Do I-AA teams that upset I-A teams...

[Lumberjacks76]

and win 8 games get more consideration for an at-large berth than those who just win 8 games and maybe don't play a Division I-A opponent (or lose to one)?

Is that factored into the playoff selection formula?

For that matter, what is the playoff selection formula for I-AA? Fans/potential draw or strength of schedule/win/loss record?

Paul

[bisonguy]

From the 2004 Division I-AA Football Championship Manual (http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/football/2004/d1aa_football_handbook.pdf)


Championship Selection
[Reference: Bylaws 31.01.2, 31.01.3 and 31.3 in the NCAA Manual.]
At-large teams shall be selected by the Division I-AA football committee,
assisted by four regional advisory committees that serve in an advisory
capacity only.
The following principles shall apply when selecting at-large teams:
1. The committee shall select the best teams available on a national at-large basis to
complete the bracket;
2. There is no limit to the number of teams the committee may select from one
conference;
3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of
schedule; however, more than three losses will place a team in jeopardy of not being
selected;
4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all
Division I opponents; and
5. If the team of a committee member is under consideration, the member may not vote for
the team being considered and will not be in the room when a vote is taken.
[See Appendix B (page 29) for a map of the geographical regions.]

Section 31.3 of the NCAA DI Manual (http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2005-06/2005-06_d1_manual.pdf) deals with the selection of teams and individuals for championship participation, but it's much too long to post.

[Tribe4SF]

Strength of schedule is a critical factor. I think a victory over a Div. II will hurt you more than a victory over a I-A will help you. The GPI has a heavy dose of strength of schedule because it has 8 computer rankings included.

[Pete's Weekly]

2. There is no limit to the number of teams the committee may select from one
conference;


Nice to know the committee really cares about "N" in NCAA.

[Tribe4SF]

2. There is no limit to the number of teams the committee may select from one
conference;


Nice to know the committee really cares about "N" in NCAA.

Worthy conferences get autobids. What's wrong with selecting "the best teams available" to complete the bracket? Sounds like you'd rather see inferior teams selected on some kind of geographical basis. That criteria might have kept the national champions out of the bracket last year. What would you propose instead of the current priorities?

[Pete's Weekly]

Tell Wofford and Cal-Poly they were inferior & undeserving. Explain to them why they did not go, yet the GFC and A-10 sent 4 teams. It makes no sense & never will. I bet the comittee is waiting for Furman, GSU, ASU & Wofford to all do well ... so they can keep the SoCon from feeling left out of the 4-team glory. Everyone likes it when it is their team's conference is hogging 25% of the post-season field ... but when the shoe is on the other foot ... it becomes a different dance. I have favorite teams, as does everyone, but my loyalty is to I-AA first and foremost. So until they expand (which is not going to happen until they dump the non-BCS schools into the mix) it needs to be 2 teams each from the top-4 conferences, plus the 4 additional autobids. The remaining 4 are then selected at-large, with the conferences that did not already receive 2 (and independents) having priority. I further think it should be a rule that each region have 4-teams in the mix. After all, the NCAA is claiming the regional divisions are all equal. What more fair way could there be? And yes ... under these rules JMU might not have gone to the post-season last year. Being a Tribe fan, I would think your week-12 win meant something to you. The play-off is supposed to be a reward for regular season performance. Not a settlement because the committee could not do their job.

Furthermore, everyone is complainig about how I-AA is ignored nationally. Well, what better way to increase exposure, than to "spread the wealth"? Ignoring a school (Cal-Poly) from the largest state in the country makes no sense. A small percentage of fans, from CA, that recognize the Mustangs, is a tremendous number of people. If I-AA does not begin to do this, all that is going to happen is that IA fans will say that these conferences should move up to DI. No that is not a typo. But when fans from all over the country see a team from their area in a post-season fight ... increased recognition is the only thing that can result.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

and win 8 games get more consideration for an at-large berth than those who just win 8 games and maybe don't play a Division I-A opponent (or lose to one)?

