One Change in the FCS Playoffs to Consider

[KPSUL]

I'd like to see one change in how home field is determined in the playoffs. When a team beats a higher seeded team, they should get the seed of the team they beat when determining home field in the next rounds. For instance, Maine as the lower seeded team had to travel to #2 Weber State; after beating them, they should get the home field vs #3 EWU. Thoughts?

[kdinva]

No, I am not a fan of "re-seeding", etc.....but with THIS committee...........we'll see....

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

No

[KPSUL]

No

What do you care, NDSU plays all their playoff games in the Fargodome?

[Lorne_Malvo]

No.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

What do you care, NDSU plays all their playoff games in the Fargodome?


Because they EARN those playoff games...xcoffeex

[POD Knows]

I'd like to see one change in how home field is determined in the playoffs. When a team beats a higher seeded team, they should get the seed of the team they beat when determining home field in the next rounds. For instance, Maine as the lower seeded team had to travel to #2 Weber State; after beating them, they should get the home field vs #3 EWU. Thoughts?
Why should EWU lose the seed because another team ****s the bed. Terrible idea. Sorry

[KPSUL]

What do you care, NDSU plays all their playoff games in the Fargodome?

I never said they didn't. I think the only playoff game NDSU has lost was a semi-final in 2016, so this change would have had no impact on them.

[citdog]

No.

[KPSUL]

No.

I think we already heard that argument? But thanks for your comment!

[CHIP72]

Not a good idea IMO.

Now if you want to reseed the seeds starting in the quarterfinal round (i.e. teams don’t have pre-determined opponents if upsets happen), that’s another story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

I never said they didn't. I think the only playoff game NDSU has lost was a semi-final in 2016, so this change would have had no impact on them.


Post #7 sums it up for you.

[KPSUL]

No.

Another No, I'll add it to the total!

[Bisonwinagn]

I like it. So next year when NDSU loses 3 games and is unseeded they can beat the top team and get the #1 seed. Sweeeet!!!

[KPSUL]

Home field advantage has a huge impact on the outcome of these playoff game. I think we had 1 team win on the road in the 1st round, 0 in the 2nd round, 1 in the Qtrs and looks like, barring a miracle, 0 in the semis. That's 22 games with only 2 road teams winning. I thinking seeding done before any playoff games have been played may not be the only factor that should be considered awarding home field to teams in the Quarters and Semi-Finals since it clearly has a major impact on the outcome.

[POD Knows]

Home field advantage has a huge impact on the outcome of these playoff game. I think we had 1 team win on the road in the 1st round, 0 in the 2nd round, 1 in the Qtrs and looks like, barring a miracle, 0 in the semis. That's 22 games with only 2 road teams winning. I thinking seeding done before any playoff games have been played may not be the only factor that should be considered awarding home field to teams in the Quarters and Semi-Finals since it clearly has a major impact on the outcome.
Maybe these home teams winning are just better teams.

[citdog]

Maybe these home teams winning are just better teams.

Yep

[uni88]

Not a good idea IMO.

Now if you want to reseed the seeds starting in the quarterfinal round (i.e. teams don’t have pre-determined opponents if upsets happen), that’s another story.

So instead of #5 SDSU @ #1 NDSU playing and #7 Maine @ #3 EWU we would have #7 Maine @ #1 NDSU and #5 SDSU @ #3 EWU. That's a better idea than punishing EWU for Weber *****ting the bed against Maine.

What do you think of that idea KPSUL?

[Twentysix]

So instead of #5 SDSU @ #1 NDSU playing and #7 Maine @ #3 EWU we would have #7 Maine @ #1 NDSU and #5 SDSU @ #3 EWU. That's a better idea than punishing EWU for Weber *****ting the bed against Maine.

What do you think of that idea KPSUL?This is a decent idea, but it will result in even more crying about ndsu.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[BisonTru]

So you **** EWU because Weber St was overseeded??? xscanxxeyebrowxxdontknowx

[KPSUL]

Maybe these home teams winning are just better teams.

