How would you fix the playoffs?

[dudeitsaid]

Following the selection process this year, there was an onslaught of criticism regarding the committees decisions, and the FCS playoff system in general, but very few potential solutions. There is obviously room to criticize just about anything in existence, and there is certainly good reason to criticize some of the results for this years playoff field. But I would be interested in knowing what your solution is. What would create the best playoff system in the FCS? 16 team field. Autobids only. No autobids, but the 24, or 30, or whatever number of best teams selected to the field. In that case, what determines who the "best are"?

There have been some partial solutions offered in the various threads, but these solutions usually don't explore the various dynamics involved (once again, thinking of the "who or what determines the "best" teams" as an example.) If you think there is a better way, what is it, and how is it executed properly. Just saying, "choose the 24 best teams" doesn't really answer the question entirely, it instead creates several more questions. Who has the best solution?

[Twentysix]

All the AD's play spin the bottle. Last 16 standing get into the playoffs.

[Squealofthepig]

Proposed by someone else, I kind of like the "just the conference champ" approach. Make it eleven, give the top five conferences (by some decent ranking) get byes to play into an eight-team playoff.

We'll always have the controversy - heck, I don't think Montana deserved a seed; I was a fan of UNI as an at-large; and I find it frankly weird that the deepest conference in FCS has fewer representatives than the third-or-fourth best. Those are all points we can argue twelve ways to Sunday, of course; but if you just had the pure conference winners, and have just one team be the standard bearer for each - I like the purity of it. Whatever criteria each conference deems to determine their champion dictates which one team plays for the championship. No selection committee. No comparison of team x vs. y on arbitrary measures. Conference champions only, let the one that wins the rest of the games that year take it all.

[dudeitsaid]

Proposed by someone else, I kind of like the "just the conference champ" approach. Make it eleven, give the top five conferences (by some decent ranking) get byes to play into an eight-team playoff.

We'll always have the controversy - heck, I don't think Montana deserved a seed; I was a fan of UNI as an at-large; and I find it frankly weird that the deepest conference in FCS has fewer representatives than the third-or-fourth best. Those are all points we can argue twelve ways to Sunday, of course; but if you just had the pure conference winners, and have just one team be the standard bearer for each - I like the purity of it. Whatever criteria each conference deems to determine their champion dictates which one team plays for the championship. No selection committee. No comparison of team x vs. y on arbitrary measures. Conference champions only, let the one that wins the rest of the games that year take it all.

If there had to be a change to format, I would agree with this. It is cleaner, and it would really make the league play be life or death every game. Every game would essentially be a playoff game. One push-back is that sometimes the conference championship is shared, and the autobids determined by the slimmest of margins. Another is that it hasn't always been a conference champion that has won the national championship. And that phenomenon exists in many sports. Would it be a disservice to the FCS to eliminate those teams from contention? As an EWU fan, this method would have eliminated our one and only NC.

That being said, it would be pretty hard arguing who deserved to be there, and who didn't. Win the bid, and all subjectivity is removed.

[Green26]

The current 24 team playoff system seems good to me. With 24 teams, there is good symmetry with the number of teams, seeds, first round byes, and hosting. The increased number of auto-bids in recent years and this year allows more of the little guys in. I like that. Teams on the bubble will always have an argument or complaint. It's the same way with the ncaa basketball tourney.

Conference champ only is a silly idea, and would ruin the playoffs. It would eliminate 2/3 of the good teams from the playoffs. It would severely reduce interest in the playoffs.

If I had a suggestion or two, it would be to tweak the selection criteria to try to reduce the number of at-large teams from weak conferences, so that there'd be more room for bubble teams from power conference. It is unfortunate that the MV got in only 2 teams this year; MV deserved another team or two. It would also be to have more likely playoff teams with representatives on the selection committee. The committee this year has too many AD's from schools that don't ever or often go to the playoffs, and certainly aren't in the playoffs this year. I believe AD's from schools/conferences often in the playoff hunt are more knowledgeable about the playoffs and the good FCS teams, and are less likely to make selection and pairing mistakes. They and their fans think about the playoffs all year long, and not just later in the season. Here's the committee this year:

Jeff Barber, director of athletics at Liberty University.

Torre Chisholm, director of athletics at Portland State University.

Troy Dannen, director of Athletics at the University of Northern Iowa.

Robert Hill, director of athletics at Stephen F. Austin State University.

Brian Hutchinson, director of athletics at Morehead State University.

Charlene M. Johnson, director of athletics at South Carolina State University.

Richard Johnson, director of athletics at Wofford College.

Frank McLaughlin, associate vice president at Fordham University.

Paul Schlickmann, director of athletics at Central Connecticut State University.

Mark Wilson, director of athletics at Tennessee Technological University.

[mvemjsunpx]

If there had to be a change to format, I would agree with this. It is cleaner, and it would really make the league play be life or death every game. Every game would essentially be a playoff game. One push-back is that sometimes the conference championship is shared, and the autobids determined by the slimmest of margins. Another is that it hasn't always been a conference champion that has won the national championship. And that phenomenon exists in many sports. Would it be a disservice to the FCS to eliminate those teams from contention? As an EWU fan, this method would have eliminated our one and only NC.

That being said, it would be pretty hard arguing who deserved to be there, and who didn't. Win the bid, and all subjectivity is removed.

So there's subjectivity? So what? There's always going to be controversy, no matter the system. We're talking about the umpteenth team in the field, not the #2 or something (like the BCS). If you don't get in, oh well…

Having only auto-bids is moronic. If you're the #2 team in the country, but the #1 is in your conference, you don't get in? Yeah, that makes sense…
If that happened, a bunch of conferences would split into the minimum size (6) so each team could maximize their chances of getting in. Not to mention that there would be no point in even playing non-conference games if winning your conference was the only way to the postseason. It would just turn FCS into a mess of countless, SWAC-like fiefdoms with every team playing an incredibly boring regular-season schedule (probably with 2 games against each conference opponent like the Great Northwest in DII).

