Selections 101

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Here is a link for you that provides a lot of information as to the process from the NCAA. Give it a look.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/football-championship-subdivision-fcs-selections-101

(http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/football-championship-subdivision-fcs-selections-101)
As a reminder, the selection show will air at 12:30 p.m. ET on November 24 on ESPNU.

More Info.
https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2019-11-17/fcs-championship-selection-show-date-time-how-watch

[MSUBobcat]

Here is a link for you that provides a lot of information as to the process from the NCAA. Give it a look.

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/football-championship-subdivision-fcs-selections-101

But if I read that, it diminishes my ability to whine about bias!!!! /sarcasm

[ursus arctos horribilis]

But if I read that, it diminishes my ability to whine about bias!!!! /sarcasm

True, it is specifically here for some of the MVFC crowd to gain a little bit of knowledge and eschew some of the asinine "They are all against us!" BS that constantly erupts from that area. I know I can't fix them but I will continue to try.

[Professor Chaos]

True, it is specifically here for some of the MVFC crowd to gain a little bit of knowledge and eschew some of the asinine "They are all against us!" BS that constantly erupts from that area. I know I can't fix them but I will continue to try.
A lot more people on here than just the "MVFC crowd" could benefit from reading that and watching the embedded video.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

A lot more people on here than just the "MVFC crowd" could benefit from reading that and watching the embedded video.

xlolx

I know, I was fishing. I didn't think I'd catch a Professor.

[kab]

No matter who the committee selects there will be one or two head scratchers that get in and one or two that are left out.
if the committee puts any credence in the coaches poll it’s a scam.
fcs needs more crossover games and a computer ranking that selects teams

[MR. CHICKEN]

A lot more people on here than just the "MVFC crowd" could benefit from reading that and watching the embedded video.

....SOMEONE....NEEDS UH...TOOTSIE POP....xwhistlex.......AWK!

[Professor Chaos]

xlolx

I know, I was fishing. I didn't think I'd catch a Professor.
Well, hook, line, and sinker then I guess.

Let's just say I've noticed a lot of ignorance lately regarding the selection committee process from fans of a certain team that may or may not be located in South Carolina that may or may not wear purple and may or may not still be salty as **** about last year.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Well, hook, line, and sinker then I guess.

Let's just say I've noticed a lot of ignorance lately regarding the selection committee process from fans of a certain team that may or may not be located in South Carolina that may or may not wear purple and may or that may not still be salty as **** about last year.

......SOMEONE.....NEEDS UH.......HUSH PUPPY..........BRawk!!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Well, hook, line, and sinker then I guess.

Let's just say I've noticed a lot of ignorance lately regarding the selection committee process from fans of a certain team that may or may not be located in South Carolina that may or may not wear purple and may or may not still be salty as **** about last year.

Oh yeah, I've noticed it from all over the place even my own area but it ain't an easy process and I want to keep putting out as much as possible so at least more people that know can say "STFU" once in a while with all the crap out there.

Hell, I don't mind people not knowing,I mind them acting like they do know about **** when they are saying dumb crap that is obviously wrong if you look into it one little bit.

Why is MR. CHICKEN offering you all the food btw? I'd like to get my beak wet here too. Hush puppies are awesome.

[MR. CHICKEN]

...NEVERAH...WANNA TURN DOWN CHANCE....TA OFFEND....THIN SKINNED......BIZONSSSSS....IT'S ALL AH GOT LEFT...UH SEASON.....:D....BRAWK!

[Lorne_Malvo]

...NEVERAH...WANNA TURN DOWN CHANCE....TA OFFEND....THIN SKINNED......BIZONSSSSS....IT'S ALL AH GOT LEFT...UH SEASON.....:D....BRAWK!


Bison skin is way thicker than chicken skin. :)

[ejjones]

a lot of pauses in that video...not sure what was going on...

[MSUBobcat]

xlolx

I know, I was fishing. I didn't think I'd catch a Professor.

xlolxxlolx I was actually fishing for some of the fans that the Professor has recently directed to an AGS thread discussing the selection process when they've claimed the committee follows the Coaches' Poll for the playoff bids.

[MSUBobcat]

Bison skin is way thicker than chicken skin. :)

But how thick is Bizun skin in relation to chicken skin??? That's what we need to know.

[cx500d]

Oh yeah, I've noticed it from all over the place even my own area but it ain't an easy process and I want to keep putting out as much as possible so at least more people that know can say "STFU" once in a while with all the crap out there.

Hell, I don't mind people not knowing,I mind them acting like they do know about **** when they are saying dumb crap that is obviously wrong if you look into it one little bit.

Why is MR. CHICKEN offering you all the food btw? I'd like to get my beak wet here too. Hush puppies are awesome.

St. Francis University rarely enters into the post season discussion.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

St. Francis University rarely enters into the post season discussion.

I honestly can not believe that you are funnier than two other people. I don't see how it's even possible.

[cx500d]

I honestly can not believe that you are funnier than two other people. I don't see how it's even possible.
It was proven by poll voters at this very site...there is data somewhere here to back it up

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It was proven by poll voters at this very site...there is data somewhere here to back it up

Oh I know, I believe in the process but I'm just sayin'.:D

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

But let's face it - there's official guidance and then there's the unofficial conspiracy metrics that many feel hold equal weight. The real problem is, in some cases, there's just enough smoke regarding the conspiracies to give them life. This includes UNH's playoff run (2004-2017 - often times a bubble team), favoritism for larger revenue-producing schools in the seeding, politics related to SC members and their host institution's participation (again, most notable UNH), East-West balancing for cost considerations, past playoff performance (many argued that UNH, JMU and SHSU benefited from this subconscious psychological bias in selection and/or seeding).

I don't buy into any of it, but you cannot blame some people for extrapolating the truth to try to explain the Selection Committee's decisions from year to year. All systems are ultimately imperfect, and I think the FCS SC is damn good overall. Also, this was not meant to bash UNH for its unprecedented playoff run which was truly an amazing accomplishment for well over a decade. I'm just more familiar with East Coast bias I suppose. :)

In a perfect world, all teams would be seeded and regionalization would be a convenient luxury of circumstance, not a pairing requirement.

[Gil Dobie]

All I got out of that article was Nichols St is probably in.

[Professor Chaos]

More insight on the selection process from an interview with FCS playoff committee member and Missouri St AD Kyle Moats by Kelly Burke on the MVFC podcast: http://www.valleyfootballpodcast.com/2019/11/19/mvfc-first-goal-podcast-w-fcs-playoff-committee-member-missouri-state-athletic-director-kyle-moats/

[NDSUKurt]

If there is anything that I have learned, the selection committee will do at least 3 of the following (largely based on past precedent):

1. A team will be seeded that should not be seeded according to the opinion of most. This year I am looking for this to be a team that has a high number of total wins, but some are against lower division teams, and the team will have only 1 "good" win.

2. There will be a team that makes it into the playoffs that should not be in. This team will be matched up in the opening round against another team that is within the bus travel distance, and it will be a way for the NCAA to save on travel costs. When people look at the team that was "more deserving" but was left out, they would have had to fly to the opponent that they would have faced.

3. There will be at least 2 potential conference rematches in the second round. This will most likely come from the Missouri Valley and Colonial Athletic Association.

4. One side of the bracket will be the "stronger side" and will have a higher percentage of teams from the same conference.

5. The bracket will be set up to have a marquee game versus two big name opponents that will get a prime television slot, assuming those teams win as expected.

[Professor Chaos]

If there is anything that I have learned, the selection committee will do at least 3 of the following (largely based on past precedent):

1. A team will be seeded that should not be seeded according to the opinion of most. This year I am looking for this to be a team that has a high number of total wins, but some are against lower division teams, and the team will have only 1 "good" win.

2. There will be a team that makes it into the playoffs that should not be in. This team will be matched up in the opening round against another team that is within the bus travel distance, and it will be a way for the NCAA to save on travel costs. When people look at the team that was "more deserving" but was left out, they would have had to fly to the opponent that they would have faced.

3. There will be at least 2 potential conference rematches in the second round. This will most likely come from the Missouri Valley and Colonial Athletic Association.

4. One side of the bracket will be the "stronger side" and will have a higher percentage of teams from the same conference.

5. The bracket will be set up to have a marquee game versus two big name opponents that will get a prime television slot, assuming those teams win as expected.
You seem to be calling the committee incompetent in this post yet at the same time claiming that they set up the bracket for TV and select the last at-larges based on geography??? That **** ain't really sticking to the wall. Try again.

[NDSUKurt]

You seem to be calling the committee incompetent in this post yet at the same time claiming that they set up the bracket for TV and select the last at-larges based on geography??? That **** ain't really sticking to the wall. Try again.


Look at the past 5 years. The items I listed have all happened at some point. Sometimes multiple happened in the same year, sometimes not.

If you cannot recognize it, then you are the one that is not seeing clearly.

This year, with the bubble being very weak, the 12 game season allowing for an extra game to be played if teams wanted to, and many of the "traditional name teams" having down years, it sets up perfectly for multiple items from my list to happen.

[Professor Chaos]

Look at the past 5 years. The items I listed have all happened at some point. Sometimes multiple happened in the same year, sometimes not.

If you cannot recognize it, then you are the one that is not seeing clearly.

This year, with the bubble being very weak, the 12 game season allowing for an extra game to be played if teams wanted to, and many of the "traditional name teams" having down years, it sets up perfectly for multiple items from my list to happen.
Alright, enlighten me. List the examples in the last 5 years where they've:
1) Included a team as an at-large of a more deserving team due to geography.
2) Built the bracket in order to make more appealing matchups for TV.

[NDSUKurt]

Alright, enlighten me. List the examples in the last 5 years where they've:
1) Included a team as an at-large of a more deserving team due to geography.
2) Built the bracket in order to make more appealing matchups for TV.


In 2013, South Carolina State was a 9-3 MEAC team that was an at-large and hosted Furman. I cannot recall the specific team, but there was general shock that they were in the playoffs over a team from one of the "Power" FCS conferences.

In 2017, New Hampshire was an at large team, and lots of people credited it to their AD being on the selection committee. While New Hampshire ended up winning in the opening round at home versus Central Conn. State, and upsetting Central Arkansas in the 2nd round, the consensus when the bracket was revealed was that they should not have been in.


As for TV match-ups, ESPN stated earlier this year that because of the 1 less week between Thanksgiving and Christmas, there will be no Friday Night Semifinal as in the past (there is a bowl game being played that night which will be televised on ESPN2 in the same time-slot as the semifinal game of the past). ESPN did state however that NDSU really embraced Friday nigh games, and ESPN loved airing them, especially when they were rematches from previous matchups (Georgia Southern, South Dakota State, Sam Houston State).

[Professor Chaos]

In 2013, South Carolina State was a 9-3 MEAC team that was an at-large and hosted Furman. I cannot recall the specific team, but there was general shock that they were in the playoffs over a team from one of the "Power" FCS conferences.

In 2017, New Hampshire was an at large team, and lots of people credited it to their AD being on the selection committee. While New Hampshire ended up winning in the opening round at home versus Central Conn. State, and upsetting Central Arkansas in the 2nd round, the consensus when the bracket was revealed was that they should not have been in.


As for TV match-ups, ESPN stated earlier this year that because of the 1 less week between Thanksgiving and Christmas, there will be no Friday Night Semifinal as in the past (there is a bowl game being played that night which will be televised on ESPN2 in the same time-slot as the semifinal game of the past). ESPN did state however that NDSU really embraced Friday nigh games, and ESPN loved airing them, especially when they were rematches from previous matchups (Georgia Southern, South Dakota State, Sam Houston State).
Ok, in 2013 the team you're probably thinking of that SCSU got in over was Youngstown St. But they didn't really save any flights by adding SCSU instead of Youngstown St. YSU could've had Butler bused to them and Tennessee St could've bused to Furman (or vice versa depending on who bid higher). In 2017 Nicholls was actually the much more controversial inclusion than New Hampshire was. Besides all of that they select the at-large teams before they pair anyone up. You really think they bother to "look ahead" at where everyone who is already in is at on the map when they're voting for the last few teams in or out? I find that incredibly hard to believe. If want I can dig up plenty of examples where the committee did the opposite of what you're saying here with the last few teams in.

As for your second point I don't see how what ESPN said about the Fargodome atmosphere can be correlated to what the committee does. Are you saying the committee is in cahoots with or being directed by ESPN in terms of how they set the bracket? That's something else I find hard to believe. Besides all of that when GSU was in the Friday night semi in Fargo (2012) they had never hosted a night playoff game before. When SHSU was in the Friday night semi they were either unseeded (2014) or seeded to go out before the semis (unless you're insinuating that the committee knew #3 JSU was going to lose to Kennesaw St or Samford in 2017).

And complaining about SDSU's seed in regards to NDSU is one of my pet peeves about my fellow Bison fans. SDSU deserved the #5 seed last year, it was right in line with where they were at in all the final regular season polls (including the AGS poll). If anyone understands how the seeds are set they would also realize that it's incredibly difficult for the committee to set any seeds geographically and far more likely that any such geographic seed placement is merely coincidental.

