The Game that Should have Happened...

[Tod]

This has probably already been mentioned in another thread, but I didn't see it anywhere.

PSU and USD should have played, rather than playing Cal/Oregon and Azusa Pacific, respectively.

PSU wins - They're in the playoffs

USD wins - Who knows, but it would have given them more ammo in their argument. May have been the deciding factor.

Both teams should learn a lesson from this season on scheduling.

:twocents:

[UMass922]

I agree with you, Tod. I think each team scheduled itself out of the playoffs to a large degree. Unwinnable games against top I-A/BS teams and unloseable games against weak sub-D-I teams tell us nothing about how a Portland State or a San Diego stacks up against other I-AA/CS teams. PSU and USD played only eight games each against I-AA opponents (USD's ninth came after the playoff selection, obviously), and that made them difficult to gauge.

[GreenDay17]

I don't know if this is possible or not, but I would like to see a CS scheduling rule that 9 of the 11 games must be against CS competition.

What do you think?

[UMass922]

I don't know if this is possible or not, but I would like to see a CS scheduling rule that 9 of the 11 games must be against CS competition.

What do you think?

I've been thinking the same thing. I wouldn't make it an absolute, hard-and-fast rule, but I would make it comparable to the seven-win "rule": i.e., teams that play fewer than nine games against CS opponents should be "in jeopardy" of not being awarded an at-large berth to the playoffs. I think the NCAA should be as clear as possible to coaches and ADs about what a "playoff schedule" does and doesn't look like.

[Ronbo]

I don't know if this is possible or not, but I would like to see a CS scheduling rule that 9 of the 11 games must be against CS competition.

What do you think?

It will be 12 games next year.

[OrneryAggie]

USD and APU have had a mini-rivalry going in socal. The Dixie St game was the real mistake. SUU or Weber would've been a better game to try and pick up.

PSU did shoot itself by having both Cal and Oregon.

[Tod]

I've been thinking the same thing. I wouldn't make it an absolute, hard-and-fast rule, but I would make it comparable to the seven-win "rule": i.e., teams that play fewer than nine games against CS opponents should be "in jeopardy" of not being awarded an at-large berth to the playoffs. I think the NCAA should be as clear as possible to coaches and ADs about what a "playoff schedule" does and doesn't look like.

I think that's a slippery slope. What if PSU had beaten Oregon or Cal? Hard to keep them out because their schedule was too tough.

Maybe it would be better as a hard rule. "Only two games allowed against non-CS competition".

[th0m]

It will be 12 games next year.

Is that official yet? (sorry about the OT)

[Tod]

USD and APU have had a mini-rivalry going in socal. The Dixie St game was the real mistake. SUU or Weber would've been a better game to try and pick up.

PSU did shoot itself by having both Cal and Oregon.

Any CS team that wants to be taken seriously had better abandon an NAIA rivalry asap, IMO.

Maybe you're right about SUU or Weber, my point was simply that if these two teams had scheduled each other, they would have been better off. I mean sure, there were other options for both teams, absolutely. I just kind of liked the idea that both of their issues could have been addressed had they simply played each other instead of too strong/weak competition.

[GreenDay17]

Maybe it would be better as a hard rule. "Only two games allowed against non-CS competition".

I think this would be good. I know that CS teams in the past had complained or voiced concerns about the difficulty in filling their schedules. A rule as such would help to ensure that CS teams worked at scheduling other CS teams for OOC games.

[twentythreeOh4]

Is that official yet? (sorry about the OT)

No. I believe the 12 game schedule for FCS is voted on in January.

[UMass922]

I think that's a slippery slope. What if PSU had beaten Oregon or Cal? Hard to keep them out because their schedule was too tough.

Maybe it would be better as a hard rule. "Only two games allowed against non-CS competition".

You have a point; victories over I-A/BS teams obviously shouldn't count against a team. But the message should be clear: schedule non-CS opponents at your own risk. If you can beat Cal, awesome. Just don't expect to get pity points if they blow you out. I just feel Portland State was getting a little too much credit (at least on this board, though apparently not from the selection committee) for getting blown out by a couple powerhouse I-A/BS teams--teams that one would expect to blow out anyone in I-AA/CS, good, bad, or mediocre.

[elkmcc]

As a staunch liberal Todd I would have assumed that you would be against any push for more bureaucracy.


The thing to remember is that PSU needed the money games. One look at any financial information that the NCAA puts out and it is obvious that PSU would end up in a situation of having to play more than one bodybag game. IF the CS had a hard and fast rule limiting scheduling some of these financially challenged programs would find it difficult to continue to play at this level.

