Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jknezek

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 241
31
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 10, 2016, 03:53:32 pm »
Jk

I agree with all that you said other than the "odac" failed RMC; I think RMC failed itself by losing to E&H. Most years ODAC champ needs to finish 10-0 in order to have half of chance at hosting. Still lots of football to play but I agree with you, even if RMC beats HSC (and they should) they will not host and rightfully so.

I don't see our two statements as an either/or. RMC didn't go 10-0, the ODAC did not proved a RRO to bolster their resume. Both are good reasons why RMC won't be hosting.

32
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: November 10, 2016, 01:40:07 pm »
If the above is accurate, than I can see something along the lines of what Hansen offered, a mix of bowl games and playoffs (as well as the option to opt out).  Perhaps teams could have the option to either play in a bowl game or "apply for entrance into a national championship tournament".  Each team would gain entrance into the tournament based on its own merits.

I would argue that a team has already proven its merits by proving itself the best team in its conference over the course of the conference season.

This isn't just a Division III football thing - it goes across sports and across divisions. You win your conference, you get a berth in the NCAA tournament. Why do you feel that Division III football alone should be different?

From the get-go I stated that I'm not opposed to the AQ for conference champions. 
From the get-go I've tried to express that my primary concern is for the player.
You argue that a team has "already proved its merits...".  Ok, in the sense of winning their conference, yes, they proved it.  They also got beat 56-0 by a team of  players that feel "they proved their merits". 
The point of all this was simply to ask, is there another way to accomplish all we want to accomplish?  I don't care how other divisions do it.  Can D3 make changes that make it even better for the student athletes?

I've done my best to explain what I think and why I think it, I'll let it go at that.     

The trouble is that we don't agree on "what is best for the student athlete." I think, and DIII clearly agrees, the current system is best for the student athlete. I certainly can't think of anything better and don't believe that your ideas are better than what we have.

33
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: November 10, 2016, 01:28:23 pm »
And you want to tell me what I think.  That's your style.  I have almost zero knowledge of the NESCAC except that they don't participate in the playoffs.  For their player's sake, I wish they would.  And I certainly have no interest in a Division 4.

The second that a NESCAC team played in the tournament and lost a game by 30, you'd want to throw them right back out and keep them out forever.  That's your style.

You got me.  My whole sinister plan is to create a WIAC only national championship tournament.

We all know that's not true. You'd never forget about UMU.

34
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: November 09, 2016, 02:23:49 pm »
Seems to me that a lot of this discussion is centering on whether the current setup is "fair" or not. I think the more intriguing question is, "With the landscape of DIII changing and growing, how could the National Tournament be better in the future?" I think the answer to that question would be a slight increase in Pool C availability, as funds and time permits. If an extra week isn't viable, maybe an NCAA-sanctioned Regional Bowl system for conference champions from Pool B conferences (assuming the minimum limit for participation is increased to 8 teams as the division expands)?

Thanks for posting this Hansen, it's exactly my point. I'm not arguing to do away w AQ's, I'm arguing for the players of the best teams to get the playoff experience, which would enhance their student-athlete experience, which I think is in line w the D3 philosophy.
Rather than closed minded "it will never happen" attitudes or accusations of favoritism, it is refreshing to actually see a suggestion that helps further the student athlete experience.

Except it doesn't work very well. Care to guess how many 7 team conferences are left? There's the ODAC and the MIAA. Add that to the LL remnants and you have 20 teams. Add the 2 remaining independents, I think Alfred State has a new home soon, and that gives you 22 teams. With an 8:1 ratio, you have two Pool B bids and have earned 1 Pool C back by killing two AQs and combining that with the one Pool B currently available. 3 to 2. You have to go to 9 team leagues to make real hay. Of course, that then throws the WIAC and NWC into the non-AQ mix. While I have no doubt those league champions get a "B" bid all things being equal, it will get a lot more difficult for the West Regional Committee to have all those 2nd, and 3rd teams ranked compared to other regions so that they keep getting in over other champions. But it might happen.

All of that presupposes that you wouldn't get a whole lot of mixing and matching, which I think is very likely. We saw it happen with the first access ratio, I think you'd see it again with conferences distilling to get the magic number. But a conference like the WIAC is going to be left out. Because there simply isn't anyone else to add easily. So then you have no AQ for the WIAC, a small Pool B that they probably win, or at least scrap over with the NWC champion who also has no easy addition, and then back into Pool C you go.

