Pushing for Playoff Expansion [Archive]

TexasTerror

August 18th, 2006, 06:37 PM

NCAA legislation is going to be interesting in the coming months, years. Here's a read about the push to have more teams in the I-AA playoffs which focuses mostly on the A-10 part of the I-AA world.

James Madison coach Mickey Matthews notes that he's leading the charge to bring about the expansion of the playoffs. I think the GWFC and Big South becoming playoff-eligible would really help push the issue.

Of course, you still have the issue of the SWAC who claim I-AA championship status but doesn't even participate. "When Grambling head coach Melvin Spears took the podium at SWAC Media Day in Birmingham, Ala. last month, he made it very clear to the rest of the league that he thought his Tigers were the true I-AA National Champions in 2005, after rolling through their schedule 11-1 and capturing the SWAC title." xidiotx
(Credit: http://www.pbcommercial.com/articles/2006/08/18/sports/sports4.txt)
-----------
16 not so sweet in Division I-AA
State coaches embrace the concept of having more teams in playoffs

BY JOHN O'CONNOR
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Aug 18, 2006

Before Division I-AA's opening kickoff of 2006, think postseason. Sixteen teams make the playoffs. Coaches would like to see that number increased.

"The definition of success in I-AA is 'Did you make the playoffs or not?'" University of Richmond coach Dave Clawson said. "In I-A football, the definition of success is 'Did you get to a bowl?'"

Clawson then pointed out the inequity of the gauges. This season, 64 of 119 I-A teams will advance to 32 bowl games. In I-AA, there are 115 programs and just 16 playoff slots.

"I'm leading the charge to get 24," James Madison coach Mickey Matthews said.

Not all I-AA programs aspire to qualify for the tournament. The Ivy League chooses not to participate because of academic considerations. Also, several I-AA programs offer no athletic scholarships or far fewer football grants than the maximum allowed by the NCAA (63). They are not interested in competing for the I-AA national championship.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149190036259&path=!sports&s=1045855934844

McTailGator

August 18th, 2006, 06:43 PM

UAalum72

August 18th, 2006, 07:07 PM

" Also, several I-AA programs offer ... fewer football grants than the maximum allowed by the NCAA (63). They are not interested in competing for the I-AA national championship."

SEZ WHO?

MACHIAVELLI

August 18th, 2006, 07:31 PM

Of course, you still have the issue of the SWAC who claim I-AA championship status but doesn't even participate. "When Grambling head coach Melvin Spears took the podium at SWAC Media Day in Birmingham, Ala. last month, he made it very clear to the rest of the league that he thought his Tigers were the true I-AA National Champions in 2005, after rolling through their schedule 11-1 and capturing the SWAC title."
(Credit: http://www.pbcommercial.com/articles/2006/08/18/sports/sports4.txt)
-----------

Melvin Spears did not say that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpTTXKlRDM4

I hate reporters.

Tod

August 18th, 2006, 08:00 PM

"Clawson then pointed out the inequity of the gauges. This season, 64 of 119 I-A teams will advance to 32 bowl games. In I-AA, there are 115 programs and just 16 playoff slots".

Question I've asked before...With 12 games now allowed in I-A I guess a winning record is no longer required? 6-6 will get you into a bowl, in some cases?

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

I would comment on the "Grambling is the national champion" thing, but I first want to make sure Mach is right. I couldn't understand what was being said, I think a combination of poor sound and that my right headphone is dead.

EDIT - If all 115 teams were equal, I'd say it's fine to expand, but they're not. It's already about 20% of teams that will really play/are eligible. Good enough.

carney2

August 18th, 2006, 08:06 PM

Coaches want whatever number guarantees that their team is "in." Screwum. Sixteen is plenty. In the end there is only one.

GeauxColonels

August 18th, 2006, 09:51 PM

" Also, several I-AA programs offer ... fewer football grants than the maximum allowed by the NCAA (63). They are not interested in competing for the I-AA national championship."

SEZ WHO?
Yeah, I haven't evern heard any NEC or Pioneer League peopl saying they don't want a chance at the national title?!?!

Not to defend the guy, but may take on the comment is that his assumption is probably that if a program chooses not to issue the maximum number of scholarships, then that team is effectively saying that it doesn't want a chance.

I think he would better serve himself to say that Ivy and SWAC teams aren't interested in competing for the I-AA title, NOT the other teams.

GeauxColonels

August 18th, 2006, 10:03 PM

I REALLY like this quote.....

But the Tigers did finish 11th in the final Sports Network I-AA poll, and only National Champion Northern Iowa finished with more wins.
Is this guy credible or what?!:thumbsup: :bang: :bang:

Jafus (Thinker)

August 18th, 2006, 10:10 PM

...But the number of postseason qualifiers -- 16 since the field last expanded in 1986 -- probably won't increase. More playoff teams mean more playoff weekends, and I-AA wants its postseason to begin on the last Saturday in November and finish with the championship game on the third Friday in December, before I-A bowl season commences and I-AA contests become somewhat irrelevant.

Starting the season earlier to make more room for playoffs at the end, or giving up bye weeks to start the playoffs earlier, is impractical. Also, additional playoff qualifiers would translate into additional games. The teams involved in the I-AA championship already play 15 times....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!

mikebigg

August 18th, 2006, 11:09 PM

Melvin Spears did not say that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpTTXKlRDM4

I hate reporters.

So Mach are you saying that someone is lying... I'll check back for a rebuttal. So far nothing! xcoffeex

youwouldno

August 19th, 2006, 01:07 AM

There's usually a team that gets shafted, but expanding the playoffs would mean a much less competitive postseason in the early rounds.

bkrownd

August 19th, 2006, 01:26 AM

Read My Lips: No expansion.

blur2005

August 19th, 2006, 01:38 AM

Despite the fact it would've gotten JMU in the playoffs last year, there's no way I'm for expansion. Adding eight more teams would dilute the playoffs way too much.

TexasTerror

August 19th, 2006, 08:04 AM

So Mach are you saying that someone is lying... I'll check back for a rebuttal. So far nothing! xcoffeex

Perhaps you should get in touch with the Pine Bluff reporter...I just came across it during my usual I-AA news search and found it to be pretty blasphemy that a coach of a conference that does not actively compete for a national title would say such a thing...glad to see the Grambling faithful coming out to say it's false, because it would look bad on the coach and the program to make such a claim...

MACHIAVELLI

August 19th, 2006, 09:24 AM

.I just came across it during my usual I-AA news search and found it to be pretty blasphemy that a coach of a conference that does not actively compete for a national title would say such a thing.. because it would look bad on the coach and the program to make such a claim...

:confused:

DFW HOYA

August 19th, 2006, 10:12 AM

If all 115 teams were equal, I'd say it's fine to expand, but they're not. It's already about 20% of teams that will really play/are eligible. Good enough.

Would you say the same about basketball? There are at least 100 teams which are clearly not "equal" and yet they still get a chance at the tournament. (And a lot of them play football in I-AA.)

Grizzaholic

August 19th, 2006, 11:18 AM

If they want to make the I-AA playoff system into the meaningless playoff system then go right on ahead.

Dane96

August 19th, 2006, 11:33 AM

Maybe they should reduce the hoop tournament. Apparently, it was meaningless to see Montana (from a non-Top 10 conference) upset not one, but two teams in March Madness.

xcoffeex

89Hen

August 19th, 2006, 12:53 PM

Would you say the same about basketball?
Oh boy, let's not start this again. No other NCAA sport is relevant to I-AA playoffs.

bluehenbillk

August 19th, 2006, 12:59 PM

My bottom line: Unless you win your league, 7-4 teams have NO business in the 1-AA playoffs.

IaaScribe

August 19th, 2006, 01:02 PM

Maybe they should reduce the hoop tournament. Apparently, it was meaningless to see Montana (from a non-Top 10 conference) upset not one, but two teams in March Madness.

xcoffeex

The Griz only upset one, unless you're counting the Big Sky championship game at Northern Arizona. They beat Nevada and lost to Boston College.

DFW HOYA

August 19th, 2006, 02:39 PM

Oh boy, let's not start this again. No other NCAA sport is relevant to I-AA playoffs.

Here's the only point I make in this regard. There are plenty of Division I conferences who are not competitive nationally but have a place in the tournament. No one is arguing that the Mid-Continent, TAAC, Atlantic Sun or Horizon League should be legislated out of the basketball tournament. If this was Division I-AA football, of course, we'd read thread upon thread how leagues like this would "water down" the tournament.

Maybe a Big South champ or a Great West champ would never get out of the I-AA first round and therefore keep yet another third place A10 team from a berth. Or maybe one of these teams could make a Colgate-style run right through the brackets. We'll never know unless an opportunity is there, just like ther would have been no George Mason Final Four if the CAA wasn't in the Big Dance.

Here's the proposal: 24 teams, 12 conference champs (assuming the Ivy declines, SWAC declines, and the MAAC stays below the line or folds into the PFL), with at-large bids increasing from 8 to 12. The top eight (regardless of conference) get Thanksgiving week off and all remaining teams are seeded. But everyone gets a seat at the table.

Go...gate

August 19th, 2006, 04:30 PM

Here's the only point I make in this regard. There are plenty of Division I conferences who are not competitive nationally but have a place in the tournament. No one is arguing that the Mid-Continent, TAAC, Atlantic Sun or Horizon League should be legislated out of the basketball tournament. If this was Division I-AA football, of course, we'd read thread upon thread how leagues like this would "water down" the tournament.

Maybe a Big South champ or a Great West champ would never get out of the I-AA first round and therefore keep yet another third place A10 team from a berth. Or maybe one of these teams could make a Colgate-style run right through the brackets. We'll never know unless an opportunity is there, just like ther would have been no George Mason Final Four if the CAA wasn't in the Big Dance.

Here's the proposal: 24 teams, 12 conference champs (assuming the Ivy declines, SWAC declines, and the MAAC stays below the line or folds into the PFL), with at-large bids increasing from 8 to 12. The top eight (regardless of conference) get Thanksgiving week off and all remaining teams are seeded. But everyone gets a seat at the table.

