AQs for other conferences

[Go...gate]

The easy way to solve this is to include the NEC and PFC in the play-offs. As I recall the same negative stuff being thrown at those conferences was said about the Patriot League in after it lobbied for and recieved an automatic bid. Playoff participation forced the Patriot to raise the bar for its own teams, which Bucknell (PL Champ [though non-playoff]in '96, 10-1 in '97) Lehigh (Elite Eight in '98, '00 and '01) Fordham (Elite Eight in '02) and Colgate (Finalist in '03) subsequently did and Lafayette is now doing. I am sure that the NEC and PFC will make efforts to succeed in play-off football if they are allowed to participate.

[*****]

The easy way to solve this is to include the NEC and PFC in the play-offs... I am sure that the NEC and PFC will make efforts to succeed in play-off football if they are allowed to participate.
The SWAC*, GWFC, Big South, Ivy League, NEC, MAAC and PFL are already included in the playoffs.
The Ivy League, by their own choice is the only I-AA conference not participating in the playoffs.
The PFL and MAAC are the only I-AA nonscholarship conferences.
The NEC is the only I-AA conference to limit scholarships.
The Patriot League and the Ivy League are the only I-AA conferences to offer only need-based grants instead of scholarships to I-AA athletes.
The Atlantic 10, Big Sky, Gateway, Ohio Valley, Mid-Eastern, Patriot, Southern and Southland Conferences currently have automatic qualifiers to the playoffs.

*SWAC teams without conflicting games

Sorry if I missed anything.

[aceinthehole]

The easy way to solve this is to include the NEC and PFC in the play-offs. As I recall the same negative stuff being thrown at those conferences was said about the Patriot League in after it lobbied for and recieved an automatic bid. Playoff participation forced the Patriot to raise the bar for its own teams, which Bucknell (PL Champ [though non-playoff]in '96, 10-1 in '97) Lehigh (Elite Eight in '98, '00 and '01) Fordham (Elite Eight in '02) and Colgate (Finalist in '03) subsequently did and Lafayette is now doing. I am sure that the NEC and PFC will make efforts to succeed in play-off football if they are allowed to participate.

Thanks 'Gate. At least someone can see the argument we are trying to make. We are just saying "mid-majors" deserve the right to compete. We should be judged on our results, but when there are just 3 games between the Ivy and the NEC its hard to say that we can't compete or win against them. And although we have generally beaten lower-tier PL teams, the trend is growing. The more chances we have to play they more we have a chance to "prove ourselves."

At least some people can rememeber not too long ago when they were on the outside looking in. I'm glad you have enough respect for other teams that you are willing to give them a shot. I just wish more people had an open mind on the topic.

[*****]

... I just wish more people had an open mind on the topic...:rolleyes: I just wish more people knew the fact that all conferences and teams in I-AA are eligible for the playoffs.

Where the 2005 playoff field came from:
GPI Conference Rank
1. Gateway Football Conference (25.82) 2 teams
2. Southern Conference (26.99) 3 teams
3. Big Sky Conference (28.27) 2 teams
4. Southland Conference (30.44) 2 teams
5. Great West Football Conference (31.65) 1 team
6. Atlantic 10 Conference (32.24) 2 teams
7. Ivy League (42.63)
8. Ohio Valley Conference (53.37) 1 team
9. Patriot League (53.38) 2 teams
10. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (55.74) 1 team
11. Big South Conference (60.27)
12. Southwestern Athletic Conference (64.71)
13. Pioneer Football League (68.42)
14. Northeast Conference (73.75)
15. Metro-Atlantic Athletic Conference (77.82)

[Go...gate]

Ralph, to clarify, I mean give the NEC and PFC automatic bids.

[*****]

Ralph, to clarify, I mean give the NEC and PFC automatic bids.GG, that's not what AITH sez... "We are just saying "mid-majors" deserve the right to compete." Those conferences (it's PFL not PFC) have the "right to compete" already. Much different than an AQ. There can be only eight AQs so if others are awarded then others have to be taken away. Any suggestions?

I'll start a poll.

[Go...gate]

Ralph, perhaps it is a chicken-and-egg thing. What I'm saying is that I can remember when the Patriot was being called a mid-major in the early to mid-90's. The conference and its members had a difficult time re-gaining credibility (they had once all been fairly strong, especially Holy Cross as I-AA Independents) without an automatic bid. I think if the conference shows it is coherent and not some thrown-together operation (such as the MAAC is now), they should get a chance to prove themselves in a national tournament.

[aceinthehole]

GG, that's not what AITH sez... "We are just saying "mid-majors" deserve the right to compete." Those conferences (it's PFL not PFC) have the "right to compete" already. Much different than an AQ. There can be only eight AQs so if others are awarded then others have to be taken away. Any suggestions?

I'll start a poll.

Don't get me started! I have ALWAYS said the NEC derserves an AUTO BID! They have applied and were denied.

That has always been my stance, but yes I do support more regular season games vs. top teams to enhance our profile. My first and strongest arguments have always been the athe NEC deserves AUTO BID access as they do in other NCAA sports!

Please see my previous posts on the subject:
http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?p=153877#post153877

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?p=184053#post184053

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?p=192015#post192015

Thanks :D

[*****]

... they should get a chance to prove themselves in a national tournament.There can be only eight AQs so if others are awarded then others have to be taken away. The PL showed their might with at-large selections. That is how it is done.

[Go...gate]

You mean proving themselves by getting the At-Large bids or proving themselves by winning games as an At-Large? I don't believe any PL team has won a play-off game as an At-Large.

[*****]

Don't get me started! I have ALWAYS said the NEC derserves an AUTO BID!There can be only eight AQs so if others are awarded then others have to be taken away. Any suggestions?

[*****]

You mean proving themselves by getting the At-Large bids or proving themselves by winning games as an At-Large? I don't believe any PL team has won a play-off game as an At-Large.I didn't say winning but teams from the current PL did ...

1979 First Round (12/8):
Lehigh 28, Murray St. 9 (Murray, Ky. 10,000)
Championship (12/15):
Eastern Ky. 30, Lehigh 7 (Orlando, Fla. 5,200)

1980 First Round (12/13):
Eastern Ky. 23, Lehigh 20 (Bethlehem, Pa. 11,500)

1982 First Round (11/27):
Colgate 21, Boston U. 7 (Hamilton, N.Y. 5,000)
Quarterfinals (12/4):
Delaware 20, Colgate 13 (Newark, Del. 11,448)

I can keep going because I just started at the beginning...

[aceinthehole]

There can be only eight AQs so if others are awarded then others have to be taken away. Any suggestions?

You don't read my posts very well do you. :bawling:

My propsal is simple ... expand the playoffs! Yes, as currently constructed the only way the NEC (or the Ivy, etc) could be awarded an AUTO BID is to take one away. I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT!

Instead of limiting your vision to the current construct, think outside of the box. Adding a PIG for the NEC/PFL champ is one idea, expanding to 24 teams is another. Bottom line is there are OPTIONS available.

Again, see my previous post on the subject:

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?p=192015#post192015

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?p=153877#post153877

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?p=153686#post153686

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?p=193356#post193356

Thanks again! :)

Edit: (sorry, wrong thread please feel free to move)

[*****]

... expand the playoffs!...think outside of the box...Expansion is not going to happen any time in the near future. I have interviewed many I-AA Football Committee members and they say no. You tell me to think outside the box but maybe you should think within the rules? Name some conferences that should lose their AQ to the NEC or PFL. Otherwise getting an at-large bid is always a possibility. Cal Poly did last year, their first.

[*****]

I didn't say winning but teams from the current PL did ...

1979 First Round (12/8):
Lehigh 28, Murray St. 9 (Murray, Ky. 10,000)
Championship (12/15):
Eastern Ky. 30, Lehigh 7 (Orlando, Fla. 5,200)

1980 First Round (12/13):
Eastern Ky. 23, Lehigh 20 (Bethlehem, Pa. 11,500)

1982 First Round (11/27):
Colgate 21, Boston U. 7 (Hamilton, N.Y. 5,000)
Quarterfinals (12/4):
Delaware 20, Colgate 13 (Newark, Del. 11,448)

I can keep going because I just started at the beginning...Ah what the heck:

1983 First Round (11/27):
Western Caro. 24, Colgate 23 (Cullowhee, N.C. 6,500)
Quarterfinals (12/3):
Western Caro. 28, Holy Cross 21 (Worcester, Mass. 10,814)

1998 First Round (11/28):
Ga. Southern 49, Colgate 28 (Statesboro, Ga. 7,676)
Lehigh 24, Richmond 23 (Richmond, Va. 10,254)
Quarterfinals (12/5):
Massachusetts 27, Lehigh 21 (Amherst, Mass. 12,108)

1999 First Round (11/27):
Hofstra 27, Lehigh 15 (Hempstead, N.Y. 6,770)
Illinois St. 56, Colgate 13 (Normal, Ill. 7,133)

2000 First Round (11/25):
Lehigh 37, Western Ill. 7 (Macomb, Ill. 3,204)
Quarterfinals (12/2):
Delaware 47, Lehigh 22 (Newark, Del. 16,390)