Is that factored into the playoff selection formula?

For that matter, what is the playoff selection formula for I-AA? Fans/potential draw or strength of schedule/win/loss record?

Paul

IMO, officially it is *not* considered. Unofficially, it definitely is under "schedule strength".

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Tell Wofford and Cal-Poly they were inferior & undeserving. Explain to them why they did not go, yet the GFC and A-10 sent 4 teams. It makes no sense & never will. I bet the comittee is waiting for Furman, GSU, ASU & Wofford to all do well ... so they can keep the SoCon from feeling left out of the 4-team glory. Everyone likes it when it is their team's conference is hogging 25% of the post-season field ... but when the shoe is on the other foot ... I further think it should be a rule that each region have 4-teams in the mix. After all, the NCAA is claiming the regional divisions are all equal. What more fair way could there be?

Furthermore, everyone is complainig about how I-AA is ignored nationally. Well, what better way to increase exposure, than to "spread the wealth"? Ignoring a school (Cal-Poly) from the largest state in the country makes no sense.

Point by point.

1) Wofford didn't make it since they didn't have any good wins on their schedule at 8-3, and in the last game of the year they barely beat The Citadel. You don't honestly think they should have gone over Delaware? Cal Poly had the best case for inclusion, but they lost to UC-Davis, a I-AA transitional school.

Cal Poly and Wofford were not slam-dunks to be included, and Delaware had at least beaten a Top 10-ranked opponent.

2) Regional picks is just silly. That would give the Southland/Big Sky/Great West a huge advantage over the east coast teams, just due to the unfortunate luck of being in a heavy I-AA area - not to mention you'd probably have to waive the 3-loss rule. You really think accepting a flawed regional 7-4 team (say, NAU) is better than taking an 8-3 team (say, Delaware)?

3) I think you've got it backwards. You're saying, in effect, "add regional teams to the I-AA playoffs to increase exposure". But it's not up to the I-AA playoffs to increase exposure for your school - that's up to the schools (and leagues) themselves during the regular season. Cal Poly is definitely on the right track, and when UC-Davis is fully I-AA, it will greatly help California I-AA exposure. I don't think Cal Poly travelling to Missoula in the I-AA playoffs necessarily will - especially if it's an artificial formula that (say) prevents a pretty good 8-3 Delaware team from making it in.

I think this year's playoffs was an exceptional case. When WKU made it 4 Gateway teams in the first round 2 years ago, that was a unique case as well, but I don't think there was any validity to them taking WKU with no good wins and only 7 D-I wins - which is why they changed the rule.

[Tribe4SF]

The play-off is supposed to be a reward for regular season performance. Not a settlement because the committee could not do their job.



What you're proposing would be a settlement because the committee would not be doing their job. I think you'll have trouble making an argument that Wofford or Cal Poly was a stronger candidate than any of the four A-10 schools last year. Yet you would have left out two of them. Wofford would still have been out (already 2 from SoCon) and you could have taken Cal Poly and who? A second from the OVC or the MEAC? From your perspective, the bracket would end up as a watered down, politically correct exhibition.

[blukeys]

Tell Wofford and Cal-Poly they were inferior & undeserving. Explain to them why they did not go, yet the GFC and A-10 sent 4 teams. It makes no sense & never will. I bet the comittee is waiting for Furman, GSU, ASU & Wofford to all do well ... so they can keep the SoCon from feeling left out of the 4-team glory. Everyone likes it when it is their team's conference is hogging 25% of the post-season field ... but when the shoe is on the other foot ... it becomes a different dance. I have favorite teams, as does everyone, but my loyalty is to I-AA first and foremost. So until they expand (which is not going to happen until they dump the non-BCS schools into the mix) it needs to be 2 teams each from the top-4 conferences, plus the 4 additional autobids. The remaining 4 are then selected at-large, with the conferences that did not already receive 2 (and independents) having priority. I further think it should be a rule that each region have 4-teams in the mix. After all, the NCAA is claiming the regional divisions are all equal. What more fair way could there be? And yes ... under these rules JMU might not have gone to the post-season last year. Being a Tribe fan, I would think your week-12 win meant something to you. The play-off is supposed to be a reward for regular season performance. Not a settlement because the committee could not do their job.