[PAllen]

Back to 16 teams. All conference champs get an AQ (figure out a way to include the Ivy and SWAC). For the few remaining at-large births, Div 2 wins and FBS losses are not considered (If you want them to count, join Div 2 or FBS). Conference Co-champs get priority to at-large bids. "Any team with 4 or more total losses or 3 or more conference losses will be in jeopardy of not receiving at large consideration".

At large berths should be for special circumstances such as a clearly superior team having one WTF game that yields the conference tie breaker to another team, or independents (used to be more of an issue than it is now), or something like Fordham's situation this year or ODU's last where a team for one reason or another is eligible for the playoffs, but not the conference AQ. Oh, and at large teams cannot host a first round playoff game (If you can't win your conference, and you somehow sneak in, you go on the road).

[Fordham2012]

Pallen, Ivy is not going to participate. No way, no how. I don't know about SWAC.

[PAllen]

Pallen, Ivy is not going to participate. No way, no how. I don't know about SWAC.

I know they're not, and honestly, I don't blame them. Why would they want to be playing Harvard/Yale for the right to be sent to "NW who knows where state teacher's college" (their concept of most of FCS) for a barely attended first round game two days after Thanksgiving.

That said, this is all fantasy land anyway, and I don't think you can call it a division (or subdivision, or whatever the heck we'll be called in a few years) playoff unless you include participation from everyone in the division (or subdivision, etc).

[AmsterBison]

Most fixes to the playoff system make it worse. Take, for example, the SRS and regionalization.

Those two things is that they are the "Let's go to FBS" crowd's wet dream because nobody who has experienced the *****show that the D2 playoffs became will sit around to watch the remake even if they are currently 100% against going to the FBS right now. Honestly, it looks like the FCS even took D2's dumbass rating system.

They should publish the SRS algorithm to see how it would have made the playoffs in prior years.

[pike51]

Eliminate them and have 30-40 bowl games. We could use a computer model to determine the best 2 teams and make them play for a national championship. This way, you only travel to 1 post-season game and save lots of money!

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Its damn near perfect the way it is.

I would go back to 16 teams if I had to change anything. Win your games and you have nothing to worry about. The team that didnt get in dont deserve it anyway and they can bitch all they want but if you are not able to get in a 24 team bracket......your "everyone should get a ribbon" mentality is going to take a hit.

[Eagle22]

16 teams
Seed the entire field
Scrap regionalization
Install a minimum floor for scholarships/equivalencies (50?)

[Professor Chaos]

I honestly like it a lot the way it is now. The only complaint I have is the potential conference rematches in the 2nd round loophole they allow. Fix that so there can be no potential conference rematches until the quarters and I think the 24 team system is about perfect for the current makeup of the subdivision.

I like 24 teams over 16 for several reasons:
1) It gives the top 8 (who are the real contenders anyway) a bye during a crappy weekend for attendance and a guaranteed home game.
2) It gives an extra week or two between the semis and the title games for fans to make travel accommodations if their team is in the championship.
3) Having 24 teams in the field instead of 16 generates more excitement for more FCS fan bases around the country thus more excitement for FCS football in general.

Like I said, the teams in the top 8 are going to be your true national title threats most years and the 24 team system is actually better for them than a 16 team system. Let the extra 8 teams in to give league champs from the Pioneer and the NEC their carrot at the end of the year because the best 8 teams playing this weekend weren't going to factor into the national title picture much at all anyway.

[worrierking]

The only thing I see a problem with is the lack of specificity in the selection process. The criteria should be published and followed strictly. It will not result in a perfect field every year--no system will--but at least you would know the reason why if you were left out. Much of the complaining is being done by MVC fans, who have a legitimate gripe that they have the (arguably) best conference and only two teams in. But that's kind of a quirk of some odd circumstances that are not going to repeat themselves every year. They have a very solid league top-to-bottom and it resulted in some middling records by some very good teams. Heck, we probably wouldn't be having any of these conversations if UNI had just managed to win one of their OT games. Win one and they are in the field. Losing all three was probably as much about bad luck as anything.

I don't care for regionalization, but it isn't going away.

[LeeshaJo]

1. SCRAP Regionalization
2. Seed 1-24
3. Higher seed gets to be home team.

Somehow the committee needs to be more accountable to watching games of all teams and conferences, not just showing up at the end of the season I would hope knowing their own conference, but not much about anyone else, thereby becoming dependent on polls.

I guess I would like to see a system implemented where we as fans were guaranteed that if someone is on the committee they will watch a minimum of 20 minutes of 10 different teams a week. Which if you break it down is only about 2 hours of watching film of five different games per week. By the end of the season, they would have seen 130 games giving them a feel for the teams and conferences in the fcs. I know many of the ad's are going to say they don't have the time to do this, but I am not sure the ADs are the right ones to be making the call anyway.

[mmiller_34]

AGS pollsters should be the higher authority on who gets into the playoffs. The committee chooses... And we have the power of unlimited vetoes on their proposals.

[furpal87]

1. SCRAP Regionalization
2. Seed 1-24
3. Higher seed gets to be home team.

Somehow the committee needs to be more accountable to watching games of all teams and conferences, not just showing up at the end of the season I would hope knowing their own conference, but not much about anyone else, thereby becoming dependent on polls.

I guess I would like to see a system implemented where we as fans were guaranteed that if someone is on the committee they will watch a minimum of 20 minutes of 10 different teams a week. Which if you break it down is only about 2 hours of watching film of five different games per week. By the end of the season, they would have seen 130 games giving them a feel for the teams and conferences in the fcs. I know many of the ad's are going to say they don't have the time to do this, but I am not sure the ADs are the right ones to be making the call anyway.

