I am not sure if you guys have discussed this on these boards before or not (my guess is not as other changes didn't really have that much of an affect on football), but there very well could be changes coming.
While I should be linking to a D3sports story, I will post this for now: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-championships-committee-supports-regional-realignment?division=d3
It appears football will be pushed to six regions - something I had been told probably would happen since this was first being discussed. There aren't a lot of details in the story, but you can put two and two together for the most part.
I hope to have someone on Hoopsville Thursday evening to discuss it and better understand all of this.
This is also not set in stone as of yet, but I don't see any reason this wouldn't go through.
I think is pretty sweet. Obviously, how they split up the regions is the thing that makes this better for DIII football or not, but I'm immediately welcoming of more regions meaning more ranked teams and more usable data for at-large selection. Might be able to do something with the relative imbalance of the West region (like peel off either the WIAC or the MIAC into a different or new region). I did a quick and dirty what-if realignment of the existing four regions somewhere around here last fall. I'll see if I can find it and drop it in here as a jump off point for wild speculation.
Here it is:
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 27, 2018, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 27, 2018, 12:08:16 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 25, 2018, 05:02:48 PM
Congrats to JHU, Muhlenberg and UMHB making it to the Round of 8.
I really like JHU's chances. They were fortunate to be sent to a heavily-East Region populated bracket.
Quote from: D O.C. on November 27, 2018, 02:54:07 AM
Yes, they were.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 27, 2018, 08:31:52 AM
I'm sure you guys do actually know where Johns Hopkins is located on a globe. It's not luck that got them grouped with the teams they're grouped with.
That is one time when geographic proximity worked to the favor of a South Region team.
You know, something that might need revisiting are the geographic regional designations. How much sense does it really make for the PAC to be "south"? I'm going to do a little side project here and get back to you in a little bit.
I'm back. So I re-regionalized the conferences in a way that I think more closely mirrors how we've been grouping things together in the tournament. My four new regions are:
Region 1 - 6 conferences, one IND, 58 total teams:
CC
Thomas More
MAC
OAC
ODAC
PAC
USASC
Region 2 - 8 conferences, 65 teams, NESCAC included:
CCC
ECFC
E8
LL
MASCAC
NESCAC
NEWMAC
NJAC
Region 3 - 7 conferences, 65 teams:
CCIW
HCAC
MIAA
MWC
NCAC
NACC
WIAC
Region 4 - 7 conferences, 62 teams:
ARC
ASC
MIAC
NWC
SAA
SCIAC
UMAC
Fairly balanced, right? Regions 1-3 make good sense geographically. Region 4 makes no sense geographically, but why wouldn't it make sense to take your island leagues and group them together? That's what is being done pretty routinely for the tournament. So instead of being every year at how the NCAA is cheaping out by lumping all of the flying teams into the same quadrant, we can just use that as a starting point and stop being mad about it every single November.
It's really just not possible to do much about the cluster of lower-ranked conferences from New England. There isn't a reasonable way to spread them out. So for better or worse, that northeast area is just always going to be unpalatable for those that follow the divison's powerhouses. No way around that.
Now with six buckets to drop these conferences in to, there are a lot of ways to splice this thing together.
My first pass at what a six region football layout might be (click to enlarge):
(https://i.imgur.com/rGarvK4.png)
I'm not sure I like all of this. Region 5 is heavy, but I'm also not sure what the best way would be to shuffle that around in a way that makes sense geographically. Maybe you could move the or the NACC (CCIW makes more sense) from 5 to 4, then slide the OAC from 4 to 3. But the OAC doesn't really fit there. I think no matter how you slice this up with six regions you're either going to have a really heavy NE/MA/NY region or you're going to have a heavy region somewhere in the GL/MW.
