In-Depth Playoff Expansion Discussion

[TexasTerror]

With the 12 game proposal going down in defeat, there's a lot of discussion on various fan boards about the possibility of the Football Championship Subdivision expanding the Division I playoffs...thoughts?

My opinion, in hopes of opening up discussion...

The Football Championship Subdivision is expanding. This past year, Central Arkansas and Winston Salem State kicked off what will be a few years of expanding horizons for the subdivision.

Presbyterian, North Carolina Central, North Dakota and South Dakota are four schools that have announced they will move from Div II to Div I. Adding football is Old Dominion and football is moving forward for a return at East Tennessee State, an institution that recently got rid of football. Other schools are looking into football, though many rumors and numerous case studies have flown around regarding the status of football at numerous schools.

In addition to this movement, there are numerous schools who are continually increasing the amount of equivalencies they offer. Austin Peay is the school that has brought the most attention to this issue, but there's several schools who are looking at offering more scholarships. Could we soon see a mid-major make the playoffs? We almost did this year with Jim Harbaugh's University of San Diego of the Pioneer League. Monmouth also gained some national recognition.

The way things stand right now, there are eight conferences with auto-bids. The Patriot League, Gateway, Ohio Valley, Colonial Athletic Association (formerly Atlantic 10 until CAA takes over the football operations), MEAC, Southland, Big Sky and Southern conferences.

In the last few years, other conferences have emerged as potential heavyweights in the FCS world. These two conferences are the Big South, which features a Coastal Carolina team that made the playoffs this past year and the Great West Football Conference, a football-only conference that features several institutions which have made waves in recent years, including Cal Poly and North Dakota State.

The problem with the GWFC is that it lacks stability, especially with North Dakota St and South Dakota St, both nearing playoff eligibility as they complete their transition to Division I eyeballing the Gateway Conference for football.

The Big South has it's own stability issues, especially if the SoCon looks to add a university or three to it's conference. At this point, the league is still trying to hash out an identity, something the GWFC has already done, namely with the success of the aforementioned NDSU and Cal Poly, but also the UC-Davis win over Pac-10 member Stanford over a year ago.

The Ivy League and SWAC swear off the playoffs. The NEC, MAAC and Pioneer League are all part of the equation, with the NCAA putting into place a system which would allow them in, but the group known as the 'mid-majors' as yet to crash the party.

With the schools debating requiring atleast 50 equivalents to be eligible, the Division I playoffs are definitely in a state of flux. Time will tell, but with the growth of the division, is now the time to increase the amount of teams in the playoffs?

My answer is no. Until the SWAC and/or Ivy League consider postseason play and until both the GWFC and Big South stabilize, there's no reason for it. The mid-majors, as impressive an effort put forth, have yet to prove as a whole their ability to make the playoffs as seen in no teams from the mid-majors making the playoffs, a signal perhaps to the powers that be at those schools to improve their schedules if interested.

We shall see what happens, but the playoffs are exciting. The discussion leading into the last few weeks of the season and the 'elimination' games from coast to coast, whether in the Big Sky or SoCon make FCS football fun. Keep the system as is and maybe if the growth continues or the aforementioned leagues step up to the playoff plate, perhaps then, we can discuss an expansion to 20 or even 24.

[Model Citizen]

I suppose this topic will never die, but there really isn't anything more to say at this point.

OK, now carry on for 12 pages or so.

[MplsBison]

Time to go to 24 and get rid of the 50% must come from autobids rule.

[UAalum72]

Why should the SWAC's decision have anything to do with it? The NEC's GPI is already better than the SWAC's. And the NEC has already won as many playoff games as the SWAC did in 19 tries.

[TexasTerror]

Why should the SWAC's decision have anything to do with it? The NEC's GPI is already better than the SWAC's. And the NEC has already won as many playoff games as the SWAC did in 19 tries.

The SWAC would be another conference with a great history of football competition. While they do not have much success in the Division I playoffs, it would surely help the case to increase the amount of bids...

[kardplayer]

1. Every conference with enough teams should have an automatic bid into the playoffs, just like they do in every other Division I team sport.
2. The SWAC and the Ivy shouldn't be allowed to turn down the playoffs if they want to participate in the FCS. I don't know where to put them, but they shouldn't be able to opt out.

Until then, the championship of FCS is tarnished by the fact that not every team has a chance to "earn" its way in by beating its conference foes.

[kardplayer]

My proposal is to expand to 20.

Give autobids to the Big South (I believe they will be at 6 teams with Presbyterian), the Pioneer, and the NEC. You can then add one more at large.

Seed the top 12.

On Thanksgiving weekend, have 4 games between the unseeded teams.

Play down to 2 teams, then take a few weeks off and have the championship on the Saturday afternoon after New Year's at 1pm. Gives more fans a chance to fly to the game.

Since its unlikely any team that plays the first weekend will get to the Championship Game, this won't make anyone have to play more than 15 games.

Since students aren't there during Thanksgiving, attendance in the round of 16 should increase.

[youwouldno]

It's not broke. Don't mess with it.

