Number of Playoff Teams for 2015 and Beyond

[TypicalTribe]

There are other polls dealing with the MEAC's decision to effectively leave the playoff fold, but I want this one to focus on the playoff format itself. With Kennesaw St and ETSU coming aboard and with the IVY, SWAC and MEAC not taking any spots, I count only 96 teams in the eligible pool for the near future. If we acknowledge that the 11 Pioneer teams are only fighting for one spot, that means that there's really 85 teams in the running for 23 playoff berths. That equates to a 27% chance of making the playoffs for the teams from the other 9 auto-bid conferences. That's a ridiculously high number compared to the other divisions. Is that a good thing or has it watered down the quality of play in the postseason?

So, it begs the question. What is the best number of playoff teams for the current state of the FCS? 16, 20 or 24?

[Professor Chaos]

I voted 20 teams but I'd like to qualify that by saying I still want to see the top 8 seeded. If it's 20 teams with 5 seeds (like it used to be in the 20 team field) or 24 teams with 8 seeds I'll take the 24 team model.

[taper]

16, all seeded. Playoffs are supposed to determine the best team, not be a reward for a decent season.

[superman7515]

16, all seeded. Playoffs are supposed to determine the best team, not be a reward for a decent season.

16 teams, all seeded, with no AQ's to any conference whatsoever is a model I could get behind.

[dewey]

16, all seeded. Playoffs are supposed to determine the best team, not be a reward for a decent season.

I voted for 16 but I would also prefer that they all be seeded. I would also advocate for the 9 auto bid conferences and 7 at large teams.

Dewey

[TypicalTribe]

I voted for 16 but I would also prefer that they all be seeded. I would also advocate for the 9 auto bid conferences and 7 at large teams.

Dewey

If we could undo the Pioneer auto-bid, I think this would be the way to go as well.

[dbackjon]

20 - all seeded.


What makes FCS great is everyone has a chance. We are not FBS-lite

[Grizalltheway]

16 teams, all seeded, with no AQ's to any conference whatsoever is a model I could get behind.

Here's a model I could get behind:

http://nailacollection.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/brooklyn-decker-f.jpg

[Professor Chaos]

20 - all seeded.


What makes FCS great is everyone has a chance. We are not FBS-lite
Agreed, I don't see what the big deal with the autobids are. Give every conference a team in the tournament. All it does is make the bottom 8-16 teams play an extra game and those teams don't really have much of a title shot anyway. Similar to the NCAA basketball tournament, the tournament isn't all about the big boys who are the title contenders but it's also about the little guys who win a game or two and give their fans a bigger thrill than some fans whose team wins the title get.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This poll is pointless because the playoffs will not contract.

[TypicalTribe]

Just for the sake of argument, here's what this year's field could have looked like:

#16 Sacred Heart at #1 UNH
#9 Northern Iowa at #8 Chattanooga

#13 Fordham at #4 EWU
#12 Montana at #5 ISU

#14 Liberty at #3 JSU
#11 South Dakota State at #6 Villanova

#15 James Madison at #2 NDSU
#10 Southeastern Louisiana at #7 Coastal

Not only is this a really good field with quality games right out of the blocks, but I can't really imagine too much squawking from the bubble.

[TypicalTribe]

This poll is pointless because the playoffs will not contract.

Just asking for people's opinions. Not trying to lobby the NCAA. Take it easy.

[taper]

20 - all seeded.


What makes FCS great is everyone has a chance. We are not FBS-lite

Going to 16 drops the Thanksgiving games, which are sparsely attended and almost always lose money. Win-win all around. 16 still gives every deserving conference an auto-bid plus enough at larges to cover anybody with a shot at the title.

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

I do like the idea of seeding 1-16 or 20. Part of the playoffs should be facing teams from other regions...

Getting a bye so you don't have to deal with the hassle and $$$$ of making travel plans the Saturday after Thanksgiving doesn't hurt though.

Ok, 20 teams in seed 1-16 regionalization only for the Saturday after Thanksgiving.

There....settled...who do I forward this too?

[TypicalTribe]

Going to 16 drops the Thanksgiving games, which are sparsely attended and almost always lose money. Win-win all around. 16 still gives every deserving conference an auto-bid plus enough at larges to cover anybody with a shot at the title.

+1

Every team gets a week before the playoffs to rest up and get healthy and the fans get some extra time to plan for a playoff game, home or away. Then, effectively a three week postseason and another break before the chipper. I think it would be great.

[clenz]

16 can't happen

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

Going to 16 drops the Thanksgiving games, which are sparsely attended and almost always lose money. Win-win all around. 16 still gives every deserving conference an auto-bid plus enough at larges to cover anybody with a shot at the title.
Going to 16 would likely mean everyone plays the Saturday after Thanksgiving and we'd go back to having a week or less between the semis and the final (getting all the games done before Christmas). Getting the highly seeded teams out of playing the Saturday after Thanksgiving and getting the break in between the semis and the final is the main reason why I like the 20-24 team fields over the 16 team field.

[MR. CHICKEN]

20410....LEAVE IT ALONE......MAYBEAH...........YOUNGSTOWN WOOD GET IN.......WHIFF UH LATE SEASON......3 GAME SLIDE....MO' OPS.....FO' DUH BUBBLES....AN' POSSI-BLAH......UH....SECOND/THIRD PLACE MEAC SQWAD.....xnodxxtwocentsxxnodx....BRAWK!


AN'...........FORCIN' DUH BAH TEAMS TA PLAY THANX-GIVIN' .....WOOD COST NCAA $,$$$,$$$,$$$.....AS TURKEY & X-MAS CRUSH......MO' IMPORTANTE.......TA FICKLED FANS....AWK!


SENT FROM MAH COMPUTER.....OL' HAL

[dbackjon]

16 can't happen

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Yup - unless you are kicking out two more auto=bids

[superman7515]

Take away all the autobids. If the Big South, CAA, MVFC, NEC, SoCon, SLC have a bad year and none of their teams are in the Top 16 in the nation, F$&# 'em.