Regardless, you aren't getting rid of the weak "A" bids, or at least not many of them, this way. Many of those "A" conferences have 9 or 10 teams. The UMAC has 10. The MWC has 11!

35
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: November 09, 2016, 12:37:46 pm »

This isn't an argument for UWP it's simply discussion that for all your good intentions to protect the little team, players are impacted regardless.


Of course players are affected. That's the problem with subjective measures. The great thing about the AQ is it is completely objective.  Every player on all 230 plus playoff eligible teams starts the season knowing they have a shot at the dream. Win your conference.  It is as open as it gets. There is nothing fairer than that system. Win on the field and no one can take away your shot.  It blows my mind that people think smoky back room decisions are somehow more fair and less impacting to players than the simple concept of win on the field, where the game is actually played, and you can keep going until you lose. Somehow we should take away the champions right to keep playing and give it to more teams that are already losers? How does that make sense? I don't think I will ever get the logic of let's let someone decide it off the field, not on it.

I wholeheartedly agree with all the bolded parts of your post.
September 24, 2016:  The game on the field.  UWP 56, Lakeland 0.

The games on the field. UWP, 2 conference losses, not a champion. Lakeland, no likely conference losses, likely a champion. It's just time to disagree. We aren't subjectively making a 32 team "supposed best" tournament. Every year this comes up, and every year it's debated by the same people. The conferences in all of DIII aren't going to pay for a 32 team tournament populated by schools from less than 1/2 the conferences. And you can't blame them. It isn't going to happen in football or any other sport. If everyone is going to pay, and they do even though most is financed by DI Basketball, then everyone needs a way to have access. Complain and moan how crappy it is for UWP or anyone else all you want, it's a dead issue. You want to get in the playoffs? Win your conference.

I'm a big believer we need at least 2 C possibilities to make sure that no real championship quality competitors are likely to be left out. But the moaning and groaning that occurs has me believing it might be better to do away with everything but the A and B bids. Then there is no ambiguity. You want in? Win your conference.


36
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: November 08, 2016, 11:06:42 pm »

This isn't an argument for UWP it's simply discussion that for all your good intentions to protect the little team, players are impacted regardless.


Of course players are affected. That's the problem with subjective measures. The great thing about the AQ is it is completely objective.  Every player on all 230 plus playoff eligible teams starts the season knowing they have a shot at the dream. Win your conference.  It is as open as it gets. There is nothing fairer than that system. Win on the field and no one can take away your shot.  It blows my mind that people think smoky back room decisions are somehow more fair and less impacting to players than the simple concept of win on the field, where the game is actually played, and you can keep going until you lose. Somehow we should take away the champions right to keep playing and give it to more teams that are already losers? How does that make sense? I don't think I will ever get the logic of let's let someone decide it off the field, not on it.

37
Men's soccer / Re: 2016 D3 Season: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
« on: November 08, 2016, 10:16:33 pm »
I heard 3rd hand that Kenyon missed by 20 miles, and so they get to enjoy an 8 hour bus ride to Lynchburg.

Now, now - not that far! I drove from Durham to my home north of Columbus today - 7 and a half hours with three stops (475 miles). Thought about stopping in at Lynchburg. Tell the bus driver that Virginia uses unmarked cars - and they were the only state in which I saw troopers during the 15 hour round trip drive.

There's nothing new about the 500 mile rule. It's part of why home field is a huge advantage. You think Kenyon has it bad? They have the possibility of 2 games in their one trip. Look at the mileage for Sul Ross State to Louisiana College. It's not an issue in soccer, but many other ASC sports. Conference game that requires an 800 mile bus trip. Supposedly 12 hours each way, but there is no way it is that short on a bus. Even farther for SRSU to get to Belhaven for football.



38
Men's soccer / Re: 2016 D3 Season: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
« on: November 08, 2016, 06:42:16 pm »
jknezek, what is the atmosphere like at Lynchburg?  And is there a big difference between day and night games?

It should be pretty good.  Lynchburg doesn't have a football team, so soccer and lacrosse are campus events.  We aren't talking Messiah type support, but I think you'll get a decent and knowledgeable crowd for Lynchburg's game(s). I doubt anyone will be too fired up for the other side of the quad. Day versus night won't matter much.  Facility is good but turf.