[GreenDay17]

I posted this in an earlier thread (similar idea to kardplayer)

12 Autobids:
Atlantic 10, Big Sky, Big South, Gateway, Great West, Mid American, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Patriot, Pioneer, Southern, and Southland

12 At-large (selected by current "at-large process"):


Seed the first 8 teams and those seeds receive a first round bye.

The first, second, third, and fourth (Semifinal) rounds could be played on the same dates that they currently are played (Semifinal would be on the weekend of the current Championship Game) with the games being played at sites as currently determined. The FCS Championship game would then be played on the Sunday night of the opening of the AFCA Convention at a site in/near the convention city. This is typically LA/Anaheim, Dallas/San Antonio, New Orleans, and Orlando.

This 3 week period until the FCS Championship game would allow fans of the two participating teams to better be able to attend. It could also be treated like the NCAA Final Four by providing complementary tickets to at least all the FCS coaches and at most all the DI coaches. The FCS Championship would be in the spotlight the day before the BCS Championship is played.


The 2007 season FCS Championship would look like this:

First Round—November 24 at on-campus sites (BYE for 8 seeded teams)
Second Round—December 1 at on-campus sites
Quarterfinals—December 8 at on-campus sites
Semifinals—December 14 at on-campus sites
Championship Game—January 6 at site in city of 2007 AFCA Convention

[appfan2008]

The way it is currently is the best so leave it the way it is

[UNHWildCats]

I posted this in an earlier thread (similar idea to kardplayer)

12 Autobids:
Colonial Athletic Association**, Big Sky, Big South, Gateway, Great West, Mid American, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Patriot, Pioneer, Southern, and Southland


:p

[Ronbo]

I know there are some folks wanting to expand the FCS playoffs but it's a money loser for schools that don't put butts in the seats. Because of this there might be opposition to it. The FCS average for attendance is somewhere around 7000 isn't it? Take out the top 20 attendance leaders and that drops considerably.

[MplsBison]

NCAA sports don't make money unless it's FBS football or DI MBB.

If Montana wants to be about making money, then go to the FBS where you belong. You've grown too big for this division.

And take Delaware with you.

[MplsBison]

Every conference with enough teams should have an automatic bid into the playoffs, just like they do in every other Division I team sport.

Then NDSU should start a 12 member conference with the 11 lowest GPI teams in the nation and play an 11 game conference schedule.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[UAalum72]

I posted this in an earlier thread (similar idea to kardplayer)

12 Autobids:
Atlantic 10, Big Sky, Big South, Gateway, Great West, Mid American, Northeast, Ohio Valley, Patriot, Pioneer, Southern, and Southland

Again, if you mean the MAAC - Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference - they don't have six teams. Same for the Great West and Big South.

If Pres doesn't count as a BS football member this year, does 2007 still start the clock for the waiting period? I think a league must have six members playing each other for at least two years before applying for an autobid. If not, the Big South couldn't even apply for a bid until the 2010 season.

[TexasTerror]

Then NDSU should start a 12 member conference with the 11 lowest GPI teams in the nation and play an 11 game conference schedule.

The new San Diego...:bow:

[bluehenbillk]

Then NDSU should start a 12 member conference with the 11 lowest GPI teams in the nation and play an 11 game conference schedule.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The system should be left as is, at least for a couple years, if the other conferences continue to get better than there's more of an argument to goto 24. Also Mpls Bison should be suspended for a week for mentioning the GPI in a playoff discussion.xidiotx

[UAalum72]

The SWAC would be another conference with a great history of football competition. While they do not have much success in the Division I playoffs, it would surely help the case to increase the amount of bids...
The SWAC has a lot of fans, but not much on the field in the last 10 years to rank them above where the NEC is NOW.

[henfan]

Time to go to 24 and get rid of the 50% must come from autobids rule.

There isn't a rule that states that 50% must come from autobids. In fact, the NCAA does not require any autobids be awarded for its championships; that's an FBS decision. There is a Division I bylaw that requires that at least 50% of all NCAA playoff fields consist of at least 50% at-large bids. One way to alleviate that concern is to do away with all autobids. Select all 16 teams as at-large bids.

Expanding the playoff field means expanding playoff competition another week (which means the playoff season would be almost 1/2 as long as the regular season!) or offering byes for first round games. Both options create whole new sets of problems.

I don't really see much support for that among FBS member schools / conferences for either to happen any time soon. That's not likely to stop message boards chatter about the topic, no matter how unrealistic. So chat away.:thumbsup:

[89Hen]

There isn't a rule that states that 50% must come from autobids. In fact, the NCAA does not require any autobids be awarded for its championships; that's an FBS decision. There is a Division I bylaw that requires that at least 50% of all NCAA playoff fields consist of at least 50% at-large bids. One way to alleviate that concern is to do away with all autobids. Select all 16 teams as at-large bids.
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect henfan. I've read the rules a couple of times and it states that half do have to be autos if at least that number apply. I will try to find the verbage.

[89Hen]

My answer is no. Until the SWAC and/or Ivy League consider postseason play and until both the GWFC and Big South stabilize, there's no reason for it.
Agreed. As some NEC posters pointed out the SWAC is below the NEC in computer rankings, but they also have 10 more I-AA teams. 7 NEC + 10 SWAC + 8 Ivy = too many to leave out IMO. :twocents:

[henfan]

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect henfan.