Maybe? I'd like to have a process that results in something a little better than maybe.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Maybe? I'd like to have a process that results in something a little better than maybe.


There is a process or are you completely oblivious?

Take care of business in your regular season and EARN a seed. Get a high seed and EARN home games. EARN a top 2 seed and get all potential games at home.

Really easy.

[KPSUL]

So you **** EWU because Weber St was overseeded??? xscanxxeyebrowxxdontknowx

The two teams had the same overall and conference records, and Weber won the head to head - plenty of relevant comparative data. They got that right when the comparative seeding of the two teams in question was initially done.

This post was not about only one game - I'm talking about a process that may not result in the fairest playoffs as possible. Maybe there is not a better, or fairer way of determining home field, but I think there likely is.

[Bisonoline]

No

[JayJ79]

Seeds are earned via your play during the regular season (or at least they are supposed to be, then you mix in the selection committee "politics" and other BS).
If someone pulls off an upset, that grants them the ability to advance in the tournament, but it doesn't change the seeding.

[POD Knows]

Maybe? I'd like to have a process that results in something a little better than maybe.
I was being sarcastic.

[POD Knows]

The two teams had the same overall and conference records, and Weber won the head to head - plenty of relevant comparative data. They got that right when the comparative seeding of the two teams in question was initially done.

This post was not about only one game - I'm talking about a process that may not result in the fairest playoffs as possible. Maybe there is not a better, or fairer way of determining home field, but I think there likely is.
The fairest way is to reward the teams that performed during the regular season and earned the seeds.

[Reign of Terrier]

On one hand, hosting a playoff game is usually indicative of being a higher ranked team, so home field being a predictor of success isn't surprising.

The way you would prove that the main predictor was home field and not seeding was by looking at games in which there were no seeds playing and looking at the percentage the home team won.

I would go a step further and look at "power" conference unseeded playoff games because a lot of home games in the first round are between teams of different quality, usually.

I'm open to this argument, but it's hard to measure than it used to be because there are more seeds now than there were when there were 16 teams.

You could also make the case that travel is making these games less competitive. Look at teams coming back from a long road trip and see how the margin of defeat compares to teams who had a bye or home game.

My point is, there is a lot of ways you could look at this issue. But it's mid December and the Terriers aren't playing so I won't care to look into the issue until August. Someone else can if they want.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[KPSUL]

The fairest way is to reward the teams that performed during the regular season and earned the seeds.

That should be the starting point. I'm sure you'd concede that it is extremely hard to "fairly" compare teams from different conferences and different regions of the country. Seeding teams to set up the brackets as fairly as possible has to occur, but deciding which teams will play at home does not have be done the way it is done currently. Given that the home team won 91% of the time during this playoff season it is a factor that unquestionably effects the outcome of games independent of the factors used to seed teams. I think flipping a coin to determine home field after the teams playing in each round of the playoffs are set would be a better way than what's done currently. Although I personally thought considering the results of playoff games already completed would be more appropriate. Some one earlier in this thread suggested a reseeding process, which if explained further, might have more merit.

[JayJ79]

I don't really see the merits of reseeding.
But in this instance, a SDSU vs. EWU matchup would have been more interesting than yet another NDSU/SDSU rematch.
NDSU hosting Maine would have been just as one-sided (if not more so)

[BisonTru]

The two teams had the same overall and conference records, and Weber won the head to head - plenty of relevant comparative data. They got that right when the comparative seeding of the two teams in question was initially done.

This post was not about only one game - I'm talking about a process that may not result in the fairest playoffs as possible. Maybe there is not a better, or fairer way of determining home field, but I think there likely is.

You seem to want to switch a seed when it favors the CAA after we get a result, but now are saying they got EWU Weber right on the seeds even when have results of EWU over Maine over Weber.

