Playoff Expansion Close to happening?

[FargoBison]

It's not exactly a done deal, but playoff expansion in the Football Championship Subdivision has advanced further along the NCAA's chain of command than it has in 20 years, and for the first time all of the commissioners from member conferences support the idea.

Raising the number of postseason participants from 16 to as many as 24 - potentially good news for South Dakota's two largest schools - is one of several significant action items on the agenda at the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet meetings scheduled for today and Thursday in Indianapolis.

"A lot of the people on the committee would be for it if they could get it where everybody's happy," said Ed Grom, a cabinet member and commissioner of the Great West Football Conference, "and I don't think everybody will be happy with every decision that's made. But I think there's some momentum now."

It's been a long time coming. The last time the FCS - formerly Division I-AA - expanded its playoff field was 1986. There were 84 schools in the division at that time. There are 120 this season - with at least four more to join by 2009 - and yet still just 16 playoff spots, split equally between at-large selections and conference champions.

The problem is that the division now has more than eight leagues that meet the requirements for being an automatic qualifier - consisting of at least six active (non-transitional) programs that have competed together the previous two years.....


http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/SPORTS0202/709190332/1002/SPORTS

[brownbear]

Does this mean they could vote on and officially approve it by tomorrow (or turn it down I guess)? If so, that would probably mean they'd have it in place next year.

[FargoBison]

Does this mean they could vote on and officially approve it by tomorrow (or turn it down I guess)? If so, that would probably mean they'd have it in place next year.

from the article...


it's more likely that the field would be expanded by two in 2008 and 2010 and by four in 2012 in order to spread the financial burden over several years.

[henfan]

This proposal is being presently tonight at 7 pm. A vote up or down could come as early as this evening.

[GannonFan]

They'll expand soon, it's hard not to, and the idea of adding two teams in the short term, and then 4 in the longer term, makes perfect sense. It would be silly to balloon the thing up to 24 teams overnight when we aren't that far away from having a pretty good system. Just a little tweaking necessary.

[McTailGator]

It's not exactly a done deal, but playoff expansion in the Football Championship Subdivision has advanced further along the NCAA's chain of command than it has in 20 years, and for the first time all of the commissioners from member conferences support the idea.

Raising the number of postseason participants from 16 to as many as 24 - potentially good news for South Dakota's two largest schools - is one of several significant action items on the agenda at the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet meetings scheduled for today and Thursday in Indianapolis.

"A lot of the people on the committee would be for it if they could get it where everybody's happy," said Ed Grom, a cabinet member and commissioner of the Great West Football Conference, "and I don't think everybody will be happy with every decision that's made. But I think there's some momentum now."

It's been a long time coming. The last time the FCS - formerly Division I-AA - expanded its playoff field was 1986. There were 84 schools in the division at that time. There are 120 this season - with at least four more to join by 2009 - and yet still just 16 playoff spots, split equally between at-large selections and conference champions.

The problem is that the division now has more than eight leagues that meet the requirements for being an automatic qualifier - consisting of at least six active (non-transitional) programs that have competed together the previous two years.....


http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/SPORTS0202/709190332/1002/SPORTS



McNeese will not support an expansion, which will devalue the top 16.

Keep it tough to acheive, Keep it of value.

OTHER WISE, IT's JUST ANOTHER BUNCH OF POST SEAON BOWL GAMES.

I"D rather the NCAA get financial support for the existing 16 teams and reqard those.

24 is just too many teams to make it financially rewarding.



Example: Each of the top 16 teams get a $50,000 check plus expenses once they reach the playoffs;

The 8 Quarter finalists get $100,000 each; bring the total to 100K for those that make it to this point;

Semi-Finalists should get another $150,000

Finalists should get another $300,000 each to bring the grand total of possible rewards to $600,000, which is on par with what the bottom tierd bowls get now.

