Could This Come Into Play this Year by the Selection Committee??

[apaladin]

Most think that 7 D-1 wins is REQUIRED to get a bid. It is not. The guidelines read as follows: "If a team has less than 7 division one wins, it may not be considered". It doesn't say it will not be. Could come into play for teams like Furman, Wofford and UD.

[Twentysix]

Their are already tons of teams with 7 wins. A team with 6 wins will not be neccessary imo.

The MVFC will probably have 5 teams with 7 DI wins alone.

[Fear the Bird]

A LOT would have to happen including probably 3 of these to lose: ISUb, JMU, YSU, ISUr

[Twentysix]

A LOT would have to happen including probably 3 of these to lose: ISUb, JMU, YSU, ISUr

even with a loss a 7DI win ISUr is more deserving than a 6 DI win wofford or furman or UD.

[henfan]

Most think that 7 D-1 wins is REQUIRED to get a bid. It is not. The guidelines read as follows: "If a team has less than 7 division one wins, it may not be considered". It doesn't say it will not be. Could come into play for teams like Furman, Wofford and UD.

The 7-win guideline merely provides a framework & potential rationale for selection. It also gives the PSC an ou to allow them to select teams with less than 7 wins if the circumstances dictate it so. They never have.

With the playoff fields expanding, there's more of a chance that teams with 6 D-I wins will be selected at some point. It's still very important to note that the next time a 6 D-I win team is selected for an at large will be the first.

[Fear the Bird]

even with a loss a 7DI win ISUr is more deserving than a 6 DI win wofford or furman or UD.

I agree with that i said 3 of these then quickly realized i meant these 3 but was too lazy to fix so threw ISUrout there lol

[T-Dog]

There's already 10 potential at-large teams with 7+ D1 wins, not counting Jacksonville and Drake. The winner of the Florida Classic will also have 7 D1 wins.

1) CAA at-large #1 (ODU/TU/Maine/UNH)
2) CAA at-large #2 (ODU/TU/Maine/UNH)
3) CAA at-large #3 (ODU/TU/Maine/UNH)
4) App St
5) MVFC at-large #1 (NDSU/UNI)
6) Illinois State
7) Montana/Montana State loser
8) Georgetown
9) Central Arkansas
10) NEC at-large (Albany/Duquesne)

So if all the teams with 6 D1 wins lose next week, there's still a field full of teams with 7 D1 wins.

[Mr. C]

Most think that 7 D-1 wins is REQUIRED to get a bid. It is not. The guidelines read as follows: "If a team has less than 7 division one wins, it may not be considered". It doesn't say it will not be. Could come into play for teams like Furman, Wofford and UD.

A team isn't going to get in with six D-I wins, period. It is even a stronger unwritten rule then the four-loss rule used to be in the old days. If there ever was going to be a time when a six-D-I-team made it in, it would have been last year when Montana finished third in the Big Sky and had that string of 17 consecutive bids on the line. The committee could have made some serious money with Montana hosting at least one game. And don't forget that Jim O'Day, Montana's AD, was on that committee.

[Mr. C]

The 7-win guideline merely provides a framework & potential rationale for selection. It also gives the PSC an ou to allow them to select teams with less than 7 wins if the circumstances dictate it so. They never have.

With the playoff fields expanding, there's more of a chance that teams with 6 D-I wins will be selected at some point. It's still very important to note that the next time a 6 D-I win team is selected for an at large will be the first.

Sorry, K.C. Keeler, even with a win over a mighty 2-8 Villanova squad on Saturday, you are not going to make the playoffs with six D-I wins.

[SDFS]

even with a loss a 7DI win ISUr is more deserving than a 6 DI win wofford or furman or UD.

ISU-r has a win against Morehead St. ranking – 399
UD has a win against West Chester St - 366

So, you are saying one win should count and other shouldn't just because of a label versus the quality of the opponent. Implying a 7 win Div I rule is a joke for FCS schools because a third of FCS does not care about football and many times Div II/III and NAIA provide better or equal competition. NOTE: I am not saying that DU should be selected over ISU-r, but to say one team should automatically be eliminated from consideration because of a classification versus the level of competition is wrong. In addition, I think that I have read in other posts UD should not have lost Rhode Island (192). At the same time using the 7 win Div I rule lets ISU-r off the hook for a bad loss to E. Ill (231).

