**DISCLAIMER** I will state upfront these views are coming from a mostly casual fan of a lower tier WIAC school. In no way do I claim, to be any type of bracketologist, but do enjoy the forum along with D3football.com and try and learn as much as I can. One theme I do notice this time of year is the faults of the D3 selection process, so this is my attempt to throw an idea out there to hopefully get some more deserving Pool C bids into the field and see what kind of discussion it leads to.
D3 football post season consists of a 32 team bracket selected from 3 Pool criteria. If I have it correct there are currently 27 Pool A bids (conference winners), 0 Pool B bids , and 5 Pool C bids (at-large).
Starting off is the big change that will have a ripple effect down stream and we'll see where that takes us. That is, in order to get an AQ as a conference winner the conference must have a minimum of 8 teams. I don't know if football has a minimum number of teams a conference is required to have to get an AQ, but looking though the conference standings over on D3football.com it looks like all are 6 or above. I know the WIAC when the switched to there own hockey conference a few year back, they were not getting a AQ for the conference champ due to only 5 members.
With that said, we have a new Pool selection:
Pool A: 17 Bids - with the bar set at 8 teams, my math from the bracket this year eliminates 10 teams from the bracket for not having enough teams in their conference.
Pool B: 5 Bids - use the current criteria + teams that won their conference, but didn't qualify for Pool A bids. So for example, since there were no Pool B bids, the top 5 conference winners left out of Pool A would fill Pool B bids and the remaining 5 would go into Pool C
Pool C: 10 Bids - All remaining teams go into Pool C with the current selection process used.
So how would this break down this season? To the best of my ability I'd have it go:
Pool A Bids (10): in no particular order.
St. John's
Lake Forest
Linfield
Mary Hardin-Baylor
Trinity, (TX)
Huntingdon
UW Whitewater
DePauw
Rose-Hulman
Central
Aurora
North Central
Carnegie Mellon
Mount Union
Johns Hopkins
Delaware Valley
Framingham State
Pool B Bids (5)
Redlands
Cortland
Springfield
RPI
Endicott
This leaves the current selections from 2021 into Pool C.
Greenville
Albion
Washington & Lee
Salisbury
Anna Marie
As I stated, I'm not a bracketologist, so my application of how the Pool C selection is probably flawed, but trying to apply the process Greg Thomas and Pat Coleman used in their projected playoff bracket I come away with the following 10 at large bids. Not going to go in pick break down, but can address questions if have them in further discussion.
Pool C Bids (10)
UW LaCrosse
Albion
Birmingham-Southern
Hardin-Simmons
Muhlenberg
Salisbury
Ithaca
Bethel
Wheaton (Ill.)
Union
Differences:
Greenville, Washington & Legg, Anna Marie are all conference champs left out with the new criteria. Not enough teams in their conference and neither of them are regionally ranked so no consideration for Pool C.
Ithica, Union & Hardin-Simmons all make the field.
Won't go into making the bracket, but as far as teams in the tournament, this is what I ended up with. Hopefully it isn't too confusing and I'm sure I have errors in my thought process along the way, but though I'd throw out an idea.
Thoughts?
Quote from: '95 Blugold on November 23, 2021, 01:24:23 PM
**DISCLAIMER** I will state upfront these views are coming from a mostly casual fan of a lower tier WIAC school. In no way do I claim, to be any type of bracketologist, but do enjoy the forum along with D3football.com and try and learn as much as I can. One theme I do notice this time of year is the faults of the D3 selection process, so this is my attempt to throw an idea out there to hopefully get some more deserving Pool C bids into the field and see what kind of discussion it leads to.
D3 football post season consists of a 32 team bracket selected from 3 Pool criteria. If I have it correct there are currently 27 Pool A bids (conference winners), 0 Pool B bids , and 5 Pool C bids (at-large).
Starting off is the big change that will have a ripple effect down stream and we'll see where that takes us. That is, in order to get an AQ as a conference winner the conference must have a minimum of 8 teams. I don't know if football has a minimum number of teams a conference is required to have to get an AQ, but looking though the conference standings over on D3football.com it looks like all are 6 or above. I know the WIAC when the switched to there own hockey conference a few year back, they were not getting a AQ for the conference champ due to only 5 members.
...
Thoughts?
The minimum in all D3 sports for the AQ is 7 teams.
Before 1999, there was no AQ. Undefeated 10-0 Emory & Henry who did not make the playoffs from the South Region as a 5th undefeated team in the Region in 1998. The effect of the AQ has been to proliferate all sports, including football, at the D3 level. I think that I remember about 215 D3 teams playing football about 20 years ago. (Pat has an old column about the schools that have added football while this website has been going. Next year will be the 25th season!)
What may have hurt most was the New England Football Conference with 14 teams for one Pool A bid disbanding after 2012 into the MASCAC and the CCC which now get bids since 2015. Also, several Pool B conferences over the last decades have moved from Pool B to Pool A, e.g., the NWC, the SCIAC. IMHO, there is a big difference in 5 bids and 6 bids. The field starts to thin out more after 6.
We now have several conferences working hard to stay at 7 teams, the UMAC, the SCAIC, the ODAC. Even the ASC needs associates to name a few.
There are 250 D3 football programs out there, 32 make the playoffs. That's compared to 169 D2 programs where 28 make the playoffs. I'm not sure how to make the selection process better, BSC got in as an at large, but Hardin-Simmons was left out. Without adding another round, even a partial extra round with byes, not sure how you fix that. With so little out of conference play it's really hard to get a real picture of who's better. I think adding an extra round to the playoffs, even if only 8 more teams, with bottom 16 playing first round, top 24 get a bye first week would help a lot. But that also pushes the championship game into Christmas/New Years week.
With so many teams and conferences in D3 maybe we should go in the other direction. Do away with the automatic bids, reduce the field to the 8 or 12 teams with a reasonable chance to win the Stagg (we all know who they are anyway) and let everyone else participate in some sort of bowl game along the lines of the ECAC model, if they are so inclined. I'm not sure if the economics could be worked out, but reducing the number of playoff games from 31 to 11 or 7 leaves room for several "bowls", and these could be regionalized to cut costs somewhat. Of course you'd still have the problem of determining eligibility and who might get left out, but maybe it's something to think about.
The minimum number of teams for a Pool A should be increased to 8 (if every conference had 7 teams, there would be more than 32 conferences). This would probably add in another Pool C bid by forcing the New York and New England conferences to consolidate.
Did anyone this season get an auto bid with less then 8 wins???
Quote from: BSCpanthers on December 05, 2021, 10:43:29 PM
Did anyone this season get an auto bid with less then 8 wins???
NEWMAC champion Springfield was the lone 7-3 team in the field this year. Everybody else won 8+ games in the regular season.
