Apparently, the reason we can’t get seedings for this year’s Division III football playoff bracket is because they don’t exist.
Before 1999, the bracket was seeded fairly simply: There were only 16 teams in the playoffs, four in each bracket, always four from each region and they never crossed over. The seedings followed the last regional ranking. Hosting privileges in the national semifinals rotated from region to region.
Starting in 1999 and beyond, the bracket got larger and more complicated, but we always got seeds from the NCAA, applied them to the bracket and passed them along to you, the Division III football players, fans and coaches. This year, apparently the seedings were never even discussed.
I explained that that seemed unlikely — that somehow they had determined who would play whom and who had home games this weekend. Therefore, there must be some pecking order of teams somewhere. I mentioned that our readers are familiar with the occasions where No. 1 does not play No. 8 because of geography, or No. 2 does not play No. 7, etc. I said that people understood that teams were seeded by bracket, not by region. I said you people know that sometimes teams cannot host because they didn’t file paperwork, or their stadium doesn’t meet standards.
But none of this had an effect.
I explained that openness was a good thing. That men’s and women’s soccer released their final regional rankings. That, as a result of the discussion at the NCAA Convention, everyone will be going in that direction soon, next year even.
But that didn’t help. They would have to reconvene the committee in order to seed teams.
What we can get, and we will pass along to you, is a set of scenarios that determine who will play where in the next round depending on who wins this week.
That will have to be what passes for openness.
But for the first time in my experience following the playoffs, back to 1994, we won’t know who will go where. Not yet.
By the way, for those who have trouble logging in to comment, try hitting refresh on the page after you log in. Your browser is probably caching the non-logged-in version of the page.
That’s worse than crazy! Do the college’s know that they might be hosting next week if they win? You would think some fair warning might be useful for the college’s to be prepared.
Ugh. Just when you think you have the NCAA figured out, they have another brain fart……
Total Bunk. No seeding? Way to hang folks that may want to get travel arrangements together out the dry.
Pat, when you close by saying “not yet,” that suggests a glimmer of hope that the committee might reconvene or some other scenario develops. Am I being too optimistic? The current situation just makes no sense at all.
Also, who serves on this committee? Are they new this year and just “forgot”?
Pat,
It appears to me that while there are no actual seeds for the teams, each bracket is easy to figure. I assume the following are top seeds (Mount Union, Wesley, Whitewater, and St. John’s). There opponents should all be 8th seeds. Their next opponents in the bracket would be the 4 and 5 seeds with the team playing at home as the 4 seed. It appears on the lower half of each bracket that the 2 seeds are (Delaware Valley, Thomas More, Wittenberg, and Linfield). There opponents should all be 7th seeds. Their next opponents in the bracket would be the 3 and 6 seeds with the team playing at home as the 3 seed. Does that make sense?
akenh: You can make that assumption about the top four teams in each bracket. You can’t make that assumption about the teams they are playing because of travel restrictions. Is DePauw the No. 7 or a No. 8 that can’t get to Wesley because it’s more than 500 miles away? Is Mississippi College a 5 or 6? Is Susquehanna really a believable No. 7 seed, ahead of Washington and Jefferson? The criteria say no. How could the NCAA seed W&J behind a two-loss team in Susquehanna yet select them, using the same criteria, ahead of a two-loss team with better criteria in the case of Ohio Northern?
NCAA no seeds this reminds me of when my kids came home from a game and I asked who won they said “the teacher said it doesen’t matter just have fun” WELL IT DOES MATTER
Can you imagine this kind of controversy in DI football? Oh wait, they have the BCS!
Pat you asked a great question to the committee chair and didn’t let her get away with her ridiculous answer. If you had wanted to push it, it was clear she had no answer.
It was obvious listening to her that she has no business chairing the neighborhood leaf pickup schedule let alone something as important (to us) as this.
You are to be commended Pat. 10+ in my book for your effort on behalf of the Division III sports world. You should be on that committee!
This is one of screwiest things I’ve ever seen from the NCAA, and that’s saying a lot. Does this really mean we won’t know until late Saturday who will host 2nd round games? Are they going to rearrange the brackets after round 1? Is it possible Linfield (assuming they win) might have to travel to St. John’s (assuming they win, too) for round 2?
