Leveling the Playoff Playing Field

[carney2]

As most of you are aware, home field for the first round of the playoffs is determined as follows:

1. Four teams are seeded and awarded first round games.

2. The remaining four home games are awarded based on a bidding process.

It has been stated that these games awarded via bids are "purchased." In other words, to some extent it is a financial rather than a football decision. You can't really blame the folks at the NCAA because playoffs is an expensive show to produce. On the other hand, you hear comments (at this site) such as "Delaware will always get a home game" and you begin to question the competitive aspects of the whole affair. (Delaware has a 22,000 seat stadium and a loyal fan base that virtually guarantees a sellout. The comment, which I've heard more than once at this site, hints that this is a payday that the NCAA cannot resist. I'm sure that there are other schools with a situation similar to Delaware's.) It can be argued, of course, that since the games are up for bids, anyone can, and sometimes does, get a home game. Still, the virtual guarantee of a home game for a handful of schools is an incredible competitive advantge.

I know that there have been discussions on this board - and hopefully within the NCAA itself - of seeding 8, or even all 16, teams, with home field determined by seed position. I also recognize that this type of situation could create some nightmares for the NCAA and for specific schools. (Let's say, for instance that in 2006 all 16 teams are seeded, with the number 1 seed going to New Hampshire and number 16 to UC Davis. Davis would have to make one of the longest and most expensive trips possible in I-AA for this game. I could carry this another step or two by assuming a Davis win and then forcing them to Furman the next week and James Madison for the 3rd round, but you get my point.) We at this site take great pride in the fact that I-AA presents the only D-I football championship determined on the field. My point is that this "field" should be as level as possible.

Do any of you "in the know" guys have any information on the status - if any - of proposals to expand the seedings to 8 or 16 teams?

[henfan]

There are no plans to seed all 16 teams and for good reason.

First and foremost, seeding all 16 strictly by some poll or ranking wouldn't allow for as much flexibility in matching teams to the most geographically sensible brackets. The goal for the NCAA and I-AA is to produce a self-sufficient playoff championship. It's just not possible to do that without revenue. Yup, that means playing as many games as you can in locations where the most people are going to buy tickets, not flying teams across the country when they may be able to take a bus ride and maximizing the opportunity for fans and players' families to actually travel to road games.

You have to realize that seeding is a highly artificial process. It relies heavily on the opinion of a committee, polls, power ratings, etc. What's the difference between the #8 and #9 teams, for example?

The current system, while not perfect, allows teams to get rewarded for their play on the field and also gives sub-division flexibility. There's no need to make wholesale changes right now.

[IaaScribe]

There's definite truth to what carney says. When I covered Northern Arizona's playoff run in 2003, I was told by people in the NAU administration that as long as NAU won, it would host the semifinals because Colgate hadn't even submitted a bid. They didn't want to host.

Of course, NAU lost, but Colgate still went on the road, and destroyed Florida Atlantic.

[89Hen]

You have to realize that seeding is a highly artificial process. It relies heavily on the opinion of a committee, polls, power ratings, etc. What's the difference between the #8 and #9 teams, for example?
:nod: I've said that time and time again here. Seeding 1-8 won't change a thing. Just ask Lehigh in 2000 when they went 11-0 and were sent packing as the #10 seed when they smacked WIU in front of 3200 fans in Macomb. They would have certainly had a lot more than 3200 in Goodman, they were undefeated, were the PL Champs and were in their thrid consecutive playoffs. The Committee will still do what they want, and given the regionalization change that took place since those 2000 playoffs, they'd have no problem putting teams wherever they want. :twocents:

[carney2]

[QUOTE=89HenThe Committee will still do what they want, and given the regionalization change that took place since those 2000 playoffs, they'd have no problem putting teams wherever they want. :twocents:[/QUOTE]

I see your point. You are saying that, even with a deeper seeding system (8, 16, regional by 8s, regional by 4s, whatever), financial decisions would still be made. Still, ya gotta admit that the system seems to favor the larger institutions. Also, certain advantages are being perpetuated because, theoretically, home field leads to more playoff wins, which leads to better recruiting, which leads to more playoff appearances, which leads to... Well, you get my point. It's a vicious cycle that favors the few.

[AppGuy04]

I-AA is money conscious, and thats the way it will stay. If they weren't, the idea of regionalization would have never even been brought up. As for this "vicious cycle" you speak, I don't agree. Most I-AA teams do not compete for the same athletes, so recruiting should not be affected.