Does 20 work? That means the 4 top seeds get a week off. This gets the Big South, NEC, GWFC and PFL in with the present number of at-large bids. I do not include the MAAC Football Conferemce, which I predict will be history soon, with Duquesne moving to the PFL and Marist to the NEC, both as football - only Associates.

UAalum72

August 19th, 2006, 05:59 PM

Does 20 work? That means the 4 top seeds get a week off. This gets the Big South, NEC, GWFC and PFL in with the present number of at-large bids.
Still in the future for the BS and GWFC until they get six members for the required time - and at the rate the Big South is moving the NEC will be at 50 equivalencies before the BS get that sixth member for two or five or whatever years.

McTailGator

August 19th, 2006, 06:09 PM

Here's the proposal: 24 teams,

NO

Leave it alone.

It's fine the way it is.

Polywog

August 19th, 2006, 08:41 PM

Still in the future for the BS and GWFC until they get six members for the required time -

When North Dakota joins the GWFC in 2008 we'll be at six teams, but will still not have the required amount of time. It's really a shame that the time limit is a factor. Last year as well as this year, UC Davis was/is a strong playoff contender, but can't advance to the playoffs yet. Same with North Dakota State. Three of the five GWFC teams were ranked at the end of last season and at the start of this season -- Cal Poly, Davis, and NDSU.

I can understand that a five team conference should not deserve an automatic bid. But if these trends continue and 3-4 GWFC are ranked but the conference doesn't get a bid just because we haven't been in a league together for X number of years...that seems silly. The league should get bonus points since over half of its members were DII just a few years ago!! :D

slostang

August 19th, 2006, 08:52 PM

My bottom line: Unless you win your league, 7-4 teams have NO business in the 1-AA playoffs.
What about a team with two I-A losses and two close losses to top ten I-AA teams?

Look at EWU last year. They were 7-4 and got the Big Sky's auto bid and gave I-AA finalist UNI all they could handle in Iowa. Every year there are 7-4 teams that are better than some 9-2 teams that did not play a very tough schedule. Montana State went 7-4 and were Co-Champs of the Big Sky last year and they sat home. They were better IMO than some of the teams in the playoffs last year.

I am not saying the playoffs should be expanded, but there are some 7-4 teams worthy of the playoffs.

blukeys

August 19th, 2006, 09:36 PM

Montana State went 7-4 and were Co-Champs of the Big Sky last year and they sat home. They were better IMO than some of the teams in the playoffs last year.

And what playoff teams do you think they were better than??????? I have seen the second tier Big Sky in the playoffs (2000 Portland State) and I was underwhelmed. So please tell us who you would have kicked out of the playoffs for Montana State and while you're at it explain why Montana State would have been a better playoff team than YSU.

89Hen

August 19th, 2006, 09:59 PM

Here's the only point I make in this regard. There are plenty of Division I conferences who are not competitive nationally but have a place in the tournament. No one is arguing that the Mid-Continent, TAAC, Atlantic Sun or Horizon League should be legislated out of the basketball tournament. If this was Division I-AA football, of course, we'd read thread upon thread how leagues like this would "water down" the tournament.
Again, using basketball is really pointless. They can play games with one night layoff. How many bball players get hurt during an average game? Football is once per week. Players get hurt EVERY game no matter if they're going up against the #1 BCS team or a DII.

Also, bball and football are entirely different beasts when you're talking about competitiveness. Five guys on a court playing offense and defense vs 22 starters plus special teams. A Mason can compete because if they have a couple tall, athletic guys they CAN play at the same level with good coaching. The best coaching can't overcome the physicalness (is that a word?) in a football game. While they call holding, there is no penalty for complete beating up a guy physically. :twocents:

89Hen

August 19th, 2006, 10:03 PM

What about a team with two I-A losses and two close losses to top ten I-AA teams?
Honestly? If you take TWO paydays during the season, tough noogies. Can't have your cake and eat it too. At least that my opinion.

EKU05

August 19th, 2006, 10:05 PM

" Also, several I-AA programs offer ... fewer football grants than the maximum allowed by the NCAA (63). They are not interested in competing for the I-AA national championship."

SEZ WHO?

I think he means it more in the sense that those programs have other realistic goals. Of course, every school would love to win the championship in anything they do. I'd like to see EKU win the national title in basketball, but it won't happen. Our realistic goals are something other than that.

Realistically, a program that plays at a non-scholarship level doesn't anticipate being a serious national title contender. Let's let even one make the playoffs first before we even talk about that.

slostang

August 20th, 2006, 01:18 AM

And what playoff teams do you think they were better than??????? I have seen the second tier Big Sky in the playoffs (2000 Portland State) and I was underwhelmed. So please tell us who you would have kicked out of the playoffs for Montana State and while you're at it explain why Montana State would have been a better playoff team than YSU.
My main point was that a 7-4 EWU team represented themselves very well in last years playoffs. The went on the road and lost to the #2 team, UNI, by three points.

MSU was probably not a good example, but I think they could have given Colgate or Hampton a good game. I do not think that MSU was a better playoff team than YSU. YSU should have been in the playoffs last year IMO. BTW, what teams spot do you think YSU should have taken last year?

blukeys

August 20th, 2006, 12:32 PM

My main point was that a 7-4 EWU team represented themselves very well in last years playoffs. The went on the road and lost to the #2 team, UNI, by three points.

MSU was probably not a good example, but I think they could have given Colgate or Hampton a good game. I do not think that MSU was a better playoff team than YSU. YSU should have been in the playoffs last year IMO. BTW, what teams spot do you think YSU should have taken last year?

I did not have a problem with last year's field. I don't think that YSU was the killer team they became once they did not get a playoff berth.

To say a team would have given Colgate or Hampton a "good game" as a criteria for entrance to the playoffs would require playoff expansion to 50+ teams as many teams can make that claim. (Central Connecticut, SCSU, Lehigh for starters)

Colgate and Hampton are both auto bid teams. If you think they were undeserving of playoff slots, your real criticism should be of the decision to award autobids to conferences without a process of reviewing a conference's sucess in the playoffs.

We keep discussing "playoff" expansion when one solution to the "fairness" selection issue would be for conferences to actually be judged on their playoff performance for auto - bids. The current 8 conferences auto bids are treated as birthrights and in my view a conference that has not won in the 21st century should be considered for removal of auto bid status.

Saint3333

August 20th, 2006, 05:38 PM

I think the 16 team format is the best, however 24 teams does have one advantage: better regular season schedules.

It seems that some top tier teams don't schedule each other due to the "8 win" mark that must be met. I'd like to see more ASU-JMU, Cal Poly-Montana type games.

DUPFLFan

August 20th, 2006, 05:39 PM

My bottom line: Unless you win your league, 7-4 teams have NO business in the 1-AA playoffs.

What about 10-1 teams who win their league and don't get in the playoffs....

Mr. C

August 21st, 2006, 06:32 AM

What about 10-1 teams who win their league and don't get in the playoffs....
If you are refering to San Diego, I don't think too many serious I-AA fans would view them as playing at the same level of competition as the teams who did make the playoffs. You can't play Division III schools in some cases and expect that 10-1 record to be viewed the same way as a team that goes 10-1 from the SoCon, the Gateway, the Big Sky, the A-10, or the Southland. The question, just like it has been for schools like Montana State and Youngstown State is who would you remove to put San Deigo in the field? And did San Diego really show itself to be a playoff team by going 10-1 against an extremely weak schedule?

SoCon48

August 21st, 2006, 08:11 AM

First round attendance really sux. Seems like it would suffer even more if the field and thus the number of games were expanded. Not sure the games would support themselves as is is required by the NCAA.

DetroitFlyer

August 21st, 2006, 08:18 AM

Mr. C

August 21st, 2006, 08:29 AM

San Diego was actually 11-1, with the PFL Championship win over Morehead State. The win over Morehead State satisified the 7, Division I victories. San Diego's GPI was very similar to Lafayette, a PL team that received an at large bid last season.... It does not seem to me that a team with this resume, PFL Champion in a league with 9 teams last season, 7 Division I victories, a respectable GPI when compared to Lafayette, should have been a stretch to go the playoffs over Lafayette.... I also have little doubt that San Diego could have done as well in the playoffs as Lafayette....
Having attended Lafayette's first-round playoff game with Appalachian State, I have a lot of doubts about how San Diego would have done in comparison to Lafayette. Lafayette gave national champ Appalachian State a very challenging game. The Leopards also played a much more competitive schedule to prepare themselves for the playoffs. A young quarterback like Johnson would have had his hands full with ASU's defense last season. You can't comprehend how important playing a strong schedule is every week until you actually do it. Until San Diego starts scheduling and beating some top-notch teams in the non-conference (how about Cal Poly, or UC Davis?), you really can't consider the Torreros a playoff-caliber team.

DetroitFlyer

August 21st, 2006, 09:49 AM

henfan

August 21st, 2006, 09:52 AM

Oh, no. Not this tired subject again.

http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/thumbs/sisyphus.gif

UAalum72

August 21st, 2006, 09:57 AM

Oh, no. Not this tired subject again.

Too bad. Bring up playoff expansion or qualifications, this is going to be part of it.

Hansel

August 21st, 2006, 10:37 AM

If you are refering to San Diego, I don't think too many serious I-AA fans would view them as playing at the same level of competition as the teams who did make the playoffs. You can't play Division III schools in some cases and expect that 10-1 record to be viewed the same way as a team that goes 10-1 from the SoCon, the Gateway, the Big Sky, the A-10, or the Southland. The question, just like it has been for schools like Montana State and Youngstown State is who would you remove to put San Deigo in the field? And did San Diego really show itself to be a playoff team by going 10-1 against an extremely weak schedule?
I think San Diego could have done as well as Colgate in the playoffs last year

OL FU

August 21st, 2006, 10:43 AM

This year should be very telling for the mid-majors. My recollection is that four or five are playing some very good play-off caliber teams. I am looking forward to seeing the results

blukeys

August 21st, 2006, 11:14 AM

I think San Diego could have done as well as Colgate in the playoffs last year

As would Prarie View A & M.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

henfan

August 21st, 2006, 11:20 AM

Too bad. Bring up playoff expansion or qualifications, this is going to be part of it.

