FB: Southern Athletic Association

Started by Ron Boerger, October 25, 2011, 02:57:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

BSCpanthers and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Ron Boerger

#2250
With the NCAA Division III membership voting to lower the number of schools in a conference needed to get an AQ in a sport from 7 to 6 this weekend, I wonder if the SAA will decided they have enough members playing football to tell the affiliates "thanks for your help but you're no longer needed" - saving them each an annual trip to Texas.  One of the panelists on Dave McHugh's special "D-III at a Crossroads" broadcast was Dr. Angel Mason, Director of Athletics for Berry College (and Chair of the Division III Financial Aid and Technology Committees) and some of her comments could be interpreted along those lines.  Perhaps only by paranoid people like me who are fans of schools in conferences that don't sponsor football, but nonetheless the possibility exists.  With 7 SAA members playing football there is now a cushion should a school leave the conference or drop football.

Another possibility could be the SCAC restarting football, if it could convince St. Thomas to start a program (wouldn't take much IMO) as well as another school.  That effort didn't bear fruit the first time it was tried, but with schools battling for enrollment in the pandemic era you might find more consideration this time around.  And while they are perfectly happy and there's no indication they have any interest in the idea, getting Hardin-Simmons (or another ASC football playing school, or even Hendrix) to move to the SCAC certainly wouldn't hurt.  That path is also well-trodden and it's unlikely anyone in the ASC wants to exchange bus rides to Sul Ross for plane trips to Colorado College (in other sports), and Hendrix was the most vocal about splitting off from the SCAC to the SAA for academic reasons back in the day. 

One thing is almost very certain - we will see some shakeup in Division III football conferences before too long.  And the pitiful number of Pool C bids will go down as a result, meaning more deserving schools like Hardin-Simmons won't have a way to reach the playoffs they so richly deserve.

EDIT: I *totally* forgot about Centenary starting football in 2024.   The phone lines from Atlanta (still SCAC HQ) to Houston are on fire, no doubt.

Baldini

The downside of 6 team conferences is rounding up 5 non-conference games.

Pat Coleman

Certainly true, but there may be other smaller conferences to cross-schedule with.
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.

BSCpanthers

If that vote passes, conferences could look a lot different in 2-3 years.

tigerguy

Quote from: Ron Boerger on January 22, 2022, 01:24:40 PM

One thing is almost very certain - we will see some shakeup in Division III football conferences before too long.  And the pitiful number of Pool C bids will go down as a result, meaning more deserving schools like Hardin-Simmons won't have a way to reach the playoffs they so richly deserve.


Don't like this at all. I generally like the idea of an AQ for every conference winner because it sets an objective standard and path for getting into the playoffs (win and you're in) rather than a panel of D3 experts picking the top 32 teams each year. But, we all know that the AQ method does not result in the best 32 teams in the country playing each fall in the playoffs. Each year there is a conference winner (likely multiple) that is probably not one of the best 32 teams in the country.

I know this is D3 and the lack of money results in us never getting things the way they should be (see stupid playoff pairings just to save money). But, lowering the requirement to 6 teams for an AQ is going to further diminish the only mechanism available to ensure as many of the actual top-32 teams get into the playoffs as possible. Maybe our concern is overblown and we won't see a quick addition of 1-2 conferences, but the assumption is that we will likely be down to as few as 3 at-large bids in the next couple of years.

Pretty frustrating but I guess its just another thing we will have to deal with as D3 fans.




Mr. Ypsi

I'm going to predict that there will be ZERO at large bids within 5-7 years.

That was an absolutely STUPID vote by the reps.  The minimum size for an AQ should have gone UP to 8, not down to 6.  Did someone spike their morning coffee? ::)

Pat Coleman

There are definitely sports which need this and can benefit from it.

Football needs to uncouple its AQ requirements from the main formula.
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.

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 23, 2022, 08:13:44 PM
I'm going to predict that there will be ZERO at large bids within 5-7 years.

That was an absolutely STUPID vote by the reps.  The minimum size for an AQ should have gone UP to 8, not down to 6.  Did someone spike their morning coffee? ::)

I will take this quote as a mind game.

SCAC - the 3 affiliates in the ASC  (AC, SW, TLU) and Trinity in the SAA plus Centenary in 2024 convince St Thomas (Houston) to add football in 2024. One bid; 4 Pool C remain.
MAC - splits into Freedom and Commonwealth; one new bid; 3 Pool C remain.

Now is when it gets tougher.

NESCAC?

USA South -In the present "East"/ "West" configuration these teams play football, if the conference splits in two.

East - Averett - going to the ODAC; Greensboro; Methodist; NC Wesleyan; Southern Virginia. The East would need two from Pfeffer, Mary Baldwin, William Peace
West - Belhaven - coming from the ASC; Brevard; Huntingdon, LaGrange; Maryville. The West would need one from Berea, Covenant, Piedmont.

With 3 new schools coming through provisional, Asbury, Bob Jones and Warren Wilson, whom do they join and do they add football?

Which conferences add football as a new sport?  I could only speculate.




BSCpanthers

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 23, 2022, 08:13:44 PM
I'm going to predict that there will be ZERO at large bids within 5-7 years.

That was an absolutely STUPID vote by the reps.  The minimum size for an AQ should have gone UP to 8, not down to 6.  Did someone spike their morning coffee? ::)

Agree with this completely.  Shrinking the number of AQ's is what needs to happen. 