[89Hen]

I see your point. You are saying that, even with a deeper seeding system (8, 16, regional by 8s, regional by 4s, whatever), financial decisions would still be made. Still, ya gotta admit that the system seems to favor the larger institutions.
No doubt, but it doesn't always work out to favor the "larger" schools. UMass at Colgate, Furman at Villanova, WKU at SHSU, JMU at Lehigh... there are strange ones every year IMO. We thought there were a few schools that can pretty much start selling tix for the first round once they know they'll get in, but I would have included GSU in that group, and they were sent on the road last year for the first round.

Last road game first round...
Delaware - 1996 (last 4 at home)
Montana - 1998 (last 7 at home)
ASU - 2000 (last 3 at home)

I think you are correct that this is probably an unfair advantage. Under Keeler the Hens are at 25-4 home and 11-12 on the road. :eek: ;)

[GannonFan]

I'm not sure the first post is actually correct - I thought they make the pairings up first (i.e. all 16 games are set) and then they go to the bidding so it's one team bidding against the team it is going to play. Anyone know for sure?

As for the process itself, 89Hen is right that even when things where seeded there were plenty of shenanigans even then - people who think seeding will solve everything apparently had no exposure to the "Marshall Invitational" that was held during the early 90's. Seeds were very controversial and did nothing to "make fair" the playoff process the way that people think they will now. Geez, people get riled beyond belief when it comes down to who's the 16th seed and who's the first team left out - imagine when the committee needs to seed as well.

As for the more well attended schools getting more home games, first, as a UD fan, I must point out that UD has only ever gotten one home game that you could even try to make an argument that we shouldn't have had, and that was the Lafayette game in the 2004 first round - however, UD was ranked around the top 10 so it wasn't outside the realm of possibility that UD could've been seeded 8th and got the game anyway (and again seeding is so arbitrary I'm sure UD could've gotten a high seed even if seeding was being done). I'm sure the same can be said of Montana over the years as well so looking at just where teams played in the first round is incomplete if you don't look at the respective records. And as for those schools getting more playoff games, while it may tough on the players who don't get home games, it is a fan-friendly policy nonetheless. When UD gets a home game, that's 22k people that get to watch it - if they played the game somewhere else where maybe only 5k people show up, that's 17k fans who've just been denied a chance to see the game. And fans are then rewarded for showing up during the year. I fully realize it's not the most equitable policy that they could have, but while it maximizes money it also does maximize fan appreciation as well - something to be said for that.

[UAalum72]

As for this "vicious cycle" you speak, I don't agree. Most I-AA teams do not compete for the same athletes, so recruiting should not be affected.
Maybe you get players with a choice of App St. or stay home, but for anyone else that's just laughable. You're always competing with another college for talent, and trying to get players who could go to a higher level. Do you show recruits pictures of an empty stadium, or when the crowd's overflowing?

[89Hen]

I'm not sure the first post is actually correct - I thought they make the pairings up first (i.e. all 16 games are set) and then they go to the bidding so it's one team bidding against the team it is going to play. Anyone know for sure?
AFAIK, the bids are in before the pairings are made and are taken into account. Otherwise, what would happen if they pair two teams that didn't bid? FWIW, I don't think there are many teams today that don't bid. They've realized the message it sends to everyone (the NCAA, the team, the alums, the DONORS).

[AppGuy04]

Maybe you get players with a choice of App St. or stay home, but for anyone else that's just laughable. You're always competing with another college for talent, and trying to get players who could go to a higher level. Do you show recruits pictures of an empty stadium, or when the crowd's overflowing?

Ofcourse not, because KBS is ALWAYS full. Is it my problem that smaller schools can't fill their stadium for a playoff game? Hell no! If it comes down to it, would App probably get the nod for a home game in the playoffs, you damn right we would, and its well deserved by our players and fans.

[PaladinFan]

Ofcourse not, because KBS is ALWAYS full. Is it my problem that smaller schools can't fill their stadium for a playoff game? Hell no! If it comes down to it, would App probably get the nod for a home game in the playoffs, you damn right we would, and its well deserved by our players and fans.

I hope you are joking. I've been to KBS three times and never seen it full. Close, but not full. So, I don't see how you can claim "always."

[PaladinFan]

I am not sure what the selection cmts. rationale is much of the time. I am still lost as to how Furman got sent to Richmond last year.

Hearing that Lehigh was an 11-0 team and unseeded a few years ago also begs the question of why Hampton was seeded so high. They were obviously not one of the four top teams in the playoffs.

[WMTribe90]

I am for seeding 1 through 8 and then matching the remaining 8 unseeded with the intent of maximizing attendance and revenue. This is the best compromise or middle ground. At a minimum it ensures the teams and players that earned a home playoff game get to play in front of the home crowd, but it would also prevent UC Davis from playing Maine in the first round.

