And the first domino has fallen ... Lycoming and Wilkes are moving to the Landmark, which is starting up football as a conference sport in Fall 2023 and will qualify for a new Pool A bid.
https://www.landmarkconference.org/general/2021-22/releases/14102022-landmark-expansion
Yes. This is the conference confirming what we reported yesterday.
https://www.d3football.com/notables/2022/02/landmark-to-add-two-take-football-automatic-bid
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2022, 03:40:51 PM
Yes. This is the conference confirming what we reported yesterday.
https://www.d3football.com/notables/2022/02/landmark-to-add-two-take-football-automatic-bid
I figured this would be an ongoing topic with other conferences doing similar things ;D Thanks for the link to your story which I somehow missed!
It's a good place for that speculation.
I think this likely takes the "split the MAC apart into two AQs" concept out of play.
I floated a concept where three SAA teams join three USAC teams and snag a bid that way. I don't have any evidence or any reporting on that but it's a place that could happen. Lyon joining D-III aids that process.
I don't think Lyon meets the SCAC academic standards, but if they did that would give the SCAC six once Centenary starts football.
Anyone want to speculate on what happens if or when the number of AQs exceeds 32?
I think before we get there, the D-III membership would recognize that there needs to be change.
Quote from: Inkblot on February 10, 2022, 04:10:05 PM
I don't think Lyon meets the SCAC academic standards, but if they did that would give the SCAC six once Centenary starts football.
The SCAC isn't what it was academically before the SAA teams split off. I had a quick look at Lyon and they're at least comparable to some SCAC schools, superior to others (in terms of admission standards like SATs/ACTs, at least). Lyon only accepted 44% of applicants, according to Niche, which is quite competitive compared to many SCAC schools, too. But it's a long way to travel for the rest of the SCAC and would likely add plane trips for many schools due to the distance involved. The ASC will be in play, too, as they need a replacement for Belhaven in all sports to keep their East division from shrinking to four schools (there are six in the west but the closest to the East schools would be UMHB, which isn't close).
Quote from: Pat Coleman on February 10, 2022, 06:36:16 PM
I think before we get there, the D-III membership would recognize that there needs to be change.
Well, yeah - I don't consider that D3 administrators are totally blithering idiots (unlike some D1 administrators). :P
I guess my question was too vague. WHAT would be the nature of the change if D3 exceeds 32? Find some way to expand the playoffs? Make some AQs contingent on the conference record in the playoffs? Other?
EDIT: And I don't think this is a question that can be put off much longer. At the rate conferences seem to be mutating, 32+ AQs may happen within the 2020s.
I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.
I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 10, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.
I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.
Well if you expand it would only be for 2-4 games right? For instance, lets say there are 35 conferences which qualify in d3 for the tournament. How do you break that up? The only solution I see is having 2-4 play in games right? That doesn't seem ideal seeing the schedule goes from week 1 to week 11 and then the playoffs. Even if you do what you suggest by having 9 games (It looks like you could still have 10 without a bye), you would have a playoff week where 2-4 games are played and the other 32 teams sit it out?
I'm not an expert on bracket type stuff like that either but that was my first impression.
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 11, 2022, 08:21:46 AM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 10, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.
I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.
Well if you expand it would only be for 2-4 games right? For instance, lets say there are 35 conferences which qualify in d3 for the tournament. How do you break that up? The only solution I see is having 2-4 play in games right? That doesn't seem ideal seeing the schedule goes from week 1 to week 11 and then the playoffs. Even if you do what you suggest by having 9 games (It looks like you could still have 10 without a bye), you would have a playoff week where 2-4 games are played and the other 32 teams sit it out?
I'm not an expert on bracket type stuff like that either but that was my first impression.
I'm a supporter of moving to 9 season games, as teams have issues filling out 10. Reducing to 10 weeks (9 game season) is an issue for conferences with "10" conference members. The conference would lose their OOC game, which effects the At-large factor. Can the conference play a 8 conference schedule with 1 conference game, yes. Would that lead to issues that the PAC and MAC had faced some year's ago, Yes. However, with the at-large pool expanding, that's a risk I think majority of DIII would be willing to make. I initially adding only 8 teams to get to 40 teams, however, I'd think the championship committee and football committee would have to move to 48 teams an additional 8 games, two per quadrant bracket (not region). If we get 35 AQs, we'd have a baker's dozen worth at AQ bids. I don't think the additional At-large will help the island schools, however it can weed out some of teams from weaker conferences early in the 1sr round ("play-in") section.
With football being the most expensive sport to fund playoffs in, and money being tight, I just can't see them adding three or four flights for a play-in round which very well would be required if you simply (and logically, in the world we don't live in) took the lowest-seeded eight teams for said round. I hope and pray that if a play-in round comes to pass that the division doesn't end up saying something like "eight teams that can play without flights in the first round will be selected for the play-in round" because we *all* know which teams would be impacted the most: the ones in the island areas who already end up getting faced off early because of the almighty travel dollar.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 11, 2022, 09:38:47 AM
With football being the most expensive sport to fund playoffs in, and money being tight, I just can't see them adding three or four flights for a play-in round which very well would be required if you simply (and logically, in the world we don't live in) took the lowest-seeded eight teams for said round. I hope and pray that if a play-in round comes to pass that the division doesn't end up saying something like "eight teams that can play without flights in the first round will be selected for the play-in round" because we *all* know which teams would be impacted the most: the ones in the island areas who already end up getting faced off early because of the almighty travel dollar.