I’d like to think this lays out according to akenh’s logic, and the committee is just trying to avoid answering seeding questions.
Hello again? LOL
This has got to be the most incompetent committee ever assembled and THAT IS SAYING A LOT!!! (To steal a line from Catdomer87) Has this Chairperson ever served on this committee before? Who are the rest of this cast of characters? How does one get on this committee? Are they selected by a committee of their peers? Is this like the Postal Service, where you have to FAIL A TEST to get hired?
Wahoo! I say let the committee re-pair everybody after the first round games, What the _ _ _ _ !? It can’t be any worse than what they have already done.
🙂
Sorry, HIRED is the wrong vernacular! “Selected”, I suppose would be more accurate?
I listen to JOY on the other POD she had her stuff ready but..I think I’ll think on that..so many question..so little time..NCAA needs a revamp..or a restart..I have asked 3 bus charter services for rates ..109 players going 600 miles over night then back(hotel and food would be there any way) also air charter services so far if John Doe buys it ..it costs far less than if NCAA picks upthe tab..I think I’ll have the bids in by 11-19 I’ll post it but may have to hide the Company names..that will be sent to Pat by snail mail in a brown paper envelope!!
I agree that this is screwy, I hardly know where to even start with it.
I am starting to believe we will have re-seeding to avoid flights down the line, but there’s some reason no one would just come out and say that (i.e. it’s never been done before, nowhere does it say you can/can’t do that).
Too much experience on the committee, I think, for this to be simply a mistake.
It turns over every two years, and this is a new group … but the committee (which is eight people, two from each region who are co-chairs of four subcommittees of nine, with representation from each conference) tends to be made up of very experienced people.
In the past I think we as a website have dropped the ball sometimes in identifying these folks so they can be commended/held accountable for their work. Even before this, I think there was a conscious decision not to let that happen any more.
They are, as noted on the ATN Post Patterns thread:
Springfield Coach Mike DeLong
Rowan AD Joy Solomen
IWU coach Norm Eash
OAC Commish Tim Gleason
ODAC Commish Brad Bankston
Grove City coach Chris Smith
Knox AD Chad Eisele
Redlands coach Mike Maynard
DeLong, Eash, Maynard and Smith all have 22 years or more of service in their coaching roles, and the others are not new to the scene either, although they might be serving on the football committee for the first time. FWIW.
No kidding. My cousin went in to take an aptitude test, in applying for a Postal Service job (4 or 5 years ago), she got an 87 on the test. And honest to God, she was told straight to her face by the test administrator that she would not be considered for the position because her score was too HIGH!!!
And what the heck?! Why not let the committee wait for Sunday afternoon to decide who plays where in the second round. Who cares about the fans or the schools? Why do THEY need any time to do any planning? Besides, who are we to question anything that the committee does?
My Bad. 🙁
I think Neil ‘s Kids’ teacher was right? Maybe this year we will just play the games and not even keep score? Then everyone can go home with a trophy and a smiley face on their report card! Wahoo! Ice cream for everyone!!! Wahoo!
Amongst all of the fun we are having here, we are still VERY APPRECIATIVE of all of the hard work and LONG HOURS that PAT AND KEITH put in to keep this site up and running, filled with info on all that is D III football throughout the season.
THANKS PAT AND KEITH!!!!
Wahoo!!!
Good grief! I wasn’t serious about re-seeding. If that’s the reason for no seeds, it really stinks.
Tim Gleason’s on the committee? Sorry folks but that answers a lot. You would get more productive input from an empty chair.
Ouch.
I’ll second the comment on Gleason. I wanted to say something PRIOR to the selections when I found out he’s on the committee, but didn’t want to come across as someone with an agenda. Now seeing what this committee did, or more importantly didn’t do (as in THINK), I can’t let it go.
The more I hear about this bracket, the more pissed I get!