Don't bother. On second thought, I think you're right. :(

I believe the by-law language was changed in '99 or '00 and the 'must' and 'shall' was changed.

NB- Just checked. Here's what I found:

31.3.4.6 Limitations on Automatic-Qualifying Positions.
31.3.4.6.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball. In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.5-(a), excluding
the sport of football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, a sports
committee must award, when a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at
least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria
and provide a play-in criteria. The remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved
for at-large teams. It will be the responsibility of the Management Council to determine if conference
play-ins to a championship field are to be administered by the NCAA championships staff or by the
member conferences. (Adopted: 4/20/99)

http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2006-07/2006-07_d1_manual.pdf

[MplsBison]

DII has 11 regular season and 5 week 24 team playoff.

We can do the same.

[89Hen]

Don't bother. On second thought, I think you're right. :(

I believe the by-law language was changed in '99 or '00 and the 'must' and 'shall' was changed.

NB- Just checked. Here's what I found:

31.3.4.6 Limitations on Automatic-Qualifying Positions.
31.3.4.6.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball. In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.5-(a), excluding
the sport of football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, a sports
committee must award, when a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at
least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria...

Sheesh. Ivytalk or any other attorneys, can you help me out? Other than and excluding...? Does this mean this does apply to football or not? The reason it's hard to tell is that the I-AA playoff handbook refers to section 31.3 as if that's the reason why they have 8 autos. :rotateh:

[henfan]

DII has 11 regular season and 5 week 24 team playoff.

We can do the same.

We can, but we won't... at least not anytime in the forseeable future.

[lizrdgizrd]

Sheesh. Ivytalk or any other attorneys, can you help me out? Other than and excluding...? Does this mean this does apply to football or not? The reason it's hard to tell is that the I-AA playoff handbook refers to section 31.3 as if that's the reason why they have 8 autos. :rotateh:
It seems to be saying that 50% of any playoff field must come from autobids & the other 50% from at-large. It is excepting Football and any team sport without autobids. Seems like this doesn't force football to have 50% autobids.

[ucdtim17]

There are too many teams in the playoffs as is - you lose 3 or 4 games during the season, you don't deserve a shot at a national title.

[RabidRabbit]

There are too many teams in the playoffs as is - you lose 3 or 4 games during the season, you don't deserve a shot at a national title.

If all losses were to BCS teams (going to bowls), in tight games, and at least 7 D-I WINS (vs FCS, for most parts) why should that team be left home vs. an undefeated NEC or Pioneer League champ with NO other top 25 school on schedule? Likewise, Gateway, Big Sky, CAA, SoCon, Southland, GWFC, Big South are getting to be unlikely to make it through without 1 conference loss.

Yes, I'd like to see an expanded play-offs.

[ucdtim17]

If all losses were to BCS teams (going to bowls), in tight games, and at least 7 D-I WINS (vs FCS, for most parts) why should that team be left home vs. an undefeated NEC or Pioneer League champ with NO other top 25 school on schedule? Likewise, Gateway, Big Sky, CAA, SoCon, Southland, GWFC, Big South are getting to be unlikely to make it through without 1 conference loss.

Yes, I'd like to see an expanded play-offs.

That's why the playoffs are too big - neither team should be in (say, MSU and USD this year). It should be 8 teams, no auto-bids. Not that it'll ever happen

[BigApp]

I suppose this topic will never die, but there really isn't anything more to say at this point.



I agree, why not make the regular season 5 games and have everyone in the playoffs. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[bluehenbillk]

You don't want scenarios that consistently allow 4-loss teams that don't have autobids making the playoffs. Yea I know there were 2 4-loss teams in this year, but even 8-3 isn't a special season & that's what the postseason in my opinion is supposed to be, special.

[MplsBison]

Teams like Portland State with losses to 2 FBS teams and 2 playoff teams deserved to be considered.

[lizrdgizrd]

Teams like Portland State with losses to 2 FBS teams and 2 playoff teams deserved to be considered.
They are considered. But when there are enough 8-3 and up teams, they won't make it.

[UAalum72]

Teams like Portland State with losses to 2 FBS teams and 2 playoff teams deserved to be considered.
The selection committee is supposed to consider WINS, not losses. Anybody can lose to a FBS or playoff team.

[henfan]

The selection committee is supposed to consider WINS, not losses. Anybody can lose to a FBS or playoff team.

Yup. And besides, FCS teams that enter the realm of the BCS are getting paid a handsome sum for their participation in what is an almost guaranteed loss. Those FCS schools don't deserve to be rewarded twice for their efforts. (Ditto schools who buy wins against D-II teams.)

[89Hen]

Yup. And besides, FCS teams that enter the realm of the BCS are getting paid a handsome sum for their participation in what is an almost guaranteed loss. Those FCS schools don't deserve to be rewarded twice for their efforts. (Ditto schools who buy wins against D-II teams.)
:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

[Cobblestone]

I think all conference champions should get an auto-bid.

[danefan]

It seems to be saying that 50% of any playoff field must come from autobids & the other 50% from at-large. It is excepting Football and any team sport without autobids. Seems like this doesn't force football to have 50% autobids.