Arguing that UD always deserves a home game because they average 22,000 fans is ridiculous. UD fans should be very proud of the way the back their school, but tiny private schools like Wofford just can't compete when their student and alumni base is one-quarter or one-fifth the size of UD's.

Seeding 1 through 8 would prevent a team like Montana that finishes the season ranked 17th (for example) from hosting the fifth ranked Cal Poly based solely on attendance.

Of course we could still have instances where number 8 hosts number 16 and number 1 hosts 9, but that's a tolerable situation at least because the "best" 8 teams (in the eyes of the comittee) are playing at home as it should be.

Money matters of course, but sacrifices to competitve integrity should be kept to a bare minimum. If the NCAA loses a few bucks hosting the IAA Playoffs is it really a huge deal considering the money they rake in for March Madness, etc?

[BULLDOG8180]

I-AA is money conscious, and thats the way it will stay. If they weren't, the idea of regionalization would have never even been brought up. As for this "vicious cycle" you speak, I don't agree. Most I-AA teams do not compete for the same athletes, so recruiting should not be affected.

I can't speak for all conferences, but in the SOCON, you are definitely wrong! Most of the players at App St. Furman, Western, and Citadel were all recruited by each other.

[Saint3333]

I hope you are joking. I've been to KBS three times and never seen it full. Close, but not full. So, I don't see how you can claim "always."

October 28th is your chance.

[89Hen]

Ofcourse not, because KBS is ALWAYS full.
:eyebrow: You were at 81% capacity just a year ago.

[carney2]

the bids are in before the pairings are made and are taken into account.

This is my understanding also. I guess that the core of my original question is still on the table: Does anyone know for certain how the system works?

By the way, has anyone noticed a pattern arising in the posts to this thread?

The "haves" like things the way they are. It's the way of the world, and tough noogies if you smaller guys can't put fannies in the seats.

and

The "have nots" are screaming "Unfair! Unfair!"

Pure objectivity is difficult, I guess. I know that I don't have it. It's like when I open the op-ed page in my local newspaper and see that a piece claiming that "Hamas and Hezbolla are Terrorist Thugs" is usually penned by someone named Goldberg or Cohen, while the counter piece entitled something like "Israel is a Bully and Aggressor" is usually authored by someone whose first or last name is Mohammed. Nature wins out over nurture more times than we would like.

[AppGuy04]

:eyebrow: You were at 81% capacity just a year ago.

Not sure which year you are referring to, but last year, we were 3rd in the nation with over 107% of capacity: http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2006/Internet/attendance/IAA_CAPACITY.pdf

[89Hen]

Not sure which year you are referring to
I was talking about the year before last...

2004 = 81.42%
2003 = 88.06%
2002 = 75.59%
2001 = 79.66%
2000 = 78.17%

You should be very proud of last year's attendance and I hope it continues for you, but your statement was only accurate for very recent history.

[DTSpider]

I am not sure what the selection cmts. rationale is much of the time. I am still lost as to how Furman got sent to Richmond last year.

Hearing that Lehigh was an 11-0 team and unseeded a few years ago also begs the question of why Hampton was seeded so high. They were obviously not one of the four top teams in the playoffs.

How big is Furman's stadium? I believe that Richmond may still have the advantage with the 20,000 plus seat stadium. Is there anything to stop a school from over bidding? If Richmond bids 15,000 and only 10,000 show up can Richmond just pay the remaining 5,000 worth of tickets? As long as the school covers the money what difference does it make to the NCAA?

[89Hen]

By the way, has anyone noticed a pattern arising in the posts to this thread?

The "haves" like things the way they are. It's the way of the world, and tough noogies if you smaller guys can't put fannies in the seats.
I agree that I certainly enjoy knowing that if the Hens make the playoffs I can continue planning a trip to Newark Thanksgiving weekend, but I haven't seen anyone say tough noogies so far. What I think we're saying is that even if they go back to seeding, it won't necessarily "fix" the problem of the "have's" hosting in the first round. :twocents:

[carney2]

Is there anything to stop a school from over bidding? If Richmond bids 15,000 and only 10,000 show up can Richmond just pay the remaining 5,000 worth of tickets? As long as the school covers the money what difference does it make to the NCAA?

I heard within the last week that there is a "guarantee" to the NCAA involved - something like $30,000. Anyone know anything about this? If this is true, does the "guarantee" set the minimum bid and the sky's the limit from there?

