6 Wins for Playoff eligibility this year

[IBleedYellow]

Did anyone else know this was the plan?

I was listening to Patty V on MFVC media day talk about 6 being the magic number now.

[Vitojr130]

In other words, you are saying the playoff committee will have a hell of a time determining who gets in and who gets cut...

[melloware13]

Maybe for eligibility, but the expanded schedules will make it so 7 is needed for At-Large consideration this season

[bluehenbillk]

Boys, did y'all pay attention last year? There are only 13 at-large spots available.

I'll make it simple for you for the power conferences......
9-3 or better - you're probably good.
8-3 gets you in most years, especially with a FBS loss
8-4 one of those losses better be to a FBS team, but you're on the bubble
7-4 or worse prepare for T-Giving weekend watching other games on TV - you're toast.

[UNDColorado]

Yeah I think 7 still is the magic number. 6 is too low IMO and I don't want to see this turn into the FBS bowl model where a 6-6 team goes to the Clorox Toilet Bowl game.

[URMite]

Have we seen anything in writing since the "less than seven may" years?

6 of 11 isn't great but 6 of 12 is a bit much.

[RichH2]

Rather a chanbe without any real meaning

[URMite]

Is it 12 at-large or 13 (and 11 AQ)?

[danefan]

Is it 12 at-large or 13 (and 11 AQ)?

13 at large and 11 AQ

[CFBfan]

Yeah I think 7 still is the magic number. 6 is too low IMO and I don't want to see this turn into the FBS bowl model where a 6-6 team goes to the Clorox Toilet Bowl game.

it might be BUT 7 - 5 is not a strong pick

[danefan]

I thought there was a new formula coming into play this year that was a sort of weighted ranking taking into account Sub-DI games, but at a lesser value.

[URMite]

I thought there was a new formula coming into play this year that was a sort of weighted ranking taking into account Sub-DI games, but at a lesser value.

I thought they were weighting all games including FBS & Div 2 this year, but no transparency to date on what the actual weighting will be.

[URMite]

I have always weighted FBS as 1.6 win or .4 loss
And Div 2 as .6 win 1.4 loss.

[IBleedYellow]

Do I need to send you all the link so that you can listen with your own ears?

Damn.

http://www.valley-football.org/multimedia/audio/

Choose the Commish audio.

[Bisonator]

No way 6 wins gets you in.

[IBleedYellow]

"The selection process is changing in part in two significant ways:
First they will consider teams with 6 Division 1 wins able to be chosen for an at large bid in the FCS Playoffs.
Second the committee is also adapting an RPI type rating system, which is called the Simple Rating System."

[danefan]

Interesting. I don't think it changes much, except gives the Committee more flexibility, which they may or may not use.

Definitely helps the power conferences more than anything.

[IBleedYellow]

That was a serious case of shooting the messenger there.

I wasn't stating that a 6 win team will get in, but there is now a rule that says they can.

[Lehigh'98]

Trying to think of a plausible scenario where any 6 win team would make it. Patriot, NEC, Pioneer, OVC, MEAC no chance. SoCon, SLC not this year. Maybe MVFC, BSC or CAA with 2 FBS losses??? Still would be very hard pressed to envision it.

[IBleedYellow]

Trying to think of a plausible scenario where any 6 win team would make it. Patriot, NEC, Pioneer, OVC, MEAC no chance. SoCon, SLC not this year. Maybe MVFC, BSC or CAA with 2 FBS losses??? Still would be very hard pressed to envision it.

I'm more having a hard time choosing 24 teams to fill out a bracket. Call me crazy.

[dbackjon]

Trying to think of a plausible scenario where any 6 win team would make it. Patriot, NEC, Pioneer, OVC, MEAC no chance. SoCon, SLC not this year. Maybe MVFC, BSC or CAA with 2 FBS losses??? Still would be very hard pressed to envision it.

let's say NAU (only playing 11 games) wins all 5 of their home games (Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Northern Colorado and Idaho State, and beats Montana State on the road.

They lose to Arizona, Sac State, UC--Davis, Cal Poly and Southern Utah.

Will be tough to pick them, even with those wins, but will also depend on who they are up against for an at-large. Do you pick a 6-5 NAU over a 7-4 Tenn State?

[MplsBison]

There was never any rule requiring the selection committee to choose at-large teams only from a population with 7 DI wins or more.

That has always been a myth, perpetuated in large part due to AGS.