I read it very similarly. This rule, as cut and pasted here, does not appear to apply to football.

[89Hen]

I read it very similarly. This rule, as cut and pasted here, does not appear to apply to football. But even if it did apply I read it as saying that half the bids must come from conferences that meet the qualifications for an auto bid. It doesn't necessarily mean that half the bids must befrom auto-bids. This may be splitting hairs, but if a committee, who was bound by this rule, wanted to put 4 Gateway and 4 A10 teams in, they would meet this standard.
Not sure about that. The part about the conference providing play-in criteria means it's sending one team IMO.

[yosef1969]

Not sure about that. The part about the conference providing play-in criteria means it's sending one team IMO.

I think that portion of the verbage becomes irrelevant b/c football was excluded in the intial qualifying statement.

I may be interpretting what was posted incorrectly but I think this applies to sports other than basketball and excluding Football (or any other sport identified/designated). Now why they didn't simply say "other than basketball, football etc" is a different matter.

This portion of the rule also seems to be directed towards sports that use a "conference tournament" to determine their post season representative. That could partially explain why the exclusions of basketball and football were noted and why perhaps football appeared almost as an afterthought (when did SEC and Big Twelve begin championship games?).

Just my thoughts. I haven't read the entire rule so I could be way off base here.

[GannonFan]

DII has 11 regular season and 5 week 24 team playoff.

We can do the same.

Sure we can, but DII also has a lot more teams than the FCS does. By my count, there are 156 DII teams that are championship elgible. In the FCS, there are officially 116 teams (teams like NDSU are already factored out), but that also includes the Ivy teams who take themselves out of the playoffs and the SWAC teams that while not technically excluded from the playoffs, are very unlikely to be in the playoffs due to other committments. So that's only 98 teams at the FCS level. Using those numbers:

DII: 156 teams 24 playoff spots 15.38% of the division makes the postseason

FCS: 98 teams 16 playoff spots 16.33% of the division makes the postseason

We're already a wider field than DII is - if anything, you should be on the DII boards asking why their playoff system is so restrictive. :nono: ;)

[danefan]

Not sure about that. The part about the conference providing play-in criteria means it's sending one team IMO.


I agree. After re-reading I missed the play-in criteria section. I edited my post to reflect that. However, I don't think it applies to football anyway.

[MplsBison]

DII: 156 teams 24 playoff spots 15.38% of the division makes the postseason

FCS: 98 teams 16 playoff spots 16.33% of the division makes the postseason



FBS: 119 teams 64 post season spots.

Not saying we need to go that far, but obviously going to 24 is no where near unreasonable compared to FBS.

[FargoBison]

I heard NDSU's AD talking about this on the radio today. He is very much in favor of a 24 team playoff and it sounded like others our as well. So far the NCAA isn't too excited about the million dollar price tag that would come with 8 more playoff teams so people like NDSU's AD have a lot of work to do in order to make anything happen. He did say he thinks it could happen in 2 to 3 years so I am sure this is something we'll be hearing alot more about in the future.

[74AppState]

"have emerged as potential heavyweights in the FCS world"---The Big South Conference??? you gotta be kiddin'.

[spdram]

it's all about the money. Why not have regional games set up for the playoffs? Go to 24, as said earlier top 8 teams get a week off the remaining 16 are also seeded and you play at the higher seeds home (regional matchups to give the fans a chance to travel --- so may not be a 9 playing 24 etc). The next week you play in 8 smaller regional markets, get the local businesses to sponsor a playoff game (they know for a year ahead they will have it, they can get corporate sponsors etc, sell tickets and make it a festival type event. All resulting in more money for schools. Same thing next week, but 4 regional cities and they have to bid more to get the games, then finally two and then the championship game. First round games could be as low as $250,000 to cover the teams cost, 2nd round $350,000, 3rd round $500,000 and championship $1,000,000. With the monies cities and corporations pay for bowl games now if you can get them at least a guarantee of regional TV it would be a bargain. Give the playing team a guarantee, eg $50,000 for each game, split the rest of the payment between the NCAA and the conference of each team. The gate and all goes back to the sponsoring city so if they push it they could actually make money too. Sound possible?

[GannonFan]

FBS: 119 teams 64 post season spots.

Not saying we need to go that far, but obviously going to 24 is no where near unreasonable compared to FBS.

Well, I don't think necessarily following one of the most broken post-season set-ups is really the way to go. I'm all in favor of increasing the size of the playoffs, but only when there's more teams in the division. Your original point was saying that DII can do it, so why can't we, and I showed you how DII is so much bigger than the FCS that right now, with no changes, we are already more inclusive and have more teams in the playoffs per our size than DII does.

If we went to 24 teams, that would be close to 25% of all of FCS getting into the playoffs - that's just way too high, IMO. One out of every 4 teams shouldn't be in the playoffs - just this past year we had two 4 loss teams get in (rightfully so IMO) so how many more of those teams get in for a 24 team playoff? How about 5 loss teams? Each year there's maybe 1 or 2 teams that are left out of the playoffs that have a good case to be upset about not making them - so why up and add 8 more teams to the playoffs to address this 1 or 2 team a year issue? That's probably adding 7 teams that have no business being in the playoffs. I like the way that it works right now - if a lot more teams come in and are playoff eligible, then I'd see about increasing the size of the playoffs. But even then, not to 24 - maybe just 20 and have 4 playin games basically. No need to emulate the mistakes that are the FBS.