The only change I would make to that is tweak the seeding so no one sees a conference member before the Qtrs. It can be done, the basketball committee does it all the time. I like 24 teams because it is fair gives the Top 8 an advantage to get healthy and a free look at the next team. But I would like to see how 1-24 ranked. Butler/Laffayette as 24/23 or the other way? they wouldn't get a home game.

[deez_na]

like shooting for teams in basketball, just let all their field goal kickers have a kickoff and keep moving back :)

[maine612]

I think 24 is the perfect number. It rewards teams with a bye and allows room for all conference champs. Feels about right to me.

The only fix I would suggest is not allowing conference foes to play in rounds 1 and 2. I was looking forward to Maine playing someone different in Orono in week 2 and this won't happen if NH beats Fat Lever. Maine vs UNH....we've seen this movie before.

612

[Bogus Megapardus]

Humbly offered for your approval:

Hold a 4-team Lambert Cup round-robin in Hawaii during Christmas week. Include the Ivy champ, Patriot champ, and two at-large from the northeast. Exclude from the FCS playoffs the Ivy, Patriot and any other Lambert-eligible team that wishes to participate in the Lambert tournament. Tag along with Army and Navy, too (they'll bite if we call it the Pearl Harbor Bowl or something). Invite protesters from "Occupy Oahu" and the "LGBT Marine Mammal Cooperative" to entourage Ivy to participate (get the Film Actor's Guild to sign on if Brown U. still won't budge).

This way, Ivy plays post-season and gets a vacation that doesn't interfere with exams or the H-Y game; Patriot re-buffs its image, and the games get big TV coverage (because these guys run the networks anyhow). Everyone else is happy because the danger and lawlessness of two PL teams (let alone one) in the FCS tourney is eliminated. Everyone is assured that only "real" and/or "serious" and/or "compass-designated" football teams will play in Frisco.

[maine612]

Humbly offered for your approval:

Hold a 4-team Lambert Cup round-robin in Hawaii during Christmas week. Include the Ivy champ, Patriot champ, and two at-large from the northeast. Exclude from the FCS playoffs the Ivy, Patriot and any other Lambert-eligible team that wishes to participate in the Lambert tournament. Tag along with Army and Navy, too (they'll bite if we call it the Pearl Harbor Bowl or something). Invite protesters from "Occupy Oahu" and the "LGBT Marine Mammal Cooperative" to entourage Ivy to participate (get the Film Actor's Guild to sign on if Brown U. still won't budge).

This way, Ivy plays post-season and gets a vacation that doesn't interfere with exams or the H-Y game; Patriot re-buffs its image, and the games get big TV coverage (because these guys run the networks anyhow). Everyone else is happy because the danger and lawlessness of two PL teams (let alone one) in the FCS tourney is eliminated. Everyone is assured that only "real" and/or "serious" and/or "compass-designated" football teams will play in Frisco.

You'd have to invite the University of Hawaii Rainbow Warriors. It's clear that they have to take part in any Hawaii-based bowl or tournament. Also, most good FCS schools would beat them anyway.

[Bogus Megapardus]

You'd have to invite the University of Hawaii Rainbow Warriors. It's clear that they have to take part in any Hawaii-based bowl or tournament. Also, most good FCS schools would beat them anyway.

Anything involving the Academies always gets a pass.

Maine vs. Navy in Hawaii during Christmas week doesn't entice you? Come on . . . xnodx

[maine612]

Anything involving the Academies always gets a pass.

Maine vs. Navy in Hawaii during Christmas week doesn't entice you? Come on . . . xnodx

Maine versus anybody in any place warm entices me!! Southeastern Louisiana perhaps?

[cmaxwellgsu]

16 teams
Seed the entire field
Scrap regionalization
Install a minimum floor for scholarships/equivalencies (50?)



This. I do think seeding everyone and scrapping regionalization would eliminate the most complaints on this board, and would probably have the best shot of happening.

[SIUSalukiFan]

1. SCRAP Regionalization
2. Seed 1-24
3. Higher seed gets to be home team.

Somehow the committee needs to be more accountable to watching games of all teams and conferences, not just showing up at the end of the season I would hope knowing their own conference, but not much about anyone else, thereby becoming dependent on polls.

I guess I would like to see a system implemented where we as fans were guaranteed that if someone is on the committee they will watch a minimum of 20 minutes of 10 different teams a week. Which if you break it down is only about 2 hours of watching film of five different games per week. By the end of the season, they would have seen 130 games giving them a feel for the teams and conferences in the fcs. I know many of the ad's are going to say they don't have the time to do this, but I am not sure the ADs are the right ones to be making the call anyway.

I like this.

If Eastern Washington is the No. 1 seed the winner of the 17-24 first-round game is headed West ... even if it is Maine or New Hampshire.

A ranking system needs to be created that takes into account strength of schedule, polls, ect. that will be followed with no exceptions. Everybody knows up front you are playing to an exact seed.

If the criteria is known up front there can be no complaints.

[PAllen]

Humbly offered for your approval:

Hold a 4-team Lambert Cup round-robin in Hawaii during Christmas week. Include the Ivy champ, Patriot champ, and two at-large from the northeast. Exclude from the FCS playoffs the Ivy, Patriot and any other Lambert-eligible team that wishes to participate in the Lambert tournament. Tag along with Army and Navy, too (they'll bite if we call it the Pearl Harbor Bowl or something). Invite protesters from "Occupy Oahu" and the "LGBT Marine Mammal Cooperative" to entourage Ivy to participate (get the Film Actor's Guild to sign on if Brown U. still won't budge).

This way, Ivy plays post-season and gets a vacation that doesn't interfere with exams or the H-Y game; Patriot re-buffs its image, and the games get big TV coverage (because these guys run the networks anyhow). Everyone else is happy because the danger and lawlessness of two PL teams (let alone one) in the FCS tourney is eliminated. Everyone is assured that only "real" and/or "serious" and/or "compass-designated" football teams will play in Frisco.