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 06, 2021, 01:37:48 AM
Quote from: BSCpanthers on December 05, 2021, 10:43:29 PM
Did anyone this season get an auto bid with less then 8 wins???
NEWMAC champion Springfield was the lone 7-3 team in the field this year. Everybody else won 8+ games in the regular season.
This is a quiz to see who is paying attention, Anna Maria?
7-2 :) Springfield was the lone 7-3.....
Year in and out how many teams really have a shot at winning it all? The 4 prohibitive favorites are in the semis this season. I have always been a fan of the ECAC, MAC/Centennial, NY State, New England and now Isthmus Bowls. Not picking on them but since you brought them up--would Anna Maria rather be a huge underdog in the NCAA (62-10 loss to Del Val) or play one more game vs a team like Salve Regina that has regional and possibly recruiting appeal and a much better chance to end the season on a high note?
Same for Framingham--45-0 blowout vs Muhlenberg on a long road trip or play a team like Husson?
Those conferences aren't forced to participate in the playoffs.
Quote from: Baldini on December 06, 2021, 09:48:47 AM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 06, 2021, 01:37:48 AM
Quote from: BSCpanthers on December 05, 2021, 10:43:29 PM
Did anyone this season get an auto bid with less then 8 wins???
NEWMAC champion Springfield was the lone 7-3 team in the field this year. Everybody else won 8+ games in the regular season.
This is a quiz to see who is paying attention, Anna Maria?
Totally blew it. Equated 2 losses with 8 wins without checking. Great catch, Baldini. :)
Thanks to The Mole and +k for stating my case much better than I did.
I hate the bowl system to begin with, and wish D1A would go to a 16 team playoff. I say no to shrinking auto bids.
Win your league.
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should of gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could of done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should of gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could of done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.
Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.
Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?
Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?
As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should of gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could of done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.
Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?
They won their conference.
Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.
Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?
Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?
As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.
I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.
With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.
Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.
Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?
Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?
As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.
You read something in my response that wasn't there. I made it clear I don't have a strong opinion either way. I was specifically addressing your argument that a team that didn't receive a Pool C bid should "look at what they could have done better". You make it sound as though you don't recognize the gray areas that exist. 2019 national champion NCC was in almost the same position as 2021 HSU. NCC's non conference opponent was Christopher Newport, a team that finished 2-8. The years prior they were 7-2, 5-5 and 7-3.
Quote from: emma17 on December 09, 2021, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.
Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?
Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?
As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.
You read something in my response that wasn't there. I made it clear I don't have a strong opinion either way. I was specifically addressing your argument that a team that didn't receive a Pool C bid should "look at what they could have done better". You make it sound as though you don't recognize the gray areas that exist. 2019 national champion NCC was in almost the same position as 2021 HSU. NCC's non conference opponent was Christopher Newport, a team that finished 2-8. The years prior they were 7-2, 5-5 and 7-3.
NCC gave themselves a chance by scheduling Christopher Newport, HSU gave themselves no chance by scheduling Wayland Baptist. Big difference there. Is that not something they could have done better?
Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 12:36:56 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 09, 2021, 12:00:34 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 09, 2021, 08:06:41 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 08, 2021, 10:36:04 PM
Quote from: Baldini on December 07, 2021, 06:27:47 PM
I personally don't think it needs fixing, it has total inclusion of all schools now. The system isn't about having the 32 best teams, it's the 27 conference winners and the 5 best teams that didn't. For the teams that feel they should have gotten a Pool C bid but didn't, maybe they should look at what they could have done different, rather than looking to take inclusion away from a conference winner.
Look, I totally understand some/many people are in favor of keeping the AQ as is. I don't have a strong opinion on it as I see both sides. But this answer is just silly. What did 7-3 Springfield do better than 9-1 HSU?
Short answer, they won their conference. Your response suggests that you don't believe there should be opportunity for everyone, no?
As for HSU I think most would agree that they were one of the 5 best teams not to win their conference but scheduling a NAIA school as their only non-conference game probably was not a wise move.
You read something in my response that wasn't there. I made it clear I don't have a strong opinion either way. I was specifically addressing your argument that a team that didn't receive a Pool C bid should "look at what they could have done better". You make it sound as though you don't recognize the gray areas that exist. 2019 national champion NCC was in almost the same position as 2021 HSU. NCC's non conference opponent was Christopher Newport, a team that finished 2-8. The years prior they were 7-2, 5-5 and 7-3.
NCC gave themselves a chance by scheduling Christopher Newport, HSU gave themselves no chance by scheduling Wayland Baptist. Big difference there. Is that not something they could have done better?
They definitely could have but there isn't a ton of easy options for them in Texas. North Central to CNU is almost 14 hours so I am hoping they flew there which not something every program can afford to do. HSU did play Trinity in 2018 and 2019 when Trinity was getting back into playoff form but didn't this year, was that because Trinity realized they could lose to HSU and hurt the playoff chances, we will never know.
Side note, I am assuming that CNU was supposed to come to CNU in 2020 but that never happened and both sides moved on?
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM
I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.
With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.
It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.
No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.
Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.
In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.
Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM
I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.
With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.
It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.
No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.
Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.
In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.
Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.
My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?
In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM
I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.
With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.
It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.
No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.
Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.
In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.
Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.
My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?
In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.
I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games.
Reducing the Pool A requirement to 6 teams is a terrible move IMO, especially in football.
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 09, 2021, 03:57:03 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM
I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.
With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.
It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.
No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.
Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.
In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.
Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.
My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?
In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.
I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games.
This will never, ever, ever be funded. 5 weeks and 32 games is as big as this tournament will ever get.
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 10, 2021, 01:07:14 PM
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 09, 2021, 03:57:03 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM
I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.
With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.
It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.
No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.
Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.
In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.
Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.
My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?
In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.
I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games.
This will never, ever, ever be funded. 5 weeks and 32 games is as big as this tournament will ever get.
I won't say never. It would be something similar to the NAIA model, where the schools will pay for the 1st round of the playoffs. Schools can the option to compete in the playoff or not. The schools essentially will be saving money by playing one less game. Not saying the budget is the same for every school and playing one less game will equate to having the chance to play in the 1st round. However, there are solutions both financially and logistically.
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 10, 2021, 04:12:48 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 10, 2021, 01:07:14 PM
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 09, 2021, 03:57:03 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM
I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.
With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.
It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.
No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.
Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.
In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.
Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.
My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?
In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.
I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games.
This will never, ever, ever be funded. 5 weeks and 32 games is as big as this tournament will ever get.
I won't say never. It would be something similar to the NAIA model, where the schools will pay for the 1st round of the playoffs. Schools can the option to compete in the playoff or not. The schools essentially will be saving money by playing one less game. Not saying the budget is the same for every school and playing one less game will equate to having the chance to play in the 1st round. However, there are solutions both financially and logistically.