2001 First Round (12/1):
Montana 28, Northwestern St. 19 (Missoula, Mont. 17,289)
Lehigh 27, Hofstra 24 (ot) (Bethlehem, Pa. 10,131)
Quarterfinals (12/8):
Furman 34, Lehigh 17 (Greenville, S.C. 10,189)

2002 First Round (11/30):
Fordham 29, Northeastern 24 (Boston, Mass. 6,848)
Quarterfinals (12/7):
Villanova 24, Fordham 10 (Villanova, Pa. 4,351)

2003 First Round (11/29):
Colgate 19, Massachusetts 7 (Hamilton, N.Y. 4,197)
Quarterfinals (12/6):
Colgate 28, Western Ill. 27 (Hamilton, N.Y. 5,287)
Semifinals (12/13):
Colgate 36, Fla. Atlantic 24 (Boca Raton, Fla. 12,857)
Championship (12/19):
Delaware 40, Colgate 0 (Chattanooga, Tenn. 14,281)

2004 First Round (11/27):
Delaware 28, Lafayette 14 (Newark, Del. 13,757)
James Madison 14, Lehigh 13 (Bethlehem, Pa. 5,568)

2005 First Round (11/26):
New Hampshire 55, Colgate 21 (Durham, N.H. 7,806)
Appalachian State 34, Lafayette 23 (Boone, N.C. 6,327)

This was a quick cut and paste from http://www.i-aa.org/section_front.asp?arttypeid=568 so I probably made a mistake but I think that's all the playoff games with current PL members.

[aceinthehole]

Please, correct me if I'm wrong but ...

The PL was not awarded an AT-LARGE playoff team until 1998, one year after the league was granted an AUTO BID.

---
The PL was first established in the 1986 season.
The first PL playoff team was in 1997 (Colgate - Auto).
The first PL AT-LARGE selection was in 1998 (Colgate - At large; Lehigh - Auto).
So, the PL went its first 10 seasons without a playoff team, right?
----

I think this is why 'Gate (and a few others) has been understanding of the NEC request for an AUTO BID. The PL was on the oustide looking in for a while too.

[*****]

... The PL was on the oustide looking in for a while too.Man, you are relentless at sidestepping the issue. The PL got an AQ because of the historic quality of their teams. Holy Cross, Colgate and Lehigh had already been at-large playoff selections and won games BEFORE the PL got an AQ. If you refuse to say who the NEC or PFL should replace, or make a case why they should replace anyone then you should at least acknowledge that the PL had a strong case for an AQ when they got it. Is your case that the NEC or PFL have as strong a case as the PL did?

[aceinthehole]

Man, you are relentless at sidestepping the issue. The PL got an AQ because of the historic quality of their teams. Holy Cross, Colgate and Lehigh had already been at-large playoff selections BEFORE the PL got an AQ. If you refuse to say who the NEC or PFL should replace, or make a case why they should replace anyone then you should at least acknowledge that the PL had a strong case for an AQ when they got it. Is your case that the NEC or PFL have as strong a case as the PL did?

First, I will let others draw their own conclusions from my previous post. It was meant to be factual, not opinion. What it means is up to the reader.

xcoffeex I'm not sidestepping any issue. My view and opinions have been made very clear in previous posts. Some may agree with me - others may not.

Unless the facts above I posted were incorrect (please verify) the fact is: The PATRIOT LEAGUE champion was not awarded a playoff spot for their first 10 years of existance (1986-1996).

----
I am not denying the achivements of any current PL teams in the period before the creation of the PL.

I am also not denying the worthyness of the PL to get the AUTO BID in 1997, but the point is THE CONFERENCE didn't earn an AUTO BID in the previous 10 seasons by making the playoffs as an AT-LARGE. They had to have done something else to earn the auto bid. So, if the PL is the formula to earn an AUTO-BID fine! Then lets figure out what it was in clear and objective results, not speculation. :D

[UAalum72]

Proposition: Automatic bids will not be awarded to leagues before the season. Eight playoff bids will be reserved for conference champions. Those will be chosen after the regular season and before the at-large bids. Preference will be given to a champion which has beaten another champion head-to-head. Previous years' history will not be a factor.


I don't know the PL's case for an autobid before it got one; all I know is that no league member got an at-large in the entirety of the league's existence before they got the autobid.

[blukeys]

First, I will let others draw their own conclusions from my previous post. It was meant to be factual, not opinion. What it means is up to the reader.

xcoffeex I'm not sidestepping any issue. My view and opinions have been made very clear in previous posts. Some may agree with me - others may not.

Unless the facts above I posted were incorrect (please verify) the fact is: The PATRIOT LEAGUE champion was not awarded a playoff spot for their first 10 years of existance (1986-1996).

----

I am also not denying the worthyness of the PL to get the AUTO BID in 1997, but the point is THE CONFERENCE didn't earn an AUTO BID in the previous 10 seasons by making the playoffs as an AT-LARGE. They had to have done something else to earn the auto bid. So, if the PL is the formula to earn an AUTO-BID fine! Then lets figure out what it was in clear and objective results, not speculation. :D

Yes you have not offered all the facts. Like the Ivy League the Patriot League also refused to participate in the I-AA post season in it's first year's of experience. Certainly the 80's Holy Cross teams would have been invited and in my view done some real damage in the playoffs. Gordie Lockbaum of HC actually got Heismann Trophy votes!!!!:nod: :nod: :nod:

Your post is totally misleading by including the years that the PL refused to participate in post season competition as years that they were refused entry. Next time get all your facts straight.

[aceinthehole]

Yes you have not offered all the facts. Like the Ivy League the Patriot League also refused to participate in the I-AA post season in it's first year's of experience. Certainly the 80's Holy Cross teams would have been invited and in my view done some real damage in the playoffs. Gordie Lockbaum of HC actually got Heismann Trophy votes!!!!:nod: :nod: :nod:

Your post is totally misleading by including the years that the PL refused to participate in post season competition as years that they were refused entry. Next time get all your facts straight.

Ease up! First, I asked to be corrected (twice) if I was wrong or not including everything. I was simply going by the facts available to me by reasearching some facts. :read: Thanks for the rest of the story.

Now, if it was the case that the PL turned down at-large bids to the playoffs from 1986-1996, that is fine. Again, I did not know that. I was not aware that the conference CHOSE to sit out of the playoffs.

So just as a follow up question, - what changed their minds? When and why did the PL ask the NCAA for the auto bid? How was it grranted (playoff expansion, etc)? I only ask to see why the Ivy hasn't decied to join the playoffs and what the NCAA has done in the past to offer new auto bids.

Thanks :)

[blukeys]

Ease up! First, I asked to be corrected (twice) if I was wrong or not including everything. I was simply going by the facts available to me by reasearching some facts. :read: Thanks for the rest of the story.

Now, if it was the case that the PL turned down at-large bids to the playoffs from 1986-1996, that is fine. Again, I did not know that. I was not aware that the conference CHOSE to sit out of the playoffs.

So just as a follow up question, - what changed their minds? When and why did the PL ask the NCAA for the auto bid? How was it grranted (playoff expansion, etc)? I only ask to see why the Ivy hasn't decied to join the playoffs and what the NCAA has done in the past to offer new auto bids.

Thanks :)

Based on what I have learned from those who are on this board, The PL changed their policy in the early 90's (I may be wrong on this but I am not a PL fan)

I assume the pressure to join the playoffs came from fans, players, and coaches as is the case with the Ivies today. I don't know the history only that like the IVIES, the Pl was initially in 1986 refusing to participate in the I-AA playoffs. As I stated earlier some of the HC teams could have been a NC threat.

I would suggest you direct your questions to Colgate 13, Go gate or ngineer who know a lot more about the PL then I do.

I have a little knowledge about the PL but as the saying goes "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

[Go...gate]

Ralph and Blukeys are both correct. The PL, which began play in 1986 as the Colonial League, did not permit their teams to participate in post-season play as a matter of policy through 1996 [spring practice was also prohibited until 1996]. It did have teams with very strong FB reputations and long histories of past successes - much as the Ivies did.

At the same time, however, the PL went into a very swift decline after 1991 when Holy Cross' last scholarship class graduated. By 1994, the League was non-competitive outside the conference in football (I believe the winning percentage was below 20%).

Because the PL was highly concerned that its programs would continue to wither away to mid-major or even D-III status, (which nearly happened at Colgate), it broke with the Ivy on post-season play and spring practice. But the PL received strong opposition from the NCAA when it sought to obtain a bid. The NCAA believed that the weakness of the PL in OOC play did not warrant an automatic bid and that the decision should be deferred. However, reason prevailed and the PL received the automatic playoff invitation, which helped the PL and its FB programs re-gain credibility.

[aceinthehole]

Ralph and Blukeys are both correct. The PL, which began play in 1986 as the Colonial League, did not permit their teams to participate in post-season play as a matter of policy through 1996 [spring practice was also prohibited until 1996]. It did have teams with very strong FB reputations and long histories of past successes - much as the Ivies did.

At the same time, however, the PL went into a very swift decline after 1991 when Holy Cross' last scholarship class graduated. By 1994, the League was non-competitive outside the conference in football (I believe the winning percentage was below 20%).