[89Hen]

Hearing that Lehigh was an 11-0 team and unseeded a few years ago also begs the question of why Hampton was seeded so high. They were obviously not one of the four top teams in the playoffs.
Message sending. LU was denied a top 8 seed because they were the only team to not make a bid to host the year before. If you could go back to the old message boards the week of the selection in 2000, you'd find that I called that one ahead of time. The NCAA was not happy about LU not submitting a bid and then "deciding" they did want to host the following year. The NCAA said "WE'LL decide when you host, not you".

[EKU05]

This is my understanding also. I guess that the core of my original question is still on the table: Does anyone know for certain how the system works?

By the way, has anyone noticed a pattern arising in the posts to this thread?

The "haves" like things the way they are. It's the way of the world, and tough noogies if you smaller guys can't put fannies in the seats.

and

The "have nots" are screaming "Unfair! Unfair!"

Pure objectivity is difficult, I guess. I know that I don't have it. It's like when I open the op-ed page in my local newspaper and see that a piece claiming that "Hamas and Hezbolla are Terrorist Thugs" is usually penned by someone named Goldberg or Cohen, while the counter piece entitled something like "Israel is a Bully and Aggressor" is usually authored by someone whose first or last name is Mohammed. Nature wins out over nurture more times than we would like.

Very astute. We like to count ourselves as above the petty $$$ wars that go in that other half of D-I...but are we really? Or are we just doing the same thing on a smaller less noticable scale? I'd say the latter, because the reality is that it does, in fact, have to be about money. Money makes all of this football that we love happen.

As far as the playoffs...I'd love to see seeding. I wouldn't even mind a computer ranking being (somehow) involved in the process if it were a decent ranking formula. I tend to trust those more than people anyway. I agree that the process of seeding isn't perfect, but I think on average it would make the playoffs at least slightly more fair than it is now. I'm sure there would be exceptions to that.

But I understand why were aren't seeding, and it does increase interest in your product when it features interesting regional match-ups from the get go. It's what I would probably call a "neccessary evil" right now. It's not the best system, but it is the most practical...and sometimes you just have to go with that.

[89Hen]

Very astute. We like to count ourselves as above the petty $$$ wars that go in that other half of D-I...but are we really? Or are we just doing the same thing on a smaller less noticable scale?
Good comment, but I'd say we're doing things on a more acceptible scale. Teams still have to win, no matter where the game is played. JMU didn't have a single game at home in 2004, UNI won twice on the road last year, UMass played 2 of 3 on the road in 1998... I don't think it's the road team that's complaining as much as the losers are complaining. :twocents:

[henfan]

The "haves" like things the way they are. It's the way of the world, and tough noogies if you smaller guys can't put fannies in the seats.

You're not going to find THE answer on a message board. Realize that, in the end, it's not what a few fans like or don't like that pays the bills. Our division will continue to do what it feels it has to in order to ensure the playoffs are at least self-sustaining. Subjective competitive evaluations will continue to take a back seat to the financial realities of D-I cost-containment football.

You either learn to live with it or, if you have a better plan that preserves competitiveness while ensuring financial viability, submit it in the form of a proposal to I-AA Management Council.

Good luck with that.:thumbsup:

[AZGrizFan]

As most of you are aware, home field for the first round of the playoffs is determined as follows:

1. Four teams are seeded and awarded first round games.

2. The remaining four home games are awarded based on a bidding process.

It has been stated that these games awarded via bids are "purchased." In other words, to some extent it is a financial rather than a football decision. You can't really blame the folks at the NCAA because playoffs is an expensive show to produce. On the other hand, you hear comments (at this site) such as "Delaware will always get a home game" and you begin to question the competitive aspects of the whole affair. (Delaware has a 22,000 seat stadium and a loyal fan base that virtually guarantees a sellout. The comment, which I've heard more than once at this site, hints that this is a payday that the NCAA cannot resist. I'm sure that there are other schools with a situation similar to Delaware's.) It can be argued, of course, that since the games are up for bids, anyone can, and sometimes does, get a home game. Still, the virtual guarantee of a home game for a handful of schools is an incredible competitive advantge.

I know that there have been discussions on this board - and hopefully within the NCAA itself - of seeding 8, or even all 16, teams, with home field determined by seed position. I also recognize that this type of situation could create some nightmares for the NCAA and for specific schools. (Let's say, for instance that in 2006 all 16 teams are seeded, with the number 1 seed going to New Hampshire and number 16 to UC Davis. Davis would have to make one of the longest and most expensive trips possible in I-AA for this game. I could carry this another step or two by assuming a Davis win and then forcing them to Furman the next week and James Madison for the 3rd round, but you get my point.) We at this site take great pride in the fact that I-AA presents the only D-I football championship determined on the field. My point is that this "field" should be as level as possible.