You *could* also probably put the MIAC or the UMAC from 6 to 5, CCIW from 5 to 4 and then have two heavier regions in the GL/MW. One thing that I kind of wanted to do here was break up the WIAC and the MIAC and allow those undefeated conference champions have opportunities for #1 seeds through conversations at the national committee level and not strictly inside the regional advisory level. In the end it may not make sense to the NCAA to stick lump the Minnesota leagues with the island conferences, but I'd be ok with that.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 14, 2019, 10:26:16 AM
My first pass at what a six region football layout might be (click to enlarge):
(https://i.imgur.com/rGarvK4.png)
I like having the LL in a region with MAC and NJAC, however, pretty tough to separate the E8 from the LL since there is so much crossover. Also both LL and E8 will have 7 teams this season.
Quote from: Oline89 on February 14, 2019, 10:35:46 AM
I like having the LL in a region with MAC and NJAC, however, pretty tough to separate the E8 from the LL since there is so much crossover. Also both LL and E8 will have 7 teams this season.
I took the opportunity here to separate the E8 from the NJAC. I really emphasized taking the really strong leagues and isolating them from one another. The one place you really couldn't do it is in the midwest. The MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, and OAC (and maybe toss the ARC in there also) are going to share regions with at least one of the others on that list. No reasonable way around that.
Good catch on the numbers of teams...I didn't update conference membership for future seasons. This was a quick and dirty pass at this using conference membership from 2018 (except Thomas More who I didn't bother to account for). I think one or two teams moving to another conference in 2019 doesn't drastically alter this exercise.
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 14, 2019, 10:42:14 AM
Quote from: Oline89 on February 14, 2019, 10:35:46 AM
I like having the LL in a region with MAC and NJAC, however, pretty tough to separate the E8 from the LL since there is so much crossover. Also both LL and E8 will have 7 teams this season.
I took the opportunity here to separate the E8 from the NJAC. I really emphasized taking the really strong leagues and isolating them from one another. The one place you really couldn't do it is in the midwest. The MIAC, WIAC, CCIW, and OAC (and maybe toss the ARC in there also) are going to share regions with at least one of the others on that list. No reasonable way around that.
Good catch on the numbers of teams...I didn't update conference membership for future seasons. This was a quick and dirty pass at this using conference membership from 2018 (except Thomas More who I didn't bother to account for). I think one or two teams moving to another conference in 2019 doesn't drastically alter this exercise.
+1!
With respect to the imbalance, the average conference membership is almost 9 teams.
So, you have 4 conferences of ~9 teams = 36 schools in the region
OR
5 conferences of ~ 9 teams = 45 schools in the division.
We have few options.
I want to distribute the power conferences as evenly as possible, so your Region 6 does not bother me.
IMHO, the strengths of Regions goes like this:
Region 6 > Region 5 > the OAC heavy Region 4 > Region 3 > Region 2 > Region 1
thinking that ASC + MIAC + NWC powers (slightly >) WIAC + CCIW + ARC powers.
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=710/cr=n/d=n39hj/y3zd18adjie55k0v.jpg)
It is now or never.
The last week of the Division III basketball regular season is here. Conferences will decide who will earn automatic bids to the NCAA Tournaments and teams try and position themselves for at-large bids, hosting opportunities, and bracketing considerations.
For teams who have been faltering, this is the last chance to right the ship. For programs which have underachieved, this is the last opportunity to live up to expectations. And of course for those with Cinderella dreams, this is the chance to try on the glass slipper.
Sunday's Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) will cover it all in a special, extended, episode which for the first time (outside of Marathon programming) will feature a guest from each of the eight regions. We will also discuss which teams may be on the bubble, who has most likely secured at-large bid, and which teams need to win the AQs. Plus, we talk about how regions as we know it now could very well change in the future.
Hoopsville (http://www.d3hoopsville.com) is presented by D3hoops.com and airs from the WBCA/NABC Studio. Sunday's show will hit the air at 6:00 p.m. ET. It can be watched live right here: http://bit.ly/2EeG5ZE (and simulcast on Facebook Live and Periscope).
If you have questions about Division III basketball, feel free to send them and we will answer them on a the show. Email them to dave.mchugh@d3sports.com or use any of the social media options below.