Your post of the year Bogie!

[walliver]

I wouldn't mind regionalization, if they actually regionalized the teams.

Last year Wofford hosted UNH (both states border the Atlantic ocean) and then travelled to NDSU (both states are on the same continent). Prior to that we have played opening round games at Montana and Northern Iowa (both west of the Mississippi)

This year, the winner of the FU/SCSU matchup (a game easily accessible to fans of both schools:)) will travel to NDSUxconfusedx.


As for changes, I would go back to 20 teams and allow no more than 1/3 of a conference's teams to go to the playoffs.

[DSUrocks07]

Only teams from the power conferences are allowed in. xcoffeex

[PAllen]

Only teams from the power conferences are allowed in. xcoffeex

And "Power Conference" shall be determined by a ranking that some Wallace guy comes up with. :D

[DSUrocks07]

And "Power Conference" shall be determined by a ranking that some Wallace guy comes up with. :D

Or Sagarin ranking which another poster SWEARS by xsmiley_wix

[RabidRabbit]

No conference REMATCH until the 3rd round. Conference match-ups, where didn't play during the season, are ok. Maine vs UNH in 2nd round, no. NAU vs EWU (who didn't play dring the regular season) in 2nd round ok. Not ok in 1st round. No more than 35% of a conference membership may be in play-offs. (MVFC limited to 3, CAA or Big Sky limited to 4 teams max). Conferences may not suspend rights of teams eligible for play-offs from the AQ. (Fordham, this season, and Old Dominion last season). A FBS win over a FBS team valued at 1.5x an FCS, but only if FBS Sagarin rating as of week prior to selection sunday > 30th highest FCS sagarin rating. (Would help deal with low quality FBS teams, such as Ga St., Temple, U Mass, Idaho, etc.) Must have 7 D-I W's.


The no conference rematch until at least the third round needs to be implimented, badly needed!!!!!!

[Bisonator]

I like it the way it is with 24 teams. Rank them all and let the chips fall where they may. If a regional matchup happens early tough cookies that's just the way it is. They have to come up with a better way to determine SOS then simply wins/losses. This is fundamentally flawed. We played UNI when they were at their best and a top 5 team. Then injuries and OT losses resulted in a hit to their opponents SOS. Then you have teams playing cupcakes with 8-9 wins and another team beats them and their SOS goes up. I'm not sure how to do it right but there has to be a better way!

[furpal87]

I like this.

If Eastern Washington is the No. 1 seed the winner of the 17-24 first-round game is headed West ... even if it is Maine or New Hampshire.

A ranking system needs to be created that takes into account strength of schedule, polls, ect. that will be followed with no exceptions. Everybody knows up front you are playing to an exact seed



If the criteria is known up front there can be no complaints.

Here's actually what the bracket numbers would look like: 16/17 vs 1, 9/24 vs 8, 13/20 vs 4, 12/21 vs 5, 11/20 vs 6, 14/19 vs 3, 10/23 vs 7, 15/18 vs 2

Anyone want to formulate what actually seeding would have made the tourney look like this year? Here's a guess: 9 CCU vs 24 Butler 10 Northern Ariz vs 23 Lafayette 11 Fordham vs 22 Sacred Heart 12 B-C vs 21 Southern Utah 13 Jack St vs 20 SC ST 14 SHST vs 19 Furman 15 Samford vs 18 new Hampshire 16 SDSU vs 17 Tenn State. Notes Switched 9 and 10 (NAU vs Montana) , 22 and 23 Lafayette vs Fordham 13 and 14 (jack St vs EIU) needed to be avoided

[bluehenbillk]

Personally I think that it's fine just the way it is. After following how the SRS was all over the place in one week I wouldn't touch that rating with a ten-foot pole.

The committee generally got it right IMHO. The teams that were left out were filled with flaws & it's pretty easy to argue your case against them, plus it's now 24 teams. In a 12 game season a 7-5 team has no business being in the discussion. Heck, an 8-4 team isn't something to be jumping around in joy over either.

This may sound controversial but here's an idea: Conferences need to show competitiveness to get representation. If a conference goes winless for a minimum number of years in the postseason - put a number to it - 5 years, 7, 8, 10 whatever, that they are ineligible for anything other than an autobid - no at-large births until they win a playoff game. That would eliminate the crying over the MEAC, the OVC & the like....

[Bogus Megapardus]

Your post of the year Bogie!

Nah, post schmost . . . it's all business, PA. Who are you going to watch - Army vs. Yale in Hawaii or East Sheboygan vs. Paducah A&M in Frisco?

[TypicalTribe]

I think the most necessary changes involve everything outside of the seeds. We need to rank the rest of the field. Then, the committee is given limited leeway to adjust rankings by a spot or two to create regional matchups where possible. However, those matchups cannot include any conference rematches prior to the quarterfinals. Also, the bidding process needs to be changed. Once the games are determined, the higher seeded team needs to be given every opportunity to host. The bottom four teams (#21-24) should not be eligible to host unless the higher seeded team waives its right. For the other four games, the higher-seeded team should be allowed to raise their offer if the lower-seeded team offered a higher bid.

[TypicalTribe]

Just for the sake of doing it

9. Northern Arizona
10. Fordham
11. South Dakota State
12. Coastal Carolina
13. Bethune-Cookman
14. New Hampshire
15. Tennessee State
16. Jacksonville State
17. Sam Houston State
18. Southern Utah
19. Samford
20. South Carolina State
21. Furman
22. Sacred Heart
23. Lafayette
24. Butler

So, with the leeway to move things around a bit let's go with:

SHSU/SUU at #1 NDSU
Fordham/SHU @ #8 Towson
NAU/Butler at #6 McNeese
UNH/TSU at #3 EWU
SDSU/Lafayette at #7 Montana
BCC/Furman @ #2 EIU
JSU/Samford @ #4 SeLA
CCU/SCSU @ #5 Maine

That's the way I would have done it. You lose a couple of bus rides but restore a better balance between the relative difficulty of opponents that are derved based on seeding.