Do any of you "in the know" guys have any information on the status - if any - of proposals to expand the seedings to 8 or 16 teams?

Newsflash. It's probably cheaper for a team to fly into Deleware than it is to fly into Missoula. After that, costs are basically the same, aren't they? Distance <> cost. Hell, I just flew my family of four to Missoula from Phoenix, and the cost was over $2,000. I could have flown all of us to LONDON, ENGLAND, for pete's sake, for under $1600. The cost of the flights is less about the distance traveled and more about the demand. Any I-AA (excuse me CS) school with a large city nearby would ultimately be cheaper to fly into, regardless of the distance.

[mainejeff]

The only change that I would make is to seed the Top 8 teams rather than the Top 4. That would hopefully allow for more equitable match-ups after the 1st Round, and would also give more schools "a shot" at hosting a playoff game. I'm sure that Delaware, Montana, JMU, and Appalachian State fans would like to see the status quo though :rolleyes:.

[Saint3333]

I was talking about the year before last...

2004 = 81.42%
2003 = 88.06%
2002 = 75.59%
2001 = 79.66%
2000 = 78.17%

You should be very proud of last year's attendance and I hope it continues for you, but your statement was only accurate for very recent history.

There was also a change in Chancellor and AD positions which has helped that. I'd look for last year to be closer to the norm going forward.

[henfan]

We like to count ourselves as above the petty $$$ wars that go in that other half of D-I...but are we really? Or are we just doing the same thing on a smaller less noticable scale? I'd say the latter, because the reality is that it does, in fact, have to be about money. Money makes all of this football that we love happen.

There's a gulf of difference between the gluttony that goes on at the upper levels of I-A and struggling to break even with the I-AA playoffs. Most people realize that.

[PaladinFan]

How big is Furman's stadium? I believe that Richmond may still have the advantage with the 20,000 plus seat stadium. Is there anything to stop a school from over bidding? If Richmond bids 15,000 and only 10,000 show up can Richmond just pay the remaining 5,000 worth of tickets? As long as the school covers the money what difference does it make to the NCAA?

Depends on how much of a priority money is. Furman's stadium is undoubtedly a bit smaller, but with nicer facilties and a better field. You forget that the announcers for the game against Furman were placed outside. FU can at least guarantee a press box.

[PaladinFan]

October 28th is your chance.


You mean fourth chance.

[89Hen]

I'm sure that Delaware, Montana, JMU, and Appalachian State fans would like to see the status quo though :rolleyes:.
No doubt! :nod: But why is JMU on your list? They hit the road for all three games on the road to Nooga in 2004. :confused:

[henfan]

The only change that I would make is to seed the Top 8 teams rather than the Top 4. That would hopefully allow for more equitable match-ups after the 1st Round, and would also give more schools "a shot" at hosting a playoff game.

How does seeding eight make it more equitable for the teams ranked at #9, 10, and 11, who feel they have a claim to seed #6, 7 or 8? There's just never going to be a solution for everyone.

Personally, I don't have a problem with any system that is fair and rewards competitiveness, so long that it also preserves the financial integrity of the division. This isn't pie-in-the-sky stuff. I-AA has investigated the idea of expanding seeding to eight as recently as 2005 but decided against it in the short term for financial reasons. The idea isn't totally off the table. Until more teams start putting fannies in the seats in late Nov. and Dec., I wouldn't count on it happening.:twocents:



There's a heck of a lot more to this than

[LacesOut]

As long as they keep the tournament, where the champion is determined on the field amongst 16 teams, I could care less what changes are made. Seed all 16, seed none, blah blah blah, just play the game!!

[henfan]

As long as they keep the tournament, where the champion is determined on the field amongst 16 teams, I could care less what changes are made. Seed all 16, seed none, blah blah blah, just play the game!!


:thumbsup: :hurray:

Yup. The rest is just a bunch of crybaby crap.

As UMass and JMU have proven, win games and you've got nothing to complain about.

[PaladinFan]

No doubt! :nod: But why is JMU on your list? They hit the road for all three games on the road to Nooga in 2004. :confused:

Puhleaze don't remind me. Justin Rascati's 21 yrd scamper with the Dukes facing a 3rd and quarter mile with the Paladins clinging to a 6pt lead late in the 4th was the most deflating moment I've had at a football game.

[mainejeff]

How does seeding eight make it more equitable for the teams ranked at #9, 10, and 11, who feel they have a claim to seed #6, 7 or 8?

How does seeding four make it more equitable for the teams ranked at #5, #6 and #7 who feel that they have a claim to seed #2, #3, or #4?