One of the biggest complaints we get from the teams that bolt for the FBS is that the financial rewards (or costs) for the playoffs is not worth their time.

[aceinthehole]

They'll expand soon, it's hard not to, and the idea of adding two teams in the short term, and then 4 in the longer term, makes perfect sense. It would be silly to balloon the thing up to 24 teams overnight when we aren't that far away from having a pretty good system. Just a little tweaking necessary.

I agree and think its a reasonable response by the NCAA and football committee.

Not to get ahead of any approvals, but ...

if the playoffs do expand by 2 spots for 2008, I'm pretty sure only 1 spot can be given as an AQ (the other must be an at-large) per NCAA by-laws.

So who gets the new AQ?

We know the NEC has applied (and was denied) more than once and will certainly apply again. The PFL (as well as the SWAC and Ivy) have not applied in the past, although they have been eligible.

- Will the PFL (SWCA or Ivy) apply for the AQ in 2008?
- Can the NCAA add 2 playoff berths next year (both AQs) by simply making the "Gridiron Classic" a PIG for the right to face the #1 seed?

[WUTNDITWAA]

Spot-on post McTailGator. Let's enhanse what we have now, not water it down with a number of also-rans that wouldn't win more than one game on a best-case scanerio.

I'd be saying the same thing if ASU was in danger of entering the Crapsville Bar and Grill.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

I think it's a good idea. People are always complaining about the lack of SoS by Patriot League and MEAC teams. This is a chance to have more AL bids than just 8.

Think of all of the good teams last year that were left out - Portland State (had two FBS games and won 1), Northern Iowa, Wofford, Towson, and a few others I can't think of. This year there will probably be even more good candidates who will have to sit at home. I can see the CAA having 5 8+ win teams. The Socon could have 4. The Big Sky could also have 4. The Gateway could have 4. The SLC I think willl have two or maybe even 3.

If there is one thing that the FCS playoffs has taught us is tha the most hyped teams aren't always the best. How many people gave UMass a chance in '98, WKU a chance in '02, Wofford and Colgate in '03, and JMU in '04 to get as far as they did?

I say expnd it and start the playoffs a week earlier. It's worth losing an off week or a 12th game.

[DetroitFlyer]

Not likely. ASU is in a conference that already enjoys an automatic bid. You can have a few horrible years, but you always know that if you recover and win the conference, you have a playoff bid. Not so for the PFL and NEC. Expansion cannot happen soon enough. Although the PFL has never applied for an automatic bid, it has never said that it would not accept a bid like the IVY and SWAC. If two more bids are awarded for 2008, I have to think that one way or another, they will go to the NEC and PFL, quite possibly using the Gridirion Classic as a "play-in"game. Man, I am SO tired of all of these "Old Guarders" and their lame excuses for not exanding the playoffs. Ask Illinois State University how watered down the playoffs would be if Drake received an automatic bid. Let's just hope that the committee and the NCAA do the right thing and expand!!!!!

[citdog]

24 teams sounds good to me

[GannonFan]

Not likely. ASU is in a conference that already enjoys an automatic bid. You can have a few horrible years, but you always know that if you recover and win the conference, you have a playoff bid.

Do you mean Appalachian St? Aw, come on, do you really think they care that they have an automatic bid in their conference? If Appy St is good enough (i.e. has enough wins against the type of schedule they play) then they are in the playoffs, auto-bid or not. The same can be said for 5-6 of the autobid conferences - their top team is getting in regardless of the auto-bid, and probably their second place team, and in the bigger conferences the 3rd and 4th place teams. Sure some of the conferences that have an auto and haven't won a playoff game in some time you could make an argument about, but the vast majority of the playoff field gets there by the simple formula of: play a tough schedule and win a lot of those games. Simple. xpeacex

[lizrdgizrd]