Unfortunately, that may be the case. You are most likely going to see more regional type games in the 1st (Play-In") round in this hypothetical scenario? Adding any additional at-large bids was not going to eliminate the island issue. I know there was something regarding DIII controlling its own budget or indirect funds without having to get permission from its D1 and D2 counterparts, not sure if that would help. With covid last year and how the brackets were setup, the football/championship committee were all for "experience", just because we moved to the 600 mile mark, they'd rather have Team A that's 150 miles away play Team B, while Team C & D inherently ranked lower play each other being that they are 100 miles apart. Although Team A is 575 miles from Team C and Team B is 530 from Team D. If they can get teams to play without having overnight stays, that's what it's going to be for the most part.
Yet in last year's case, had we had a 48 team playoff. Teams like Hardin-Simmons, Ithaca, Ohio Northern, UW-Oshkosh, Merchant Marine, UW-River Falls, Randolph Macon, Susquehanna, basically everyone ranked in the final regional rankings would be playoff participants. Now how those 1st round matchups are selected, would the committee had pitted Trinity at Hardin-Simmons during the 1st weekend, probably. Possible conference rematches https://challonge.com/fidhb7b3
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 10, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.
I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.
Option C is out there as well, D3 could not require the one size fits all approach to conferences earning AQs. If they made it sport specific, it could be guided by the landscape of that sport, in footballs case they could make the number 7 or 8 which would make it harder to piece together than just 6 and would free up some more at-large bids if you conference isn't at the required number.
Devil's Advocate...instead of 40 some playoff teams, why not just do the top 4 in a playoff and the other 40 play each other in "bowl games"? Probably end up in the same place and a lot less NCAA travel $
Quote from: D3fanboy on February 11, 2022, 03:35:16 PM
Devil's Advocate...instead of 40 some playoff teams, why not just do the top 4 in a playoff and the other 40 play each other in "bowl games"? Probably end up in the same place and a lot less NCAA travel $
And then we can fight over who 3,4,5, and 6 are? This is stupid for D1 and would be even dumber for a division as large as DIII. Let's face it, NCC doesn't make the top 4 in 2019. Although I would laugh like crazy at your complaining the first time UMU got left out. Frankly Linfield, Wheaton and Hardin-Simmons might all have handled UMU this year, and only one of those teams might have made a 4 team field over UMU, though since one of them couldn't even get in a 32 team field and NCC couldn't even get a home game, UMU would have gotten in thanks to their admittedly deserved reputation.
Quote from: jknezek on February 11, 2022, 04:20:27 PM
Quote from: D3fanboy on February 11, 2022, 03:35:16 PM
Devil's Advocate...instead of 40 some playoff teams, why not just do the top 4 in a playoff and the other 40 play each other in "bowl games"? Probably end up in the same place and a lot less NCAA travel $
And then we can fight over who 3,4,5, and 6 are? This is stupid for D1 and would be even dumber for a division as large as DIII. Let's face it, NCC doesn't make the top 4 in 2019. Although I would laugh like crazy at your complaining the first time UMU got left out. Frankly Linfield, Wheaton and Hardin-Simmons might all have handled UMU this year, and only one of those teams might have made a 4 team field over UMU, though since one of them couldn't even get in a 32 team field and NCC couldn't even get a home game, UMU would have gotten in thanks to their admittedly deserved reputation.
A 4 team playoff in D3 is as likely to happen as a 45 team playoff
Quote from: crufootball on February 11, 2022, 12:36:44 PM
Quote from: Caz Bombers on February 10, 2022, 09:21:00 PM
I figure the solution will be either A) cut the regular season to 9 games and start the expanded playoffs in what is now Week 11 or B) keep 10 games but start one week earlier.
I bet A, which is cheaper than B, is what will happen if it comes to it.
Option C is out there as well, D3 could not require the one size fits all approach to conferences earning AQs. If they made it sport specific, it could be guided by the landscape of that sport, in footballs case they could make the number 7 or 8 which would make it harder to piece together than just 6 and would free up some more at-large bids if you conference isn't at the required number.
The only problem is that if they don't do this very quickly, they'll wreak havoc with all the six-team conferences that are setting up (like the Landmark, possibly the SCAC, others surely to come) that are moving to take advantage of the new rule. It makes sense but it's not like the NCAA to undo something that quickly - the soonest would likely be at next year's convention which if four or five conferences have already aligned with six teams would be trying to shut the barn door after a hippopotamus has plopped down in the doorway.
I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games. Don't forget the big picture. There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.
Quote from: Oline89 on February 12, 2022, 08:40:26 AM
I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games. Don't forget the big picture. There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.
Well this is where I may be confused. In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:
1. Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.
2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs?
Do I have that right? Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 12, 2022, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on February 12, 2022, 08:40:26 AM
I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games. Don't forget the big picture. There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.
Well this is where I may be confused. In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:
1. Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.
2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs?
Do I have that right? Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.
In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule. So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split. Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in? We could see a lot more head scratching results then...
When does this rule take effect, next athletic season(22/23] or later?
Quote from: Oline89 on February 12, 2022, 08:40:26 AM
I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games. Don't forget the big picture. There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.
This is my thought as well. How can we honestly think that's a good idea? An overwhelming majority of teams
lose competition opportunities?
The whole thing needs a hard reset. Frankly, I think the Division as a whole has a bunch of tiers of programs with different goals. Do I think every team is full of a dozen coaches and 100 players who are trying 100% to win every single game they play, up to the Stagg Bowl? Absolutely.