[Redbird 4th & short]

EKU in 2011 .. one of the great mysteries .. sitting 6-4, unranked by everyone, going into game 11, beat a 5-5 OVC team by 7 at home. ISUr was sitting 7-3, ranked around # 14 to 17 by everyone, playing top 5 UNI at home .. game went into double OT, we lost on a FG. We outplayed them statistically, but lost the game .. so it wasn't a fluke thing.

Both teams finished 7-4, we clearly played a tougher schedule ... but losing to #2 UNI in double OT kicked us from playoffs somehow. And EKU beating a 5-6 team by 7 pulled them from obscurity into field of 20.

And not only did EKU get th last at large bid out of nowhere, but they somehow also won the right to host over JMU. So EKU (averaging 7k per game) hosted JMU averaging over 20k per game.

So in field of 20, MVFC got 2 teams (went 6-2) despite having 3 teams ranked in top 20; while OVC also got 2 teams (went 0-2) in playoffs with zero teams ranked in top 20. Colonial got 5 teams and went 3-5 with 2 wins coming against 2 very weak bids .. EKU and Norfolk.

So there was a lot of talk within Redbird Nation, but also many outsiders .. below is sample. Begs the question, if bids are sealed and submitted in advance of game 11, why would a 6-4 unranked EKU submit a large bid ? How is it possible they bid more than JMU.

Guess what EKU drew for this playoff game ... 2,388. Game could have been played at JMU, the better team, who woud have drawn at least 15k, if not more. Nice job committee !!

Read below for one theory:

https://www.college-sports-journal.com/was-it-espn-that-chose-eastern-kentucky-for-the-field/

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I love how this conspiracy **** always comes down to which 4 or 5 loss team was better than the other 4 or 5 loss team. xlolx

If you have 4 losses, you don't deserve a f'n thing. Get that through your heads boys and girls cuz at that point it ain't obvious and your team has left their chances to the wind.

BTW, that article was dumb then, and even dumber now. You see that author is LFN here on the site and he has always argued a lot of conspiracy theory BS too. He, among many others here, doesn't seem to understand that the selection committee doesn't give one **** about what ESPN or the NCAA would benefit from when they set their selections. They are not a subordinate of the NCAA or ESPN, they are a committee charged with doing one job and are autonomous other than the rules already provided to all of us. The only rules or input the NCAA has is a check of the guidelines set up once the committee chooses a field...but the choosing is entirely up to them inside those parameters. Plain and simple.

If you are relying on that article then you have made a bad choice my friend and I suggest you look into seeing if the IMG crews were not the same and if anyone would have saved any money or time and then if that is something that happened go back to my former statement and tell me how or why the **** that would matter to an AD from a team across the country that does not have to follow that as a rule since it is not in the guidelines?

It's the same old f'n crap from the conspiracy crowd. Baseless horse****.

JMU put in a minimum bid, EKU outbid them hoping to get the game. That is in the guidelines and clear to anyone that chooses to educate themselves on the matter.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I love how this conspiracy **** always comes down to which 4 or 5 loss team was better than the other 4 or 5 loss team. xlolx

If you have 4 losses, you don't deserve a f'n thing. Get that through your heads boys and girls cuz at that point it ain't obvious and your team has left their chances to the wind.

BTW, that article was dumb then, and even dumber now. You see that author is LFN here on the site and he has always argued a lot of conspiracy theory BS too. He, among many others here, doesn't seem to understand that the selection committee doesn't give one **** about what ESPN or the NCAA would benefit from when they set their selections. They are not a subordinate of the NCAA or ESPN, they are a committee charged with doing one job and are autonomous other than the rules already provided to all of us. The only rules or input the NCAA has is a check of the guidelines set up once the committee chooses a field...but the choosing is entirely up to them inside those parameters. Plain and simple.

If you are relying on that article then you have made a bad choice my friend and I suggest you look into seeing if the IMG crews were not the same and if anyone would have saved any money or time and then if that is something that happened go back to my former statement and tell me how or why the **** that would matter to an AD from a team across the country that does not have to follow that as a rule since it is not in the guidelines?

It's the same old f'n crap from the conspiracy crowd. Baseless horse****.

JMU put in a minimum bid, EKU outbid them hoping to get the game. That is in the guidelines and clear to anyone that chooses to educate themselves on the matter.
you seem to go way out of your way to dispel a fairly common opinion that MVFC gets screwed more than any other conference, despite all the evidence over the last 10 years. The .631 win % for MVFC excl NDSU is pretty compelling for starters. And for the record, the only year I have ever complained about for my Redbirds is 2011. Every other year it was some other team or 2 that got screwed out of a bid and/or a seed. And I don't care what the committee claims in a video ... sh-t happens, people do unethical things contrary to what they would ever admit ... all the time. You act like it is not possible .... that is naive IMO .. no matter how much you try to "moderate" peoples opinions on this forum.

[Reign of Terrier]

For those of you who don't know the process, the committee votes on the field and the seeds before they vote on the actual bracket.

Supposedly, the seeds are ranked 1-8 based on who the committee thinks are the top 8 seeds. I say "supposedly" just because (shocker) there's lots of subjectivity and who knows how discussion is driven and the biases of each committee members. In my opinion, you're more likely to see politics come into play in terms of who gets those ~5-8 seed than the rank order of seeds themselves.

From there, those 8 seeds are locked in and the brackets are constructed based on the rules about travel and rematches, etc.

So, a good example of this is the time Wofford got sent to play Montana in 2007. I'm not really sure how the rules have changed relative to then, but the committee selected the field of 16 and had their seeds, and there were lots of teams relatively close to each other geographically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_season

but there were always going to be a few outliers, and Wofford had the bad luck of being one (we won though, so there's that).


Part of the reason why there's all these rematches in the second round isn't because there's a conspiracy against conference x (every conference thinks that for some reason), but because the expansion of the field is inherently regionalized with 24 teams. By the current rules of the committee, you basically have the Southeast, western, and midwestern regional in the round of 16. That's different from the old formula (which had 16 teams total) which basically allowed that in the round of 8. Everyone feels more accomplished and less ripped off if your rematches happen in the round of 8.


Does anyone have a graphic or something of team's locations and distance from other teams in the field or likely in the field? There's a high chance that Wofford/Furman gets sent out west as I only see 2 likely teams in (KSU/AP) and one bubble team (SC State) within that 400 mile radius, but I'd like to see where everyone else.

[Derby City Duke]

EKU in 2011 .. one of the great mysteries .. sitting 6-4, unranked by everyone, going into game 11, beat a 5-5 OVC team by 7 at home. ISUr was sitting 7-3, ranked around # 14 to 17 by everyone, playing top 5 UNI at home .. game went into double OT, we lost on a FG. We outplayed them statistically, but lost the game .. so it wasn't a fluke thing.

So there was a lot of talk within Redbird Nation, but also many outsiders .. below is sample. Begs the question, if bids are sealed and submitted in advance of game 11, why would a 6-4 unranked EKU submit a large bid ? How is it possible they bid more than JMU.

Guess what EKU drew for this playoff game ... 2,388. Game could have been played at JMU, the better team, who woud have drawn at least 15k, if not more. Nice job committee !!



Hey, I was one of the 2,388 there that day. It's the last time JMU will ever be outbid. The alumni and donors were very unhappy and let the AD know it loud and long.

For me it made for a nice leisurely day with my youngest daughter. We made the 90-minute drive over to Richmond (instead of 8+ hours to JMU), rooted JMU on to victory (it was chilly and VERY windy that day -- won on a late FG into the wind), had a nice dinner and made it home in time to go to the movies with my wife! No muss, no fuss!

[JayJ79]

If you have 4 losses, you don't deserve a f'n thing.
So the team that plays a cupcake schedule in a cupcake conference deserves more than a team that plays a challenging schedule in a challenging conference and picks up 4 losses against the top 4 teams?

[Redbird 4th & short]

So the team that plays a cupcake schedule in a cupcake conference deserves more than a team that plays a challenging schedule in a challenging conference and picks up 4 losses against the top 4 teams?
exactly !!

The notion that it is ok to dismiss a 4 loss team because they have little chance of winning Natty is a ludicrous point. It is playoffs .. reward the best teams. It means something to those teams regardless of whether they have a chance fo winning a game or not. Rewarding a team who plays virtually no one is not a message you want to send to the field. And when you barely beat half the bad teams on your weak SOS .. well, it is completely logical to question why that team is worthy of a playoff bid that clearly belongs to someone else.

People love to rip KSU ranking here mercilessly, but then suddenly don't see the exact inverse of that logic ... 9-2 against bad SOS vs 7-4 against a top 10 SOS ... suddenly, it is "who cares about that 7-4 team". But they are first to grab the pitch forks over KSU. News flash ... the inverse of the argument against a 9-2 KSU holds 100% true for the 7-4 team who plays and FBS and more top 10/20 teams than anyone else in the field.

But 4 losses against a top 10 SOS ... and some are all "who cares" .. quite a contradiction in those 2 argument. By that contradictory logic, we would never have 24 teams to field for playoffs ... except unlike any other program, UNH would be a lock at 7-4.

So when Southland with their playoff track record gets two 6-4 teams and 3 total bids, and Colonial gets 6 teams, including a 6-4 team and sh-ts the bed yet again ..and the clearly most dominant conference the last decade (MVFC) gets just 3 ..... yes, I'm going to complain loudly.

Since 2011, here are the playoff results excluding each conferences top program to illustrate whose conference has greater quality and depth:

- MVFC excl NDSU has a .631 win %

- Big Sky excl EWU has a .360 win %

- Southland excl SHSU has a .250 win %

- Colonial excl UNH or JMU has roughly .500 win % no matter how you slice it

Only Colonial comes close. No other conference (Southern, Big South, OVC, etc) comes even close to .630 win %, incl/excl their top program.

So its a thing ... The committee should have been picking more MVFC teams since 2011 .. 1 or 2 more each year. What more evidence is needed. So yes, 4 loss teams from MVFC are usually better than 3 loss team from most other conferences .. it apparently was always more than good enough for Committee Chair Marty's UNH, a playoff lock at 7-4.

[Professor Chaos]

you seem to go way out of your way to dispel a fairly common opinion that MVFC gets screwed more than any other conference, despite all the evidence over the last 10 years. The .631 win % for MVFC excl NDSU is pretty compelling for starters. And for the record, the only year I have ever complained about for my Redbirds is 2011. Every other year it was some other team or 2 that got screwed out of a bid and/or a seed. And I don't care what the committee claims in a video ... sh-t happens, people do unethical things contrary to what they would ever admit ... all the time. You act like it is not possible .... that is naive IMO .. no matter how much you try to "moderate" peoples opinions on this forum.
1. Since 2013 the committee has given a higher percentage of MVFC teams playoff bids than any other conference.

2. Since 2013 the committee has given more seeds to MVFC teams (11) than any other conference.

3. Based on the AGS Poll since 2013 there have been 4 seeded teams in the consensus that the committee hasn't awarded seeds. 2 of those have been MVFC teams (UNI in 2014 was #7 according to AGS and SDSU in 2015 was #8 according to AGS). The other 11 MVFC teams the AGS consensus had seeded were seeded and were, cumulatively, dead balls on accurate in terms of seed lines to what the AGS consensus had them at.

4. Based on the AGS Poll since 2013 there would've been 8 teams awarded playoff bids in the consensus that the committee didn't give bids to. 2 of those have been MVFC teams but 3 have been Big Sky teams (1 each from the CAA, SOCON, and SLC as well).

The only "fact" that even mildly backs up your point is the 3rd one and that is lukewarm at best. The other ones directly refute it. Just because an opinion is held by many people doesn't mean it's right. In the case of the selection committee being out to get the MVFC it's just not grounded in reality.

[ysubigred]

exactly !!

The notion that it is ok to dismiss a 4 loss team because they have little chance of winning Natty is a ludicrous point. It is playoffs .. reward the best teams. It means something to those teams regardless of whether they have a chance fo winning a game or not. Rewarding a team who plays virtually no one is not a message you want to send to the field. And when you barely beat half the bad teams on your weak SOS .. well, it is completely logical to question why that team is worthy of a playoff bid that clearly belongs to someone else.

People love to rip KSU ranking here mercilessly, but then suddenly don't see the exact inverse of that logic ... 9-2 against bad SOS vs 7-4 against a top 10 SOS ... suddenly, it is "who cares about that 7-4 team". But they are first to grab the pitch forks over KSU. News flash ... the inverse of the argument against a 9-2 KSU holds 100% true for the 7-4 team who plays and FBS and more top 10/20 teams than anyone else in the field.

But 4 losses against a top 10 SOS ... and some are all "who cares" .. quite a contradiction in those 2 argument. By that contradictory logic, we would never have 24 teams to field for playoffs ... except unlike any other program, UNH would be a lock at 7-4.

So when Southland with their playoff track record gets two 6-4 teams and 3 total bids, and Colonial gets 6 teams, including a 6-4 team and sh-ts the bed yet again ..and the clearly most dominant conference the last decade (MVFC) gets just 3 ..... yes, I'm going to complain loudly.