Guests Schedule (order subject to change):
- Katherine Bixby, Johns Hopkins women's coach
- Jonathan Crosthwaite, Occidental men's junior
- Marc Brown, NJCU men's coach
- Justin LeBlanc, Millsaps women's coach
- Jamie Seward, SUNY New Paltz women's coach
- Marcos Echevarria, No. 17 Nichols men's senior
- Herman Carmichael, La Roche men's coach
- Klay Knueppel, Wisconsin Luthern women's coach
- Brad Bankston, ODAC Commissioner
- Pat Coleman & Ryan Scott, D3hoops.com (Bubble Talk)
If you enjoy the show via the podcasts, choose your favorite avenue to listen and/or subscribe via the the following four avenues (click on the images when necessary):
SoundCloud: www.soundcloud.com/hoopsville
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D39%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qaz%2Ffrghgxk7kqd172nn.jpg&hash=6ef41ddb2f5e1c3420db88961e4f9e8a76ca72de) (https://apple.co/2E9e0Bl)
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdnak1.psbin.com%2Fimg%2Fmw%3D150%2Fmh%3D55%2Fcr%3Dn%2Fd%3D34qc6%2Fnv94ufhrqbnvt3d4.jpg&hash=c9b51356cf30d2646f6d744dc0ce47b431cec05e) (http://bit.ly/2rFfr7Z)
(https://cdn.prestosports.com/action/cdn/img/mw=150/mh=45/cr=n/d=hl01l/ir41q7iread2rbzq.jpg) (https://spoti.fi/2qoExnV)
Don't forget you can always interact with us:
Website: www.d3hoopsville.com
Twitter: @d3hoopsville (http://www.twitter.com/d3hoopsville) or #Hoopsville
Facebook: www.facebook.com/Hoopsville
Email: hoopsville@d3hoops.com
YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/d3hoopsville
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 14, 2019, 10:26:16 AM
My first pass at what a six region football layout might be (click to enlarge):
(https://i.imgur.com/rGarvK4.png)
I'm not sure I like all of this. Region 5 is heavy, but I'm also not sure what the best way would be to shuffle that around in a way that makes sense geographically. Maybe you could move the or the NACC (CCIW makes more sense) from 5 to 4, then slide the OAC from 4 to 3. But the OAC doesn't really fit there. I think no matter how you slice this up with six regions you're either going to have a really heavy NE/MA/NY region or you're going to have a heavy region somewhere in the GL/MW.
You *could* also probably put the MIAC or the UMAC from 6 to 5, CCIW from 5 to 4 and then have two heavier regions in the GL/MW. One thing that I kind of wanted to do here was break up the WIAC and the MIAC and allow those undefeated conference champions have opportunities for #1 seeds through conversations at the national committee level and not strictly inside the regional advisory level. In the end it may not make sense to the NCAA to stick lump the Minnesota leagues with the island conferences, but I'd be ok with that.
I understand the challenge of making this work. But I think the MIAC and UMAC are clear geographic losers in this scenario. They lose the MWC, WIAC, and ARC. Pick up SCIAC & ASC. Oofta! Basically Region 6 can be called the "Geographic Bastards."
MIAC teams would basically be scheduling almost all non-con games "out of region." It's still better for the budget to play ARC, WIAC, MWC, CCIW teams than it is to fly to TX or the coast.
Quote from: hazzben on April 26, 2019, 01:00:06 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on February 14, 2019, 10:26:16 AM
My first pass at what a six region football layout might be (click to enlarge):
(https://i.imgur.com/rGarvK4.png)
I'm not sure I like all of this. Region 5 is heavy, but I'm also not sure what the best way would be to shuffle that around in a way that makes sense geographically. Maybe you could move the or the NACC (CCIW makes more sense) from 5 to 4, then slide the OAC from 4 to 3. But the OAC doesn't really fit there. I think no matter how you slice this up with six regions you're either going to have a really heavy NE/MA/NY region or you're going to have a heavy region somewhere in the GL/MW.
You *could* also probably put the MIAC or the UMAC from 6 to 5, CCIW from 5 to 4 and then have two heavier regions in the GL/MW. One thing that I kind of wanted to do here was break up the WIAC and the MIAC and allow those undefeated conference champions have opportunities for #1 seeds through conversations at the national committee level and not strictly inside the regional advisory level. In the end it may not make sense to the NCAA to stick lump the Minnesota leagues with the island conferences, but I'd be ok with that.