There's already an alternative association for schools that believe in the pay to play postseason philosophy. That's not D-III's philosophy and the D-III presidents are never ever never doing something like that.
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 10, 2021, 04:53:25 PM
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 10, 2021, 04:12:48 PM
I won't say never. It would be something similar to the NAIA model, where the schools will pay for the 1st round of the playoffs. Schools can the option to compete in the playoff or not. The schools essentially will be saving money by playing one less game. Not saying the budget is the same for every school and playing one less game will equate to having the chance to play in the 1st round. However, there are solutions both financially and logistically.
There's already an alternative association for schools that believe in the pay to play postseason philosophy. That's not D-III's philosophy and the D-III presidents are never ever never doing something like that.
Just caught up on this discussion. I am 100% in agreement with Wally that this is not the philosophy of D-III and that no one is going to agree to a pay to play structure. The D3 philosophy statement includes...
b. Place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators and place greater emphasis on the internal constituency (e.g., students, alumni, institutional personnel) than on the general public and its entertainment needs...
and...
q. Give primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships;
I would argue denying the lowest ranked AQ school the same access to the playoffs as the top ranked AQ would be outside of the D3 philosophy, regardless of how much better we all believe the best team left at the table is than Anna Maria. I would also guess the amount of institutions officially calling for massive selection process reform is zero, and guarantee it's less than 3. I understand that in recent years it is frustrating to be a fan of a school in the same conference as Mount Union, Mary Hardin Baylor, Linfield, etc. and to be left at the table feeling your team deserves a chance to play in the postseason.
One route that is much more feasible that could help significantly would be to do everything you can to schedule tough non-conference opponent(s). Wayland Baptist did Hardin Simmons zero favors this season. If your school is interested in a pay-to-play playoff structure, I'm sure there are very good schools up north that would dramatically improve SOS and would happily host Hardin Simmons for a non-conference game if Hardin Simmons is willing to pay the cost to get there. Northern baseball, basketball, and track and field teams will often use winter and spring breaks to travel south and play games in Texas or Florida...
In all fairness to HSU, the number of non-ASC schools within a 600-mile radius of Abilene is three (3):
--Trinity had 3 non-conference games. McMurry was canceled due to COVID. They hosted Macalester, and beat nearby rival Texas Lutheran, just 30 miles up the road
--Hendrix in Conway Arkansas, 522 miles away, played UW-River Falls, another travel orphan that needs 3 non-conference games, ASC's Howard Payne at a neutral site north of Dallas, and Sewanee in a non-conference game.
--Millsaps in Jackson MS, 586 miles away, played crosstown rival Belhaven, NAIA Southwestern Assemblies (just south of Dallas) and Olivet.
It is quite expensive to fly 58 athletes somewhere for a game. I also have Title IX questions about comparable travel budgets in women's sports.
What advantage is there for a school to schedule a perennial Top 25 and get beaten by 30 points? Linfield playing and defeating HSU would offer Linfield a chance to host 3 or 4 rounds into the playoffs and vice versa.
We are on an island...
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 14, 2021, 12:57:24 PM
In all fairness to HSU, the number of non-ASC schools within a 600-mile radius of Abilene is three (3):
--Trinity had 3 non-conference games. McMurry was canceled due to COVID. They hosted Macalester, and beat nearby rival Texas Lutheran, just 30 miles up the road
--Hendrix in Conway Arkansas, 522 miles away, played UW-River Falls, another travel orphan that needs 3 non-conference games, ASC's Howard Payne at a neutral site north of Dallas, and Sewanee in a non-conference game.
--Millsaps in Jackson MS, 586 miles away, played crosstown rival Belhaven, NAIA Southwestern Assemblies (just south of Dallas) and Olivet.
It is quite expensive to fly 58 athletes somewhere for a game. I also have Title IX questions about comparable travel budgets in women's sports.
What advantage is there for a school to schedule a perennial Top 25 and get beaten by 30 points? Linfield playing and defeating HSU would offer Linfield a chance to host 3 or 4 rounds into the playoffs and vice versa.
We are on an island...
I get it. I do.
My point wasn't meant to be taken as that there are simple scheduling solutions available or that the money was even available. But that very reason that the money may not be there for such endeavors is exactly why the D3 will never adopt a first round, pay to play playoff structure.
I think most understand it's an island and it's a stacked deck against them, yet others travel and make it work under Title IX.
In Week 1 alone, so programs are making it work.
MHBU @ Simpson
Redlands @ George Fox
East Texas Baptist @ UW-Platteville
Carnegie Mellon @ Whitworth
Chapman @ Pacific
UW-Oshkosh @ Huntingdon
Southwestern @ Cal Lutheran
+1 Baldini & HOPEful.
Sul Ross & Austin College only scheduled 9 games.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 14, 2021, 05:43:25 PM
+1 Baldini & HOPEful.
Sul Ross & Austin College only scheduled 9 games.
Didn't Sul Ross have an exhibition against that Houston team for homecoming? Just wasn't an ncaa affiliated team.
Interestingly enough, I heard an interview on the radio yesterday with Matt Mitchell, the head coach of D2 Grand Valley State University's football team. GVSU, and the GLIAC as a whole, are in similar situation scheduling wise. He said for next season, just to fill his regular season schedule, the team will be taking a charter flight twice to away games. This season, they hosted D3 UW La Crosse and Colorado State-Pueblo. He did not hold back his feelings on playing down and scheduling D3 opponents, even one's as good at UW Lacrosse...
"We played Wisconsin-Lacrosse and that did nothing for us. When I'm on the Division II national football committee, one of eight members that selects the postseason field, that game was not even counted. In regards to our record, it's like it didn't even occur. So for us to play one of those contests, it gives us nothing to bolster our resume for postseason play, and you run the risk of injury."
How about an SAA v ASC Superpower Saturday at a neutral site. Mary Hardin Baylor v. Birmingham Southern and Hardin Simmons v. Trinity?
I'm going to go the other way, somewhat tongue in cheek because I certainly recognize the NCC 2019 issue, but also because I think this is a more legitimate solution than trying to determine which Conferences are Pool A worthy and which are not.
The problem right now is not that we have too many AQs, it's that we have 5 too few. If we had 32 AQs, everyone would know win or get in. The argument is always over how Pool C teams are better than some Pool A teams... and that is certainly true. But the argument only happens because WE GET to argue over Pool C teams. Do away with Pool C, and the argument goes away. There is no more "last team on the table," or the "most deserving second chance", or the school unwilling to pay for higher SOS road trips. There are no second chances, deal with it, move on. Instead of trying to scheme how to get more Pool C teams in, which is what we see the Regional Committees playing with these days, they would just seed the winners and move on.
