How can at-large process be improved??

[Pantherpower]

This has been discussed to some extent on www.panthernation.com, but would be curious to feedback from other schools. What criteria can be thrown into the mix to ensure that the best 8 remaining schools are selected after auto-bids? It's clear that SOS isn't factored in and I think it should start there.

Like many others have mentioned, it would be nice to see this thing go back to a 1-16 seeding. Not likely to happen, though, because it would make too much sense!!:smiley_wi

I was very impressed with the effort put out by Hampton, EIU and U-TM, yesterday. I still don't agree with the OVC receiving an at-large to EIU, but it takes the sting out to some extent with the competitiveness of the games.

[skinny_uncle]

If they seeded all 16 teams, it would just provide fans something else to gripe about. Regionalization causes a lot of complaints, but it does provide an opportunity for more fans to see opening round games. I'm sure a lot of Martin fans made the 2 hour trip to Carbondale yesterday that would have not travelled all the way to either coast if they had played there.

[kardplayer]

My first criteria would be you have to come in the top 3 in your conference. If a team is really "champion" worthy, it should be able to finish in the top 3 in its conference.

Does that mean that the "best" 16 teams would be in the field? Sometimes not, but it would mean the conference regular season means something, vs. Southern Illinois essentially "clinching" a playoff bid this year by beating Indiana.

[GannonFan]

Seeding from 1 to 16 didn't quell criticisms back when they did it - it was just as bad as now, IMO. Of course, I like 1 through 16 seedings too but let's not pretend it would solve much of anything.

[*****]

what's wrong with how they do it now? reads like sour grapes.

[GannonFan]

what's wrong with how they do it now?

I agree, it ain't that bad right now. The at larges who get in are pretty much the ones who should get in and sure you get matchups like UD/SIU in 2003 and JMU/YSt this year in the first round that probably shouldn't happen but if that's all that's wrong then it's not too bad.

[Pantherpower]

what's wrong with how they do it now? reads like sour grapes.


Not so much sour grapes. Just focusing on the future of this process. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think it can be better. It's being motivated to take things from where they are to where than can be....good to great.

[GannonFan]

Not so much sour grapes. Just focusing on the future of this process. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think it can be better. It's being motivated to take things from where they are to where than can be....good to great.

So what's not good now?

[GSU Eagle]

As I have said in another thread we don't need #4 vs. #5 or #4 vs. #6 in the 1st round.

Seed 1 through 8.

[*****]

Not so much sour grapes. Just focusing on the future of this process. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. I think it can be better. It's being motivated to take things from where they are to where than can be....good to great.Yeah, I tend to look at how the committee does compared to a certain index and they usually get it perfect every year. This year you had extenuating circumstances like all those four loss teams and questionable strength of schedule. It was not at all clear which of those last few at-large teams were better so it was a tossup.

[eaglesrthe1]

what's wrong with how they do it now? reads like sour grapes.

The problem that I have with not seeding is that teams such as the Griz or the Hens can pretty much bank on having a home game even if their record doesn't warrant it. Unless they face a seeded team, they don't have to travel.

Don't say that I'm biased in this, because the Eagles have a better chance to benefit from this than to not benefit. I just think that home field should be earned by the players, not by $$$.

[Pantherpower]

The problem that I have with not seeding is that teams such as the Griz or the Hens can pretty much bank on having a home game even if their record doesn't warrant it. Unless they face a seeded team, they don't have to travel.

Don't say that I'm biased in this, because the Eagles have a better chance to benefit from this than to not benefit. I just think that home field should be earned by the players, not by $$$.

Precisely:thumbsup:

[grayghost06]

The problem that I have with not seeding is that teams such as the Griz or the Hens can pretty much bank on having a home game even if their record doesn't warrant it. Unless they face a seeded team, they don't have to travel.

Don't say that I'm biased in this, because the Eagles have a better chance to benefit from this than to not benefit. I just think that home field should be earned by the players, not by $$$.
Couldn't have said it better. How is it that others can argue against this inconsistancy?????

[Peems]

i thought we were talking about at large? so far this year the at large teams that people thought were questionable have performed admirably. even though EIU lost they played ok and we all know about the bobcats. it seems that the committee has done a fine job at picking the at large schools.

[GannonFan]

The problem that I have with not seeding is that teams such as the Griz or the Hens can pretty much bank on having a home game even if their record doesn't warrant it. Unless they face a seeded team, they don't have to travel.

Don't say that I'm biased in this, because the Eagles have a better chance to benefit from this than to not benefit. I just think that home field should be earned by the players, not by $$$.

To take the opposite point, yeah, it's about $$$, but that $$$ comes from the fans, so in essence, the current format rewards the fans of the more well attended schools. Not a bad way to do it really. And when you factor in the fact that it's good to have people see these games, it's not the end of the world that schools with good attendance (i.e. more numerous and more loyal fans) get the games. Hey, at least the policy they have now is fan friendly if nothing else!