39
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: November 08, 2016, 06:33:59 pm »
No. I'm sure UWP is better than Lakeland. I don't think either is a title threat.  But one won their conference, an achievement worthy of reward, and the other, quite frankly, proved themselves third best in their conference. This isn't everyone gets a medal time. Finish third? Sitting home isn't a problem. It's a logical outcome. Does anyone think a one loss runner up to Lakeland sniffs the playoffs? No. Does anyone think a one loss runner up in the WIAC isn't a serious playoff possibility?  What do you know, the WIAC does get extra consideration for being really darn good. I'm not sad that extra consideration doesn't extend to a third team. That's just unnecessary.

40
Men's soccer / Re: 2016 D3 Season: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
« on: November 08, 2016, 04:37:21 pm »
Is 500 miles the threshold for the NCAA having to fly a team in?  The women's hosting could come down to whether Christopher Newport emerges from their pod or not as they would be over 500 miles from Williamstown, MA making Messiah or Stevens (should they advance) the sites that wouldn't require flights.  Then again, depending how other sectionals work out with number of fights required, maybe the NCAA is willing to fly one team in this sectional to reward Williams with hosting privileges.

500 miles by TES, which is different than Google. But yes, that is the limit.

https://web1.ncaa.org/TES/exec/miles

41
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 08, 2016, 04:36:18 pm »
Pretty much. I think R-MC's chances of being in the top half of the RR's is approaching 0. No RRO games. That alone is killer. The ODAC failed them. At least last year Guilford propped up W&L. But with 3 possible undefeated South teams, UMHB, JHU, and CWRU, and several likely 1 loss teams with RRO opponents, TMC, Huntingdon, and HSU come to mind, I don't see any possibility for R-MC to rank that high.

Plus, I'll be ticked if they host and W&L got hosed last year. Just saying...


42
General football / Re: 2016 Playoffs
« on: November 08, 2016, 04:15:17 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.

43
South Region football / Re: FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference
« on: November 08, 2016, 04:07:51 pm »
I see two dynamics in helping the ODAC in getting a first round home game.

Wesley has moved to the East Region so that takes a strong team out of the Regional Rankings.

Geographic proximity means that the NCAA is unlikely to fly strong South Region teams if they can be bussed.

So you have the geographic orphans like Huntingdon and Hendrix to go with the ASC teams. (We are looking at South Region #3 going to South Region #1 in the first round, unless the NCAA wants to fly 2 teams to Texas that are not Linfield and the SCIAC winner.  Hmm... I wonder about West Region #5 going to South Region #3 Hardin-Simmons and SCIAC Pool A going to UMHB.)

It's so much more complicated than that Ralph. Don't forget about Berry. Should Berry win the SAA their ONLY non-flight likely playoff pairing is Huntingdon I believe. Huntingdon and Centre also work as does Huntingdon and UMHB. If the ASC is hoping to avoid a UMHB/HSU first round, better hope Berry doesn't win the SAA.

R-MC can easily travel to the CC, MAC, NJAC or many more. CWRU is 450 or so miles from R-MC. Hobart is less. R-MC can go so many places, though one important stop is out, they cannot go to TMC...

I have little hope 9-1, 0-0 RRO, .492 SOS (and getting worse after playing H-SC) R-MC will be home. They have significantly worse criteria than W&L last year.

44
Men's soccer / Re: 2016 D3 Season: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
« on: November 08, 2016, 03:57:15 pm »
It's important to remember that while W&L beat Lynchburg 2-1 at home 10/12, W&L lost to Lynchburg at Lynchburg in the ODAC finals, also 2-1. Both games were pretty even affairs and the results of the home team squeaking past was fair. For all intents and purposes, these teams really are at the same level. Lynchburg earned home field for the ODAC playoffs, no excuse for W&L's home loss to Randolph-Macon, and got the more important win.

45
Women's soccer / Re: 2016 ?
« on: November 07, 2016, 02:56:34 pm »
Trinity (TX)'s reward for an undefeated regular season is a plane trip to Illinois Wesleyan (where they will play Mount Union in first round).   Yay NCAA.

Ouch.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 241