Since 2011, here are the playoff results excluding each conferences top program to illustrate whose conference has greater quality and depth:

- MVFC excl NDSU has a .631 win %

- Big Sky excl EWU has a .360 win %

- Southland excl SHSU has a .250 win %

- Colonial excl UNH or JMU has roughly .500 win % no matter how you slice it

Only Colonial comes close. No other conference (Southern, Big South, OVC, etc) comes even close to .630 win %, incl/excl their top program.

So its a thing ... The committee should have been picking more MVFC teams since 2011 .. 1 or 2 more each year. What more evidence is needed. So yes, 4 loss teams from MVFC are usually better than 3 loss team from most other conferences .. it apparently was always more than good enough for Committee Chair Marty's UNH, a playoff lock at 7-4.

Every year I post this same ****ing post so here it goes:

1. The playoff's need to be no more than 16 teams

2. No auto bids the 16 best teams only period!!

3. Let conferences reward their champions with a participation trophy

4. Seed the best (4) of the 16 teams by strength not region the other 12 fall up under the 4 seeds by rankings.

xsalutex carry on!

[NDSUKurt]

Ok, in 2013 the team you're probably thinking of that SCSU got in over was Youngstown St. But they didn't really save any flights by adding SCSU instead of Youngstown St. YSU could've had Butler bused to them and Tennessee St could've bused to Furman (or vice versa depending on who bid higher). In 2017 Nicholls was actually the much more controversial inclusion than New Hampshire was. Besides all of that they select the at-large teams before they pair anyone up. You really think they bother to "look ahead" at where everyone who is already in is at on the map when they're voting for the last few teams in or out? I find that incredibly hard to believe. If want I can dig up plenty of examples where the committee did the opposite of what you're saying here with the last few teams in.

As for your second point I don't see how what ESPN said about the Fargodome atmosphere can be correlated to what the committee does. Are you saying the committee is in cahoots with or being directed by ESPN in terms of how they set the bracket? That's something else I find hard to believe. Besides all of that when GSU was in the Friday night semi in Fargo (2012) they had never hosted a night playoff game before. When SHSU was in the Friday night semi they were either unseeded (2014) or seeded to go out before the semis (unless you're insinuating that the committee knew #3 JSU was going to lose to Kennesaw St or Samford in 2017).

And complaining about SDSU's seed in regards to NDSU is one of my pet peeves about my fellow Bison fans. SDSU deserved the #5 seed last year, it was right in line with where they were at in all the final regular season polls (including the AGS poll). If anyone understands how the seeds are set they would also realize that it's incredibly difficult for the committee to set any seeds geographically and far more likely that any such geographic seed placement is merely coincidental.


I don't complain about the SDSU seeding very often. I realize that With SDSU usually having 2 or 3 losses, they will most often be paired with NDSU for travel purposes.

As for the ESPN thought, ESPN loves to have an east coast team play during the Friday night games because of the start time. At 8:00 pm, the east coast is out at bars or finishing up with dinner, and therefore, theoretically, they will get more eyeballs on the screen. That is why some of the east coast teams have been funneled to Fargo for that Friday night match-up (NDSU is a name, and east coast teams get viewers).

[Redbird 4th & short]

Every year I post this same ****ing post so here it goes:

1. The playoff's need to be no more than 16 teams

2. No auto bids the 16 best teams only period!!

3. Let conferences reward their champions with a participation trophy

4. Seed the best (4) of the 16 teams by strength not region the other 12 fall up under the 4 seeds by rankings.

xsalutex carry on!
I'm not a fan of autobids either, not with a field of 24, and most certainly not with smaller field of 20 or 16. Last year was an exception in that most of the traditionally weak autobids arguably deserved a bid, or if not, were probably a top 30/35 bubble team .. but last year was the exception over the last 10 years or so. So yes, I would prefer no autobids.

But you are making a different argument above. I happen to think current format is perfect for 125 team FCS landscape, less Ivy. And I have no issue with budget consideration driving the pairings of the 8 playin games, which force some regionalization in those games, including playing into the top 8 seeds to some extent .. not entirely, but certainly it is a reality and that in itself doesn't bother me much.

I also think the committee has improved their selection process since the 2011-13 .. but it took a completely dominant 2014 year by MVFC to change their perceptions .. we needed to go 22-1 in OOC games before we got some love .. so they were forced to recognize our strength. Then after the dominant regular and playoff season run and all MVFC final in 2014, they follow that up in 2015 by putting all 5 MVFC teams on same half ... THEY NEVER DID THIS TO ANY OTHER CONFERENCE WITH 4+ BIDS EVER BEFORE .. until the year after our dominant 2014 year ... NEVER once in all those years CAA got 4, 5 or 6 teams or Big Sky. And they later acknowledged it was wrong .. and admitted it shouldn't happen again. Except it did happen to the MVFC and we complained and they were once again forced to respond because it was unprecedented.

And there continues to be questionable decisions coming out of the committee .. last year was a good example. Even this year, with the top 10 annoncements, UNH getting that 10th ranking ... no one had them even in top 20. I know Marty is gone ... but he clearly had allegiances which could have been a factor.

As for 16 teams .. I just think it is too few given there are 120 teams .. and besides, that would do nothing to solve this debate over the bubble and seeds. It would just drop down to the teams in the 12-20 ranking range.

[McNeese72]

All I got out of that article was Nichols St is probably in.

Not necessarily if they lose to Southeastern La tonight. And that is possible because SLU is at home and they are playing very well right now.

Going to be an interesting game and and interesting to see what happens if SLU wins (they will get the autobid) and Nicholls, who knows for sure.

Doc

[lionsrking2]

Every year I post this same ****ing post so here it goes:

1. The playoff's need to be no more than 16 teams

2. No auto bids the 16 best teams only period!!

3. Let conferences reward their champions with a participation trophy

4. Seed the best (4) of the 16 teams by strength not region the other 12 fall up under the 4 seeds by rankings.

xsalutex carry on!


I disagree. Keep the autobids and expand field to 32.

[Professor Chaos]

I don't complain about the SDSU seeding very often. I realize that With SDSU usually having 2 or 3 losses, they will most often be paired with NDSU for travel purposes.

As for the ESPN thought, ESPN loves to have an east coast team play during the Friday night games because of the start time. At 8:00 pm, the east coast is out at bars or finishing up with dinner, and therefore, theoretically, they will get more eyeballs on the screen. That is why some of the east coast teams have been funneled to Fargo for that Friday night match-up (NDSU is a name, and east coast teams get viewers).
If both SDSU and NDSU are seeded this year, which seems likely, their seed lines will have nothing to do with geography. There's no proof that this has come into play when both teams were seeded in the past so without that I'm inclined to think, as I always have, that conspiracy theories about putting a seeded SDSU near a seeded NDSU in the bracket is nothing more than hot air.

[JayJ79]

if there aren't automatic qualifiers then it isn't an NCAA tournament. I'm fine with the current 24-team setup.
The truly worthy teams (the ones that would be in the discussion for one of the 4 seeds in a 16-team field) will certainly get one of the 8 seeds in this format, and will play the same number of games as they would in a 16-team tournament. Sure, the remaining couple seeds will be haggled over and there won't always be a clear distinction why team F got a seed instead of team G, but neither of them would have gotten a seed in the old system, so whatever.

Same goes for at-large bids. teams that would have been in discussion for the 8 at-larges in the 16-team field will certainly be included in the 14 at-larges that are selected for the 24-team format. Again, there will be squabbling over the last few spots, but none of those teams would have made it into the 16-team field, so whatever.

[Reign of Terrier]

The only real radical changes that could happen wrt different game outcomes this week that could seriously effect who plays who in the first round:

1) Top 8 all win, except Montana who loses (there's a thread about that)

2) Illinois State and Sacramento State lose (they have QB problems), which elevates 2 of Wofford/SEMO/AP/Nova to seeds (I have no idea who and I assume Monmouth is going to get the 8 seed

Looking at the forecast field, I'm pretty sure that the winner of SELA/Nicholls will get put on a flight somewhere, that San Diego will go to a Big Sky team (MSU if they lose the Brawl), and that Kennesaw State (assuming they get in) will play Furman/Wofford. The Big change may come if scenario 2 happens and Wofford and SEMO/AP gets a seed. There's like 4-5 teams that could theoretically play each other in the northeast (Holy Cross/CCSU/Nova/Albany/Towson/Monmouth) who are within the 400 mile driving distance of each other. As it stands right now, 1 of them may get a seed, but two of them getting a seed may prevent all of them from going to Fargo for the round of 16.

(I think that's right at least)

[ursus arctos horribilis]

So the team that plays a cupcake schedule in a cupcake conference deserves more than a team that plays a challenging schedule in a challenging conference and picks up 4 losses against the top 4 teams?

Nope, they don't deserve a thing either. In fact I'd rather have a team that played a tough schedule. That doesn't mean you deserve a damn thing.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I don't complain about the SDSU seeding very often. I realize that With SDSU usually having 2 or 3 losses, they will most often be paired with NDSU for travel purposes.

As for the ESPN thought, ESPN loves to have an east coast team play during the Friday night games because of the start time. At 8:00 pm, the east coast is out at bars or finishing up with dinner, and therefore, theoretically, they will get more eyeballs on the screen. That is why some of the east coast teams have been funneled to Fargo for that Friday night match-up (NDSU is a name, and east coast teams get viewers).

ESPN doesn't set the field. Ridiculous.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

you seem to go way out of your way to dispel a fairly common opinion that MVFC gets screwed more than any other conference, despite all the evidence over the last 10 years. The .631 win % for MVFC excl NDSU is pretty compelling for starters. And for the record, the only year I have ever complained about for my Redbirds is 2011. Every other year it was some other team or 2 that got screwed out of a bid and/or a seed. And I don't care what the committee claims in a video ... sh-t happens, people do unethical things contrary to what they would ever admit ... all the time. You act like it is not possible .... that is naive IMO .. no matter how much you try to "moderate" peoples opinions on this forum.

Why would the committee do unethical things? Why would it behoove a member of the BSC to put EKU in a position to have that game for instance. What do they get out of this? I am less trying to moderate than to educate. I'd like to see some of you guys spreading lies learn a thing or two and stop being dumb about this stuff.

Oh and you proclaim that it is a fairly common belief among MVFC fans that the MVFC gets screwed...you don't say? There is a fairly large group of fans from the MVFC that have made an art of whining of how they did not get what they deserved so that is a given.

BTW, I've never seen a single conspiracy theorist that did not tell the rational folks that they were naive for not buying their line of BS.

But, you know, the selection committee is unethical because you don't like what they did with 1 out of 10 or 12 middling teams every other year or so. Good one.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Why would the committee do unethical things? Why would it behoove a member of the BSC to put EKU in a position to have that game for instance. What do they get out of this? I am less trying to moderate than to educate. I'd like to see some of you guys spreading lies learn a thing or two and stop being dumb about this stuff.

Oh and you proclaim that it is a fairly common belief among MVFC fans that the MVFC gets screwed...you don't say? There is a fairly large group of fans from the MVFC that have made an art of whining of how they did not get what they deserved so that is a given.

BTW, I've never seen a single conspiracy theorist that did not tell the rational folks that they were naive for not buying their line of BS.

But, you know, the selection committee is unethical because you don't like what they did with 1 out of 10 or 12 middling teams every other year or so. Good one.
Why does any person or organization do unethical things ? They just do ... they want power and influence, so they can trade favors to their advantage (i.e. Marty at UNH) and could care less that it harms others. They want to be in charge and get their way and have people know they have power and influence, even if unethical. It happens all the time in various organizations.

Maybe growing up in Chicago/Cook County and State of Illinois makes me more open minded to this kind of nonsense. But it happens in many organizations ... not just Chicago and Illinois .. granted where it is more the rule than the exception.

And exactly how did Colonial get 6 teams last year, while MVFC got just 3 ? Did they go 22-1 OOC like MVFC did in 2014 and got 5 teams ... no, they most certainly didn't. And why didn't we get 6 teams in 2014 .. no conference has ever dominated FCS like that... Colonial sure as hell didn't when they got 6 teams in 2018. And Southland got 3 just like MVFC .. an unprecedented two 6-4 teams from the 4th or 5th best conference ... talk about a head scratcher.

I complained in realtime when the bids were announced, and as predicted both CAA and Southland crapped the bed in playoffs .. granted CAA did worse than Im thought. I just knew they did nothing to deserve an unprecedented 6 bids.

Every year 8 of 11 games (or 12 this year) are played in conference. Knowing the strength of each conference is very important to ranking teams and selecting bids. They might want to do better job recognizing the strength of each conference schedule, since it 75% of the games played most years.

Lastly, I've been complaing for years about this ... and I finally calculated the true net results this year. And it turns out we have .630 win % excluding NDSU .. while NDSU has a .950 win %.

At some point .. it should matter.

[Professor Chaos]

Why does any person or organization do unethical things ? They just do ... they want power and influence, so they can trade favors to their advantage (i.e. Marty at UNH) and could care less that it harms others. They want to be in charge and get their way and have people know they have power and influence, even if unethical. It happens all the time in various organizations.