Pat,
I still dont know why you would pick St Norbert over W&J when you dont even have St Norbert listed in your top 42 teams on your pool
pool should be poll
not to hatch a conspiracy theory but there is also a PAC coach on the committee (W&J’s conference)
Mille: I think you’ve missed the point here a little bit, and I know I’ve mentioned it in response to a comment of yours before.
I am looking at the NCAA’s written criteria. True, St. Norbert doesn’t have a vote in our poll, but by the NCAA’s written criteria, they should be in the field and W&J not.
fair enough
Eagle23,
That’s very poor form to put something like that out there without sourcing it. It’s complete hearsay, slander, and you know the man can’t very well come on the board to defend himself.
Not to mention being anti-NWC has nothing whatsoever to do with what’s being discussed here.
Very simply, you’re out of line.
You’re aren’t only one, mind you. When the discussion crosses into personal attacks, we get away from being constructive. I’m not saying there’s no place for a discussion involving personal attacks, but I am saying that place is not here on the Dose.
We can stick to the merits and have plenty
I’ve been told that members of the committee take great care to remove themselves from discussions where their personal biases come into play, or may be perceived to come into play. Also, as someone who writes nice things about Hampden-Sydney when its deserved even though Randolph-Macon folks thinks H-SC folks have punchable faces, I know it’s not impossible to be professional in spite of personal feelings.
It’s my personal opinion that the things the committee does that the masses don’t agree with is not out of any sort of spite/vendetta. More likely there are misunderstandings about the process and what’s allowed, and misunderstandings on our part about what the actual directives are from the NCAA in terms of saving money, etc.
There are certainly legitimate questions to be asked here, but let’s not sink to the lowest level and forget why we’re asking them.
Keith,
Its not slander when it is true. The source is an AD in his conference. Be glad to provide details. FWIW
When it’s third-hand, you can keep it off of here. Thanks.
Sad state of affairs. Don’t due as I say, just do what I say. And no questions asked! Got it?
The definition of insanity is to continue to expect logical decision making “next time” when the underlying problem doesn’t change. Maybe time for a “real” set of rules and new leadership at the NCAA? Just a thought.
Pat:
It might be hearsay if it wasn’t a direct conversation between the aforementioned and the AD? Besides, what’s the difference between stating a well known bias, and dog piling on an “empty chair” like Gleason? . . .
You got me on that one . . .
The point isn’t to argue the definition of the word “hearsay.” The point is this isn’t the place for that kind of post. Stick to the merits if you want to continue using this as a place to post your thoughts.
Ric and hscoach are pushing the limits as well. I just thought I would make it clear to everybody that critcism is okay, but when it gets personal, not so much.
First of all, thanks to Pat and Keith for all of their excellent work on D3Football. I listened to the committee chair of the selection committee in you podcast and she contradicted herself, starting with her statement that they chose the 32 best teams. It is clear that the criteria by which the teams are chosen, they don’t aim to chose the best. It is a very representative sample from across the country and from the various conferences. No system will be perfect but I was really surprised that Ohio Northern did not make the cut. W&J definitely did not even meet the criteria set out in their own documents that the NCAA puts forth for choosing the teams. As it is this is like giving Mount Union a bye in the first round, something they definitely don’t need. She clearly messed up with her statement about using the opponents’ opponents’ win/loss percentage which is a secondary not a primary source in the decision making (or even better using the strength of schedule which weighs both as you had mentioned). Overall, I would give the Committee a C- for the final results but not giving the seeding drops them to a D.
It is almost as if the committee is just waiting to see what the results are after the first round to correct their screw ups—-the first being the picks and the brackets and the second being no seedings to begin with. I hope W&J does their school proud and beats MUC—-that would sure screw up the seedings!——–if there were any.
I think if not for any other reason they should have established seedings for the purpose of travel plans—-much easier to get cheaper rates when you know in advance. This sucks!
I just would really like to know how this lays out after round 1. (no disrespect intended to Cal Lutheran)
Are there a couple teams with a gripe about being left out? Yes, and Pat and Keith have done a great job dissecting this. Is the “West” bracket loaded. Yep, but the committee could’ve left UW-W there AND shifted UHMB I suppose. How much fun would that be? As for the anti-NWC comment (which seems to be from a deleted post, and that’s fine), I’ve been following the selection/seeding process since the ‘Kitties joined DIII, and I’ve not seen anything that demonstrates a bias against the NWC (I hope the comment was referring to the Northwest Conference and not something else. lol). Frankly, life would be easier for the NCAA if the NWC and SCIAC weren’t part of DIII. That hasn’t stopped them from selecting a 2nd team from the NWC when it was earned, despite the travel problems that creates.