[89Hen]

FBS: 119 teams 64 post season spots.

Not saying we need to go that far, but obviously going to 24 is no where near unreasonable compared to FBS.
Completely different in that each team only plays once. They could never have 64-32-16-8-4-2-1.

[NE MT GRIZZ]

I think the 16 team format is just right. The games in this years playoffs were for the most part pretty competitive. If you add more teams the competition will be diluted and the games will be boring.
If you add 8 more teams to the playoffs, realistically, what are the chances they will even come close to a title. Very slim, and then the expanded playoffs become about money, and we don't want to be like the Bowl Game whores of 1-A.

I am curious, when is the last time anyone ranked outside the top 10 ever won the title?

[89Hen]

I am curious, when is the last time anyone ranked outside the top 10 ever won the title?
I doubt UMass was in the top ten in 1998. They were 8-3 entering the playoffs.

[NE MT GRIZZ]

I was kind of hoping that they were ranked to help strengthen my point that we do not need a 24 team playoff.

[89Hen]

I was kind of hoping that they were ranked to help strengthen my point that we do not need a 24 team playoff.
I don't think it hurts you though, because they were in fact included in the field of 16. I went back and found that UMass was ranked 12 that year heading into the playoffs.

You are correct, we do not currently need a 24 team playoff. :bow:

[Ronbo]

Expand the playoffs. Add another week to the playoff schedule and you face having the regular season cut back to 10 games. Are you playoff expansion proponents OK with that? You miss the playoffs and only get 10 games.

[henfan]

it's all about the money. Why not have regional games set up for the playoffs? Go to 24, as said earlier top 8 teams get a week off the remaining 16 are also seeded and you play at the higher seeds home (regional matchups to give the fans a chance to travel --- so may not be a 9 playing 24 etc). The next week you play in 8 smaller regional markets, get the local businesses to sponsor a playoff game (they know for a year ahead they will have it, they can get corporate sponsors etc, sell tickets and make it a festival type event... Sound possible?

No offense or disrespect intended, but this just can't work. If it sounds like a good idea, chances are pretty high that someone's already thought better of it.

Basically what you're talking about is the FCS operating it's post-season outside the auspices of the NCAA. Given that there's very little cohesion among the ranks of FCS schools and conferences, your plan has zero chance of happening in any way, shape or form.

Besides, the FCS can only garner interest for its championship game from three cities. I'm not sure how you could possibly think that there would ever be 15 cities willing and capable of producing profitable post-season games every year. Television rights and acess doesn't grown on trees. The FCS would have to sell its product to sponsors, most of whom already have deals with the BCS.

That's just for starters...

[rmutv]

Expand the playoffs. Add another week to the playoff schedule and you face having the regular season cut back to 10 games. Are you playoff expansion proponents OK with that? You miss the playoffs and only get 10 games.

Robert Morris coach Joe Walton wants 10 games as it is, even without the NEC not looked at as a serious playoff conference.

Now, schools in some of the other larger conferences may not agree, but I wouldn't write it off immediately.

[UAalum72]

Expand the playoffs. Add another week to the playoff schedule and you face having the regular season cut back to 10 games. Are you playoff expansion proponents OK with that? You miss the playoffs and only get 10 games.
Why not? Even major Div. I teams played only ten regular season games as late as 1970. Many played only nine games in the late 1950's.

(to some of us, those years are NOT ancient history)

[bluehenbillk]

Why not? Even major Div. I teams played only ten regular season games as late as 1970. Many played only nine games in the late 1950's.

(to some of us, those years are NOT ancient history)

10 game regular season? My answer in 2 words: Hell No!! I would have supported 12 games & obviously about 40%-45% of the schools did. For a lot of schools you're talking one less home game with a 10-game schedule which means less revenue. I'm trying to think of a sport that ever scaled back its schedule anyway. When schools talk about that I can't take them seriously.

[blur2005]

Until the SWAC or Ivy come on board, I'm against expansion. The NEC is definitely on its way, but there needs to be another conference in the mix (like the SWAC or Ivy) in order to account for adding eight playoff slots.

Also, none of the more major FCS schools will ever agree to lower the number of games in a season due to money. Forget that idea.

[FargoBison]

The playoffs can expand to 24 teams without the need to go 10 games, DII teams play 11 games and they have a 24 team playoff. If the playoffs expand to 24 I would move the title game to the weekend after christmas. That way the fans would have 2 weeks to make travel plans and the players would get some time off as well. I would also look to move the game to a better site like Nashville, Orlando, or Vegas. Sure the current system is fine and it works but I certainly think the FCS can do better and further raise its profile.

[NE MT GRIZZ]

The FCS is just fine, more does not always mean better. If you added the next 8 teams in line for the 2006 playoffs, would any of them made any noise, no. 1st round exits for every one of them.
We can't just hand out playoff births, they need to be earned.