Other MVFC questionable Div 1 wins comparable to NAIA/DivII or DivIII level competition.

YSU - Valpo - 506 and St. Francis PA - 348
ISU-B - Bulter - 319

http://masseyratings.com/team.php?s=107811&t=2108

[Twentysix]

ISU-r has a win against Morehead St. ranking – 399
UD has a win against West Chester St - 366

So, you are saying one win should count and other shouldn't just because of a label versus the quality of the opponent. Implying a 7 win Div I rule is a joke for FCS schools because a third of FCS does not care about football and many times Div II/III and NAIA provide better or equal competition. NOTE: I am not saying that DU should be selected over ISU-r, but to say one team should automatically be eliminated from consideration because of a classification versus the level of competition is wrong. In addition, I think that I have read in other posts UD should not have lost Rhode Island (192). At the same time using the 7 win Div I rule lets ISU-r off the hook for a bad loss to E. Ill (231).

Other MVFC questionable Div 1 wins comparable to NAIA/DivII or DivIII level competition.

YSU - Valpo - 506 and St. Francis PA - 348
ISU-B - Bulter - 319

http://masseyratings.com/team.php?s=107811&t=2108

That is exactly what im saying. Welcome to Division one. Playing a team down a division is only relevant if you lose. If you win, it is as if that game was never played.

[Go Apps]

Most think that 7 D-1 wins is REQUIRED to get a bid. It is not. The guidelines read as follows: "If a team has less than 7 division one wins, it may not be considered". It doesn't say it will not be. Could come into play for teams like Furman, Wofford and UD.

I think a Team like Furman is still in the mix w/ wins over Wofford and ASU - the GPI of the conference needs to be the highest has not a team from the CAA beat these odds before? maybe N. Hampshire

[henfan]

Sorry, K.C. Keeler, even with a win over a mighty 2-8 Villanova squad on Saturday, you are not going to make the playoffs with six D-I wins.

Calm down there, Mrs. Jerry Moore. I've been telling everybody who will listen that UD will not make the post-season with only 6 D-I wins.

The question was asked here if that guideline could come into play. I think I made it very plain that a team with less than 7 D-I wins would likely not be selected this year. There's no precedent for it and there are enough 7 win teams to cover the bases. Alas, even with the expanded playoff field, there just aren't enough juiceboxes to give to 6 win teams like the Hens.

Addressing the hypothetical, yes, the guidelines are written such that the PSC could select a team with less than 6 wins. Are you arguing that point?

[Bearkat-Backer]

It's still very important to note that the next time a 6 D-I win team is selected for an at large will be the first.

I think this says it all.

[bluehenbillk]

I'm a UD fan and I don't think that UD belongs.

Many thoughts on this topic:

- Playing a D2 school is/was stupid - UD still is scheduled to do it one more time next season.
- SOS should play a larger role - an 8-3 Georgetown team or a MEAC team with 3 or more losses or the Pioneer teams - I'd take a 7-4 Furman or UD before I'd take those schools.
- There may come a day when the tourney goes to 24 where you see a 6-5 or 7-4 team get an at-large

[BisonBacker]

I'm a UD fan and I don't think that UD belongs.

Many thoughts on this topic:

- Playing a D2 school is/was stupid - UD still is scheduled to do it one more time next season.
- SOS should play a larger role - an 8-3 Georgetown team or a MEAC team with 3 or more losses or the Pioneer teams - I'd take a 7-4 Furman or UD before I'd take those schools.
- There may come a day when the tourney goes to 24 where you see a 6-5 or 7-4 team get an at-large

I agree with the bolded part, that league has a lot to prove and has yet to do it. As far as your last point I hope that day never comes.