[IBleedYellow]

There was never any rule requiring the selection committee to choose at-large teams only from a population with 7 DI wins or more.

That has always been a myth, perpetuated in large part due to AGS.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN5PoW7_kdA

[MplsBison]

Right.

Instead of looking at the NCAA rule book to confirm that I am correct, you post fruit.

[dbackjon]

Right.

Instead of looking at the NCAA rule book to confirm that I am correct, you post fruit.

He didn't post a pic of me or Citdog

[UNDColorado]

it might be BUT 7 - 5 is not a strong pick

That is a 12 game schedule...what about 7-4? Assuming that the losses are FBS or good FCS.

[slostang]

Boys, did y'all pay attention last year? There are only 13 at-large spots available.

I'll make it simple for you for the power conferences......
9-3 or better - you're probably good.
8-3 gets you in most years, especially with a FBS loss
8-4 one of those losses better be to a FBS team, but you're on the bubble
7-4 or worse prepare for T-Giving weekend watching other games on TV - you're toast.
I know things are changing now that they are expanding the playoffs to 24 teams, but NAU went 8-3 with a FBS win (NAU) last season and were left out.

[dbackjon]

I know things are changing now that they are expanding the playoffs to 24 teams, but NAU went 8-3 with a FBS win (NAU) last season and were left out.

FBS win and a FBS loss :(

[Lehigh'98]

There was never any rule requiring the selection committee to choose at-large teams only from a population with 7 DI wins or more.

That has always been a myth, perpetuated in large part due to AGS.


I believe your premise, all I'm saying is I can't think of any scenarios where 6-5 gets you in unless you have 2 FBS losses and 3 damn close good FCS losses likely on the road by very small margins.

[ElCid]

Six wins is ridiculous at first glance, but in a power conference, a very good team might be 6-5. If they had a killer OOC schedule (all top 15) and kept every game close (within 7), should they not get a look? Compare that to an 8-3 team who had a Pioneer team, a low level Northeastern team, and a low level MEAC team for their OOC. Which team deserves a look? I think they both do. I might not ultimately support a 6-5 team but I would understand not automatically disqualifying them.

The reason why this is not likely, is no team usually schedules all top 15 teams for their OOC schedule so most 6-5 teams really are just so-so. But I keep thinking about N. Iowa last year. If they had won 2 more conf games, they would have been 7-4 with only 6 Div 1 wins. But two of their loses were to Wisconsin and Iowa and they were close loses. If they had gone 7-4 with the only other loses to NDSU and SDSU, would I have picked them over an 8-3 Tennessee State team last year? Maybe if they were both in the running. I think there were much better teams last year, this is just an example.

In any case, it is absolutely ridiculous to believe some objective formula (formal or informal) is an effective way to select participants. A formula may appear to be the fairest way. Everyone knows the rules and there are no surprises. But like most things that are done with the best of intentions, there is always the law of unintended consequences. How will it affect scheduling? Think about how the FBS, in regard to scheduling FCS, has been talked about. There might be good results in some cases (teams stepping up), but very bad ones as well (some teams/conferences/Divisions will be locked out).

It is easy to think that it would only be for games between levels (FBS, FCS, or Div II/III). It may be, at first. But one has to wonder how long it would be before, as an example, the Pioneer or Southwestern teams (no offense guys) are counted as only a 0.8 for wins. Think how that will affect scheduling. And you can't tell me that a win over Massachusetts or Idaho would be as good as a win over Clemson or Texas A&M. In a case like that, someone would benefit unduly from any formula that would treat all FBS wins equally. Every football fan as well as the selection committees have their own little formula for figuring out rankings. But once you establish and use a standard formula, you steer people away from any discretion and it changes scheduling behavior in order to only achieve some magical percentage. Best to let it remain somewhat subjective.

In the end, the only thing any team really needs to do to convince everyone that they deserve a shot, is to win the games that they need to. There is no substitute or magical formula for that.

[URMite]

I believe your premise, all I'm saying is I can't think of any scenarios where 6-5 gets you in unless you have 2 FBS losses and 3 damn close good FCS losses likely on the road by very small margins.

I can. What if after the eleven AQs are selected there are only 12 teams with seven or more division one wins?

Also, I think there has been both a Montana and a JMU team with 6 Div I wins that were widely discussed in 2010.

[URMite]

There was never any rule requiring the selection committee to choose at-large teams only from a population with 7 DI wins or more.