Not likely. ASU is in a conference that already enjoys an automatic bid. You can have a few horrible years, but you always know that if you recover and win the conference, you have a playoff bid. Not so for the PFL and NEC. Expansion cannot happen soon enough. Although the PFL has never applied for an automatic bid, it has never said that it would not accept a bid like the IVY and SWAC. If two more bids are awarded for 2008, I have to think that one way or another, they will go to the NEC and PFL, quite possibly using the Gridirion Classic as a "play-in"game. Man, I am SO tired of all of these "Old Guarders" and their lame excuses for not exanding the playoffs. Ask Illinois State University how watered down the playoffs would be if Drake received an automatic bid. Let's just hope that the committee and the NCAA do the right thing and expand!!!!!
If they're going to expand the playoffs by 2 teams in 2008 I don't think they can increase the AQs by two since half the teams have to be at large. So one new AQ in 2008 and one new one in 2010.

[henfan]

With schedules already set for a large number of FCS schools for 2008 (some through 2012), I can't imagine how the bye week could possibly be eliminated without causing considerable turmoil.

I'll reserve judgement on any proposed plan until I can hear the details. So far, there have been few details leaked. It's a little premature to get excited one way or another about this just yet. The devil will be in the details, to coin a phrase.

[TheValleyRaider]

So who gets the new AQ?

At this point, I would guess the NEC would be the most likely, and would also be the most likely to recieve it, given their past history of application and rejection.


- Will the PFL (SWCA or Ivy) apply for the AQ in 2008?
- Can the NCAA add 2 playoff berths next year (both AQs) by simply making the "Gridiron Classic" a PIG for the right to face the #1 seed?

SWAC and Ivy, definately not. Ivies are probably still a couple years away, at best, from considering a playoff birth. Now, if they did apply for '08, I'm 100% certain the Committee takes them before the NEC. The SWAC would have to remove it's Championship Game, which seems incredibly unlikely at this point, to put itself in position for an autobid, unless of course they want it to be a non-division winner who is also not Grambling, Southern, or Alabama State, which I suppose is possible, but doesn't seem like the greatest idea from a conference standpoint.

Given your point above, I wouldn't expect the 2 new births to become autobids. If they were, however, or for when they push to 4 new spots, the Gridiron Classic as play-in game would be an attractive option for the NCAA, fair or not xtwocentsx

[89Hen]

If two more bids are awarded for 2008, I have to think that one way or another, they will go to the NEC and PFL, quite possibly using the Gridirion Classic as a "play-in"game. Man, I am SO tired of all of these "Old Guarders" and their lame excuses for not exanding the playoffs. Ask Illinois State University how watered down the playoffs would be if Drake received an automatic bid. Let's just hope that the committee and the NCAA do the right thing and expand!!!!!
You are very wrong on both accounts. IF the field were expanded by 2, one would probably go to a new auto, probably the NEC, but the other would go to an at-large, probably not the PFL unless they have a team that is the ninth best at-large selection.

As for whether Drake would make a good auto... xconfusedx xconfusedx they haven't won their conference yet.

[Dane96]

Oh come on 89Hen...you old guard bum; Rockin' in D-Troit City wants the PFL to be handed what the PL (and now the NEC for the past few seasons) earned as a conference: AN AUTOBID!

I mean really, I know the Old Guard is sitting around waxing poetic about the PFL from top-to-bottom...and the efforts to improve the product...top-to-bottom.

Surely y'all are going to give it to the PFL. The NEC will just wallow in our "up-game" misery.

Sad...so sad.

[89Hen]

Oh come on 89Hen...you old guard bum; Rockin' in D-Troit City wants the PFL to be handed what the PL (and now the NEC for the past few seasons) earned as a conference: AN AUTOBID!

I mean really, I know the Old Guard is sitting around waxing poetic about the PFL from top-to-bottom...and the efforts to improve the product...top-to-bottom.

Surely y'all are going to give it to the PFL. The NEC will just wallow in our "up-game" misery.