[MR. CHICKEN]

20411.....MO' GAMES....EQUALS......MO' FUN DISCUSSION HERE.....INCREASES DUH CHANCE O' UPSETS.......KEEPS ESPN3 ON AIR.......PLENTAH FODDERAH....FO' VALLEY BOYS.....WHEN TEAMS #6-7-8....AREN'T SELECTED..........AH LOVE DUH DANCE.....WHIFF LOTS UH PARTNERS.....xnodx....AWQ!

[AmsterBison]

20 because I don't like games scheduled on Thanksgiving weekend.

16 is appealing too - as long as they keep the rule about "no conference rematches in the first round" - and don't put games on Thanksgiving weekend.

Heck, I wouldn't complain about any of the options other than 16 games if they play the first round on Thanksgiving Weekend.

[FargoBison]

I would hate a 16 team playoff, the top teams deserve a bye and that makes 20 by far and away the best. People can think regionalization would go away but it won't so that will make a 16 team playoff even worse. Plus every team will play on the Saturday after Thanksgiving and there is also the fact that the Pioneer, Big South and NEC have bids making it impossible anyway.

Give me 20 teams and seed 8 teams.

That said I'm sure 24 is here to stay, it will be an extremely watered down field of teams.

[clenz]

Yup - unless you are kicking out two more auto=bids
I don't know why people struggle to realize this.

I also dont think you can have an ncaa sanctioned playoff with no auto bids.

So...


16 is out of the question

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[aceinthehole]

16 is a non-starter. Does not meet NCAA championship gudiance regarding AQ/at-large access.

24 might be just a bit too large. With 10 AQ bids and 14 at-large openings there is room to trim back.

20 is probably just right. Equally split between AQ access and at-large bids. I think seeding the top-8 is sufficent.

[PAllen]

16, all seeded. Playoffs are supposed to determine the best team, not be a reward for a decent season.

This. Autobids + a few at large berths for 2nd place teams from the top conferences, those ineligible for autobids for whatever reason, or the occasional hiccup by a clearly superior team. If you're the 4th place team in your conference, then you aren't the best team in the country. If you barely scrape by playing a crappy schedule and can't win your conference, then you're not the best team in the country. It should take something special to make the playoffs, not just winning most of your regular season games. You want a reward for a winning season? move to FBS and play in the nobodycares.com bowl.

[walliver]

I think 16 is a good number. Since the Big South, NEC and Pioneer League are not going to give up their auto-bids, 20 is a good compromise.

[MR. CHICKEN]

I think 16 is a good number. Since the Big South, NEC and Pioneer League are not going to give up their auto-bids, 20 is a good compromise.



20417....AN' TA ALL PROPONENTS UH 20.....DON'T POST UH TEAR-JERKERAH.......ON HOW YER SQWAD...........JES' HAD UH BIG TOE IN DUH DANCE DOOR......AS YER EQUIPMENT MANAGER.....IS COUNTIN' PADS ON MONDAY B/4 THANX-GIVIN'......GIMME UH FULL.....TWO DOZEN...xnodx....AWK!


HOW CAN YA'S...LET ONE A/Q......CHAMPION DUH DEMISE O' 3 MO'....TEAMS.....AWK??

[KPSUL]

Mr Chicken is right, as usual. It takes the same number of weekends to play a 20 team field as a 24. The MEAC departure would have only taken one team out of the 2014 field and it was the consensus worst playoff team.

[WTFCollegefootballfan]

24. Strongest will survive. More exposure for FCS.

[Professor Chaos]

Mr Chicken is right, as usual. It takes the same number of weekends to play a 20 team field as a 24. The MEAC departure would have only taken one team out of the 2014 field and it was the consensus worst playoff team.
Morgan St definitely wasn't good but I'd say San Diego was worse.

[kalm]

Totally with Mr. Chicken on this one and I can't for the life of me understand why any FCS fan would want less teams.

It gives your power conference bubble team a shot an extra game (Montana, Montana State, SELU, EIU would have been out this year with 16) and an extra shot at a home game, it gives a weaker conference team a chance at a win or a chance to get it in if they don't win the auto bid, it provides the elite teams with no less games but a much welcome and advantageous rest week to get healthy. Nothing gets watered down in the end.

More football, more FCS football, more BSC football, and more EWU football are good things.

Getting to the end of the season, and going 'man that was just too much football' is liking saying 'man, those tits are just too big'.

[Silenoz]

Totally with Mr. Chicken on this one and I can't for the life of me understand why any FCS fan would want less teams.

It gives your power conference bubble team a shot an extra game (Montana, Montana State, SELU, EIU would have been out this year with 16) and an extra shot at a home game, it gives a weaker conference team a chance at a win or a chance to get it in if they don't win the auto bid, it provides the elite teams with no less games but a much welcome and advantageous rest week to get healthy. Nothing gets watered down in the end.

More football, more FCS football, more BSC football, and more EWU football are good things.

Getting to the end of the season, and going 'man that was just too much football' is liking saying 'man, those tits are just too big'.
Yeah I dunno. I don't see too many people crying out for more bowl games so that we can have more FBS football. Or adding more play-in games to March Madness. Or more CTI/CBI/NIT/CIA/whatever post-season tournaments.

It's just watering everything down more and more.

[Silenoz]

...and I know the Pioneer bid is something of an outlier, but when you can literally make the focus of the 2nd half of a playoff game getting a 5th-year senior (who never plays) his first career receptions and TD, something is wrong. Winning a (single) playoff game is usually the pinnacle moment for many FCS programs' histories...

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

I like 24 teams!

[major095]

The playoffs to determine the FCS champion, should be conference champions only! How is it your team want to be the best in the FCS division, but couldn't win it's own conference? A playoff bid is something that can only be earned with a conference championship. Isn't the conference champ, by definition your leagues best team?