[Fear the Bird]

Calm down there, Mrs. Jerry Moore. I've been telling everybody who will listen that UD will not make the post-season with only 6 D-I wins.

The question was asked here if that guideline could come into play. I think I made it very plain that a team with less than 7 D-I wins would likely not be selected this year. There's no precedent for it and there are enough 7 win teams to cover the bases. Alas, even with the expanded playoff field, there just aren't enough juiceboxes to give to 6 win teams like the Hens.

Addressing the hypothetical, yes, the guidelines are written such that the PSC could select a team with less than 6 wins. Are you arguing that point?

Im with you i dont get the people who have UD on the bubble including local media. At this point West Chester is clearly the reason why but aside from that if they EITHER beat Rhody on the road or UMASS at home we arenpossibly looking at a first round bye with the Towson and ODU wins

[bluehenbillk]

One more thing I'd add to the playoffs, and this would only hurt my own school - UD - but I think it's a good idea:

Every year at the conclusion of the playoffs I think the NCAA should reveal the bid amounts of the home teams for games not involving seeds.

For the following season, if a team would bid at least 10% greater than that & they have a better record than their opponent they should get the home game regardless of what the other team bid.

Example:

Say a school bids $150,000 this year to host a round of 16 game that ends up between two non-seeded teams.

For next season the NCAA says if you are a non-seeded team and bid at least $165,000 (10% more) and you have a better W-L record than you can host the game.

School A is unseeded, has a 9-2 record and bids the $165,000.
School B is unseeded, has a 8-3 record and bids more than the $165,000

School A gets the home game.

Now school A may take a bath financially, but if they can meet that benchmark anyway to play the game at home then let them...

Thoughts?

[jmu_duke07]

One more thing I'd add to the playoffs, and this would only hurt my own school - UD - but I think it's a good idea:

Every year at the conclusion of the playoffs I think the NCAA should reveal the bid amounts of the home teams for games not involving seeds.

For the following season, if a team would bid at least 10% greater than that & they have a better record than their opponent they should get the home game regardless of what the other team bid.

Example:

Say a school bids $150,000 this year to host a round of 16 game that ends up between two non-seeded teams.

For next season the NCAA says if you are a non-seeded team and bid at least $165,000 (10% more) and you have a better W-L record than you can host the game.

School A is unseeded, has a 9-2 record and bids the $165,000.
School B is unseeded, has a 8-3 record and bids more than the $165,000

School A gets the home game.

Now school A may take a bath financially, but if they can meet that benchmark anyway to play the game at home then let them...

Thoughts?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

The whole point of bids is so the NCAA can make money.

[bluehenbillk]

I understand that - this guarantees an increase in the amount of $$ year to year that the NCAA gets if teams want to meet those #'s and it rewards regular season play.

Sorry, I should've dumbed it down to a JMU educational level, my bad.

[Professor Chaos]

I think all the ADs of the schools should compete on the Price is Right to determine who gets a home playoff game.

Rod Roddy: It's a new semifinal home playoff game!!!!!!!!!!!
Crowd: Oooh! Ahhh!
Bob Barker: Ok, Gene what do you bid?
Gene Taylor (NDSU AD): $175 thousand Bob.
Bob Barker: Jim?
Jim O'Day (Montana AD): $200 thousand Bob.
Bob Barker: Brian?
Brian Faison (UND AD): $1 Bob..... legal bills are killin me.
Bob Barker: And Sam?
Sam Baker (GSU AD): .... .....
Bob Barker: Sam, what's your bid?
Sam Baker: .... .....
Bob Barker: I'm sorry Sam, your time is up.
Sam Baker: What?

They could sell tickets an sponsorships for the event too.... the NCAA would have money coming out of it's ears!

[Green26]

A team isn't going to get in with six D-I wins, period. It is even a stronger unwritten rule then the four-loss rule used to be in the old days. If there ever was going to be a time when a six-D-I-team made it in, it would have been last year when Montana finished third in the Big Sky and had that string of 17 consecutive bids on the line. The committee could have made some serious money with Montana hosting at least one game. And don't forget that Jim O'Day, Montana's AD, was on that committee.