:rotateh: :rotateh: :rotateh:

[89Hen]

Side note - This doesn't really pertain to I-AA, but more to the discussion of home field advantange and fairness. Heard the explaination of how they decide the Wild Card team in baseball if three teams are tied at the end of the regular season. They go to head to head records and determine which of the three is the "number one seed" and they have a choice of being Team A, Team B or Team C. Team C hosts team B with the winner of that game hosting Team A for the final game. So if you take the bye, you are on the road. If you play the extra game, you get to host if you win. I just thought it was interesting. xcoffeex

[henfan]

How does seeding four make it more equitable for the teams ranked at #5, #6 and #7 who feel that they have a claim to seed #2, #3, or #4?

It absolutely doesn't. You've obviously confused me with someone who thinks seeding is the path to righteousness. I've been maintaining the opposite.

IMO, there are & should be more pressing considerations for matching teams other than arbitrary committee rankings. I'm just not sure you can get completely away from some sort of subjective competitiveness seeding.

[EKU05]

There's a gulf of difference between the gluttony that goes on at the upper levels of I-A and struggling to break even with the I-AA playoffs. Most people realize that.

Only because we don't have as much financial wealth to fight over. Do you really think that if we suddenly had kind of money we'd all become football marxists? Like I said, it's more subtle in I-AA because you aren't dealing with the same kind of wealth, so of course there isn't any "gluttony" in I-AA. There couldn't be. But it isn't because all of our schools got together and planned it that way on purpose.

[henfan]

Only because we don't have as much financial wealth to fight over. Do you really think that if we suddenly had kind of money we'd all become football marxists?

I don't disagree at all with your 'what if' scenario, however, that wasn't the point. I alluded to the real and actual differences between I-A's post-season money grab and I-AA's barely self-sustaining playoff system. There's no logical comparison there.

[EKU05]

Well, I can go with that. There certainly is a greater need to cling to every penny in I-AA...no denying that.

[asu70]

There was also a change in Chancellor and AD positions which has helped that. I'd look for last year to be closer to the norm going forward.
You are spot on with this statement as ticket sales for the upcoming season are booming. If you don't get your tickets now for JMU, FU, or homecoming , you could be standing or sitting on the banks.

[89Hen]

You are spot on with this statement as ticket sales for the upcoming season are booming. If you don't get your tickets now for JMU, FU, or homecoming , you could be standing or sitting on the banks.
I would hope so. A National Championship is usually a pretty good advertisement for ticket sales the following year. The question comes the year after ASU misses the playoffs next (don't worry, won't be this year ;) ).

[OleGriz]

One of the other problems with only seeding the top four is situations like in '04, where the #4 seeded GSU lost to New Hampshire, who I believe was 5th in the polls. What I would suggest as a compromise would be to have #1-8 seeded, but still only guarantee home games to the top 4. This would allow for the NCAA to set matchups that will still be well attended while making the brackets a little more balanced (at least based on how the teams are perceived at the beginning.)

[PaladinFan]

Perhaps an Eastern and Western bracket? Like baseball. Choose the top eight teams from the East (say, east of the Mississippi) and then choose another eight from the West. Let the winner of each bracket play for the marbles.

Seems like this would cut down on excess travel. I tend to think typically there is an equal representation of teams from both sides of the country in playoff football.

Take the '05 playoffs, for example. New Hampshire, Colgate, Furman, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Hampton, Richmond, and Nicholls State could have been the "east," while Eastern Wash, Cal Poly, UNI, Lafayette, EIU, Southern Illinois, Montana, and Texas State represent the "west."

You mention the '04 New Hampshire team having to travel to GSU. You failed to also mention that the same team had to scoot back and fly to Montana the next round. Where's the love there?

This idea has no merit and was just ramblings. Tear it apart if you feel like it.

[skinny_uncle]

2 Illinois schools in the West? I don't think Illinois has been considered a part of the West since before the Louisiana Purchase.
:confused:

[PaladinFan]

liberally used. I mean, look at how the NCAA distorts georgraphy during march madness. I should say, "further west than all of the above."

come on, y'all were the frontier until at least the Mexican War.

[SoCon48]

:eyebrow: You were at 81% capacity just a year ago.
Oh well, it balances out. We were at 139.15% capacity this year for regular season games.