True enough but that doesn't make it any less futile a topic of discussion. Just seems like the same ol' arguments from the same people over and over and over...

Until the time the NCAA decides that expansion is in the best interest of the entire sub-division, nothing that's said on a message board or by JMU's limber-lipped coach is going to change things.

I'm not trying to moderate the discussion, just offering a little dose of reality. By all means, if it floats your boat, have at it.http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d180/album16007/smilies/smiley_yawn.gif

:giveadamn:

GannonFan

August 21st, 2006, 11:37 AM

San Diego was actually 11-1, with the PFL Championship win over Morehead State. The win over Morehead State satisified the 7, Division I victories. San Diego's GPI was very similar to Lafayette, a PL team that received an at large bid last season.... It does not seem to me that a team with this resume, PFL Champion in a league with 9 teams last season, 7 Division I victories, a respectable GPI when compared to Lafayette, should have been a stretch to go the playoffs over Lafayette.... I also have little doubt that San Diego could have done as well in the playoffs as Lafayette....

Actually, the win over Morehead St did not satisfy the 7 DI victories as it was a post-season game and not part of the criteria to be judged. Unless San Diego played at Hawaii last year (which they didn't) they had 11 regular season games and they only had 6 DI wins over that period. San Diego eliminated themselves by playing a schedule with 2 DIII teams (Chapman and Menlo) and 2 NAIA teams (Azuza Pacific and S. Oregon). When it's becoming increasingly hazardous for playoff inclusion to play even 1 DII team, playing 4 teams in classifications even less than that is not a schedule of a team trying to make the playoffs. Playing an NAIA school again this year along with a junior college in the process of moving into DII is not a stellar schedule either. Even going undefeated and beating UC Davis (a good team to schedule there) may not be enough again this year, but it is a better schedule than last year's weak effort.

bluehenbillk

August 21st, 2006, 12:18 PM

Have San Diego beat anyone from the top half of any autobid conference before you post that garbage.

aceinthehole

August 21st, 2006, 01:26 PM

Actually, the win over Morehead St did not satisfy the 7 DI victories as it was a post-season game and not part of the criteria to be judged. Unless San Diego played at Hawaii last year (which they didn't) they had 11 regular season games and they only had 6 DI wins over that period. San Diego eliminated themselves by playing a schedule with 2 DIII teams (Chapman and Menlo) and 2 NAIA teams (Azuza Pacific and S. Oregon). When it's becoming increasingly hazardous for playoff inclusion to play even 1 DII team, playing 4 teams in classifications even less than that is not a schedule of a team trying to make the playoffs. Playing an NAIA school again this year along with a junior college in the process of moving into DII is not a stellar schedule either. Even going undefeated and beating UC Davis (a good team to schedule there) may not be enough again this year, but it is a better schedule than last year's weak effort.

I carry the mid-major banner as well as anyone on this board, but GF is is right on - 100%. No mid-major team has deserved an at-large bid to date.

Last year was no different. San Diego's did not have enough DI wins, period - the end. The criteria for 7 wins is clear, and written in stone (or at least NCAA parchment).

As for the issues of an NEC AQ, I'll spare us all my usual speech. As you know, I support expansion of the playoffs to 24 teams - allowing 4 new AQs (1 for the NEC and 3 others for eligible conferences that apply, such as the Great West, PFL, Ivy or SWAC) and 4 more at-large bids.

Pard4Life

August 21st, 2006, 01:34 PM

San Diego was actually 11-1, with the PFL Championship win over Morehead State. The win over Morehead State satisified the 7, Division I victories. San Diego's GPI was very similar to Lafayette, a PL team that received an at large bid last season.... It does not seem to me that a team with this resume, PFL Champion in a league with 9 teams last season, 7 Division I victories, a respectable GPI when compared to Lafayette, should have been a stretch to go the playoffs over Lafayette.... I also have little doubt that San Diego could have done as well in the playoffs as Lafayette....

The sad thing here is you are serious.... my goodness...

Lafayette also beat an auto-bid team from a power conference. San Diego did not. Lafayette also beat a nationally ranked team the last game of the season. San Diego did not.

And as far as San Diego playing equally well vs. App St... yeesh.. Lafayette is used to seeing such high-caliber teams. San Diego is not.

...in laymen's terms... get real...

..but yes, the playoffs should include the PFL and NEC somehow.. expansion should happen..

Pard4Life

August 21st, 2006, 01:36 PM

I think San Diego could have done as well as Colgate in the playoffs last year

...but I doubt San Diego could make a run to the national title... like Colgate did in 2003...

...plus UNH is a different animal.. they can make anyone look silly.. unless it is Northern Iowa..

treacherous

August 21st, 2006, 01:42 PM

So let me get this straight. Not only do the University presidents want to increase the season to 12 games, they also want to increase the playoffs by 2 more games??

Give me a break. Are they trying to kill our kids? They'll be playing an NFL season in they get to the National Championship game.

I also believe that increasing the playoff cheapens the work the teams that made it did. I thought that the best part of I-AA is that we DIDN'T have a system that rewarded teams that went 6-5 or 6-6 without winning their conference.

Now we have coaches wanting to do just that??

bluehenbillk

August 21st, 2006, 02:31 PM

you do realize that if they expand to 24 teams that 32 is a foregone conclusion within a decade.

aceinthehole

August 21st, 2006, 02:51 PM

you do realize that if they expand to 24 teams that 32 is a foregone conclusion within a decade.

Are you sure?

1978
Total # of I-AA teams?
4-team playoff

1981
Total # of I-AA teams?
8-team playoff

1982
Total # of I-AA teams?
12-team playoff (4 Byes)

1986
Total # of I-AA teams?
16-team playoff

----
I don't know the history of the conferences or when AQs were awarded and expanded, but the I-AA playoffs haven't expanded in 20 years.

Furthermore, from 1982-1985 the I-AA playoffs had first-round byes. The current 24-team DII playoffs also has 4 first-round byes.

A 24-team I-AA playoff can be done (w/ an 11 game regular season)! The NCAA and the football committee must find the WILL to do it. Once there is a concensus to expand, then we can sort out the details.

blukeys

August 21st, 2006, 03:12 PM

Are you sure?

1978
Total # of I-AA teams?
4-team playoff

1981
Total # of I-AA teams?
8-team playoff

1982
Total # of I-AA teams?
12-team playoff (4 Byes)

1986
Total # of I-AA teams?
16-team playoff

----
I don't know the history of the conferences or when AQs were awarded and expanded, but the I-AA playoffs haven't expanded in 20 years.

Furthermore, from 1982-1985 the I-AA playoffs had first-round byes. The current 24-team DII playoffs also has 4 first-round byes.

A 24-team I-AA playoff can be done (w/ an 11 game regular season)! The NCAA and the football committee must find the WILL to do it. Once there is a concensus to expand, then we can sort out the details.

Your example proves bluehenbillk's point. Whenever there was an expansion a subsequent expansion came within 4 years.

Once you expand to 24 you will have the same namby pamby arguments that someone was more deserving than someone else. Someone will whine incessantly about the unfairness of it all and the call will be to expand the playoffs. Whenever there is a bye week in the playoff system it is easy to expand because there will really be no need to schedule extra weeks for playoff games.

aceinthehole

August 21st, 2006, 03:29 PM

Your example proves bluehenbillk's point. Whenever there was an expansion a subsequent expansion came within 4 years.

Once you expand to 24 you will have the same namby pamby arguments that someone was more desrving than someone else. Someone will whine incessantly about the unfairness of it all and the call will be to expand the playoffs. Whenever there is a bye week in the playoff system it is easy to expand because there will really be no need to schedule extra weeks for playoff games.

Its not that I disagree with his statement, but there must have been factors that led to the expansion, right? I'm kinda new to this so please feel free to fill me in on the history of the past expansions.

But what I'm saying is since its creation in 1978, I-AA playoffs expanded 3 times in less than 10 years. It hasn't expanded in the last 20 years. We can all read into that, but I'm not sure we'll all agree it can predict the future.

I also don't know what the past ratio of total teams to playoff spots was, and I'd imagine that would have some impact. Anyway, I think we agree expansion can be done, its just doesn't seem to have the required support at this time. I only hope the support grows over the next few seasons :thumbsup:

Saint3333

August 21st, 2006, 03:55 PM

You've taken one step in the right direction by playing UC Davis in 2006. Schedule a couple more games like that, win all three, and we'll see. I see your team is well traveled, give ASU a call.

GannonFan

August 21st, 2006, 04:20 PM

Its not that I disagree with his statement, but there must have been factors that led to the expansion, right? I'm kinda new to this so please feel free to fill me in on the history of the past expansions.

But what I'm saying is since its creation in 1978, I-AA playoffs expanded 3 times in less than 10 years. It hasn't expanded in the last 20 years. We can all read into that, but I'm not sure we'll all agree it can predict the future.

I also don't know what the past ratio of total teams to playoff spots was, and I'd imagine that would have some impact. Anyway, I think we agree expansion can be done, its just doesn't seem to have the required support at this time. I only hope the support grows over the next few seasons :thumbsup:

According to i-aa.org, there were:

Total number of teams in I-AA:
35-51 teams, '78-'81
83-89 teams, '82-'92
114-123, '93-'04

Under that setup, and remember not all of these teams are playoff eligible (the number includes Ivy's and SWAC's, and not all are eligible now although some were more eligible (the SWAC for instance) previously).

4 Team playoff in 1978, 1979, and 1980: 7.8% to 11.4% inclusion
8 team playoff in 1981: 15.7% to 22.8% inclusion
12 team playoff from 1982 through 1985: 13.4% to 14.5% inclusion
16 team playoff since 1986 season before 1993: 17.9% to 19.3% inclusion
16 team playoff after 1993: 13% to 14% inclusion

Throwing out 1981 as a little of an oddity (there was a significant increase in the classification then) most of the time I-AA has been less than 15% inclusion in the playoffs - going to 24 teams now would see that number at close to 20%, with 32 being well into the mid 20%'s. In a lot of people's minds, that's just going to be way too much to say 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 4 teams should make the playoffs. Obviously it's a lower percentage than IA teams that get into bowl games, but no one really wants to follow that model, do we?

