Is 32 teams the right size for the playoffs, and will it stay that way?

Started by K-Mack, October 12, 2007, 11:31:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

K-Mack

Lifted from a Saturday Live thread on the Dose, but perhaps a discussion we should continue, or at least make sure it isn't buried/lost:

  39. dcfbguy1 Says:      October 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm e
      Thanks guys, sounds good... Looks like the Statesmen are looking more at a ECAC bowl bid and will only get in the playoffs if they are lucky... Division 3 is ever expanding... With 230+ schools, do you think more teams should be let in the playoffs or is it fine as is? I see many good teams stuck in tough conferences not getting in this year... The OAC, Empire 8 and NJAC are all very deep conferences...

  40. Ralph Turner Says:  October 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm e
dcfbguy1,

      I think there are several points implicit in your previous post.

      The NCAA is now funding one playoff spot for every 6.5 participating schools up to bracket limits such as 32 in football and 64 in hoops. The net ratio of schools to playoff bids in D-III football now is ~ 230 schools for 32 bids or 1:7.19. If the NCAA funded one bid for each 6.5 schools, we would have a 35-team playoff. This 35-team bracket moves the playoffs to 6 weeks, something no one is espousing. In that 35-team bracket we would roughly see 22 Pool A bids to the AQ conferences, 4 Pool B bids to the at-large and 9 Pool C bids. Hobart would have a better chance at the Pool C bid, about which you speak.

      Part of the debate on the D-III/D-IV split is philosophical in nature. If the D-IV's want to take their football and play elsewhere, well they are of sufficient legislative competency to move those initiatives thru the NCAA. They say that D-III is getting too big. They have highlighted philosophical differences about red-shirting and off-season activities as a reason to split D-III.

      If those ~110 schools want to move to D-IV, and play in a 16-team/4-week football championship, then that leaves some room for the remaining 120-130 football schools to have a longer playoff that might invite 18-20 schools.

      The D-III/D-IV issue will be coming to a vote in the next 1-2 years. We can watch that.

  41. Pat Coleman Says:      October 7th, 2007 at 5:29 pm e
      Yes, unfortunately, we're never going to get more than 32 football teams in. We were lucky to get it expanded up from 16, as there were many schools that resisted adding another weekend to the bracket.

  42. RunFerrum Says:      October 11th, 2007 at 2:12 pm e

      I have a few questions,
      1: Has any at-large team ever won it all?
      2: Has any team seeded in the bottom half, ever won it all?

      The reason I say this - is that if only the the teams slotted in the top half win it all and only teams that earned their bids win it all then what is the real purpose of expansion? Making teams feel good about themselves?

  43. Gordon Says:      October 11th, 2007 at 10:17 pm e
    In 2004 Linfield was an at-large team in the respect that the NWC did not have an AQ. The Wildcats won the title. They played another at-large team, Mary Hardin-Baylor, in the Stagg Bowl after the Crusaders beat Mount Union in Alliance. UMHB probably does not make the tournament in a smaller bracket that year and proved they were very worthy of the playoff opportunity.

      If you consider Pool B to be at-large teams, then you can also put Pacific Lutheran (1999) on the list of national champions.

      Other at-large teams who won their regional bracket (national semifinalists):

      2006: St. John Fisher, Wesley (Pool B)
      2005: Wesley (Pool B)
      2004: Mary Hardin-Baylor, Linfield (Pool B)
      2003: RPI (Pool B)
      2002: John Carroll
      2001: Pacific Lutheran (Pool B)

      I may be forgetting one or two.

  44. D3Keith Says:      October 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am e
      PLU was a seven-seed the year they won.

      Both UMHB and PLU played five road games on the way to Salem. (Actually, four; five includiing Salem)

      The purpose of expansion was/is access.

      Previously, under the 16 team system, four playoff teams came from each region based solely on the committee's rankings. In 1998, Trinity (Texas), Catholic, Western Maryland, Lycoming and Emory & Henry all went undefeated, and it was up to the committee to vote on which of those teams was not deserving of a playoff spot. A lose-lose situation.

      The automatic qualifier system gives each team a direct, understandable route to the postseason, and therefore the championship, each season. Every team that doesn't make the playoffs can point to which games it didn't win to explain why it didn't get in, as opposed to a committee's opinion.

      Why should the past results of who has won determine who has a chance? If a Muncie would beat a Milan (or whichever) 99 times out of 100, who's to say we shouldn't play the game? The "100th" ends up a great moment.

      Division III is saying everyone has a chance. What they do with that chance is completely unrelated to the fact they always will have a chance.
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.

smedindy

32 is fine by me. I don't think byes work well in football (or in any tournament), so keep it at 32!

HScoach

32 is perfect.  Can't go anymore than 32 because the season would really get too long. 

I also like the balance between the AQ's and at-large bids.  We all know that some of the conferences with AQ's aren't really in the top 32 in the nation and will most likely get blasted in Round 1, but those teams deserve the shot at shocking the world and upsetting one of the big boys.  Reserving a few Pool C bids for the 2nd place teams in the killer conferences (OAC and WIAC) makes the lesser AQ's  acceptable in my book.

I would love to see D1 use the BCS formula to select the teams for an 8 team playoff.  The 6 AQ qualifiers and then 2 at-large picks.  That would be fun!
I find easily offended people rather offensive!

Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is essential.