So, what I would really like to know is – how does this lay out after round 1!
looks like I should have stayed up longer last night..you guys were having a good time..I agree with Pat and Keith its OK to show some ZEST but it is a family show
Riddle me this: I saw on the NCAA website (wish I could find where again) something to the effect of “subsequent round games will be played at the home of the higher seeded team”.
So when I was telling a Wabash friend that we (Wittenberg) might have a re-match with him in Round 3 and he said “where?”, I had no answer. My guess would be Springfield, of course, since we beat them (barely – last second FG)and won our conference, but who knows for sure?
So if Wittenberg defeats Mt. St. Joseph’s and Case defeats Trine where will that game be played or is it unclear that they would actually play each other under the no seeds format?
No, to those of you speculating about whether they might re-set the brackets and change second-round pairings, there has never been any suggestion they would do that.
Here’s how it will go down for the second round, according to an email I got from the NCAA earlier today:
Top left bracket: If Mount Union advances, it will host the winner of Maine Maritime and Montclair State. If Washington and Jefferson advances, it will travel to the winner of MEMAR and MCLR.
If Delaware Valley advances, it will host the winner of Alfred and Albright. If Susquehanna advances, it will travel.
Bottom left bracket: If Wesley advances, it will host the winner of Huntingdon and Mississippi College. If North Carolina Wesleyan advances, it will travel.
If Thomas More advances, it will host the winner of Johns Hopkins and Hampden-Sydney. If DePauw advances, it will travel.
Top right bracket: If UW-Whitewater advances, it will host the winner of Wabash and Illinois Wesleyan. If Lakeland advances, it will travel.
If Wittenberg advances, it will host the winner of Trine and Case. If Mount St. Joseph advances, it will travel.
Bottom right bracket: If St. John’s advances, it will host the winner of St. Thomas and Monmouth. If Coe advances, it will travel.
If Linfield wins, it will host the winner of Central and Mary Hardin-Baylor. If Cal Lutheran wins, it will travel.
Of course, this doesn’t answer Round 3 or Round 4 questions.
OK, there’s the answer for R1, but you’re right: what then?
Oh, and I found a note on the bracket chart you made available on this site: “Higher seeds host”. Huh? Did they put Dean Wormer on the Committee and do double-secret seeding? After all, Faber looked like a DIII school to me.
Pat, logically (a term applied to the NCAA with great foreboding) how can they already say who will host round two games if they did not seed?
It is pretty obvious that they DID seed (at least partially); why they are denying it is totally a mystery to me.
Last night Ric posted that Pat should be on the committee. I’d go one step further and suggest that d3 might be better off if Pat WAS the ‘committee’! 🙂
Yeah — I raised that with them (the obvious part, not the me being the committee part).
No, Pat can’t be the committee by himself. I have to be on it too. 🙂
Responding to an idea on the other Daily Dose post, clearly they can’t change the regions to unbalanced numbers of teams. I think it would be better to do away with regions entirely. Admittedly, I don’t follow other sports and am not sure what impact it would have D3-wide, but I do know the non-football schools are as concentrated in the northeast quadrant of the country as the football ones, if not more so.
As much as we hate the BCS system, maybe the NCAA should consider using the media (D3football) and coaches (AFCA) polls for developing a simple system to rank the teams that do not already qualify for the playoffs by winning their conference and select the top 9 teams in those rankings (only a few would be eligible for the Pool B bids obviously) for the at large spots.
If we award 1 point for each position starting at #25 and work our way up both polls the bids would be as follows:
Pool B:
Wesley – 46 pts
Case Western – 36 pts
Huntingdon – 0 pts (RV in both polls)
Pool C:
UMHB – 36 pts
St Thomas – 26 pts
Wabash – 22 pts
Ohio Northern – 20 pts
W&J – 19 points
North Central – 17 pts
The tie breaker could be regional record or SOS.