Now some of you will say, "Hey our conference is super tough and the 3rd place team from our conference is better than the champ of that little conference." That might be true, but since our schools get to chose the conference they compete in I'd respond that, is what you chose. Don't like that your school finished 2nd and isn't invited? Win more games! Now the regular season would actually mean a heck of a lot more. The FCS champ would ACTUALLY be the "Champion of Champions", which right now it isn't.

Many of you will not like this plan, but you have no real good argument against it. You'll say best team but can't tell me how the 3rd best team in your conference could possibly be the best team (if they are then why are they 3rd?). You'll say they're better than this conference but where's the proof beyond speculation? That is the point and purpose of the PLAY-offs, to allow the best to be determined, but if we already know a school isn't the best (didn't win a conference title) how do we justify their participation?

[PAllen]

The playoffs to determine the FCS champion, should be conference champions only! How is it your team want to be the best in the FCS division, but couldn't win it's own conference? A playoff bid is something that can only be earned with a conference championship. Isn't the conference champ, by definition your leagues best team?

Now some of you will say, "Hey our conference is super tough and the 3rd place team from our conference is better than the champ of that little conference." That might be true, but since our schools get to chose the conference they compete in I'd respond that, is what you chose. Don't like that your school finished 2nd and isn't invited? Win more games! Now the regular season would actually mean a heck of a lot more. The FCS champ would ACTUALLY be the "Champion of Champions", which right now it isn't.

Many of you will not like this plan, but you have no real good argument against it. You'll say best team but can't tell me how the 3rd best team in your conference could possibly be the best team (if they are then why are they 3rd?). You'll say they're better than this conference but where's the proof beyond speculation? That is the point and purpose of the PLAY-offs, to allow the best to be determined, but if we already know a school isn't the best (didn't win a conference title) how do we justify their participation?

I agree for the most part, however, there is a need for at least some at-large births. Every year, there are a few teams that fall into one of the following categories: ineligible for an autobid, one of multiple teams tied for a conference championship, or had one WTF/Hurricane/Terrible Officials/... game which cost them the conference tie breaker to a lesser team.

[kalm]

The playoffs to determine the FCS champion, should be conference champions only! How is it your team want to be the best in the FCS division, but couldn't win it's own conference? A playoff bid is something that can only be earned with a conference championship. Isn't the conference champ, by definition your leagues best team?

Now some of you will say, "Hey our conference is super tough and the 3rd place team from our conference is better than the champ of that little conference." That might be true, but since our schools get to chose the conference they compete in I'd respond that, is what you chose. Don't like that your school finished 2nd and isn't invited? Win more games! Now the regular season would actually mean a heck of a lot more. The FCS champ would ACTUALLY be the "Champion of Champions", which right now it isn't.

Many of you will not like this plan, but you have no real good argument against it. You'll say best team but can't tell me how the 3rd best team in your conference could possibly be the best team (if they are then why are they 3rd?). You'll say they're better than this conference but where's the proof beyond speculation? That is the point and purpose of the PLAY-offs, to allow the best to be determined, but if we already know a school isn't the best (didn't win a conference title) how do we justify their participation?

Not sure if serious...

Teams can improve throughout a season and the 2nd or 3rd best team in a conference can in fact be the best team in that conference by the end of the season.

How do at-large bids change the FCS champ being the Champion of the the Champions?

There's a whole history of proof regarding 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place teams beating champions from other conferences in the playoffs.

If the purpose of the playoffs is to allow the best to be determined, there should be no auto-bids and the committee should pick the 24 best teams. A nice compromise is to keep the size and health of FCS football robust by allowing auto bids from conferences AND at-larges.

Hey look, it's Wildcard Weekend coming up and road to March Madness is now in full swing!

[major095]

I agree for the most part, however, there is a need for at least some at-large births. Every year, there are a few teams that fall into one of the following categories: ineligible for an autobid, one of multiple teams tied for a conference championship, or had one WTF/Hurricane/Terrible Officials/... game which cost them the conference tie breaker to a lesser team.

Unfortunately some at large teams would be required. There are 13 fcs conferences. the ivy isn't participating no matter what, so that leaves 12. the choice would be provide a bye for a couple of teams (sort of defeats the idea of a PLAY-off), or add a few at large teams to get to 16. conferences would need to clarify their procedures for declaring a champ, and if you lost because of WTF/Hurricane/Terrible Officials... that just too bad, because the other team had the same circumstances and found a way to win.

[MR. CHICKEN]

The playoffs to determine the FCS champion, should be conference champions only! How is it your team want to be the best in the FCS division, but couldn't win it's own conference? A playoff bid is something that can only be earned with a conference championship. Isn't the conference champ, by definition your leagues best team?

Now some of you will say, "Hey our conference is super tough and the 3rd place team from our conference is better than the champ of that little conference." That might be true, but since our schools get to chose the conference they compete in I'd respond that, is what you chose. Don't like that your school finished 2nd and isn't invited? Win more games! Now the regular season would actually mean a heck of a lot more. The FCS champ would ACTUALLY be the "Champion of Champions", which right now it isn't.

Many of you will not like this plan, but you have no real good argument against it. You'll say best team but can't tell me how the 3rd best team in your conference could possibly be the best team (if they are then why are they 3rd?). You'll say they're better than this conference but where's the proof beyond speculation? That is the point and purpose of the PLAY-offs, to allow the best to be determined, but if we already know a school isn't the best (didn't win a conference title) how do we justify their participation?


20421....LET'S SAY...NORFF DAKOTAH STATE/ISU-RED.......PLAYED FO' MVC CHAMPIONSHIP....AN' WHOM-EVERAH LOST......UNDERAH YER PROPOSAL....WOOD BE HOME...FO' DUH HOLIDAYS......NOW LOOK HOW...DUH BIZONS/'BIRDS....WENT THRU OURAH CURRENT WAY UH DOIN' THINGS.....EACH O' DESE SQWADS......TOOK OUT MANY UH CONFERENCE CHAMP.......SO TA DENY ONE DUH CHANCE AS UH AT LARGE ENTRY......MIS-JUSTICE........GIMME DUH 24......'CAUSE AS SOME HAVE MENTIONED......DEY'RE PLENTAH REASONS WHAA....SECOND /THIRD PLACE SQWADS...SHOOD BE ALLOWED IN....xnodxxnodxxnodx...BRAWK!

ps.....AN' TA DENY UNI...WHOM DID BOFF O' 'EM IN......CRIMINAL....AWK!