[wapiti]

I don't think any games should be fixed. Let alone the playoffs!!!!!
:)

[SIUSalukiFan]

Just for the sake of doing it

9. Northern Arizona
10. Fordham
11. South Dakota State
12. Coastal Carolina
13. Bethune-Cookman
14. New Hampshire
15. Tennessee State
16. Jacksonville State
17. Sam Houston State
18. Southern Utah
19. Samford
20. South Carolina State
21. Furman
22. Sacred Heart
23. Lafayette
24. Butler

So, with the leeway to move things around a bit let's go with:

SHSU/SUU at #1 NDSU
Fordham/SHU @ #8 Towson
NAU/Butler at #6 McNeese
UNH/TSU at #3 EWU
SDSU/Lafayette at #7 Montana
BCC/Furman @ #2 EIU
JSU/Samford @ #4 SeLA
CCU/SCSU @ #5 Maine

That's the way I would have done it. You lose a couple of bus rides but restore a better balance between the relative difficulty of opponents that are derved based on seeding.

Pretty solid. Thanks for the effort.

[Tealblood]

Just for the sake of doing it

9. Northern Arizona
10. Fordham
11. South Dakota State
12. Coastal Carolina
13. Bethune-Cookman
14. New Hampshire
15. Tennessee State
16. Jacksonville State
17. Sam Houston State
18. Southern Utah
19. Samford
20. South Carolina State
21. Furman
22. Sacred Heart
23. Lafayette
24. Butler

So, with the leeway to move things around a bit let's go with:

SHSU/SUU at #1 NDSU
Fordham/SHU @ #8 Towson
NAU/Butler at #6 McNeese
UNH/TSU at #3 EWU
SDSU/Lafayette at #7 Montana
BCC/Furman @ #2 EIU
JSU/Samford @ #4 SeLA
CCU/SCSU @ #5 Maine

That's the way I would have done it. You lose a couple of bus rides but restore a better balance between the relative difficulty of opponents that are derved based on seeding.


I am assuming they dont do this because of the potential rematches in 1st round we played SC State and Furman already this year

[Lehigh Football Nation]

In the first round, the goal should be: interesting, somewhat local, games. In some cases, a plane flight can't be avoided. Don't force things to conform in an arbitrary 400 mile bussing range, especially when some schools will simply fly anyway.

In the second round, the goal should be: interesting, intersectional games against opponents that haven't faced off against one another. EWU/NAU counts. Maine/Towson counts. But look out for just complete slam dunks, like Samford/Jax State winner vs. Southeastern Louisiana, that completely embrace this philosophy. Don't force the 400 bus rule to wreck the slam dunk in order to cheapen a slew of different matchups.

The rounds after the first two rounds should be national. There should be a sense these are the best eight teams, and if it's a cross-country matchup, it's a cross-country matchup.

I would also be for making semifinal weekend at two neutral sites - one east of the Mississippi, one west of the Mississippi.

[SIUSalukiFan]

Avoiding rematches is weak. Why is that such a big deal? The prospect of manipulation is one of the problems here.

[SIUSalukiFan]

I would also be for making semifinal weekend at two neutral sites - one east of the Mississippi, one west of the Mississippi.

How about putting the semifinal weekend at ONE neutral site ... right on the Mississippi (St. Louis? Memphis?) and have a big-time doubleheader (one noon game, one 6 p.m. game)?

[maine612]

How about putting the semifinal weekend at ONE neutral site ... right on the Mississippi (St. Louis? Memphis?) and have a big-time doubleheader (one noon game, one 6 p.m. game)?

That would be great for the conferences in the middle of the country. Not so hot for the CAA or BSC. With that said, its a cool idea.

[Bogus Megapardus]

That would be great for the conferences in the middle of the country. Not so hot for the CAA or BSC. With that said, its a cool idea.


How about one game in Orono and the other in San Diego? That'll teach 'em.

[SIUSalukiFan]

That would be great for the conferences in the middle of the country. Not so hot for the CAA or BSC. With that said, its a cool idea.

Put it in the west and the east complains. Put it in the east and the west complains. If you put it in the middle both will complain.

[Bisonator]

Put it in the west and the east complains. Put it in the east and the west complains. If you put it in the middle both will complain.

So true. xlolx

[Kwik]

How about putting the semifinal weekend at ONE neutral site ... right on the Mississippi (St. Louis? Memphis?) and have a big-time doubleheader (one noon game, one 6 p.m. game)?

That is an interesting idea, but you get further issues. If you do the semis in a "big-time" location, then the question of fan travel comes up. Unfortunately, you can't do football like you can do the Final Four in basketball, or the Frozen Four in hockey, and have the semis, a rest day, and then the championship game.

In a perfect world, what I would do is not bracket the semifinals. Once you get down to four, match them up geographically, and then pick a neutral venue that would make traveling to both the semifinals, and the championship game a bit more logistically possible.

So, with last year as an example, you would have Sam Houston and Georgia Southern in one semifinal (Birmingham, maybe?), and then North Dakota and Eastern Washington in the other (Boise?) It's not a perfect solution by any means- who gets the shaft when the semis are North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Fordham, for example?

[Go...gate]

Back to 16 teams. All conference champs get an AQ (figure out a way to include the Ivy and SWAC). For the few remaining at-large births, Div 2 wins and FBS losses are not considered (If you want them to count, join Div 2 or FBS). Conference Co-champs get priority to at-large bids. "Any team with 4 or more total losses or 3 or more conference losses will be in jeopardy of not receiving at large consideration".

At large berths should be for special circumstances such as a clearly superior team having one WTF game that yields the conference tie breaker to another team, or independents (used to be more of an issue than it is now), or something like Fordham's situation this year or ODU's last where a team for one reason or another is eligible for the playoffs, but not the conference AQ. Oh, and at large teams cannot host a first round playoff game (If you can't win your conference, and you somehow sneak in, you go on the road).