But I think it's very clear that there are programs for whom a deep playoff run, is really not what they're about. I'm not going to name any names, but I think something we can see based on the results of these programs over the last few decades.
And here's the thing: That's okay. Not every program is going to have the resources to do that. There's still a ton of value in providing 100 guys the chance to play a sport for 4 years.
But there's a journey and there's a destination. We can appreciate and value the journey of the regular season. But we really need to decide if it's in the best interest of the Division to have the system pointing all these programs towards the same destination.
Quote from: Etchglow on February 12, 2022, 05:09:02 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 12, 2022, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on February 12, 2022, 08:40:26 AM
I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games. Don't forget the big picture. There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.
Well this is where I may be confused. In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:
1. Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.
2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs?
Do I have that right? Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.
In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule. So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split. Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in? We could see a lot more head scratching results then...
Ok. So right now no more than 32 teams can make the playoffs, and any team that wins their conference (that qualifies for a Pool A bud) makes the playoffs. We know the math with this doesn't always add up. Something will have to change in one of those concepts (32 teams vs pool a bids making the playoffs)
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 13, 2022, 03:56:16 PM
Quote from: Etchglow on February 12, 2022, 05:09:02 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 12, 2022, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on February 12, 2022, 08:40:26 AM
I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games. Don't forget the big picture. There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.
Well this is where I may be confused. In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:
1. Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.
2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs?
Do I have that right? Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.
In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule. So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split. Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in? We could see a lot more head scratching results then...
Ok. So right now no more than 32 teams can make the playoffs, and any team that wins their conference (that qualifies for a Pool A bud) makes the playoffs. We know the math with this doesn't always add up. Something will have to change in one of those concepts (32 teams vs pool a bids making the playoffs)
Eventually, yes. But not this year. I think it's likely we will go to some kind of earned access that creates as few Pool Cs, and keeps as many Pool As as possible. So a "perfect system" will eliminate just the right amount of conferences each year to have 32 Pool A teams. That preserves the D3 ethos of access best.
If there are 36 Qualifying Conferences, I suspect the top 32 QCs (not AQs) by some measure will send their champions in about 4 or 5 years.
Quote from: jknezek on February 13, 2022, 05:59:52 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 13, 2022, 03:56:16 PM
Quote from: Etchglow on February 12, 2022, 05:09:02 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 12, 2022, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on February 12, 2022, 08:40:26 AM
I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games. Don't forget the big picture. There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.
Well this is where I may be confused. In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:
1. Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.
2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs?
Do I have that right? Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.
In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule. So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split. Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in? We could see a lot more head scratching results then...
Ok. So right now no more than 32 teams can make the playoffs, and any team that wins their conference (that qualifies for a Pool A bud) makes the playoffs. We know the math with this doesn't always add up. Something will have to change in one of those concepts (32 teams vs pool a bids making the playoffs)
Eventually, yes. But not this year. I think it's likely we will go to some kind of earned access that creates as few Pool Cs, and keeps as many Pool As as possible. So a "perfect system" will eliminate just the right amount of conferences each year to have 32 Pool A teams. That preserves the D3 ethos of access best.
If there are 36 Qualifying Conferences, I suspect the top 32 QCs (not AQs) by some measure will send their champions in about 4 or 5 years.
I suspect you are correct that this will be the solution chosen by D3. Last I checked, a significant number of "AQ" conferences who had been D3 members ever since AQs were invented had NEVER had their AQ win a tournament game!
Another possibility (though in my view less likely) would be a revival of the "D4" option. IIRC, that got defeated fairly soundly, but there were SOME conferences that clearly indicated that they simply had no interest in competing (and/or no ability for competing) for national D3 titles - if so, that might be a 'compromise' position to forcing some conferences into 'play-in' games (or being excluded entirely), while still allowing reasonable access to excellent teams who happen to be in conferences with the UMUs, UMHBs, UWWs, and NCCs of D3.
Another scenario I hope would be taken into consideration: how to handle teams who have a once-in-a-lifetime team in a generally terrible conference? (I'm thinking Alex Tanney et. al. at Monmouth or Watts(?) at Trine(?) - some suggested solutions would give them no access, which would be like giving (to switch divisions and sports) Indiana State with Larry Byrd no access to the tourney! :o)
Could just make all conference champs with eight D3 wins get in first. After that, it goes off some sort of rankings. That way if there is a 5-5 conference champ, they may just miss out that year.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 13, 2022, 06:55:57 PM
Quote from: jknezek on February 13, 2022, 05:59:52 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 13, 2022, 03:56:16 PM
Quote from: Etchglow on February 12, 2022, 05:09:02 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 12, 2022, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: Oline89 on February 12, 2022, 08:40:26 AM
I just can't imagine anything worse than DECREASING the number of regular season games. Don't forget the big picture. There are 250 programs, that means there are at least 2500 student athletes busting their a$$es to compete every season. The idea of telling them that we are cutting 10% of their season so that we can guarantee that the second place team in a power conference gets to play in the playoffs is contrarian to the whoe idea of college athletics.
Well this is where I may be confused. In the context of the conversation above, there are two "factual" events:
1. Every league that qualifies for a pool A bid gets a a spot in the playoffs.
2. If there are 33+ leagues with a pool A bid, it means there HAS to be 33+ teams allowed in the playoffs?
Do I have that right? Because 33+ means you can't have a 4 week tournament like we've had since 1994 or so.
In Pat's article about the vote, he states that the playoffs is locked at 32 teams by rule. So they'd have to change that rule or change the # of AQ's if enough conferences split. Or, I suppose, come up with "criteria" to determine who actually gets in? We could see a lot more head scratching results then...