Because the PL was highly concerned that its programs would continue to wither away to mid-major or even D-III status, (which nearly happened at Colgate), it broke with the Ivy on post-season play and spring practice. But the PL received strong opposition from the NCAA when it sought to obtain a bid. The NCAA believed that the weakness of the PL in OOC play did not warrant an automatic bid and that the decision should be deferred. However, reason prevailed and the PL received the automatic playoff invitation, which helped the PL and its FB programs re-gain credibility.

THANK YOU!

Wow, a very informative history. Clearly a comparison to the NEC is not valid, becasue as we know prior to 1993 all NEC teams were in a lower classification (or didn't exist), so we don't have the history to fall back on.

However, your second statement is much more on point with my thoughts. The NCAA (and many on this board) think the NEC "weakness" should prevent them from an auto-bid. I think you might say, without the auto-bid (and spring practices, etc) the PL would not have reached the sucess that that have now. Again, I value your openness and understanding on this topic!

Just as a follow up - how did the NCAA award the PL an auto bid in 1997? What were some of the options they considered at that time? I ask to see if the same remedy could be used for the NEC (or other conference that petitions for an auto bid).

[Go...gate]

As I recall, the PL (Debby Bogert was Commissioner then) petitioned the NCAA for the auto-bid. Lehigh AD Joe Sterrett and then-Bucknell President William "Bro" Adams were instrumental in the petition's success.

[poly51]

Expansion is not going to happen any time in the near future. I have interviewed many I-AA Football Committee members and they say no. You tell me to think outside the box but maybe you should think within the rules? Name some conferences that should lose their AQ to the NEC or PFL. Otherwise getting an at-large bid is always a possibility. Cal Poly did last year, their first.


So what happens when the Great West qualifies for and requests an AQ? They are certainly strong enough. Do they just give one less at large bid?

[EKU05]

No, they wouldn't give one less because 1AA bylaws state that at least 50% of all of the bids must be at large. That's why ralph keeps saying that someone's bid would have to be taken away...or the playoffs would have to expand (which is certainly not in the cards anytime soon, and would basically be the deatk-knell to 1AA never getting that 12th game).

I also think the NCAA is going to take into account the instability of the Great West, and see if it's going to be around for the long haul first before they start handing out auto-bids. Maybe it will be, but there are just to many variables right now to be sure.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I've been a firm believer that the playoffs will just have to expand due to the sheer math of it. There's too much pressure - a splitup of the A-10/CAA, the Great West or Big South getting enough teams, or (it could happen) a NEC team qualifying for the playoffs as an at-large and doing playoff damage. Any one of these things would force serious thought about playoff expansion.

I also think that the status quo will be in place as long as humanly possible, since nobody wants to start the playoffs the week before Thanksgiving or cut regular-season games. It will be interesting to watch.

[*****]

Yeah, the window currently for the playoffs prohibits expansion... that's what they say. That could change in the future. A fight over AQs could also happen, in the future. Lots of folks like the exclusivity of the I-AA playoffs, being the highest in the NCAA, and how hard it is to get in.

[*****]

... The NCAA (and many on this board) think the NEC "weakness" should prevent them from an auto-bid. I think you might say, without the auto-bid (and spring practices, etc) the PL would not have reached the sucess that that have now...Huh???? Maybe you missed past success of current PL schools in the playoffs that I posted that was all before AQs etc. for the PL. You are a great spinmeister but facts are facts. Current PL teams have been in the playoffs many times before the PL got an AQ. True.

[aceinthehole]

Ralph and Blukeys are both correct. The PL, which began play in 1986 as the Colonial League, did not permit their teams to participate in post-season play as a matter of policy through 1996 [spring practice was also prohibited until 1996]. It did have teams with very strong FB reputations and long histories of past successes - much as the Ivies did.

At the same time, however, the PL went into a very swift decline after 1991 when Holy Cross' last scholarship class graduated. By 1994, the League was non-competitive outside the conference in football (I believe the winning percentage was below 20%).

Because the PL was highly concerned that its programs would continue to wither away to mid-major or even D-III status, (which nearly happened at Colgate), it broke with the Ivy on post-season play and spring practice. But the PL received strong opposition from the NCAA when it sought to obtain a bid. The NCAA believed that the weakness of the PL in OOC play did not warrant an automatic bid and that the decision should be deferred. However, reason prevailed and the PL received the automatic playoff invitation, which helped the PL and its FB programs re-gain credibility.

Ralph, I guess you missed this part (bold) of his quote.

Yes, as Go'Gate has pointed out, the PL had some past sucess, but the conference was becoming "non competitive" througout the 1990s. A change had to be made to RETURN to the PL to past glory. Furthermore, he also said, at the time the PL was granted the auto bid (1997) the conference was "weak," and the NCAA belived they did not deserve an auto bid. This is his words, not mine.

Also, LFN and others have also suggested I-AA playoff expansion may not be a bad idea. Yes, there are a few hurdles to clear. Many bright people on this board do not take the staus quo as the only option. People belive in change and try to encourage and embrace it. Others on this board have suggested similar new ideas, not just me. But you seem to single me out and tell me "to think within the rules" - and yet you responded to LFN "that could change in the future." That sounds like a different tone for different folks.

I and others on this board have vaild opinions on the future of I-AA football. I have had great discussions with others and I think I have brought a fresh and fair prespective to those who don't closely follow the NEC. I have provided a lot of good information to this board and I am glad to have also learned some valuable history from guys like 'GoGate, 'Gate13, BlueKey, henfan, etc.

I think everyone that has read this post (and your bickering) can make up their own mind on my comments. I have recived many positive responses from others on my past postings. You seem to be the only one that has a problem with me. I am comfortable with my views and have been open and willing to accomdate many other thoughts posted here as well.

Thanks :)

[*****]

... you seem to single me out...I think everyone that has read this post (and your bickering) can make up their own mind on my comments...You seem to be the only one that has a problem with me...*sigh*
We are just saying "mid-majors" deserve the right to compete. We should be judged on our results...*sigh*
I have ALWAYS said the NEC derserves an AUTO BID!*sigh*

Same old same old. You say give the NEC an AQ, I ask why. You say they deserve it, I ask why. You say the PL got one when they were weak, I point out the reason they got one was playoff selections before. You say the NEC should be judged on their results, I say the results are not nearly as substantial as the PL case. I say that the football committee has rules on AQs and you say change them. I ask why change and you say I have a problem with you. You say I'm bickering, I sigh. xcoffeex xcoffeex xcoffeex

Facts:
All I-AA teams are included in playoff eligibility
*The eight strongest conferences that want an AQ get an AQ (half the field)
*The next eight strongest teams get playoff at-large bids
There are five conferences that do not qualify or want an AQ, 10 that do
There are five conferences that have never had a playoff team, 10 have
Of the 10 conferences that qualify or want an AQ, two have never had a playoff team... those are the two that do not have an AQ (NEC and PFL)

*Decided by the football committee

Why exactly, under the current rules, should the NEC or PFL be one of the eight AQ conferences?

That is all.

[Go...gate]

Please do not count me as singling you out, Ralph. I have no such intention and I sincerely apologize if it came off that way.

[DUPFLFan]

..and how hard it is to get in.

For some conferences it is impossible and has never happened..

[UAalum72]

Any conference with an autobid which has not won a playoff game in over four years has proven on the field that it cannot compete for the I-AA championship and should have its bid given to another eligible league that wants it, and go to the end of the line.

[EKU05]

Yes, but those same conferences, in most cases, have shown very clear regular season dominance over the mid-major leagues. In a playoff this small I just have a hard time giving bids to leagues for whom it is MAJOR news to place one team in the top 25. If this were basketball with 65 teams things would be completely different.

[ngineer]

Any conference with an autobid which has not won a playoff game in over four years has proven on the field that it cannot compete for the I-AA championship and should have its bid given to another eligible league that wants it, and go to the end of the line.

Not a bad thought. At least something to consider. The PL started rejuvenating at the time it got the AQ. As noted, above, the PL broke with the pure Ivy formula in the mid0-90's and by 1997 had achieved some level of credibility. Lehigh went to UMass, the eventual NC, in 1998 and lost in a very competitve game,being stopped inside the UMass 10 at the end. Following year lost in a competitve game at Hofstra; but the following year gave the League major attention by taking Western Illinois to the woodshed in their own house, something like 37-7. Ever since, the PL has won their fair share of playoff games. So they have done it on the field and as soon as the NEC can do it against playoff caliber competiton on a consistent basis, they too should get AQ consideration.

[*****]

For some conferences it is impossible and has never happened..It is NOT impossible. Why has it not happened?
Of the 10 conferences that qualify or want an AQ, two have never had a playoff team... those are the two that do not have an AQ (NEC and PFL)

[blukeys]

Ralph, I guess you missed this part (bold) of his quote.

Yes, as Go'Gate has pointed out, the PL had some past sucess, but the conference was becoming "non competitive" througout the 1990s. A change had to be made to RETURN to the PL to past glory. Furthermore, he also said, at the time the PL was granted the auto bid (1997) the conference was "weak," and the NCAA belived they did not deserve an auto bid. This is his words, not mine.

