secretaries' Cup.

In any case, I need a fresh way to show people how important the rivalries are, and I'd love to hear some stories I haven't heard before, or hear some fresh re-tellings. This will also help me determine how intense these rivalries are by comparison (although Pat or I have been to most of the major ones, even one time is only a limited taste).

Thanks for your input. Will also tweet this, post in ATN and on the ATN board.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

AUPepBand

Pep wishes his Saxons had a rivalry game but he'd be stretching the truth to say they did. Going way back, Alfred had somewhat of a rivalry going with Buffalo but probably more so for AU than UB. Hobart's pumpkin heads were close to being a rival as the Statesmen-Saxon skirmishes go way back, with several of the 1970s clashes featuring unbeaten squads.

Having heard talk of Alfred State joining the NCAA D3 ranks in a few years, Pep sometimes wonders what might happen should the Pioneers and Saxons meet on the gridiron. Perhaps they could call it the Battle of the Traffic Light...as only Mayberry's lone traffic light separates the two campuses.

On Saxon Warriors!
On Saxon Warriors! On to Victory!
...Fight, fight for Alfred, A-L-F, R-E-D!

Ron Boerger

Thanks for today's very nice SCAC feature in ATN, K-Mack.   Appreciate the coverage and the conference has been fun to watch this season.  Too bad it's all coming to an end - why the SAA presidents wouldn't let Trinity and AC stay on as associate members in football (as discussed by TU coach Mohr in an interview earlier in the year) is beyond me.   One trip to Texas annually won't kill anyone's travel budget.   Sigh.

jknezek

It is a shame the SCAC is breaking up after what is turning out to be a banner year. It was a very nice article although there just doesn't appear to be much new on the old and new conferences search for more members. While I think the SAA will eventually get enough football members to become an AQ, I think the SCAC twosome is just out in left field. Short of joining the ASC I just can't imagine where else they can go unless the UAA accepts them. It will be a real shame to add Trinity to an already very competitive Pool B.

USee

Keith-

Great ATN again. On your "comprehensive" list of title games, there is a chance the Wheaton/NCC game in the CCIW is a game for a share of the title. If NCC beats IWU this weekend and Wheaton beats NCC on Nov 5 (assuming all three teams win out otherwise) you would have a 3 way tie atop the CCIW and it would come down to point differential amongst the 3.

K-Mack

Quote from: USee on October 21, 2011, 01:04:31 AM
Keith-

Great ATN again. On your "comprehensive" list of title games, there is a chance the Wheaton/NCC game in the CCIW is a game for a share of the title. If NCC beats IWU this weekend and Wheaton beats NCC on Nov 5 (assuming all three teams win out otherwise) you would have a 3 way tie atop the CCIW and it would come down to point differential amongst the 3.

I specifically said -- or was poorly trying to say -- it was not necessarily comprehensive.

QuoteI've compiled this handy, if not comprehensive, list of games that will greatly impact conference titles.

I find it hard to believe only one conference title game would be Nov. 12 ... that had to be where my list went wrong.

Anyway, yes, there are always those games which look like not-title-games now that could be.

Rowan is not out of it in the NJAC, for example. Their games with Kean and Montclair State could decide things if Cortland took a loss or two somehow.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

K-Mack

Is there a general recruiting board on here? It's not my area of expertise anymore but I get several e-mails a year asking me best practices, and I don't necessarily know how to answer anymore, since I cover in-season stuff and haven't been recruited myself since the pre-internet days.

I still send parents to this board:
Parents of Children looking to play in Division III.

Often the greater knowledge available and the time you guys have to reply beats what any one parent could get from me.

Usually I start by telling people they have to ID a potential major, and then pick a handful of schools on their own, and make direct contact with each school. Most team websites have a recruiting portal.

I know there are some services that do things on behalf of kids, but I have no idea who's good and who's not and who I should refer. I read up on Scoutware (a service for coaches, mostly) to make sure I wasn't bypassing one of our affiliates and recommending someone else to parents.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

Ralph Turner

#2227
ATN Podcast comment...

Rivalry game...

Hardin-Simmons at McMurry on Saturday October 29th, 2pm CDT at Wilford Moore Stadium for the Wilford Moore Trophy.

(The north side Cowboys say that you must have at least one win for the series to be a rivalry.  Maybe this will be the win that makes it a rivalry.)

:)

K-Mack

Copied directly from the handbook, selection criteria:

QuoteSelection Criteria
Primary Criteria. The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests
leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in
priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
• Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
• Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.
... See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
• Opponents are considered ranked once they appear one time in sport's
official rankings.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their
third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional
and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and
selections.

Secondary Criteria. If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a
decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated
(not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-ofregion
Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents
from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.
• Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last
25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt
such criteria with approval from the championships committee.

Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the Division III football committee. In order to be considered for selection for Pools B
or C, an institution must play at least 50 percent of its competition against Division III
in-region opponents. Coaches' polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not
used as a selection criterion by the football committee for selection purposes.

NEW! Selection Criteria. When all criteria are equal among teams with undefeated
records in the primary criteria, the NCAA Division III Football Committee can use a
team's performance in the previous championship season as criterion.

NEW! Rankings. The total number of rankings have been decreased from four to
two and the first ranking shall not take place prior to November 1. For 2011, the first
ranking is on November 2. For more information, see important dates on page 6.

Educate yo'selves!
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

Pat Coleman

To put a new twist on the old ranking description, it's now "once ranked, twice ranked."
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.