SENT FROM MAH COMPUTER.....HAL

[Ivytalk]

Let's have the best 16, and the devil take the hindmost.

[Sader87]

I think the "bloom is starting to come off the rose" of the FCS playoffs a bit with some leagues/schools for many of the reasons stated in this and other threads: too many teams (watered down pool), too long/protracted at a tough time both academically (for players), socially (for fans), going up against Thanksgiving, XMas-season etc) and in many cases the weather: playing at outdoor venues in early/mid Decembah. Throw in the cost of bidding for these games (for minimal return or loss in many cases), the regionalization of the playoffs which sort of artificially skews the tournament and sundry other reasons, I can see why the MEAC may pull out of the playoffs.

You can retort with "sour grapes" on my paht....and that's fine. I like the idea of an FCS playoff system but I'm increasingly not a big fan of what it has evolved into. At one point I would have howled at the moon if the PL pulled back out of the FCS playoffs, today I'd meet that response with a shrug.

[major095]

Not sure if serious...

Teams can improve throughout a season and the 2nd or 3rd best team in a conference can in fact be the best team in that conference by the end of the season.

How do at-large bids change the FCS champ being the Champion of the the Champions?

There's a whole history of proof regarding 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place teams beating champions from other conferences in the playoffs.

If the purpose of the playoffs is to allow the best to be determined, there should be no auto-bids and the committee should pick the 24 best teams. A nice compromise is to keep the size and health of FCS football robust by allowing auto bids from conferences AND at-larges.

Hey look, it's Wildcard Weekend coming up and road to March Madness is now in full swing!

so if the 2nd or 3rd best team in your conference is the best team, what's the point of having a conference champion? can one of those other teams be playing the best football at the end of the year? yes, but being the best implies a level of consistency which clearly the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place team didn't exhibit, otherwise they'd be 1st.

so yes, teams that have not performed consistently well through the season can beat a conference champion. the question i pose is should teams that have not performed consistently well enough to win a conference championship be allowed to participate in a tourney to determine who the best teams are. I say no. If you not the toughest kid on your block, how do you think your toughest kid in the city?

[Sycamore62]

The playoffs to determine the FCS champion, should be conference champions only! How is it your team want to be the best in the FCS division, but couldn't win it's own conference? A playoff bid is something that can only be earned with a conference championship. Isn't the conference champ, by definition your leagues best team?

Now some of you will say, "Hey our conference is super tough and the 3rd place team from our conference is better than the champ of that little conference." That might be true, but since our schools get to chose the conference they compete in I'd respond that, is what you chose. Don't like that your school finished 2nd and isn't invited? Win more games! Now the regular season would actually mean a heck of a lot more. The FCS champ would ACTUALLY be the "Champion of Champions", which right now it isn't.

Many of you will not like this plan, but you have no real good argument against it. You'll say best team but can't tell me how the 3rd best team in your conference could possibly be the best team (if they are then why are they 3rd?). You'll say they're better than this conference but where's the proof beyond speculation? That is the point and purpose of the PLAY-offs, to allow the best to be determined, but if we already know a school isn't the best (didn't win a conference title) how do we justify their participation?

I suppose some years the 2nd best team in your conference could end up playing the best team in your conference in the NC game.

[skinny_uncle]

so if the 2nd or 3rd best team in your conference is the best team, what's the point of having a conference champion? can one of those other teams be playing the best football at the end of the year? yes, but being the best implies a level of consistency which clearly the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place team didn't exhibit, otherwise they'd be 1st.

so yes, teams that have not performed consistently well through the season can beat a conference champion. the question i pose is should teams that have not performed consistently well enough to win a conference championship be allowed to participate in a tourney to determine who the best teams are. I say no. If you not the toughest kid on your block, how do you think your toughest kid in the city?

WKU won the national title a few years ago even though they did not win the Valley autobid. I'm sure there are other examples. This seems to me to be the biggest hole in your argument.

[Go...gate]

Sixteen.

[clenz]

Again....

16 is a complete non starter...period.

You can't strip AQ bids, period.
You can't have less at large bids than AQ bids, period. .

Stop with the 16 team talk.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[major095]

WKU won the national title a few years ago even though they did not win the Valley autobid. I'm sure there are other examples. This seems to me to be the biggest hole in your argument.

It's not a hole at all. I'm not disputing that nearly any team could get hot at the right time and win the playoffs. I'm arguing that teams that haven't proven themselves to be among the best by winning with the consistency necessary to capture a conference title don't belong in the playoffs. The fact that WKU won the playoffs is evidence that they got hot at the right time. It is not evidence that they had EARNED a spot in the playoffs. My take is that a spot should only be provided to conference champions. I understand most people don't feel the same way. I feel the same about the fbs playoff, particularly since all conference champions can not/are not provided for in their set up.

[Sycamore62]

It's not a hole at all. I'm not disputing that nearly any team could get hot at the right time and win the playoffs. I'm arguing that teams that haven't proven themselves to be among the best by winning with the consistency necessary to capture a conference title don't belong in the playoffs. The fact that WKU won the playoffs is evidence that they got hot at the right time. It is not evidence that they had EARNED a spot in the playoffs. My take is that a spot should only be provided to conference champions. I understand most people don't feel the same way. I feel the same about the fbs playoff, particularly since all conference champions can not/are not provided for in their set up.