Furthermore, everyone is complainig about how I-AA is ignored nationally. Well, what better way to increase exposure, than to "spread the wealth"? Ignoring a school (Cal-Poly) from the largest state in the country makes no sense. A small percentage of fans, from CA, that recognize the Mustangs, is a tremendous number of people. If I-AA does not begin to do this, all that is going to happen is that IA fans will say that these conferences should move up to DI. No that is not a typo. But when fans from all over the country see a team from their area in a post-season fight ... increased recognition is the only thing that can result.

Further proof of why going to Pete's Weekly is a total waste of time. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Eagle_77]

Tell Wofford and Cal-Poly they were inferior & undeserving. Explain to them why they did not go, yet the GFC and A-10 sent 4 teams. It makes no sense & never will. I bet the comittee is waiting for Furman, GSU, ASU & Wofford to all do well ... so they can keep the SoCon from feeling left out of the 4-team glory. Everyone likes it when it is their team's conference is hogging 25% of the post-season field ... but when the shoe is on the other foot ... it becomes a different dance. I have favorite teams, as does everyone, but my loyalty is to I-AA first and foremost. So until they expand (which is not going to happen until they dump the non-BCS schools into the mix) it needs to be 2 teams each from the top-4 conferences, plus the 4 additional autobids. The remaining 4 are then selected at-large, with the conferences that did not already receive 2 (and independents) having priority. I further think it should be a rule that each region have 4-teams in the mix. After all, the NCAA is claiming the regional divisions are all equal. What more fair way could there be? And yes ... under these rules JMU might not have gone to the post-season last year. Being a Tribe fan, I would think your week-12 win meant something to you. The play-off is supposed to be a reward for regular season performance. Not a settlement because the committee could not do their job.

Furthermore, everyone is complainig about how I-AA is ignored nationally. Well, what better way to increase exposure, than to "spread the wealth"? Ignoring a school (Cal-Poly) from the largest state in the country makes no sense. A small percentage of fans, from CA, that recognize the Mustangs, is a tremendous number of people. If I-AA does not begin to do this, all that is going to happen is that IA fans will say that these conferences should move up to DI. No that is not a typo. But when fans from all over the country see a team from their area in a post-season fight ... increased recognition is the only thing that can result.

This right here discredits everything else you said. It was obvious that JMU was the best team at the right time last year. They were a bubble team that got in and showed why they deserved to be there. In this case it shows that the selection committee did their job. The post season is a reward for good regular season performance. If a team goes 7-4 they are decent but not good. If a team goes 8-3 with no quality wins they should be left out as should have Wofford and Cal Poly last year. Hell according to records Coastal Carolina had the best case for being into the playoffs but with zero quality wins they were left right where they deserved to be. Regions or leagues should have NOTHING to do with playoff selections. In all fairness they should go back to the 16 team seeding that they had before 01 season with picking the best 16 teams in the nation.

[JMU1992]

This right here discredits everything else you said. It was obvious that JMU was the best team at the right time last year. They were a bubble team that got in and showed why they deserved to be there.


Just a little FYI, JMU was not a bubble team. They were A-10 Co-Champions with W&M and Delaware. They did not get the auto bid because of the fourth or fifth tiebreaker they had to go to, but they certainly were not a bubble team.

Other than that I absolutely agree with you, and I also agree that that post from Pete shows no logic.

[blukeys]

and I also agree that that post from Pete shows no logic.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Pete the guy who believed that I-AA teams should never schedule I-A teams as it makes I-AA look bad if they lose big? I think he actually wanted a rule to that effect. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

His conference power rankings has the Gateway as the highest ranked conference at the end of the 2004 season. The weak thinking and and faulty logic he demonstrates are not relegated to a single post. :p :p

[Lumberjacks76]

I don't know how often the Big Sky Conference gets two teams into the playoffs each year, but it seems to happen a lot. I do like the fact that they reward the runner up in a tough conference.