Pool C creates a huge number of problems, not solutions. So don't expand the back room and cigar portion of the tournament, expand the black and white portion. There is no way to determine the best 32 teams in DIII football. Too little competition, too little crossover, too expensive to travel, too much guesswork. So don't. Don't bother. Let's get 32 AQs and stop the farce of trying to determine based on nebulous ideas, who is the 4th best non conference winner or the fifth or the sixth when there is, essentially, no useful data to split those hairs.
So, how do we get to 5 more Pool A bids? I think the Division will fix it by itself over the next few years, but the easy, black and white solution in the meantime is to say, pre-season, that the conferences with a quarterfinalist get a second bid. The final bid can go to the conference that lost to the prior year champion in the quarters. Add a stipulation the Conference runner up must have at least 8 D3 qualifying wins or you move to the team that lost the National Championship Game in the quarters.
And there you go. No more arguments. Everyone knows how to get in to the tournament before the season starts. Schedule at least 9 D3 qualifying games, win your conference, or finish second in a conference with a team that went very deep the year before.
Think about any professional sport... it is always clear, before the season starts, how to make the post-season. There is no voting on NFL Wildcards or MLB Wildcards, or the 8th seed in the NBA Post-Season. Unbalanced schedule? Too bad. The conference champion in the NFC East gets the same bye as the one in the NFC West, and no one cares that the East has been terrible and the West hasn't been deeper except for talking heads who need to fill airtime.
The NCAA would be better served by removing the ambiguity and the voting and ranking and jockeying. Fill the Tournament with pre-determined slots and lets move on.
I agree with a lot of the arguments posted in this thread. With all the talk on who got in and what not, I think the regional rankings hurt Hardin Simmons more than the playoff structure. There were a lot of good teams this year across D3! Maybe it's because of the extra year some players got from Covid, but whatever the reason was, there were a lot of good teams that didn't make it in as well... Ithaca and Union for example didn't make it but also had multiple losses. HSU didn't help themselves by not having that extra game count, but then Again the budget and location is hard for teams in Texas with such a large state and travel. Looking back, * I don't want to get into any bias, but if HSU was the 4th team in they would have maybe had a chance but never got discussed.
I think if bethal didn't have that 1 pt last second loss to STJ, HSU could have been put in. But 4 teams from one region is a hard sell for a region that doesn't get a lot of pull to begin with. Imagine if they did t switch the ASC to region three!!! Now that will get everyone's eyes to open if HSU was still in R6.
+1 jk
Quote from: FANOFD3 on December 09, 2021, 03:57:03 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 09, 2021, 01:37:25 PM
Quote from: crufootball on December 09, 2021, 09:08:40 AM
I have mixed emotions about this but wanting to lessen automatic bids does not have to mean not wanting every team to have an opportunities. Right now every team doesn't have the same opportunities either as some conferences are much harder than others. We can be honest and say that about half of the conference champions are almost never going to win a playoff game and that if they were replaced by Pool C team #6, that team would have a much better chance.
With that said if we attempted to dream up the best playoff selection process, we would be right back here arguing that certain teams got left out. There is no perfect solution but the argument that those that dislike the auto bid process don't want equal access is usually not true.
It's not about winning playoff games - it's providing championship access to all Division 3 schools.
No team is invincible. Yes, some conferences are harder than others, but that's the way it is everywhere in any sport that has a post-season championship. Football is stuck at 32 teams, and can't expand.
Someone who wins their league deserves to go to the post season tournament - not some 'bowl' game or consolation prize.
In other sports they have carved out post-season tournaments for some conferences (which I used to hate but now they just tepidly bother me) but they can only do so in football if they split into divisions and have a championship game.
Any talk about altering or excluding conference champs IS denying access, IMHO.
My first thought about this is, if it is not about winning playoff games, what is the point of playoff games?
In the end clearly there are some people that very much believe in the automatic bid process and there are those that don't. I was attempting to point out that those that don't, aren't against equal opportunities, they just feel we could achieve that in other ways.
I had some thought into this and with the vast number of teams in DIII and huge disparity. I'd suggest and this has been mentioned that if we were moving to allowing 6 team conference to qualify for automatic bid, that we reduce the # of season games from 10 to 9. Have Wk 11 be utilized as the 1st round of the playoffs (maybe 48/56 with top 8 or 16 teams having bye) and bye-week for everyone else and then Wk 12 be utilized as custom for bowl games or 10th games for conferences that do not participate in bowl games.
Going back to my point that was somewhat pushed as "Never" going to happen is actually more probable today after listening to ATN podcast this morning https://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2022/01/19/atn-podcast-301-vote-coming-on-smaller-conferences-pads-in-practice/. It appears that people that know nothing or lack information of football within the DIII landscape are pushing of "Equitability" agenda when moving from 7AQ teams to 6AQ teams. Football can and should be an exception. Football needs to be at 8. We also, which was noted in the podcast need to revisit the 32 team cap, which can change with the extra week I proposed. If we go to 6 teams or 8, we can move the playoff to 48 teams or 38 (230/38 = 6). If we move to 6, shorten the season by 1 week. We will see at least 5 new football only conference created, thus keeping the at-large to 4 to 6 teams. Will moving to 6 teams help with the OOC scheduling, not sure, I believe teams will play the same teams anyway. However, with an extra week of games for playoffs and teams have an "Equitable" entrance to the championship (even though they already have for football). Will this help the island schools? No, NWC will still play SCAIC. We would just end up with more Texas schools playing other Texas/SE schools in both 1st and 2nd round.
Going back to reducing the season by 1 game and adding another week of playoff, it has been said that it is in fact a possibility and with the reduction of AQ, I'd think it would be a reasonable compromise. I'd be in favor of adding 8 more games (16 teams) 2 "Play-In" per regions in the bracket. You can have majority of your At-Large teams play AQ teams from "Weaker" conferences the 1st round of the playoff, thus creating more enticing matchups the 2nd round. Thoughts (Please listen to ATN posted above)?
I have a different suggestion for extending the season (thus allowing an extra round in the layoffs: let's change the calendar!
I propose we chop a week off of January (VERY few would be opposed to that!), and move it to September or October! ;D
This proposal is (mostly ;) tongue-in-cheek, but, hey!, why not?! ;D
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 19, 2022, 05:46:45 PM
I have a different suggestion for extending the season (thus allowing an extra round in the layoffs: let's change the calendar!
I propose we chop a week off of January (VERY few would be opposed to that!), and move it to September or October! ;D
This proposal is (mostly ;) tongue-in-cheek, but, hey!, why not?! ;D
I have a calendar change just in general that I'd love to see. 13 months with 28 days in each month. Every date is the same day of the week. All 1st on a Sunday, all 2nd on a Monday, etc. That's 364 days. After the end of the 13th month (or before the 1st month), there would be one day (2 in a leap year) that are just special New Years holidays that don't fall into the day of the week format. Thus every day would fall on the same day of the week every year as well.