Ok. So right now no more than 32 teams can make the playoffs, and any team that wins their conference (that qualifies for a Pool A bud) makes the playoffs. We know the math with this doesn't always add up. Something will have to change in one of those concepts (32 teams vs pool a bids making the playoffs)
Eventually, yes. But not this year. I think it's likely we will go to some kind of earned access that creates as few Pool Cs, and keeps as many Pool As as possible. So a "perfect system" will eliminate just the right amount of conferences each year to have 32 Pool A teams. That preserves the D3 ethos of access best.
If there are 36 Qualifying Conferences, I suspect the top 32 QCs (not AQs) by some measure will send their champions in about 4 or 5 years.
I suspect you are correct that this will be the solution chosen by D3. Last I checked, a significant number of "AQ" conferences who had been D3 members ever since AQs were invented had NEVER had their AQ win a tournament game!
Another possibility (though in my view less likely) would be a revival of the "D4" option. IIRC, that got defeated fairly soundly, but there were SOME conferences that clearly indicated that they simply had no interest in competing (and/or no ability for competing) for national D3 titles - if so, that might be a 'compromise' position to forcing some conferences into 'play-in' games (or being excluded entirely), while still allowing reasonable access to excellent teams who happen to be in conferences with the UMUs, UMHBs, UWWs, and NCCs of D3.
Another scenario I hope would be taken into consideration: how to handle teams who have a once-in-a-lifetime team in a generally terrible conference? (I'm thinking Alex Tanney et. al. at Monmouth or Watts(?) at Trine(?) - some suggested solutions would give them no access, which would be like giving (to switch divisions and sports) Indiana State with Larry Byrd no access to the tourney! :o)
This is what I fear the most. Once you label a conference "hopeless", it is hard to shed that label. Even if that great team comes around. I don't know how you design a system for this, but so long as there are only a few conferences left out, it's pretty unlikely. I think the best way is simply to use the existing Regional Committees to rank Conference Champions. Then the National Committee goes around selecting 32 teams, putting the highest ranked team on the table from each Region until they come off and then moving on to the next team. That hopefully still allows some human element as opposed to simply labelling some Conferences as no-go.
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on February 13, 2022, 06:55:57 PM
Another possibility (though in my view less likely) would be a revival of the "D4" option. IIRC, that got defeated fairly soundly, but there were SOME conferences that clearly indicated that they simply had no interest in competing (and/or no ability for competing) for national D3 titles - if so, that might be a 'compromise' position to forcing some conferences into 'play-in' games (or being excluded entirely), while still allowing reasonable access to excellent teams who happen to be in conferences with the UMUs, UMHBs, UWWs, and NCCs of D3.
Another scenario I hope would be taken into consideration: how to handle teams who have a once-in-a-lifetime team in a generally terrible conference? (I'm thinking Alex Tanney et. al. at Monmouth or Watts(?) at Trine(?) - some suggested solutions would give them no access, which would be like giving (to switch divisions and sports) Indiana State with Larry Byrd no access to the tourney! :o)
1. This is exactly the problem. Individual programs (and possibly whole conferences) are simply not playing for the same goal. There needs to be a hard look at what we're doing there. If a conference's members don't want to commit to competing for the Stagg Bowl — which is 100% fine and honestly, refreshing — should it be entitled automatic access to the tournament that awards the Stagg Bowl?
2. There strikes me a fairly straightforward solution: Rather than deciding ahead of time which conferences are your autobid conferences, you let your regional rankings do the work. If your conference is represented in the regional rankings, it qualifies for the autobid. If you aren't, you don't. Yes, it means there will be more uncertainty heading into the final week. And it means they'll need to make that last ranking public. But these are the people entrusted with heavily influencing the Pool C bids already. There's no reason to think they're less qualified to determine Pool A teams.
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 13, 2022, 08:12:03 AM
When does this rule take effect, next athletic season(22/23] or later?
Which rule? 32 team bracket? That's been in effect for ... years.
AQ down to 6? Technically Aug. 1, I believe (or immediately).
Is there another rule you are asking about?
Leaving out conferences that meet the Pool A criteria would not be more consistent with D3 rules than raising the minimum just for football.
What about allowing conferences to choose to go playoff route or go bowl route? If you think your conference has no chance of winning in the playoffs then you can choose to play in a bowl game against other teams that choose that option. Teams could make that choice before playoff pairings are announced or make it mandatory to choose half way through the season so the committee knows how many conference aq's are in the tourney. This would still give teams a chance to play past week 10 and keep stronger teams in the tourney.
Quote from: Inkblot on February 14, 2022, 03:13:08 PM
Leaving out conferences that meet the Pool A criteria would not be more consistent with D3 rules than raising the minimum just for football.
If it's a self-selected exclusion by the conference, why not? Isn't this what the NESCAC does?
another thing to think of...a little bonus for following the rules....which we know that the NCAA loves
If we have 40 conferences with enough teams to qualify for the playoffs, but only 32 spots....what if NCAA violations result in a ban for the institution and maybe the conference? For example, if Baldwin Wallace has a history of tip-toeing around the rules and gets caught one year giving multiple players a Honda to drive around. The OAC gets banned from that years tournament. It would remove a conference and 7-10 teams from playoff contention and also improve compliance with a little peer pressure
maybe I'm too authoritarian, but let's have a strict tournament
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on February 14, 2022, 01:53:57 PM
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 13, 2022, 08:12:03 AM
When does this rule take effect, next athletic season(22/23] or later?