The seeds are what they are. Every year a few seeds probably are higher or lower than the should be. I think in hindsight Maine probably deserved a seed, but the 2 seed? No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KPSUL]

So instead of #5 SDSU @ #1 NDSU playing and #7 Maine @ #3 EWU we would have #7 Maine @ #1 NDSU and #5 SDSU @ #3 EWU. That's a better idea than punishing EWU for Weber *****ting the bed against Maine.

What do you think of that idea KPSUL?

I think it has absolutely nothing to do with what I proposed. Using the example I chose, Maine would have gotten the home game vs EWU based on defeating the #2 Seed in the Quarterfinals. Prior wins CAN change home field but not the bracets That's it. Clear enough?

[KPSUL]

You seem to want to switch a seed when it favors the CAA after we get a result, but now are saying they got EWU Weber right on the seeds even when have results of EWU over Maine over Weber.

The seeds are what they are. Every year a few seeds probably are higher or lower than the should be. I think in hindsight Maine probably deserved a seed, but the 2 seed? No.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Maine was seeded, 7th. Nothing I'm suggesting favors any conference. IF and when a team beats a higher seeded team they would then replace that time at the level of seed to be used to determine home field in the next playoff games - but it would not effect existing brackets.

[KPSUL]

There is a process or are you completely oblivious?

Take care of business in your regular season and EARN a seed. Get a high seed and EARN home games. EARN a top 2 seed and get all potential games at home.

Really easy.

Yes there is a process, and you've made it clear you like it exactly the way it is. Thanks for your input!

[POD Knows]

Yes there is a process, and you've made it clear you like it exactly the way it is. Thanks for your input!Gee, rewarding teams for their performance and raking during the regular season, how gauche.

[BisonTru]

Maine was seeded, 7th. Nothing I'm suggesting favors any conference. IF and when a team beats a higher seeded team they would then replace that time at the level of seed to be used to determine home field in the next playoff games - but it would not effect existing brackets.

You’re still not considering the team being beat may have been over seeded. Which is exactly what happened in your example. Maine got beat easily today by a team that should absolutely been seeded ahead of them.

In your scenario Maine would have obtained the 2 seed despite most fans in agreement EWU looked like the better team. Then we would have forced EWU to fly out there and beat them even though the committee recognized them as the better team pre tourney. That makes no ****ing sense.

I’m sorry but this is a really dumb idea my man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[POD Knows]

You’re still not considering the team being beat may have been over seeded. Which is exactly what happened in your example. Maine got beat easily today by a team that should absolutely been seeded ahead of them.

In your scenario Maine would have obtained the 2 seed despite most fans in agreement EWU looked like the better team. Then we would have forced EWU to fly out there and beat them even though the committee recognized them as the better team pre tourney. That makes no ****ing sense.

I’m sorry but this is a really dumb idea my man.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI think that is why it is currently polling at 98% opposed, 1% support and 1% undecided.

[KPSUL]

I think that is why it is currently polling at 98% opposed, 1% support and 1% undecided.

Yes, I can see that, but considering the audience that's not bad.

As far as the previous post by "my man" BisonTru, let's see how well EWU would do if they had to fly to the east coast and play the # 1 an #2 CAA teams on consecutive weeks. Actually we'd have no frame of reference since they haven't play a playoff game outside of Cheney in something like 7 years.

[BisonTru]

Yes, I can see that, but considering the audience that's not bad.

As far as the previous post by "my man" BisonTru, let's see how well EWU would do if they had to fly to the east coast and play the # 1 an #2 CAA teams on consecutive weeks. Actually we'd have no frame of reference since they haven't play a playoff

game outside of Cheney in something like 7 years.

we we can do imaginary hypotheticals but by the overwhelming consensus agrees EWU derserved to be ranked higher.

The only team that really has a gripe here is SDSU as they might very well be better than EWU. Or if EWU beats NDSU especially handily, Maine could argue they deserved to be ranked higher than NDSU. Call it homerism but that last sentence is not likely imho tho.