I agree with you on this year and last year, although I think it's only a matter of time before a 6 D-I team is selected. As for last year, the committee thought it better to select So Carolina St over Montana. Huge mistake by the committee. I don't know what they were thinking.

So Carolina St was the second team in the MEAC conference, which was rated by the Sagarins as the worst conference in all of D-I football last year. The Big Sky was the 2nd and 3rd rated conference all year, ending at 3rd, and got only two teams in. In the last Sagarin rating prior to selections, SCS was 205th. By comparison, Ida St was 210th and No Colo was 183rd. In the GPI, SCS was 46th. UM was behind 15 of the playoff teams in the GPI. So Car St was 9-2 in the weakest conference, had no good wins, and had no good losses. They didn't play anyone any good, except Geo Tech, which beat them.

[jmu_duke07]

I understand that - this guarantees an increase in the amount of $$ year to year that the NCAA gets if teams want to meet those #'s and it rewards regular season play.

Sorry, I should've dumbed it down to a JMU educational level, my bad.

No, you're an idiot to think that strong arming a university for more money is the ideal situation, that my fellow conference foe, is a slippery slope... Let me guess, you work at a bank finding ways to tack more "Fees" to people's account.

[appfan2008]

I would like the committee to select the 10 best at large teams regardless of number of wins and where they are from...
IMO

[SumItUp]

The whole point of bids is so the NCAA can make money.

I'm not going to take the bait, I'm not going to take the bait.....ah screw it.

The NCAA does not make money. It is an institution in existence to serve its members. The members are the schools. The bids fund the playoffs. Someone else can provide the details if necessary.

[DJKyR0]

I think all the ADs of the schools should compete on the Price is Right to determine who gets a home playoff game.

Rod Roddy: It's a new semifinal home playoff game!!!!!!!!!!!
Crowd: Oooh! Ahhh!
Bob Barker: Ok, Gene what do you bid?
Gene Taylor (NDSU AD): $175 thousand Bob.
Bob Barker: Jim?
Jim O'Day (Montana AD): $200 thousand Bob.
Bob Barker: Brian?
Brian Faison (UND AD): $1 Bob..... legal bills are killin me.
Bob Barker: And Sam?
Sam Baker (GSU AD): .... .....
Bob Barker: Sam, what's your bid?
Sam Baker: .... .....
Bob Barker: I'm sorry Sam, your time is up.
Sam Baker: What?

They could sell tickets an sponsorships for the event too.... the NCAA would have money coming out of it's ears!

I think it'd go a little more like this:

Gene Taylor: $175,000 Bob!
Brian Faison: $175,001, Bob! (Please bid higher, please bid higherm please big higher....)

[ysubigred]

No, you're an idiot to think that strong arming a university for more money is the ideal situation, that my fellow conference foe, is a slippery slope... Let me guess, you work at a bank finding ways to tack more "Fees" to people's account.

xcoffeex I'd like to see them take the 20 best teams period. This Autobid thing for weak azz conferences gosh!!!!!!!!!! xtwocentsx

[jmufan999]

I would like the committee to select the 10 best at large teams regardless of number of wins and where they are from...
IMO

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is what they do now. Supposedly, they could care less how many teams come from one conference. They are supposed to select the "best" at-large teams, period. Obviously, they're human beings and are therefore imperfect. So other factors could come into play (money, peer pressure, etc.) but I seem to remember hearing they're supposed to select the "best" at-large teams. The bids aren't opened until after all of the teams are chosen.

[jmu_duke07]

I'm not going to take the bait, I'm not going to take the bait.....ah screw it.

The NCAA does not make money. It is an institution in existence to serve its members. The members are the schools. The bids fund the playoffs. Someone else can provide the details if necessary.

And where does leftover said money go to once playoffs are done?

[henfan]

And where does leftover said money go to once playoffs are done?

To which leftover money are you referring?

[jmu_duke07]

To which leftover money are you referring?

Are you saying there isn't any?