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on January 20, 2022, 03:13:14 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 19, 2022, 05:46:45 PM
I have a different suggestion for extending the season (thus allowing an extra round in the layoffs: let's change the calendar!
I propose we chop a week off of January (VERY few would be opposed to that!), and move it to September or October! ;D
This proposal is (mostly ;) tongue-in-cheek, but, hey!, why not?! ;D
I have a calendar change just in general that I'd love to see. 13 months with 28 days in each month. Every date is the same day of the week. All 1st on a Sunday, all 2nd on a Monday, etc. That's 364 days. After the end of the 13th month (or before the 1st month), there would be one day (2 in a leap year) that are just special New Years holidays that don't fall into the day of the week format. Thus every day would fall on the same day of the week every year as well.
I love this just for the chaos it would cause in the short term to create something so much better in the long term. Kind of like switching to the metric system... which we somehow failed at. Or watching old videos and pictures of Sweden changing the side of the road they drove on in the 1960s. Just because we've done it one way for a few hundred years doesn't make it the best way, but I grew up Jewish, so ancient, difficult calendars are kind of par for the course for me.
That would provide a bunch of programmers a lot of work. :)
Quote from: jknezek on January 20, 2022, 10:25:18 AM
Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on January 20, 2022, 03:13:14 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on January 19, 2022, 05:46:45 PM
I have a different suggestion for extending the season (thus allowing an extra round in the layoffs: let's change the calendar!
I propose we chop a week off of January (VERY few would be opposed to that!), and move it to September or October! ;D
This proposal is (mostly ;) tongue-in-cheek, but, hey!, why not?! ;D
I have a calendar change just in general that I'd love to see. 13 months with 28 days in each month. Every date is the same day of the week. All 1st on a Sunday, all 2nd on a Monday, etc. That's 364 days. After the end of the 13th month (or before the 1st month), there would be one day (2 in a leap year) that are just special New Years holidays that don't fall into the day of the week format. Thus every day would fall on the same day of the week every year as well.
I love this just for the chaos it would cause in the short term to create something so much better in the long term. Kind of like switching to the metric system... which we somehow failed at. Or watching old videos and pictures of Sweden changing the side of the road they drove on in the 1960s. Just because we've done it one way for a few hundred years doesn't make it the best way, but I grew up Jewish, so ancient, difficult calendars are kind of par for the course for me.
Yeah, we would get an extra month 7 years out of every 19.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 20, 2022, 11:15:10 AM
That would provide a bunch of programmers a lot of work. :)
After living through Y2K I can only imagine the anxiety when they flipped the switch haha
Quote from: crufootball on January 21, 2022, 09:12:16 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 20, 2022, 11:15:10 AM
That would provide a bunch of programmers a lot of work. :)
After living through Y2K I can only imagine the anxiety when they flipped the switch haha
Just wait until January 19, 2038 03:14:07 when the 32 bit unix time stamp rolls over to January 1 1970 :D. Us lazy programmers probably will forget about it until the last second lol.
Well, the Division III membership just "fixed" this by approving the 6 team minimum, both for conference AQs and single-sport conferences. You can expect the Pool C bid to go the way of the Pool B in football in the next few years.
I did a breakdown of how many football schools each all-sports conference has: https://twitter.com/InkblotSports/status/1488679823320956928
The CCC and MASCAC no longer need affiliates to hit the minimum.
Quote from: Inkblot on February 01, 2022, 08:17:03 PM
I did a breakdown of how many football schools each all-sports conference has: https://twitter.com/InkblotSports/status/1488679823320956928
The CCC and MASCAC no longer need affiliates to hit the minimum.
Nor does the ASC.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 02, 2022, 04:41:18 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on February 01, 2022, 08:17:03 PM
I did a breakdown of how many football schools each all-sports conference has: https://twitter.com/InkblotSports/status/1488679823320956928
The CCC and MASCAC no longer need affiliates to hit the minimum.
Nor does the ASC.
True. But that was already the case, until Belhaven's departure dropped it from 7 to 6.
D3Playbook had the breakdown this morning of how conferences voted and how each school voted on this proposal.
Not sure what it all means but it was interesting to look at.
This may have been asked here, but what happens if conference realignments happen and there are over 32 conferences (quick math tells me 241 teams/6 per conference equals a possible 40 conferences in d3football.
So you have 40 conferences with 6 teams each. What happens then? No you are back to square one and have to pick who gets the AQ correct?
It appears that more football schools voted for the proposal than against it.
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 03, 2022, 01:47:33 PM
D3Playbook had the breakdown this morning of how conferences voted and how each school voted on this proposal.
Not sure what it all means but it was interesting to look at.
So John Carrol voted Yes for the proposal, but I think I read an article where they voiced an opinion on how this would hurt their chances of making the playoffs in football. ???
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on February 04, 2022, 07:20:31 AM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 03, 2022, 01:47:33 PM
D3Playbook had the breakdown this morning of how conferences voted and how each school voted on this proposal.
Not sure what it all means but it was interesting to look at.
So John Carrol voted Yes for the proposal, but I think I read an article where they voiced an opinion on how this would hurt their chances of making the playoffs in football. ???
Not all schools may end up casting their votes solely based on football.
I expect some conferences(football affiliates) to look different in 2023. One thing this does is make room for more non conference games, which is better than some conferences that only have room for one non conference game.
I suppose the fact that Pool C could go away might have one benefit as long as the number of AQ's was equal to the number of playoff berths. Island teams wouldn't have to worry as much about finding D3 opponents for non-conference play. It could save a lot of money on travel.
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 04, 2022, 10:05:57 AM
I expect some conferences(football affiliates) to look different in 2023. One thing this does is make room for more non conference games, which is better than some conferences that only have room for one non conference game.
It does open the doors for non-conference matchups, however, I'd see most of these conferences strike deals similar to that of the LL and E8, they'll play 2/3 teams from the opposing conference to save time and cost.
How would I do it, in a world where I can do anything I want?
I'd ask institutions (presidents and ADs) for 100% honest answers to a tough two-part question:
Do you really believe your football program should be competing for the same current end goal as programs such as Mount Union, MHB, NCC? Or would it be better served competing with programs on a different tier?
I'd take those responses and create at least one, possibly more divisions.
At the core, there is no way around the fact that we've just got programs who are ostensibly not competing for the same thing. I'm not talking about players or coaches. I'm talking about the institutional willingness to look at the current D3 football landscape and decide: We want to put forth the expense and effort, institutionally, to compete with those handful of teams at the top.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying: Hey, we love having a football program, and we love providing continuing athletic opportunities for student-athletes in football. But yeah, we're not in the Mount, MHB category, and we don't need to be in the same system
Quote from: IC798891 on February 13, 2022, 10:47:39 AM
How would I do it, in a world where I can do anything I want?