Also, LFN and others have also suggested I-AA playoff expansion may not be a bad idea. Yes, there are a few hurdles to clear. Many bright people on this board do not take the staus quo as the only option. People belive in change and try to encourage and embrace it. Others on this board have suggested similar new ideas, not just me. But you seem to single me out and tell me "to think within the rules" - and yet you responded to LFN "that could change in the future." That sounds like a different tone for different folks.

I and others on this board have vaild opinions on the future of I-AA football. I have had great discussions with others and I think I have brought a fresh and fair prespective to those who don't closely follow the NEC. I have provided a lot of good information to this board and I am glad to have also learned some valuable history from guys like 'GoGate, 'Gate13, BlueKey, henfan, etc.

I think everyone that has read this post (and your bickering) can make up their own mind on my comments. I have recived many positive responses from others on my past postings. You seem to be the only one that has a problem with me. I am comfortable with my views and have been open and willing to accomdate many other thoughts posted here as well.

Thanks :)

I truly appreciate your passion and hope you never give up on your team or this board as a means for expressing your opinions.

That being said the best argument for an NEC autobid is not by scheduling A-10 teams. (Contact your own AD's as I am too busy)

Why are NEC quality teams and in this I include MU, AU and CCSU not trying to schedule either MEAC or OVC as OOC games???????????

In addition to the PL these are the conferences who are standing in the way of a NEC autobid. Let's be real, the autobids for the Southern, Gateway, Big Sky and A-10 are pretty secure. The only real chance for an NEC auto bid under the current system is to attack the OVC MEAC and PL. Yet no NEC team appears willing to take on the MEAC which is geographically very compatible. What gives?????

Certainly CCSU could go to D.C. to play Howard or to Dover De. to play Del STATE since they are willing to go to Statesboro for GSU.

Consistent Wins over MEAC, OVC and PL teams would make for a better case for the NEC than a one time win or close loss over an A-10 team. (Ask Coastal Carolina) xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Mr. C]

This is starting to sound like relagation in European soccer. Even though the MEAC and OVC have struggled in recent years in the playoffs, there is NO evidence to suggest that teams from the NEC, or the PFL, or the MAAC could beat the auto bid from one of those two conference. If these conferences want to prove their worth, the best way to do it is to schedule games against teams from these conferences and then win them to show that your conference is superior. Play more games against the Patriot and win those too. As a matter of fact, I know that current I-AA champion Appalachian State has contacted teams from these leagues in the past two years about scheduling games and has been turned down. I have seen documentation on who ASU has contacted about games. Morehead State of the PFL, much to its credit, has played Appalachian State in 2003 and Georgia Southern in 2005. And San Diego did schedule some Ivy League games last year. But if you want to prove your worth as one of the best, you do it by playing and be competitive with the best.

[blukeys]

Not a bad thought. At least something to consider. The PL started rejuvenating at the time it got the AQ. As noted, above, the PL broke with the pure Ivy formula in the mid0-90's and by 1997 had achieved some level of credibility. Lehigh went to UMass, the eventual NC, in 1998 and lost in a very competitve game,being stopped inside the UMass 10 at the end. Following year lost in a competitve game at Hofstra; but the following year gave the League major attention by taking Western Illinois to the woodshed in their own house, something like 37-7. Ever since, the PL has won their fair share of playoff games. So they have done it on the field and as soon as the NEC can do it against playoff caliber competiton on a consistent basis, they too should get AQ consideration.


AGREED!!!

We all pay attention when teams win!!!!:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

The PL had little respect till Lehigh kicked butt in Western Illinois. :nod:

Of Course their return to the East was less successful in 2000 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Mr. C]

I truly appreciate your passion and hope you never give up on your team or this board as a means for expressing your opinions.

That being said the best argument for an NEC autobid is not by scheduling A-10 teams. (Contact your own AD's as I am too busy)

Why are NEC quality teams and in this I include MU, AU and CCSU not trying to schedule either MEAC or OVC as OOC games???????????

In addition to the PL these are the conferences who are standing in the way of a NEC autobid. Let's be real, the autobids for the Southern, Gateway, Big Sky and A-10 are pretty secure. The only real chance for an NEC auto bid under the current system is to attack the OVC MEAC and PL. Yet no NEC team appears willing to take on the MEAC which is geographically very compatible. What gives?????

Certainly CCSU could go to D.C. to play Howard or to Dover De. to play Del STATE since they are willing to go to Statesboro for GSU.

Consistent Wins over MEAC, OVC and PL teams would make for a better case for the NEC than a one time win or close loss over an A-10 team. (Ask Coastal Carolina) xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolxWhat a scary thought. Bluekeys and I are starting sound a lot a like.

[Tod]

I truly appreciate your passion and hope you never give up on your team or this board as a means for expressing your opinions.

That being said the best argument for an NEC autobid is not by scheduling A-10 teams. (Contact your own AD's as I am too busy)

Why are NEC quality teams and in this I include MU, AU and CCSU not trying to schedule either MEAC or OVC as OOC games???????????

In addition to the PL these are the conferences who are standing in the way of a NEC autobid. Let's be real, the autobids for the Southern, Gateway, Big Sky and A-10 are pretty secure. The only real chance for an NEC auto bid under the current system is to attack the OVC MEAC and PL. Yet no NEC team appears willing to take on the MEAC which is geographically very compatible. What gives?????

Certainly CCSU could go to D.C. to play Howard or to Dover De. to play Del STATE since they are willing to go to Statesboro for GSU.

Consistent Wins over MEAC, OVC and PL teams would make for a better case for the NEC than a one time win or close loss over an A-10 team. (Ask Coastal Carolina) xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

Don't forget the Southland. I'd put them in the "Secure" category. :nod:

[DaBears]

What the hell is an AQ?

[*****]

What the hell is an AQ?It is the acronym for the correct term of automatic qualification... frequently called an autobid. (NCAA calls it an AQ... legislative terminology)

[UAalum72]

Yes it sounds like European soccer relegation, and I don't see a problem with that.

It's actually been SIX years since the MEAC won a playoff game.

St. Francis (perennial NEC doormat, though better lately) is playing at Delaware State this year. I guess Savannah St. is playing a different MEAC team that date.

As far as scheduling the OVC and MEAC, when you're trying to build a program you try to play teams that the locals have heard about. The Patriot, Ivy, and even A-10 schools are FAR better known to the northeastern public than the MEAC and OVC colleges.

[Mr. C]

But in European soccer relagation, a conference has to be at, or near the top of the second division to move to the first division (not saying the NEC is Division II), or they have to beat the team they are replacing in a playoff. Again, where is the evidence that the NEC would have won any playoff games in the past six years. Most of those years, the MEAC has had to play an Atlantic 10 champion, or a SoCon champion in the first round, usually on the road (though Hampton got a home game against Richmond last year. I attended the 2003 Wofford-North Carolina A&T game and it admittedly wasn't a pretty sight. But I seriously doubt that an NEC team would have done much better that day. To receive an auto bid, you have to convince the NCAA that you are deserving of one, more so than the league you would be replacing. If the Great West were eligible, it would be far more likely to get that bid than the NEC. The Big South would have some evidence, too, like Coastal Carolina's win over No. 1 ranked James Maidson last season. Those are the kind of wins that get attention.

[OL FU]

NEC and PL had a couple of good wins last year and are continuing to schedule some upper tier opponents.

Albany has Lehigh and Delaware
CCSU has Georgia Southern
San Diego has UC Davis.

No offense if I am wrong, but I suppose those three teams represent the best of the mid-majors. It will be interesting to see how they do against four top 25 caliber teams.

[UAalum72]

But in European soccer relagation, a conference has to be at, or near the top of the second division to move to the first division (not saying the NEC is Division II), or they have to beat the team they are replacing in a playoff. Again, where is the evidence that the NEC would have won any playoff games in the past six years. Most of those years, the MEAC has had to play an Atlantic 10 champion, or a SoCon champion in the first round, usually on the road (though Hampton got a home game against Richmond last year. I attended the 2003 Wofford-North Carolina A&T game and it admittedly wasn't a pretty sight. But I seriously doubt that an NEC team would have done much better that day. To receive an auto bid, you have to convince the NCAA that you are deserving of one, more so than the league you would be replacing. If the Great West were eligible, it would be far more likely to get that bid than the NEC. The Big South would have some evidence, too, like Coastal Carolina's win over No. 1 ranked James Maidson last season. Those are the kind of wins that get attention.
But the Big South and Great West aren't eligible, so don't bring them up. There's a fact that the MEAC hasn't won in six years, let alone been capable of winning a championship. Do they keep an auto-bid forever?

[aceinthehole]

NEC and PL had a couple of good wins last year and are continuing to schedule some upper tier opponents.

Albany has Lehigh and Delaware
CCSU has Georgia Southern
San Diego has UC Davis.

No offense if I am wrong, but I suppose those three teams represent the best of the mid-majors. It will be interesting to see how they do against four top 25 caliber teams.

Thanks OL FU.