[Maverick]

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4j3CQXJgFjGpvqRqC KOcAFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQiHJHRUUAc0tpTA!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfTFU!?CONTENT_URL=h ttp://www2.ncaa.org/portal/media_and_events/ncaa_publications/championship_handbooks/fall/football/mens/index.html

This is the website for the 2005 Football I-AA Playoff handbook. You will also find a website for the D-I championship handbook also. The 2006 version should be posted on the NCAA.org website very soon. This may answer many of the questions that are flying back and forth. But the issues surrounding playoff pairings, cost-containment, national security, competition, regionalization, as well as others have been part of this discussion at one time or another over the past 10-12 years at least. Understand that the NCAA provides a fixed method of reimbursement for participation by teams. The items reimbursed are travel, lodging, food, and ground transportation for the team. The reimbursements are based on a specified travel party size. They do not now nor have they ever covered the costs a team incurs in the playoffs. This official travel party is listed with the NCAA others not on the list are paid for by the institution. The NCAA may help in making reservations but they do not pay any of these bills directly. The schools have to file receipts and forms for reimbursement of allowed expenses. They did talk about increasing the size of the travel party at the semi-final and final level if I am not mistaken during the spring. This also explains why it can be a financially losing propsition for the teams in the playoffs. Bringing extra athletic staff such as development/fund raising people, university administration, the band, boosters can add to the costs. The tickets are also handled differently. Each ticket must be accounted for so that the students must buy a ticket instead of just using an ID to get in. This and the Thanksgiving weekend holiday with students away from campus can affect ticket sales greatly. Plus your season ticket holders have to buy tickets as they are nto part of the season ticket package. What most people don't understand is that most schools give the NCAA a "guarantee" even if it costs them money on low ticket sales, etc. The NCAA does not make any money on the playoffs but they are trying to minimize the damage as much as possible. To the best of my knowledge there have been no schools make any money winning the NC. THey might of had some increased ticket sales the next year, increased donations after the fact, or increased merchandise sales, but the actual cost to the football program and the amount paid by the NCAA has never made that team profitable.

[carney2]

Perhaps an Eastern and Western bracket? Like baseball. Choose the top eight teams from the East (say, east of the Mississippi) and then choose another eight from the West. Let the winner of each bracket play for the marbles.

Seems like this would cut down on excess travel. I tend to think typically there is an equal representation of teams from both sides of the country in playoff football.

Take the '05 playoffs, for example. New Hampshire, Colgate, Furman, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Hampton, Richmond, and Nicholls State could have been the "east," while Eastern Wash, Cal Poly, UNI, Lafayette, EIU, Southern Illinois, Montana, and Texas State represent the "west."
You mention the '04 New Hampshire team having to travel to GSU. You failed to also mention that the same team had to scoot back and fly to Montana the next round. Where's the love there?

This idea has no merit and was just ramblings. Tear it apart if you feel like it.

Trade Nicholls State for Lafayette and you might get a passing grade in geography.

[89Hen]

East/West or North/South have nothing to do with I-AA football. Geography should only play a part when trying to find two teams that might be able to bus instead of fly to their opponent. Having Hampton/W&M/Richmond meet in the first round makes sense. As do Delaware/Lafayette, Colgate/UMass, FAU/B-CC, SIU/EIU.... I think the Committee's done a pretty good job so far. I do think we came up with slightly better pairings here given the field the past couple years, but only by one or two pairings.

[AndrewFU21]

I am also in favor of seeding the top eight teams. Seems to be a good compromise by making it as fair as possible while still giving the NCAA some flexibility.

Small schools are enitirely screwed by the current system though. Furman is little at 2,600 students and has still hosted in 5 of the last 7 years.

[89Hen]

Small schools are enitirely screwed by the current system though. Furman is little at 2,600 students and has still hosted in 5 of the last 7 years.
:confused: Not sure I follow your train of thought on that last one Andrew.

[WUTNDITWAA]

Puhleaze don't remind me. Justin Rascati's 21 yrd scamper with the Dukes facing a 3rd and quarter mile with the Paladins clinging to a 6pt lead late in the 4th was the most deflating moment I've had at a football game.

:eyebrow: ;)

[Retro]

Believe it or not, i believe the NCAA actually does seed 1-8, but in not so many words and since 9/11 they have gone overboard on regionalization.. That all however can be affected by the initial bids received..

IF the bids are already in and there is a team they expect to seed at #6, but that team did not submit the bid for that round, then they have no choice but to move that team to a road team and move another team up.

Basically, up until the early to mid 90's, teams could simply outbid each other for home games, which happen to Mcneese againest Montana one year, but that is no longer the case.. The ncaa sets a certain bid amount for the higher seeded team and if they don't want to bid it, then it goes to the other team if they choose.. Invisible seeding does exist, but the recent regionalization since 9/11 has screwed things up IMO.

What happens this year if the top 4 teams were all so-called west teams like Cal-Poly, Montana, Mcneese and Northern Colorado.. You going to throw all of them in the same bracket to save $10,000? I would hope not, so they should completey eliminate Regionalization, seed 1-8 outright and then only keep it regional for the first round if you have a toss up situation.