Ron Boerger

Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2011, 08:13:18 PM
Copied directly from the handbook, selection criteria:

QuoteSelection Criteria
Primary Criteria. The primary criteria emphasize regional competition (all contests
leading up to NCAA championships); all criteria listed will be evaluated (not listed in
priority order).
• Win-loss percentage against regional opponents.
• Strength-of-schedule (only contests versus regional competition).
• Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OWP), weighted 2/3.
• Opponents' Opponents' Average Winning Percentage (OOWP), weighted 1/3.
... See Appendix J for explanation of OWP and OOWP calculations.
• In-region head-to-head competition.
• In-region results versus common regional opponents.
• In-region results versus regionally ranked teams.
• Opponents are considered ranked once they appear one time in sport's
official rankings.
• Conference postseason contests are included.
• Contests versus provisional and reclassifying members in their
third and fourth years shall count in the primary criteria. Provisional
and reclassifying members shall remain ineligible for rankings and
selections.

Secondary Criteria. If the evaluation of the primary criteria does not result in a
decision, the secondary criteria will be reviewed. All the criteria listed will be evaluated
(not listed in priority order). The secondary criteria introduce results against out-ofregion
Division III and all other opponents including those contests versus opponents
from other classifications (i.e., provisionals, NAIA, NCAA Divisions I and II).
• Out-of-region head-to-head competition.
• Overall Division III win-loss percentage.
• Results versus common non Division III opponents.
• Results versus all Division III ranked teams.
• Overall win-loss percentage.
• Results versus all common opponents.
• Overall DIII Strength of Schedule.
• Should a committee find that evaluation of a team's win-loss percentage during the last
25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end of season performance), it may adopt
such criteria with approval from the championships committee.

Additionally, input is provided by regional advisory committees for consideration by
the Division III football committee. In order to be considered for selection for Pools B
or C, an institution must play at least 50 percent of its competition against Division III
in-region opponents. Coaches' polls and/or any other outside polls or rankings are not
used as a selection criterion by the football committee for selection purposes.

NEW! Selection Criteria. When all criteria are equal among teams with undefeated
records in the primary criteria, the NCAA Division III Football Committee can use a
team's performance in the previous championship season as criterion.

NEW! Rankings. The total number of rankings have been decreased from four to
two and the first ranking shall not take place prior to November 1. For 2011, the first
ranking is on November 2. For more information, see important dates on page 6.

Educate yo'selves!

Maybe you want to send this to the committee members?   :o

jknezek

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.

fightingscots13

Would be interested in some insight from the ATN Board..  Monmouth College's Alex Tanney threw for five TDs in last Saturday's game and now has 141 career touchdown passes to move within one of the NCAA Division III record.  He's also within a few hundred yards of the NCAA Division III record for career passing yards (with two regular season games to play).

My question - how big of a deal is this in D-III circles?  It doesn't seem to be on d3football.com, as I couldn't find any mention of it.  Your thoughts??
"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."

jknezek

Monmouth has twice been the focus of Around the Region columns recently mentioning Tanney, Oct 20 and Oct 5. The headline on the Oct 5 column is "Monmouth more than Tanney". I also feel like Monmouth and Tanney were mentioned in at least one of the Podcasts recently, so it's not exactly like it isn't being recognized.

Certainly they are great achievements for the player, his teamates and coaches, and Monmouth's fans. But there aren't too many "national level" news stories in D3 since it is such a fractured universe. I certainly expect there to be more mentions made when he breaks the record(s), but how many times can you say he is approaching them and keep it interesting?

Ralph Turner

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.
Respectfully,

We need a systematic evaluation of the teams in the regions by those who know them best.  The Regional Rankings with a National oversight would be necessary in any scenario that involves "wild card" or at-large bids.

When one sees what constitutes "in-region", then one can see the latitude that is built into the bracketing.

In-region games include:

1) Conference games.  In this season and the recent past, these conferences have had multi-region teams:  ECFC, UAA, SCAC (with DePauw and before that, RHIT), Empire 8, NATHC, UMAC...

2) 200-mile radius rule:  A game between teams within a 200 mile radius is considered in-region (a much needed change from about 1994 or 1995.)

3) Evaluation Regions -- There are four in football, 8 in baseball and hoops, etc.

4) Adminstrative Regions -- Four administrative regions in D-III.  This is what allows UMHB and UWL or North Central Redlands or Wesley Husson to be in-region.  This permitted even more games to be considered in-region.  The way that UW-Oshkosh/UMU can work is that we get to see how good those to teams are, but the loss won't hurt UWO too badly.  Also, the admin regions allow other matchups that can be used by coaches to build the resume.

Pool A bids by region:

East: (6)  ECFC, Empire 8, Liberty League, MAC, NEFC, NJAC.
South: (6) ASC, Centenial, ODAC, PAC, SCAC, USA South
North: (6) CCIW, HCAC, MIAA, NATHC, NCAC, OAC
West: (7) IIAC, MIAC, MWC, NWC, SCIAC, UMAC, WIAC

Since the 32 bids are distributed across the nation and given 8 per region, there must be a national aspect to the process;  who best to sit at the national table but representatives from the regions?  MY impression is that most of the time, the national committee tries to do it right.  Pat Coleman or Keith or Gordan Mann can discuss in which selection process the committee has done a "good" job of trying to do it right.

Speaking for baseball, IMHO, the committee has done a very good job of getting the Pool B and C teams in, that deserved it.  Yes, there were 5-7 really deserving teams left on the table when that last pick was made, but I could usually point to the game that the team should not have lost that put them in Pool C.