Conferences would likely break up and nobody would have more than the minimum needed for an AQ

[BisonTru]

It's not a hole at all. I'm not disputing that nearly any team could get hot at the right time and win the playoffs. I'm arguing that teams that haven't proven themselves to be among the best by winning with the consistency necessary to capture a conference title don't belong in the playoffs. The fact that WKU won the playoffs is evidence that they got hot at the right time. It is not evidence that they had EARNED a spot in the playoffs. My take is that a spot should only be provided to conference champions. I understand most people don't feel the same way. I feel the same about the fbs playoff, particularly since all conference champions can not/are not provided for in their set up.

To me the playoffs are more than just a series of games to determine a champion. It is also, the end of the year tournament where we see how the top 24 teams from around the country stack up. The first week of the playoffs probably aren't featuring the eventual champion, but (to me anyways) it is still interesting to see who beats who. Kind of like March Madness features 68 teams, but at least half (conservatively) don't have a chance at winning it all.

Furthermore, if the FCS went to an AQ-only tournament, what is the incentive to play in a tough conference? What about the OOC schedule? Why not play pay-day FBS games and cheap DIII games. Doesn't matter win your conference your in. What you do out of conference doesn't matter.

I'd leave the playoffs at 24. Win your conference or be one of the next best 14 and your in. I have no problem letting in a one loss ISUr even though they didn't win the AQ and now they are playing for the trophy.

[taper]

Again....

16 is a complete non starter...period.

You can't strip AQ bids, period.
You can't have less at large bids than AQ bids, period. .

Stop with the 16 team talk.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I agree that 16 probably won't happen, but don't say it's impossible. NCAA rules can be changed by the NCAA in the blink of an eye.

[clenz]

I agree that 16 probably won't happen, but don't say it's impossible. NCAA rules can be changed by the NCAA in the blink of an eye.
No.

16 literally can't happen without changing the by laws. That isn't going to happen. Period.

The NCAA gets their money no matter what. They aren't changing their rules to get less money.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[dgtw]

Is there a case of someone ever. reducing the teams in their playoffs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[skinny_uncle]

I think it stays the same. The MEAC leaving only strengthens the field. Can you name an at-large possibility this year who couldn't beat the MEAC champ?

[lionsrking2]

This poll is pointless because the playoffs will not contract.

Agreed. It'll expand to 32 before it ever contracts.

[Twentysix]

Agreed. It'll expand to 32 before it ever contracts.

:\

24 is already alot, I agree with what you are saying, but I am disgusted by the thought of a 32 team playoff.

[lionsrking2]

:\

24 is already alot, I agree with what you are saying, but I am disgusted by the thought of a 32 team playoff.

I'm not, I would love a 32 team bracket. Takes the same amount of time to play a 24 team bracket and eliminates first round byes. Takes care of all the conference autobids and should include all deserving at-large possibilities. Plus if the committee goal is regionalization (as it seems to be), it should make it easier to geographically pair teams in the first round. For those who say it would penalize seeded teams for having to play a first round game, they get enough of an advantage playing home games.

[bkrownd]

8 is plenty

[MR. CHICKEN]

I think it stays the same. The MEAC leaving only strengthens the field. Can you name an at-large possibility this year who couldn't beat the MEAC champ?


20424...........SAN DIEGO?.........xdontknowx.......AWK!


SENT FROM MAH COMPUTER.....HAL

[clenz]

20424...........SAN DIEGO?.........xdontknowx.......AWK!


SENT FROM MAH COMPUTER.....HALhttp://www.nationalsportsrankings.com/index.php?option=com_oneonone

San Diego(2014) wins 60 of 100 matchups against Morgan St.(2014)
Projected Score: San Diego 28 Morgan St. 25

Margin of Victory: 3 Points


Game
Morgan St.(2014)
San Diego(2014)


1
14
24


2
26
40


3
37
32


4
11
12


5
38
44


6
26
17


7
26
39


8
33
35


9
32
28


10
22
23


11
21
31


12
31
52


13
9
12


14
9
29


15
18
21


16
12
27


17
23
22


18
31
39


19
19
24


20
21
28


21
13
29


22
38
35


23
23
13


24
33
31


25
26
21


26
29
43


27
25
21


28
24
20


29
28
39


30
24
14


31
9
22


32
30
13


33
43
35


34
17
33


35
28
16


36
31
37


37
21
37


38
24
21


39
35
38


40
39
45


41
17
22


42
35
24


43
36
44


44
9
20


45
42
34


46
34
40


47
30
35


48
21
28


49
44
38


50
43
37


51
20
29


52
33
30


53
26
18


54
34
27


55
17
26


56
20
28


57
44
39


58
23
30


59
22
24


60
21
20


61
38
45


62
10
14


63
8
26


64
42
35


65
33
29


66
27
39


67
22
33


68
9
20


69
33
19


70
34
45


71
42
45


72
13
17


73
45
32


74
25
43


75
23
28


76
29
23


77
39
32


78
15
25


79
21
15


80
14
30


81
10
27


82
28
21


83
32
21


84
24
20


85
20
18


86
22
44


87
29
17


88
33
31


89
11
28


90
10
22


91
13
28


92
3
10


93
24
42


94
12
14


95
30
17


96
43
30


97
14
12


98
16
35


99
20
32


100
27
40

[kalm]

so if the 2nd or 3rd best team in your conference is the best team, what's the point of having a conference champion? can one of those other teams be playing the best football at the end of the year? yes, but being the best implies a level of consistency which clearly the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th place team didn't exhibit, otherwise they'd be 1st.

so yes, teams that have not performed consistently well through the season can beat a conference champion. the question i pose is should teams that have not performed consistently well enough to win a conference championship be allowed to participate in a tourney to determine who the best teams are. I say no. If you not the toughest kid on your block, how do you think your toughest kid in the city?

So why have auto bids at all? I mean going strictly off of conference championships is kind of arbitrary considering the differences in talent between the conferences. What makes that formula a legitimate predictor of who the best 16 teams are? Isn't that you're stated interest here?