I'd ask institutions (presidents and ADs) for 100% honest answers to a tough two-part question:
Do you really believe your football program should be competing for the same current end goal as programs such as Mount Union, MHB, NCC? Or would it be better served competing with programs on a different tier?
I'd take those responses and create at least one, possibly more divisions.
At the core, there is no way around the fact that we've just got programs who are ostensibly not competing for the same thing. I'm not talking about players or coaches. I'm talking about the institutional willingness to look at the current D3 football landscape and decide: We want to put forth the expense and effort, institutionally, to compete with those handful of teams at the top.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying: Hey, we love having a football program, and we love providing continuing athletic opportunities for student-athletes in football. But yeah, we're not in the Mount, MHB category, and we don't need to be in the same system
There was a time when UWW wasn't good. Where UMHB didn't exist. Where NCC was not the measuring stick.
I don't know if there was a time before UMU, but I assume so.
There's no need to split the division because there are teams who aren't at that level right now. It sound cliche, but any team can become great with the right coaching hire and work ethic.
Quote from: colinsteinke on August 04, 2022, 02:47:02 PM
Quote from: IC798891 on February 13, 2022, 10:47:39 AM
How would I do it, in a world where I can do anything I want?
I'd ask institutions (presidents and ADs) for 100% honest answers to a tough two-part question:
Do you really believe your football program should be competing for the same current end goal as programs such as Mount Union, MHB, NCC? Or would it be better served competing with programs on a different tier?
I'd take those responses and create at least one, possibly more divisions.
At the core, there is no way around the fact that we've just got programs who are ostensibly not competing for the same thing. I'm not talking about players or coaches. I'm talking about the institutional willingness to look at the current D3 football landscape and decide: We want to put forth the expense and effort, institutionally, to compete with those handful of teams at the top.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying: Hey, we love having a football program, and we love providing continuing athletic opportunities for student-athletes in football. But yeah, we're not in the Mount, MHB category, and we don't need to be in the same system
There was a time when UWW wasn't good. Where UMHB didn't exist. Where NCC was not the measuring stick.
I don't know if there was a time before UMU, but I assume so.
There's no need to split the division because there are teams who aren't at that level right now. It sound cliche, but any team can become great with the right coaching hire and work ethic.
But the greatness required to win a national championship requires more than coaching and hard work in practice and in games.
It's an institution-wide commitment that extends far beyond the football program. Offices like financial aid, admissions, the President, alumni relations, philanthropy...they all have to be on board with the idea. They have to set the expectation that they want their program to be the best in the country, and they have to support that, in tangible ways. Yes, there was a time where [insert elite program] was not elite...and then something changed.
I mean, let's just take one of the things you brought up: Coaching. Great coaches don't materialize out of nothing. They're attracted, and more importantly, retained, by an institution whose goals match their own.
Is your institution willing to spend the money to hire the best coach possible? Once he's hired, are they going to ensure that he can bring on the staff he wants? To provide him with the recruiting budget he needs? Who else is working with him to help drum up the philanthropic and alumni support he needs and can't do all on his own?
All those things can effect the quality of the coaching staff you attract, your ability to retain them, and their ability to maximize their own talents.
There is so much that goes into having a nationally successful program that isn't just "We've got a great coach and our players work hard"
Quote from: IC798891 on August 09, 2022, 10:05:51 AM
Quote from: colinsteinke on August 04, 2022, 02:47:02 PM
Quote from: IC798891 on February 13, 2022, 10:47:39 AM
How would I do it, in a world where I can do anything I want?
I'd ask institutions (presidents and ADs) for 100% honest answers to a tough two-part question:
Do you really believe your football program should be competing for the same current end goal as programs such as Mount Union, MHB, NCC? Or would it be better served competing with programs on a different tier?
I'd take those responses and create at least one, possibly more divisions.
At the core, there is no way around the fact that we've just got programs who are ostensibly not competing for the same thing. I'm not talking about players or coaches. I'm talking about the institutional willingness to look at the current D3 football landscape and decide: We want to put forth the expense and effort, institutionally, to compete with those handful of teams at the top.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with saying: Hey, we love having a football program, and we love providing continuing athletic opportunities for student-athletes in football. But yeah, we're not in the Mount, MHB category, and we don't need to be in the same system
There was a time when UWW wasn't good. Where UMHB didn't exist. Where NCC was not the measuring stick.
I don't know if there was a time before UMU, but I assume so.
There's no need to split the division because there are teams who aren't at that level right now. It sound cliche, but any team can become great with the right coaching hire and work ethic.
But the greatness required to win a national championship requires more than coaching and hard work in practice and in games.
It's an institution-wide commitment that extends far beyond the football program. Offices like financial aid, admissions, the President, alumni relations, philanthropy...they all have to be on board with the idea. They have to set the expectation that they want their program to be the best in the country, and they have to support that, in tangible ways. Yes, there was a time where [insert elite program] was not elite...and then something changed.
I mean, let's just take one of the things you brought up: Coaching. Great coaches don't materialize out of nothing. They're attracted, and more importantly, retained, by an institution whose goals match their own.
Is your institution willing to spend the money to hire the best coach possible? Once he's hired, are they going to ensure that he can bring on the staff he wants? To provide him with the recruiting budget he needs? Who else is working with him to help drum up the philanthropic and alumni support he needs and can't do all on his own?
All those things can effect the quality of the coaching staff you attract, your ability to retain them, and their ability to maximize their own talents.
There is so much that goes into having a nationally successful program that isn't just "We've got a great coach and our players work hard"
I agree, it is definitely more than coaching. I like to think locale is a factor as well. The administration support is a different animal, especially since you have to be able to get at least 20-30 players each recruiting year and have the financial aid packages for those possible D'twoers and D'oners. I think where you see programs that are very successful in multiple sports, I believe administration is very supportive, but sometimes football requires to much of budget to get over to the next tier. Some administrations are fine with being good or just simply happy with just fielding teams to help with Student Morale. I'd say for the latter schools, those schools and players are focused more on life after football. Regarding Coaches, sometimes Coaching changes can be detrimental regardless of reasons (i.e Wesley). IMHO, with the passing of Coach Drass and prior to the financial issues, Wesley level of play decreased from being a tier 1b program to tier 2. On the flipside, I saw a Frostburg team go from being the runt of the ACFC/E8/ to dominating the NJAC and reaching Tier 2 stratosphere (Granted the announcement of going DII helped). I do think innovation can help teams get from 5 wins to 8 to 11 once in a while, but to get to the Stagg, has to definitely start at the Top (Administration).
