Future of Division III

[Just Bill]

I believe the NAIA runs (or used to run) an independent tournament that actually grants a bid to the national tournament just like an AQ conference would. I think that's a pretty good model actually, assuming their are at least 7 independents who would be willing to do it.

[Gray Fox]

I believe the NAIA runs (or used to run) an independent tournament that actually grants a bid to the national tournament just like an AQ conference would. I think that's a pretty good model actually, assuming their are at least 7 independents who would be willing to do it.

Especially when a lot of regular conferences have these stupid tourneys to decide their playoff team rather than the REAL league champ.  This is actually one tourney that makes sense.

[smedindy]

Deadspin hit on the lunacy of the GSAC:

http://deadspin.com/5978363/how-the-ncaa-causes-gigantism-the-story-of-the-small-regional-conference-that-swallowed-up-the-continent

[Ralph Turner]

I believe the NAIA runs (or used to run) an independent tournament that actually grants a bid to the national tournament just like an AQ conference would. I think that's a pretty good model actually, assuming their are at least 7 independents who would be willing to do it.

Especially when a lot of regular conferences have these stupid tourneys to decide their playoff team rather than the REAL league champ.  This is actually one tourney that makes sense.

I believe that we can blame this historically on the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC).

[Ralph Turner]

Deadspin hit on the lunacy of the GSAC:

http://deadspin.com/5978363/how-the-ncaa-causes-gigantism-the-story-of-the-small-regional-conference-that-swallowed-up-the-continent

This new alignment is a smart survivalist move by the Great South Athletic Conference. It offers a great opportunity for female athletes at these recently-added programs. But I think most would agree that this is not the ideal structure for college athletics.

I think that he is reaching a bit in the case of the GSAC.

The GSAC has provided a Conference Tournament!  The alternative for post-season access would be a "play-in" tourney or some "committee pick'em" using Massey or some other index and a vote of "secret committee". The GSAC is cleaning up the isolated schools!

Even when Stillman and Fisk were in the conference, no one wanted Rust!?!?

Do New Rochelle and UC Santa Cruz need to reconsider?

When is St Josephs Brooklyn going to join the Skyline?

Presentation just needs to keep its head above water!

[Pat Coleman]

I think most would agree that this is not the ideal structure for college athletics.

[John Gleich]

I think most would agree that this is not the ideal structure for college athletics.

But what is the alternative...?  The Pool B system, which, as well, is not the ideal structure for college athletics.

[smedindy]

It makes more sense than a far flung 'CINO' (conference in name only). It also promotes regional games (in a sense) which helps on cost control. Of course, the remaining "B" schools are far flung anyway (for the most part...)

[Hoops Fan]

It makes more sense than a far flung 'CINO' (conference in name only). It also promotes regional games (in a sense) which helps on cost control. Of course, the remaining "B" schools are far flung anyway (for the most part...)

But at least it's a bid they can win, as opposed to one they have to rely on the committee to give out.

[CrashDavisD3]

Playoff spot should be won on the field, court etc...Not let a group of people decide.

Conference tourneys make it easy. Winner goes to playoffs.Then eliminate Pool B/C bids....All go into the AT Large bid pool
Make criteria simple for this. Winning percentage for Region, D3 Games, overall winning percentage, SOS..
Each criteria ranked against other teams in the region.

Example Team 1   
1st in Winning Percentage for Region
3rd in Winning Percentage for D3 Games
4th in Overall Winning Percentage
5th in SOS

Total of 13 points...Team with the lowest number goes.

Plug those numbers into a computer and out comes a list of teams...

[Bishopleftiesdad]

Playoff spot should be won on the field, court etc...Not let a group of people decide.

Conference tourneys make it easy. Winner goes to playoffs.Then eliminate Pool B/C bids....All go into the AT Large bid pool
Make criteria simple for this. Winning percentage for Region, D3 Games, overall winning percentage, SOS..
Each criteria ranked against other teams in the region.

Example Team 1   
1st in Winning Percentage for Region
3rd in Winning Percentage for D3 Games
4th in Overall Winning Percentage
5th in SOS

Total of 13 points...Team with the lowest number goes.

Plug those numbers into a computer and out comes a list of teams...

+1 Crash

[John Gleich]

Playoff spot should be won on the field, court etc...Not let a group of people decide.

Conference tourneys make it easy. Winner goes to playoffs.Then eliminate Pool B/C bids....All go into the AT Large bid pool
Make criteria simple for this. Winning percentage for Region, D3 Games, overall winning percentage, SOS..
Each criteria ranked against other teams in the region.

Example Team 1   
1st in Winning Percentage for Region
3rd in Winning Percentage for D3 Games
4th in Overall Winning Percentage
5th in SOS

Total of 13 points...Team with the lowest number goes.

Plug those numbers into a computer and out comes a list of teams...

Let's just throw a hypothetical out there though...

Let's say a team is 1st in winning percentage... in fact, they're undefeated.
But their SOS is 50th in the region.

So, they're 1, 1, 1, 50 = 53.

The next 7 teams are all 1 game over .500, so they're tied for #2 in win %, win % for D3, and overall win %.

They all have an identical SOS of 40th.

So, they're all 2, 2, 2, 40 = 46.

By your criteria, each of these 7 teams would be selected before the team that is undefeated... but they've done significantly worse compared to their schedule that isn't a whole lot better.


This is clearly hypothetical... but it shows that it's really not all that simple to figure out.

[smedindy]

Plus one person's fair numerical criteria is another one's biased data noodling. I think there's a balance of art and science in picking the field.

[Knightstalker]

Blindfolded darts tossing to determine at large bids.  After the AQ's are determined all the remaining teams are put on large dart board and the committee takes turns getting blindfolded, spun around until dizzy then pointed towards the dart board and they each get to throw three darts until the bracket is filled.  Alternative to spinning until dizzy is shotgunning beers.  After all it is college.   

[Steve Wiitala]

If we realize that the Pool C slots are very limited, no matter how the criteria are determined there will be deserving teams that are left out if they don't win their league tournament.  (I presume in most sports it goes like hockey and the Pool A bid goes to the team winning the post season tournament instead of the team that wins the regular season).  If you don't win the league, you are relying on a process that is bound to lead to disappointment for most teams. 

Mathematically, the source of Pool C slots are the leagues that have more than 7 teams.  It you take the number of teams in excess of 6.5 in all of the Pool A conferences and divide by 6.5, you get the number of Pool C slots.  Since conferences seem to be regressing toward 7 teams per conference, the number of Pool C slots continues to shrink.  In hockey, for example, in the last few years we have seen a weak 14 team conference essentially split into two 7 team conferences (there was some other shuffling going on as well, but that was the net result).  This change chopped off one Pool C slot, and added another weak team to the national championship field.  The reality of it is that for most teams, the national tournament starts with the first round of the league tournament.  I think it is unfortunate that there are so many teams that have outstanding seasons and get left out of the hunt for the national championship because of one bad game in the league playoffs. 

It would be better if the criteria were spelled out at the outset instead of put into the hands of a committee.  At least you know what you have to do.  A team with a great regular season, but not measuring up with the criteria would at least know they had no chance if they didn't win out.  You may not like the criteria, but it prevents surprises from the "smoke filled room (as we call it in hockey)"