What happened to seeding 1 through 8?

[GSU Eagle]

I guess I missed it, but I thought the NCAA had decided to seed 1 through 8 this year.

Obviously this was not done this year, but I would hope that next year it will be.

For the 2nd year in a row we have a 1st round matchup that should never have occured. Last year we (GSU) were probably #5 and we were sent to Texas St. who was seeded #4. That game should have not occured in the 1st round.

Yesterday we had James Madison who probably was #5 or #6 sent to #4 Youngstown St. for a 1st round game. That game also should have not occured in the 1st round.


I know we GSU fans don't have a dog in the fight this year, but I continue to want to see improvements in the way the playoffs are set up.

I don't believe we need to go back to seeding 1 to 16, but seeding 1 to 8 would be a great improvement over what we have now.

[UMass922]

I doubt we're likely to see 1-8 seeding, since that would remove any flexibility the NCAA has for determining first-round home sites. If they were going to do that, they might as well just go whole hog and seed 1-16.

However, I think there's a possible compromise that would preserve the home-site flexibility the NCAA wants while still precluding first-round matchups of the JMU-YSU sort. This would be to "tier" the field into three groups:

* Group A would consist of the top four teams. These teams would be seeded 1-4 and thus guaranteed home games in the first and second rounds (should they advance).

* Group B would consist of the next four teams. These teams would not be seeded (and thus not guaranteed home games), but they would be guaranteed to be matched up neither with teams from Group A nor with each other (i.e., other teams from Group B) in the first round.

* Group C would consist of the remaining eight teams. These teams would be the first-round opponents for the teams in Groups A and B.

Pairings would still be made based on geographic proximity; home sites in games involving non-seeded teams would still be made based on the usual bid/facility considerations, etc. Here's how this year's field would likely be tiered under this system:

GROUP A
#1 Appalachian State
#2 Montana
#3 Massachusetts
#4 Youngstown State

GROUP B
Illinois State
James Madison
New Hampshire
Southern Illinois

GROUP C
Coastal Carolina
Eastern Illinois
Furman
Hampton
Lafayette
McNeese State
Montana State
Tennessee-Martin


The resulting bracket might look something like this:

Coastal Carolina @ #1 Appalachian State
Hampton @ James Madison

Tennesse-Martin @ #4 Youngstown State
Montana State @ Southern Illinois

Lafayette @ #3 Massachusetts
New Hampshire @ Furman

McNeese State @ #2 Montana
Illinois State @ Eastern Illinois


This would preserve the priorities the NCAA has under the current system while also ensuring fairer first-round matchups. So it seems to me like a modest, reasonable, realistic improvement that could be made.

[kardplayer]

...

The resulting bracket might look something like this:

Coastal Carolina @ #1 Appalachian State
Hampton @ James Madison

Tennesse-Martin @ #4 Youngstown State
Montana State @ Southern Illinois

Lafayette @ #3 Massachusetts
New Hampshire @ Furman

McNeese State @ #2 Montana
Illinois State @ Eastern Illinois




I like this proposal, but think it would look more like this (keeping your groupings and existing games where possible):

Coastal Carolina @ #1 Appalachian State
McNeese State @ #2 Montana
Lafayette @ #3 Massachusetts
Illinois State @ Eastern Illinois

James Madison @ Montana State
Furman @ #4 Youngstown State
New Hampshire @ Hampton
Tenn-Martin @ So. Ill.

Really, only one change, with JMU going to Montana State instead of Furman.

[GSU Eagle]

If 1 through 8 are seeded then the top 8 should get to host, providing they meet the minimum bid requirement.

Something is just not fair is sending the 5th or 6th best team to play at the 4th best team in round one.

James Madison should have been hosting in round 1 as Georgia Southern should have been last year.

I don't see the problem is seeding the top 8, then the NCAA could place the other 8 regionally to play at the top 8. At worst then you would have #1 playing maybe #9 or #4 possibly playing #9. That would be an improvement over what we have now.

[henfan]

I don't see the problem is seeding the top 8, then the NCAA could place the other 8 regionally to play at the top 8. At worst then you would have #1 playing maybe #9 or #4 possibly playing #9. That would be an improvement over what we have now.