I understand the challenge of making this work. But I think the MIAC and UMAC are clear geographic losers in this scenario. They lose the MWC, WIAC, and ARC. Pick up SCIAC & ASC. Oofta! Basically Region 6 can be called the "Geographic Bastards."
MIAC teams would basically be scheduling almost all non-con games "out of region." It's still better for the budget to play ARC, WIAC, MWC, CCIW teams than it is to fly to TX or the coast.
Aside from all of the ways they have made it virtually impossible to play an out-of-region D-III game- Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, and even New Mexico are places where MIAC teams can play regional games. Minnesota belongs to an immense administrative region. It's like the Louisiana Purchase of administrative regions.
When I did this exercise a couple of months ago, I lumped the Minnesota's in with the more obvious island conferences because, well, somebody had to get in that group to make it work. Tournament bracketing recently has shown this to be the most natural cluster of conferences that otherwise look like unnatural fits. I admit fully that it isn't perfect, but it was a first pass and is something that I think would get looked at.
In a week-old update on this, the hyperspeed jump to realignment has been postponed, for a minute anyway (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-management-council-supports-adopting-diversity-and-inclusion-designee). Seems apparent from the blurb here that there was some pushback to this from certain sports (would be very surprised if football wasn't one of them) and they're going to take time to consult with sport committees and figure out how to move this along in a way that satisfies most.
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.
Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)
Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.
Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)
Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.
That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline. I forget now. Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me. Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them. Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year? I don't think that would have been a just thing to do.
In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports. Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought. I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports. Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought. I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.
There's the key IMO.
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.
Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)
Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.
That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline. I forget now. Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me. Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them. Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year? I don't think that would have been a just thing to do.
In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports. Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought. I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.
If I understand this correctly, the benefit to expansion is that there will be fewer teams in each region. Fewer teams allows for a more accurate regional ranking of those teams. Am I correct? Is there another benefit (in football only) to expansion?
Quote from: Oline89 on April 29, 2019, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.
Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)
Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.
That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline. I forget now. Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me. Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them. Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year? I don't think that would have been a just thing to do.
In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports. Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought. I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.
If I understand this correctly, the benefit to expansion is that there will be fewer teams in each region. Fewer teams allows for a more accurate regional ranking of those teams. Am I correct? Is there another benefit (in football only) to expansion?
I believe, at the administration level, the main purposes for this are:
1) standardize regions across all sports - not that all sports have the same teams in the same regions, but that regions in each sports have roughly the same number of teams. 250 lacrosse teams shouldn't be in just two regions.
2) Using this "access ratio" kind of model for determining how many regions a sport should have allows a roadmap for how to deal with growth
3) Balance the regions
How those changes would manifest themselves in the rankings and in at-large selection is the big hypothetical.
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 02:32:32 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on April 29, 2019, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.
Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)
Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.
That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline. I forget now. Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me. Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them. Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year? I don't think that would have been a just thing to do.
In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports. Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought. I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.
If I understand this correctly, the benefit to expansion is that there will be fewer teams in each region. Fewer teams allows for a more accurate regional ranking of those teams. Am I correct? Is there another benefit (in football only) to expansion?
I believe, at the administration level, the main purposes for this are:
1) standardize regions across all sports - not that all sports have the same teams in the same regions, but that regions in each sports have roughly the same number of teams. 250 lacrosse teams shouldn't be in just two regions.
2) Using this "access ratio" kind of model for determining how many regions a sport should have allows a roadmap for how to deal with growth
3) Balance the regions
How those changes would manifest themselves in the rankings and in at-large selection is the big hypothetical.
Doesn't BBall have eight regions? Is the proposal to drop them down to six? I understand that lacrosse needs more regions, but why are they talking about going from 2 all the way to 6? Football seems fine with 4 (and roughly the same number of teams).
Quote from: Oline89 on April 29, 2019, 02:49:45 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 02:32:32 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on April 29, 2019, 01:53:23 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 29, 2019, 10:17:22 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on April 28, 2019, 03:28:36 PM
Wally, you make a good case for pushback with respect to football.