BTW - Last season the NEC was 3-3 vs. the PL, and 0-5 vs. the A-10.
Albany vs. Hofstra - L
Albany at UMass - L
Albany at Maine - L
Albany at Fordham - W
CCSU at Colgate - W
CCSU vs. URI - L
Monmouth at Lehigh - L
Sacred Heart at Holy Cross - L
Stony Brook vs. Bucknell - W
Stony Brook at Hofstra - L
Stony Brook vs. Georgetown - L

And this season the NEC will play a total of 14 games vs. "higher profile" conferences:

Albany @ Lehigh (PL)
Albany vs. Fordham (PL)
Albany @ Delaware (A-10)
Albany @ Cornell (Ivy)
Central Conn. St. @ Georgia Southern (SoCon)
Monmouth @ Fordham (PL)
Monmouth vs. Morgan State (MEAC)
Monmouth @ Colgate (PL)
Sacred Heart vs. Lafayette (PL)
Saint Francis PA @ Delaware State (MEAC)
Stony Brook vs. Hofstra (A-10)
Stony Brook @ Georgetown (PL)
Stony Brook @ New Hampshire (A-10)
Stony Brook @ Massachusetts (A-10)

I don't think NEC scheduling is as much of an issue anymore (and hasn't been for the top NEC teams in years). This year the NEC is playing 6 games vs. the PL; 4 games vs the A-10; 2 vs. the MEAC; 1 vs. the SoCon; and 1 vs. the Ivy. Now, I can't speak for the PFL, becasue I don't know their teams as well, but I think San Diego does have a decent schedule this year.

Of these 14 games, how many must the NEC win to gain some respect? That is my isssue. Too many poeple are way too subjective on this matter. And others always make excuses when we do win. Others wait and see who these teams lose too before making judgement. For others only wins vs. actual playoff teams count.

Of course I know we have to do well and WIN some games, but how much weight do close losses have? Or how about the fact that just 4 of the 14 games are at home? In my mind there are just too many variables to make this a cut and dry answer. But on paper, aren't we underdogs in all 14 games (some bigger than others)? So how many "upsets" do we need this year? :D

[aceinthehole]

I truly appreciate your passion and hope you never give up on your team or this board as a means for expressing your opinions.

That being said the best argument for an NEC autobid is not by scheduling A-10 teams. (Contact your own AD's as I am too busy)

Why are NEC quality teams and in this I include MU, AU and CCSU not trying to schedule either MEAC or OVC as OOC games???????????

In addition to the PL these are the conferences who are standing in the way of a NEC autobid. Let's be real, the autobids for the Southern, Gateway, Big Sky and A-10 are pretty secure. The only real chance for an NEC auto bid under the current system is to attack the OVC MEAC and PL. Yet no NEC team appears willing to take on the MEAC which is geographically very compatible. What gives?????

Certainly CCSU could go to D.C. to play Howard or to Dover De. to play Del STATE since they are willing to go to Statesboro for GSU.

Consistent Wins over MEAC, OVC and PL teams would make for a better case for the NEC than a one time win or close loss over an A-10 team. (Ask Coastal Carolina) xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx


Thanks bluekeys for your words, and yes I agree 100% we need to play more games vs. the OVC, MEAC, and PL. The A-10 will continue and always be a huge reach for even our best teams.

I'm not sure why the NEC doesn't have more games vs. the OVC, Big South, or MEAC. I'm sure there more to it than what the NEC can control. This season we will play 2 MEAC teams - Monmouth vs. Morgan St. and St. Francis at Delaware St. Again, I agree we need more of these games (and hopefully some wins ). We will see :)

I hope we can continue to get games vs. the PL and also get more of them at home for NEC teams! It is very difficult to play all these games as a road team. And yes we will continue to take a few $$$ from the A-10. It will expose our teams to better talent and fill our checkbooks!

I would love for CCSU to play Delware State, Howard, or Coastal Carolina. Those are very good games in my opinion and I would lobby our FB coach to schedule them.

One final point: I do not think the NCAA will ever take away any autobids from existing conferences, nor do I support that idea. If the NEC took the MEAC's bid away, they would have the same point I've been arguing all along. They meet the 6-team criteria, are classified as I-AA, and want in! I want to see the MEAC, OVC, Ivy, NEC, and all the others in the playoffs!!!

Realistically, IMO the NEC's only shot is to continue to increase the stature of our league and to lobby for a PIG or expansion of the playoffs. Regardless of what some people may think, this option will have to come to the NCAA again in the near future. Maybe it will cary more weight with the Ivy or Great West instead of the NEC, but its the same principle that I support - inclusion of an AQ for all eligble I-AA conference that want one.

[Pard4Life]

...jeez.. picked the wrong weekend for a vacation.. missed this debate...

The fact that the NEC teams need to play more higher profile teams and win those games was mentioned very early in this debate.. like the third post. Then, beating Delaware gets brought up as a good example and I get attacked with the PL record vs. Delaware... go figure.. :rolleyes:

..so it seems like we are back to square one... with the implemantation of schollies, coupled with some consistent OOC performances and wins vs. big teams.. (NOT abysmal Bucknell and Fordham).. then the NEC will go a long way towards earning respect and that auto-bid. How they lobby for it... by taking away a conference or expanding the field.. is their battle.

But, the NEC is going in the right direction with those 14 OOC games... many of them are big... and a short answer to that 'what do we need to do this year to win respect' question.. I'd say go .500, with wins over some the major A10 powers, power Ivys, and Lehigh, Colgate, Laf... not just a SINGLE win.. like CCSU over Colgate in 2005.. but a string of victories. At least the conference is heading in the right direction.

And as a consolation.. Lafayette is playing their part in visiting NEC teams :D ... at Sacred Heart this year, opened at Marist (MAAC) last year, and we play at Monmouth in 2007 or 2008.

[BearsCountry]

Any word if CCSU will be moving up to more scholarships like Stony Brook? To me that would seem to be a smart move on their part, at least for the future.

[89Hen]

Even though the MEAC and OVC have struggled in recent years in the playoffs, there is NO evidence to suggest that teams from the NEC, or the PFL, or the MAAC could beat the auto bid from one of those two conference. If these conferences want to prove their worth, the best way to do it is to schedule games against teams from these conferences and then win them to show that your conference is superior.
:nod: :nod: :nod: BINGO!

[89Hen]

Too many poeple are way too subjective on this matter.

I think you have to be. If you lump in all 14 games and your only wins are your top teams against bottom PL, Ivy or MEAC teams...

Pre-season I'd say...
Good wins:
Albany @ Lehigh (PL)
Albany @ Delaware (A-10)
Central Conn. St. @ Georgia Southern (SoCon)
Monmouth @ Colgate (PL)
Sacred Heart vs. Lafayette (PL)
Stony Brook vs. Hofstra (A-10)
Stony Brook @ New Hampshire (A-10)
Stony Brook @ Massachusetts (A-10)
Saint Francis PA @ Delaware State (MEAC) (I actuall think DSU might be decent this year)

Not so great wins....
Albany vs. Fordham (PL)
Albany @ Cornell (Ivy)
Monmouth @ Fordham (PL)
Monmouth vs. Morgan State (MEAC)
Stony Brook @ Georgetown (PL)
:twocents:

[89Hen]

One final point: I do not think the NCAA will ever take away any autobids from existing conferences...

Realistically, IMO the NEC's only shot is to continue to increase the stature of our league and to lobby for a PIG or expansion of the playoffs.
Oddly enough, I disagree with your first comment there, but agree with the second. Just because the NEC hasn't unseated anyone for an AQ, doesn't mean somebody else couldn't.

I think the GWFC will have a good chance once they become eligible (assuming they get enough teams). They took a big hit when UNC left for the BSC, but if UND and USD joined them, I could easily see them unseating the OVC or MEAC one day if we were still at 16 teams.

2006 Conference Ratings
1. Gateway Football Conference (25.82)
2. Southern Conference (26.99)
3. Big Sky Conference (28.27)
4. Southland Conference (30.44)
5. Great West Football Conference (31.65)
6. Atlantic 10 Conference (32.24)
7. Ivy League (42.63)
8. Ohio Valley Conference (53.37)
9. Patriot League (53.38)
10. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (55.74)
11. Big South Conference (60.27)
12. Southwestern Athletic Conference (64.71)
13. Pioneer Football League (68.42)
14. Northeast Conference (73.75)
15. Metro-Atlantic Athletic Conference (77.82)

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The MEAC may help everyone by choosing a championship game, thus voluntarily giving up their autobid.

But I think playoffs without the MEAC would mean, quite frankly, a less-interesting playoffs. I like the fact that the best HBCU plays in the playoffs and proves themselves versus the best in I-AA.

I don't think anyone should get their autobid rejected due to recent history. Every conference has up and down years (yes, Virginia, even the A-10 :D ) I don't see any current autobid as unworthy.

[aceinthehole]

The MEAC may help everyone by choosing a championship game, thus voluntarily giving up their autobid.

But I think playoffs without the MEAC would mean, quite frankly, a less-interesting playoffs. I like the fact that the best HBCU plays in the playoffs and proves themselves versus the best in I-AA.

I don't think anyone should get their autobid rejected due to recent history. Every conference has up and down years (yes, Virginia, even the A-10 :D ) I don't see any current autobid as unworthy.

I agree with you too! The MEAC, OVC, or PL, shouldn't loose their AQ. If they decline (like the Ivy has), that is their choice. IMO having the MEAC, Ivy, SWAC, and yes even the NEC would enhance the playoffs, not detract from it.