Playoffs, wildcards, bubbles, bracket busters, cinderellas, upsets…all really positive. There are too many great and obvious examples to make them worth listing.

[superman7515]

Again....

16 is a complete non starter...period.

You can't strip AQ bids, period.
You can't have less at large bids than AQ bids, period. .

Stop with the 16 team talk.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Well considering we were talking about what would be our preference, not what would happen, then 16 is perfectly acceptable for someone to prefer. There are other NCAA sports without autobids for the postseason, just add FCS football to the mix.

[clenz]

Well considering we were talking about what would be our preference, not what would happen, then 16 is perfectly acceptable for someone to prefer. There are other NCAA sports without autobids for the postseason, just add FCS football to the mix.
Which sports?

I will bet that they are small "olympic sports" with low/very low national participation.

[superman7515]

Which sports?

I will bet that they are small "olympic sports" with low/very low national participation.

Exactly. So the notion that there are no NCAA sanctioned tournaments without autobids is patently false. What makes the Big Sky, CAA, MVFC, SoCon, or SLC any more worthy of an autobid to a cost-containment sports tournament for Little Sisters of the Poor schools who can't compete dollar-for-dollar on the big stage with the Michigans, Ohio States, USC's, Florida's, and Alabama's than the PFL, PL, MEAC, or SWAC? Seems the majority have no issue if the NCAA wanted to take the auto from the PFL, there'd be no outcry if the MEAC stayed in the playoffs but the NCAA took their bid anyway. The last few years many wanted the PL and OVC bids taken away. What part of cost-containment football makes one conference better than another simply because of the way they choose to contain costs?

[taper]

No.

16 literally can't happen without changing the by laws. That isn't going to happen. Period.

The NCAA gets their money no matter what. They aren't changing their rules to get less money.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

By laws can be changed by a 2/3rds vote of the 32 member Legislative Council and ratified by simple majority of 18 member Board of Directors. Membership review or vote is not required with a 2/3rds majority of the council. It could literally happen tomorrow if they wanted it bad enough. It usually takes much, much longer but by laws do change, there was an update this year already.

I really doubt the NCAA makes any meaningful money in the 1st round most years. The minimum host bid is probably close to break even for them and most schools definitely lose money.

Again, I'm not saying the NCAA will do this and I'm not about to start calling council members and lobbying. There's no real financial reason to keep it at 24 instead of 16 though.

[clenz]

By laws can be changed by a 2/3rds vote of the 32 member Legislative Council and ratified by simple majority of 18 member Board of Directors. Membership review or vote is not required with a 2/3rds majority of the council. It could literally happen tomorrow if they wanted it bad enough. It usually takes much, much longer but by laws do change, there was an update this year already.

I really doubt the NCAA makes any meaningful money in the 1st round most years. The minimum host bid is probably close to break even for them and most schools definitely lose money.

Again, I'm not saying the NCAA will do this and I'm not about to start calling council members and lobbying. There's no real financial reason to keep it at 24 instead of 16 though.
If all 8 teams only bid the minimum for the first round...and none sold tickets than the bid the NCAA still makes 175K.

With the way bus trips are set up at this point they'd still be doing okay for themselves.

Then we have schools bidding 70-80k for the first round...and JMU going well over 100k

[Bisonator]

I'm not, I would love a 32 team bracket. Takes the same amount of time to play a 24 team bracket and eliminates first round byes. Takes care of all the conference autobids and should include all deserving at-large possibilities. Plus if the committee goal is regionalization (as it seems to be), it should make it easier to geographically pair teams in the first round. For those who say it would penalize seeded teams for having to play a first round game, they get enough of an advantage playing home games.

God no. 32 would be way too many. There are only 124 FCS teams total then you subtract the Ivy, Swac and now the MEAC and you only have 95 left. You want a third to make the playoffs? I suppose you want everyone to get a trophy too?? Participation ribbons???xrolleyesx

[lionsrking2]

God no. 32 would be way too many. There are only 124 FCS teams total then you subtract the Ivy, Swac and now the MEAC and you only have 95 left. You want a third to make the playoffs? I suppose you want everyone to get a trophy too?? Participation ribbons???xrolleyesx I disagree. There are 12 of 32 NFL teams make the playoffs. 10 of 30 MLB teams make it. 16 of 30 in the NBA and 16 of 30 in the NHL. There are now 38 bowl games, which translates to 76 schools out of 128 in FBS. Both Division II and III have 32 team brackets. If you're going to have 24 teams, might as well have 32. Creates more late season interest for more programs which is good for FCS football IMO.

[clenz]

I disagree. There are 12 of 32 NFL teams make the playoffs. 10 of 30 MLB teams make it. 16 of 30 in the NBA and 16 of 30 in the NHL. There are now 38 bowl games, which translates to 76 schools out of 128 in FBS. Both Division II and III have 32 team brackets. If you're going to have 24 teams, might as well have 32. Creates more late season interest for more programs which is good for FCS football IMO.
1. There are too many teams in the NBA and NHL playoffs.
2. The number of NFL and MLB teams is boarline too high...and would be too high if it wasn't for WC teams making their runs
3. There are WAY to many bowls
4. There are 171 D2 schools - 18% of the schools
5. There are 245 D3 schools - 13% of the schools

What you are suggesting is that 34% of FCS schools that participate in the playoffs making it....so you think 58 D2 teams should make the playoffs and 83 D3 schools make the playoffs?

NCAA basketball tournament - 68 of 351 (19%)

Between 15-20% is the correct number to have.

[lionsrking2]

1. There are too many teams in the NBA and NHL playoffs.
2. The number of NFL and MLB teams is boarline too high...and would be too high if it wasn't for WC teams making their runs
3. There are WAY to many bowls
4. There are 171 D2 schools - 18% of the schools
5. There are 245 D3 schools - 13% of the schools

What you are suggesting is that 34% of FCS schools that participate in the playoffs making it....so you think 58 D2 teams should make the playoffs and 83 D3 schools make the playoffs?