[crunifan]

The Big Sky doesn't deserve three teams, let alone two 7-4 teams in the playoffs.

[UMass922]

As a staunch liberal Todd I would have assumed that you would be against any push for more bureaucracy.


The thing to remember is that PSU needed the money games. One look at any financial information that the NCAA puts out and it is obvious that PSU would end up in a situation of having to play more than one bodybag game. IF the CS had a hard and fast rule limiting scheduling some of these financially challenged programs would find it difficult to continue to play at this level.

We're not talking about a rule that would prohibit schools outright from scheduling three I-A/BS (or D-II, -III, NAIA) games. Schools are free to schedule whomever they want. All we/I mean (I think, anyway, this is what Tod means, too) is that schools that schedule three I-A/BS games would be ineligible for at-large selection to the playoffs. It's just a factor they would have to take into account when making their schedule. They still might decide that they're ultimately better off playing the three money games, even if it means no playoffs (unless they win the auto-bid).

[Walkon79]

The Big Sky doesn't deserve three teams, let alone two 7-4 teams in the playoffs.

Did you SEE the score yesterday.

Montana State - 31
Furman - 13

Keep thinkin we don't belong.

[kalm]

The Big Sky doesn't deserve three teams, let alone two 7-4 teams in the playoffs.

Then teams from the east need to step it up and come out and play us instead of scheduling non/reduced scholarship schools.

Ask New Mexico, Colorado, or even Arizona State about Big Sky football this year.

[AZGrizFan]

This has probably already been mentioned in another thread, but I didn't see it anywhere.

PSU and USD should have played, rather than playing Cal/Oregon and Azusa Pacific, respectively.

PSU wins - They're in the playoffs

USD wins - Who knows, but it would have given them more ammo in their argument. May have been the deciding factor.

Both teams should learn a lesson from this season on scheduling.

:twocents:

I'd throw NAU into that mix as well...two I-A losses and 6-3 otherwise. If they scheduled UC Davis and/or USD and won them both, they'd be dancing right now.

[dbackjon]

I'd throw NAU into that mix as well...two I-A losses and 6-3 otherwise. If they scheduled UC Davis and/or USD and won them both, they'd be dancing right now.

Tell me about it... :bang: :bang:

[Tod]

As a staunch liberal Todd I would have assumed that you would be against any push for more bureaucracy.


The thing to remember is that PSU needed the money games. One look at any financial information that the NCAA puts out and it is obvious that PSU would end up in a situation of having to play more than one bodybag game. IF the CS had a hard and fast rule limiting scheduling some of these financially challenged programs would find it difficult to continue to play at this level.

I don't know. It seems to me that if PSU was in such a sorry state financially that games against New Mexico, Cal/Oregon, and probably a home game against I-AA San Diego (my original intent) can't put them in the black, there's a pretty deep problem. Even if they had to do that for a couple of years in a row, it should be enough.

With a I-AA win only counting once every four years for a bowl bid up until this season, many schools could probably not have possibly gotten two or three in one year anyway. Yet, they're still here.

[Tod]

The Big Sky doesn't deserve three teams, let alone two 7-4 teams in the playoffs.

Well, under my original scenario, the Big Sky would not have had three teams. They would have had Montana and PSU (I'm assuming), if PSU had won the game against USD. If PSU had lost, then maybe USD has enough to get in. If not, then probably still MSU.

[Grizalltheway]

Did you SEE the score yesterday.

Montana State - 31
Furman - 13

Keep thinkin we don't belong.

:hurray: A bobcat win in boone this weekend would be HUGE for conference respect, especially on national tv

[Tod]

I'd throw NAU into that mix as well...two I-A losses and 6-3 otherwise. If they scheduled UC Davis and/or USD and won them both, they'd be dancing right now.

Absolutely. But...NAU finished 6-5, with only five D-I wins, so would have had to won both of those games against D-I opponents to have seven wins. Plus, they lost to both MSU and PSU.

I'm not sure how the committee would have viewed that, even with an 8-3 finish.

[GrizFamily]

Good point Tod. And wouldn't all rather see alot more CS teams playing each other. I know there's money involved in playing a BCS school, but who wouldn't have rather see the contenders from each conference play each other sooner. Sure would help with the seeding too. Might even end this vitriol about which UM should have been ranked third.

Oh well at least in the FCS it will finally, mercifully, end.