[putter]

To take the opposite point, yeah, it's about $$$, but that $$$ comes from the fans, so in essence, the current format rewards the fans of the more well attended schools. Not a bad way to do it really. And when you factor in the fact that it's good to have people see these games, it's not the end of the world that schools with good attendance (i.e. more numerous and more loyal fans) get the games. Hey, at least the policy they have now is fan friendly if nothing else!

I have to agree here. Nothing worse than seeing an ESPN game and seeing very few people watching it, especially when the CS is trying to gain respectability.

P.S. where were all these UNI posters last year complaining about this? Oh yea, they got in and YSU did not. :nonono2:

[mainejeff]

Seed all 16 teams and send them to a 2 day 1st Round playoff marathon in Orlando at the Florida Citrus Bowl and Bright House Stadium (at UCF) on Thanksgiving weekend.

http://www.banstur.com.br/galeria/florida/florida_citrus_bowl004.jpg

http://foundation.ucf.edu/Assets/Images/stadium%20rendering2.jpg

Q-Finals and Semis at highest remaining seeds.

[*****]

Seed all 16 teams and send them to a 2 day 1st Round playoff marathon in Orlando at the Florida Citrus Bowl and Bright House Stadium (at UCF) on Thanksgiving weekend. Q-Finals and Semis at highest remaining seeds.Fly 16 teams to Florida???? xlolx

[JohnStOnge]

what's wrong with how they do it now? reads like sour grapes.

Two big things I think are wrong is that they put too much significance on how many losses a team has and they automatically consider games against non-DI opponents to either not count or be of less significance. Also, whether they'll admit it or not, I think the committee guys are conscious of not putting too many teams from one conference in.

[JohnStOnge]

I've written it before but I think they need to establish an objective system that's in place before the season to pick the 8 at large teams based on what happens on the field. The Louisiana High School Athletic Association does that with its football playoff and I think it works very well. They use a power rating system that ranks the teams.

Thirty two teams from each classification, A through AAAAA, go to the playoffs. All the district champs get automatic bids. Then the at large spots go to the remaining teams in each classification with the highest ratings in the system. Sometimes teams with losing records get in if they have played tough schedules.

So, for example, the eight AAAAA district champs go and 24 at large teams are selected. The result is almost always that the top 32 rated teams are in the playoffs because the district champs are almost always somewhere in there (maybe always but I don't know for sure).

Sometimes lots of teams from one district go. This year, in AAAAA, seven of eight teams from one district went. Five of them won their first round games with the losses being to the overall #1 #7 seeds. Three were in the final eight. Two of the current final four are from that district; with one of the two having knocked the third out when two teams from the same district played each other.

I've never heard any griping or media discussion about who made it that shouldn't have or who didn't make it that should have because everybody knows the system and knows no favoritism is shown. There may have been some opinion that went into developing the power rating system but now that it's established everybody knows that post season subjective opinion plays no role. It's all quantititive, all based on how you did and how tough your schedule was. I pay attention to high school football in this state and listen to a two hour call in show on it every week. Have for years. I have never, ever heard anybody complain about the system or say that their team got jobbed.

I think they could come up with a better power rating system, but I like the overall approach. And I don't think a better power rating system would make much difference in who gets in. It'd make some difference, but I don't think the current system results in a situation where a team that's good enough to have a shot at winning a state title gets left out.

[AppGuy04]

Improvement?

How about no whining allowed after the field is announced

[89Hen]

what's wrong with how they do it now? reads like sour grapes.
X_________________ co-sign

I haven't read this thread, but I'm sure others have pointed out that seeding 1-16 does nothing for the complaining. The Committee will put teams where they want. When we did have seeding of 1-16 Lehigh was put in the bottom half one year with an 11-0 record just because the Committee wanted them to travel as punishment for not bidding the year before.

[walliver]

1) Home games should be earned not bought. This might cost the NCAA some money, but this could could handled by every team wanting to participate in playoff consideration anteing up a little before the season starts (That would also help prevent a recurrence of the San Diego controversy)

2) No more than two bids per conference. The conference champion plus a close runner-up. This would probably involve reducing the playoff field to 12. It's not like championship caliber teams are on the bubble.

3) More transparency in the selection process. Explain why each team was selected and why other eligible teams were not.

4) More specific criteria for inclusion. The current rules state that fewer than 7 wins MAY disqualify a team from an at-large bid.

5) Not all "D-I" wins are the same. Only games against play-off competitive teams should count. This would be difficult to implement (A win against San Diego should count, but a win against Davidson should not - I haven't figured out how to quantify that yet.)

The purpose of playing football should be playing football. Play-offs and a possible championship should be icing on the cake, not the primary reason for playing the game.

Most likely, if put to a AGS poll, my suggestions would come in last:nod:
But you got what you paid for with my opinion.

