Pool C - 2017

[USee]

I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

The underlying point I was making is that the Pool C teams seem to make the field stronger. Your point is none of them have been champ so it doesn't dilute the opportunity for the champion. My point focuses on the 32 team field. Your's would be true if we had a 4 team playoff ala BCS as it seems to ignore all the noise outside of the favorites. The data suggests Pool C teams have come much closer to being champ than any of the non top 4 favorites.

So your premise is still true but doesn't get to the heart of the why the folks at the bottom of the "crow-fest" are crowing.

And I am all for the AQ system and the inclusiveness it provides. I think it's great some teams have the opportunity to win their league and make the playoffs despite no real chance at winning the title. I dont' want to lose that and I want the Pool C process to make it a stronger field. Seems to me we can do both.

[MANDGSU]

I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

Not only that, what makes the lower levels of NCAA football so fun (DIII through FCS) is that, by virtue of the AQ system, every team has a path to the championship. That's not to say all teams have the same chance of of winning (UMHB has a better chance than someone like Earlham), but even lowly Earlham breaks camp with a shot to win it all if they can win enough games. Taking that away to put more teams in, who, as Wally said, strictly speaking are better, but still don't have a really great chance of winning either, would debase what makes a large playoff system so fun and rewarding for both fans and players.

Also, who is to say that Earlham could have one great Senior class that worked hard and won all their games, but not be allowed based on subjective data and objective data (schedule) that they do not control.

[wally_wabash]

I think what's interesting as you look at that table and see that, with very rare exceptions, do Pool C teams get really deep in the tournament is you start to get a sense at how ludicrous the idea that the tournament is somehow less than it could be because it doesn't take the "best" 32 teams is.  We're only taking 5-6 teams that are supposed to be the best of the rest, and they almost never get really deep or pose a big challenge to one of the powerful teams that they might lose to.  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament and crowd out "better" teams, the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders- even with so few at-large teams.

I don't know what relevance this all has but I am pretty sure the data does not say Pool C teams are any worse than any other random AQ qualifier and, without having taken a deep dive, it may actually support the idea that Pool C teams make the tournament field stronger.

That's a separate point.  I don't think anybody is arguing that UW-Platteville isn't better than Plymouth State.  My point was simply that if the 5-6 Pool C teams that do get picked, aren't regularly winning championships or competing strongly with the teams that do, then nobody is being disadvantaged by the AQ system.  We're still getting the proper champion without having to wonder about what might have happened if we kicked  Western New England out and put Wheaton in.  That kind of thing hasn't changed the endgame ever since AQs started in 1999.

The underlying point I was making is that the Pool C teams seem to make the field stronger. Your point is none of them have been champ so it doesn't dilute the opportunity for the champion. My point focuses on the 32 team field. Your's would be true if we had a 4 team playoff ala BCS as it seems to ignore all the noise outside of the favorites. The data suggests Pool C teams have come much closer to being champ than any of the non top 4 favorites.

So your premise is still true but doesn't get to the heart of the why the folks at the bottom of the "crow-fest" are crowing.

And I am all for the AQ system and the inclusiveness it provides. I think it's great some teams have the opportunity to win their league and make the playoffs despite no real chance at winning the title. I dont' want to lose that and I want the Pool C process to make it a stronger field. Seems to me we can do both.

Do you think this year's Pool C selections were wrong?  I think they got the right teams in there. 

[Ralph Turner]

I agree with the Pool C teams this year.

[Bombers798891]

  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament...the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders

National title contenders are not the only thing that improve tournaments. Depth impacts quality.

Look no further than the d3football rankings of the Empire 8, which hasn't produced a national title contender since Fisher in 2004 (and maybe this Brockport team), but still ranks as one of the division's best conferences year in and year out

[USee]

My comments weren't meant to be a referendum on this year's teams. I didn't pay enough attention to know if they got it right or not, aside from my non-biased disdain for the committee's omission of Wheaton.

I merely responded to your observation which seemed to categorize the "crow-fest" participants into a bucket under an umbrella that doesn't focus on the underlying reason.

I think the NCAA Committee picked the teams that fit this year's interpretation of this year's data.

[wally_wabash]

I think the NCAA Committee picked the teams that fit this year's interpretation of this year's data.

LOL

[Ralph Turner]

  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament...the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders

National title contenders are not the only thing that improve tournaments. Depth impacts quality.

Look no further than the d3football rankings of the Empire 8, which hasn't produced a national title contender since Fisher in 2004 (and maybe this Brockport team), but still ranks as one of the division's best conferences year in and year out

The change that we will see in the East Region over the next few year is how 8 Pool A conferences, plus the (500-mile) proximity of the Presidents AC and the Centennial, will provide brackets that keep the best team in the East Region away from Mount Union and the stronger teams in the North Region until the semifinals. (They rarely pair the East Region with the South Region in the semis.)

I do like the strength and balance of the E8. They are very competitive top to bottom. It makes for an exciting season.  I believe that the East Region has 2 strong conferences now, the E8 and the NJAC.

[wally_wabash]

  Despite the annual crow-fest about how the AQs water down the tournament...the reality is that we're not leaving out serious contenders

National title contenders are not the only thing that improve tournaments. Depth impacts quality.

Look no further than the d3football rankings of the Empire 8, which hasn't produced a national title contender since Fisher in 2004 (and maybe this Brockport team), but still ranks as one of the division's best conferences year in and year out

I think the tournament has been quite good this year.  2nd round duds happened, but sexy games on paper went sideways real fast.  We had a lot of good teams playing other good teams and it just didn't work out for a fun Saturday.  I thought Round 1 was great. 