[bluehenbillk]

The NCAA takes 75% of the gate which is why schools under report attendance. At best it's normally a break even process for the NCAA. If they wouldn't have moved from Chatty truthfully there probably would no longer be a playoff - at least that's what the NCAA said last season - based on the $$ they were previously getting from Chatty for hosting the game. Frisco has this year & next year left - will be interesting to see where things go after that.

[henfan]

Are you saying there isn't any?

I'm not making any claim, just wondering if you have some evidence to support your supposition that the NCAA typically has money left over in the kitty after hosting the NC games. Well?

[UNH Fanboi]

I agree with you on this year and last year, although I think it's only a matter of time before a 6 D-I team is selected. As for last year, the committee thought it better to select So Carolina St over Montana. Huge mistake by the committee. I don't know what they were thinking.

So Carolina St was the second team in the MEAC conference, which was rated by the Sagarins as the worst conference in all of D-I football last year. The Big Sky was the 2nd and 3rd rated conference all year, ending at 3rd, and got only two teams in. In the last Sagarin rating prior to selections, SCS was 205th. By comparison, Ida St was 210th and No Colo was 183rd. In the GPI, SCS was 46th. UM was behind 15 of the playoff teams in the GPI. So Car St was 9-2 in the weakest conference, had no good wins, and had no good losses. They didn't play anyone any good, except Geo Tech, which beat them.

SCSU wasn't the last team selected. I believe someone from the committee said NDSU was the last team in.

[penguinpower]

Their are already tons of teams with 7 wins. A team with 6 wins will not be neccessary imo.

The MVFC will probably have 5 teams with 7 DI wins alone.

The MVFC will not get 5 as long as that whore is running our conference.

[JALMOND]

To throw a big thorn into the mix, no one is talking about Portland State. With a win at home this weekend over Weber State, the Vikings will have 6 DI wins. The only losses are to Montana and Montana State, both of which are in the top 10 in the FCS. The other loss is to TCU who just beat Boise State last week. They would clearly be the third best team in a historically strong football conference where last year's champion resides. They own a road win over the defending champs, the only other team to do that this year is Montana State when EWU was on their early skid. If you open it up to 6 win teams, you have to consider Portland State.

[Mr. C]

SCSU wasn't the last team selected. I believe someone from the committee said NDSU was the last team in.

You would be correct. I was told this from several sources (including committee members).

[jmufan999]

edited.

[Mr. C]

I agree with you on this year and last year, although I think it's only a matter of time before a 6 D-I team is selected. As for last year, the committee thought it better to select So Carolina St over Montana. Huge mistake by the committee. I don't know what they were thinking.

So Carolina St was the second team in the MEAC conference, which was rated by the Sagarins as the worst conference in all of D-I football last year. The Big Sky was the 2nd and 3rd rated conference all year, ending at 3rd, and got only two teams in. In the last Sagarin rating prior to selections, SCS was 205th. By comparison, Ida St was 210th and No Colo was 183rd. In the GPI, SCS was 46th. UM was behind 15 of the playoff teams in the GPI. So Car St was 9-2 in the weakest conference, had no good wins, and had no good losses. They didn't play anyone any good, except Geo Tech, which beat them.

You have to have a cutoff someplace and I am perfectly comfortable with seven D-I wins being the dividing line. As someone else pointed out, North Dakota State was the last team in, not South Carolina State. South Carolina State's schedule was what it was, but the Bulldogs had proven themselves in the previous two tournaments with close games with Appalachian State. In the case of Montana, Jim O'Day told me over lunch in Frisco that Montana didn't deserve to be in the playoffs last year. If your AD (who was also on the committee) thought that, what do you think the rest of the committee thought?

[Mr. C]

To throw a big thorn into the mix, no one is talking about Portland State. With a win at home this weekend over Weber State, the Vikings will have 6 DI wins. The only losses are to Montana and Montana State, both of which are in the top 10 in the FCS. The other loss is to TCU who just beat Boise State last week. They would clearly be the third best team in a historically strong football conference where last year's champion resides. They own a road win over the defending champs, the only other team to do that this year is Montana State when EWU was on their early skid. If you open it up to 6 win teams, you have to consider Portland State.