AnotherJohnnie

I agree that you can't move to a 6 week playoff.  The only way I can see getting more teams an opportunity to play more games would be to set something up like the ECAC has across the rest of the country.  This would be tough to do consistently everywhere, but it could be fun to have "bowl games" between the top, non playoff teams.  In some ways it wouldn't mean much, but I would like to go if my team went and I can't imagine that the players wouldn't want one more game.  For example, in the west, there could be three games between the top non payoff teams from the NWC-SCIAC, MIAC-WIAC, IIAC-MWC.  The second two games could even be seeded each year to allow different matchups.  You could have 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, except that you would like to give the top seeds the home games.  In any case, this won't happen, partially due to $$, but it would be fun.

I have heard only a little bit about this DIII DIV issue.  Does anyone know which conferences would opt into which division?  I can made some educated guesses, but is this information that has been published somewhere?

K-Mack

I believe it's mostly speculation, but it's being discussed from time to time on General Division III Issues, Future of Division III.

Not sure if anyone has made a list of the actual split, but we can probably come up with an educated guess.

Re: this subject, I don't think anyone wants to go longer than five weeks for a playoff.

I guess the will it stay that way, and the why it is the way it is, are the questions people want to talk more about.

The more bowls idea is interesting.
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

A split would be voted on in January 2009. Schools would have the ability to choose which group they want to be in after that. I'd have to think 2011 is the earliest a split could be implemented.
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

.. and '11 might be difficult given the number of schools that schedule more than a year in advance.  Gonna be interesting if it happens, no doubt about it.

altor

Quote from: smedindy on October 12, 2007, 11:56:56 AM
32 is fine by me. I don't think byes work well in football (or in any tournament), so keep it at 32!
I'm not against byes, but to have 6 teams play while 29 stay at home a week is a bit much.  The lowest number I would want to jump to would be 48.  Expanding the playoffs really isn't an issue AFAIC until the numbers warrant about that many teams.

And as somebody else said, we could be split into separate divisions by that point.

K-Mack

Reposted from Top 25 rankings:

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 17, 2007, 09:14:26 PM
Quote from: d-train on October 17, 2007, 05:20:15 PM
Quote from: billrt66 on October 17, 2007, 05:17:33 PM
All of this points to the need for an expanded field of teams.....32 just simply isn't enough when you have as many automatic qualifiers from conferences.  Last year only 8 at large teams??  There would be no impact on class time, fiinances, etc. if the field were expanded to 40....it would just help to end the arguements over lack of common opponent data.  Obviously D III schools don't travel across country during the season, and in an expanded field there might be more travel but it is an opportunity to ignite fan bases that have traditionally not had to travel....could wake up a sleeping giant in terms of renewed interest for all programs!

Really?! No impact?

The move from 28 teams to 32 made a lot of sense and had very little impact...but I don't know how you just slip another week in there without anyone noticing.

Win your conference and there isn't a problem. Pretty simple, really.
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

More opinion:

Quote from: d-train on October 18, 2007, 10:54:25 AM
Quote from: sju56321 on October 18, 2007, 10:30:11 AM
Quote from: smedindy on October 17, 2007, 11:15:11 PM
If you go to 40 then you have those byes. 32 is perfect for D-3. The playoffs are the right length, too.

Be interesting to note how many lower seeds, 6-7, have advanced to the Stagg or the Semi's. Was PLU the last low seed to make the Stagg? Would those additional teams even have a chance?

Um...no. Your own Johnnies made it all the way to the Stagg Bowl as a 7 seed the very next year (2000). UMHB (in 2004) was a lower seed as well.
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.

MTUNIONRAIDERS


Mr. Ypsi


DuffMan

Frankly, I think 32 is a lot.  I would not be in favor of any more than 32.  I kind of liked the 28 team field.

A tradition unrivaled...
MIAC Champions: 1932, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1953, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1982, 1985, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022
National Champions: 1963, 1965, 1976, 2003

Toby Taff

Quote from: DuffMan on October 22, 2007, 11:46:47 AM
Frankly, I think 32 is a lot.  I would not be in favor of any more than 32.  I kind of liked the 28 team field.

I had a few problems with the 28 team field.  I don't like the bye week.  It can be helpful, but it can also hamper a team that is really starting to build momentum.  It also meant that some very good 1 loss teams, teams that lost to top 15 schools, were left out in the cold. (no I'm not bitter  8)) 32 lets more in and means everybody plays their way to the next game.
My wife and I are Alumni of both UMHB and HSU.  You think you are confused, my kids don't know which Purple and Gold team to pull for.

K-Mack

Quote from: mhb8904 on October 22, 2007, 11:58:30 AM
Quote from: DuffMan on October 22, 2007, 11:46:47 AM
Frankly, I think 32 is a lot.  I would not be in favor of any more than 32.  I kind of liked the 28 team field.

I had a few problems with the 28 team field.  I don't like the bye week.  It can be helpful, but it can also hamper a team that is really starting to build momentum.  It also meant that some very good 1 loss teams, teams that lost to top 15 schools, were left out in the cold. (no I'm not bitter  8)) 32 lets more in and means everybody plays their way to the next game.

I'd agree with you there, that three second-chance teams (Pool C) was too few. But teams lost to top 15 (or 25) schools last year, the conference champs by a TD, one in overtime, AND finished 9-1 and still missed.

So some years there are 34 deserving teams ... we're never going to have enough spot. But I don't think there's any sentiment for the tournament lasting longer than five weeks, so it's sort of just a theoretical question anyway.
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.