[FargoBison]

The FCS is just fine, more does not always mean better. If you added the next 8 teams in line for the 2006 playoffs, would any of them made any noise, no. 1st round exits for every one of them.
We can't just hand out playoff births, they need to be earned.

They will be earned, more teams are joining up to play FCS football each year and more teams also seem to be trying to raise the profile of their programs. With a better shot at the playoffs schools would only try to become more and more competitive. Also I don't think it would be too unheard of to see a 17-24th ranked team beat 9-16 ranked team.

[UAalum72]

If you added the next 8 teams in line for the 2006 playoffs, would any of them made any noise, no. 1st round exits for every one of them.
We can't just hand out playoff births, they need to be earned.
Odds are one or two 17-24 seeds would beat the MEAC or OVC (or both) champs - if those teams are still seeded 1-16.

[MplsBison]

They could never have 64-32-16-8-4-2-1.

Doesn't matter.

More than half the teams have access to the post season.

We can live with 25%.

[JALMOND]

The selection committee is supposed to consider WINS, not losses. Anybody can lose to a FBS or playoff team.

The committee does not know what to consider. If you reach the seven win level, you are supposed to be considered. Also, consideration is supposed to be given to those schools that played a full DI schedule. Portland State did both and Portland State should have been considered. PSU did nothing wrong in its scheduling, we played who we scheduled and we reached the seven win level, and according to the guidelines set by the committee, we should have been given a shot at the title. If we would have won in Bozeman, would the fact that we played three "money" games still have kept us out at 8-3? The only risk we took in scheduling three FBS teams was that, going 0-3 against those, losing to Montana and one other BSC team, would have put us 6-5 and not a qualifier for consideration anyway.

The fact is that we were at the very least on a par with both the Cats and Griz this year. Due to the success both teams had in the playoffs, Portland State should have been in. If the playoffs need to be expanded to include those that deserve their rightful spot and the old guard can still protect the identity of those teams they want in, then so be it.

[elkmcc]

If all losses were to BCS teams (going to bowls), in tight games, and at least 7 D-I WINS (vs FCS, for most parts) why should that team be left home vs. an undefeated NEC or Pioneer League champ with NO other top 25 school on schedule? Likewise, Gateway, Big Sky, CAA, SoCon, Southland, GWFC, Big South are getting to be unlikely to make it through without 1 conference loss.

Yes, I'd like to see an expanded play-offs.



DII has 11 regular season and 5 week 24 team playoff.

We can do the same.



I heard NDSU's AD talking about this on the radio today. He is very much in favor of a 24 team playoff and it sounded like others our as well. So far the NCAA isn't too excited about the million dollar price tag that would come with 8 more playoff teams so people like NDSU's AD have a lot of work to do in order to make anything happen. He did say he thinks it could happen in 2 to 3 years so I am sure this is something we'll be hearing alot more about in the future.



The playoffs can expand to 24 teams without the need to go 10 games, DII teams play 11 games and they have a 24 team playoff. If the playoffs expand to 24 I would move the title game to the weekend after christmas. That way the fans would have 2 weeks to make travel plans and the players would get some time off as well. I would also look to move the game to a better site like Nashville, Orlando, or Vegas. Sure the current system is fine and it works but I certainly think the FCS can do better and further raise its profile.

Why is it that Bison and Bunny fans want to make the FCS a DII clone? If you all liked DII so well why in the heck didn't you just stay there? You all remind me of the import Californians that have moved into Montana. They came to Montana because they hated California but they want to shove the Cali philosophy down our throats. It is ridiculous. These newbie programs and their fans haven't even experienced the FCS/I-AA playoffs and they want to change the rules? :eyebrow:

[blukeys]

They will be earned, more teams are joining up to play FCS football each year and more teams also seem to be trying to raise the profile of their programs. With a better shot at the playoffs schools would only try to become more and more competitive. Also I don't think it would be too unheard of to see a 17-24th ranked team beat 9-16 ranked team.

Your point that a a 17 to 24 team could win a first round game is valid. However, the point of the playoffs is to crown a National Champion. I have yet to see anyone claim that expanding the playoffs would result in a different National Champion. For instance if we had 24 teams this year instead of 16 does anyone suggest that there would be a different NC then App State?

For that matter does anyone think that there would be a different finalist than UMASS?

Since the playoffs have been expanded to 16 can anyone make the case that a team excluded DUE TO NON SELECTION would have beaten the eventual NC in the playoffs?

So far the argument for expansion rests on the premise that some excluded team could have beaten the MEAC, OVC or PL auto bid. If this is the basis of the argument, why not argue that one or more of these conferences should not have an auto bid and award another at large instead? This would be certainly easier than adding another 8 teams adding another week to the season and the additional expense of going with more teams.

Until someone makes the case that potential NC teams are being excluded I am for keeping the playoffs at 16. D-3 expanded to 32 teams because every year they were leaving out undefeated teams from the playoffs. We are taking in 3 and 4 loss teams. Once we reach the D-3 ratio I will be willing to expand.