Which rule? 32 team bracket? That's been in effect for ... years.
AQ down to 6? Technically Aug. 1, I believe (or immediately).
Is there another rule you are asking about?
This is the one I was asking about.
Quote from: D3fanboy on February 14, 2022, 05:04:34 PM
another thing to think of...a little bonus for following the rules....which we know that the NCAA loves
If we have 40 conferences with enough teams to qualify for the playoffs, but only 32 spots....what if NCAA violations result in a ban for the institution and maybe the conference? For example, if Baldwin Wallace has a history of tip-toeing around the rules and gets caught one year giving multiple players a Honda to drive around. The OAC gets banned from that years tournament. It would remove a conference and 7-10 teams from playoff contention and also improve compliance with a little peer pressure
maybe I'm too authoritarian, but let's have a strict tournament
But with NIL, you can't even enforce that. Could just say the local Honda dealer gave them the car to promote the dealership. Problem solved.
I stand by my, "Have to have eight D3 wins to be eligible for auto bid."
Elsewhere I posted a comment about a D4 that got 8 post-season bids and would have a 13 week schedule.
10 or 9 regular season games and the 3 rounds of playoffs.
Which schools/conferences would find that compatible with mission and vision?
That would leave 28 schools for a D-3 playoff over 16 weeks.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 15, 2022, 12:41:45 AM
Elsewhere I posted a comment about a D4 that got 8 post-season bids and would have a 13 week schedule.
10 or 9 regular season games and the 3 rounds of playoffs.
Which schools/conferences would find that compatible with mission and vision?
That would leave 28 schools for a D-3 playoff over 16 weeks.
No it wouldn't. Because someone would have to pay for the D4 playoffs as well. Limiting the size of the playoffs is about money as much as it is about time.
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 14, 2022, 05:10:22 PM
Quote from: D3fanboy on February 14, 2022, 05:04:34 PM
another thing to think of...a little bonus for following the rules....which we know that the NCAA loves
If we have 40 conferences with enough teams to qualify for the playoffs, but only 32 spots....what if NCAA violations result in a ban for the institution and maybe the conference? For example, if Baldwin Wallace has a history of tip-toeing around the rules and gets caught one year giving multiple players a Honda to drive around. The OAC gets banned from that years tournament. It would remove a conference and 7-10 teams from playoff contention and also improve compliance with a little peer pressure
maybe I'm too authoritarian, but let's have a strict tournament
But with NIL, you can't even enforce that. Could just say the local Honda dealer gave them the car to promote the dealership. Problem solved.
I stand by my, "Have to have eight D3 wins to be eligible for auto bid."
I'm not crazy about the eight wins thing because that might discourage teams from playing tough schedules. Also, many lower ranked conferences may have 10-0 or 9-1 teams. We know a league like the LL might have a 7-3 champion, but do they get penalized because Ithaca plays Cortland, Brockport and others while the NEFC champ (who Ithaca may beat) plays only CCC teams?
How about the preference goes to leagues with 10 teams? Make the amount of teams in your league a criteria for the pool A bid.
The NCAA just needs to have different minimums for each sport. Not ONE minimum for all sports.
Football should be 7 or 8. Other sports could be 6 if needed.
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on February 16, 2022, 09:16:16 AM
The NCAA just needs to have different minimums for each sport. Not ONE minimum for all sports.
Football should be 7 or 8. Other sports could be 6 if needed.
Yea and I bet that is what they will have to do at some point.
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 09:55:24 AM
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on February 16, 2022, 09:16:16 AM
The NCAA just needs to have different minimums for each sport. Not ONE minimum for all sports.
Football should be 7 or 8. Other sports could be 6 if needed.
Yea and I bet that is what they will have to do at some point.
I think this makes the most sense, but it's going to be hard to put the horse back in the barn if too many 6 team conferences form before they get around to it.
Quote from: jknezek on February 16, 2022, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 09:55:24 AM
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on February 16, 2022, 09:16:16 AM
The NCAA just needs to have different minimums for each sport. Not ONE minimum for all sports.
Football should be 7 or 8. Other sports could be 6 if needed.
Yea and I bet that is what they will have to do at some point.
I think this makes the most sense, but it's going to be hard to put the horse back in the barn if too many 6 team conferences form before they get around to it.
They won't have a choice will they? If there are more than 32 conferences with six teams, something has to give, either the AQ, or the four week playoff system.
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 10:17:30 AM
Quote from: jknezek on February 16, 2022, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 09:55:24 AM
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on February 16, 2022, 09:16:16 AM
The NCAA just needs to have different minimums for each sport. Not ONE minimum for all sports.
Football should be 7 or 8. Other sports could be 6 if needed.
Yea and I bet that is what they will have to do at some point.
I think this makes the most sense, but it's going to be hard to put the horse back in the barn if too many 6 team conferences form before they get around to it.
They won't have a choice will they? If there are more than 32 conferences with six teams, something has to give, either the AQ, or the four week playoff system.
Yep. One or the other. It'll be interesting to see which they choose.
Quote from: jknezek on February 16, 2022, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 10:17:30 AM
Quote from: jknezek on February 16, 2022, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 09:55:24 AM
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on February 16, 2022, 09:16:16 AM
The NCAA just needs to have different minimums for each sport. Not ONE minimum for all sports.
Football should be 7 or 8. Other sports could be 6 if needed.
Yea and I bet that is what they will have to do at some point.