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, I can see that, but considering the audience that's not bad.

As far as the previous post by "my man" BisonTru, let's see how well EWU would do if they had to fly to the east coast and play the # 1 an #2 CAA teams on consecutive weeks. Actually we'd have no frame of reference since they haven't play a playoff

game outside of Cheney in something like 7 years.

we we can do imaginary hypotheticals but by the overwhelming consensus agrees EWU derserved to be ranked higher.

The only team that really has a gripe here is SDSU as they might very well be better than EWU. Or if EWU beats NDSU especially handily, Maine could argue they deserved to be ranked higher than NDSU. Call it homerism but that last sentence is not likely imho tho.

[semobison]

Yes, I can see that, but considering the audience that's not bad.

As far as the previous post by "my man" BisonTru, let's see how well EWU would do if they had to fly to the east coast and play the # 1 an #2 CAA teams on consecutive weeks. Actually we'd have no frame of reference since they haven't play a playoff game outside of Cheney in something like 7 years.

Maybe Maine shouldn't of lost to Yale, they would have received a higher seed. Youngstown State was unseeded in 2016, they made the final so it can be done.
The current setup for seeding isn't perfect. The CAA and Big Sky teams don't always play the best teams in their conference while SDSU has to play NDSU every year, hence 6 CAA teams and 3 Big Sky seeds.
I can't agree with Maine getting Weber's seed just because they beat them. If you want to send Maine the 7th seed to NDSU and SDSU the 5th to EWU I might be able to agree with that?
I guess what I am saying to your opinion is...no!

[dudeitsaid]

I think this is a very interesting concept. I don't know how feasible it would be to put it into practice.

I think the biggest issue I have is that you would essentially negate the entire season of sample size including out of conference games on the basis on one performance. Sometimes teams beat a higher seeded team because of they style of play, injuries to the other team, better suited play with weather factors, or just having some of the balls bounce your way.

It would add some serious additional drama to the playoffs. But, I don't really think it's right to reward a team based on "Any Given Saturday" and penalize another team that has 11 games of resume they earned them the seed in the first place.

[Bisonwinagn]

Why not use Sagarin to seed all 24 teams. That is the most fair way and does take into account everything without stupid people messing it up.

[CHIP72]

I think it has absolutely nothing to do with what I proposed. Using the example I chose, Maine would have gotten the home game vs EWU based on defeating the #2 Seed in the Quarterfinals. Prior wins CAN change home field but not the bracets That's it. Clear enough?

Uni88 was responding to (and correctly interpreting) my comment, not trying to interpret what you were proposing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gofurman]

I'd like to see one change in how home field is determined in the playoffs. When a team beats a higher seeded team, they should get the seed of the team they beat when determining home field in the next rounds. For instance, Maine as the lower seeded team had to travel to #2 Weber State; after beating them, they should get the home field vs #3 EWU. Thoughts?

Just a note. Probably been mentioned but the NIT basketball used to do this I think. If an upset occurred they would reset the games and locations.

[dgtw]

Maybe these home teams winning are just better teams.

Sounds like the seeding committee got it right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dgtw]

Just a note. Probably been mentioned but the NIT basketball used to do this I think. If an upset occurred they would reset the games and locations.

I think they just made up pairings as they went along and didn’t have seeds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

I think it has absolutely nothing to do with what I proposed. Using the example I chose, Maine would have gotten the home game vs EWU based on defeating the #2 Seed in the Quarterfinals. Prior wins CAN change home field but not the bracets That's it. Clear enough?

Absolutely ridiculous.

[cx500d]

Why not use Sagarin to seed all 24 teams. That is the most fair way and does take into account everything without stupid people messing it up.

Because then Northern Iowa would always get the 3rd or 4th seed despite being 6-5

[MSUBobcat]

29744

Terrible idea. Weber laid an egg. Not EWU's fault and probably should have been the #2 seed anyway, which would have resulted in Maine getting bounced last week instead of this week. I don't deny the travel affected Maine a bit but the better team won. If your proposal was in effect, EWU goes out to Maine and still beats them... handily, IMO.