Quote from: FANOFD3 on August 09, 2022, 01:41:30 PM
Some administrations are fine with being good or just simply happy with just fielding teams to help with...
This is exactly my point, though I would add some other things to that end point. I had a friend who worked in D3 athletics who told me that football is great for enrollment, because even if the recruited players don't stay on the team, they stay at the school. What school is going to turn down increased yield and retention?
And the ties that students have to their institution from being an athlete (in all sports, not just football) and a love of athletics in general, can be beneficial in other ways. IC's Giving Day from this past spring saw them raise $2.2 million, and almost 50% of that went to athletics. This same spring, they got a gift of $600,000 to endow women's sports.
I think there are schools out there who see all these positives, and more, as reasons to
have a football program, or even to having a good one. But, like you said, there's a level of tangible support that's required to push programs above certain levels, and that just might not be a priority for the institution.
Which doesn't make football or athletics, different from anything else in higher ed. You want to have the best anything in the country? You don't get that way by just telling everyone who is already there to work really hard and hope it works out. You survey the national landscape, and invest in that at an appropriate level.
Here's my question... How many schools do we actually think, out of the 240 or so football schools in D3, are investing this way to actually compete for a National Title? I'd be surprised if it was more than 50. I'd say about 100-150 or so more D3 schools are investing/playing to win their conference, and then there are 50-100 schools that just want a team for the ancillary benefits of enrollment and simply don't worry too much so long as they can hit numbers and the team rolls a .500 season every now and then.
I think there are probably 100 or so schools who, if they stumble on the right admin/coach combo and start winning would take a shot at it short term, I'm thinking Bridgewater in the early 2000s and Rowan with Keeler in the late 90s, maybe SJF in the early 2010s? But how many teams are actively trying, year in and out, over say a 10 year timeline? Not too many.
UMU, Linfield, UMHB, SJU, St. Thomas until they were booted, Bethel, NCC, Wheaton, Salisbury, Wesley until they were subsumed, half of the WIAC, Del Val, Hardin-Simmons all come to mind.
Then you get JCU, JHU, Muhlenberg, W&J, then there are a few who aren't as successful but probably try to be. Parts of the ASC, parts of the SAA, parts of the NJAC. That's maybe 30 teams? Scatter in a few more who are trying but not really breaking through, maybe you get to 50. I might have been generous.
Quote from: jknezek on August 09, 2022, 02:43:58 PM
Here's my question... How many schools do we actually think, out of the 240 or so football schools in D3, are investing this way to actually compete for a National Title? I'd be surprised if it was more than 50. I'd say about 100-150 or so more D3 schools are investing/playing to win their conference, and then there are 50-100 schools that just want a team for the ancillary benefits of enrollment and simply don't worry too much so long as they can hit numbers and the team rolls a .500 season every now and then.
I think there are probably 100 or so schools who, if they stumble on the right admin/coach combo and start winning would take a shot at it short term, I'm thinking Bridgewater in the early 2000s and Rowan with Keeler in the late 90s, maybe SJF in the early 2010s? But how many teams are actively trying, year in and out, over say a 10 year timeline? Not too many.
UMU, Linfield, UMHB, SJU, St. Thomas until they were booted, Bethel, NCC, Wheaton, Salisbury, Wesley until they were subsumed, half of the WIAC, Del Val, Hardin-Simmons all come to mind.
Then you get JCU, JHU, Muhlenberg, W&J, then there are a few who aren't as successful but probably try to be. Parts of the ASC, parts of the SAA, parts of the NJAC. That's maybe 30 teams? Scatter in a few more who are trying but not really breaking through, maybe you get to 50. I might have been generous.
I think, broad strokes, you're probably in the ballpark. I think the tricky part is what to do with those teams like Fisher, who was certainly thinking nationally in the late 2000s (Home and homes with Mount!), but probably aren't anymore. You might have to be more flexible with allowing teams to move up/down.
But couldn't we essentially call your tiers, broadly speaking, as similar to the Power 5/Mid Major/FCS system we have in D1? You probably don't hav e much beyond 50 teams competing for a title either. A few mid majors, most of your Power 5s, sure. But we know Northwestern and Vanderbilt are not interested in competing for a title the way Ohio State and Alabama are.
I think there's a way, if you wanted, to make the regular season work with scheduling between tiers if they need to, and then give each tier access to their own postseason.
But to be honest, I really liked your point about the solution being fewer Pool C bids, not more. I think you hit the nail on the head, with it causing more problems than it solves. That's certainly the more likely solution, going forward. I'd give you a K+ for it if I could
I think Northwestern is a great example of how Tiers work actually.
From 1972-1994, they never won more than 4 games. Probably what we'd call the low tier. Then they grew a bit, started winning some more.
In 2006, they hired Fitzgerald, who has driven them to unheard of (for them) success. He's responsible for 10 of their 15 Bowl appearances and all five of their wins. He's very clearly moved the program from where it was.
And yet, in 2 of the last 3 seasons, they've gone 3-9. They've never won more than 10 games. They've had 1 Top 10 season (which they followed up with one of those 3-9 seasons)
Maybe Fitzgerald can conjure up some magic and win a title, but it's been 17 years. It seems more likely that Northwestern is very happy where they are. He's an alum (and a legend). He seems like a good guy who holds up the ideals of the university. Sometimes they win 9 to 10 games. Sometimes they win 6 or 7. Sometimes they win 3 to 5. But he's not going anywhere, and they don't want him to, so they kind of accept the good with the bad as far as W/L goes
I think using anything D1 as an example for how D3 should run its business is an exercise doomed to failure. D3 is about championship *access*, not championship success, based on winning your conference which more than likely are going to be peer schools with similar values. Anything else is gravy. The schools that have the administrative, financial, community, and alumni support to be successful will be successful. The schools that have other priorities (the majority, obviously), are happy doing their thing, whatever that may be.
Quote from: IC798891 on August 09, 2022, 03:04:56 PM
Quote from: jknezek on August 09, 2022, 02:43:58 PM
Here's my question... How many schools do we actually think, out of the 240 or so football schools in D3, are investing this way to actually compete for a National Title? I'd be surprised if it was more than 50. I'd say about 100-150 or so more D3 schools are investing/playing to win their conference, and then there are 50-100 schools that just want a team for the ancillary benefits of enrollment and simply don't worry too much so long as they can hit numbers and the team rolls a .500 season every now and then.
I think there are probably 100 or so schools who, if they stumble on the right admin/coach combo and start winning would take a shot at it short term, I'm thinking Bridgewater in the early 2000s and Rowan with Keeler in the late 90s, maybe SJF in the early 2010s? But how many teams are actively trying, year in and out, over say a 10 year timeline? Not too many.