I think this makes the most sense, but it's going to be hard to put the horse back in the barn if too many 6 team conferences form before they get around to it.
They won't have a choice will they? If there are more than 32 conferences with six teams, something has to give, either the AQ, or the four week playoff system.
Yep. One or the other. It'll be interesting to see which they choose.
This is the thing. We could see at least one more that we have all talked about, the SCAC, there has to be more out there looking at this. There are currently 43 D3 athletic conferences, 28 football playing conferences. This could become an issue very quickly.
Side note, did any of you know the home offices for the SCAC is in Lawrenceville, GA, all of the teams are in Louisiana, Texas and Colorado. Those offices are long way away from the school it represents.
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 16, 2022, 11:03:04 AM
Quote from: jknezek on February 16, 2022, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 10:17:30 AM
Quote from: jknezek on February 16, 2022, 10:04:27 AM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 09:55:24 AM
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on February 16, 2022, 09:16:16 AM
The NCAA just needs to have different minimums for each sport. Not ONE minimum for all sports.
Football should be 7 or 8. Other sports could be 6 if needed.
Yea and I bet that is what they will have to do at some point.
I think this makes the most sense, but it's going to be hard to put the horse back in the barn if too many 6 team conferences form before they get around to it.
They won't have a choice will they? If there are more than 32 conferences with six teams, something has to give, either the AQ, or the four week playoff system.
Yep. One or the other. It'll be interesting to see which they choose.
This is the thing. We could see at least one more that we have all talked about, the SCAC, there has to be more out there looking at this. There are currently 43 D3 athletic conferences, 28 football playing conferences. This could become an issue very quickly.
Side note, did any of you know the home offices for the SCAC is in Lawrenceville, GA, all of the teams are in Louisiana, Texas and Colorado. Those offices are long way away from the school it represents.
Conference location is leftover from the old days before the SAA split. It made a lot more sense then. Interesting that they haven't moved it, but depending on how many people are there it might be expensive in terms of moving expenses as well as people they might lose. Might not be worth it until there is some turnover.
Let's face it, at this level, the "conference office" is probably just a local law firm and a couple media interns.
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 16, 2022, 01:13:17 PM
Let's face it, at this level, the "conference office" is probably just a local law firm and a couple media interns.
I know the ODAC isn't. I've had several email exchanges with Commissioner Bankston over the years. He has been amazingly receptive to responding to a random fan. I also exchanged an email with one other person in the office about a question regarding the All Sports Trophy and she responded immediately. I do believe there are 3 full-time employees, at least, in the ODAC Conference office.
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 08:58:35 AM
I'm not crazy about the eight wins thing because that might discourage teams from playing tough schedules. Also, many lower ranked conferences may have 10-0 or 9-1 teams. We know a league like the LL might have a 7-3 champion, but do they get penalized because Ithaca plays Cortland, Brockport and others while the NEFC champ (who Ithaca may beat) plays only CCC teams?
We're already past that with the few at-large bids we have. Ithaca's exclusion this past year shows there's basically no hope for a 2-loss team to get selected already, let alone if the at-large pool gets smaller. You might as well schedule OOC as easy as you can, and try for 9-1
Quote from: jknezek on February 16, 2022, 01:20:32 PM
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 16, 2022, 01:13:17 PM
Let's face it, at this level, the "conference office" is probably just a local law firm and a couple media interns.
I know the ODAC isn't. I've had several email exchanges with Commissioner Bankston over the years. He has been amazingly receptive to responding to a random fan. I also exchanged an email with one other person in the office about a question regarding the All Sports Trophy and she responded immediately. I do believe there are 3 full-time employees, at least, in the ODAC Conference office.
I really don't know anything about the SAA conference offices. I do know when Trinity came to Birmingham for what was a conference championship game in football, our president presented the trophy to Trinity, was a little disappointed that the SAA commish didn't find it necessary to be at the game to present the trophy.
Quote from: IC798891 on February 16, 2022, 01:34:11 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on February 16, 2022, 08:58:35 AM
I'm not crazy about the eight wins thing because that might discourage teams from playing tough schedules. Also, many lower ranked conferences may have 10-0 or 9-1 teams. We know a league like the LL might have a 7-3 champion, but do they get penalized because Ithaca plays Cortland, Brockport and others while the NEFC champ (who Ithaca may beat) plays only CCC teams?
We're already past that with the few at-large bids we have. Ithaca's exclusion this past year shows there's basically no hope for a 2-loss team to get selected already, let alone if the at-large pool gets smaller. You might as well schedule OOC as easy as you can, and try for 9-1
Well in the proposed system there would be no pool C chances at all. I don't have a problem with Ithaca not getting in last year, they had their chance and lost it in one of their non league games (Cortland). If they played Ana Maria and Morrisville instead of Brockport and Cortland? I don't think they deserve to get in either but that is the game you always play with non conference OCC.
It is a travesty that the playoffs are dictated by the all mighty dollar from the NCAA. We all understand that it costs money to travel and that will never change, but there are things that could be done to lessen the cost. Why not work a deal with an airline company that we would use exclusively for a lower rate during the 4 weeks of the playoffs. There are many ways to raise money to help with one week of travel to create different matchups that have never happened before. These island teams are expected to have a strong out of conference schedule when noone wants to play them so they have to foot the bill to fly somewhere. Where is the fairness in that? How are they expected to pay for 5 ooc games that may include flights? Quit with the excuses and pony up the money to have a real playoffs with teams that earned the top rankings not playing each other in week one.