Maybe growing up in Chicago/Cook County and State of Illinois makes me more open minded to this kind of nonsense. But it happens in many organizations ... not just Chicago and Illinois .. granted where it is more the rule than the exception.

And exactly how did Colonial get 6 teams last year, while MVFC got just 3 ? Did they go 22-1 OOC like MVFC did in 2014 and got 5 teams ... no, they most certainly didn't. And why didn't we get 6 teams in 2014 .. no conference has ever dominated FCS like that... Colonial sure as hell didn't when they got 6 teams in 2018. And Southland got 3 just like MVFC .. an unprecedented two 6-4 teams from the 4th or 5th best conference ... talk about a head scratcher.

I complained in realtime when the bids were announced, and as predicted both CAA and Southland crapped the bed in playoffs .. granted CAA did worse than Im thought. I just knew they did nothing to deserve an unprecedented 6 bids.

Every year 8 of 11 games (or 12 this year) are played in conference. Knowing the strength of each conference is very important to ranking teams and selecting bids. They might want to do better job recognizing the strength of each conference schedule, since it 75% of the games played most years.

Lastly, I've been complaing for years about this ... and I finally calculated the true net results this year. And it turns out we have .630 win % excluding NDSU .. while NDSU has a .950 win %.

At some point .. it should matter.
All 6 of those CAA playoff teams last year were ranked in the top 19 of the Selection Sunday AGS Poll last year. The lowest ranked one (Elon) was the 8th of 14 predicted at-large teams. Are the AGS Poll voters unethical and corrupt also?

Incarnate Word and Lamar were predicted to be the 1st and 2nd team left out of the field by the AGS consensus on Selection Sunday. It's hardly egregious that they were put into the field. On top of that Lamar went to UNI and gave them a very good game in the first round. Indiana St, the biggest MVFC playoff snub last year, was crushed by UNI 33-0 in Terre Haute earlier in the year.

I've already covered in a previous post how the selection committee has given the MVFC respect in terms of at-large selections and seeds. Are you going to address that?

Also, where are you coming up with that .630 win percentage for MVFC teams minus NDSU? In what years? Based on my data the MVFC minus NDSU is above .500 winning playoff games but it's nowhere near .630. All-time current MVFC members have a .635 playoff winning percentage but that's including NDSU's 32-2 in there.

EDIT: Nevermind on that last question, I see how you came up with it. Excluding NDSU and results against NDSU MVFC teams are 26-15 (.634) in the playoffs since 2011. Although, oddly enough, the conference closest to the non-NDSU MVFC is the Southland at 19-14 (.559).

[JayJ79]

EDIT: Nevermind on that last question, I see how you came up with it. Excluding NDSU and results against NDSU MVFC teams are 26-15 (.634) in the playoffs since 2011.
If you're excluding NDSU's record in that stat, it only makes sense to also exclude the games other MVFC teams played against NDSU too, since I'm guessing the Bison have played at least one MVFC opponent in the playoffs each year.

[Professor Chaos]

If you're excluding NDSU's record in that stat, it only makes sense to also exclude the games other MVFC teams played against NDSU too, since I'm guessing the Bison have played at least one MVFC opponent in the playoffs each year.
Pretty close. They've played 6 playoff games against MVFC teams in those 8 years which is tied with the CAA for the most against any conference in that timeframe. They've played 5 against the SOCON, 4 against the Southland, and 3 against the Big Sky.

[Redbird 4th & short]

If you're excluding NDSU's record in that stat, it only makes sense to also exclude the games other MVFC teams played against NDSU too, since I'm guessing the Bison have played at least one MVFC opponent in the playoffs each year.
My win % s by conference do the same for the other top 4 conferences since 2011

Big Sky excl EWU ha .360 win %

Southland excl SHSU has .250 win %

CAA is about .500 incl or excl JMU or UNH.

No other conference is in discussion but the 3 above. So MVFC is .635 win % excl NDSU ... who is about .950 win %

I dont know why some people find this irrelevant to argument.

[JayJ79]

I don't even know what the argument is at this point.

[Redbird 4th & short]

I don't even know what the argument is at this point.
in honor of Alex Trebek health struggles and his legendary Jeopardy program, the topic is:

Conference depth and playoff bids for $800, Alex ??

[caribbeanhen]

Washington Generals will get 23 teams in....

[Redbird 4th & short]

I love how this conspiracy **** always comes down to which 4 or 5 loss team was better than the other 4 or 5 loss team. xlolx

If you have 4 losses, you don't deserve a f'n thing. Get that through your heads boys and girls cuz at that point it ain't obvious and your team has left their chances to the wind.

BTW, that article was dumb then, and even dumber now. You see that author is LFN here on the site and he has always argued a lot of conspiracy theory BS too. He, among many others here, doesn't seem to understand that the selection committee doesn't give one **** about what ESPN or the NCAA would benefit from when they set their selections. They are not a subordinate of the NCAA or ESPN, they are a committee charged with doing one job and are autonomous other than the rules already provided to all of us. The only rules or input the NCAA has is a check of the guidelines set up once the committee chooses a field...but the choosing is entirely up to them inside those parameters. Plain and simple.

If you are relying on that article then you have made a bad choice my friend and I suggest you look into seeing if the IMG crews were not the same and if anyone would have saved any money or time and then if that is something that happened go back to my former statement and tell me how or why the **** that would matter to an AD from a team across the country that does not have to follow that as a rule since it is not in the guidelines?

It's the same old f'n crap from the conspiracy crowd. Baseless horse****.

JMU put in a minimum bid, EKU outbid them hoping to get the game. That is in the guidelines and clear to anyone that chooses to educate themselves on the matter.

Ursus ... and anyone else who summarily dismisses possibility that the committee has made compromised decisions ... note, this debate isnt (and shouldn't be) about whether any 4 loss team "deserves a damn thing" ... just ask UNH how they feel about that. This is about whether the committee has ever made an ethically compromised decision .. meaning, they picked a team for some other reason than they truly believed that team deserved a playoff spot.

See link below documenting the weekly rankings Sport Network and Coaches Polls:

... 7-3 ISUr was #14 on both polls for a couple weeks going into game 11 against #4 UNI. We went to 2 OT and lost by a FG to finish 7-4.

... 6-4 EKU was not ranked by anyone in week 10 or 11, but did once make #25 on coaches poll in week 9 (sitting 6-3) for the first time all year, only to fall right back out after losing. They never made top 25 on STATS polls the entire season.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_rankings

So the subjective polls had ISUr #14, the computer polls had us closer to #10. The subjective polls had EKU outside the top 25, the computer polls had them around #40. Not saying the computer polls should determine playoff teams, but it does provide some perspective when looking at two 7-4 teams .. one playing #14 SOS, the other playing a #47 SOS.

Also bear in mind, this is 2011 .. the year Colonial got 5 bids out of 20 teams, the year after they dominated 2010 playoffs with 4 bids, 3 in final 8 and 2 in final 4, 1 losing in Natty .. so presumably the computer polls would have been still favoring Colonial in their rankings ... and apparently another dominant CAA year in 2011 going into the playoffs ... they got 5 bids afterall.

Which begs the question, why did all the computers (Massey Composite) have MVFC as the top conference in 2011 .. according to committee, MVFC only deserved 2 teams, while Colonial got 5 teams coming off a dominant 2010 .. spolier alert, Colonial flopped in 2011 playoffs. NDSU had yet to win a Natty ... so why were the computers indicating MVFC was top conference in 2011 going into playoffs ??? Kind of debunks notion that NDSU could have artifically lifted the MVFC in computer rankings that year ... clearly, right ?

The actual point is not whether ISUr got screwed .. though they clearly did. The point of all this is WHY did they pick 7-4 EKU over 7-4 ISUr or a 7-4 Portland St or an 8-3 UND or 7-4 Liberty ... all 4 were ranked above EKU going into game 11.

So they must have had a really impressive game 11 to grab the attention of the committee .. clearly, right ???

So what did EKU do in game 11 to earn that big jump .... EKU beats a 4-6 OVC team (Tn Martin 4-6 in D-I games) by 7 at home ... this was the big win that catapulted them from outside the top 25 over more than 4 teams into playoff field of 20, including autobids. ISUr took #4 UNI into double OT and lost by a FG

Again, why did they pick EKU over the 4 other teams ?? There had to be a reason because it was not their resume. They were not even in debate .. trust me, Redbird Nation was watching closely that year, we wknew we were on bubble .. frankly we shouldn't even have been on bubble (ranked #14), but we were ... but NOBODY was talking about EKU in playoffs. There was a collective gasp and WTF reaction when they announced EKU. And many outsiders (not just the article I posted earlier) agreed.

And here was the insult to injury ... when ESPN talked about the bubble on TV, several teams were mentioned, but not ISUr. So wait .... we weren't even a bubble teamnow .. the 2 most popular polls had us #14 ?? We were the highest ranked team to not get a bid .. seriously ??

Hence the conspiracy theory over ESPN's involvement.

Sh-t happens, money and influence talks, and people make compromised decisions ... all the time. To summarily reject this as possibility is naive.

[Reign of Terrier]

It's almost as if the computer rankings are a guideline for the committee and not valued as much as some do.

[Professor Chaos]

Ursus ... and anyone else who summarily dismisses possibility that the committee has made compromised decisions ... note, this debate isnt (and shouldn't be) about whether any 4 loss team "deserves a damn thing" ... just ask UNH how they feel about that. This is about whether the committee has ever made an ethically compromised decision .. meaning, they picked a team for some other reason than they truly believed that team deserved a playoff spot.

See link below documenting the weekly rankings Sport Network and Coaches Polls:

... 7-3 ISUr was #14 on both polls for a couple weeks going into game 11 against #4 UNI. We went to 2 OT and lost by a FG to finish 7-4.

... 6-4 EKU was not ranked by anyone in week 10 or 11, but did once make #25 on coaches poll in week 9 (sitting 6-3) for the first time all year, only to fall right back out after losing. They never made top 25 on STATS polls the entire season.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_rankings

So the subjective polls had ISUr #14, the computer polls had us closer to #10. The subjective polls had EKU outside the top 25, the computer polls had them around #40. Not saying the computer polls should determine playoff teams, but it does provide some perspective when looking at two 7-4 teams .. one playing #14 SOS, the other playing a #47 SOS.

Also bear in mind, this is 2011 .. the year Colonial got 5 bids out of 20 teams, the year after they dominated 2010 playoffs with 4 bids, 3 in final 8 and 2 in final 4, 1 losing in Natty .. so presumably the computer polls would have been still favoring Colonial in their rankings ... and apparently another dominant CAA year in 2011 going into the playoffs ... they got 5 bids afterall.

Which begs the question, why did all the computers (Massey Composite) have MVFC as the top conference in 2011 .. according to committee, MVFC only deserved 2 teams, while Colonial got 5 teams coming off a dominant 2010 .. spolier alert, Colonial flopped in 2011 playoffs. NDSU had yet to win a Natty ... so why were the computers indicating MVFC was top conference in 2011 going into playoffs ??? Kind of debunks notion that NDSU could have artifically lifted the MVFC in computer rankings that year ... clearly, right ?

The actual point is not whether ISUr got screwed .. though they clearly did. The point of all this is WHY did they pick 7-4 EKU over 7-4 ISUr or a 7-4 Portland St or an 8-3 UND or 7-4 Liberty ... all 4 were ranked above EKU going into game 11.

So they must have had a really impressive game 11 to grab the attention of the committee .. clearly, right ???

So what did EKU do in game 11 to earn that big jump .... EKU beats a 4-6 OVC team (Tn Martin 4-6 in D-I games) by 7 at home ... this was the big win that catapulted them from outside the top 25 over 4 teams into playoff field of 20, including autobids. ISUr took #4 UNI into double OT and lost by a FG

Again, why did they pick EKU over the 4 other teams ?? There had to be a reason because it was not their resume. They were not even in debate .. trust me, Redbird Nation was watching closely that year, we wknew we were on bubble .. frankly we shouldn't even have been on bubble (ranked #14), but we were ... but NOBODY was talking about EKU in playoffs. There was a collective gasp and WTF reaction when they announced EKU. And many outsiders (not just the article I posted earlier) agreed.

And here was the insult to injury ... when ESPN talked about the bubble on TV, several teams were mentioned, but not ISUr. So wait .... we weren't even a bubble teamnow .. the 2 most popular polls had us #14 ?? We were the highest ranked team to not get a bid .. seriously ??

Hence the conspiracy theory over ESPN's involvement.

Sh-t happens, money and influence talks, and people make compromised decisions ... all the time. To summarily reject this as possibility is naive.
Well they picked them over 7-4 Portland St because PSU only had 5 D1 wins that year.

They picked them over 8-3 UND because UND wasn't eligible for the postseason yet.

They picked them over 7-4 Liberty because LU only had 6 D1 wins and I'm pretty sure the threshold at that time was still 7 D1 wins where less than that "may" (ie "will") give a team less consideration.