Ivy and SWAC out, but I like this approach.

[SIUSalukiFan]

That is an interesting idea, but you get further issues. If you do the semis in a "big-time" location, then the question of fan travel comes up. Unfortunately, you can't do football like you can do the Final Four in basketball, or the Frozen Four in hockey, and have the semis, a rest day, and then the championship game.

What's the question of fan travel?

[putter]

Only thing I would change is get rid of regionalization. If the NCAA is not smart enough to negotiate the broadcast of the FCS playoffs to make some $$ then that is stupidity on their part. IMO regionalization is watering down the playoffs way more than boosting to 24 teams......

[Bisonoline]

What ever the number of teams really doesnt matter. 16-20-24. You have your play in round. Then the #1 plays the last ranked team in the playoffs, the # 2 plays the next to last etc.Thats the way playoffs should be. There should be NO consideration to travel expenses or size of stadiums. Then those that truely belong play the teams that they should.
This would also get rid of regionalization for that purpose.

[JayJ79]

As for changes, I would go back to 20 teams and allow no more than 1/3 of a conference's teams to go to the playoffs.

I wouldn't mind a limit on the number of teams a conference can get, but it should be a flat number, not a percentage of conference size. Larger conferences already have the advantage of having more top teams with fewer losses. no need to give them more allowed slots. I think a max of 3 per conference is plenty.

[JayJ79]

The teams that were left out were filled with flaws

so were many of the teams that did get an at-large. what's your point?

I do like the idea of a conference proving competitiveness in order to be eligible for at-large consideration, though

[JayJ79]

Conferences may not suspend rights of teams eligible for play-offs from the AQ. (Fordham, this season, and Old Dominion last season).

easy way around that. the team in question is deemed "independent" for that season.

[dudeitsaid]

Having only auto-bids is moronic. If you're the #2 team in the country, but the #1 is in your conference, you don't get in? Yeah, that makes sense…


I get that sentiment, especially considering almost half of the NC's won were not won by a conference champion. And if you remove the autobids, it may be more than half. That being said, I disagree that the result would be boring conference play. I think it would increase the sense that every game matters. But, it's never going to happen, so that hypothetical is irrelevant.

I like the suggestion that there be a maximum number of bids per conference, but I still see so much frustration coming with the at large selection being a subjective process at best. Maybe it just comes with the territory.

I also like the concept of seeding all of the teams like the NCAA basketball tourney, and removing the regionalization. But since this does boil down money, would this make the playoffs cost prohibitive? Maybe there is a way to accomplish both as much as possible by breaking playoffs into four regional brackets with everyone in the brackets being seeded, with 1 and 2 getting a buy, and 1 playing the winner of 3 vs 6, and 2 playing the winner of 4 vs 5. Once we get to a single team in each bracket, the highest seeded team gets the home game, or there is a neutral site selected a someone else suggested.

In any case, lots of very interesting insights in this discussion.

[Yotes]

The selection process is what needs looked at most, obviously.

[Bisonwinagn]

Keep it as it is, but use the GPI for all at large selections with a 7 D1 win qualifier. Done over no complaining.

[Green26]

Keep it as it is, but use the GPI for all at large selections with a 7 D1 win qualifier. Done over no complaining.

I would do more than this, but this would probably be a good place to start when the committee convenes.

[Green26]

I wouldn't mind a limit on the number of teams a conference can get, but it should be a flat number, not a percentage of conference size. Larger conferences already have the advantage of having more top teams with fewer losses. no need to give them more allowed slots. I think a max of 3 per conference is plenty.

Why would at-large, or total, teams be limited by conference? Isn't it best to have the top teams. A better argument could be made for giving weak conferences only the auto-bid.

[dudeitsaid]

Why would at-large, or total, teams be limited by conference? Isn't it best to have the top teams. A better argument could be made for giving weak conferences only the auto-bid.

It could create more intensity in the conference races knowing that there is a limited number of playoff bids. And the weaker conferences could still only get one bid.

[mvemjsunpx]

It could create more intensity in the conference races knowing that there is a limited number of playoff bids. And the weaker conferences could still only get one bid.

There already are a limited number of bids, except your way would make perhaps every conference game meaningless at the end of the season if someone's already clinched. Conference races aren't lacking in intensity now, so what's the point of this?


The playoff format is fine the way it is. Every qualifying conference gets a bid (who wants one) and there are a roughly equal # of at-large bids to balance it out. Seeding everyone & ignoring regionalism would be fun, but financial considerations make that unattractive to most every athletic department out there. Fortunately it's not like DII with its rigid, inexorable region-based system.

My main complaint is with the (future) use of the SRS formula. Unlike basketball, computer/mathematical rankings for football suck because there aren't enough games & there certainly aren't enough non-conference games between teams in the same division. The SRS looks like one of the crappier models, too.

[PAllen]

Why would at-large, or total, teams be limited by conference? Isn't it best to have the top teams. A better argument could be made for giving weak conferences only the auto-bid.

If you're 4th or 5th best in your conference, you're not a top team in the country.

[TypicalTribe]

The problem with limiting to three bids is the math doesn't really work. In fact, this year is actually a great example of what happens. If YSU gets in instad of SUU, then the CAA, BSC, MVFC and SLC would have each had three bids. Since the Big South, NEC, PFL didn't merit any at-larges, that left five at-larges for the Patriot, OVC, MEAC and SoCon. Given that the SoCon is likely to be weaker with ASU and GSU gone, a three bid limit for conferences will result in more at-large bis for the middle tier of conferences, which I think is the opposite of what most people on these boards are clamoring for.