Sad...so sad.
He STILL refuses to answer my question of why so many Indepedents have made the playoffs throughout the history of I-AA. xsmhx

[SoCon48]

Spot-on post McTailGator. Let's enhanse what we have now, not water it down with a number of also-rans that wouldn't win more than one game on a best-case scanerio.

I'd be saying the same thing if ASU was in danger of entering the Crapsville Bar and Grill.

I'm against expansion of the field. The times ASU came close to making it, but didn't, they really didn't belong. We don't want this thing to get watered down like the crummy Bowl system. You really have to have a sorry seaon not to get invited to a bowl game.

There might be a few left out of the play-offs each year who might have won a game in the play-offs but i would be shocked to think a true contender has ever been dissed.

[Ronbo]

Wasn't there something posted concerning playoff expansion that there would be qualifications for auto bids. I remember something about 50 schollies or equal support like the Patriot League does. I still don't think the Pioneer would get an Auto but they might have a better chance for an At Large. The NEC would need to step up their Schollies too as most of them are well under 50.

Someone clarify the playoff qualifications that were being disscussed earlier this summer.

[DetroitFlyer]

The NEC has earned anything? Are you kidding me? The NEC is currently ranked BELOW the PFL.... Hello?

As to independent teams making the playoffs.... How many non-scholarship teams have managed that feat in the 15 years that they have been members of FCS? Of course it is because they have never been worthy. What a joke. You guys need a new routine!

[89Hen]

How many non-scholarship teams have managed that feat in the 15 years that they have been members of FCS? Of course it is because they have never been worthy.
Truer words have never been spoken. xnodx

[GannonFan]

What a joke. You guys need a new routine!


Irony??? Hello??? Irony, are you in here???? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Dane96]

The NEC has earned anything? Are you kidding me? The NEC is currently ranked BELOW the PFL.... Hello?

As to independent teams making the playoffs.... How many non-scholarship teams have managed that feat in the 15 years that they have been members of FCS? Of course it is because they have never been worthy. What a joke. You guys need a new routine!

Take a straw poll on the relative rise...and at least the attempt to rise by playing above "our level" on this board...and the NEC will come out over the efforts of the PFL.

No doubt I tap my lid to San Diego and Drake...but after that...whatever. Every single team in the NEC has played tough games. The PFL...right.

Why doesnt Kelly give U Albany that promised return game from the 90's? We could settle this on the field.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think this will be shot down, because the vote is getting rushed through. It may set the stage for the future, but I really don't think they're going to have the votes for this.

I don't think this will happen until it's perfectly clear what would happen to accomodate this change - either eliminate bye weeks, shorten the season to 10 games, or kick out the championship game to the middle of bowl season. All three options have serious practical issues to consider, and the lack of clarity on this makes it a risky proposal to be voting "yes". Are you really voting for playoffs, or are you voting for a 10 game schedule?

This is aside from the "watering-down of the playoffs" issue, which is a legitimate concern. If the field is expanded to 24, more than 25% of the eligible teams (with 7 D-I wins) will be making the playoffs, and some years there may not even be enough teams to fill all the spots.

Aside from obvious beneficiaries like the NEC, I don't see who votes for this.

[89Hen]

Coastal 2006 - wins over Wofford, SCSt, Furman...
FAU 2003 - wins over MTSU, YSU, IllSt, TxSt, Nicholls...
Hofstra 2000 - wins over Montana, Maine, UMass...
Hofstra 1999 - wins over UConn, Maine, UMass, USF, JMU...
Hofstra 1997 - wins over TexasSt, UNH, Lehigh, Buffalo, UMass, Maine...
Hofstra 1995 - wins over Nicholls, IllSt, Buffalo...
YSU 1994 - wins over EKU, McNeese, Kent, UMass...
YSU 1993 - wins over WMU, EKU, Akron...
YSU 1992 - wins over TxSt, IllSt, EIU, Ohio, GSU...
YSU 1991 - wins over SFA, GSU, JMU...
YSU 1990 - wins over EMU, Akron, WKU, JMU, Ohio...
GSU 1990 - wins over LA-M, Marshall, JMU...
YSU 1989 - wins over Akron, CMU, Liberty...
GSU 1989 - wins over FAMU, MTSU, Nicholls, UCF, JMU...
GSU 1988 - wins over FAMU, LA-M, UCF, JMU...
GSU 1987 - wins over MTSU, UCF, WCU, WKU, JMU...
GSU 1986 - wins over FAMU, MTSU, UCF, JMU...
GSU 1985 - wins over FAMU, Troy, UCF, ETSU, SCSU...