Why did they pick them over Illinois St? Maybe the committee just ****ed up (it's happened before and it will happen again - they're humans). Or maybe the committee saw things differently than you did. Maybe they heavily weighted EKU's 48-16 win that year over an EIU team that Illinois St lost to earlier in the season. Maybe they were impressed by the fact that EKU only lost by 3 to a K-State team that would finish with a 10-2 regular season and a Cotton Bowl bid that year. Maybe they weren't impressed by Illinois St's one win over a team with a winning record that year (3 point win over 6-5 Indiana St). Maybe they were unimpressed with Illinois St's aforementioned loss to Eastern Illinois who would finish 2-9 and 1-7 in the OVC. I appreciate the fact that the committee goes into deliberations with an open mind and isn't a slave to who everybody is talking about or what the polls say.

The reason your conspiracy theories are dismissed is because the committee has no motive to appease ESPN (how selecting EKU over Illinois St in 2011 appeased ESPN I have no idea) and no motive to make the NCAA extra money outside of following the rules that they are tied to. Every argument you bring up to prove the selection committee is biased and/or corrupt doesn't hold water when you dig deeper into it.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Well they picked them over 7-4 Portland St because PSU only had 5 D1 wins that year.

They picked them over 8-3 UND because UND wasn't eligible for the postseason yet.

They picked them over 7-4 Liberty because LU only had 6 D1 wins and I'm pretty sure the threshold at that time was still 7 D1 wins where less than that "may" (ie "will") give a team less consideration.

Why did they pick them over Illinois St? Maybe the committee just ****ed up (it's happened before and it will happen again - they're humans). Or maybe the committee saw things differently than you did. Maybe they heavily weighted EKU's 48-16 win that year over an EIU team that Illinois St lost to earlier in the season. Maybe they were impressed by the fact that EKU only lost by 3 to a K-State team that would finish with a 10-2 regular season and a Cotton Bowl bid that year. Maybe they weren't impressed by Illinois St's one win over a team with a winning record that year (3 point win over 6-5 Indiana St). Maybe they were really unimpressed with that aforementioned loss to Eastern Illinois who would finish 2-9 and 1-7 in the OVC. I appreciate the fact that the committee goes into deliberations with an open mind and isn't a slave to who everybody is talking about or what the polls say.

The reason your conspiracy theories are dismissed is because the committee has no motive to appease ESPN (how selecting EKU over Illinois St in 2011 appeased ESPN I have no idea) and no motive to make the NCAA extra money outside of the rules that they are tied to. Every argument you bring up to prove the selection committee is biased and/or corrupt doesn't hold water when you dig deeper into it.

You know, I wasn't sure about the playoff eligibility of some of those teams when I reviewed those rankings, so couldn't speak to that. But if you are certain so be it. But we were ranked 10 to 14 by all of the most popular subjective and computer ranking systems and EKU was not in even in the playoff discussion.

You mentioned our EIU loss in week 1, EKU lost to 2-8 Austin Peay in week 3 ... so call that one even. But clearly, our conference/SOS and losses were much more impressive .. lost by 10 to NDSU on road, and by 3 to UNI ... both top 5 teams.

Anyway ... unless you are on the receiving end of something like this, you can't appreciate what all happened and how fishy it all looked. As a fan of the team that was ranked between 10 and 14 on most of polls on Massey Composite .. put yourself in that frame of mind. Then to watch the selections unfold, and not even be mentioned as a bubble team. We were the highest ranked team to not get a bid, ESPN named the bubble teams and we weren't on it ... more than a little fishy.

But the notion that ESPN is not capable of exerting influence in that situation is naive ... we all know much stranger and more ethically challenged things happen all the time. ESPN would not be above this, and IMO nor would the FCS selection committee.

[MacThor]

Well they picked them over 7-4 Portland St because PSU only had 5 D1 wins that year.

They picked them over 8-3 UND because UND wasn't eligible for the postseason yet.

They picked them over 7-4 Liberty because LU only had 6 D1 wins and I'm pretty sure the threshold at that time was still 7 D1 wins where less than that "may" (ie "will") give a team less consideration.

Why did they pick them over Illinois St? Maybe the committee just ****ed up (it's happened before and it will happen again - they're humans). Or maybe the committee saw things differently than you did. Maybe they heavily weighted EKU's 48-16 win that year over an EIU team that Illinois St lost to earlier in the season. Maybe they were impressed by the fact that EKU only lost by 3 to a K-State team that would finish with a 10-2 regular season and a Cotton Bowl bid that year. Maybe they weren't impressed by Illinois St's one win over a team with a winning record that year (3 point win over 6-5 Indiana St). Maybe they were unimpressed with Illinois St's aforementioned loss to Eastern Illinois who would finish 2-9 and 1-7 in the OVC. I appreciate the fact that the committee goes into deliberations with an open mind and isn't a slave to who everybody is talking about or what the polls say.

The reason your conspiracy theories are dismissed is because the committee has no motive to appease ESPN (how selecting EKU over Illinois St in 2011 appeased ESPN I have no idea) and no motive to make the NCAA extra money outside of following the rules that they are tied to. Every argument you bring up to prove the selection committee is biased and/or corrupt doesn't hold water when you dig deeper into it.
Bingo. The whining about "disrespect" of a league that gets more bids and more seeds than anyone else (except maybe the Big Sky) over the past 6 years is comical. Perhaps a sit-in at the selection committee meeting site is in order.

EKU had an FBS loss to Kansas State. Kansas St scored a TD in the last 2 minutes to win by 3. K State finished 10-2, ranked #11 at the end of the regular season, 2nd in the Big Twelve.
EKU was 2-0 against common opponents with Illinois State (1-1).
EKU was a conference co-champion. The 3rd co-champ (Jacksonville St) did not get a bid.

These are the kinds of things the committee should be discussing.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Well they picked them over 7-4 Portland St because PSU only had 5 D1 wins that year.

They picked them over 8-3 UND because UND wasn't eligible for the postseason yet.

They picked them over 7-4 Liberty because LU only had 6 D1 wins and I'm pretty sure the threshold at that time was still 7 D1 wins where less than that "may" (ie "will") give a team less consideration.

Why did they pick them over Illinois St? Maybe the committee just ****ed up (it's happened before and it will happen again - they're humans). Or maybe the committee saw things differently than you did. Maybe they heavily weighted EKU's 48-16 win that year over an EIU team that Illinois St lost to earlier in the season. Maybe they were impressed by the fact that EKU only lost by 3 to a K-State team that would finish with a 10-2 regular season and a Cotton Bowl bid that year. Maybe they weren't impressed by Illinois St's one win over a team with a winning record that year (3 point win over 6-5 Indiana St). Maybe they were unimpressed with Illinois St's aforementioned loss to Eastern Illinois who would finish 2-9 and 1-7 in the OVC. I appreciate the fact that the committee goes into deliberations with an open mind and isn't a slave to who everybody is talking about or what the polls say.

The reason your conspiracy theories are dismissed is because the committee has no motive to appease ESPN (how selecting EKU over Illinois St in 2011 appeased ESPN I have no idea) and no motive to make the NCAA extra money outside of following the rules that they are tied to. Every argument you bring up to prove the selection committee is biased and/or corrupt doesn't hold water when you dig deeper into it.
ok .. my bad on my lazy research ... just checked all the D-I records of those teams I mentioned. I saw the records on my rankings link and didn't bother check any further. So EKU, though certainly outside the top 25, didn't necessarily have to hop over as many teams to get a playoff bid given the D-I records.

But as part of a fanbase that was following all this very closely at the time, they weren't in the playoff discussion at the time and it was considered by many to bne a controversial selection at the time before the ESPN conspiracy theory was even hatched ... though it is why it was hatched. They were also well outside the top 25 in Massey Composite, while we were somewhere arounf 12 to 14 and on the Massey Composites and they were somewhere well into the 30s .. Massey itself has them #40 that year.

It's harder to find the old Massey Composites to see all the rankings in one place ... . these used to be easy to pull up, but they've made lot of changes and its hard to find now. Bottom line, no one saw the EKU bid coming.

[F'N Hawks]

If that 2011 UND team would've made the playoffs......yah. That was an 'average' football team and I say that kindly.

[Professor Chaos]

You know, I wasn't sure about the playoff eligibility of some of those teams when I reviewed those rankings, so couldn't speak to that. But if you are certain so be it. But we were ranked 10 to 14 by all of the most popular subjective and computer ranking systems and EKU was not in even in the playoff discussion.

You mentioned our EIU loss in week 1, EKU lost to 2-8 Austin Peay in week 3 ... so call that one even. But clearly, our conference/SOS and losses were much more impressive .. lost by 10 to NDSU on road, and by 3 to UNI ... both top 5 teams.

Anyway ... unless you are on the receiving end of something like this, you can't appreciate what all happened and how fishy it all looked. As a fan of the team that was ranked between 10 and 14 on most of polls on Massey Composite .. put yourself in that frame of mind. Then to watch the selections unfold, and not even be mentioned as a bubble team. We were the highest ranked team to not get a bid, ESPN named the bubble teams and we weren't on it ... more than a little fishy.

But the notion that ESPN is not capable of exerting influence in that situation is naive ... we all know much stranger and more ethically challenged things happen all the time. ESPN would not be above this, and IMO nor would the FCS selection committee.
Why on God's green earth would ESPN want Eastern Kentucky in the 2011 playoff field over Illinois St that badly to "exert influence" over the committee to force it?

This is what I'm seeing when I read your posts:
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0IylOPCNkiqOgMyA/giphy.gif

[Catbooster]

Well they picked them over 7-4 Portland St because PSU only had 5 D1 wins that year.

They picked them over 8-3 UND because UND wasn't eligible for the postseason yet.

They picked them over 7-4 Liberty because LU only had 6 D1 wins and I'm pretty sure the threshold at that time was still 7 D1 wins where less than that "may" (ie "will") give a team less consideration.

Why did they pick them over Illinois St? Maybe the committee just ****ed up (it's happened before and it will happen again - they're humans). Or maybe the committee saw things differently than you did. Maybe they heavily weighted EKU's 48-16 win that year over an EIU team that Illinois St lost to earlier in the season. Maybe they were impressed by the fact that EKU only lost by 3 to a K-State team that would finish with a 10-2 regular season and a Cotton Bowl bid that year. Maybe they weren't impressed by Illinois St's one win over a team with a winning record that year (3 point win over 6-5 Indiana St). Maybe they were unimpressed with Illinois St's aforementioned loss to Eastern Illinois who would finish 2-9 and 1-7 in the OVC. I appreciate the fact that the committee goes into deliberations with an open mind and isn't a slave to who everybody is talking about or what the polls say.

The reason your conspiracy theories are dismissed is because the committee has no motive to appease ESPN (how selecting EKU over Illinois St in 2011 appeased ESPN I have no idea) and no motive to make the NCAA extra money outside of following the rules that they are tied to. Every argument you bring up to prove the selection committee is biased and/or corrupt doesn't hold water when you dig deeper into it.
I was going to post the same thing - EIU was beaten soundly by EKU and Illinois State lost to them (plus the Kansas State game). And not only did ISU lose to EIU, but EIU only won 2 games that year. Bad loss.

Is it so hard to believe that opinions may differ about which team should be in the playoff field? You have to assume ulterior motives?

[Redbird 4th & short]

I was going to post the same thing - EIU was beaten soundly by EKU and Illinois State lost to them (plus the Kansas State game). And not only did ISU lose to EIU, but EIU only won 2 games that year. Bad loss.

Is it so hard to believe that opinions may differ about which team should be in the playoff field? You have to assume ulterior motives?
as if the EIU games were the only game being considered for playoff bids ???

There were 11 games that year, not just the 1.

EIU happens to have been a bitter rivalry game for ISU, 100+ years in making .. weird stuff always happens in those games (think Bears-Packers in 1980's if youre familiar) ... very bitter and chippy games .... up until the last 3 years.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Why on God's green earth would ESPN want Eastern Kentucky in the 2011 playoff field over Illinois St that badly to "exert influence" over the committee to force it?

This is what I'm seeing when I read your posts:
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0IylOPCNkiqOgMyA/giphy.gif


Thats fine.

So what was your interest in this in 2011 ... probably zero. So just maybe you have zero perspective or appreciation for the facts surrounding this pick at the time. It doesn't make me right, nor does it mean ESPN definitely put their finger on the scale ... but the EKU pick was questioned and criticised by many when it happened, as was ISUr not beng picked. That some people don't care does not surprise me in the least .. nor do I care.

I don't even think we were a bubble team .. after the 9 autobids in field of 20, I feel like we were somewhere in the middle of the 11 remaining at large bids. So I don't even accept we would have been the 20th team, though EKU obviously was the 20th team.

But others posted about questionable picks and Ursus (and others) are of the opinion the committee has never made a compromised decision. Obviously, I disagree ... 2011 is just 1 example.

[Professor Chaos]

Thats fine.