[Professor Chaos]

If you're 4th or 5th best in your conference, you're not a top team in the country.
Not necessarily true. In 2010 NDSU was tied for 3rd with 6 other teams in the MVFC at 4-4 and took eventual national champion Eastern Washington to OT (after a furious last minute drive by EWU to tie the game in regulation) in the national quarterfinals. NDSU may not have been a top team in the country in October 2010 but they certainly were by December 2010. It's still debatable whether they even deserved to be in the playoffs that year but goes to show that there are middling teams in the power conferences that have the capability to do damage in the playoffs if given a chance. Georgia Southern was another team that year that finished 7-4 (5-3) in the SOCON in a tie for 3rd with 3 other teams and ended up making the semis.

[robsnotes4u]

Avoiding rematches is weak. Why is that such a big deal? The prospect of manipulation is one of the problems here.

I agree. Seed them 1-24 and let the games play out. The criteria needs to be published so everybody knows what they need to do. Hold the committee accountable by releasing the reasoning after the selections. Would you just spank your kid without telling them why?

There should not be any polls released until later in the season..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mainejeff]

Seed 1-24 with no first round conference match-ups.........the end.

[NHwildEcat]

In a field of 24 I would give auto bid's to all the CAA schools then fill it the rest with auto qualifiers with losing records.

[NHwildEcat]

OR expand further to 68 teams. Play a First Four, which we all know are just play-in games and stretch this season out until President's Day. Maybe the FCS title game could be a warm up for fans prior to the Super Bowl!

[DSUrocks07]

Not necessarily true. In 2010 NDSU was tied for 3rd with 6 other teams in the MVFC at 4-4 and took eventual national champion Eastern Washington to OT (after a furious last minute drive by EWU to tie the game in regulation) in the national quarterfinals. NDSU may not have been a top team in the country in October 2010 but they certainly were by December 2010. It's still debatable whether they even deserved to be in the playoffs that year but goes to show that there are middling teams in the power conferences that have the capability to do damage in the playoffs if given a chance. Georgia Southern was another team that year that finished 7-4 (5-3) in the SOCON in a tie for 3rd with 3 other teams and ended up making the semis.


Same can be said about the lower conferences that get a second team in.

[SIUSalukiFan]

Same can be said about the lower conferences that get a second team in.

Examples, please?

[PAllen]

The point of a championship is to name a champion, not reward a "middling team from a power conference" for a mediocre season. The only reason to include autobids from every conference is to make sure you get the best team from every conference. At- larges further ensure that goal by allowing for the occasional let down game from a great team or a situation with one, two, or even three teams from the same conference being log jammed at the top of said conference. The fact that some third place team came close to beating the eventual champ some year doesn't mean squat. Lehigh has lost to quite a few eventual champs. Sometimes by quite close margins. That doesn't mean Lehigh was within a play or two of winning the championship. Apparently, to some, the playoffs should be an award for simply achieving a winning record in a self labeled "tough conference". No thanks, that's what the "what are we called this week.com bowl" is for at the next level. The playoffs are a championship, and the purpose of a championship is to determine a champion. Want to be the best shot from your conference? That's what conference play is for. If you can't beat them in the regular season, why should you automatically get another shot at them in the playoffs?

[Trumpster]

I think that most of the problems are the lack of transparency in the selection process. Make it clear so it is easy to see why one bubble team was left home verses another. I'd prefer no rematches in the first 2 rounds also, but $$$ talks.

[SIUSalukiFan]

The point of a championship is to name a champion, not reward a "middling team from a power conference" for a mediocre season. The only reason to include autobids from every conference is to make sure you get the best team from every conference. At- larges further ensure that goal by allowing for the occasional let down game from a great team or a situation with one, two, or even three teams from the same conference being log jammed at the top of said conference. The fact that some third place team came close to beating the eventual champ some year doesn't mean squat. Lehigh has lost to quite a few eventual champs. Sometimes by quite close margins. That doesn't mean Lehigh was within a play or two of winning the championship. Apparently, to some, the playoffs should be an award for simply achieving a winning record in a self labeled "tough conference". No thanks, that's what the "what are we called this week.com bowl" is for at the next level. The playoffs are a championship, and the purpose of a championship is to determine a champion. Want to be the best shot from your conference? That's what conference play is for. If you can't beat them in the regular season, why should you automatically get another shot at them in the playoffs?

How about coming up with a set of criteria that sets a playoff field without auto-bids? You can get rid of the argument about which conference is stronger that way. The top 24 teams are selected and seeded based on the criteria only.

Damn ... I sound as if I'm from Ohio State or Tennessee. xlolx

As a Southern Illinois fan, I was able to see the opposite of what I'm arguing during our great basketball run in the 2000s. We always talked about how major conferences wanted to get rid of the little guy so they could have the entire NCAA tournament to themselves.

The difference, though, is simple - football and basketball are far different beasts.

[dbackjon]

Here's actually what the bracket numbers would look like: 16/17 vs 1, 9/24 vs 8, 13/20 vs 4, 12/21 vs 5, 11/20 vs 6, 14/19 vs 3, 10/23 vs 7, 15/18 vs 2

Anyone want to formulate what actually seeding would have made the tourney look like this year? Here's a guess: 9 CCU vs 24 Butler 10 Northern Ariz vs 23 Lafayette 11 Fordham vs 22 Sacred Heart 12 B-C vs 21 Southern Utah 13 Jack St vs 20 SC ST 14 SHST vs 19 Furman 15 Samford vs 18 new Hampshire 16 SDSU vs 17 Tenn State. Notes Switched 9 and 10 (NAU vs Montana) , 22 and 23 Lafayette vs Fordham 13 and 14 (jack St vs EIU) needed to be avoided

I like that, but SDSU should be the 12 or 13 seed. Defin. not 16 (next game against NDSU)

[Texas]

ITT cry babies that didn't make the playoffs or will face someone that beat them earlier and will be beaten again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Professor Chaos]

Same can be said about the lower conferences that get a second team in.