---
But if many people here agree that no conference ever deserves to lose their AQ, then really this debate about NEC "worthyness" is a moot point. What we are all saying is without expansion (or a voluntary decilne of an existing AQ), the NEC can't ever get an AQ!

Again, to make my point, what if the Ivy asked for the AQ, or if the Great West added a team and became eligible? Does the debate continue on weighing the "worthyness" of the top 8 conferences for the AQ or does it move to equity and equal access as I have debated before?

Again, under the Ivy/GW secenario, IMO there are only 3 choices:
1) Decline an AQ for the Ivy/GW request (as done to the NEC).
2) Take away an existing AQ from the MEAC/OVC or another conference.
3) Expand the playoffs to add an equal # of AQ and at-large bids.

[EKU05]

The MEAC seems to be discussing if there is a way to have a title game BEFORE the playoffs. I kind of doubt they will give it up. Also, 89 hen, you may want to through the Patriot League in there since they are ranked behind the OVC according to what you posted.

[ngineer]

I agree with you too! The MEAC, OVC, or PL, shouldn't loose their AQ. If they decline (like the Ivy has), that is their choice. IMO having the MEAC, Ivy, SWAC, and yes even the NEC would enhance the playoffs, not detract from it.

---
But if many people here agree that no conference ever deserves to lose their AQ, then really this debate about NEC "worthyness" is a moot point. What we are all saying is without expansion (or a voluntary decilne of an existing AQ), the NEC can't ever get an AQ!

Again, to make my point, what if the Ivy asked for the AQ, or if the Great West added a team and became eligible? Does the debate continue on weighing the "worthyness" of the top 8 conferences for the AQ or does it move to equity and equal access as I have debated before?

Again, under the Ivy/GW secenario, IMO there are only 3 choices:
1) Decline an AQ for the Ivy/GW request (as done to the NEC).
2) Take away an existing AQ from the MEAC/OVC or another conference.
3) Expand the playoffs to add an equal # of AQ and at-large bids.

Absolutely. In fact, if those four conferences were to join the playoffs, then you could expand to 12 autobids and expand the field to 20-24. In essence, you'd get an approximation to the top 25 in the playoffs. If uneven brackets, top 4 seeds could get byes in the first round.

[Catmendue2]

But the Big South and Great West aren't eligible, so don't bring them up. There's a fact that the MEAC hasn't won in six years, let alone been capable of winning a championship. Do they keep an auto-bid forever?


Great Question, I surely would love to know the answer to this question.;)

[Pard4Life]

The MEAC seems to be discussing if there is a way to have a title game BEFORE the playoffs. I kind of doubt they will give it up. Also, 89 hen, you may want to through the Patriot League in there since they are ranked behind the OVC according to what you posted.

I don't think the PL is going anywhere... same with the OVC/MEAC. The PL should have a much higher ranking... but surprisingly poor seasons by Fordham and Bucknell.. as in ranking higher than 100... really dragged down the ranking.

[89Hen]

Also, 89 hen, you may want to through the Patriot League in there since they are ranked behind the OVC according to what you posted.
Snapshot.

2004 Conference Rankings
8. PL - Patriot League (43.25
9. OVC - Ohio Valley Conference (52.46)
10. MEAC - Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (58.67)

2003 Conference Rankings
6. PL (Patriot League)
9. OVC (Ohio Valley Conference)
10. MEAC (Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference)

2002 Conference Rankings
6. Patriot (52.69)
8. Ohio Valley (55.04)
9. MEAC (64.10)

Last current OVC team to win a playoff game - Murray State 1996
Last current MEAC team to win a playoff game - FAMU 1999

[89Hen]

If uneven brackets, top 4 seeds could get byes in the first round.
Great, then we can hear bitching from conferences on why they never get any at-larges and why they don't get a bye. No matter how many teams you put in the field, somebody will complain. :nod:

[Pard4Life]

Snapshot.

2004 Conference Rankings
8. PL - Patriot League (43.25
9. OVC - Ohio Valley Conference (52.46)
10. MEAC - Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (58.67)

2003 Conference Rankings
6. PL (Patriot League)
9. OVC (Ohio Valley Conference)
10. MEAC (Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference)

2002 Conference Rankings
6. Patriot (52.69)
8. Ohio Valley (55.04)
9. MEAC (64.10)

Last current OVC team to win a playoff game - Murray State 1996
Last current MEAC team to win a playoff game - FAMU 1999

Forgot we were ranked that high throughout the years.. thanks for the note Hen.

And just to note: Last PL team to win a playoff game - Colgate 2003.. (although Lafayette and Lehigh were dangerously close in 2004 and 2005.. both vs. the national champs ironically.. the past three titles have been through the PL)

[89Hen]

(although Lafayette and Lehigh were dangerously close in 2004 and 2005.. both vs. the national champs ironically.. the past three titles have been through the PL)
Lafayette lost to UD in 2004.

[Tod]

Absolutely. In fact, if those four conferences were to join the playoffs, then you could expand to 12 autobids and expand the field to 20-24. In essence, you'd get an approximation to the top 25 in the playoffs. If uneven brackets, top 4 seeds could get byes in the first round.

With 12 autobids, the field would HAVE to expand to at least 24. And in this case, you'd have to give eight teams first-round byes.

[BigApp]

We are just saying "mid-majors" deserve the right to compete. We should be judged on our results...The more chances we have to play they more we have a chance to "prove ourselves."

I just wish more people had an open mind on the topic.

I'd love to agree with you, but I just looked at last years OOC schedule for the NEC and it didn't look too good:


LOST Rhode Island 56-10
LOST Hofstra 55-0
LOST Lehigh 54-26
LOST Hofstra 36-7
LOST Maine 31-7
LOST UMass 40-0


Now, you did have a win against Colgate 24-22, but those are some lopsided losses to mostly run-of-the-mill teams from 'major' I-AA conferences.

If you wanna be Auto'd into the playoffs where you'll be playing the cream of the crop, ya gotta beat those average teams, no matter where you play them.:)

[DUPFLFan]

Now, I can't speak for the PFL, becasue I don't know their teams as well, but I think San Diego does have a decent schedule this year.

San Diego plays Yale
Drake plays Northern Iowa
Dayton and Butler play Robert Morris
Jacksonville plays Charleston Southern

http://www.pioneer-football.org/upload/2006_PFL_Sched.pdf

[DUPFLFan]

Morehead State of the PFL, much to its credit, has played Appalachian State in 2003 and Georgia Southern in 2005. And San Diego did schedule some Ivy League games last year. But if you want to prove your worth as one of the best, you do it by playing and be competitive with the best.

Drake is playing Northern Iowa this year and just signed to play Illinois state next year.

[aceinthehole]

I'd love to agree with you, but I just looked at last years OOC schedule for the NEC and it didn't look too good:


LOST Rhode Island 56-10
LOST Hofstra 55-0
LOST Lehigh 54-26
LOST Hofstra 36-7
LOST Maine 31-7
LOST UMass 40-0


Now, you did have a win against Colgate 24-22, but those are some lopsided losses to mostly run-of-the-mill teams from 'major' I-AA conferences.

If you wanna be Auto'd into the playoffs where you'll be playing the cream of the crop, ya gotta beat those average teams, no matter where you play them.:)

NO EXCUSES HERE, we lost all of these games, but

URI scored 3 special teams touchdowns. CCSU's defense held the Rams to less total offense yards than a few A-10 teams (W&M) and others. Again, we lost, but if it were not for 3 costly sppecial teams errors the game was much closer. In fact it was a good game for a half, we took the early lead. Please read the game recap from either schools site, http://ccsubluedevils.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/recaps/091005aaa.html.

Also, for what its worth, the Lehigh-Monmouth score was not much different than the Lehigh-Harvard score. I don't know all the details but the score isn't the only story here.

Finally, Hofstra, UMass, and Maine are on a way different level than even the best NEC teams. Yes, here we need a ton of work, but its not much different than when App St. plays UNC in Chapel Hill. Its going to be a long day you hope to just keep it close ...

Its not really fair to ONLY judge the NEC by its games vs. the A-10 (arguably the best and strongest I-AA conference), they other games have to hold some weight. But yes, you are right we are not ready for the A-10!

[aceinthehole]

San Diego plays Yale
Drake plays Northern Iowa
Dayton and Butler play Robert Morris
Jacksonville plays Charleston Southern

http://www.pioneer-football.org/upload/2006_PFL_Sched.pdf

Sorry DUPFLfan, when compared to the NEC's 14 games, this is not not very strong schedule. Here's what I have for your 2006 "up" games:

Davidson at Virginia Military Institute (Big South)
Drake vs Northern Iowa (Gateway)
Jacksonville v. Charleston Southern (Big South)
Morehead St. at Western Illinois (Gateway)
San Diego at Yale (Ivy)

2 Gateway, 2 Big South and 1 Ivy - the rest are a lot of sub DI opponenets. But good luck in these games :)

PFL-NEC battles
Robert Morris at Butler
Robert Morris at Dayton

[89Hen]

Finally, Hofstra, UMass, and Maine are on a way different level than even the best NEC teams. Yes, here we need a ton of work, but its not much different than when App St. plays UNC in Chapel Hill. Its going to be a long day you hope to just keep it close ...
:eyebrow: FWIW, neither Hofstra nor UMass nor Maine were a playoff team last year. So how could the NEC be worthy of a bid at all?

