I read with interest your article about AQ's, conference championships and the like. I think it is really interesting that D-III has so many AQ's and so little room for at-large teams. The AQ's are great for each league and they emphasize 'conference play'...but is it the best way to go? Now I realize the D-III football play-offs is the longest championship within the NCAA, and I am not advocating for adding a sixth week (that would never happen)...but it will really be interesting this year when the 6 Pool C at-large berths come up for selection. With 23 AQ's, that means there are at least 23 second place teams that may only have 1 or possibly 2 losses. In several leagues this year there are still 3 & 4 teams vying for the championhsip this late in the season (as you said in your feature). The task to compare 'apples to apples' when trying to look across four regions that stretch from coast to coast and Canada to almost Mexico is next to impossible, especially when there are no common opponents. Throw into that mix the numbers game the NCAA statisticians have come up with (OWP, OOWP) that aren't nearly as reliable for sports that play so few games as football...now you've got a real headache. The Pool B teams look to be OK as basically it appears :) ??? 9 teams are trying to fit into 3 spots (thanks guys)...but man the POOL C's are a whole different world. There still are like 21 undefeated teams in D-III and 28 teams with only one loss.....somehow all those teams don't fit into a total of 29 spaces. As the season winds down, we all realize some of this will take care of itself...but in all but 2-3 cases this year each of the 23 AQ conferences has 2 or more really good teams. Somebody is going to get left out......and thats the toughest part...more than 75% of the good second place football teams don't get the opportunity to play in the play-offs and almost none of the third place teams that are in great conferences...I wish there was a way to fix it.....anybody have ideas that keeps an ultimate championship in place?
Quote from: dkaiser on October 23, 2008, 04:41:11 PM
I read with interest your article about AQ's, conference championships and the like. I think it is really interesting that D-III has so many AQ's and so little room for at-large teams. The AQ's are great for each league and they emphasize 'conference play'...but is it the best way to go?
Bluntly put, yes. Yes it is. With the system as it is right now,
everybody has the opportunity to earn their way into the championship tournament which is how it should be.
Quote from: dkaiser on October 23, 2008, 04:41:11 PM
Somebody is going to get left out......and thats the toughest part...more than 75% of the good second place football teams don't get the opportunity to play in the play-offs and almost none of the third place teams that are in great conferences...
Somebody is going to get left out no matter what (excepting of course the preposterous notion of a 239-team tournament). You can expand the field and all you've done is just float the bubble down to a different group of teams. Undoubtedly some of the teams that do not get selected to play in the championship tournament are better than some of the teams that qualify via the AQ. But that's the nature of the beast...I like that the tournament is a tournament of champions.
Wally_Wabash,
I agree whole heartedly. There will always be a bubble unless you let everyone in. This is like the NCAA Division I basketball tournament. There are not the absoute 65 best teams, but every team has a chance to earn their way in. If you don't win your conference in D3 football you leave your fate in someone else's hands. My response is take care of business.
That's right - teams cannot leave their fates in the hands of others. Win or zip it...
The OAC runner up may be among the best 15 teams in the nation, but the OAC may not get 2 bids because of the depth of the league. That's just the way it is...
I hope that is not the case. Otterbein, if they go a least 9-1 would make a quality play-off team.
Just a few comparisons around the nation.
Adian (6-1) tied for 1st was beaten by Capital 34-14 ---- OTT pounded CAP 38-9
#24 Franklin (6-1) tied for 1st beat Baldwin Wallace 42-35 ----- OTT beat BW 42 - 28
#2 North Central (7-0) beat Ohio Northern 20-3 ------ OTT Beat Northern 37-7
Thomas More (6-1) tied for 1st lost to John Carrol 41-14 ---- John Carrol lsot to BW and Northern
and has MUC next . They will face OTT
in the final game of the season.
OTT still has games against Marietta, #1 Mount Union and John Carroll. We see where they are after that schedule and if they go 9-1, I believe they deserve a shot.
9-1 Otterbein is getting in. If not, there should be an investigation.
I don't think Smed was saying Otterbein wouldn't get in at 9-1. I'm sure he's suggesting that Otterbein may not get to 9-1 because of the depth of the league.
If a 8-2 Capital got in last year & 2005, then 9-1 Otterbein would & should get in this year.
This is an interesting thread that you should be archived (IMHO). Dr Kaiser shared his concerns in the initial post.
Here is my cut-and-paste from the 2008 Year-in-review Board about the Pool C candidates.
Post #53 (http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=6005.53)
Quote
Bob Gregg listed the 2-loss teams.