Quote from: jknezek on February 16, 2022, 12:26:58 PM
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 16, 2022, 11:03:04 AM
This is the thing. We could see at least one more that we have all talked about, the SCAC, there has to be more out there looking at this. There are currently 43 D3 athletic conferences, 28 football playing conferences. This could become an issue very quickly.
Side note, did any of you know the home offices for the SCAC is in Lawrenceville, GA, all of the teams are in Louisiana, Texas and Colorado. Those offices are long way away from the school it represents.
Conference location is leftover from the old days before the SAA split. It made a lot more sense then. Interesting that they haven't moved it, but depending on how many people are there it might be expensive in terms of moving expenses as well as people they might lose. Might not be worth it until there is some turnover.
I seem to remember hearing along the way that one of the conditions for Commissioner Hanberry to remain with the SCAC was that the main office continue to be maintained in Georgia so he wouldn't have to uproot his family. Given the upheaval at the time and what could have happened to the conference had he taken the SAA job (pretty sure an offer was made), thank goodness the remaining SCAC schools agreed. He was dealt a difficult hand but with the exception of losing football, which was really beyond anyone's control, I don't think many people expected the SCAC to survive long after it was down to five schools when the split was announced. And who knows, thanks to the NCAA, Centenary adding the sport and other possibilities, football might even come back. Here's to you, Mr. Commissioner!
And ... just announced by D3sports, the USA South is splitting in two effective next year, but apparently all the football schools leaving the USAS will remain as affiliates in the USAS so no impact to bids. https://d3sports.com/notables/2022/02/usa-south-to-split-in-two
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 16, 2022, 03:26:41 PM
And ... just announced by D3sports, the USA South is splitting in two effective next year, but apparently all the football schools leaving the USAS will remain as affiliates in the USAS so no impact to bids. https://d3sports.com/notables/2022/02/usa-south-to-split-in-two
That's going to be interesting to see how that plays out. That conference has 19 members, crazy, but only 9 play football. Wonder if Belhaven will move its football to SCAC, which would give them 6, if my math is right. Honestly, it starts to get confusing and all jumbled in your brain after a bit.
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 16, 2022, 03:26:41 PM
And ... just announced by D3sports, the USA South is splitting in two effective next year, but apparently all the football schools leaving the USAS will remain as affiliates in the USAS so no impact to bids. https://d3sports.com/notables/2022/02/usa-south-to-split-in-two
I look for Asbury in Wilmore KY to join the CCS.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2022, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 16, 2022, 03:26:41 PM
And ... just announced by D3sports, the USA South is splitting in two effective next year, but apparently all the football schools leaving the USAS will remain as affiliates in the USAS so no impact to bids. https://d3sports.com/notables/2022/02/usa-south-to-split-in-two
I look for Asbury in Wilmore KY to join the CCS.
What about Bob Jones and Warren Wilson?
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 16, 2022, 01:13:17 PM
Let's face it, at this level, the "conference office" is probably just a local law firm and a couple media interns.
Not true. Most conferences -- not sure about the SAA, though -- have a full-time commissioner, a full-time assistant who handles publicity and information, and some offices have a third person as well.
Quote from: BSCpanthers on February 16, 2022, 01:35:28 PM
I do know when Trinity came to Birmingham for what was a conference championship game in football, our president presented the trophy to Trinity, was a little disappointed that the SAA commish didn't find it necessary to be at the game to present the trophy.
A little perspective: In Week 10 of the Division III football season, the week before the final regular season games, conferences are hosting their championship tournaments in both soccers, field hockey and women's volleyball. In terms of not only tournament operation but gladhanding for a postgame trophy ceremony, your commissioner and assistant commissioner are going to be at those events.
Quote from: SW1 on February 16, 2022, 02:11:32 PM
It is a travesty that the playoffs are dictated by the all mighty dollar from the NCAA. We all understand that it costs money to travel and that will never change, but there are things that could be done to lessen the cost. Why not work a deal with an airline company that we would use exclusively for a lower rate during the 4 weeks of the playoffs.
The NCAA already contracts its charter flights in this manner.
Quote from: Baldini on February 16, 2022, 08:17:47 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on February 16, 2022, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on February 16, 2022, 03:26:41 PM
And ... just announced by D3sports, the USA South is splitting in two effective next year, but apparently all the football schools leaving the USAS will remain as affiliates in the USAS so no impact to bids. https://d3sports.com/notables/2022/02/usa-south-to-split-in-two
I look for Asbury in Wilmore KY to join the CCS.
What about Bob Jones and Warren Wilson?
Maybe...
Warren Wilson is 75 miles from Bob Jones in Greenville SC. (Travel partner?)
Warren Wilson just east of Asheville NC area in far western NC. It is ~120 miles from Swannanoa NC to Maryville TN.
It is 217 miles to Covenant College just south of Chattanooga; it is 129 miles to Piedmont in Demorest GA.
To Agnes Scott in Decatur GA, 211 miles
To Wesleyan Georgia, 295 miles.
There you have an East Division for the CCS.
Warren Wilson to Mary Baldwin, in Staunton VA, 323 miles in the far north.
But Warren Wilson to Brevard, NC 42 miles
... to Pfeiffer in Misenheimer NC 140.
Bob Jones to Brevard 46 miles.
I bet that both stay in the USA South.
Looks like I read somewhere the new scoreboard for Michigan football cost more than the entire budget for d3 sports. Nice to have priorities, and if this is true then we see how much student athletes mean to the NCAA.