Personally, I'm all in favor of a 20 team playoff with 4 games being played the first week and the other 12 teams have byes. It's a little bit larger of a playoff, it allows a few more autobids if conferences qualify, but it doesn't get too big as the numbers don't really seem to indicate what's happening now is any different than what's happened over the bulk of I-AA's existence.

BgJag

August 21st, 2006, 04:40 PM

one solution to the "fairness" selection issue would be for conferences to actually be judged on their playoff performance for auto - bids. The current 8 conferences auto bids are treated as birthrights and in my view a conference that has not won in the 21st century should be considered for removal of auto bid status.

interesting :read: MEAC xcoffeex

aceinthehole

August 21st, 2006, 04:47 PM

According to i-aa.org, there were:

Total number of teams in I-AA:
35-51 teams, '78-'81
83-89 teams, '82-'92
114-123, '93-'04

Under that setup, and remember not all of these teams are playoff eligible (the number includes Ivy's and SWAC's, and not all are eligible now although some were more eligible (the SWAC for instance) previously).

4 Team playoff in 1978, 1979, and 1980: 7.8% to 11.4% inclusion
8 team playoff in 1981: 15.7% to 22.8% inclusion
12 team playoff from 1982 through 1985: 13.4% to 14.5% inclusion
16 team playoff since 1986 season before 1993: 17.9% to 19.3% inclusion
16 team playoff after 1993: 13% to 14% inclusion

Throwing out 1981 as a little of an oddity (there was a significant increase in the classification then) most of the time I-AA has been less than 15% inclusion in the playoffs - going to 24 teams now would see that number at close to 20%, with 32 being well into the mid 20%'s. In a lot of people's minds, that's just going to be way too much to say 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 4 teams should make the playoffs. Obviously it's a lower percentage than IA teams that get into bowl games, but no one really wants to follow that model, do we?

Personally, I'm all in favor of a 20 team playoff with 4 games being played the first week and the other 12 teams have byes. It's a little bit larger of a playoff, it allows a few more autobids if conferences qualify, but it doesn't get too big as the numbers don't really seem to indicate what's happening now is any different than what's happened over the bulk of I-AA's existence.

That's exactly what I mean! A nice compromise you have there. :bow: That is yet another alternative in regards to expanding the playoffs (add 2 AQ and 2 at-large - w/ 12 byes). Its almost like adding 2 PIGs. Not a bad idea at all :thumbsup:

There are a lot of smart people on this board and I'm sure we collectively could come up with a better proposal than the NCAA could ever do. There is no one answer to this proposal. It should be what's best for I-AA football as a whole!

89Hen

August 21st, 2006, 05:18 PM

No real big surprise... I agree with Blu and GF. If you go to 20 or 24 it will be at 32 within 10 years of the initial expansion. This is of course speculation on our part though.

blukeys

August 21st, 2006, 08:38 PM

Its not that I disagree with his statement, but there must have been factors that led to the expansion, right? I'm kinda new to this so please feel free to fill me in on the history of the past expansions.

But what I'm saying is since its creation in 1978, I-AA playoffs expanded 3 times in less than 10 years. It hasn't expanded in the last 20 years. We can all read into that, but I'm not sure we'll all agree it can predict the future.

I also don't know what the past ratio of total teams to playoff spots was, and I'd imagine that would have some impact. Anyway, I think we agree expansion can be done, its just doesn't seem to have the required support at this time. I only hope the support grows over the next few seasons :thumbsup:

Originally there were very few I-AA teams as 4 playoff spots would suggest. Delaware held off joining I-AA for 2 years over concern of the viability of the subdivision and the offer that the NCAA gave schools like Delaware which made it to their advantage to wait.
Unlike today there was no waiting time for schools to joine I-
AA. Delaware joined I-AA in 1980 and then participated in the playoffs that very year.
Youngstown State joined in the early 80's.

I-AA expanded in the 80's as more teams moved up form D-2. In the 80's and 90's schools came and went in I-AA as some schools dropped football and some came back. (Think of Villanova)

I think we are seeing an expansion of I-AA due to schools picking up football and the financial incentives that come from D-I basketball. As much as many of us view football as the premier sport, financially D-I basketball represents a better bang for the athletic buck. (Think Dayton in the A-10)

I can also tell you that football is a good marketing tool for incoming freshman. I know that kids who come from football high schools want to have that experience in college. They may not be football fanatics but they want the whole football experience of pep rallies and homecoming etc. (drinking to excess)

I have no figures about the ratio. D-IAA has traditionally had fewer teams then D-2 and 3 but I see the numbers changing.

I am most encouraged that schools that were non-scollie are changing such as Albany, SBU and CCSU. 10 -15 years ago teams at the I-AA level were dropping football as I-AA was seen as a pure money loser with no hope for a big payday unlike I-A. The situation appears to be changing and that is great.

UAalum72

August 21st, 2006, 10:44 PM

blukeys

August 21st, 2006, 11:22 PM

The attendance rules for I-A were added for the 1982 season, so at that time the Ivy League, Colgate, Holy Cross, Richmond and William & Mary in the northeast, and maybe others elsewhere, were moved to I-AA - the total then was about 95. The 1993 all-Division I-sports rule added maybe 15-20 so-called mid-majors.

Not sure about that. Certain conferences in D-I in 1978 were assigned to I-AA, these included the Yankee, Southern, IVY, and MAC. The MAC fought the reclassification and won a repreive from the NCAA to stay in D I-A. In 1978 there were no objective criteria for attendance, the NCAA reassigned conferences by fiat. I thought that Richmond and W&M were members of the SoCon in 1978 and they went to I-AA in the original assignment of the SoCon.

Colgate and Holy Cross were independents at this time and I don't know what the procedure was for assigning them to I-AA.

The 1993 mid major rule was aimed at schools such as Dayton who were winning D-3 National Championships in football with no scholarships. D-3 schools alleged that Dayton was using D-I basketball revenue to enhance their football programs so they fought to expel teams that played D-I sports in areas other than football.

There are some ludicrous exceptions such as Johns Hopkins playing D-I Lacrosse while playing D-3 in every other sport.

This is how D-IAA got non scholarship football at our level when D-2 does not have this problem.

Mr. C

August 21st, 2006, 11:52 PM

I did not see Lafayette play last season, but I saw San Diego destroy an excellent Dayton team, at Dayton. Until you have seen San Diego play, I do not think you can accurately judge their playoff potential, any more than I can judge Lafayette. What I am saying is the the "numbers" last season placed San Diego and Lafayette fairly close together. San Diego won their Division, Lafayette did not. San Diego won 11 games, Lafayette did not. I'm not even saying that San Diego would beat Lafayette, ( although I think they would have last season ). What I am saying is that is in not that big of a stretch to say that San Diego could have been in the playoffs over Lafayette and played just as well if not better in the first round. Here is an idea, invite the PFL Champion some year, ( after all it is now going on 14 years that we have been a full I-AA league ), and see what happens! There was a time not long ago when PL teams were also deemed unworthy, and look what they have done.... Give the PFL and NEC a chance. What are you "chicken"? ( Pun intended!)
Maybe some people know more about teams from around the country than you think. I've seen almost every game that Lafayette has played in the past two years on TV (plus severall times each in the previous two years) and have seen them once in person, so I know that program extremely well. I didn't see San Diego play a whole game, but I did see some film of them, so I know a little bit about them. San Diego does have some talented individuals and has for several years (particularly at the skill positions like QB, RB and WR). But it is a stretch to see San Diego beating a very skilled, experienced and DEEP Lafayette squad. Pete Lembo, whose ranked Lehigh team lost to Lafayette in the final game of the regular season (by the way, Lafayette tied Colgate for the Patriot League title last season, though Colgate won the auto bid) said recently that the better teams in the PL actually are helped by the need-based equivilencies (rather than scholarships), because they can provide money to more athletes that way and develop more depth. Lafayette had one of the best linebacking groups in I-AA last season, led by All-American Maurice Bennett and Blake Constanzo (now in the NFL with the New York Jets), a 1,000-yard rusher in Jonathan Hurt, good, quality receivers and managed to score 23 points in the playoffs against national champion Appalachian State (the most the Mountaineers gave up in the playoffs and only one less than might LSU scored against the same defense) with a back-up quarterback starting. Lafayette nearly beat Delaware, the 2003 national champs, in the first round of the 2004 playoffs before the Blue Hens put the game away late. The Leopards have been a quality program for awhile now and have the big-game experience of playing a challenging schedule that San Diego doesn't have. If San Diego want to be seriously considered for the playoffs, the Torreros need to play a schedule without D-II, D-III and below teams.

UAalum72

August 22nd, 2006, 08:07 AM

Not sure about that. .. I thought that Richmond and W&M were members of the SoCon in 1978 and they went to I-AA in the original assignment of the SoCon.

Colgate and Holy Cross were independents at this time and I don't know what the procedure was for assigning them to I-AA.
I have an old 1982 ECAC football media guide that says those schools went to I-AA at that time, and specifying the attendance requirements.

There are some ludicrous exceptions such as Johns Hopkins playing D-I Lacrosse while playing D-3 in every other sport. The lacrosse and hockey exceptions were grandfathered in; they are athletic programs playing one sport UP two levels, not down.

This is how D-IAA got non scholarship football at our level when D-2 does not have this problem.
No, the Northeast-10 conference is non-scholarship football at D-II.

DetroitFlyer

August 22nd, 2006, 08:14 AM

AND, they participate in the Division II playoffs...! In fact, the champion actually won a game or two in the Division II playoffs last season....

aceinthehole

August 22nd, 2006, 10:33 AM

No, the Northeast-10 conference is non-scholarship football at D-II.

Really? I did not know that.

I always thought C.W. Post, Southern Connecticut, et. al. were D-II scholarship football. I knew they didn't offer up to the DII maximum, but I thought they offerd some schollys.