Again, seeding 8 can only work if the financials can be worked out. Let's see the plan.

If the NCAA goes to 8 seeds, it would likely see dramatic reductions in the amount of bids placed. There would be no reason for schools to bid anything over the minimum amounts for first round games certainly and possibly later rounds, since the seed would be the sole element determining home field.

I like the current arrangement because it allows for a nice mix of competitive and financial factors to come into play. Schools are incented to place the highest bids possible, which creates revenue for the playoff system. Having to suffer through the occaisional SIU at Delaware ('03), JMU at Youngstown ('06), etc., as 1st Rounders is well worth the sacrifice, IMO.

[lizrdgizrd]

I like UMass' idea. We would preserve big games for later rounds but still leave home games to the bid process (minus 1-4). I would imagine that the top 8 teams are likely to have fans that travel well so an incentive for the NCAA would be to keep those teams around as long as possible to keep attendance and $$ up.

[BillLuc1982]

Again, seeding 8 can only work if the financials can be worked out. Let's see the plan.

If the NCAA goes to 8 seeds, it would likely see dramatic reductions in the amount of bids placed. There would be no reason for schools to bid anything over the minimum amounts for first round games certainly and possibly later rounds, since the seed would be the sole element determining home field.

I like the current arrangement because it allows for a nice mix of competitive and financial factors to come into play. Schools are incented to place the highest bids possible, which creates revenue for the playoff system. Having to suffer through the occaisional SIU at Delaware ('03), JMU at Youngstown ('06), etc., as 1st Rounders is well worth the sacrifice, IMO.

They also want to maximize the amount of bus trips.

[JMU_MRD'03-'07]

I'm suprised that a JMU person didn't start this...

I'd be suprised to see a significant amount of non bus trip increase if we seeded 1-8. A side note... MONEY IS NOT THE POINT OF COLLEGE SPORTS!!! The NCAA should relearn that lesson. These matchups should be based on merit, not money.

[carney2]

I thought the NCAA had decided to seed 1 through 8 this year.

I'm not sure where you heard this. Can you give us chapter and verse? I personally would be very surprised if the NCAA seeded thru number 8. It's not about football; it's all about money. Seeding 1 thru 8 takes away the flexibility to give "automatic" home games to teams like Delaware and Montana - teams with large stadiums and large followings. If you were the NCAA would you rather have that home game in the snow at New Hampshire where they average about 8,000 per game or at Delaware where they average about 22,000? One more time, repeat after me: IT'S NOT ABOUT FOOTBALL.

[Peems]

I'm not sure where you heard this. Can you give us chapter and verse? I personally would be very surprised if the NCAA seeded thru number 8. It's not about football; it's all about money. Seeding 1 thru 8 takes away the flexibility to give "automatic" home games to teams like Delaware and Montana - teams with large stadiums and large followings. If you were the NCAA would you rather have that home game in the snow at New Hampshire where they average about 8,000 per game or at Delaware where they average about 22,000? One more time, repeat after me: IT'S NOT ABOUT FOOTBALL.

in a way it actually is about football seeing as the teams who get "auto" home games are the teams who have the most football savy fans and the fans who come no matter what. So as mentioned earlier in the thread if teams dont like getting the short end of the stick, sell out every home game and then make your school realize you need expansion

(yes i realize its not that easy but you get the idea)

[VT Wildcat Fan53]

[QUOTE=UMass922]I doubt we're likely to see 1-8 seeding, since that would remove any flexibility the NCAA has for determining first-round home sites. If they were going to do that, they might as well just go whole hog and seed 1-16.

However, I think there's a possible compromise that would preserve the home-site flexibility the NCAA wants while still precluding first-round matchups of the JMU-YSU sort. This would be to "tier" the field into three groups:

* Group A would consist of the top four teams. These teams would be seeded 1-4 and thus guaranteed home games in the first and second rounds (should they advance).

* Group B would consist of the next four teams. These teams would not be seeded (and thus not guaranteed home games), but they would be guaranteed to be matched up neither with teams from Group A nor with each other (i.e., other teams from Group B) in the first round.