Again, a six-win team has zero chance of getting in.

[Fear the Bird]

Montana had no business making the 2010 playoffs

I agree SCSU was maybe not the best choice But they were 9-2 coming off past playoff impressive showings

[Green26]

You have to have a cutoff someplace and I am perfectly comfortable with seven D-I wins being the dividing line. As someone else pointed out, North Dakota State was the last team in, not South Carolina State. South Carolina State's schedule was what it was, but the Bulldogs had proven themselves in the previous two tournaments with close games with Appalachian State. In the case of Montana, Jim O'Day told me over lunch in Frisco that Montana didn't deserve to be in the playoffs last year. If your AD (who was also on the committee) thought that, what do you think the rest of the committee thought?

Nope, you don't have to cut it off somewhere. The committee needs to follow the criteria and select the top at-large teams based on record AND strength of schedule.

Are you joking by saying that SCS proved itself in the two previous years? What about Montana in the two previous years? They went to the national championship years. Did they not prove themselves?

As for your comment on what O'Day supposedly said to you, interesting. O'Day received some criticism from some UM fans, including myself. If he said that to you (and thought that), he shouldn't be the UM AD. I thought UM deserved to be selected and would be selected last year, and judged in retrospect, I am even more sure that UM deserved to be selected. Two of Montana losses were to top 5 seeds, by small margins.

[Green26]

You would be correct. I was told this from several sources (including committee members).

Again, this shows how bad the committee was last year. So Car St didn't deserve to be selected, by any valid measurement. The committee ignored the playoff selection criteria and blew it. Similar to how you and others blew it the prior year by not adding Marc Mariani to the Payton Watch List.

[Fear the Bird]

But what win can you hang your hat on? You lost the only 3 games worth a damn on your schedule

But you are right SCSU didnt have a resume that screamed at large

[JALMOND]

Again, a six-win team has zero chance of getting in.

Then what are we debating here, in a thread that has grown into 5 pages and counting? People brought up the idea of a 6 win team getting an at large and no one pointed out Portland State. I threw out our resume that, if this is the year the committee looks at a 6 win team, then they have to start here. And that is all you have to counter it? C'mon, C, you're better than that.

[Mr. C]

Again, this shows how bad the committee was last year. So Car St didn't deserve to be selected, by any valid measurement. The committee ignored the playoff selection criteria and blew it. Similar to how you and others blew it the prior year by not adding Marc Mariani to the Payton Watch List.

As has been talked about ad nauseum, Montana officials wanted to promote Chase Reynolds as their candidate. If that was who they wanted to promote, that was their business. Mariani did most of his stuff in the playoffs. He wouldn't have even been a finalist, so it didn't effect anything. I didn't BLOW anything and I totally disagree with you about South Carolina State. I actually saw SCSU played twice in person last year. How about you? Knowing that you know some football, I think you might have had a different view of the Bulldogs if you had seen them with your eyes. They were particularly good on defense. A lot of teams struggle with the Georgia Southern option, as SCSU did in the playoffs.

[Mr. C]

Nope, you don't have to cut it off somewhere. The committee needs to follow the criteria and select the top at-large teams based on record AND strength of schedule.

Are you joking by saying that SCS proved itself in the two previous years? What about Montana in the two previous years? They went to the national championship years. Did they not prove themselves?

As for your comment on what O'Day supposedly said to you, interesting. O'Day received some criticism from some UM fans, including myself. If he said that to you (and thought that), he shouldn't be the UM AD. I thought UM deserved to be selected and would be selected last year, and judged in retrospect, I am even more sure that UM deserved to be selected. Two of Montana losses were to top 5 seeds, by small margins.

Montana wasn't that good last year after it lost its starting QB to injury. And it certainly wasn't close to the team that made the final in 2008-09. Again, win more than six games and you get in. For that matter, there were too many seven win teams last year.