Occasionally we have seen a football region not receive a bid when there have been 5 or 6 to give. ( The East being blanked in 2018 and 2016, repsectfully.)
Having 6 regions and 5 bids is not good.
That's a point that came up with our brief ATN pod discussion on this topic...or maybe a point that was made offline. I forget now. Either way, this is way down on the list of negatives for a realignment exercise for me. Like you've pointed out, we've already dispatched the notion that the at-large bids should be distributed evenly- or that each region is entitled to an equal share of them. Should they have invited Ithaca instead of Muhlenberg last year? I don't think that would have been a just thing to do.
In any case, I think it's clear that part of why they have pressed pause on this is that the proposed idea of bringing the size of regions down to about 40-ish teams may not ultimately be practical for all sports. Or may take more time to implement properly than originally thought. I'm still bullish on this expansion/realignment being a positive thing if implemented thoughtfully.
If I understand this correctly, the benefit to expansion is that there will be fewer teams in each region. Fewer teams allows for a more accurate regional ranking of those teams. Am I correct? Is there another benefit (in football only) to expansion?
I believe, at the administration level, the main purposes for this are:
1) standardize regions across all sports - not that all sports have the same teams in the same regions, but that regions in each sports have roughly the same number of teams. 250 lacrosse teams shouldn't be in just two regions.
2) Using this "access ratio" kind of model for determining how many regions a sport should have allows a roadmap for how to deal with growth
3) Balance the regions
How those changes would manifest themselves in the rankings and in at-large selection is the big hypothetical.
Doesn't BBall have eight regions? Is the proposal to drop them down to six? I understand that lacrosse needs more regions, but why are they talking about going from 2 all the way to 6? Football seems fine with 4 (and roughly the same number of teams).
Basketball would have 10 regions.
And I think that some of what you're pointing out is why they're pumping the brakes. Some sports are all so different in their regional alignments, how they use those alignments for championships purposes (tennis was cited in the Hoopsville interview linked earlier in this thread), etc. etc. that they need more input from sport committees to find a realignment solution that works well for most.
I agree with you that football is fine with four regions. I don't think that should prohibit looking into a five or six region alignment. Four is fine, but maybe five or six would be better? It's worth looking at.
The thing I like is that it increases our data points for Pool B & C, since there would be more RRO info. Assuming games against out of region opponents, but still within a certain driving distance, could be counted as "In Region" games.
E.g. SJU plays UWL and Wartburg in non-con, neither of which are in their new region, but are both very driveable games. Maybe it's changed, but there was a period where a team within a certain driving distance was considered "in region" even when they fell in another region correct? If that's still the case, it could be a good thing for the top teams in good conferences. Schedule quality teams and increase your chances of RRO's.
I'd still probably lean 4, mostly just because we know it works fairly well right now. That said going to 5 or 6 would effectively end all debate about certain regions feeling jobbed for not getting a one seed. Or other feeling like they were gifted a one. Debate will always reign supreme, but at least in this scenario everyone knows there aren't enough 1 seeds to go around to each region.
Quote from: hazzben on April 30, 2019, 09:53:52 AM
The thing I like is that it increases our data points for Pool B & C, since there would be more RRO info. Assuming games against out of region opponents, but still within a certain driving distance, could be counted as "In Region" games.
E.g. SJU plays UWL and Wartburg in non-con, neither of which are in their new region, but are both very driveable games. Maybe it's changed, but there was a period where a team within a certain driving distance was considered "in region" even when they fell in another region correct? If that's still the case, it could be a good thing for the top teams in good conferences. Schedule quality teams and increase your chances of RRO's.
I'd still probably lean 4, mostly just because we know it works fairly well right now. That said going to 5 or 6 would effectively end all debate about certain regions feeling jobbed for not getting a one seed. Or other feeling like they were gifted a one. Debate will always reign supreme, but at least in this scenario everyone knows there aren't enough 1 seeds to go around to each region.
