My Attempt at Fixing D3 Football Selection Process

Started by '95 Blugold, November 23, 2021, 01:24:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Baldini

Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.

Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?

Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?

As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.   

BSCpanthers

Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should of gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could of done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.

Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?

They won their conference.

crufootball

Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.

Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?

Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?

As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.   

I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.

With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.

emma17

Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.

Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?

Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?

As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.   

You read something in my response that wasn't there. I made it clear I don't have a strong opinion either way. I was specifically addressing your argument that a team that didn't receive a Pool C bid should "look at what they could have done better".  You make it sound as though you don't recognize the gray areas that exist. 2019 national champion NCC was in almost the same position as 2021 HSU. NCC's non conference opponent was Christopher Newport, a team that finished 2-8. The years prior they were 7-2, 5-5 and 7-3. 

Baldini

Quote from: emma17 on December 09, 2021, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.

Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?

Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?

As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.   

You read something in my response that wasn't there. I made it clear I don't have a strong opinion either way. I was specifically addressing your argument that a team that didn't receive a Pool C bid should "look at what they could have done better".  You make it sound as though you don't recognize the gray areas that exist. 2019 national champion NCC was in almost the same position as 2021 HSU. NCC's non conference opponent was Christopher Newport, a team that finished 2-8. The years prior they were 7-2, 5-5 and 7-3.

NCC gave themselves a chance by scheduling Christopher Newport, HSU gave themselves no chance by scheduling Wayland Baptist. Big difference there. Is that not something they could have done better?

crufootball

#20
Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 12:36:56 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 09, 2021, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.

Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?

Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?

As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.   

You read something in my response that wasn't there. I made it clear I don't have a strong opinion either way. I was specifically addressing your argument that a team that didn't receive a Pool C bid should "look at what they could have done better".  You make it sound as though you don't recognize the gray areas that exist. 2019 national champion NCC was in almost the same position as 2021 HSU. NCC's non conference opponent was Christopher Newport, a team that finished 2-8. The years prior they were 7-2, 5-5 and 7-3.

NCC gave themselves a chance by scheduling Christopher Newport, HSU gave themselves no chance by scheduling Wayland Baptist. Big difference there. Is that not something they could have done better?

They definitely could have but there isn't a ton of easy options for them in Texas. North Central to CNU is almost 14 hours so I am hoping they flew there which not something every program can afford to do. HSU did play Trinity in 2018 and 2019 when Trinity was getting back into playoff form but didn't this year, was that because Trinity realized they could lose to HSU and hurt the playoff chances, we will never know.

Side note, I am assuming that CNU was supposed to come to CNU in 2020 but that never happened and both sides moved on?

smedindy

Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM

I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.

With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.

It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.

No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.

Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.

In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.

Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.

crufootball

Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM

I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.

With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.

It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.

No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.

Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.

In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.

Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.

My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?

In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.

MRMIKESMITH

#23
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM

I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.

With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.

It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.

No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.

Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.

In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.

Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.

My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?

In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.

I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games. 

Inkblot

Reducing the Pool A requirement to 6 teams is a terrible move IMO, especially in football.
Moderator of /r/CFB. https://inkblotsports.com. Twitter: @InkblotSports.

wally_wabash

Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 09, 2021, 03:57:03 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM

I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.

With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.

It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.

No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.

Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.

In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.

Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.

My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?

In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.

I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games.

This will never, ever, ever be funded.  5 weeks and 32 games is as big as this tournament will ever get. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

MRMIKESMITH

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 10, 2021, 01:07:14 PM
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 09, 2021, 03:57:03 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM

I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.

With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.

It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.

No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.

Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.

In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.

Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.

My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?

In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.

I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games.

This will never, ever, ever be funded.  5 weeks and 32 games is as big as this tournament will ever get.