[tjamz]

Slightly off-topic but I'd like to see the #1 seed get to choose which bracket they want after the selection committee announces the participants. They can opt for the bracket they're dealt (and keep the "home team" designation in Frisco) or they can choose the other side of the bracket that the #2 seed was dealt and be designated as the "visiting team" in Frisco.

It would take any bias away from selection committee members.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

[walliver]

The only completely fair way of doing things is to play all 23 playoff games at neutral sites.

The downside of this is that most of those games would be played in front of raucous crowds measuring in the hundreds.

[RootinFerDukes]

Why should EWU lose the seed because another team ****s the bed. Terrible idea. Sorry

This. A lower seeded team with a better regular season shouldn’t be “punished” by losing home playoff games just because a higher seeded team choked in a game they were favored to win.

[RootinFerDukes]

Herosports had the best idea shy of seeding the entire field. Seed a top 16, with top 8 getting their 1st round byes.
9-16 seeds are guaranteed to host a 1st round game. No more bidding. Then assign 1st round visiting opponents based on regional teams among the remaining unseeded teams. It may require disregarding the rematch rule.

[clenz]

Ive read many posts just saying no.

I'd like to expand on that


**** no

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[KPSUL]

The only completely fair way of doing things is to play all 23 playoff games at neutral sites.

The downside of this is that most of those games would be played in front of raucous crowds measuring in the hundreds.

A compromise might be playing the two semifinal games at neutral sites in addition to the Championship game. While this wouldn't negate the significant advantage of playing on home fields in early rounds it would make the finish to the playoffs fairer for the last 4 teams. Improving the fairness of 1st round games could be done easily - just move away from the convoluted bid system being used and go to a totally random method of determining the home teams. If a school selected randomly for home field in round one doesn't want to host for some reason, it could be past to the opponent.

[Go...gate]

No.

[Bisonoline]

A compromise might be playing the two semifinal games at neutral sites in addition to the Championship game. While this wouldn't negate the significant advantage of playing on home fields in early rounds it would make the finish to the playoffs fairer for the last 4 teams. Improving the fairness of 1st round games could be done easily - just move away from the convoluted bid system being used and go to a totally random method of determining the home teams. If a school selected randomly for home field in round one doesn't want to host for some reason, it could be past to the opponent.

A lot of hyperbole in this thread. Fact is you cant get the NCAA to run the playoffs in a real tournament format due to there regionalization bull****. All of this ---if this team beats a higher seed the team moves to a higher seed is just more fancy ****-ing. Run the tournament the way its supposed to be run.

[grizband]

A compromise might be playing the two semifinal games at neutral sites in addition to the Championship game. While this wouldn't negate the significant advantage of playing on home fields in early rounds it would make the finish to the playoffs fairer for the last 4 teams. Improving the fairness of 1st round games could be done easily - just move away from the convoluted bid system being used and go to a totally random method of determining the home teams. If a school selected randomly for home field in round one doesn't want to host for some reason, it could be past to the opponent.Home field in the semifinals is a major part of the playoffs, and should continue to be a benefit for winning.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

Herosports had the best idea shy of seeding the entire field. Seed a top 16, with top 8 getting their 1st round byes.
9-16 seeds are guaranteed to host a 1st round game. No more bidding. Then assign 1st round visiting opponents based on regional teams among the remaining unseeded teams. It may require disregarding the rematch rule.
Or do what I've been saying for 5 years now: http://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?218794-LEGIT-QUESTION-how-committee-works&p=2715741&viewfull=1#post2715741


So just going to throw this out there again in the hopes that someday it might be a reality. My wish for a playoff format in the future that balances the bracket yet still leaves room for some regionalization seeds the top 8 same as today but then groups the bottom 16 playing Thanksgiving weekend into four team pools of 3 through 6 seeds that are then paired with each other geographically (3s vs 6s and 4s vs 5s) and fed into the top 8 (3s vs 6s fed into seeds 5-8 and 4s vs 5s fed into seeds 1-4).