You are correct - one way that a game is countable as in-region is if the schools are within 200 miles of each other. In the SJU example, UWL and Wartburg are counted as in-region because Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are all in the same administrative region (not sure of the driving distance, but that wouldn't necessarily be relevant). Even further, if a team plays 70 percent of their games as "in-region", then ALL of their games against any D-III team count as in-region. So as long as you're playing a 7-game conference schedule and a full 10 game regular season schedule, all of those games are going to be counted as in-region as long as they are against D-III teams. They've really made it so that the only way to NOT play in-region games is to play outside of the division.
One thing that isn't clear is if they would continue to rank 10 teams per region post-expansion. I think most feel like they would not rank 10 teams, but maybe 7-8 teams. I do understand the point being made there that ranking 25% of the division (regional top 10s with regions of about 40 teams apiece) is too many, but ultimately I think they would be missing an opportunity to add usable primary criteria data if they didn't rank 10 teams per region. So who knows. TBD.
Quote from: wally_wabash on April 30, 2019, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: hazzben on April 30, 2019, 09:53:52 AM
The thing I like is that it increases our data points for Pool B & C, since there would be more RRO info. Assuming games against out of region opponents, but still within a certain driving distance, could be counted as "In Region" games.
E.g. SJU plays UWL and Wartburg in non-con, neither of which are in their new region, but are both very driveable games. Maybe it's changed, but there was a period where a team within a certain driving distance was considered "in region" even when they fell in another region correct? If that's still the case, it could be a good thing for the top teams in good conferences. Schedule quality teams and increase your chances of RRO's.
I'd still probably lean 4, mostly just because we know it works fairly well right now. That said going to 5 or 6 would effectively end all debate about certain regions feeling jobbed for not getting a one seed. Or other feeling like they were gifted a one. Debate will always reign supreme, but at least in this scenario everyone knows there aren't enough 1 seeds to go around to each region.
You are correct - one way that a game is countable as in-region is if the schools are within 200 miles of each other. In the SJU example, UWL and Wartburg are counted as in-region because Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa are all in the same administrative region (not sure of the driving distance, but that wouldn't necessarily be relevant). Even further, if a team plays 70 percent of their games as "in-region", then ALL of their games against any D-III team count as in-region. So as long as you're playing a 7-game conference schedule and a full 10 game regular season schedule, all of those games are going to be counted as in-region as long as they are against D-III teams. They've really made it so that the only way to NOT play in-region games is to play outside of the division.
One thing that isn't clear is if they would continue to rank 10 teams per region post-expansion. I think most feel like they would not rank 10 teams, but maybe 7-8 teams. I do understand the point being made there that ranking 25% of the division (regional top 10s with regions of about 40 teams apiece) is too many, but ultimately I think they would be missing an opportunity to add usable primary criteria data if they didn't rank 10 teams per region. So who knows. TBD.
Five regions with eight ranked teams each is still 40 ranked teams. Six regions with seven ranked teams each is 42 ranked teams so it would be (or essentially be) the same percentage of the division regionally ranked as before.
Quote
Five regions with eight ranked teams each is still 40 ranked teams. Six regions with seven ranked teams each is 42 ranked teams so it would be (or essentially be) the same percentage of the division regionally ranked as before.
That's a lost opportunity in my mind. The hardest part of Pool C bids is the scarcity of data. Sure it'd mean 50-60 teams were Regionally ranked (assuming 10 teams and 5-6 regions). But that's out of 250 teams total. Still talking about how teams performed against the top 25ish% of the division. That's helpful data IMO. At the very least it helps to tease out how teams did against the better teams. More nuance to their WP, OWP, and OOWP. We aren't anywhere close to too much data when it comes to football playoff criteria.
Six and eight seems reasonable.
There have been 21 Stagg Bowls since the institution of the AQ (1999 thru 2019)
UMU has been there 17 times.
We also have Rowan, Bridgewater, North Central and Trinity Texas. (As an affiliate member of the SAA for football, Trinity is in Region 3.)
The other 21 teams who appeared in the Stagg Bowl have been aligned in Region 6 (if we include the now-departed Tommies).
Go figure.
Maybe the Selection Committee will break up Region 6 when selecting the brackets.