No idea whether that is true but even if so, not sure why you are comparing these apples and oranges. The NCAA budget does not pay for Michigan's scoreboard.
Quote from: SW1 on March 24, 2022, 03:27:04 PM
Looks like I read somewhere the new scoreboard for Michigan football cost more than the entire budget for d3 sports. Nice to have priorities, and if this is true then we see how much student athletes mean to the NCAA.
UM Scoreboard - $41 Million
2021-22 NCAA D3 Budget - $35.1 Million (3.18% of NCAA Operating Budget)
Quote from: SW1 on March 24, 2022, 03:27:04 PM
Looks like I read somewhere the new scoreboard for Michigan football cost more than the entire budget for d3 sports. Nice to have priorities, and if this is true then we see how much student athletes mean to the NCAA.
Not sure why this is relevant at all. The NCAA has nothing to do with this. You might as well look at ticket revenue from a single game at the Big House and compare it to ticket revenue for all of the D3 playoffs. It's an irrelevant stat for an irrelevant comparison.
Quote from: jknezek on March 25, 2022, 11:20:08 AM
Quote from: SW1 on March 24, 2022, 03:27:04 PM
Looks like I read somewhere the new scoreboard for Michigan football cost more than the entire budget for d3 sports. Nice to have priorities, and if this is true then we see how much student athletes mean to the NCAA.
Not sure why this is relevant at all. The NCAA has nothing to do with this. You might as well look at ticket revenue from a single game at the Big House and compare it to ticket revenue for all of the D3 playoffs. It's an irrelevant stat for an irrelevant comparison.
I think it could be meant to say that those schools are fine without the NCAA necessarily, there is no reason why DII/DIII playoffs needs to be regionalized. If they gave DII/DIII another 50% of what they have, playoffs would not be an issue. Those DI programs can afford to travel on their own private jets. There can be some subsidization, but those top programs don't need NCAA catering that hard.
Quote from: FANOFD3 on March 26, 2022, 09:14:41 AM
Quote from: jknezek on March 25, 2022, 11:20:08 AM
Quote from: SW1 on March 24, 2022, 03:27:04 PM
Looks like I read somewhere the new scoreboard for Michigan football cost more than the entire budget for d3 sports. Nice to have priorities, and if this is true then we see how much student athletes mean to the NCAA.
Not sure why this is relevant at all. The NCAA has nothing to do with this. You might as well look at ticket revenue from a single game at the Big House and compare it to ticket revenue for all of the D3 playoffs. It's an irrelevant stat for an irrelevant comparison.
I think it could be meant to say that those schools are fine without the NCAA necessarily, there is no reason why DII/DIII playoffs needs to be regionalized. If they gave DII/DIII another 50% of what they have, playoffs would not be an issue. Those DI programs can afford to travel on their own private jets. There can be some subsidization, but those top programs don't need NCAA catering that hard.
Except the NCAA isn't catering to them. They make all the money. We are the ones being catered to because we just cost money. The "give us more money" crowd is a bit nutty, because it ignores the fact that we are essentially a charity for the D1 Basketball tournament. Charities say thank you for what they recieve and wish for more, but when charities start saying... "hey, you owe us money so fork more over because you don't need it", charities lose their donors real fast.
And it ignores the fact that most D1 athletic departments run in the red. Yes, the biggest of the best make money, lots of it, but most don't. So why go more in the red to pay more to, essentially, a charity with a little bit of voting power?
D3 knows if the P5 take their ball and their money and go, it gets worse. Much worse. So be thankful, not greedy. Is it perfect? No. Does it really suck for island teams? Yes. But the world isn't fair, and sometimes you need to understand how much worse it could be before you go moaning about it.
Quote from: jknezek on March 26, 2022, 12:16:18 PM
Quote from: FANOFD3 on March 26, 2022, 09:14:41 AM
Quote from: jknezek on March 25, 2022, 11:20:08 AM
Quote from: SW1 on March 24, 2022, 03:27:04 PM
Looks like I read somewhere the new scoreboard for Michigan football cost more than the entire budget for d3 sports. Nice to have priorities, and if this is true then we see how much student athletes mean to the NCAA.
Not sure why this is relevant at all. The NCAA has nothing to do with this. You might as well look at ticket revenue from a single game at the Big House and compare it to ticket revenue for all of the D3 playoffs. It's an irrelevant stat for an irrelevant comparison.
I think it could be meant to say that those schools are fine without the NCAA necessarily, there is no reason why DII/DIII playoffs needs to be regionalized. If they gave DII/DIII another 50% of what they have, playoffs would not be an issue. Those DI programs can afford to travel on their own private jets. There can be some subsidization, but those top programs don't need NCAA catering that hard.
Except the NCAA isn't catering to them. They make all the money. We are the ones being catered to because we just cost money. The "give us more money" crowd is a bit nutty, because it ignores the fact that we are essentially a charity for the D1 Basketball tournament. Charities say thank you for what they recieve and wish for more, but when charities start saying... "hey, you owe us money so fork more over because you don't need it", charities lose their donors real fast.
And it ignores the fact that most D1 athletic departments run in the red. Yes, the biggest of the best make money, lots of it, but most don't. So why go more in the red to pay more to, essentially, a charity with a little bit of voting power?
D3 knows if the P5 take their ball and their money and go, it gets worse. Much worse. So be thankful, not greedy. Is it perfect? No. Does it really suck for island teams? Yes. But the world isn't fair, and sometimes you need to understand how much worse it could be before you go moaning about it.
... which is why Hartford is reclassifying from D-1 to D-3...