[Mr. C]

Then what are we debating here, in a thread that has grown into 5 pages and counting? People brought up the idea of a 6 win team getting an at large and no one pointed out Portland State. I threw out our resume that, if this is the year the committee looks at a 6 win team, then they have to start here. And that is all you have to counter it? C'mon, C, you're better than that.

It used to be eight wins to get in. I don't see a six-win team ever getting in unless there is a year where there are not enough seven or eight win teams to fill the field. Again, where do you draw the line? Portland State hasn't even been ranked in the top-20 of the polls for most of the season. Why should the Vikings be considered? Because they play in the Big Sky alone?

[JALMOND]

It used to be eight wins to get in. I don't see a six-win team ever getting in unless there is a year where there are not enough seven or eight win teams to fill the field. Again, where do you draw the line? Portland State hasn't even been ranked in the top-20 of the polls for most of the season. Why should the Vikings be considered? Because they play in the Big Sky alone?

OK, if that is all you got. For the record, I don't see a 6 win team getting an at large this year. But soon the committee has to start to consider it, otherwise there will be a bunch of good 6 win teams at home watching a first round game between Bethune Cookman and Jacksonville. Is that really what the committee wants?

[Green26]

As has been talked about ad nauseum, Montana officials wanted to promote Chase Reynolds as their candidate. If that was who they wanted to promote, that was their business. Mariani did most of his stuff in the playoffs. He wouldn't have even been a finalist, so it didn't effect anything. I didn't BLOW anything and I totally disagree with you about South Carolina State. I actually saw SCSU played twice in person last year. How about you? Knowing that you know some football, I think you might have had a different view of the Bulldogs if you had seen them with your eyes. They were particularly good on defense. A lot of teams struggle with the Georgia Southern option, as SCSU did in the playoffs.

I don't believe that watching a mediocre team play well against a weak team is particularly meaningful.

A playoff selection committee that selects the 46th rated team in the GPI should be ashamed of themselves and immediately replaced. Prior selection committees would never have done that. It was an embarrassment to FCS football.

Agreed that Montana wasn't as good after its qb Selle got hurt. Montana was also hurt by injuries, including Reynolds' shoulder injury.

Mariani was very good all season. He did not do most of his stuff in the playoffs. He had a monster game against SDS, but had only 74 yards in punt returns in the playoffs (including zero in the last 2 games) and 3 receptions for 39 yards against App St. He had 2 TD's in the last 3 playoff games. He was terrific in the playoffs, but he'd been performing like that the whole season.

[GannonFan]

I don't believe that watching a mediocre team play well against a weak team is particularly meaningful.

A playoff selection committee that selects the 46th rated team in the GPI should be ashamed of themselves and immediately replaced. Prior selection committees would never have done that. It was an embarrassment to FCS football.


I kinda agree with this - what was the value of watching SCSU play last year when the only team of merit they played all year was GA Tech? The MEAC was bad last year, so what could you really glean from watching SCSU play that slate? It's easy to blame the loss to GSU on having to play the option, but Bethune-Cookman, last year's MEAC co-champs, didn't distinguish themselves in a 25 point loss, at home no less, to a UNH team that lost the following weekend. While teams are different from one season to the next, at some point you have to look at conferences that are non-competitive over a long period of time in the playoffs, like the MEAC is (and there are other conferences *cough* OVC *cough*) and give some serious pause to selecting an at large team from there. Giving everyone an autobid, regardless of merit, is fine, but the at-larges should be less restrictive on record on more on the quality of the teams involved. Until they start showing more in OOC play or playoffs, there are plenty of conferences that just don't merit an at large team.

[RabidRabbit]

xcoffeex I'd like to see them take the 20 best teams period. This Autobid thing for weak azz conferences gosh!!!!!!!!!! xtwocentsx

Sorry, YBR, this isn't the BCS, where only the elites get to play. Even the "lesser" leagues get their chance to be a cinderella darling. I will be surprised if we ever see a MEAC/Big South/NEC team seeded again. When it happens, the team will have NO FCS losses, and will have a fellow play-off 2nd round selectee as one of the "quality" wins.

