Thoughts.

Super-Regional | video overview
Conference | video overview
Both videos didn’t work for me, but perhaps they will for you.

First reaction: wow. Talk about big changes! Division II and III nationals/regionals will make for a ton of opportunities for teams to succeed.

I’ll try and summarize first (I know I’m not the only one who’s put off reading about the changes for worry of length), then add my thoughts:

Regular-Season Tiers

• In either plan, you’ll have a 20-team DI natties, and 16-team DII and DIII tourneys.
• There will be a “Tier 1″ distinction for the most competitive teams–in the SRP (Super-Regional Plan)teams who want to be T1 can opt-in, but in the CP (Conference Plan) the tier is made up of the top teams from last year + 12 who play in at the season’s start.
• Tier 2 is all the teams that don’t opt in Tier 1 (SRP) or teams that register to play competitively but didn’t do well enough to make T1 (CP). The CP additionally has a tier 3 for non-registrants.
• Teams in their respective tiers contribute to UPA rankings by playing in official UPA events. In the SRP only Tier 1 games count; in the CP, T1 and T2 games count, but T1 teams get automatic bids to regionals.
• Rankings are used for seeding and for determining regional/national bids.

Super-Regionals

• You have sectionals, but some teams get a bye to super-regionals (based off of reg. season rankings).
• Sectional winners advance to super-regionals; based on size, the next X teams go to regular regionals.
• There are 4 super-regions.
• Super-regionals is a 12-team tourney, top 4/each advance to nationals.

• Top 4 non-qualifiers also get bids, to make 20 teams at nationals.
• There are 8 regions.
• Regionals have more or less the same deal as this year’s format–16 teams, but a flat 2 bids/region, 16 teams at DII nationals.
• Small colleges and developing teams can opt-in to DIII nationals, which has its own sectional and regional tourney. Only in the open division to start.

Conferences

• You have teams in each of 6 regions sorted into conferences based on proximity/willingness to travel/success. There are no sectionals.
• Bids to regionals are based off of season performance, though all tier 1 teams will play at regionals.
• Regionals do not directly decide who goes to nationals–winning a bid simply adds said bid to your conference championship.
• Bids to DI, DII, and DIII nationals are at stake in each regional tournament, with a DII regionals also occuring with bids to DII and DIII nationals at stake.
• Following regionals, teams have their conference championships to determine who goes where.
• No DIII regionals–bids to DIII nationals are won through the other regionals.

My Thoughts
I LOVE the idea of conferences. Think of the rivalry! Think of the camaraderie as you and your conference mates battle through regionals for that DI nationals bid! I think it’s a huge step forward for the excitement level of the sport.

However, I dislike the idea of having to play for nationals twice. Why should a team that didn’t even make DI regionals have a shot at stealing a bid to DI nationals? If a team wins DI regionals should they really have to play again to secure their bid?

There has to be a better way to work the conference angle while not applying a double-dose of pressure to make nationals–basing bids to regionals off of conference championships, and making DI/DII regionals elimination again…or making the DI nationals bid elimination, with DII/DIII bids going back to conference championships.

I worry that the inherently unbalanced nature of the conferences will make for issues similar to what you see in New England and the Metro East–there are so many teams around the same level that, compared to areas where talent is more sparse, the road to nationals is much tougher. Perhaps that is simply the way it has to be though–in baseball, the Tampa Bay Rays stuck with it in the AL East hellhole with the Yanks and Sox and had a magical season last year despite it.

That said, leaving it as is would make for an interesting, unique quirk to ultimate, and there IS a lot of potential to excite there–and what’s more, a team that misses a bid to DI nationals would very likely wind up at DII nationals, so it’s not a win or go home proposition so much as a win or go elsewhere.

The super-regional plan is obviously a more conservative route–I like the intimate, intense nature of a 12-team tournament for 4 bids to nationals, and I think those events would showcase the sport just as much as nationals itself. I also think the increased focus on current-season results, rather than grandfathering last year’s teams in to regionals, would make for a more meaningful regular season (at the upper level at least).

If I had to choose now, I would definitely opt for the conference plan, though I would like to see the tournament structure reworked there to prevent potential complaints when teams that “win” the bid to DI nationals are usurped by another in their conference championship. Both plans have their advantages, and I’m eager to see how they are developed going forward.

---

What are your thoughts? I’m looking at this from the lens of a former (on the bubble) elite team player and potential coach of the same (with a heavy New England bias), and as such am primarily concerned with the top-tier formats, but I’d love to hear the small-mid college perspective or from other regions.

Really, though, your thoughts should go here, where the UPA is looking for feedback. Get in by the 31st, before they close comments!

No related posts.