So what was your interest in this in 2011 ... probably zero. So just maybe you have zero perspective or appreciation for the facts surrounding this pick at the time. It doesn't make me right, nor does it mean ESPN definitely put their finger on the scale ... but the EKU pick was questioned and criticised by many when it happened, as was ISUr not beng picked. That some people don't care does not surprise me in the least .. nor do I care.

I don't even think we were a bubble team .. after the 9 autobids in field of 20, I feel like we were somewhere in the middle of the 11 remaining at large bids. So I don't even accept we would have been the 20th team, though EKU obviously was the 20th team.

But others posted about questionable picks and Ursus (and others) are of the opinion the committee has never made a compromised decision. Obviously, I disagree ... 2011 is just 1 example.
What I'm saying is the committee is made up of 10 different individuals who each use different metrics, have different POVs, and have their own biases (just like the rest of us do). That can lead to some head-scratching decisions every once in a while as a collective group. Is it so hard to believe that's all it is?

I think when you question the integrity of the individuals on the selection committee you better have more than just a hunch. I think you better have more evidence than a Massey Composite rating and a poll ranking that contradicts one decision they've made. Without it you just look like Charlie ranting about Pepe Silvia.

[MacThor]

Why on God's green earth would ESPN want Eastern Kentucky in the 2011 playoff field over Illinois St that badly to "exert influence" over the committee to force it?

This is what I'm seeing when I read your posts:
https://media.giphy.com/media/l0IylOPCNkiqOgMyA/giphy.gif

Didn't you read Chuck Burton's article, ripped from the pages of the National Enquirer?
The whole JMU theory was debunked almost immediately. JMU was infamous for low-balling their bids until that season; they fessed up and said it wouldn't happen again.

EKU was most definitely in the playoff discussion - just the week before they were playing a fantastic, de facto OVC championship game against TN Tech (at least for the AQ).

It's not hard to see how the selection could be made - perfectly ethically:

Team A
Lost to 2-9 Eastern Illinois
Beat 3-8 Morehead State (Pioneer)
Beat 6-5, but 3-5 in D1 South Dakota
Beat 2-9 Missouri State

Team B
Lost to 10-2 FBS Kansas State
Beat 2-9 Missouri State
Lost to 5-6 Chattanooga
Beat 2-9 Eastern Illinois
Conference Co-Champions

The computer rankings overweight conference affiliation. They reward you if the best teams are in your conference, even if you lose to them. They overly punish you if you are in a weaker conference. I say this as a fan of a team that benefits from this phenomenon. This is why you see 5-5 EWU and 5-6 UCD in the Top 25 on Massey right now. It's like that old saying "Born on third base, thinks he hit a triple."

[MSUBobcat]

What I'm saying is the committee is made up of 10 different individuals who each use different metrics, have different POVs, and have their own biases (just like the rest of us do). That can lead to some head-scratching decisions every once in a while as a collective group. Is it so hard to believe that's all it is?

I think when you question the integrity of the individuals on the selection committee you better have more than just a hunch. I think you better have more evidence than a Massey Composite rating and a poll ranking that contradicts one decision they've made. Without it you just look like Charlie ranting about Pepe Silvia.

That about sums it up.... Carol on the selection committee and Barney at ESPN concocting a scheme to keep Ill State out of the playoffs xcrazyx

[uni88]

Thats fine.

So what was your interest in this in 2011 ... probably zero. So just maybe you have zero perspective or appreciation for the facts surrounding this pick at the time. It doesn't make me right, nor does it mean ESPN definitely put their finger on the scale ... but the EKU pick was questioned and criticised by many when it happened, as was ISUr not beng picked. That some people don't care does not surprise me in the least .. nor do I care.

I don't even think we were a bubble team .. after the 9 autobids in field of 20, I feel like we were somewhere in the middle of the 11 remaining at large bids. So I don't even accept we would have been the 20th team, though EKU obviously was the 20th team.

But others posted about questionable picks and Ursus (and others) are of the opinion the committee has never made a compromised decision. Obviously, I disagree ... 2011 is just 1 example.

Do I think the committee has made some poor decisions? Yes. That's a long way from thinking they've made "compromised" or unethical decisions. It's group of people doing the best job they can with the information they have. The last four in and the first four out could be interchangeable most years and someone would complain regardless of who is in and who is out but the reality is that none of those 8 teams has a reasonable chance of winning a natty.

[Redbird 4th & short]

What I'm saying is the committee is made up of 10 different individuals who each use different metrics, have different POVs, and have their own biases (just like the rest of us do). That can lead to some head-scratching decisions every once in a while as a collective group. Is it so hard to believe that's all it is?

I think when you question the integrity of the individuals on the selection committee you better have more than just a hunch. I think you better have more evidence than a Massey Composite rating and a poll ranking that contradicts one decision they've made. Without it you just look like Charlie ranting about Pepe Silvia.
I'm confused ... clearly, I've questioned a lot more than that one decision in 2011. That was just the closest to home as far ISUr is involved. And was the only time I complained abuot an ISUr bid.

As for MVFC bids, the inconsistency of the decisions is without doubt highly questionable at times. Last year was certainly very questionable in their decisions to give Colonial 6 bids and Southland 3 bids, which is largely why I've been on a mission this year.

Did 2018 Colonial go 22-1 like MVFC had to in 2014 before it started getting some overdue credit ? The committee did us no favors in 2014 ... we flat out dominated that entire season. If ever a conference deserved 6 teams, it was inarguably 2014 MVFC ... it sure as hell was not 2018 Colonial.

And if ever a conference getting an unprecedented 6-4 team .... Colonial, maybe in a really strong year. But where would you put Southland on that list .... 4th or 5th least likely ? Well, 2018 Southland did it and in fact they got a completely unprecedented two last year, while MVFC's stayed home. Did Southland have an amazing year ? No. Have they recently demonstrated they are force in playoffs warranting two 6-4 teams ? No .. zero doubt. Nice job committee.

My main complaint was not ESPN's finger "possibly" being on the scale in 2011 .. it may or may not have been a factor .. my point is the committee has made many highly questionable decisions. Whether they are simply "bad" or "compromised" decisions can be argued.

But consistent with other years, they did it again to MVFC last year. Which tells me at best ... they just don't give proper credit to our in conference SOS over the last 9 years. I have zero doubt of that going back to 2011 and that has been the thrust of my argument all along ... MVFC SOS.

Whether it is "bad" or "compromised" decisions... fine, will agree its debatable.

[Professor Chaos]

I'm confused ... clearly, I've questioned a lot more than that one decision in 2011. That was just the closest to home as far ISUr is involved. And was the only time I complained abuot an ISUr bid.

As for MVFC bids, the inconsistency of the decisions is without doubt highly questionable at times. Last year was certainly very questionable in their decisions to give Colonial 6 bids and Southland 3 bids, which is largely why I've been on a mission this year.

Did 2018 Colonial go 22-1 like MVFC had to in 2014 before it started getting some overdue credit ? The committee did us no favors in 2014 ... we flat out dominated that entire season. If ever a conference deserved 6 teams, it was inarguably 2014 MVFC ... it sure as hell was not 2018 Colonial.

And if ever a conference getting an unprecedented 6-4 team .... Colonial, maybe in a really strong year. But where would you put Southland on that list .... 4th or 5th least likely ? Well, 2018 Southland did it and in fact they got a completely unprecedented two last year, while MVFC's stayed home. Did Southland have an amazing year ? No. Have they recently demonstrated they are force in playoffs warranting two 6-4 teams ? No .. zero doubt. Nice job committee.

My main complaint was not ESPN's finger "possibly" being on the scale in 2011 .. it may or may not have been a factor .. my point is the committee has made many highly questionable decisions. Whether they are simply "bad" or "compromised" decisions can be argued.

But consistent with other years, they did it again to MVFC last year. Which tells me at best ... they just don't give proper credit to our in conference SOS over the last 9 years. I have zero doubt of that going back to 2011 and that has been the thrust of my argument all along ... MVFC SOS.

Whether it is "bad" or "compromised" decisions... fine, will agree its debatable.
Strength of a conference collectively each year has a lot less correlation to number of bids than you seem to think. There were 6 teams in the CAA last year that had better resumes than any team left out. That's why the CAA got 6 teams into the playoffs. Conference affiliation has zero weight when it comes to deciding whether a team is more or less worthy of a playoff spot. I would certainly hope the committee doesn't look at number of bids per conference and then see "oh gee... we can't give the SLC as many bids as the MVFC so we better figure who we can take out from the SLC or add from the MVFC".

Individual team's resumes are what matters, not the resume of their conference. The conference obviously matters indirectly because the strength of a conference will increase/decrease a team's SOS and therefore the quality of their wins and the quality of their losses. The committee has recognized the MVFC in this regard since, to date, they're the only conference to have a 5 loss team selected as an at-large and that's happened 4 times now.

And you still haven't addressed any of these points I mentioned previously about how the committee has shown more respect to the MVFC than any other conference since 2013 and have not "snubbed" MVFC teams at any higher rates than they have for teams from other conferences: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?240569-Selections-101&p=2830923&viewfull=1#post2830923

[Redbird 4th & short]

Didn't you read Chuck Burton's article, ripped from the pages of the National Enquirer?
The whole JMU theory was debunked almost immediately. JMU was infamous for low-balling their bids until that season; they fessed up and said it wouldn't happen again.

EKU was most definitely in the playoff discussion - just the week before they were playing a fantastic, de facto OVC championship game against TN Tech (at least for the AQ).

It's not hard to see how the selection could be made - perfectly ethically:

Team A
Lost to 2-9 Eastern Illinois
Beat 3-8 Morehead State (Pioneer)
Beat 6-5, but 3-5 in D1 South Dakota
Beat 2-9 Missouri State

Team B
Lost to 10-2 FBS Kansas State
Beat 2-9 Missouri State
Lost to 5-6 Chattanooga
Beat 2-9 Eastern Illinois
Conference Co-Champions

The computer rankings overweight conference affiliation. They reward you if the best teams are in your conference, even if you lose to them. They overly punish you if you are in a weaker conference. I say this as a fan of a team that benefits from this phenomenon. This is why you see 5-5 EWU and 5-6 UCD in the Top 25 on Massey right now. It's like that old saying "Born on third base, thinks he hit a triple."
Not sure why ... but did you really just selectively pick our 4 least impressive opponents that season to debate this point ??? You mention their playing FBS, but you don't mention our 2 competitive games against top 5 FCS teams ??

FYI, we beat MoST by 25 on road, EKU beat them by 4 at home. We lost to EIU by 6 on road, EKU lost to a worse Austin Peay on road by 6.

But your comparing MVFC to OVC ? Even in 2011 ... not really close.

As for which teams were viewed as on the bubble, posting the weekly rankings again ... we were viewed ast at least 10 spots higher than EKU. The computer polls had us cmore like 30 spots apart in 2011 .. still considered the Colonial dominant era and this was before NDSU went on Natty run, so MVFC was NOT artificially lifted at that point .. Colonial was more likely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_rankings

[Reign of Terrier]

The computer rankings overweight conference affiliation. They reward you if the best teams are in your conference, even if you lose to them. They overly punish you if you are in a weaker conference. I say this as a fan of a team that benefits from this phenomenon. This is why you see 5-5 EWU and 5-6 UCD in the Top 25 on Massey right now. It's like that old saying "Born on third base, thinks he hit a triple."

Glad I'm not the only one saying this...

The way Massey works is basically giving credit to teams by proximity to the great teams. It's not a flaw or rigged, it's just how you'd expect a system like Massey to work. After all, Massey tries to predict the outcome of team A vs D would end up, based on how A vs B, B vs C, and C vs D did, but scaled up to 130+ teams. It makes sense that you're going to give, say, South Dakota more credit for losing to NDSU by 35 than Western Carolina losing to Furman by 28 because, based on prior data and current performance, NDSU is playing as you'd expect a top team. So Massey gives more credit to SD for actually played NDSU, but it will abstract how Western Carolina would do because of all those degrees of separation. South Dakota would be ranked higher (and that's a good call IMO).

So, the bad teams in closer proximity to good teams will be relatively inflated in a computer ranking like Massey. The problem is that it makes it difficult good or above average teams from non "power conferences" because Massey has a virtuous feedback effect on the top teams and their opponents (NDSU will probably get more credit for beating South Dakota than Monmouth, say, will get for beating Campbell, which in effect rewards SD and NDSU, but not Campbell and Monmouth)

The way I like to illustrate this is with Chattanooga this year. (First, Chattanooga doesn't deserve a playoff spot, that is not the subtext of this point). Chattanooga went 7-5, but lost to an SEC team, at least 2 but likely 3 playoff teams and an average-but-not-great Jacksonville State. They are currently ranked 42nd in Massey, which I think is about right. Meanwhile, there's 5-5 EWU and 5-6 UC Davis which, as already stated, are in the top 25.

If you replaced out Chattanooga's "meh" victories against bad or mediocre Socon/OVC teams (like Mercer, Western, EIU, ETSU) with victories against bad or mediocre Big Sky teams like Idaho, Idaho State, or Portland State, that those teams faced, Chattanooga would probably climb the computer rankings because those teams are closer removed from good Big Sky teams like Weber, Montana, and Sac State. Is Chattanooga better than Davis or EWU or are they better than Chattanooga? Maybe. But I don't think you can evaluate that based on who they've beaten and I certainly don't think it's as simple as saying they're like 20 spots better.