FYI - In a June 2005 Hartford Courant article regarding the renewal of the Central/Southern serise it specifically mentioned that CCSU was (at the time) I-AA with need-based scholarships and SCSU was "DII with full scholarships" inthe NE-10 conference.

Go...gate

August 22nd, 2006, 10:36 AM

Really? I did not know that.

I always thought C.W. Post, Southern Connecticut, et. al. were D-II scholarship football. I knew they didn't offer up to the DII maximum, but I thought they offerd some schollys.

FYI - In a June 2005 Hartford Courant article regarding the renewal of the Central/Southern serise it specifically mentioned that CCSU was (at the time) I-AA with need-based scholarships and SCSU was "DII with full scholarships" inthe NE-10 conference.

Surprised about Post. Back in the 1970's I think it was a scholarship FB (and Lacrosse) program, but apparantly no more. They were flat-out great in Lacrosse and played a major schedule.

UAalum72

August 22nd, 2006, 10:45 AM

Really? I did not know that.

I always thought C.W. Post, Southern Connecticut, et. al. were D-II scholarship football. I knew they didn't offer up to the DII maximum, but I thought they offerd some schollys.

FYI - In a June 2005 Hartford Courant article regarding the renewal of the Central/Southern serise it specifically mentioned that CCSU was (at the time) I-AA with need-based scholarships and SCSU was "DII with full scholarships" inthe NE-10 conference.
Maybe they have them back. SCSU, Assumption, Bentley, AIC et al were non-scholarship in the D-II Eastern Football Conference with Albany in the 1990s before they moved to the NE-10.

Proud Griz Man

August 22nd, 2006, 10:55 AM

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 11:04 AM

Why expand??? Leave it at 16 !!!

Are teams 17-32 going to have high chances of winning a first round game (on the road), let alone four in a row to win the NC? Will the extra game attendance money exceed the travel costs for teams 17-32? I doubt it.

Why not expand it?

So we get beat at first, so what?

It helps us get better and gives the non-scholly teams something to shoot for at the end of the season. And it gives the better teams a tune up game for the next round.

Isn't that why kids work hard? to get better?

What is the big ******in deal? :bang:

Pard4Life

August 22nd, 2006, 11:21 AM

Maybe some people know more about teams from around the country than you think. I've seen almost every game that Lafayette has played in the past two years on TV (plus severall times each in the previous two years) and have seen them once in person, so I know that program extremely well. I didn't see San Diego play a whole game, but I did see some film of them, so I know a little bit about them. San Diego does have some talented individuals and has for several years (particularly at the skill positions like QB, RB and WR). But it is a stretch to see San Diego beating a very skilled, experienced and DEEP Lafayette squad. Pete Lembo, whose ranked Lehigh team lost to Lafayette in the final game of the regular season (by the way, Lafayette tied Colgate for the Patriot League title last season, though Colgate won the auto bid) said recently that the better teams in the PL actually are helped by the need-based equivilencies (rather than scholarships), because they can provide money to more athletes that way and develop more depth. Lafayette had one of the best linebacking groups in I-AA last season, led by All-American Maurice Bennett and Blake Constanzo (now in the NFL with the New York Jets), a 1,000-yard rusher in Jonathan Hurt, good, quality receivers and managed to score 23 points in the playoffs against national champion Appalachian State (the most the Mountaineers gave up in the playoffs and only one less than might LSU scored against the same defense) with a back-up quarterback starting. Lafayette nearly beat Delaware, the 2003 national champs, in the first round of the 2004 playoffs before the Blue Hens put the game away late. The Leopards have been a quality program for awhile now and have the big-game experience of playing a challenging schedule that San Diego doesn't have. If San Diego want to be seriously considered for the playoffs, the Torreros need to play a schedule without D-II, D-III and below teams.

:hurray: Glad to see a non-PL fan finally get the picture!

Seriously.. a D2 and D3 schedule in no way can compare to a full IAA schedule.

Proud Griz Man

August 22nd, 2006, 11:22 AM

Why not expand it? Travel cost > attendance $$.

So we get beat at first, so what? A top team like Appy State or UNI will beat a #31 ranked team 55-3, rendering it a 60 minute game with 2nd and 3rd stringers playing for 30-45 minutes.

It helps us get better and gives the non-scholly teams something to shoot for at the end of the season. And it gives the better teams a tune up game for the next round. Schedule some tougher nonconference games if you're trying to get better.

Isn't that why kids work hard? to get better? Duh.
What is the big ******in deal? :bang: xidiotx What is your motive here? The NCAA has to manage money, and try to make the playoffs competitive and affordable.

Peace brother. xcoffeex

Pard4Life

August 22nd, 2006, 11:24 AM

I believe aceinthehole mentioned giving teams byes...

..but why not instead have everybody play the first week and give the top four teams byes? The folks from Montana and the SoCon would probably like that idea... it gives their team some rest and rewards their regular season with a shorter route to the title. It's ala NFL in a sense...

..the playoffs should be expanded to include 20 teams and no more.... anything more than 24 would be absurd.

GannonFan

August 22nd, 2006, 11:29 AM

..the playoffs should be expanded to include 20 teams and no more.... anything more than 24 would be absurd.

Amen on the 20 teams - 8 teams play on the weekend before Thanksgiving, the other 12 all get a bye week and pick up play on Thanksgiving weekend. Works for me. :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 11:30 AM

Why not expand it?

So we get beat at first, so what?
As henfan likes to say, why not just scrap the entire season and start a single elimination tourney on Labor Day weekend and allow everyone to play?

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 11:32 AM

8 teams play on the weekend before Thanksgiving
As part of a doubleheader after their final game of the regular season?

henfan

August 22nd, 2006, 11:41 AM

As henfan likes to say, why not just scrap the entire season and start a single elimination tourney on Labor Day weekend and allow everyone to play?

And don't forget, 89', the non-winners (please don't call them losers) are still awarded consolation trophies, just like in Little League. Afterall, the kids work so hard, they deserve something.:bawling:

Who needs to assure that the playoffs are financially feasible? Who cares if the season extends to 16 or 17 weeks? We're looking out for the kids' best interest. :nod:

GannonFan

August 22nd, 2006, 11:41 AM

As part of a doubleheader after their final game of the regular season?

Yeah, great idea, let's play two! (note, I kinda stole that quote from Mr. Banks).

Any increase in size of the playoffs past 16 teams has one huge caveat that needs to go with it - it means that some portion of the playoff will need to happen one week earlier than the current start of the playoffs. Right now, 4 weeks of playoffs from Thanksgiving weekend to the title game means you end a week before Christmas. If you added a week onto the back you would bump up right against Christmas and that's just a no-go from the start - very few fans would travel for that game, the TV exposure would be minimal (even the NFL shies away from it), and it would be a dud. If you add any more teams then the playoffs need to start the Saturday before Thanksgiving, which means any team that wants to be in it needs to finish their regular season the second weekend in November. That is what I think the most compelling reason not to expand the playoffs, as for the 100 teams not in the playoffs their season will end a whole week earlier. But a lot of teams (SoCon) for instance already have regular season schedules like that so I don't think it's an insurmountable issue.

Dane96

August 22nd, 2006, 11:46 AM

As henfan likes to say, why not just scrap the entire season and start a single elimination tourney on Labor Day weekend and allow everyone to play?

Already exists like this: THE B.C.S.!!!

:D

henfan

August 22nd, 2006, 12:04 PM

If you added a week onto the back you would bump up right against Christmas and that's just a no-go from the start - very few fans would travel for that game, the TV exposure would be minimal (even the NFL shies away from it), and it would be a dud.

Also, our I-A counterparts would block any legislative attempts made to bump into their bowl season. Forgetaboutit. It just ain't going to happen. BCS leagues control the votes among NCAA D-I Board of Directors.

Like it or not, I-AA's post-season schedule is pretty much a slave to ESPN availability. The subdivision fought long and hard to get quarter and semi-final games televised.

I can see the subdivision wanting to pxss that away because the coach of a mediocre 7-4 team or a school spending less than $700K on FB want greater access to the playoffs. Sure.

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 12:06 PM

Already exists like this: THE B.C.S.!!!
Almost, but even they have 1 loss teams playing for the championship.

aceinthehole

August 22nd, 2006, 12:12 PM

Yeah, great idea, let's play two! (note, I kinda stole that quote from Mr. Banks).

Any increase in size of the playoffs past 16 teams has one huge caveat that needs to go with it - it means that some portion of the playoff will need to happen one week earlier than the current start of the playoffs. Right now, 4 weeks of playoffs from Thanksgiving weekend to the title game means you end a week before Christmas. If you added a week onto the back you would bump up right against Christmas and that's just a no-go from the start - very few fans would travel for that game, the TV exposure would be minimal (even the NFL shies away from it), and it would be a dud. If you add any more teams then the playoffs need to start the Saturday before Thanksgiving, which means any team that wants to be in it needs to finish their regular season the second weekend in November. That is what I think the most compelling reason not to expand the playoffs, as for the 100 teams not in the playoffs their season will end a whole week earlier. But a lot of teams (SoCon) for instance already have regular season schedules like that so I don't think it's an insurmountable issue.

OK, so the "first round" or PIGs must start 1 week earlier than right now. What are any other effects of this?

The top 12 seeds still must play just 4 games to win the NC. Seeds 13-20 must beat a top-4 team to advance to the QF. This seems like a decent idea.

Proposal: 20-team playoff w/ 4 PIGs

Week 1:
#13 vs. #20
#14 vs. #19
#15 vs. #18
#16 vs. #17

Week 2:
#1 vs. winner #16/#17
#2 vs. winner #15/#18
#3 vs. winner #14/#19
#4 vs. winner #13/#20
#5 vs. #12
#6 vs. #11
#7 vs. #10
#8 vs. #9

Week 3:
#1/#16/#17 vs. #8/#9
#2/#15/#18 vs. #7/#10
#3/#14//#19 vs. #6/#11
#4/#13/#20 vs. #5/#12

Week 4:
Semifinals

Week 5:
Championship

----
* For extra credit - seed the 2005 playoffs under this proposal adding a AQ for the NEC and Ivy and 2 at-large bids.