That has always been a myth, perpetuated in large part due to AGS.

perpetuated in large part due to... in 35 years and 95 teams, no team without 7 or more Division I wins has ever been selected as an at-large. (3 years x 4 teams, 1x8, 4x12, 24x16, 3x20)

And there is this http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_1_football.pdf
Page 6 Championship selection item 3 - "The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of
schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of
not being selected"

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Right.

Instead of looking at the NCAA rule book to confirm that I am correct, you post fruit.

The problem is you post something that we are all keenly aware of and do it as if you got the answer. We've all known the rule and read the rule for a very long time. What he is talking about is what is actually in practice. You saw another guy actually post part of the rule in posing a question but skipped it apparently. What is in practice is that no at large with less than 7 wins has gotten in. That point being agreed to be all we move beyond what the actual rule states which is "may put a team in jeopardy" because it obviously put a team in enough jeopardy that they do not get in.

So setting the actual rule book aside and using the golden rule we can move on from making something out of nothing with that.

Does it seem plausible that a 6 win team now has a shot? Slightly better than previously but still think it's a very long shot at best and those 6 wins would have to come at the end run of the season and be against very good opponents.

[IBleedYellow]

perpetuated in large part due to... in 35 years and 95 teams, no team without 7 or more Division I wins has ever been selected as an at-large. (3 years x 4 teams, 1x8, 4x12, 24x16, 3x20)

And there is this http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_1_football.pdf
Page 6 Championship selection item 3 - "The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of
schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of
not being selected"
The Mlps troll has been proved WRONG with facts AGAIN.

Bravo to you, sir.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

[ursus arctos horribilis]

perpetuated in large part due to... in 35 years and 95 teams, no team without 7 or more Division I wins has ever been selected as an at-large. (3 years x 4 teams, 1x8, 4x12, 24x16, 3x20)

And there is this http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_1_football.pdf
Page 6 Championship selection item 3 - "The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of
schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of
not being selected"

I guess i should have just waited this one out a bit longer but my post just goes along well with yours at this point I guess. xlolx

[URMite]

"The selection process is changing in part in two significant ways:
First they will consider teams with 6 Division 1 wins able to be chosen for an at large bid in the FCS Playoffs.
Second the committee is also adapting an RPI type rating system, which is called the Simple Rating System."

Have we seen anything as to the specifics of a FCS Simple Rating System?

Would it be close to this one used in FBS? http://smartfootball.com/chase-stuart/the-simple-rating-system-bringing-order-kinda-to-chaos

And they ignore games with teams outside of their subdivision I believe. It will be interesting to see how they handle those games, both up & down.

[URMite]

I guess i should have just waited this one out a bit longer but my post just goes along well with yours at this point I guess. xlolx

Can you see why I'm ok with the Albany guys joining the CAA? This is one area where I seem to post very similar to some of them. xlolx

[MplsBison]

I believe your premise, all I'm saying is I can't think of any scenarios where 6-5 gets you in unless you have 2 FBS losses and 3 damn close good FCS losses likely on the road by very small margins.

Right.

And perhaps say that three of your six wins were against the top five in the last three weeks of the season?


It hasn't been done, but there was never anything preventing it.

[MplsBison]

perpetuated in large part due to... in 35 years and 95 teams, no team without 7 or more Division I wins has ever been selected as an at-large. (3 years x 4 teams, 1x8, 4x12, 24x16, 3x20)

And there is this http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/champ_handbooks/football/2010/10_1_football.pdf
Page 6 Championship selection item 3 - "The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of
schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of
not being selected"

Good post.

Like I said, there was never any rule requiring 7 DI wins. A myth that has long been perpetuated by AGS posters. Carry on.

[MplsBison]

The problem is you post something that we are all keenly aware of and do it as if you got the answer. We've all known the rule and read the rule for a very long time. What he is talking about is what is actually in practice. You saw another guy actually post part of the rule in posing a question but skipped it apparently. What is in practice is that no at large with less than 7 wins has gotten in. That point being agreed to be all we move beyond what the actual rule states which is "may put a team in jeopardy" because it obviously put a team in enough jeopardy that they do not get in.

So setting the actual rule book aside and using the golden rule we can move on from making something out of nothing with that.

Does it seem plausible that a 6 win team now has a shot? Slightly better than previously but still think it's a very long shot at best and those 6 wins would have to come at the end run of the season and be against very good opponents.