It doesn't really matter if Mercer, ETSU, Idaho, etc are pretty much a wash (average to good teams can beat those teams), the fact that the middling Big Sky team played them in the first place gives them credit. It's not really in Chattanooga's hands (outside of winning games, of course) how good their schedule is, short of transferring to the Big Sky, the computers just aren't going to give them the same sort of credit for winning "easy" Socon games as "easy" Big Sky games, even if there's no discernible difference outside of the computer's abstraction. This is why I'm a big critic of Massey and other similar computer rankings.

[uni88]

Not sure why ... but did you really just selectively pick our 4 least impressive opponents that season to debate this point ??? You mention their playing FBS, but you don't mention our 2 competitive games against top 5 FCS teams ??

FYI, we beat MoST by 25 on road, EKU beat them by 4 at home. We lost to EIU by 6 on road, EKU lost to a worse Austin Peay on road by 6.

But your comparing MVFC to OVC ? Even in 2011 ... not really close.

As for which teams were viewed as on the bubble, posting the weekly rankings again ... we were viewed ast at least 10 spots higher than EKU. The computer polls had us cmore like 30 spots apart in 2011 .. still considered the Colonial dominant era and this was before NDSU went on Natty run, so MVFC was NOT artificially lifted at that point .. Colonial was more likely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_rankings

Selections are subjective. Can you make a good argument that Illinois State earned a bid that year (or Furman last year)? Yes. Is it absolutely cut and dried or is there some question and room for debate? There is some question and room for debate.

The Committee includes a team or two every year that I didn't think belonged. It's because of how they individually and collectively prioritize the various factors not because they're intentionally (and unethically) screwing a team or a conference.

[MacThor]

Not sure why ... but did you really just selectively pick our 4 least impressive opponents that season to debate this point ??? You mention their playing FBS, but you don't mention our 2 competitive games against top 5 FCS teams ??

FYI, we beat MoST by 25 on road, EKU beat them by 4 at home. We lost to EIU by 6 on road, EKU lost to a worse Austin Peay on road by 6.

But your comparing MVFC to OVC ? Even in 2011 ... not really close.

As for which teams were viewed as on the bubble, posting the weekly rankings again ... we were viewed ast at least 10 spots higher than EKU. The computer polls had us cmore like 30 spots apart in 2011 .. still considered the Colonial dominant era and this was before NDSU went on Natty run, so MVFC was NOT artificially lifted at that point .. Colonial was more likely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_rankings

Why? Those are the non-conference and common opponents. You completely missed the point. If you were doing a blind comparison between two teams with 7-4 records...
Did they play each other? No
Did they play any common opponents? Yes - B went 2-0 and A went 1-1.
What did they do in their non-conference (you know, the part they have more control over)? Well, A played Morehead State, South Dakota, and a bottom team from Team B's conference (they lost). Team B played Chattanooga, Kansas State (and had the lead with less than 2 minutes remaining), and a bottom team from Team A's conference (who they beat).
Hmm. Seems like Team B put more effort into their OOC. Let's talk quality wins. None really to speak of. Team A did beat one 6-5 team. Team B beat two 7-4 teams, including their conference co-champion.
Wait a minute. Team B is a conference co-champ? Yes, but they lost the three-way tiebreaker for the AQ.
Well, talk me into Team A then. This seems obvious. Team A is in a strong conference. Two of the top 5 teams in the country are in their conference.
Interesting. Did they beat either of them? No, they lost to both, and another middling team in their conference. They were competitive though. The computers really love.....
I was about to say, I bet the computers really love them. Well, that settles it. Two quality losses....Team A is definitely more deserving!

[MacThor]

Individual team's resumes are what matters, not the resume of their conference. The conference obviously matters indirectly because the strength of a conference will increase/decrease a team's SOS and therefore the quality of their wins and the quality of their losses. The committee has recognized the MVFC in this regard since, to date, they're the only conference to have a 5 loss team selected as an at-large and that's happened 4 times now.
This stat should automatically pop up on AGS whenever someone posts that the committee is disrespecting the MVFC.

[JayJ79]

most of the time, there are a handful of potential candidates for those last few at-large spots with no one clearly standing out.
in those instances, they should just put all of those teams in a hat and randomly draw for those last spots.

then it come be like "don't blame us, blame the hat"

[caribbeanhen]

young Terror,

Why does Massey like the ivy teams so much?

and why does Massey beat you at picking the winners of games? xconfusedx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Ursus ... and anyone else who summarily dismisses possibility that the committee has made compromised decisions ... note, this debate isnt (and shouldn't be) about whether any 4 loss team "deserves a damn thing" ... just ask UNH how they feel about that. This is about whether the committee has ever made an ethically compromised decision .. meaning, they picked a team for some other reason than they truly believed that team deserved a playoff spot.

See link below documenting the weekly rankings Sport Network and Coaches Polls:

... 7-3 ISUr was #14 on both polls for a couple weeks going into game 11 against #4 UNI. We went to 2 OT and lost by a FG to finish 7-4.

... 6-4 EKU was not ranked by anyone in week 10 or 11, but did once make #25 on coaches poll in week 9 (sitting 6-3) for the first time all year, only to fall right back out after losing. They never made top 25 on STATS polls the entire season.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NCAA_Division_I_FCS_football_rankings

So the subjective polls had ISUr #14, the computer polls had us closer to #10. The subjective polls had EKU outside the top 25, the computer polls had them around #40. Not saying the computer polls should determine playoff teams, but it does provide some perspective when looking at two 7-4 teams .. one playing #14 SOS, the other playing a #47 SOS.

Also bear in mind, this is 2011 .. the year Colonial got 5 bids out of 20 teams, the year after they dominated 2010 playoffs with 4 bids, 3 in final 8 and 2 in final 4, 1 losing in Natty .. so presumably the computer polls would have been still favoring Colonial in their rankings ... and apparently another dominant CAA year in 2011 going into the playoffs ... they got 5 bids afterall.

Which begs the question, why did all the computers (Massey Composite) have MVFC as the top conference in 2011 .. according to committee, MVFC only deserved 2 teams, while Colonial got 5 teams coming off a dominant 2010 .. spolier alert, Colonial flopped in 2011 playoffs. NDSU had yet to win a Natty ... so why were the computers indicating MVFC was top conference in 2011 going into playoffs ??? Kind of debunks notion that NDSU could have artifically lifted the MVFC in computer rankings that year ... clearly, right ?

The actual point is not whether ISUr got screwed .. though they clearly did. The point of all this is WHY did they pick 7-4 EKU over 7-4 ISUr or a 7-4 Portland St or an 8-3 UND or 7-4 Liberty ... all 4 were ranked above EKU going into game 11.

So they must have had a really impressive game 11 to grab the attention of the committee .. clearly, right ???

So what did EKU do in game 11 to earn that big jump .... EKU beats a 4-6 OVC team (Tn Martin 4-6 in D-I games) by 7 at home ... this was the big win that catapulted them from outside the top 25 over more than 4 teams into playoff field of 20, including autobids. ISUr took #4 UNI into double OT and lost by a FG

Again, why did they pick EKU over the 4 other teams ?? There had to be a reason because it was not their resume. They were not even in debate .. trust me, Redbird Nation was watching closely that year, we wknew we were on bubble .. frankly we shouldn't even have been on bubble (ranked #14), but we were ... but NOBODY was talking about EKU in playoffs. There was a collective gasp and WTF reaction when they announced EKU. And many outsiders (not just the article I posted earlier) agreed.

And here was the insult to injury ... when ESPN talked about the bubble on TV, several teams were mentioned, but not ISUr. So wait .... we weren't even a bubble teamnow .. the 2 most popular polls had us #14 ?? We were the highest ranked team to not get a bid .. seriously ??

Hence the conspiracy theory over ESPN's involvement.

Sh-t happens, money and influence talks, and people make compromised decisions ... all the time. To summarily reject this as possibility is naive.

Yes, there is so much money and so forth that influences a committee that does not get one penny of it...I'm sure this is true, it seems like a very valid argument so good work Shorty4.

I don't think they used any poll outside of their own internal poss back then and in spite of saying it is a tool they could use now (Coaches) the proof is that they likely do not pay too much attention to it. If you want to try and keep pushing lies then feel free but I ain't buying your bull**** 4th & short.

Stop thinking that the "most popular" polls had anything to do with the selection process because back then the committee stated they did not use them so they aren't a gauge...especially when they were being beaten handily each year by our own poll...which also was never used.

The guidelines back then fairly specifically, via reverse engineering, stated that if you have 4 losses you don't deserve **** and put yourself in jeopardy. That is, and always has been, a fact in spite of the wins being lowered to 6 now. If you have 4 or 5 losses you are in jeopardy and if you are in jeopardy then you are in the lottery (bubble) and if in a lottery it is a gamble and you may not win a golden ticket.

You don't like reality? Don't really care. I wanted to reply one more time as you moved away from your other argument and back to my original statement so I felt this one at least deserved a response but at this point I consider you to personally have 4 losses and I may or may not choose to select your responses to reply to further on the matter.

:D

[uni88]

most of the time, there are a handful of potential candidates for those last few at-large spots with no one clearly standing out.
in those instances, they should just put all of those teams in a hat and randomly draw for those last spots.

then it come be like "don't blame us, blame the hat"

31226

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Well they picked them over 7-4 Portland St because PSU only had 5 D1 wins that year.

They picked them over 8-3 UND because UND wasn't eligible for the postseason yet.

They picked them over 7-4 Liberty because LU only had 6 D1 wins and I'm pretty sure the threshold at that time was still 7 D1 wins where less than that "may" (ie "will") give a team less consideration.

Why did they pick them over Illinois St? Maybe the committee just ****ed up (it's happened before and it will happen again - they're humans). Or maybe the committee saw things differently than you did. Maybe they heavily weighted EKU's 48-16 win that year over an EIU team that Illinois St lost to earlier in the season. Maybe they were impressed by the fact that EKU only lost by 3 to a K-State team that would finish with a 10-2 regular season and a Cotton Bowl bid that year. Maybe they weren't impressed by Illinois St's one win over a team with a winning record that year (3 point win over 6-5 Indiana St). Maybe they were unimpressed with Illinois St's aforementioned loss to Eastern Illinois who would finish 2-9 and 1-7 in the OVC. I appreciate the fact that the committee goes into deliberations with an open mind and isn't a slave to who everybody is talking about or what the polls say.

The reason your conspiracy theories are dismissed is because the committee has no motive to appease ESPN (how selecting EKU over Illinois St in 2011 appeased ESPN I have no idea) and no motive to make the NCAA extra money outside of following the rules that they are tied to. Every argument you bring up to prove the selection committee is biased and/or corrupt doesn't hold water when you dig deeper into it.

Ah, should have read a bit further because this a thing of f'n beauty Prof. People think their flavor of ice cream is the best as Kent Haslam said, and they don't think your flavor compares.

Sometimes it's just a god damn fact that Vanilla is the best thing going.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Bingo. The whining about "disrespect" of a league that gets more bids and more seeds than anyone else (except maybe the Big Sky) over the past 6 years is comical. Perhaps a sit-in at the selection committee meeting site is in order.

EKU had an FBS loss to Kansas State. Kansas St scored a TD in the last 2 minutes to win by 3. K State finished 10-2, ranked #11 at the end of the regular season, 2nd in the Big Twelve.
EKU was 2-0 against common opponents with Illinois State (1-1).
EKU was a conference co-champion. The 3rd co-champ (Jacksonville St) did not get a bid.

These are the kinds of things the committee should be discussing.

Dead on, and they do. They don't care too much bout the surface BS like a poll outside of their group poll. But since it is the only tool the fans have it is the only tool the fans use and aa such some fans really think that a group of 10 AD's are corrupt even though there is no reason for them to be. Especially when you are talking about a disparate group like this that votes anonymously from each other so the other 9 members can not know their votes.

The feeling I get on FBS (P5) losses is that they do not count as much as losses go but if you schedule two FBS and lose then it kind of reverts back to not giving a benefit of the doubt of those two loses as the committee seems to have frowned on that in the past.

So that one EKU loss probably counted about 1/2 a loss in everyone's mind too.

[Bisonoline]

Well they picked them over 7-4 Portland St because PSU only had 5 D1 wins that year.

They picked them over 8-3 UND because UND wasn't eligible for the postseason yet.

They picked them over 7-4 Liberty because LU only had 6 D1 wins and I'm pretty sure the threshold at that time was still 7 D1 wins where less than that "may" (ie "will") give a team less consideration.