[Tailbone]

........
What happens this year if the top 4 teams were all so-called west teams like Cal-Poly, Montana, Mcneese and Northern Colorado.. You going to throw all of them in the same bracket to save $10,000? I would hope not ......

Aw, c'mon Retro...........wouldn't you Southland boys miss your annual trip to Missoula? :smiley_wi

I hear ya, wouldn't mind some regional variety.

[AppGuy04]

Please tell me how any of this matters? If you can't win every game, then you don't deserve the National Championship. The last 2 seasons we have seen both sides of the coin, so anything is possible. Just win and you won't have to worry about where you play, just play!

[AndrewFU21]

:confused: Not sure I follow your train of thought on that last one Andrew.

Hah, forgot a "not" in that statement. :bang:

[blukeys]

Perhaps an Eastern and Western bracket? Like baseball. Choose the top eight teams from the East (say, east of the Mississippi) and then choose another eight from the West. Let the winner of each bracket play for the marbles.

Seems like this would cut down on excess travel. I tend to think typically there is an equal representation of teams from both sides of the country in playoff football.
Take the '05 playoffs, for example. New Hampshire, Colgate, Furman, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Hampton, Richmond, and Nicholls State could have been the "east," while Eastern Wash, Cal Poly, UNI, Lafayette, EIU, Southern Illinois, Montana, and Texas State represent the "west."



You have started from a flawed assumption. Using the Mississippi river as the East / West boundary there are significantly more I-AA teams in the East then West.

In addition in terms of sheer numbers of quality teams the East would be overrepresented with the A-10, Southern and PL Conferenced being not only east of the Mississippi they are EAST of the Appalachians (I guess you could say ASU and JMU are IN the Appalachians)

Since 2000 only one NC was from West of the Missisippi, while the other 5 came from East of the Mississippi. Of those 5, 4 came from east of or in the Appalachians.

[EKU05]

You could still regionalize in a way. I'd say look at the NCAA basketball tournament as an example. They technically have regions, but teams are often sent to one that doesn't make sense just because there was no better way to do it. The regions are more of a rough guideline than a mandate that exactly 16 teams (or in our case 4 or 8) must come from one specific part of the country. Usually, the better your seed the more location preference you get.

Now, having said all of that....I'm still not sure it's teh answer here. I'd really like to see seeding...but if this thread has shown me one thing it's that it's hard to come up with any feasible plan that works significantly better than what we have right now. We're in kind of a financial bind I guess you could say.

[blukeys]

You could still regionalize in a way. I'd say look at the NCAA basketball tournament as an example. They technically have regions, but teams are often sent to one that doesn't make sense just because there was no better way to do it. The regions are more of a rough guideline than a mandate that exactly 16 teams (or in our case 4 or 8) must come from one specific part of the country. Usually, the better your seed the more location preference you get.

Now, having said all of that....I'm still not sure it's teh answer here. I'd really like to see seeding...but if this thread has shown me one thing it's that it's hard to come up with any feasible plan that works significantly better than what we have right now. We're in kind of a financial bind I guess you could say.

Yes, I get your point but I really think that is what they do now. That is how in '04 UNH and GSU were in the same bracket as Montana.

Seeding only 4 teams gives the NCAA an opportunity to come up with the most cost effective (travel costs) games that have a regional interest (Hampton-Richmond. EIU - SIU) Since the first round eliminates one half of the field this is the round that should allow for the most cost containment (8 teams traveling ) and therefore the most scheduling flexibility.

For the second round only 4 teams have to travel. In theory 4 seeded teams would be left and somebody would incur some travel expenses as the seeded teams would get home games. But this would not be nearly as expensive as when in a 1-16 seeded arrangement 8 teams are traveling all over the place.

1 to 8 seeding would not satisfy those who complain and has the potential for driving the costs of the first round travel up significantly.

[mountain man]

Part of the excitment of the playoffs is getting to play teams that normally wouldn't be on the schedule. If EIU and SIU both have teams in the playoff the next 5 five years then do we see them have a first round rematch each year since they are close? Furman and Appalachian are not far apart but it was much more exciting for both teams to see them play at a packed house in the semi-finals last year.

[89Hen]

I don't think that they would necessarily meet every year, but imagine the rivalry it would quickly build if they did. To face a team in a game with everything on the line multiple times... unless its really lopsided, but then neither team would really have anything to complain about. The team getting beaten would be showing they probably don't belong and the team doing the beating wouldn't mind a first round win each year.

The good news, it that there are very few teams that make the playoffs every year (89Hen avoiding naming BSC names again).