[FargoBison]

Why is it that Bison and Bunny fans want to make the FCS a DII clone? If you all liked DII so well why in the heck didn't you just stay there? You all remind me of the import Californians that have moved into Montana. They came to Montana because they hated California but they want to shove the Cali philosophy down our throats. It is ridiculous. These newbie programs and their fans haven't even experienced the FCS/I-AA playoffs and they want to change the rules? :eyebrow:

A DII clone? Thats probably the last thing I would want, the playoff system for DII and the FCS aren't even close to the same thing. FCS has a national playoff and DII doesn't go to a national format until the semifinals. All the conferences are grouped into regions and only the top 4 from each region got into the playoffs back when NDSU was DII.

About the only thing I would take from the DII playoffs is the 24 teams(something that happend only after NDSU left DII). I would never want regionalization and I have already stated my desire to move the title game to a place like Nashville, Orlando, or Vegas and have the game played in a stadium that seats 35-40k(which is again the complete opposite of DII). I also would like to see a week off before the title game which is again something DII doesn't do. About the last thing a Bison fan would want to see is the FCS turn into DII.

[elkmcc]

A DII clone? Thats probably the last thing I would want, the playoff system for DII and the FCS aren't even close to the same thing. FCS has a national playoff and DII doesn't go to a national format until the semifinals. All the conferences are grouped into regions and only the top 4 from each region got into the playoffs back when NDSU was DII.

About the only thing I would take from the DII playoffs is the 24 teams(something that happend only after NDSU left DII). I would never want regionalization and I have already stated my desire to move the title game to a place like Nashville, Orlando, or Vegas and have the game played in a stadium that seats 35-40k(which is again the complete opposite of DII). I also would like to see a week off before the title game which is again something DII doesn't do. About the last thing a Bison fan would want to see is the FCS turn into DII.

My point is that the programs new to I-AA/FCS should at least experience our playoffs before they try to dictate changes to the division's playoffs. IMO your points on the champ game location are valid. I think the western programs deserve a shot at a venue more geographically proximate to them. It has been in the east long enough. Lets not change the format of the playoffs just yet though.

[lizrdgizrd]

My point is that the programs new to I-AA/FCS should at least experience our playoffs before they try to dictate changes to the division's playoffs. IMO your points on the champ game location are valid. I think the western programs deserve a shot at a venue more geographically proximate to them. It has been in the east long enough. Lets not change the format of the playoffs just yet though.
I don't think anyone is against the possibility that the game could move to some other location. I think Chattanooga has done a great job and will continue to do so as long as they can. I'm sure other cities would do a good job too, but they need the facilities and the desire to bid on the game. I'm not sure the desire is there for places that could handle the game well.

[Ronbo]

I think the best point made is that we have so many fewer teams than DII that either participate in the playoffs or have strong enough schedules to be considered. Take out the SWAC, Ivy, Pioneer, and MAAC and you have just 89 teams that are in our playoffs. What's DII? 150?

[MplsBison]

Your point that a a 17 to 24 team could win a first round game is valid. However, the point of the playoffs is to crown a National Champion. I have yet to see anyone claim that expanding the playoffs would result in a different National Champion. For instance if we had 24 teams this year instead of 16 does anyone suggest that there would be a different NC then App State?


Lets make the playoffs 2 teams.

Just send the top 2 ranked teams straight to the national championship game.


I think I remember reading about how one division did that one time...

[MplsBison]

Why is it that Bison and Bunny fans want to make the FCS a DII clone? If you all liked DII so well why in the heck didn't you just stay there? You all remind me of the import Californians that have moved into Montana. They came to Montana because they hated California but they want to shove the Cali philosophy down our throats. It is ridiculous. These newbie programs and their fans haven't even experienced the FCS/I-AA playoffs and they want to change the rules?


Fellow I-AA teams, are we going to sit back and let Montana and Delaware dictate to us how things are going to be?


They are 2 strong and we are over 100.


I say majority rules.

[89Hen]

The committee does not know what to consider. If you reach the seven win level, you are supposed to be considered. Also, consideration is supposed to be given to those schools that played a full DI schedule. Portland State did both and Portland State should have been considered. PSU did nothing wrong in its scheduling, we played who we scheduled and we reached the seven win level, and according to the guidelines set by the committee, we should have been given a shot at the title. If we would have won in Bozeman, would the fact that we played three "money" games still have kept us out at 8-3? The only risk we took in scheduling three FBS teams was that, going 0-3 against those, losing to Montana and one other BSC team, would have put us 6-5 and not a qualifier for consideration anyway.

The fact is that we were at the very least on a par with both the Cats and Griz this year. Due to the success both teams had in the playoffs, Portland State should have been in. If the playoffs need to be expanded to include those that deserve their rightful spot and the old guard can still protect the identity of those teams they want in, then so be it.
:nonono2: xidiotx :nonono2: xidiotx JALMOND, you've completely lost it over this topic.

1. What makes you think PSU wasn't considered? Just because they weren't selected?

2. According to the guidelines you should have been considered. Where does it say you should be invited?

3. How can you be considered to be on par with the Cats and Griz when you LOST to both teams?

4. Not even sure what you mean by "the success both teams had". The Griz and the Cats? 3-2 by teams that both beat PSU means PSU should have been in?

5. The "old guard"? Now Montana State is a member of the "old guard"? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx I've heard it all now.