Why did they pick them over Illinois St? Maybe the committee just ****ed up (it's happened before and it will happen again - they're humans). Or maybe the committee saw things differently than you did. Maybe they heavily weighted EKU's 48-16 win that year over an EIU team that Illinois St lost to earlier in the season. Maybe they were impressed by the fact that EKU only lost by 3 to a K-State team that would finish with a 10-2 regular season and a Cotton Bowl bid that year. Maybe they weren't impressed by Illinois St's one win over a team with a winning record that year (3 point win over 6-5 Indiana St). Maybe they were unimpressed with Illinois St's aforementioned loss to Eastern Illinois who would finish 2-9 and 1-7 in the OVC. I appreciate the fact that the committee goes into deliberations with an open mind and isn't a slave to who everybody is talking about or what the polls say.

The reason your conspiracy theories are dismissed is because the committee has no motive to appease ESPN (how selecting EKU over Illinois St in 2011 appeased ESPN I have no idea) and no motive to make the NCAA extra money outside of following the rules that they are tied to. Every argument you bring up to prove the selection committee is biased and/or corrupt doesn't hold water when you dig deeper into it.

ESPN???? ESPN hardly advertises the playoffs or the championship. I seriously doubt they lean one way or the other as they acquired the FCS stuff with the package
they bid on and have treated it more of a pain in the ass to have.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Strength of a conference collectively each year has a lot less correlation to number of bids than you seem to think. There were 6 teams in the CAA last year that had better resumes than any team left out. That's why the CAA got 6 teams into the playoffs. Conference affiliation has zero weight when it comes to deciding whether a team is more or less worthy of a playoff spot. I would certainly hope the committee doesn't look at number of bids per conference and then see "oh gee... we can't give the SLC as many bids as the MVFC so we better figure who we can take out from the SLC or add from the MVFC".

Individual team's resumes are what matters, not the resume of their conference. The conference obviously matters indirectly because the strength of a conference will increase/decrease a team's SOS and therefore the quality of their wins and the quality of their losses. The committee has recognized the MVFC in this regard since, to date, they're the only conference to have a 5 loss team selected as an at-large and that's happened 4 times now.

And you still haven't addressed any of these points I mentioned previously about how the committee has shown more respect to the MVFC than any other conference since 2013 and have not "snubbed" MVFC teams at any higher rates than they have for teams from other conferences: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?240569-Selections-101&p=2830923&viewfull=1#post2830923

Honestly, I actually looked for the post 2 different times to respond but couldn't find it ???

My basic response was in another email .. the one where I said they did us no favors in 2014 .. we went 22-1 in FCS OOC and 10-4 in playoffs (7-1 OOC playoffs). We should have had 6 teams. So the committee gets zero credit for recognizing the blatantly obvious. In fact, we should have gotten 6.

The more general response .. look at how every time MVFC gets 5 teams, they deliver in playoffs and live up to expections. And every time Colonial gets 5 or 6 teams, they flop.

The more specifically, 2018 .. the f'd up. The MVFC playoff history since 2011 can't be ignored. Shouldn't the committee hold themselves accountable when they doa bad job like last year ? Once again, at MVFC expense IMO.

So I dont care if we've gotten the most or highest % since 2014 .. we've been the strongest, so that shoul dbe a given. But again, last year we got shorted .. and it made no sense. Per my other email, what did Colonial and Southland do in 2018 to get "unprecedented" selections ??

And I just don't believe in all the year going back to 2003 that Colonial got 4, 5, or 6 teams, that they never once got all their teams put on same half bracket like MVFC id in 2015 .. a year after the all MVFC final. I just don't care what they say about their "process". Influence and money talks.

[Catbooster]

"...we should have gotten 6..." I didn't know Illinois State had 6 football teams. xsmiley_wix

There shouldn't be a "we" in reference to a conference. I'm pretty sure I've heard committee members state numerous times in articles, interviews and podcasts that they don't take conference into account when selecting or seeding. It is each team on their own merits. They don't say "gosh, the MVFC has done well in the playoffs this decade, let's put another team in for them." They don't care whether the MVFC has a better record in the playoffs than the Big Sky over the last few years (nor should they IMO). They are looking at two teams and comparing them.

[Professor Chaos]

Honestly, I actually looked for the post 2 different times to respond but couldn't find it ???

My basic response was in another email .. the one where I said they did us no favors in 2014 .. we went 22-1 in FCS OOC and 10-4 in playoffs (7-1 OOC playoffs). We should have had 6 teams. So the committee gets zero credit for recognizing the blatantly obvious. In fact, we should have gotten 6.

The more general response .. look at how every time MVFC gets 5 teams, they deliver in playoffs and live up to expections. And every time Colonial gets 5 or 6 teams, they flop.

The more specifically, 2018 .. the f'd up. The MVFC playoff history since 2011 can't be ignored. Shouldn't the committee hold themselves accountable when they doa bad job like last year ? Once again, at MVFC expense IMO.

So I dont care if we've gotten the most or highest % since 2014 .. we've been the strongest, so that shoul dbe a given. But again, last year we got shorted .. and it made no sense. Per my other email, what did Colonial and Southland do in 2018 to get "unprecedented" selections ??

And I just don't believe in all the year going back to 2003 that Colonial got 4, 5, or 6 teams, that they never once got all their teams put on same half bracket like MVFC id in 2015 .. a year after the all MVFC final. I just don't care what they say about their "process". Influence and money talks.
The Colonial and the Southland conferences didn't do anything to warrant bids by themselves nor has an MVFC team ever earned a bid just by being top 4 or 5 or 6 in the MVFC. Using your logic the committee should just award bids to conferences based on strength and then give the top X teams in each conference a bid based on that. It doesn't and shouldn't work that way. Individual teams need to be compared with each other not individual conferences.

Just because a conference is the strongest, which I doubt you'll find many people inside the committee or outside of it that'll argue with you that the MVFC hasn't been over the last 6 years, doesn't mean they have the most teams in the top 20 or 24 in the country. If we had a 32 team playoff last year there might've been 6 MVFC playoffs teams and the Southland probably still would've got 3. That's how it works year to year. Yet things average out in the long run hence why the MVFC has gotten the higher percentage of teams into the playoffs since 2013 than any other conference despite the CAA getting 6 last year and hence why the MVFC has gotten more playoff seeds than any other conference since 2013 despite the Big Sky getting 3 last year.

You sound like a child when you make comments like "Yeah, everyone knows we're the best but we should be getting even MORE respect". The MVFC isn't picked on by the committee any more than any other conference.

[pantherguy]

I find the ironic thing about this is that quite often the same people claiming that only teams from strong conferences should get bids to the FCS playoffs are the same ones that think more mid-majors should be invited to the NCAA Tournament.

I am of the opinion that if you win a lot of games, you should be rewarded and given a shot. We already know what the 9th best ACC team brings to the table.....give me the mid-major who went 28-4 but lost in the league title game. Let's see what they got.

I'd apply the same principle to the FCS playoffs. Give me a Kennesaw State, who is 8-1 against the FCS, and who may have just had a bad day against Monmouth, over a 7-5 MVFC, CAA or Big Sky team. You know what I mean?

[geaux_sioux]

If that 2011 UND team would've made the playoffs......yah. That was an 'average' football team and I say that kindly.

Incredibly stout against the run. Average against the pass. Could not pass the ball though. Pretty terrible offense that year.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

What I'm saying is the committee is made up of 10 different individuals who each use different metrics, have different POVs, and have their own biases (just like the rest of us do). That can lead to some head-scratching decisions every once in a while as a collective group. Is it so hard to believe that's all it is?

I think when you question the integrity of the individuals on the selection committee you better have more than just a hunch. I think you better have more evidence than a Massey Composite rating and a poll ranking that contradicts one decision they've made. Without it you just look like Charlie ranting about Pepe Silvia.

Spot on here too. Just trying to salve your own anger over a difference of opinion by committee members by questioning integrity is pretty damn dumb in my book. Trying to say buzzwords like "money, power, & influence" as part of your answer is severely lacking.

As you and several others have said, I have a difference of opinion on some teams selected but there are always arguments for and if you set aside your biases you can see why most of the time. I think they've gotten things wrong once in a while but as you said maybe they just f'd that one up, or maybe I did in my head. Tough call usually since I'm in here and have to live with myself. xlolx

"...we should have gotten 6..." I didn't know Illinois State had 6 football teams. xsmiley_wix

There shouldn't be a "we" in reference to a conference. I'm pretty sure I've heard committee members state numerous times in articles, interviews and podcasts that they don't take conference into account when selecting or seeding. It is each team on their own merits. They don't say "gosh, the MVFC has done well in the playoffs this decade, let's put another team in for them." They don't care whether the MVFC has a better record in the playoffs than the Big Sky over the last few years (nor should they IMO). They are looking at two teams and comparing them.

Exactly, never heard any different that that anywhere so talking about conference as if it carries weight as to who should or shouldn't get in is a non starter. it matters in quality wins and other obvious ways but there is no limit or minimum lower that one that should get in.

[Mike296]

Saying that any conference deserves 6 teams in the FCS playoffs is like saying the SEC deserves all 4 spots in the FBS iteration.

[grizband]

Saying that any team deserves 6 teams in the FCS playoffs is like saying the SEC deserves all 4 spots in the FBS iteration.I don't necessarily disagree, but what should be the maximum number of teams from a conference in the playoffs?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I find the ironic thing about this is that quite often the same people claiming that only teams from strong conferences should get bids to the FCS playoffs are the same ones that think more mid-majors should be invited to the NCAA Tournament.

I am of the opinion that if you win a lot of games, you should be rewarded and given a shot. We already know what the 9th best ACC team brings to the table.....give me the mid-major who went 28-4 but lost in the league title game. Let's see what they got.

I'd apply the same principle to the FCS playoffs. Give me a Kennesaw State, who is 8-1 against the FCS, and who may have just had a bad day against Monmouth, over a 7-5 MVFC, CAA or Big Sky team. You know what I mean?

Not really if you could surmise that KSU would have been at less than 7-5 and although hard to figure out you would be hard, very hard pressed to not find a whole bunch of teams that would have a record at least that good if they played that schedule. 2 of those wins by KSU are against NAIA so sorry I can't see that record as being something great especially when you can look at how KSU played other teams and match that up against how Monmouth played those same teams and sort of come to the conclusion that Monmouth probably had the sort of day that they should have had and so did KSU that day.

I do think we will see KSU in probably but they, like many others don't deserve anything and sure won't have a case if left out...I should say a strong case if left out.

[JayJ79]

Saying that any conference deserves 6 teams in the FCS playoffs is like saying the SEC deserves all 4 spots in the FBS iteration.
not really. even if one conference got 6 teams in the 24-team playoff field, the other conferences still have a chance to prove their worth because they will have gotten their autobids in (and the 9 other at-large spots).
That isn't the case in the FBS joke of a system

[F'N Hawks]

I don't mean to get after KSU cause they are in a tough spot due to scheduling.....but how many teams would be 9-2 with their schedule right now?
My guess is around 20, maybe?

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

I find the ironic thing about this is that quite often the same people claiming that only teams from strong conferences should get bids to the FCS playoffs are the same ones that think more mid-majors should be invited to the NCAA Tournament.

I am of the opinion that if you win a lot of games, you should be rewarded and given a shot. We already know what the 9th best ACC team brings to the table.....give me the mid-major who went 28-4 but lost in the league title game. Let's see what they got.

I'd apply the same principle to the FCS playoffs. Give me a Kennesaw State, who is 8-1 against the FCS, and who may have just had a bad day against Monmouth, over a 7-5 MVFC, CAA or Big Sky team. You know what I mean?

KSU's resume doesn't cut it this year. But it will not surprise me if they are included in the bracket.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Saying that any conference deserves 6 teams in the FCS playoffs is like saying the SEC deserves all 4 spots in the FBS iteration.
how does 4 of 4 teams equate to 6 of 24 teams ?

[caribbeanhen]

KSU's resume doesn't cut it this year. But it will not surprise me if they are included in the bracket.

Kennesaw will be in, as sure as sure can be

[Redbird 4th & short]

"...we should have gotten 6..." I didn't know Illinois State had 6 football teams. xsmiley_wix

There shouldn't be a "we" in reference to a conference. I'm pretty sure I've heard committee members state numerous times in articles, interviews and podcasts that they don't take conference into account when selecting or seeding. It is each team on their own merits. They don't say "gosh, the MVFC has done well in the playoffs this decade, let's put another team in for them." They don't care whether the MVFC has a better record in the playoffs than the Big Sky over the last few years (nor should they IMO). They are looking at two teams and comparing them.
for every team, 8 of 11 games (12 this year) is played in conference .. it is usually 75% of every teams games and taken across entire conference, every conference will finish with a .500 record in all conference games. How can the Committee not take conference into account ???

[Mike296]

how does 4 of 4 teams equate to 6 of 24 teams ?

It was a joke about the FBS system lmao

[Redbird 4th & short]

It was a joke about the FBS system lmao
ah ... I think they should go to at least 6 .. have 4 play into 2 .. or just go to 8 and leave it at that.

[Hammerhead]

Saying that any conference deserves 6 teams in the FCS playoffs is like saying the SEC deserves all 4 spots in the FBS iteration.
It’s more like the SEC getting two out of four spots in the 2017 playoff. The 2014 championship with NDSU and ISUb did have the two best teams in the country.