I won't say never. It would be something similar to the NAIA model, where the schools will pay for the 1st round of the playoffs. Schools can the option to compete in the playoff or not. The schools essentially will be saving money by playing one less game. Not saying the budget is the same for every school and playing one less game will equate to having the chance to play in the 1st round. However, there are solutions both financially and logistically.

wally_wabash

Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 10, 2021, 04:12:48 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 10, 2021, 01:07:14 PM
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 09, 2021, 03:57:03 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM

I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.

With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.

It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.

No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.

Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.

In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.

Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.

My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?

In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.

I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games.

This will never, ever, ever be funded.  5 weeks and 32 games is as big as this tournament will ever get.

I won't say never. It would be something similar to the NAIA model, where the schools will pay for the 1st round of the playoffs. Schools can the option to compete in the playoff or not. The schools essentially will be saving money by playing one less game. Not saying the budget is the same for every school and playing one less game will equate to having the chance to play in the 1st round. However, there are solutions both financially and logistically.

There's already an alternative association for schools that believe in the pay to play postseason philosophy.  That's not D-III's philosophy and the D-III presidents are never ever never doing something like that. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

HOPEful

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 10, 2021, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 10, 2021, 04:12:48 PM
I won't say never. It would be something similar to the NAIA model, where the schools will pay for the 1st round of the playoffs. Schools can the option to compete in the playoff or not. The schools essentially will be saving money by playing one less game. Not saying the budget is the same for every school and playing one less game will equate to having the chance to play in the 1st round. However, there are solutions both financially and logistically.

There's already an alternative association for schools that believe in the pay to play postseason philosophy.  That's not D-III's philosophy and the D-III presidents are never ever never doing something like that.

Just caught up on this discussion. I am 100% in agreement with Wally that this is not the philosophy of D-III and that no one is going to agree to a pay to play structure. The D3 philosophy statement includes...

b. Place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators and place greater emphasis on the internal constituency (e.g., students, alumni, institutional personnel) than on the general public and its entertainment needs...

and...

q. Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships;

I would argue denying the lowest ranked AQ school the same access to the playoffs as the top ranked AQ would be outside of the D3 philosophy, regardless of how much better we all believe the best team left at the table is than Anna Maria. I would also guess the amount of institutions officially calling for massive selection process reform is zero, and guarantee it's less than 3. I understand that in recent years it is frustrating to be a fan of a school in the same conference as Mount Union, Mary Hardin Baylor, Linfield, etc. and to be left at the table feeling your team deserves a chance to play in the postseason.

One route that is much more feasible that could help significantly would be to do everything you can to schedule tough non-conference opponent(s). Wayland Baptist did Hardin Simmons zero favors this season. If your school is interested in a pay-to-play playoff structure, I'm sure there are very good schools up north that would dramatically improve SOS and would happily host Hardin Simmons for a non-conference game if Hardin Simmons is willing to pay the cost to get there. Northern baseball, basketball, and track and field teams will often use winter and spring breaks to travel south and play games in Texas or Florida...
Let's go Dutchmen!

2015-2016 1-&-Done Tournament Fantasy League Co-Champion

Ralph Turner

In all fairness to HSU, the number of non-ASC schools within a 600-mile radius of Abilene is three (3):

--Trinity had 3 non-conference games. McMurry was canceled due to COVID. They hosted Macalester, and beat nearby rival Texas Lutheran, just 30 miles up the road

--Hendrix in Conway Arkansas, 522 miles away, played UW-River Falls, another travel orphan that needs 3 non-conference games, ASC's Howard Payne at a neutral site north of Dallas, and Sewanee in a non-conference game.

--Millsaps in Jackson MS, 586 miles away, played crosstown rival Belhaven, NAIA Southwestern Assemblies (just south of Dallas) and Olivet.

It is quite expensive to fly 58 athletes somewhere for a game. I also have Title IX questions about comparable travel budgets in women's sports.

What advantage is there for a school to schedule a perennial Top 25 and get beaten by 30 points? Linfield playing and defeating HSU would offer Linfield a chance to host 3 or 4 rounds into the playoffs and vice versa.

We are on an island...