[bluehenbillk]

Seed all 16 teams and send them to a 2 day 1st Round playoff marathon in Orlando at the Florida Citrus Bowl and Bright House Stadium (at UCF) on Thanksgiving weekend.

http://www.banstur.com.br/galeria/florida/florida_citrus_bowl004.jpg

http://foundation.ucf.edu/Assets/Images/stadium%20rendering2.jpg

Q-Finals and Semis at highest remaining seeds.

Hey, I like that idea, maybe scaled down a little bit, but having playoff DH's or tripleheaders at stadiums is one I've not heard before but I like. There's not much wrong with the playoffs, it could be worse you could have the BCS.

[GannonFan]

2) No more than two bids per conference. The conference champion plus a close runner-up. This would probably involve reducing the playoff field to 12. It's not like championship caliber teams are on the bubble.


Well, you would've then eliminate UMass from winning the national title in 1998 - they were the 3rd place team in the Yankee/A10 that year. Actually, you could argue that JMU (or UNH) was the 3rd place team from the A10 in 2004 when they won the national title.



5) Not all "D-I" wins are the same. Only games against play-off competitive teams should count. This would be difficult to implement (A win against San Diego should count, but a win against Davidson should not - I haven't figured out how to quantify that yet.)

Yeah, I don't think you could ever come close to getting agreement on what that means. Heck, what do you do about a good team that has a significant injury, say to a QB, halfway through the year - do you only count wins against that team from before he was injured? You'll get as many opinions on that as people you ask.



The purpose of playing football should be playing football. Play-offs and a possible championship should be icing on the cake, not the primary reason for playing the game.

*gasp* still...trying...to breathe...after....comment - are you an Ivy League President in disguise? Maybe a BCS supporter in CS guise? Nothin wrong about having an ultimate goal. As only 16 teams out of 80-100 make it to the tournament, most teams are playing football for football's sake anyway.

Most likely, if put to a AGS poll, my suggestions would come in last:nod:
But you got what you paid for with my opinion.[/QUOTE]

[JohnStOnge]

2) No more than two bids per conference. The conference champion plus a close runner-up. This would probably involve reducing the playoff field to 12. It's not like championship caliber teams are on the bubble.
.

I know of at least two historical examples of championship caliber teams that could have reasonably been described as at least close to the bubble. All I have to go on is the old Sports Network polls. Marshall entered the 1987 playoffs ranked 14th and ended up losing to Northeast Louisiana by one point (42 - 43) in the championship game. Didn't quite get it done but definitely a championship caliber team. Youngstown State entered 1991 playoffs ranked 13th and won the title.

I don't have the final regular season polls for years after 1995 but it'd be interesting to see where UMass ranked upon entering the playoffs in 1998 and where Western Kentucky ranked in 2002.

Another note: Youngstown State's 1997 national championship team entered the tournament as the third place team in the Gateway. It wasn't a three team year for the Gateway because conference runner-up Northern Iowa was left out at 7 - 4 even though it beat the Penguins head to head and it's losses were to Iowa and three I-AAs (McNeese, Western Illinois, Cal Poly) that each finished the season at 10 - 1. But it's reasonably likely that if Northern Iowa would've played some bad or medicore I-AA instead of Iowa there'd have been three teams from that conference in and Youngstown State pretty much demonstrated that a third place team can win it all.

Me, I don't like the idea of limiting how many teams from a conference can get in. I like the automatic bid so as many teams as possible can control their own destinies. But beyond that I'm all for trying to get the best idea of which eight remaining teams had the most impressive regular seasons given the schedules they played and putting them in. I don't care if it means one league gets all eight of them (not likely to happen, but if it does so be it).

[89Hen]

A couple of disagreements Walliver...

1) Home games should be earned not bought. This might cost the NCAA some money, but this could could handled by every team wanting to participate in playoff consideration anteing up a little before the season starts (That would also help prevent a recurrence of the San Diego controversy)

It's not that simple IMO. I could make the arguement that home games are earned by the fans that pack the stands week after week and even in years when the team doesn't make the playoffs. Also, I think having games in front of 3,000 people on TV would seriosly hurt our image even more. Everyone would benefit if I-AA were seen in a better light when on TV.

2) No more than two bids per conference. The conference champion plus a close runner-up. This would probably involve reducing the playoff field to 12. It's not like championship caliber teams are on the bubble.

UMass was an 8-3, third place bubble team in 1998. WKU was also an 8-3 team in 2002.

3) More transparency in the selection process. Explain why each team was selected and why other eligible teams were not.

Seriously? What could the Committee possibly say that would make a UNI feel better about not getting selected?

4) More specific criteria for inclusion. The current rules state that fewer than 7 wins MAY disqualify a team from an at-large bid.

Why try to pin them down? We all know that less than 7 DI wins means no at-large.

The purpose of playing football should be playing football. Play-offs and a possible championship should be icing on the cake, not the primary reason for playing the game.

:confused: The Ivy might agree with you, but I doubt few others will. It's not the primary reason to play, but it is the primary reason to keep score and standings.