[jmu_duke07]

I'm not making any claim, just wondering if you have some evidence to support your supposition that the NCAA typically has money left over in the kitty after hosting the NC games. Well?

I have no idea if the NCAA does or does not have money left over after the championship. It's just common sense (Profit or Non-Profit), that the more money you take in the bigger the budget, errgo, one is able to spend more (or lose less).

[Professor Chaos]

I'm not making any claim, just wondering if you have some evidence to support your supposition that the NCAA typically has money left over in the kitty after hosting the NC games. Well? I have no idea if the NCAA does or does not have money left over after the championship. It's just common sense (Profit or Non-Profit), that the more money you take in the bigger the budget, errgo, one is able to spend more (or lose less).
I have no factual basis for this other than what I've heard but I'm pretty sure the NCAA loses money on the FCS playoffs. It's not a money sieve but I don't think it's money made. I also recall hearing somehwere that 95% of the NCAA's revenue comes from the TV contract for the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. That is used to fund practically everything the NCAA does.

EDIT: They spread the wealth from the NCAA Men's Basketball Tourney to the member schools it looks like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Basketball_Tournament#Current_televis ion_contracts


The CBS broadcast provides the NCAA with over 500 million dollars annually, and makes up over 90% of the NCAA's annual revenue.[20] The revenues from the multi-billion-dollar television contract are divided among the Division I basketball playing schools and conferences as follows:[21]

1/6 of the money goes directly to the schools based on how many sports they play (one "share" for each sport starting with 14, which is the minimum needed for Division I membership).
1/3 of the money goes directly to the schools based on how many scholarships they give out (one share for each of the first 50, two for each of the next 50, ten for each of the next 50, and 20 for each scholarship above 150).
1/2 of the money goes to the conferences based on how well they did in the six previous men's basketball tournaments (counting each year separately, one share for each team getting in, and one share for each win except in the Final Four and, prior to the 2008 tournament, the Play-in game). In 2007, based on the 2001 through 2006 tournaments, the Big East received over $14.85 million, while the eight conferences that did not win a first-round game in those six years received slightly more than $1 million each.[22]


However, according to the oh-so-reliable wikipedia the NCAA men's basketball tournament is the only tournament the NCAA runs where it doesn't keep any profit it may make, so even if the FCS playoffs made a profit the member schools wouldn't see any of it.

[Twentysix]

I have no factual basis for this other than what I've heard but I'm pretty sure the NCAA loses money on the FCS playoffs. It's not a money sieve but I don't think it's money made. I also recall hearing somehwere that 95% of the NCAA's revenue comes from the TV contract for the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. That is used to fund practically everything the NCAA does.

6 Billion dollars for like a 5 year period. DI Mens Basketball pays for almost every other sports championship fields*.


*Not just Division I championship fields either, pretty much all of them.

[Green26]

I kinda agree with this - what was the value of watching SCSU play last year when the only team of merit they played all year was GA Tech? The MEAC was bad last year, so what could you really glean from watching SCSU play that slate? It's easy to blame the loss to GSU on having to play the option, but Bethune-Cookman, last year's MEAC co-champs, didn't distinguish themselves in a 25 point loss, at home no less, to a UNH team that lost the following weekend. While teams are different from one season to the next, at some point you have to look at conferences that are non-competitive over a long period of time in the playoffs, like the MEAC is (and there are other conferences *cough* OVC *cough*) and give some serious pause to selecting an at large team from there. Giving everyone an autobid, regardless of merit, is fine, but the at-larges should be less restrictive on record on more on the quality of the teams involved. Until they start showing more in OOC play or playoffs, there are plenty of conferences that just don't merit an at large team.

This is a very good post, and of course, I agree. This is what I was trying to say. Ha-ha.

[OhioHen]

All of these discussions are predicated on the assumption that "the committee may not consider..." means "the committee MIGHT NOT consider..."

I read it as "the committee IS NOT PERMITTED TO consider..." Less than 7 D-I wins would in this case be an absolute elimination from consideration.

Has anybody done the research to find out what the rule REALLY means?