NCAA basketball tournament - 68 of 351 (19%)

Between 15-20% is the correct number to have.

IMO 1/3 is a good number and I use the D-II and D-III comparison to show that a 32 team field is possible. If you have 24 teams already, might as well have an additional eight to ensure everyone has to play in the first round. The top eight seeds get enough of an advantage already getting to play at home.

[clenz]

IMO 1/3 is a good number and I use the D-II and D-III comparison to show that a 32 team field is possible. If you have 24 teams already, might as well have an additional eight to ensure everyone has to play in the first round. The top eight seeds get enough of an advantage already getting to play at home.
It's possible...

How many regular season games do D2 and D3 play?

[clenz]

You also dodged my question...

Since you think 1/3 is the right number for a playoff

D2 should go to 58 and D3 to 83 team playoffs...right?

[Mattymc727]

I voted for keep it at 24. I like more teams. More the merrier.

However I love the idea of seeding through 24 to avoid the regionalization.

[lionsrking2]

You also dodged my question...

Since you think 1/3 is the right number for a playoff

D2 should go to 58 and D3 to 83 team playoffs...right?

In theory yes, but 58 and 83 present logistical issues for football due to the extra games. 32 teams does not.

[kalm]

Why is 15% the right number?

[clenz]

In theory yes, but 58 and 83 present logistical issues for football due to the extra games. 32 teams does not.
You said 1/3 is the right number

[FargoBison]

I'm not, I would love a 32 team bracket. Takes the same amount of time to play a 24 team bracket and eliminates first round byes. Takes care of all the conference autobids and should include all deserving at-large possibilities. Plus if the committee goal is regionalization (as it seems to be), it should make it easier to geographically pair teams in the first round. For those who say it would penalize seeded teams for having to play a first round game, they get enough of an advantage playing home games.

I don't even want to think of the trash that would be in the playoff this year if there were 32 teams. I completely disagree about the byes, top seeds absolutely deserve that advantage. To make a top seed have to play 5 games to win the title is ridiculous, it would make the playoffs a complete and total sham.

[Professor Chaos]

I voted for keep it at 24. I like more teams. More the merrier.

However I love the idea of seeding through 24 to avoid the regionalization.
Not picking on you but pointing it out because I've seen a few people say this but you can't seed #1 through #24 fairly and avoid regionalization at the same time. Say that in the seeding UNI ends up as #10 and SDSU ends up as #23. They have to play each other because that's what the seeds say even though they played in the regular season.

I would say if you want to seed all 24 teams and avoid regionalized rematches early in the tournament you put them into quadrants like the NCAA basketball tournament. You seed the top 4 teams as #1 seeds and they are bracketed into their quadrants to give the 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3 matchup of the top seeds in the semifinals if those teams win out. Then you have organize the last 20 teams into four #2 seeds, four #3 seeds, and so on until the #6 seeds. That way you can put teams in pods to avoid rematches from the regular season while at the same time seeding everyone. You could regionalize to a certain extent but it would give flexibility so no postseason rematches from the regular season could occur until the quarters (like they do in the NCAA basketball tournament where no regular season rematches occur until the round of 32).

This is probably all a pipe dream because it would mean higher travel costs but that's the ideal scenario to seed everyone while still avoiding rematches early in the tournament due to regionalization.

[Professor Chaos]

To illustrate my point here would be a hypothetical bracket for this year

#1 seeds
(1) New Hampshire
(2) North Dakota St
(3) Jacksonville St
(4) Eastern Washington

#2 seeds
Illinois St
Villanova
Coastal Carolina
Chattanooga

#3 seeds
Northern Iowa
Southeastern Louisiana
James Madison
South Dakota St

#4 seeds
Fordham
Richmond
Montana
Eastern Kentucky

#5 seeds
Montana St
Sam Houston St
Liberty
Indiana St

#6 seeds
Sacred Heart
Stephen F Austin
Morgan St
San Diego


UNH Region


(1) New Hampshire

(4) Fordham
(5) Liberty


(2) Villanova

(3) Northern Iowa
(6) Stephen F Austin


EWU Region


(1) Eastern Washington

(4) Eastern Kentucky
(5) Indiana St


(2) Illinois St

(3) Southeastern Louisana
(6) San Diego


NDSU Region


(1) North Dakota St

(4) Richmond
(5) Montana St


(2) Chattanooga

(3) South Dakota St
(6) Morgan St


JSU Region


(1) Jacksonville St

(4) Montana
(5) Sam Houston St


(2) Coastal Carolina

(3) James Madison
(6) Morgan St


I think that's still a pretty regionalized bracket yet more fairly seeded and without any potential regular season or intra-conference rematches until the quarters (I think).

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

No.

16 literally can't happen without changing the by laws. That isn't going to happen. Period.

The NCAA gets their money no matter what. They aren't changing their rules to get less money.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Ice Hockey expanded to 16 teams when they reached 64 participating schools. Similarly, they added an AQ to another league. Now that the number of schools participating has fallen below 64, the number of tournament teams has NOT been reduced.

And the by laws Clenz talks about are across the board for all sports, not football specific. Very unlikely they would change that by-law. The chances the tournament retracts to 16 teams are slim and none.

I can live with staying at 24 because it seeds eight teams and gives teams #6-8 the chance for a home game without having to outbid a Montana, Delaware, NDSU, etc. And it eliminates the gerrymandering of pairings to get premier TV match ups in the first round like UNH at GaSoU in 2004, JMU at YSU a year or two later. And the first round now provides opportunities for schools that might not get a home game to host and develop more interest in the FCS Playoffs.

How do you limit the field to conference champions when the Big Sky, CAA, MVFC, Southland, OVC, etc. don't have all members meet during the season?????

Supe, what team sport doesn't have AQ's for the NCAA Tournament? Basketball, Ice Hockey, Baseball, Football (FBS Playoffs aren't NCAA Playoffs), Volleyball, Field Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, etc. all have AQ's. They are the staple of a NCAA Tournament. You can prefer a 16 team tournament with no autobids, but as long as the NCAA is running the event that isn't happening.