[DUPFLFan]

Sorry DUPFLfan, when compared to the NEC's 14 games, this is not not very strong schedule.

Sorry, forgot about Davidson and Morehead state...

Travel budgets being what they are, we do about two long trips per year. This year it's Dayton and Jacksonville.

Since there are so many more 1-aa on the East Coast, difficulty is to get there...

We could play more Gateway teams, but they need money too. Most Gateway teams use the first game as a tune up and the second as the money game.

I would like nothing better than to schedule Gateway conference opponents, but I have no say in it. Besides, we would have to play at home once in a while. Northern Iowa coming to Drake to open up the refurbished stadium is a VERY rare occurence.

The Gateway teams want us to play them at their home and for the most part, don't see an advantage to come to Des Moines. (probably not enough money in it to travel). So playing them would mean the first four games of the year would be on the road, EVERY year. Then, we would move into the seven conferece games half of which would be at home.

This means that if we play the 1-aa scholly teams close to us, Drake (and really all PFL teams) would have only 3 to 4 home games per year.

That is the reality of the PFL schedule...

I don't think any school would put up with that...:twocents:

[ngineer]

Great, then we can hear bitching from conferences on why they never get any at-larges and why they don't get a bye. No matter how many teams you put in the field, somebody will complain. :nod:

Sure you always have whiners, but my premise was an expansion of the number of leagues sending their champs. If you have more teams eligible by reason of their conference now willing to participate in the playoffs, then expanding the field makes sense. In basketball, there are over 300 teams, 64 get to dance. In I-AA, there are about 120+ teams, I think, so about 20-24 teams would be a similar ratio. There will always be bubble teams. The only solution to the concern over whining is to not have any playoffs and let the bar rooms decide who's the NC...

[89Hen]

In basketball...
STOP! No further discussion as football is like no other NCAA sport. How many other sports play only once a week?

[IaaScribe]

I know expansion won't happen, but I'm bored at work and figured I'd take a glimpse at a "what-if" bracket if the field was a) 24 teams and b) included the SWAC and Ivy:

(note: seedings based on final GPI ranking from 2005)

First Round
#24 Stony Brook at #9 Georgia Southern
#23 Duquesne at #10 Richmond
#22 Charleston Southern at #11 Youngstown State
#21 San Diego at #12 Illinois State
#20 Colgate at #13 Eastern Washington
#19 Grambling at #14 Montana State
#18 Eastern Illinois at #15 Brown
#17 Hampton at #16 Nicholls State

Second Round
Hampton-Nicholls State winner at #1 Appalachian State
Stony Brook-Georgia Southern winner at #8 Montana
San Diego-Illinois State winner at #5 New Hampshire
Colgate-Eastern Washington winner at #4 Furman
Charleston Southern-Youngstown State winner at #6 Cal Poly
Grambling-Montana State winner at #3 Texas State
Duquesne-Richmond winner at #7 Southern Illinois
Eastern Illinois-Brown winner at #2 Northern Iowa

.... and so forth

****

UPSIDE: The top seeds would get a bye while others tried to advance, and very few deserving teams are forced to engage in real battles in a first-round game.

DOWNSIDE: You have the No. 95 (!) team in the GPI in the playoffs. (Stony Brook)

[RabidRabbit]

Curious as to why NCAA seems so resistant to 24 teams in the I-AA play-offs?

There are currently 120+ teams in I-AA. There are about 120 teams in BCS. How many bowl games for teams are there for those 120 BCS teams? In D-II, there are about 140 team, with *gasp* 24 teams in that play-off. As Big South and Great West get to 6 teams (or more), the SWAC, A-10, MEAC, could even do their "classic" as a play-in game, and all the auto-bid eligible conferences get auto-bid.

I don't understand the NEED to keep at 16 teams if there are 12 auto-bid eligible conferences eager to participate.

[89Hen]

There are about 120 teams in BCS. How many bowl games for teams are there for those 120 BCS teams?
For the NC? One.

[RabidRabbit]

For the NC? One.

Agreed, but how many bowl games, but not all-star games, are there. If at least 20, then there are 40 of 120 playing post-season games.

[*****]

Curious as to why NCAA seems so resistant to 24 teams in the I-AA play-offs?...Two things.
1. Playoffs must start Thanksgiving weekend.
2. Playoffs must finish before Xmas.

They are real resistant to start I-AA play earlier or let it go later.

[ngineer]

Two things.
1. Playoffs must start Thanksgiving weekend.
2. Playoffs must finish before Xmas.

They are real resistant to start I-AA play earlier or let it go later.

Well, according to this year's calendar, there would be another week after the NC game still before Christmas. So another week could easily be added to the playoffs without any major impact..

[*****]

Well, according to this year's calendar, there would be another week after the NC game still before Christmas. So another week could easily be added to the playoffs without any major impact..Three days before Xmas is not acceptable, so they say. Bowl season you know...

[Tod]

Three days before Xmas is not acceptable, so they say. Bowl season you know...

What about skipping the bye week and keep I-AA limited to 11 games?

[Tod]

Agreed, but how many bowl games, but not all-star games, are there. If at least 20, then there are 40 of 120 playing post-season games.

I believe there will be 32 bowl games this year.

[*****]

What about skipping the bye week and keep I-AA limited to 11 games?So this year we asked I-AA to allow voluntary 12 games which would eliminate the bye week if they wanted. It failed for the second time. Now we ask I-AA to eliminate the bye week without choice and without a 12th game? Hmmm.

[Tod]

So this year we asked I-AA to allow voluntary 12 games which would eliminate the bye week if they wanted. It failed for the second time. Now we ask I-AA to eliminate the bye week without choice and without a 12th game? Hmmm.

No, no, no! I'm not suggesting it at all. I'm just saying that if the playoff field were to expand due to more conferences getting auto-bids, then that is probably the only way it could work.

I'm all for keeping it just as it is. But if some of the possibilities discussed in this thread came to fruition, it would seem that expansion would be something to consider.

[*****]

... if some of the possibilities discussed in this thread came to fruition, it would seem that expansion would be something to consider.Just saying that eliminating the bye week may not be palatable given recent events.

[Tod]

Just saying that eliminating the bye week may not be palatable given recent events.

But by the time expanding the playoffs is a reasonable thing to do (if ever), they will no longer be recent events. ;)

[*****]

But by the time expanding the playoffs is a reasonable thing to do (if ever), they will no longer be recent events. ;)and if pigs had wings... just saying how it is now. Expanding the playoffs now is a reasonable thing (two possible AQ confs are not getting AQs... so will a few more in the next five years make it more so? Or will those confs still be even in existance?).

[Tod]

and if pigs had wings... just saying how it is now. Expanding the playoffs now is a reasonable thing (two possible AQ confs are not getting AQs... so will a few more in the next five years make it more so? Or will those confs still be even in existance?).

We'll have to wait to see what happens. I think it's great the way it is now. But if the Ivy League changes its stance, the GWFC expands and stregthens (I don't mean in quality, but viability), and quality programs continue joining I-AA (such as UCA, UND, probably USD, etc.), and schools like Albany decide to go scholarship and commit to being competative, I think the time to expand will come.

As for the PFL and NEC, if they continue to play the stronger conferences and can show they deserve auto-bids, then that will be great, too. I don't agree with it right now, but I wouldn't be upset if it happened, either.

[Pard4Life]

I know expansion won't happen, but I'm bored at work and figured I'd take a glimpse at a "what-if" bracket if the field was a) 24 teams and b) included the SWAC and Ivy:

(note: seedings based on final GPI ranking from 2005)

First Round
#24 Stony Brook at #9 Georgia Southern
#23 Duquesne at #10 Richmond
#22 Charleston Southern at #11 Youngstown State
#21 San Diego at #12 Illinois State
#20 Colgate at #13 Eastern Washington
#19 Grambling at #14 Montana State
#18 Eastern Illinois at #15 Brown
#17 Hampton at #16 Nicholls State

Second Round
Hampton-Nicholls State winner at #1 Appalachian State
Stony Brook-Georgia Southern winner at #8 Montana
San Diego-Illinois State winner at #5 New Hampshire
Colgate-Eastern Washington winner at #4 Furman
Charleston Southern-Youngstown State winner at #6 Cal Poly
Grambling-Montana State winner at #3 Texas State
Duquesne-Richmond winner at #7 Southern Illinois
Eastern Illinois-Brown winner at #2 Northern Iowa

.... and so forth

****

UPSIDE: The top seeds would get a bye while others tried to advance, and very few deserving teams are forced to engage in real battles in a first-round game.

DOWNSIDE: You have the No. 95 (!) team in the GPI in the playoffs. (Stony Brook)

Colgate as a #19? Um... no. Probably not seeded that low.. and plus, they would likely make that trip to Brown due to regionality issues.