Lehigh Football Nation

August 22nd, 2006, 12:24 PM

Also, our I-A counterparts would block any legislative attempts made to bump into their bowl season. Forgetaboutit. It just ain't going to happen. BCS leagues control the votes among NCAA D-I Board of Directors.

Like it or not, I-AA's post-season schedule is pretty much a slave to ESPN availability. The subdivision fought long and hard to get quarter and semi-final games televised.

I can see the subdivision wanting to pxss that away because the coach of a mediocre 7-4 team or a school spending less than $700K on FB want greater access to the playoffs. Sure.

I hear a lot of this talk about "fuhgetaboutit", but has this really been tested at all? I find it incredibly hard to believe that one more round of playoffs would have really affected anything in regards to the bowl games.

In 2005, the I-AA Championship was on Friday, Dec. 16th. Let's say instead that the I-AA Championship instead had 20 teams and I-AA had to pick another day/time for the championship.

Last year they could have had (assuming an 8PM start)

Dec 24th Hawaii Bowl (Nevada vs. UCF) 8PM (moved to midnight)
Dec 25th *No bowls played*
Dec 26th Motor City Bowl (Memphis vs. Akron) 4PM

Note the lack of power conferences; note the p!ss-poor schools involved. Are these really schools that the BC$ are going to really concern themselves with? I think either three days were quite plausible IMO for the championship with an expanded playoff field.

Now if I-AA said "We need to have a New year's Day Bowl game" I think that would be shot down. But is moving the Hawaii bowl really all that big of a deal?

I do agree that the issue of 12 games vs. 11 games does however come into play here. A 12 game schedule would make a 20 or 24 team playoff nearly impossible. Which, incidentally, is why you see such a battle over it in the NCAA meetings. The issues are related.

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 12:30 PM

OK, so the "first round" or PIGs must start 1 week earlier than right now. What are any other effects of this?
Nothing other than the following couple teams would need to adjust their scheduling going forward...

Thursday, November 16
8:00 PM Northwestern State at Stephen F. Austin
Saturday, November 18
TBA Alcorn State at Jackson State
12:00 PM Yale at Harvard
12:00 PM Rhode Island at Northeastern
12:00 PM Hofstra at Massachusetts
12:00 PM New Hampshire at Maine
12:30 PM Columbia at Brown
12:30 PM Charleston Southern at Coastal Carolina
1:00 PM Western Carolina at Florida
1:00 PM Delaware State at Howard
1:00 PM Villanova at Delaware
1:00 PM James Madison at Towson
1:00 PM Dartmouth at Princeton
1:00 PM Pennsylvania at Cornell
1:00 PM Central Arkansas at Georgia Southern
1:00 PM Lehigh at Lafayette
1:00 PM Colgate at Bucknell
1:00 PM Tennessee State at Eastern Kentucky
1:00 PM Georgetown at Fordham
1:00 PM Winston-Salem at Norfolk State
1:00 PM Liberty at Virginia Military
1:00 PM Richmond at William & Mary
1:30 PM Wofford at Gardner-Webb
2:00 PM Tennessee-Martin at Murray State
2:00 PM South Carolina State at North Carolina A&T
2:00 PM Tennessee Tech at Southeast Missouri State
2:05 PM Montana State at Montana
2:05 PM Northern Arizona at Northern Colorado
2:30 PM Prairie View A&M at Alabama A&M
2:30 PM Jacksonville State at Eastern Illinois
3:00 PM Texas State at Sam Houston State
4:00 PM Savannah State at Cal Poly
4:00 PM Southern Utah at Southern Illinois
4:00 PM Sacramento State at UC-Davis
4:00 PM Bethune-Cookman at Florida A&M
5:00 PM Austin Peay at Western Kentucky
5:00 PM Texas Southern at Arkansas-Pine Bluff
5:00 PM Citadel at Elon
5:05 PM Weber State at Idaho State
5:35 PM Illinois State at Northern Iowa
7:00 PM South Dakota State at North Dakota State
7:00 PM Northwestern State at Stephen F. Austin
8:00 PM Nicholls State at McNeese State

But hey, to accomodate an NEC team, no problem.

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 12:33 PM

Last year they could have had (assuming an 8PM start)

Dec 24th Hawaii Bowl (Nevada vs. UCF) 8PM (moved to midnight)
Dec 25th *No bowls played*
Dec 26th Motor City Bowl (Memphis vs. Akron) 4PM

Note the lack of power conferences; note the p!ss-poor schools involved.
Yeah! WE could be the piss-poor schools playing on Christmas Eve. :rolleyes:

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 12:33 PM

xidiotx
Originally Posted by DUPFLFan
Why not expand it? Travel cost > attendance $$. So what? Let the schools worry about that...

So we get beat at first, so what? A top team like Appy State or UNI will beat a #31 ranked team 55-3, rendering it a 60 minute game with 2nd and 3rd stringers playing for 30-45 minutes. We play UNI this year - again so what? National Champion App State plays Mars Hill which is a D-II school - I don't see anyone critical of their schedule....

It helps us get better and gives the non-scholly teams something to shoot for at the end of the season. And it gives the better teams a tune up game for the next round. Schedule some tougher nonconference games if you're trying to get better. UNI this year and Illinois State next year is not tough enough? Again - So what?

Isn't that why kids work hard? to get better? Duh.
What is your motive here? The NCAA has to manage money, and try to make the playoffs competitive and affordable.

And I suppose the 1vs16 seed basketball tournaments are competitive... WHat is your motive for keeping us out?:bang:

Peace brother.

Not until we are included, brother:nono:

aceinthehole

August 22nd, 2006, 12:34 PM

Nothing other than the following couple teams would need to adjust their scheduling going forward...

But hey, to accomodate an NEC team, no problem.

Thanks, you are so accomodating! :D

How's this for 2007?

Regular season (11 weeks) Sept. 1 - Nov. 10
Playoffs (5 weeks) Nov. 17 - Dec. 15

Yes, there are no bye weeks in the regular season, but only the lowest 8 seeded teams would have a playoff game following the last regular season game. Seeds 1-12 would have a week off before the playoffs. Of course you could start the season 1 week earlier on Aug. 25, if you wanted.

Saint3333

August 22nd, 2006, 12:40 PM

We're asking a lot of these kids with 16 games, that would be an NFL length season.

Schedule three of those A-10/CAA teams they're always looking for a lighter OOC schedule:smiley_wi .

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 12:41 PM

We play UNI this year - again so what? National Champion App State plays Mars Hill which is a D-II school - I don't see anyone critical of their schedule....
:confused: Are you serious? Cherry pick your best game and their worst game? Wisconsin-Platteville, Upper Iowa, and Waldorf to go along with a loss to UNI and a PFL schedule. :rolleyes:

UNI this year and Illinois State next year is not tough enough?
No. Not when you lose 56-19 and 52-17. :rolleyes: xidiotx

dbackjon

August 22nd, 2006, 12:45 PM

Moving the end of the regular season CAN be done - just eliminate a bye week that all schools have in the schedule.

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 12:49 PM

Why not expand it?

So we get beat at first, so what?

It helps us get better and gives the non-scholly teams something to shoot for at the end of the season. And it gives the better teams a tune up game for the next round.

Isn't that why kids work hard? to get better?

What is the big ******in deal? :bang:

The big deal is that the purpose of a Playoff is to crown a National Champion not to make some team feel good because they got a postseason game. Teams are invited to the playoffs because they are considered likely to win an NC. It is time to expand when likely NC winners are left out.

One problem I have with the arguments of mid major adherents is that their arguments for expansion or awarding of auto bids never advance the notion that their teams are potential National Champions.

Instead the arguments are along the lines of
"It helps us get better and gives the non-scholly teams something to shoot for at the end of the season."

Or "We could have lost badly to UNH too!!!!!!!"

The arguments remind me of the thinking that goes along with a Girl's soccer league dinner I went to a few months back. There every kid got a trophy and not just the championship team. (Wouldn't want anyone to feel left out)

Arguments such as "We could be a tune up for another team" hardly advances the proposition that mid majors are championship material.

D-3 expanded when it became obvious that certain teams that could win National Championships were being left out of the field.

Not only am I not convinced that the mid majors are potential National Championship teams that are being left out. So far no one has even attempted that argument.

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 12:49 PM

Moving the end of the regular season CAN be done - just eliminate a bye week that all schools have in the schedule.
IMO you're compounding the problem that I have with adding these games to begin with. You'd be eliminating the chance teams have to rest some injured players, and you'd be adding another game for several playoff bound teams in which they can get injured. All for the sake of accomdating teams that didn't beat enough playoff caliber teams during the regular season. : smh :

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 12:51 PM

:confused: Are you serious? Cherry pick your best game and their worst game? Wisconsin-Platteville, Upper Iowa, and Waldorf to go along with a loss to UNI and a PFL schedule. :rolleyes: [/quote]

Just showing that many 1-AA teams schedule D-II teams - again So WHAT?

[quote=89Hen]
No. Not when you lose 56-19 and 52-17. :rolleyes: xidiotx

UNI lost to Illinois State 38-3 - I guess based on your logic, UNI shouldn't have gotten in....xidiotx

Again - so what - what is your motiviation for keeping non-scholly's out?

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 12:57 PM

Not only am I not convinced that the mid majors are potential National Championship teams that are being left out. So far no one has even attempted that argument.

How do you know if they aren't included???? I feel like Alan Arkin in Catch 22 here...:bang:

Last year Drake lost to UNI and ISU. Fine.. They wouldn't have been the rep anyway - San Diego would.

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 01:00 PM

Just showing that many 1-AA teams schedule D-II teams - again So WHAT?
:confused: Uhhh, yeah, so what? ASU and other playoff bound I-AA's do have DII's, but they also have 3, 4, 5, 6... games against playoff caliber or I-A competition. YOU cannot say the same.