My stance here is that I don't think there's a crisis until the UMAC champ is legitimately pushing out a team that can win five games in this tournament.  Until then, I don't see a need to tinker with things like earned access or whatever other machinations we can cook up to put more WIAC teams in and less NE teams in.  I'd be happy if this were strictly a tournament of conference champions, tbh. 

[jknezek]

I think you do need 1 or 2 Pool C bids. Last year was a good indicator of that. But I think the discussion about needing more than 5 to make the tournament better is a little silly. Everyone needs to think about who were the last teams on the table this year and then stack them up against the Round 1 opponents for some of the weakest AQs. Is Centre or F&M getting past UMU in round 1? Wheaton getting past UWO in Round 1? Does anyone see this happening?

If the argument is Wheaton might have won a game against a middling opponent, well I won't argue that. But as the last Pool C, do you really deserve to play one of the weakest Pool A teams? No. So it's mostly a dead issue.

If your goal is simply to have fewer blowouts in Round 1 it might make some sense. But that hardly affects the quality of the tournament. I don't think there has ever been a team left out that was a legitimate national title contender. And until that happens, there isn't really anything to complain about. And I just don't see that happening until there are fewer than 3 Pool Cs left.

[USee]

I don't think there has ever been a team left out that was a legitimate national title contender. And until that happens, there isn't really anything to complain about. And I just don't see that happening until there are fewer than 3 Pool Cs left.

Of course by definition you can't  know this though,right?  We have had 1, two loss teams make it to the semi's in the last 10 years. Both of those were the "last team in". Wheaton in 2008 was a 7 or 8 seed in their bracket. North Central was the undefeated 1 seed if I remember. UMU was the East #1, Wheaton played Wabash, Trine and Franklin all on the road before losing to UMU in the semi's. In 2010 Bethel was a 9-1 Pool C and seeded #6. They went on the road and beat #3 Wartburg, #2 Wheaton and #1 St Thomas before losing @ UMU. I think it's a matter of time until we see a Pool C National Champion. It seems more likely to happen than not.

Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

[jknezek]

I don't think there has ever been a team left out that was a legitimate national title contender. And until that happens, there isn't really anything to complain about. And I just don't see that happening until there are fewer than 3 Pool Cs left.

Of course by definition you can't  know this though,right?  We have had 1, two loss teams make it to the semi's in the last 10 years. Both of those were the "last team in". Wheaton in 2008 was a 7 or 8 seed in their bracket. North Central was the undefeated 1 seed if I remember. UMU was the East #1, Wheaton played Wabash, Trine and Franklin all on the road before losing to UMU in the semi's. In 2010 Bethel was a 9-1 Pool C and seeded #6. They went on the road and beat #3 Wartburg, #2 Wheaton and #1 St Thomas before losing @ UMU. I think it's a matter of time until we see a Pool C National Champion. It seems more likely to happen than not.

Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

Wheaton in 2008 was beaten by 21 points in the end and were down 31-10 at the half. They did have a charmed run, but it came to a close a bit flat. Same with Bethel's 20 point 2010 loss where they were down 34-7 at the end of the third. I have no problem with a Pool C champion. I just don't think we've ever excluded a team that could really win it. Go on a run? Sure. A couple teams have. SJF was the last team in the field in either 2011 or 2013 and did a nice run. Before losing by 20+ both times also to UMHB.

But you saying "we don't know" is the same criteria I'd use about limiting Pool As. We don't know, but the As earned it. Now as for a beef about the criteria, I just don't care that much. Regardless of what criteria you use, someone will always have a beef. Again, that last Pool C or the first one left out? Just not really a threat. A better threat than some teams that are in, for sure, but not a threat to win it all. There are only 5 or 6 teams, at most, in DIII that can win it all in any given season. Every one of them has made the field. Now there might be 15 teams that could get to the semis on a good run, and one of those maybe gets left out, but that just doesn't interest me all that much.

[wally_wabash]

Again, I have no beef with the number of Pool C's. I think the criteria are somewhat random and nonsensical.

The most difficult thing, every year, is trying to determine how one team's 9-1 compares to another team's 8-2 (or even 10-0).  And this is where the criteria fall short.  I don't think the criteria are random- they're pretty specific.  I do think it was a huge mistake to remove once ranked, always ranked.  I think the SOS (which has always been a trash measurement anyway), has gone completely useless as the number of non-league games tails off.  I think the criteria for at-large invitation can certainly be updated.  They really need to get more data into this thing.  But even then, would more data have brought them to pick different teams this year?  I'm not sure it would have. 

[AO]

I think Wheaton could have won it all this year.  I also don't have a problem with a 2 loss team getting left out.   I love a regular season where you have to sweat a single loss.

[emma17]

It appears nobody is making a case to eliminate the AQ, so hopefully we can have a discussion specific to Pool C without the usual defense of the benefit of AQ.
For the five teams that get a Pool C bid, one solution is that they are the five highest, D3 Football ranked teams that didn’t qualify through AQ and Pool B. I believe it worked that way this year.
There would still be debate over the rankings, for instance I’d pick Wheaton over every Pool C team that made it this year. No, I’m not arguing for UWW.
I’d much rather rely on the D3 rankings than what the committees give us year in and year out.

Mt Union was Pool C last year and absolutely was a threat to win it all. Only a person that didn’t watch them play UMHB in the semis would claim they weren’t a threat.