This year with this approach the bracket could've looked something like this:

3 seeds
JMU
Wofford
Nicholls
Towson

4 seeds
Jacksonville St
Stony Brook
Delaware
Elon

5 seeds
Montana St
SEMO
ETSU
UNI

6 seeds
Incarnate Word
Lamar
San Diego
Duquesne


Winner of Elon/SEMO to #1 NDSU
Winner of JMU/Duquesne to #8 Colgate
Winner of Jacksonville St/ETSU to #4 Kennesaw St
Winner of Towson/Incarnate Word to #5 SDSU
Winner of Stony Brook/Montana St to #2 Weber St
Winner of Wofford/Lamar to #7 Maine
Winner of Delaware/UNI to #3 EWU
Winner of Nicholls/San Diego to #6 UC Davis

[JSUSoutherner]

Herosports had the best idea shy of seeding the entire field. Seed a top 16, with top 8 getting their 1st round byes.
9-16 seeds are guaranteed to host a 1st round game. No more bidding. Then assign 1st round visiting opponents based on regional teams among the remaining unseeded teams. It may require disregarding the rematch rule.

I actually like this more than seeding the whole field.

[citdog]

Home field in the semifinals is a major part of the playoffs, and should continue to be a benefit for winning.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

This right here.

[Bisonator]

More dumb ideas from the peanut gallery to some how make the playoffs "fairer". This has to be one of the stupidest ideas yet.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

More dumb ideas from the peanut gallery to some how make the playoffs "fairer". This has to be one of the stupidest ideas yet.


Pretty much this.

[CHIP72]

A lot of hyperbole in this thread. Fact is you cant get the NCAA to run the playoffs in a real tournament format because the DI-AA/FCS playoffs have limited national interest and generate limited revenues, so the NCAA runs the playoffs in a way that reduces costs.

Corrected for accuracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Srdnaty]

Not a fan of that idea, I would rather see neutral sites for the final four. Not really a fan of that either.

As a Maine can I can honestly say that the two best fcs teams are heading to Frisco. The committee got it right this year.

[POD Knows]

Not a fan of that idea, I would rather see neutral sites for the final four. Not really a fan of that either.

As a Maine can I can honestly say that the two best fcs teams are heading to Frisco. The committee got it right this year.They got it right last year as well.

[Srdnaty]

They got it right last year as well.

The only thing that might make more sense financially is having regions to try to limit travel. North east, South east, North west, South west... Then you start travel once each regional champ is crowned. This could save cash and help out student athletes working towards finals.

I don't like that either, but I could see it happening due to money.

[POD Knows]

The only thing that might make more sense financially is having regions to try to limit travel. North east, South east, North west, South west... Then you start travel once each regional champ is crowned. This could save cash and help out student athletes working towards finals.

I don't like that either, but I could see it happening due to money.All we are getting on this is complaints from people that don't like the top teams in the country getting home games, it is really that simple. Why would an 8 seed deserve a neutral site semi game against a 1 seed if that ever happened.

[Srdnaty]

All we are getting on this is complaints from people that don't like the top teams in the country getting home games, it is really that simple. Why would an 8 seed deserve a neutral site semi game against a 1 seed if that ever happened.

They don't in my opinion. I was just stating that's better than the original posters reseeding idea.

I like the way they are, but I could see them going to a more regional setup to cut down costs.

I hope they start the same.

[NY Crusader 2010]

I've never seen this kind of re-seeding discussed before. Interesting concept but I agree home field should be earned and be taken away over a stroke of luck. This would take away top teams' ability to control their own destiny by taking care of business during regular season.