UNI lost to Illinois State 38-3 - I guess based on your logic, UNI shouldn't have gotten in....xidiotx
I guess, if that were my logic. 8 wins including SIU and YSU maybe have something to do with it too. :rolleyes:

Again - so what - what is your motiviation for keeping non-scholly's out?
Ahhh, you see it as keeping "non-schollies" out. I see it as keeping out teams that don't beat any playoff caliber teams all year and then look for a handout. Don't forget that expansion could benefit my Hens one day too, but I sure as isht don't want my Hens in the playoffs at 7-4. :nonono2:

GannonFan

August 22nd, 2006, 01:03 PM

Just showing that many 1-AA teams schedule D-II teams - again So WHAT?

Do you not get it - it's not that playing a DII team is a bad thing, it's playing one DII team, one DIII team, and one NAIA team all in the same year, like Drake is doing this year. You get one patsy team, not 3, especially not a DIII team, and a bad one at that. Show me another I-AA team from an autobid conference that plays 3 teams like that OOC - just don't spend too much time looking because there isn't one.

No. Not when you lose 56-19 and 52-17. :rolleyes: xidiotx

UNI lost to Illinois State 38-3 - I guess based on your logic, UNI shouldn't have gotten in....xidiotx

Oh, that's not even good nonsensical logic - UNI won the conference that Ill St played in, so therefore they must have done pretty well in their other games against big competition (they beat SIU for istance, and beat YSU for instance, the other 2 teams that had a 3-way tie for the title). Drake losing that badly is bad because that's the toughest game they'd played all year - UNI losing that bad wasn't that bad becuase they played and won other games that were just as tough if not tougher.

Hey, argue that you want the non-schollies in all you want, but at least come to the table with some sensible argument - you only weaken your case further when you throw out silly comments like those above.

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 01:04 PM

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 01:04 PM

How do you know if they aren't included???? I feel like Alan Arkin in Catch 22 here...:bang:
How do you include teams that don't beat any playoff caliber teams during the regular season? Who was it for SD last year? 4-6 (0-3 OOC) Yale?

GannonFan

August 22nd, 2006, 01:06 PM

How do you know if they aren't included???? I feel like Alan Arkin in Catch 22 here...:bang:

Last year Drake lost to UNI and ISU. Fine.. They wouldn't have been the rep anyway - San Diego would.

It's a Catch-22 becuse you're making it that way - San Diego has already been addressed ad nauseum - they only had 6 regular season wins against DI competition so they already failed to meet the criteria to be considered for the playoffs there. They scheduled themselves out of the playoffs by playing 4 OOC games against sub DI competition - the blame for not making the playoffs rests squarely on that schedule.

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 01:15 PM

It's a Catch-22 becuse you're making it that way - San Diego has already been addressed ad nauseum - they only had 6 regular season wins against DI competition so they already failed to meet the criteria to be considered for the playoffs there. They scheduled themselves out of the playoffs by playing 4 OOC games against sub DI competition - the blame for not making the playoffs rests squarely on that schedule.

Wrong GannonFan - San Diego played Morehead state for the PFL championship game - which made 7 d-1 wins. So now what kept them out????

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 01:17 PM

How do you include teams that don't beat any playoff caliber teams during the regular season? Who was it for SD last year? 4-6 (0-3 OOC) Yale?

When you schedule in advance - how do you know that they are Playoff Caliber teams...

You got to do better than that...: smh :

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 01:20 PM

How do you know if they aren't included???? I feel like Alan Arkin in Catch 22 here...:bang:

Last year Drake lost to UNI and ISU. Fine.. They wouldn't have been the rep anyway - San Diego would.

You're the one who advanced the argument that you should be included because

1. It gives your team something to shoot for

2. Your team would be a good "tune up" in the playoffs

I guess the new argument is we will never know if the mid - majors can win a playoff game until they actually play a playoff game. Of course in order to do this we have to ignore all the evidence gleaned from regular season games including your games against UNI.

One can certainly make informed decisions without actually engaging in the activity. I know that I don't want a witch doctor treating me for an illness instead of a medical doctor. I don't need to try the witch doctor to see how it works.

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 01:23 PM

Make your case that they would have won a NC. (San Diego)

Can't - they were never included...

Make your case that Colgate, Hampton (#3 seed that lost) and Eastern Illinois could have won an NC???

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 01:25 PM

One can certainly make informed decisions without actually engaging in the activity. I know that I don't want a witch doctor treating me for an illness instead of a medical doctor. I don't need to try the witch doctor to see how it works.

So you are saying that you can make a judgement on a team without seeing them or most of their competition play. xidiotx

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 01:36 PM

When you schedule in advance - how do you know that they are Playoff Caliber teams...

You got to do better than that...: smh :
I don't know how you'd know if Azusa Pacific, Southern Oregon, Menlo and Chapman would be playoff caliber in the year you are scheduled to play them. :confused: xcoffeex

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 01:42 PM

So you are saying that you can make a judgement on a team without seeing them or most of their competition play.
Yes. I don't need to see 0-10 Menlo or 2-7 Chapman to know that wins over them by a I-AA team are meaningless. : retard :

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 01:42 PM

So you are saying that you can make a judgement on a team without seeing them or most of their competition play. xidiotx

Of course I didn't say that and anyone who actually reads the post knows that I didn't say that. It appears you are incapable of getting the point that One can make informed decisions about an activity without actually engaging in it. For instance I don't need to see Prarie View A&M in a playoff game to know that were not capable of being National Champions.

Now that you are engaged in the argument that one can't know if Mid - Majors would do well in the playoffs unless they are invited, Does this mean we can drop the other arguments you have advanced???

Such as

1. It gives our players something to shoot for

2. We would be a good tune up game for another team in the playoffs.

henfan

August 22nd, 2006, 01:44 PM

I hear a lot of this talk about "fuhgetaboutit", but has this really been tested at all? I find it incredibly hard to believe that one more round of playoffs would have really affected anything in regards to the bowl games.

There's been no need to test anything because it's a non-starter as far as the NCAA (both I-A and I-AA) is concerned. D-I power conferences, whose money and votes also happen to control NCAA D-I, will simply not allow a football playoff at any other level to run concurrently with their bowl post-season.

This is the reason that the NCAA 'choose' and eventually adjusted the timing of the I-AA playoff schedule. This is all not a coincidence.

Using your illustrative example of the '05/'06 bowl season, a 5 week playoff schedule would have put the I-AA Champ Game on 12/24 (assuming we're still allowing teams a full week's recovery between games!) There were no less than 6 bowls that would have been played by then, including teams from the Sun Belch, C-USA, Mountain West, MAC, Pac-10, WAC and Big 12 and Navy. Only the SEC, ACC and Big East wouldn't have been effected in the least.

In the grand scheme of things, the I-AA playoffs is comparatively unimportant venture for the NCAA and matters even less to ESPN and the BCS. No matter how nicely I-AA asks, the BCS is not going to adjust their Bowl Season contract to accomodate them. As I said, forgetaboutit. It's a non-starter to any serious discussion.:twocents:

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 01:51 PM

Can't - they were never included...

Make your case that Colgate, Hampton (#3 seed that lost) and Eastern Illinois could have won an NC???

I have already discussed the issue of Auto bids on this thread go back and read it.

The auto bids are not automatic they are awarded every year and so far only the NEC has officially requested one as a mid major conference.

If you think your conference is more deserving of an auto bid then any of these 3 conferences then make your case. Better still make your case to the NCAA they are the ones who have the power. This would certainly be a more productive and positive response to your situation then the constant rehash on a message board that has no power.

GannonFan

August 22nd, 2006, 02:19 PM

Wrong GannonFan - San Diego played Morehead state for the PFL championship game - which made 7 d-1 wins. So now what kept them out????

Come on, read the other threads - that's a post season game and not part of the equation - 6 regular season wins against D1 competition kept San Diego out of the playoffs, not to mention 4, count them 4, OOC games against patsies. Again, you're just killing your side of the debate by being this wrong and this illogical. You were in a better position before you started.

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 02:34 PM

Of course I didn't say that and anyone who actually reads the post knows that I didn't say that. It appears you are incapable of getting the point that One can make informed decisions about an activity without actually engaging in it. For instance I don't need to see Prarie View A&M in a playoff game to know that were not capable of being National Champions.

Now that you are engaged in the argument that one can't know if Mid - Majors would do well in the playoffs unless they are invited, Does this mean we can drop the other arguments you have advanced???

Such as

1. It gives our players something to shoot for

2. We would be a good tune up game for another team in the playoffs.

Blu - Those arguments are still valid. Doesn't the playoffs give every player who is eligible something to shoot for? If we are so bad, why not play us???

Bottom line - You people have said that the mid-majors don't deserve to be in the playoffs. I am asking what your motivation is to keep them out. Division 1 mid majors are allowed in to the NCAA basketball tournament, why not the football tournament?

I can get a point. I just don't get yours...

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 02:37 PM

Come on, read the other threads - that's a post season game and not part of the equation - 6 regular season wins against D1 competition kept San Diego out of the playoffs, not to mention 4, count them 4, OOC games against patsies. Again, you're just killing your side of the debate by being this wrong and this illogical. You were in a better position before you started.

I could give a number of examples and you would pick out something so inthe interests of time let me ask...

WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR NOT INCLUDING ANOTHER 1-AA TEAM???

and a secondary question, Why are the loudest voices against it affiliated with Delaware???

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 02:37 PM

Bottom line - You people have said that the mid-majors don't deserve to be in the playoffs.
:nono: :nono: :nono:

GannonFan

August 22nd, 2006, 02:54 PM

I could give a number of examples and you would pick out something so inthe interests of time let me ask...

WHAT IS YOUR MOTIVATION FOR NOT INCLUDING ANOTHER 1-AA TEAM???

and a secondary question, Why are the loudest voices against it affiliated with Delaware???

Show me where I have said not to include worthy mid majors? I'll save you the time as well, nowhere. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, play a good schedule, do well against it, and you're in the playoffs. Coastal would've done it last year. Albany has a schedule that could do it this year. The only teams being excluded are 1) the teams that didn't win enough games during the regular season and 2) the teams that didn't play a hard schedule during the season. Mid majors are just as eligible for the playoffs as anyone else in IAA is. And don't give me that autobid argument because IAA history is full of teams that didn't belong to an autobid conference not only making the playoffs but winning the whole thing. As for the Delaware voices, hey, you ought to be glad anyone is replying to your posts anymore - the redundancy without an argument is starting to wane interest.