1996 NAU and 2003 NAU are examples of this.

In 2001, NAU went 8-4 and was selected as an at-large team.

Paul

[NDSU_grad]

Regionalization ruined DII, IMO, and would be devastinting to I-AA. Just wait unitl you have a NE region with Iona and Duqeusne making the playoffs regularly.

[Eagle_77]

Just a little FYI, JMU was not a bubble team. They were A-10 Co-Champions with W&M and Delaware. They did not get the auto bid because of the fourth or fifth tiebreaker they had to go to, but they certainly were not a bubble team.

Other than that I absolutely agree with you, and I also agree that that post from Pete shows no logic.


Sorry if that sounded disrespectful but my point was that any school that does not get an auto bid from their confernece is actually a bubble team. They deserved to be in the playoffs and showed that in the end.

[Catmendue2]

2. There is no limit to the number of teams the committee may select from one
conference;


Nice to know the committee really cares about "N" in NCAA.

Pete, I don't normally agree with you, but you are right on this front. Until you have regional playoffs, there can be no National Champion. :(

[CrunchGriz]

I’m not a big fan of any single conference getting four teams into the playoffs, either, but I think the consequences of capping the number of teams from any one conference at a low number is worse.

Hardly anyone disagrees that there are a few I-AA conferences that have the best teams. Most agree that they include the Southern, A-10, Big Sky, and Gateway, and the Southland could probably make the list as well (despite having a smaller number of teams). The Patriot is (rightly or wrongly) generally considered a pace behind these conferences, the Great West has made a good name for itself in a short time, and the Ohio Valley and others follow after that.

To say that one of the top conferences couldn’t have four of the top 16 teams at the end of any particular season is just wrong, and not allowing them all a shot at the crown would be just as wrong. Allowing auto-bids to all I-AA conferences gives the ludicrous result that Duquesne (no offense, Dukes), Dayton, or Albany (or other teams from their conferences) should be given an auto-bid, even though 95 times out of 100 they’d be smoked in the first round by Delaware, Montana, Georgia Southern, or one of the other top I-AA teams, and the odds are nearly astronomical that one of these teams could survive through to win the entire tournament, while a true I-AA bubble team (like Cal Poly or Wofford of a couple of years ago) had a genuine shot to make some noise in the tournament. The lack of a “16” winning the tournament in 20-odd years is further indication that a mid-major winning the tournament is a tremendous long-shot.

I don’t like the thought that this smacks of “BCS Monopolism,” but I, for one, am reassured that giving 16 teams a shot at the crown, and picking them based on head-to-head competition between the conferences, which they are at least partly picked on, allows the selection committee to pick a good top 16, while maintaining a national scope to the tournament. Limiting the selections by adding a handful of auto-bids from non-sholarship conferences would just water down the tournament. If the mid-majors truly wanted to be part of the playoff picture (and thought they could compete with the I-AA big dogs), they’d schedule more national power programs so we could see how they compete.

As noted above, just one more reason to chuckle when I read Pete’s prognostications and stances.

[Catmendue2]

The best teams are chosen year in and year out except for some autobids which aren't the best teams.


That where the problem is, you chose. Why have 16 teams, choose the top 4 teams and forget about the other 12. Its not a playoff for the country its for the best teams you guys choose. Who said one of the teams that wasn't chosen couldn't have beaten JMU. That why you have conference champions isn't it. :(

[Catmendue2]

Sir, we don't pick the teams for the playoffs. The GPI indicates which teams should make it and it is never more than one team off from what the NCAA committee chooses. To me that means the best teams are getting in (except for those certain autobids which are much lower ranked and get beaten in the first round every year).



Then have a playoff for the top 4 teams, and stop wasting the other teams time and money. ;)