The first team listed is the primary loss that kept the team from earning the "A" or "B" bid. The second loss is the one that prevented the team from consideration as a "one-loss Pool C", Wheaton excepted.
| Team.................................. | Primary Loss..................... | Second Loss............................. |
| Adrian (8-2) MIAA | Trine 0-9 | Capital 14-34 |
| Cal. Lutheran (7-2) SCIAC | Oxy 21-24 | Willamette 17-31 |
| Catholic (8-2) ODAC | RMC 20-32 | Bridgewater 26-37 |
| DePauw (8-2) SCAC | Millsaps 13-55 | Trinity TX 32-45 |
| H-SC (8-2) ODAC | RMC 21-31 | Catholic 21-33 |
| Hartwick (7-2) E8 | Ithaca 42-69 | Springfield 31-45 |
| Huntingdon (8-2) SLIAC | LaGrange 17-27 | H-SC 34-38 |
| Johns Hopkins (8-2) CC | Muhl 23-28 | Moravian 10-33 |
| Montclair St (8-2) NJAC | Cortland St 17-23 | Kean 17-21 |
| Moravian* (8-2) CC | Dickinson 7-16 | Gettysburg 41-48 |
| Redlands (7-2) SCIAC | Oxy 15-28 | Cal Lu 17-24 |
| Ripon (8-2) MWC | Monmouth 35-38 | OW-Oskkosh 13-14 |
| RPI (7-2) LL | Hobart 17-20 | USMMA 21-23 |
| Rowan (8-2) NJAC | Cortland St 20-27 | Montclair St 14-30 |
| Trinity (8-2) SCAC | Millsaps 27-56 | Centre 17-26 |
| Wheaton (8-2) CCIW | NCC 21-44 | Elmhurst 23-37 |
| Wooster (8-2) NCAC | Wabash 24-45 | CWRU 7-28 |
| Salisbury (8-2) ACFC | Wesley 21-36 | Del Valley 27-41 |
| Husson (7-2) NAC | D-2 Merrimack 7-42 | D-2 American Int'l 7-35 |
*Moravian gave Centennial Conference champion Muhlenberg the Mules' only loss. "Primary" and "secondary" loss are arbitrary.
2008 Playoff bid winners are in bold.
Thanks to Bob Gregg for compiling the list.
http://www.wjpa.com/allinone08.pdf
There was general consensus about the best 4 Pool C's. No one, who was posting their predictions, guessed 2-loss Wheaton IL and and 1-loss Curry. I say that the process worked.
Quite likely, each one of those bubble teams listed above could have gotten a Pool C bid as a 1-loss team in the 2008 Playoffs. Sometimes one loss is not enough, but winning games on the field is the fairest challenge to ask players as the season progresses.
Thanks to Dr Kaiser for his comments and his availability to everyone who interviewed him as the playoffs were determined.
Thanks for the graphic.
It puts into perspective DrKaiser's comment on the HuddLLe interview when asked about the final 4 teams on the board: Cal Lutheran, Wooster, DePauw, Montclair.
Undoubtedly, IMHO, the 32 teams that got in are not the BEST 32 teams in the country. But can anyone say that any of the teams who did not make it would have had a legitimate chance of winning the National Championship. I don't think that even if you got two people together to choose a 32 team field, they would agree on who those 32 teams would be. It is what it is, and it ain't that bad.
Nobody anywhere (at least not that's capable of reading at beyond a 9th-grade level) ever said that the D-III football tournament was the 32 best teams.
It is, by definition, the champions of 23 AQ conferences, 3 teams (selected by criteria) from among non-AQ conferences and independents, and 6 other teams (also selected via published criteria).
It would be safe to say that at least 20 of the best 32 teams in the country are in the dance.
And, fortunately, the one that is crowned National Champion will be the only one of the 32 that wins the next five games in a row. Eat your heart out, Bowl Sub-Division.
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 18, 2008, 05:37:59 PM
Nobody anywhere (at least not that's capable of reading at beyond a 9th-grade level) ever said that the D-III football tournament was the 32 best teams.
Nor did retagent, so I'm not sure why he gets your vitriol.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2008, 05:48:13 PM
Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 18, 2008, 05:37:59 PM
Nobody anywhere (at least not that's capable of reading at beyond a 9th-grade level) ever said that the D-III football tournament was the 32 best teams.
Nor did retagent, so I'm not sure why he gets your vitriol.
I didn't read that as vitriolic, just a general reminder that no one really says that.
Two people can't even agree on the tone of a post, much less a 32-team field! ;D
No offense taken here. I thought you were agreeing, but just putting a different look at the same picture ;)
I certainly wasn't intending to be vitriolic at all. ret & I were agreeing about the same thing, I think.
I might have come off vitriolic due to lack of sleep caused by extensive study, investigation and prognostication as a result of the near total collapse of Pool C, and extensive work necessary to determine that my projection of the 'J-men getting a home game this week wasn't way out there somewhere.
It's just Pat's 'J-bashing that leads him to look at everything that way....
JUST KIDDING
I knew I get smitten for that.....
Let the games begin!