Ron Boerger

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 23, 2022, 08:13:44 PM
I'm going to predict that there will be ZERO at large bids within 5-7 years.

That was an absolutely STUPID vote by the reps.  The minimum size for an AQ should have gone UP to 8, not down to 6.  Did someone spike their morning coffee? ::)

The stupid thing is having a one-size-fits-all approach for determining AQs.

jknezek

Here's the thing, there are 28 D3 football conferences right now. Of those, maybe 4 or 5 will have 2 teams that are Top 10 worthy teams in 2 of 3 years. The ASC, CCIW, WIAC, and MIAC consistently have a case lately. On an irregular basis, but at least yearly, one of maybe 6 or so other conferences can claim two semi-final worthy teams. Out of 28 conferences, 4-10 conferences should be strongly in favor of having more Pool C bids. That leaves 20 or so conferences that realize almost no upside to putting their AQ in jeopardy. Where do the votes come from to benefit those 4-8 conferences?

It just makes no sense. Now, I think dropping to 6 for an AQ was a bad idea, but I think you will have a real hard time telling the majority of conferences that they need to put their AQ at risk to benefit a select few power conferences having a second team in the tournament. It's a big thumbs down for the majority of DIII...

Ron Boerger

Quote from: jknezek on January 24, 2022, 12:04:22 PM
Here's the thing, there are 28 D3 football conferences right now. Of those, maybe 4 or 5 will have 2 teams that are Top 10 worthy teams in 2 of 3 years. The ASC, CCIW, WIAC, and MIAC consistently have a case lately. On an irregular basis, but at least yearly, one of maybe 6 or so other conferences can claim two semi-final worthy teams. Out of 28 conferences, 4-10 conferences should be strongly in favor of having more Pool C bids. That leaves 20 or so conferences that realize almost no upside to putting their AQ in jeopardy. Where do the votes come from to benefit those 4-8 conferences?

It just makes no sense. Now, I think dropping to 6 for an AQ was a bad idea, but I think you will have a real hard time telling the majority of conferences that they need to put their AQ at risk to benefit a select few power conferences having a second team in the tournament. It's a big thumbs down for the majority of DIII...

  • Championships automatic qualification from seven to six schools per sport/conference needed: Adopted (281-167-20)
  • Single-sport conference minimum requirement from seven to six schools:  Adopted (327-123-3)

I can't wait to see who voted for and against this, given the number of non-FB playing schools I would guess that those schools were more in favor of it then the FB schools but until we see the votes that's supposition.

It's also interesting that 46 more schools voted for the six school single-sport conference then allowing such a conference an AQ.

Etchglow

Quote from: jknezek on January 24, 2022, 12:04:22 PM
Here's the thing, there are 28 D3 football conferences right now. Of those, maybe 4 or 5 will have 2 teams that are Top 10 worthy teams in 2 of 3 years. The ASC, CCIW, WIAC, and MIAC consistently have a case lately. On an irregular basis, but at least yearly, one of maybe 6 or so other conferences can claim two semi-final worthy teams. Out of 28 conferences, 4-10 conferences should be strongly in favor of having more Pool C bids. That leaves 20 or so conferences that realize almost no upside to putting their AQ in jeopardy. Where do the votes come from to benefit those 4-8 conferences?

It just makes no sense. Now, I think dropping to 6 for an AQ was a bad idea, but I think you will have a real hard time telling the majority of conferences that they need to put their AQ at risk to benefit a select few power conferences having a second team in the tournament. It's a big thumbs down for the majority of DIII...

Honestly, I think non-football sports drove this vote.  I've seen a lot of talk around about how it was a great thing for other sports such as Hockey.  As much as I'm disappointed, maybe they'll carve out an exception for football next year...

jknezek

Quote from: Etchglow on January 24, 2022, 12:47:40 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 24, 2022, 12:04:22 PM
Here's the thing, there are 28 D3 football conferences right now. Of those, maybe 4 or 5 will have 2 teams that are Top 10 worthy teams in 2 of 3 years. The ASC, CCIW, WIAC, and MIAC consistently have a case lately. On an irregular basis, but at least yearly, one of maybe 6 or so other conferences can claim two semi-final worthy teams. Out of 28 conferences, 4-10 conferences should be strongly in favor of having more Pool C bids. That leaves 20 or so conferences that realize almost no upside to putting their AQ in jeopardy. Where do the votes come from to benefit those 4-8 conferences?

It just makes no sense. Now, I think dropping to 6 for an AQ was a bad idea, but I think you will have a real hard time telling the majority of conferences that they need to put their AQ at risk to benefit a select few power conferences having a second team in the tournament. It's a big thumbs down for the majority of DIII...

Honestly, I think non-football sports drove this vote.  I've seen a lot of talk around about how it was a great thing for other sports such as Hockey.  As much as I'm disappointed, maybe they'll carve out an exception for football next year...

I would agree. One size fits all regarding the AQ should probably go up for a vote next year and allow some sports to decouple if they want to. But I don't see the AQ going away either way, since it's in so few conferences' interest to kill it and in a lot of conferences' interest to keep it in place.

Ron Boerger

Lyon College of AR has announced they are going to start the transition process from NAIA to D3 (though they haven't applied yet).   While they are (just) in the SAA's geographical footprint and do have a football program, I don't see them as a school the SAA would be interested in adding as they don't meet the SAA's academics.  They would fit in the ASC or SCAC (should the latter revive football, especially).   IMO the ASC is the most likely destination as they'd make a good travel partner for the U of the Ozarks.