I'll pose a question back to you, then, What is your motivation for advocating a team make the playoffs who did not play a good schedule nor win enough games against a good schedule to make it?

bluehenbillk

August 22nd, 2006, 03:09 PM

Agreed with GF. IF a team plays a worthy schedule & IF the team has the record to get in, including wins over quality opponents then they should be considered for the playoffs.

Honestly, most, not all mid-majors, have a problem with the worthy schedule & the quality wins parts.

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 03:36 PM

Blu - Those arguments are still valid. Doesn't the playoffs give every player who is eligible something to shoot for? If we are so bad, why not play us???

Bottom line - You people have said that the mid-majors don't deserve to be in the playoffs. I am asking what your motivation is to keep them out. Division 1 mid majors are allowed in to the NCAA basketball tournament, why not the football tournament?
I can get a point. I just don't get yours...

Let's get some facts straight.

1. Your team is already eligible for the playoffs. They have yet to be invited. Your teams' and Cal Poly face the same hurdles. Cal Poly addresses the hurdles. Your school chooses not to.

2. Neither I nor anyone else on this board can Keep any team out of the playoffs. So even if I had some long secret desire to pick on and make miserable mid majors, which I don't, I have no power to act on such perfidious designs.

Now my position on this thread is that I am opposed to expanding the playoffs. That is what this thread is about. Anyone who has read these posts should have figured out what my position is. Unless and until someone can prove to me that there are 4 to 16 teams out there who are capable of winning a national Championship that are not getting in I will stay opposed. So far you have been either unable or unwilling to address what is my opposition to expanding the playoffs.

Instead, You have consistently mischaracterized my position as one of beating up on mid-majors and opposing their "participation" as if you are not already eligible for particpation in the playoffs.xidiotx xidiotx xidiotx xidiotx

Your position, however, is that you want to expand the playoffs so that your conference will be awarded an auto - bid. In short you want to change the entire organization of the post season including the increased expenses so that your team can get an auto-bid. How high minded.:eyebrow:

So far Your conference has neglected to even taking the first step to getting an auto bid which consists of contacting the NCAA and asking for one. Why not take this step instead of disrupting the entire playoff structure?

If you want my support on expanding the playoffs why not address my objections to playoff expansion?

Mischarachterizing my arguments, accusing me of "Keeping Mid-major's out" (Yeah I have that power!!!!!xlolx xlolx ) and advancing emotional appeals when rational arguments is preferred doesn't help your case.

henfan

August 22nd, 2006, 03:40 PM

Why are the loudest voices against it affiliated with Delaware???

Truth be told, the loudest voices against it are the only ones that matter: those in NCAA leadership and, apparently, Pioneer and MAAC leadership. To the best of my knowledge, neither conference has bothered to apply for an auto-bid. Until that happens, the proverbial dead horse is being whooped.

As for the UD folks against it, only a half dozen or so out of 23,000 have responded. I suppose we're among the very few who'll tolerate senseless redundancy. :smiley_wi

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 03:40 PM

and a secondary question, Why are the loudest voices against it affiliated with Delaware???

We're staying in practice for the upcoming season.;) You have to work hard in preseason if you are going to be ready for the opening kickoff. :nod: :nod:

You should see us the week before Villanova!!!!!:D :D :D :D :D :D

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 03:44 PM

As for the UD folks against it, only a half dozen or so out of 23,000 have responded. I suppose we're among the very few who'll tolerate senseless redundancy. :smiley_wi

HF you are priceless!!!!

LMAO!!LMAO!!LMAO!!!

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Lehigh Football Nation

August 22nd, 2006, 04:07 PM

D-I power conferences, whose money and votes also happen to control NCAA D-I, will simply not allow a football playoff at any other level to run concurrently with their bowl post-season.

There were no less than 6 bowls that would have been played by then, including teams from the Sun Belch, C-USA, Mountain West, MAC, Pac-10, WAC and Big 12 and Navy. Only the SEC, ACC and Big East wouldn't have been effected in the least.

In the grand scheme of things, the I-AA playoffs is comparatively unimportant venture for the NCAA and matters even less to ESPN and the BCS. No matter how nicely I-AA asks, the BCS is not going to adjust their Bowl Season contract to accomodate them. As I said, forgetaboutit. It's a non-starter to any serious discussion.:twocents:

I understand this concept, but this also assumes that the BC$ cares about the Hawaii Bowl and the Rose Bowl equally. Are they really inflexible about the day/time of the Hawaii Bowl, which didn't even involve any BC$ conference? I understand this point completely if the "Big Bowls" are affected, but I don't think they would be.

To take your analogy, is the Hawaii Bowl an "important venture" for ESPN and/or the BCS, or is it about equal to the I-AA Championship game (which you've determined is not important)? And how will I-AA know if we're equal to the Hawaii Bowl unless the issue is pushed? Is ESPN really worried about Hawaii Bowl ratings declining because of the I-AA Championship game? I don't think these questions have been posed, and they ought to be.

Cap'n Cat

August 22nd, 2006, 04:10 PM

Let's be nice to our mid-major brothers, please.

It's all good football.

DUPFLFan

August 22nd, 2006, 04:12 PM

I'll pose a question back to you, then, What is your motivation for advocating a team make the playoffs who did not play a good schedule nor win enough games against a good schedule to make it?

My motivation is for all conferences to be included in the Championship playoffs.

Now. Answer the question about your motivation..

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 04:15 PM

Let's be nice to our mid-major brothers, please.

It's all good football.

As you know Cap'n, Gannonfan and myself are motivated solely by selfless and pure reasons. We want to help humanity and create world peace. 89 on the other hand is a closet Scholarshipist and one can't trust him around mid-majors!!!xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

Mr. C

August 22nd, 2006, 04:33 PM

Bluekeys, it's sounds like you're running for Miss America. xlolx xlolx xlolx :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

89Hen

August 22nd, 2006, 05:46 PM

89 on the other hand is a closet Scholarshipist and one can't trust him around mid-majors!!!
Scholarshipism is such an ugly word. Let's just say that I don't think certain conferences should play teams outside of their own kind. Some conferences have certain traits that make it undesirable for other conferences who have long been established here in I-AA to allow these inferior conferences to associate with these fine upstanding conferences. :rotateh:

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 11:23 PM

Bluekeys, it's sounds like you're running for Miss America. xlolx xlolx xlolx :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

If I actually had the PHYSICAL attributes to run for Ms. America, I would not waste my time on I-AA Message boards. I would instead immediately contact Mr. Chicken who would no doubt get me the best deal for Bikini photos (after my Ms. America Run) and would make me millions.

However, I would have been knocked out of the Ms. America competition when they asked me. "Ms. Delaware How do you feel about expanding the I-AA playoffs so that Mid-Major teams can get an auto bid????????"

I think my response would have been along the lines of Sandra Bullock's in Miss Congeniality!!!!!!

In short I would have lost!!!!!xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

blukeys

August 22nd, 2006, 11:29 PM

Scholarshipism is such an ugly word. Let's just say that I don't think certain conferences should play teams outside of their own kind. Some conferences have certain traits that make it undesirable for other conferences who have long been established here in I-AA to allow these inferior conferences to associate with these fine upstanding conferences. :rotateh:

There is hope for you 89. Scholarshipism sensivity training is available in the D.C. area. Appointments are available at your favorite therapist. Help is available. All one has to do is ask for help and acknowledge they have a problem. That is the first step of the twelve Scholarshipism steps. :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

Dane96

August 23rd, 2006, 12:18 AM

Show me where I have said not to include worthy mid majors? I'll save you the time as well, nowhere. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, play a good schedule, do well against it, and you're in the playoffs. Coastal would've done it last year. Albany has a schedule that could do it this year. The only teams being excluded are 1) the teams that didn't win enough games during the regular season and 2) the teams that didn't play a hard schedule during the season. Mid majors are just as eligible for the playoffs as anyone else in IAA is. And don't give me that autobid argument because IAA history is full of teams that didn't belong to an autobid conference not only making the playoffs but winning the whole thing. As for the Delaware voices, hey, you ought to be glad anyone is replying to your posts anymore - the redundancy without an argument is starting to wane interest.

I'll pose a question back to you, then, What is your motivation for advocating a team make the playoffs who did not play a good schedule nor win enough games against a good schedule to make it?

Thanks for the Kudos on the scheduling, but I am a realist...we are two years away from being competitive with the likes of Delaware and Lehigh...and I mean competitive to WIN the game. I hold out NO hopes for this season's OOC except for the Cornell and Fordham games.

Now...you fellas from the PFL and A-Ten can go about and carry on with this old and boring argument.

GannonFan

August 23rd, 2006, 11:38 AM

My motivation is for all conferences to be included in the Championship playoffs.

Now. Answer the question about your motivation..

I have no such motivation - note my constant appeal that all teams that make the playoffs play a quality schedule and win most of those games. That's equally applicable to all I-AA teams, regardless of their scholarship situation. I think all teams have a shot at the playoffs, some just choose not to play a quality schedule and they disqualify themselves (aka San Diego last year). It would appear my motivation and your motivation are the same - however, you seem to want a free pass and I seem to want teams to play their way in.

Mr. C

August 24th, 2006, 12:29 AM

If I actually had the PHYSICAL attributes to run for Ms. America, I would not waste my time on I-AA Message boards. I would instead immediately contact Mr. Chicken who would no doubt get me the best deal for Bikini photos (after my Ms. America Run) and would make me millions.

However, I would have been knocked out of the Ms. America competition when they asked me. "Ms. Delaware How do you feel about expanding the I-AA playoffs so that Mid-Major teams can get an auto bid????????"

I think my response would have been along the lines of Sandra Bullock's in Miss Congeniality!!!!!!

In short I would have lost!!!!!xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx
Miss Congeniality is one of my favorite movies. All of us on AGS should be in favor of World Peace. But I draw a line at an expanded playoff field.
xlolx :D :) :rotateh: :nod: :rolleyes: :p ;) :smiley_wi :o