The other type of re-seeding that the NHL uses also sucks IMO. Under that system, #7 Maine would have gone to Fargo after beating Weber State because they were the worst seed of the semi-finalists. I love a traditional bracket -- no need to mess with it.

[dudeitsaid]

The other piece of seeding awarding home playoff games is that it's a mutually beneficial situation for the team that performed well, and the fans/community that supported them. Needing to travel to watch our highly seeded team would reduce the number of fans that could attend. And it could also make it challenging for people that don't have the extra cash laying around or time off of work to travel twice.

There might be some improvements to the situation, but I don't think stripping a team of a seed because a lower seeded trending up faces a team that is trending down. Weber caught EWU at the right time, but 9 times out of 10, EWU wins that game. Heck, even when we played them, we really should've won that game, and had several opportunities.

[clawman]

Why should EWU lose the seed because another team ****s the bed. Terrible idea. Sorry

Exactly, this is a REALLY bad idea

[Twentysix]

Why not use Sagarin to seed all 24 teams. That is the most fair way and does take into account everything without stupid people messing it up.Then 0-11 uni would be the 5 seed. 🤣

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[thebootfitter]

No.

For all the reasons discussed above. And because it's just dumb in the context of FCS playoff football.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Bisonator]

The only thing that might make more sense financially is having regions to try to limit travel. North east, South east, North west, South west... Then you start travel once each regional champ is crowned. This could save cash and help out student athletes working towards finals.

I don't like that either, but I could see it happening due to money.
**** that D2 ****!

[Gil Dobie]

**** that D2 ****!

FCS programs are suppose to be better financed than DII. If teams are concerned about cost, there are other options.

[walliver]

The only thing that might make more sense financially is having regions to try to limit travel. North east, South east, North west, South west... Then you start travel once each regional champ is crowned. This could save cash and help out student athletes working towards finals.

I don't like that either, but I could see it happening due to money.

FCS teams are not uniformly distributed geographically. Almost all western teams are in the Big Sky. Maybe San Diego could play in this bracket. You could add in a Texas SLC team. Basically, in order for this division not to be simply a Big Sky bracket, you have to fly in a few outliers.
The Midwest is basically the MVFC with a few OVC teams thrown in. I doubt many MVFC fans look forward to this, as it could well be an all MVFC regional.
The Southeastern regional would have 3-4 SoCon teams with JSU, Kennesaw and maybe a Virginia-based CAA team in the mix.
The committee would fill out the Northeast regional with a Patriot and NEC team with all the other spots to the CAA.
This scheme might save a little money. But I don't see it creating much fan interest.

[Mayville Bison]

As others have said, the original idea is just...um...no. Not that one extra game matters, but there were 3 visitor wins instead of 2 - pretty sure you missed SDSU winning at KSU.

I would love to see reseeding happen after each round, but until the entire field is seeded, it can't happen. What do you do if 2 unseeded teams win in round 2? It didn't happen this year, but did last year with KSU, UNH, and WSU all getting to the quarters without being seeded.

[Hammerhead]

The most interesting part of the playoffs is having matchups you don't normally see like SDSU at KSU and Colgate at NDSU. It would suck if teams were almost guaranteed to play conference foes until the quarterfinals.

[MSUDuo]

So instead of #5 SDSU @ #1 NDSU playing and #7 Maine @ #3 EWU we would have #7 Maine @ #1 NDSU and #5 SDSU @ #3 EWU. That's a better idea than punishing EWU for Weber *****ting the bed against Maine.

What do you think of that idea KPSUL?

This would never pass either. Time and time again we see conferences all placed on the same side to avoid all-(insert conference here) finals. Not to mention the whole regional thing as well.