[OL FU]

Allison said the biggest national issue discussed Monday was the SoCon’s desire to see the Division I-AA playoff field expanded from 16 to 24 teams. "If you go 6-5 in I-A, you’re almost surely going to a bowl game, and we had two 9-2 teams that didn’t even make the playoffs last year," he said. "I think we should let a few more deserving teams have a shot. That could be big for our league."

http://p197.ezboard.com/fmoctalkfrm3.showMessage?topicID=2985.topic

Interesting Quote by Allison at the Socon Rouser. Which 9-2 teams was he talking about!!!!!!!!!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The problem with the current playoff structure/AQs is the math.

16 teams and 4 games is what folks like for the playoffs. Since the rule is at least 50% of the field have to be autobids, that makes 8 AQs and 8 at-larges. That's about 13% of the field (16 teams out of 120).

In baskeet-bowl, the ratio is 65 teams to 330, or closer to 20%. In an ideal world, 20% of the I-AA playoff field would also qualify for the playoffs as well, but through politics and practicality it's unlikely to happen soon.

Making matters worse is the composition of conferences. With eleven-game schedules, it's at best impractical to have more than 10 schools in a conference without a championship game. Not all conference members will play each other. There is a practical limit to the size of conferences, and the A-10 and MEAC are hitting it for football. (In baskeet-bowl, there are no such limits, which enable 15 and 16 team conferences to exist.)

Back to football. The only things keeping the playoff structure the way it is now is:

* Two large conferences, the SWAC and Ivy, choosing not to send their champions to the playoffs
* Low or limited-scholly conferences not applying for, or simply not getting, autobids
* Two 5-team conferences who have not, to date, gotten a 6th member for autobid membership
* Large I-AA "super-conferences" like the A-10 and (now) the MEAC remaining in existence
* The "50% rule", which stipulates that 50% of the field must be at-large bids. That means you can't just add 4 autobids and remove 4 at-larges. If you add 2 autobids you have to add 2 at-larges.

The 16-team format for the playoffs will be held as long as possible, but this center will most likely not hold forever. The math just doesn't work out. Conferences cannot just become bigger and bigger; the 5-team conferences will not be ineligible forever; one day, a non-scholly or limited-scholly school will come along and qualify for the I-AA playoffs and do extremely well; or the SWAC or Ivy could reverse course and want to join the playoffs. Something will happen someday to break it.

Sure, someday the MEAC might break for a "Heritage Bowl" postseason, or the Big Sky may try an ill-advised jump to I-A, opening a new autobid, but I think it's more likely the playoffs will expand someday.

[aceinthehole]

http://p197.ezboard.com/fmoctalkfrm3.showMessage?topicID=2985.topic

Interesting Quote by Allison at the Socon Rouser. Which 9-2 teams was he talking about!!!!!!!!!

Great quote!

IF the playoffs were expanded by 8 spots to a total of 24 teams, no more than 4 of the "new" spots could be reserved as an AQ due to the NCAA requirement that at least 50% of the spots remain for at-large selection.

To date, the NEC is the only eligible conference that has asked for the AQ. So until the Big South, Great West, or MAAC added enough memebers; or the Ivy, SWAC, or PFL asked for an AQ, they could actually add 1 AQ for the NEC, and use the 7 other spots for at-larges.

Would this proposal encourage some more of the I-AA old guard to consider expansion since it would benefit them by adding more chances for at-large teams with 8-3 or 9-2 records who would be seeded higher than an AQ from the NEC or other conferences anyway?

[Pard4Life]

Since this 50% AQ - at-large requirement seems to be the 'hairy monkey' in the expansion debate, then why can't they just change the rule? Add the four new AQ conferences IF they every want the autobid... GWFC, Ivy, SWAC, NEC... so that's 20 teams.. give the top four teams a bye... the at-large teams are likely going to still come from the power conferences anyhow.

Not saying this is my position or the way to go.. I am just playing devil's advocate..

[DUPFLFan]

Which 9-2 teams was he talking about!!!!!!!!!


Here are a list of those schools who had significant winning records (9+ wins) who didn't participate in the 1-aa national championship (list does not including the Ivy league):

Grambling 11-1
San Diego 11-1
Alabama A&M 9-3
Dayton 9-1

South Carolina St 9-2

[OL FU]

http://p197.ezboard.com/fmoctalkfrm3.showMessage?topicID=2985.topic

Interesting Quote by Allison at the Socon Rouser. Which 9-2 teams was he talking about!!!!!!!!!

I think I now understand. His 9-2 reference was for the sub-class as a whole not the SoCon

So while there may be more he was speaking of CCU and SC State

[OL FU]

Here are a list of those schools who had significant winning records (9+ wins) who didn't participate in the 1-aa national championship (list does not including the Ivy league):

Grambling 11-1
San Diego 11-1
Alabama A&M 9-3
Dayton 9-1

South Carolina St 9-2


When he said "we had two 9-2 teams" I was thinking much too narrow (SoCon Only)

[*****]

...The only things keeping the playoff structure the way it is now is:...You forgot the main reason I hear, available weeks to play the tourney. Not enough time to add another round.

[89Hen]

Agreed, but how many bowl games, but not all-star games, are there. If at least 20, then there are 40 of 120 playing post-season games.
And that's one of the things we constantly rail on about I-A... too many bowl games.

[89Hen]

Just saying that eliminating the bye week may not be palatable given recent events.
:nod: Even going to 24 teams, you're talking about forcing nearly 100 teams to play a compressed schedule for no reason at all.

[Go...gate]

Maybe we drop back to a 10 game season so this more inclusive playoff stem can be implented?? Do we need 11 (or 12) games?

Tod....that is a very interesting Eisenhower quote.

[OL FU]

Maybe we drop back to a 10 game season so this more inclusive playoff stem can be implented?? Do we need 11 (or 12) games?

Tod....that is a very interesting Eisenhower quote.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

No, can't drop back to 10 games, some of the big schools want 12 now

[89Hen]

Would this proposal encourage some more of the I-AA old guard to consider expansion since it would benefit them by adding more chances for at-large teams with 8-3 or 9-2 records who would be seeded higher than an AQ from the NEC or other conferences anyway?
Suprisingly, no for me. I say surprisingly because I know that it would add a lot more teams from the A10, SoCon, BSC.... but IMO there weren't really any teams from any of those that deserved to be in the playoffs, the lone exception last year being YSU. So add 7 at-large and you probably get SCSt (9-2), Coastal (9-2), YSU (8-3), UMass (7-4), JMU (7-4), Montana State (7-4), and Illinois State (7-4). That's four teams at 7-4. They do not belong in the playoffs IMO.

[BearsCountry]

Start in August similar to D2.

[89Hen]

Maybe we drop back to a 10 game season so this more inclusive playoff stem can be implented?? Do we need 11 (or 12) games?
NOOOOOO! That's even worse than going with 11 games and no bye. Again, you're taking away a game for 100 teams so 24 can play an 11th or more. Also, with round robin, that would be 2 OOC games for many teams. That would eliminate the opportunities for I-A games, regional rivals, good home and homes, more home games.....

[henfan]

I still think I-AA should seriously consider scrapping the regular season in favor of a 6 week, single elimination tournament. Enough of the exclusionary tactics. Every team deserves a equal shot at the playoffs. Under this very modest proposal, all of the teams that don't win the actual championship would still receive equal-sized championship trophies. Just like Pee Wee soccer, everybody goes home a winner. :thumbsup: xidiotx

[aceinthehole]

Suprisingly, no for me. I say surprisingly because I know that it would add a lot more teams from the A10, SoCon, BSC.... but IMO there weren't really any teams from any of those that deserved to be in the playoffs, the lone exception last year being YSU. So add 7 at-large and you probably get SCSt (9-2), Coastal (9-2), YSU (8-3), UMass (7-4), JMU (7-4), Montana State (7-4), and Illinois State (7-4). That's four teams at 7-4. They do not belong in the playoffs IMO.

OK, fair enough. I like your honesty.

But anyone from those schools have a different opinion?

[aceinthehole]

NOOOOOO! That's even worse than going with 11 games and no bye. Again, you're taking away a game for 100 teams so 24 can play an 11th or more. Also, with round robin, that would be 2 OOC games for many teams. That would eliminate the opportunities for I-A games, regional rivals, good home and homes, more home games.....


I think any playoff expansion should keep the 11 game season also!

If that means no byes, start a week earlier, or something else - I'd consider it. We shouldn't add another playoff round at the expense of the 11 game season.

At least we all have some creative ideas, even if we all don't agree on them :hurray:

[89Hen]

OK, fair enough. I like your honesty.

But anyone from those schools have a different opinion?
FWIW, it wouldn't matter to me if UD was on that list at 7-4, they wouldn't belong there either IMO. Of course that wouldn't stop me from going to the first round game. :p

[rokamortis]

I think any playoff expansion should keep the 11 game season also!

If that means no byes, start a week earlier, or something else - I'd consider it. We shouldn't add another playoff round at the expense of the 11 game season.

At least we all have some creative ideas, even if we all don't agree on them :hurray:

Good points. I agree, try to keep the 11th game but expand.

I wonder if the people against expansion now felt the same way in 1981 and 1986.

[EKU05]

They will keep the 11th game, and addiing a 12th is a serious posibility. That's another reason playoff expansion is on the back-burner.