Examples, please?
Agree on the examples. You may be right and I'm just not aware of them. I also am not too versed in the history of the subdivision before NDSU joined so I could be overlooking someone from before then but lately there hasn't been much success that I can think of from the non-power conference at large teams.

[DSUrocks07]

Examples, please?

AN example

2012: Stony Brook (Big South at-large) over Villanova (CAA champ)

But beyond that then we're talking about a time where there were only 16 in the field. And going back the last 10 years, a majority of these power conference schools that made "deep runs" did so at the expense of the lower conferences. So you can't on one hand dismiss the so-called weaker conference as undeserving, and then pointing to postseason history that multi-bid power schools win a game or two in the playoffs.

*lower conference school goes out in the first round* "These schools have no chance, why do we let them in?? We need more power conference schools in the playoffs!"

*power conference school go out in the first round* "Well, we COULD have went deeper. The system works!!" xcoffeex

[Green26]

The point of a championship is to name a champion, not reward a "middling team from a power conference" for a mediocre season. The only reason to include autobids from every conference is to make sure you get the best team from every conference. At- larges further ensure that goal by allowing for the occasional let down game from a great team or a situation with one, two, or even three teams from the same conference being log jammed at the top of said conference. The fact that some third place team came close to beating the eventual champ some year doesn't mean squat. Lehigh has lost to quite a few eventual champs. Sometimes by quite close margins. That doesn't mean Lehigh was within a play or two of winning the championship. Apparently, to some, the playoffs should be an award for simply achieving a winning record in a self labeled "tough conference". No thanks, that's what the "what are we called this week.com bowl" is for at the next level. The playoffs are a championship, and the purpose of a championship is to determine a champion. Want to be the best shot from your conference? That's what conference play is for. If you can't beat them in the regular season, why should you automatically get another shot at them in the playoffs?

The point is that the nos. 3 or 4 teams from power conferences, in some years, are not "middling". They are good teams capable of going deep in the playoffs. In 2008, Richmond, the no. 3 team in the CAA, won the national championship. They beat App St and UNI on the road, and Montana in Chattanooga.

The playoffs are about putting together the best field of top level teams, with hope/goal of having a competitive tourney, and also sprinking in the champions of some of the lesser conferences for inclusion and other reasons. It's just like the ncaa hoops tourney. Conference winners and mostly the next best teams from multiple conferences, especially the power conferences.

This year it is a travesty that the MV, perhaps the toughest conference this year, has only 2 teams, and the not-so-strong Ohio Valley has 3 teams, 2 of which are 9-3. Those 2 teams didn't play or beat anyone of note, nor play close games with anyone of note. The nos. 3 and 4 teams in the MV would crush them. And So Car St? Come on. SCS is not deserving. SCS played 2 credible FCS teams and lost to both of them. And 5-7 Layfayette; they're in only because the goofy thing that prevented Fordham from being the auto-bid. What's with that?

- - - Updated - - -


If you're 4th or 5th best in your conference, you're not a top team in the country.

The 3d, 4th and 5th teams in the MV and Big Sky this year, would clobber most of the no. 2 teams from the lesser conferences. They may not be top teams, but they are much better than some of the teams that get selected each year.

[JayJ79]

How about coming up with a set of criteria that sets a playoff field without auto-bids? You can get rid of the argument about which conference is stronger that way. The top 24 teams are selected and seeded based on the criteria only.

that wouldn't do one bit to get rid of the argument about which conference is stronger.
You'd still have Big Sky, CAA, and MVFC fans arguing about which of their conferences is best (perhaps with the Southland, Southern, or another conference getting into the argument as well). The only difference that getting rid of the auto-bids would make would be that instead of those conferences arguing about the merits of their 2-4 teams in the playoffs, they'd be arguing about their 4-7 teams in.

[FormerPokeCenter]

If I were in charge, I'd find a way to harness the greenhouse gases being emitted by all the whining and mewling going on...

If you could sell that, you could pay down the national debt, finance a larger playoff field and implement psychological counseling for those programs who need to be held, consoled and hugged after the egregious affrontery foisted upon them by the selection committee...

[Texas]

If I were in charge, I'd find a way to harness the greenhouse gases being emitted by all the whining and mewling going on...

If you could sell that, you could pay down the national debt, finance a larger playoff field and implement psychological counseling for those programs who need to be held, consoled and hugged after the egregious affrontery foisted upon them by the selection committee...

You're trying to hard to be funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[FormerPokeCenter]

You're trying to hard to be funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Speaking of trying too hard, why don't you go do your gnat routine by somebody else's ear??

[Texas]

Speaking of trying too hard, why don't you go do your gnat routine by somebody else's ear??

http://altmnl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Because-You-Try-Too-Hard.gif


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[FormerPokeCenter]

http://altmnl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Because-You-Try-Too-Hard.gif

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)


I like you better when you post animated GIFS...at least that way you're not wasting bandwidth on what passes for "thought" in your world...

[ElCid]

I would not do a dog gone thing. Any time people try to fix something, they usually screw it up.

[JayJ79]

I would not do a dog gone thing. Any time people try to fix something, they usually screw it up.

like legalizing the forward pass in football. totally screwed up the sport.

[maine612]

I wish there was an FCS playoff game on tomorrow instead of crappy NFL games.

[Bison56]

I would just take conference winners. Keeps it simple that way guys like Texas doesnt get confused.xpeacex

[SIUSalukiFan]

I would not do a dog gone thing. Any time people try to fix something, they usually screw it up.

Like making the SRS the guide for the playoff selection committee?

[Wallace]

Like making the SRS the guide for the playoff selection committee?

making a single computer regressive rating the guide is a bad idea.

[IBleedYellow]

Not allow people to bitch about the teams.

Moto X

[caribbeanhen]

You would have to get some of the more financially challenged NDST players in on the fix, and than we just might have a tourney that wasn't already decided....