[major095]

Conferences would likely break up and nobody would have more than the minimum needed for an AQ

yes they would, and this is precisely what need to happen at the fbs level imho.


To me the playoffs are more than just a series of games to determine a champion. It is also, the end of the year tournament where we see how the top 24 teams from around the country stack up. The first week of the playoffs probably aren't featuring the eventual champion, but (to me anyways) it is still interesting to see who beats who. Kind of like March Madness features 68 teams, but at least half (conservatively) don't have a chance at winning it all.

Furthermore, if the FCS went to an AQ-only tournament, what is the incentive to play in a tough conference? What about the OOC schedule? Why not play pay-day FBS games and cheap DIII games. Doesn't matter win your conference your in. What you do out of conference doesn't matter.

I'd leave the playoffs at 24. Win your conference or be one of the next best 14 and your in. I have no problem letting in a one loss ISUr even though they didn't win the AQ and now they are playing for the trophy.

If it's not about determining a champion then that needs to be clearly defined and I doubt those in charge want to make that particular distinction. by the way march madness should be for conference champs only imo. the OOC schedule is/should be secondary to how you do in conference. Who you play and beat OOC would still be important based on who your fan base wants to see you play, finances, and seeding if you expect to compete in the playoffs. It would also encourage schools to play the best knowing that a loss to ndsu, or shsu doesn't kill their season, they've just got to win their league. schools don't have to dodge the big boys (swac...i'm looking at you.). so out of conference performance does matter, just not as much as what you do in conference.

Keep in mind that part of the expansion of the ncaa basketball tournament was about coaches loosing their job b/c they didn't get, into the tourney. They had to be a champ to get the leagues AQ and if they didn't alumni howled, so they changed, not for the sake of competitiveness, but the sake of coaches and AD's. That didn't help any of our schools b/c we didn't get the extra bids, they helped P5 programs.

[BisonTru]

yes they would, and this is precisely what need to happen at the fbs level imho.

.

If the FBS did what your proposing the P5 would split off the next day. And I would think the MVFC, Big Sky, and the CAA would split or move up if that was instituted at the FCS level.

At large teams create incentive to improve your conference or move up to a tougher conference.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[clenz]

And the by laws Clenz talks about are across the board for all sports, not football specific. Very unlikely they would change that by-law. The chances the tournament retracts to 16 teams are slim and none.

Semantics to fans of programs that only follow football unless another team is having an amazing season...even then they likely dont follow the selection process just where the team goes



Supe, what team sport doesn't have AQ's for the NCAA Tournament? Basketball, Ice Hockey, Baseball, Football (FBS Playoffs aren't NCAA Playoffs), Volleyball, Field Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, etc. all have AQ's. They are the staple of a NCAA Tournament. You can prefer a 16 team tournament with no autobids, but as long as the NCAA is running the event that isn't happening.

I believe baseball and softball have AQ as well...AAMOF i know they do.

The only sports that likely dont would be team sports scored on an individual basis..wrestling, track and field, tennis, fencing, rifle, archery, etc...

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[ngineer]

Here's a model I could get behind:

http://nailacollection.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/brooklyn-decker-f.jpg

I could support those,er that!

[GABison]

I like the autobid system and 24 teams is about right.

I look at the Summit League (NDSU league for other sports) and get the feeling the NCAA/selection committee for March Madness would have no problem in totally ignoring the Summit League in order to get yet another Big 10, 12 or the like in over the SL champ. The autobid at least gives the whole league something to shoot for throughout the season.

[UNHWildcat18]

20 teams, cut out the autobids to pioneer and NEC and two at larges. While I agree we need to make sure people have a chance we also cant water down the playoffs anymore, we need more competitiveness in the first and second rounds. We have to build more interest in the FCS playoffs on a national scale=bigger teams bigger games, and more attendance. If you aren't a full scholarship league then you shouldn't have an auto bid. Watching San Diego get their ass kicked by Montana isn't worthy of being described as an FCS playoff game in my mind.

[bluehenbillk]

20 teams, period.

[Bisonator]

20 teams, cut out the autobids to pioneer and NEC and two at larges. While I agree we need to make sure people have a chance we also cant water down the playoffs anymore, we need more competitiveness in the first and second rounds. We have to build more interest in the FCS playoffs on a national scale=bigger teams bigger games, and more attendance. If you aren't a full scholarship league then you shouldn't have an auto bid. Watching San Diego get their ass kicked by Montana isn't worthy of being described as an FCS playoff game in my mind.

I agree.

[kalm]

20 teams, cut out the autobids to pioneer and NEC and two at larges. While I agree we need to make sure people have a chance we also cant water down the playoffs anymore, we need more competitiveness in the first and second rounds. We have to build more interest in the FCS playoffs on a national scale=bigger teams bigger games, and more attendance. If you aren't a full scholarship league then you shouldn't have an auto bid. Watching San Diego get their ass kicked by Montana isn't worthy of being described as an FCS playoff game in my mind.

But you also had some great match ups in SDSU-MSU, SHSU-SELA, ISU-EKU, etc.

[Catbooster]

Just for the sake of argument, here's what this year's field could have looked like:

#16 Sacred Heart at #1 UNH
#9 Northern Iowa at #8 Chattanooga

#13 Fordham at #4 EWU
#12 Montana at #5 ISU

#14 Liberty at #3 JSU
#11 South Dakota State at #6 Villanova

#15 James Madison at #2 NDSU
#10 Southeastern Louisiana at #7 Coastal

Not only is this a really good field with quality games right out of the blocks, but I can't really imagine too much squawking from the bubble.

Really? I don't think that there is a number at which you won't hear a bunch of squawking from the bubble - more some years than others, but...

You'd think that there would be less complaining as the number of participants goes up (after all, if it's between who should have been in at #24 it should be less of an impact than who gets in at #16), but last year has shown that to not be true.