[Ronbo]

I heard that it was a very difficult decision between MSU and PSU. They were dead even in the eyes of the Committee. The deciding issue might have been which school would put the most butts in their seats. They will never admit it, but it has to be brought into the back room discussions.

[OL FU]

I heard that it was a very difficult decision between MSU and PSU. They were dead even in the eyes of the Committee. The deciding issue might have been which school would put the most butts in their seats. They will never admit it, but it has to be brought into the back room discussions.

I can believe that. but I have a tough time believing that rational people deciding two teams were dead even would not use the head to head as the deciding factor or at least the public reason

[89Hen]

I heard that it was a very difficult decision between MSU and PSU. They were dead even in the eyes of the Committee. The deciding issue might have been which school would put the most butts in their seats. They will never admit it, but it has to be brought into the back room discussions.
Or the fact that MSU beat PSU head to head.

[Ronbo]

Well when you weigh out schedule between the two schools. PSU had four losses, all quality teams. MSU had four losses and two were ugly to teams they should have beat.

[89Hen]

Well when you weigh out schedule between the two schools. PSU had four losses, all quality teams. MSU had four losses and two were ugly to teams they should have beat.
I look at wins more than losses. Anyone can lose a game. Honestly, I don't think either team deserved a bid, but who did PSU beat that was more impressive than MSU? New Mexico wasn't really a bowl team... 6-6 in the MWC? :rolleyes: The New Mexico win was on par with the Colorado win IMO. So where do you point after that?

[lizrdgizrd]

Fellow I-AA teams, are we going to sit back and let Montana and Delaware dictate to us how things are going to be?


They are 2 strong and we are over 100.


I say majority rules.
You think Montana & Delaware fans are the ones holding back an expansion to 24 teams?

If you think everyone else is for 24 teams how do you think Montana & Delaware are stopping it?

[ATrain]

And just why do Del. and Mont. deserve to be kicked out? When was the last time either one won the Nat'l championship game? Good attendance makes not a good team...just look at the SWAC...and for the record, I'm not calling either the Hens or Grizz bad, just stating that attendance isn't always correlated to performance.

[OL FU]

:smiley_wi
You think Montana & Delaware fans are the ones holding back an expansion to 24 teams?

If you think everyone else is for 24 teams how do you think Montana & Delaware are stopping it?

:nod: :nod: I an 99.999% certain Furman would vote against any expansion of the playoffs. :nod: :nod: and this is one time I would agree with my alma mater

[lizrdgizrd]

Fellow I-AA teams, are we going to sit back and let Montana and Delaware dictate to us how things are going to be?


They are 2 strong and we are over 100.


I say majority rules.
You have issued the call and I have made the poll. Let's let the FCS nation decide!

[JALMOND]

I heard that it was a very difficult decision between MSU and PSU. They were dead even in the eyes of the Committee. The deciding issue might have been which school would put the most butts in their seats. They will never admit it, but it has to be brought into the back room discussions.

Ronbo, I don't agree with you most of the time, but I think you hit the nail on the head. Pure $$$. It is no secret PSU can't compete when dollars are on the line, only on the field. So true, and the committee will not admit it.

I'll admit, it makes more cents than trying to convince others of the "old guard".

[JALMOND]

I look at wins more than losses. Anyone can lose a game. Honestly, I don't think either team deserved a bid, but who did PSU beat that was more impressive than MSU? New Mexico wasn't really a bowl team... 6-6 in the MWC? :rolleyes: The New Mexico win was on par with the Colorado win IMO. So where do you point after that?

New Mexico did go to a bowl. Colorado did not. Northwestern did not. New Mexico finished third in the MVC, behind BYU and Utah. All the other FCS wins over the FBS came against schools that did not qualify for a bowl. Portland State won against New Mexico, the only FCS school to beat a bowl bound FBS team. Also, PSU finished 6-2 against the FCS. Playing in a traditionally strong FCS conference, two losses should not keep you out. PSU was one of only a handful of FCS teams to truly play a full DI schedule. New Mexico on par with Colorado? If you believe that, there's no use in debating this further. You'll believe what you want to believe and ignore the truth.

[NE MT GRIZZ]

Jalmond,
I agree that PSU was more deserving. MSU's win over Colorado should be nullified by their loss to Chadron.

You did have one error, New Mexico finished 5th overall and 5th in the MWC behind BYU, TCU, Utah, and Wyoming.

[lizrdgizrd]

Ronbo, I don't agree with you most of the time, but I think you hit the nail on the head. Pure $$$. It is no secret PSU can't compete when dollars are on the line, only on the field. So true, and the committee will not admit it.

I'll admit, it makes more cents than trying to convince others of the "old guard".
If PSU can only compete on the field then why do you find it unconvincing that MSU was picked over them due to the head-to-head result? That's the competition on the field and PSU lost. I'm sure $$$ had something to do with it, but when you're a bubble team $$$ is going to put you over the edge.

[89Hen]

New Mexico on par with Colorado? If you believe that, there's no use in debating this further. You'll believe what you want to believe and ignore the truth.
Tell me the truth then. What make New Mexico superior to Colorado? If NM had to play a BigXII schedule (even with the BXII having a down year) there is no way in hades they go to a bowl. : smh :