* Group C would consist of the remaining eight teams. These teams would be the first-round opponents for the teams in Groups A and B.

Pairings would still be made based on geographic proximity; home sites in games involving non-seeded teams would still be made based on the usual bid/facility considerations, etc. Here's how this year's field would likely be tiered under this system:

GROUP A
#1 Appalachian State
#2 Montana
#3 Massachusetts
#4 Youngstown State

GROUP B
Illinois State
James Madison
New Hampshire
Southern Illinois

GROUP C
Coastal Carolina
Eastern Illinois
Furman
Hampton
Lafayette
McNeese State
Montana State
Tennessee-Martin
QUOTE]

This is an excellent idea! Much better compromise for the NCAA's bean counters to accept since -- as you note -- it allows the organization to still make money by allowing the bottom 12 teams to bid for home games. From a football accomplishment perspective, it honors the Top 8 teams and we avoid the injustice of a first round game like JMU at YSU.

See you in Amherst this weekend for a game that could be one for the ages! It will be fun no matter what happens! :hurray:

[Retro]

The best answer is usually the simple one and the one that makes too much sense for the NCAA to consider...

Seed all 16, maintain min bid requirement.. For fist round first 8 seeds get home game if they meet the minimum..
For second round, give home game to highest bidder. same thing for semi-finals...

The exception to this is to establish and announce and enforce hosting requirements for a home game.. EX- Certain size stadium, adeqate dressing room for opponents, adeqate press box facilities, etc...

In other words, put in stone what you expect for each host team and then the bid requirements.. It will encourage teams to upgrade their facilities to reasonable accomodations and those teams who don't make money by drawing fans will less likely bid for home games until they do.

Regardless of the seeding/home bidding process, it needs to be clearly defined and no so secretive, so we all know what to expect and wonder why some teams go some places and some get home games despite dismal attendance or size of stadiums.. I know the current guidelines, but there still a guessing game..
This all will ensure the CS put's out a good image when on TV with fuller stadiums and gameday atmospheres...

[Saluki Fan in FL]

The best answer is usually the simple one and the one that makes too much sense for the NCAA to consider...

Seed all 16, maintain min bid requirement.. For fist round first 8 seeds get home game if they meet the minimum..
For second round, give home game to highest bidder. same thing for semi-finals...

The exception to this is to establish and announce and enforce hosting requirements for a home game.. EX- Certain size stadium, adeqate dressing room for opponents, adeqate press box facilities, etc...

In other words, put in stone what you expect for each host team and then the bid requirements.. It will encourage teams to upgrade their facilities to reasonable accomodations and those teams who don't make money by drawing fans will less likely bid for home games until they do.

Regardless of the seeding/home bidding process, it needs to be clearly defined and no so secretive, so we all know what to expect and wonder why some teams go some places and some get home games despite dismal attendance or size of stadiums.. I know the current guidelines, but there still a guessing game..
This all will ensure the CS put's out a good image when on TV with fuller stadiums and gameday atmospheres...

:hurray:

[henfan]

A side note... MONEY IS NOT THE POINT OF COLLEGE SPORTS!!! The NCAA should relearn that lesson. These matchups should be based on merit, not money.

You miss the point entirely.

The D-I Championship series isn't a huge money maker for the NCAA. The NCAA and the Playoff Selection Committee are charged with the responsibility of trying to produce a quality post-season that doesn't lose money... and, IMO, they've done a good job of it in recent years. By encouraging schools to place the highest bids possible, the CS has been able to pay for increased TV exposure and additional expenses for visiting teams.

Artificially seeding teams 1-16 isn't going to present a system that's markedly more meritorious than the current one. However, it will very likely produce a championship series that struggles just to break even, which is why the NCAA doesn't follow that model.

[UMass922]

See you in Amherst this weekend for a game that could be one for the ages! It will be fun no matter what happens! :hurray:

Well, I'll be in Amherst in spirit, anyway. Unfortunately, my body will be stuck down here in Georgia watching the game on my computer. Oh well. I'm still looking forward to it immensely, of course.