UMU, Linfield, UMHB, SJU, St. Thomas until they were booted, Bethel, NCC, Wheaton, Salisbury, Wesley until they were subsumed, half of the WIAC, Del Val, Hardin-Simmons all come to mind.
Then you get JCU, JHU, Muhlenberg, W&J, then there are a few who aren't as successful but probably try to be. Parts of the ASC, parts of the SAA, parts of the NJAC. That's maybe 30 teams? Scatter in a few more who are trying but not really breaking through, maybe you get to 50. I might have been generous.
I think, broad strokes, you're probably in the ballpark. I think the tricky part is what to do with those teams like Fisher, who was certainly thinking nationally in the late 2000s (Home and homes with Mount!), but probably aren't anymore. You might have to be more flexible with allowing teams to move up/down.
But couldn't we essentially call your tiers, broadly speaking, as similar to the Power 5/Mid Major/FCS system we have in D1? You probably don't hav e much beyond 50 teams competing for a title either. A few mid majors, most of your Power 5s, sure. But we know Northwestern and Vanderbilt are not interested in competing for a title the way Ohio State and Alabama are.
I think there's a way, if you wanted, to make the regular season work with scheduling between tiers if they need to, and then give each tier access to their own postseason.
But to be honest, I really liked your point about the solution being fewer Pool C bids, not more. I think you hit the nail on the head, with it causing more problems than it solves. That's certainly the more likely solution, going forward. I'd give you a K+ for it if I could
I think in any college sport, at any level, from JUCO to FBS, there are teams competing to win nationally, teams competing to win their conference, and teams that just exist for money or reputation or history. I think trying to sort that into static, or even mostly static tiers, is a pipedream.
The vote for a D4 didn't even come close the last time it came up, and it hasn't been kicked around seriously since. I like what we have now. Every school has a chance at a miracle season. The fact that miracles are few and far between is as it should be. But at the beginning of every football season, DIII schools all have a chance and know exactly what they need to do to turn dreams into reality. That, to me, is the best possible system.
The fact that it clearly doesn't reward the 32 best teams in the country, which is impossible to determine anyway though we could do a better job than the AQ system, is a minor problem. I firmly believe this minor problem doesn't outweigh the benefits of everyone being on the same page that first weekend after a long summer camp. Win and you are in.
Seriously, D3 football has the most relevant regular season of any American sport I can think of. Due to our squeezed access ratio, nothing is more important than winning your conference. How much better can it get than every conference game, week in and out, being important to a team's chances to be a champion? And every non-conference game is almost as important for seeding and a sniff at one of those second-chance opportunities.
It's a fantastic season from start to finish because every bit of it matters, almost exclusively in a non-discretionary way.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on August 09, 2022, 03:30:43 PM
I think using anything D1 as an example for how D3 should run its business is an exercise doomed to failure. D3 is about championship *access*, not championship success, based on winning your conference which more than likely are going to be peer schools with similar values. Anything else is gravy. The schools that have the administrative, financial, community, and alumni support to be successful will be successful. The schools that have other priorities (the majority, obviously), are happy doing their thing, whatever that may be.
I understand the difference between D1 and D3. I was attempting to explain to colin why I don't think national success is just a matter of waiting around for the right coach, and why I think one solution could be to split up the Division. And I wanted to do that without using calling out a D3 program
I've looked at the D3FB Top 25 for the last 10 seasons, beginning in 2011 (2020 no poll).
This is how hard it is to finish in the Top 25, let alone the Top 10:
Four teams have finished in the TOP 25 every year: Linfield, Mary Hardin-Baylor, Mt Union, North Central
Three teams have appeared 9X: Johns Hopkins, Wheaton, Whitewaterr.
One team has appeared 8X: Oshkosh.
One team has made 7 appearances: St John's.
Three teams have been there 6X: Bethel, Delaware Valley, John Carroll.
Five have been in the Top 25 5X: Hardin-Simmons, Hobart, Wartburg, Wittenberg, Wabash.
Six made it 4X: Franklin, Illlinois Wesleyan, Muhlenberg, Platteville, Salisbury, St John Fisher.e
Four have finished there 3X: Centre, Cortland, Heidelberg, Redlands.
Of the teams listed above, only 9 have been in the Top 10 3X or more (about roughly one-third of the time): Mary Hardin-Baylor 10), Mount Union (10), Linfield (10), North Central (10),Whitewater (8), St John's (5), Oshkosh (4), Johns Hopkins (3), Wheaton (3).
Twenty teams have been in the Top 25 twice. Twenty-three have been there 1X. Among these 43 teams, only 6 have been inside the Top 10 even once.
Four, of course, have won the National Title in the last 10 Years: Mary Hardin-Baylor (3), Mt Union (3), North Central (1), Whitewater (3) To those above, add these teams who have finished in the Top 4 at least once: Oshkosh (3X), John Carroll, Linfield, St John's (once each).
So, who would you put in the Gold, Silver and Bronze categories (you can name more than one in each position); or in Tiers 1, 2, 3, if you want to see it that way.
Adding this all up: Only 59 teams have been in the Final Poll Top 25 in the last 10 years. That's about 25% of the teams that will play this year.
In the interest of fairness, a few teams that would qualify left the Division for other (not necessarily greener) pastures: Frostburg St, Louisiana College, St Thomas, Thomas More, and Wesley.
If you see any errors (hey, I've checked but I'm fallible), please let me know.
i've done
Quote from: jknezek on August 09, 2022, 03:40:51 PM
The fact that it clearly doesn't reward the 32 best teams in the country
To me, it's not so much about "rewarding" the best. I don't think Hardin-Simmons needs to be "rewarded" at the expense of [weak autobid team A] by taking away the Pool A and turning it into a Pool C for Simmons to take.
This isn't about giving rewards, or who "deserves" one of the 32 spots, or creating the "best" possible tournament. It goes back to the idea of a program's goals.
If a program doesn't want to compete for a Stagg Bowl, then what's wrong with asking why they're part of system that creates the tournament that culminates in the Stagg Bowl? Why not have some other end goal for them to compete for that more closely aligns with their goals?
And hey, before you think I'm picking on the little guy, since the D3 philosophy statement talks about giving:
"primary emphasis to regional in-season competition and conference championships"
Perhaps it is the teams that aren't thinking nationally that are more in line with the D3 ethos. Perhaps the programs playing 10 teams in their state/region and being happy with going 7-3 are embodying that spirit more than teams flying to the other side of the country to take on a Top 5 team to prepare for a deep NCAA run.
When I think of a hypothetical D4, I see it as being a sort of hybrid d3 model. Still no scholarships, but more of an emphasis on a national game than the regional one. To me, it's not "better" or "worse" than d3.