[Srdnaty]

FCS teams are not uniformly distributed geographically. Almost all western teams are in the Big Sky. Maybe San Diego could play in this bracket. You could add in a Texas SLC team. Basically, in order for this division not to be simply a Big Sky bracket, you have to fly in a few outliers.
The Midwest is basically the MVFC with a few OVC teams thrown in. I doubt many MVFC fans look forward to this, as it could well be an all MVFC regional.
The Southeastern regional would have 3-4 SoCon teams with JSU, Kennesaw and maybe a Virginia-based CAA team in the mix.
The committee would fill out the Northeast regional with a Patriot and NEC team with all the other spots to the CAA.
This scheme might save a little money. But I don't see it creating much fan interest.

100% agree on the fan interest. I was 100% expecting Maine to host the winner of Elon vs Delaware (Yawn). Much like '13 when we got UNH. I like the out of conference games.

I just personally think that the NCAA will trip over a dollar to pick up a dime and claim it limits travel for the student/athletes. I hope they stay the same.

[Reign of Terrier]

Here's an idea: toss out the no rematch requirement. If too much travel is a problem, reduce the amount of travel. Have teams play conference games or rematches in the first round. I don't think anyone would have a problem with rematches and cannibalization if it were distributed equally.

[KPSUL]

As others have said, the original idea is just...um...no. Not that one extra game matters, but there were 3 visitor wins instead of 2 - pretty sure you missed SDSU winning at KSU.

I would love to see reseeding happen after each round, but until the entire field is seeded, it can't happen. What do you do if 2 unseeded teams win in round 2? It didn't happen this year, but did last year with KSU, UNH, and WSU all getting to the quarters without being seeded.

You are right, I did miss the SDSU win @ KSU. So it was 19 out of 22 home teams winning.

To respond to the what would happen question, KSU, UNH and WSU would have assumed the seeds of the teams they had beaten. Had they beaten teams in the 5-8 seeds it would not have effected home field in the Quarters, seeds 1-4 (or any team that beaten them in round 2) would have gotten the home field. However had they beaten a 1-4 seed, it would EARN them home field for the Quarterfinals.

This idea is basically a simplified method of reseeding based on results achieved during the playoffs. There are certainly other methods of doing the same thing and I'm glad they are being discussed here.

[Sycamore62]

No


No.


No.


No


Ive read many posts just saying no.

I'd like to expand on that


**** no

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk


No.

Ok, I'll write you guys down for a maybe

[Sycamore62]

I didnt read the whole thread but I dont think its a good idea, however, I could see having the highest seed playing the lowest seed in the case of upsets. On the other hand, the selection committee is a group of ****ing idiots who are not impartial and seem to have an outcome based agenda that doesn't favor having the best 24 teams (minus the AQs) play down to the best 16,8,4,2 teams.

[UNHWildcat18]

24 is too many, I agree with the 20 or 16 people

[100%GRIZ]

Notta!

[Birdman_]

Haven't read this whole thread, but don't think the initial proposal makes any sense. Basically suggests that there is no way the #2 seed in any quarter of a bracket could host a quarterfinal game - seems silly.

[CHIP72]

24 is too many, I agree with the 20 or 16 people

*The NCAA basketball tournament has 68 participating teams out of 351 Division I schools = 19.4% of the schools participate

*The NCAA DI-AA/FCS football tournament has 24 participating teams out of 125 DI-AA/FCS schools = 19.2% of the schools participate (though functionally it is a higher percentage because the Ivy League doesn't participate and the MEAC and SWAC usually don't participate)

IMO, the number of DI-AA/FCS playoff teams is fine, though I'd like to see the three aforementioned leagues participate in the playoffs. (The MEAC and SWAC would be dumb to do so however because they have a good thing going with the Celebration Bowl, which draws more TV viewers than any other DI-AA/FCS vs DI-AA/FCS game the entire season.)

[katss07]

Nah. We just need 16 teams. 10 auto bids and 6 at larges. Teams like Towson or ETSU or Lamar or UNI had no business being in a championship this year. Hell, 8 teams would be fun. No auto bid.

For better or worse our 24 team field won’t likely change.

[No_Skill]

How excited do you think those kids are when they find out they get to play another game? It's about them right? Even if it's only one more game what's the harm in playing the game?