Agreed.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Come on, man, get with the program. It's the rule that allows 6-6 Towson to get in over 10-1 Lehigh.

[Twentysix]

Come on, man, get with the program. It's the rule that allows 6-6 Towson to get in over 10-1 Lehigh.

This should always happen. xsmugx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Good post.

Like I said, there was never any rule requiring 7 DI wins. A myth that has long been perpetuated by AGS posters. Carry on.

Of course it is perpetuated by AGS posters and anyone else MPLS. It is not a specific rule but it is what has always happened in reality which is what we are working with here. Nobody is arguing that the rulebook doesn't exist or that it is a rule in that book.

[MplsBison]

The thread started out as implying a change to the rules was coming, which now allows teams with only 6 DI wins to be considered for at-larges.

I corrected that.


Not that big of a deal. Carry on, I say.

[skinny_uncle]

Strength of schedule will be a factor. 6 wins in the Valley is definitely a lot different than 6 in the Pioneer.

[ASUMountaineer]

Am I the only one whose first thought was that everyone in Chattanooga said, "so, you're telling me there's a chance?"

[MplsBison]

Strength of schedule will be a factor. 6 wins in the Valley is definitely a lot different than 6 in the Pioneer.

It's gotta be a team with a huge amount of injuries early in the year, two losses to 'Big Five' conference schools, three close losses in FCS and then they catch fire at the end of the season with a lot of notable wins over top 10 FCS teams once everyone finally gets healthy.

Something like that, IMO is reasonable to consider for an at-large at 6-5 or 6-6.


I'd rather have a team like that over a 8-3 or 8-4 with a weak non-conference schedule and trending downward at the end of the season. IE, just hanging on to limp into the playoffs.

For example, I for one thought NDSU did not deserve the playoffs in 2010 the way they ended the season at Missouri St.

[URMite]

It's gotta be a team with a huge amount of injuries early in the year, two losses to 'Big Five' conference schools, three close losses in FCS and then they catch fire at the end of the season with a lot of notable wins over top 10 FCS teams once everyone finally gets healthy.

Something like that, IMO is reasonable to consider for an at-large at 6-5 or 6-6.


I'd rather have a team like that over a 8-3 or 8-4 with a weak non-conference schedule and trending downward at the end of the season. IE, just hanging on to limp into the playoffs.

For example, I for one thought NDSU did not deserve the playoffs in 2010 the way they ended the season at Missouri St.

Interestingly enough, two of the other options were a 7-4 Montana with a Div 2 win & a 6-5 JMU with a top 25 FBS win. https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0At2w-dbZUZ2gdHp1ai1uX1NTTXA2UmtFVmxzdkxQdFE&hl=en&output=html

[MplsBison]

I wouldn't have advocated JMU for overtaking NDSU in that case.

JMU's win over VT was in week 2. Their five losses all came to CAA conf teams in weeks 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 before finishing off with wins over W&M and Maine.


If they had beaten VT and three top 15 FCS teams the last four weeks of the season - then you'd be talking.

[Redbird Recon]

FBS win and a FBS loss :(
And a D2 win so "7-3"
N. Arizona was screwed by their own conference.
They only had one chance to beat a 'good' team and lost to Cal Poly.

[MplsBison]

And a D2 win so "7-3"
N. Arizona was screwed by their own conference.
They only had one chance to beat a 'good' team and lost to Cal Poly.

This year the playoff committee would not ignore a DII team.

Hence why NDSU went ahead and scheduled the DII for our sixth home game.

[URMite]

This year the playoff committee would not ignore a DII team.

Hence why NDSU went ahead and scheduled the DII for our sixth home game.

As opposed to prior years where they stated "The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all Division I opponents".

What I haven't seen is any rating system that gives a strength rating to all opponents - FBS, FCS, DII, etc...

So I have no idea if a DII counts as a win over a winless FCS or a win over a team 1/10 as strong or any other possibility.

I'm waiting to see if Strength of Schedule will be made public. xchinscratchx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I'm waiting to see if Strength of Schedule will be made public. xchinscratchx

xthumbsupx

[dbackjon]

And a D2 win so "7-3"
N. Arizona was screwed by their own conference.
They only had one chance to beat a 'good' team and lost to Cal Poly.

Ft. Lewis = Dayton.

In reality, both ISU and NAU were either 8-3 or 7-3. Just this year the committee will finally recognize that NAU actually played a team that gives out schollies...