The rest of the teams receiving votes are:
Willamette – 11 pts
Coe – 6 pts
Otterbein – 3 pts
St Norbert – 2 pts
They could start with awarding points to teams receiving votes and work up from there, but with 2 losses pretty much eliminating a team I would venture a guess to say that they would easily find 9 teams to fill the bids by using the top 25’s only.
This “non-seeding” issue is reminding me somewhat of what they do in I-AA. (still can’t call it FCS)
Granted they only have 16 teams (this year), but only the top 4 of the 16 teams are “protected” with seeds and granted the two/three home games the seed would grant. The other 4 hosting sites in the first round, and depending on how the bracket plays out non-seed matchups, come down to geography, bids, and attendance.
For example, in ’07 an 8-3 Delaware team hosted a first round game (against DelState) while several 2 and 1 loss teams hit the roads, mainly because UD draws 15,000+ in the playoffs while many of those other teams were sub-7,000.
Maybe we’re looking at a “blind” version of a seeded bracket. I’m wondering if the committee was embarassed they had to put out a bracket with a 1 vs. 2 game in the first round last year and just said to heck with it this year, even though behind the scenes everything has already been worked out.
In any event, I’m all for seeing the numbers so everyone truly knows where they stand on the hosting front. It’s only fair to the fans of the sport.
W&J got this last bid when some of their numbers (SOS, OWP, whatever) weren’t very good. That was probably a result of past performance, current rankings and name recognition, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. If everyone who votes in a poll week in and week out recognizes a certain team as one of the nation’s top 20, and they lose one game to another ranked foe, it seems reasonable that team still get consideration even if “computer numbers” are somewhat lacking. It’s the eye test.
Plus, let’s not forget that the Presidents did this same thing last year (go 9-1 against an average schedule with a loss to Thomas More) and then they won two playoff games before ultimately getting beat handily at Mary Hardin Baylor. I may not have been following, but no one complained about that last year.
So the way I see it your choices are to stay with the current system that has a human element, or going to a system where all that matters are numbers. If so, isn’t that worse than the BCS? Letting a formula determine your playoff teams?
Mt Union -24′
Montclair St -25
Albright -3′
Delaware Valley -25
Wesley -17
Hampden Sydney -5′
Thomas More -8
Case Western -7′
Wittenberg -17′
Huntingdon -6′
UW Whitewater -48
Illinois Weslyn -4′
St Johns -11
St Thomas -10
Mary Hardin Baylor -3′
Cal Lutheran -3′
Anyone see anything that they like?
I don’t think the BCS formula is necessarily the problem with the BCS. I think the fact that the top two in the BCS rankings are given an opportunity to play for the National Championsip rather than putting the top 16 BCS ranked schools in a tournament is the issue.
It’s an age old debate of whether or not a tournament actually results in the best team in the Nation winning the championship, or if they have a better chance of that happening by letting the top 2 ranked teams play for it without a tournament. I like the tournament because it’s more interesting and it keeps the regular season competitive by not eliminating certain schools early in the season due to a single loss. Or, worse yet, eliminating some schools before the season starts because they aren’t “BCS” schools. Ranking the schools based on certain criteria to determine whether or not they make the postseason tournament is always going to be necessary whether it’s SOS and WL record or something else.
In my opinion, SOS, win % (not in-region win%), and the two major polls should be used to create a formula for the Pool C teams. Weight the criteria however you want and select the top 6 in that ranking.
^ I agree. The BCS methodology would be perfect if it was used to select the 8 or 16 teams that get invited to the D1 playoffs. However when it is used to pick the TWO teams with a shot, it’s stupid.
Scotties, what “two major polls”? And, if this system was used, unless the polls had next to no weight at all, W&J would still be in.
HScoach, I’ll miss meeting you in person Saturday, and I mean that sincerely. Using the BCS to select the 8 or 16 would only be perfect for those that got selected (sort of like the current D-III selection process). For #9, #17 or, #33 (D-III), the system doesn’t work at all.