But DF would rather claim the made the playoffs simply because they gave scholarships. xcoffeex

[JDC325]

No on expansion! Before we expand the playoffs I would like to see the schools that are in the FCS/I-AA football only to have a Div I basketball team actually have to also fund their football teams with scholarships. It is a joke we do not have a sholarship requirement for this division. Since the last expansion in 1986 we have not added nearly 40+/- playoff caliber teams. Mainly added 40+/- football teams so their respective schools could try and snag some March Madness money. Either fund your football team or get out it is embarassing. Are any teams really getting left out that have a real chance of winning the NC? NO, 16 is enough. xnonono2x

[DetroitFlyer]

I will not do the work for you this time. Look up what Wofford spends on football, then look up what San Diego spends on football, then lookup what Dayton spends on football and tell me which one is not "worthy" in your "Old Guard" eyes of not being a "real" FCS team.

[FargoBison]

I think if you involve the NEC and PFL in the playoffs they will want to get better and improve their product. The playoffs are the best thing about the FCS and I don't see the problem of letting more teams compete in them.

[aceinthehole]

He STILL refuses to answer my question of why so many Indepedents have made the playoffs throughout the history of I-AA. xsmhx

89 - I'm not defending Flyer here becasue I belive he still has the wrong argument, but I don't think is really fair to compare an Indy team to a non-AQ conference for at-large consideration.

For example, let's pretend Albany goes 3-1 non conference with wins over a #19 Hofstra, unranked Lehigh (7-4; 3rd in PL) and Cornell (7-3; 3rd in Ivy), and quality loss at #2 Montana. They get 6 wins vs. very mediocre NEC teams (no opponent has a "quality" win) and lose to a good, but unspectacular CCSU (8-3, NEC runner up) on the road, do they get an at large?

UA finishes 9-2, has 1 win over a ranked team plus 2 "good" wins vs a PL and Ivy teams, without any "bad" losses. Just a guess, but its likely they will be hurt by conference wins vs. SFPA (0-11), SHU (2-9), Wag (3-8), Mon (5-5), Duq (5-5), RMU (6-5).

They are punished by a conference schedule they can't control. An Indy team can schedule the 7 or more "quaility" opponents they need for an at-large, an NEC team has just 4 OOC games to prove its at-large worth. JMO :)

[proasu89]

Aside from obvious beneficiaries like the NEC, I don't see who votes for this.[/QUOTE]



Wofford possibly?

[USDFAN_55]

No on expansion! Before we expand the playoffs I would like to see the schools that are in the FCS/I-AA football only to have a Div I basketball team actually have to also fund their football teams with scholarships. It is a joke we do not have a sholarship requirement for this division. Since the last expansion in 1986 we have not added nearly 40+/- playoff caliber teams. Mainly added 40+/- football teams so their respective schools could try and snag some March Madness money. Either fund your football team or get out it is embarassing. Are any teams really getting left out that have a real chance of winning the NC? NO, 16 is enough. xnonono2x

That's rediculous that you think there should be a scholarship requirement xnonox . Scholarships are never required, even in the FBS, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure there is only a maximum limit. If a school wants to have fewerm then so be it. Quit having this elitist attitude that for some reason you think scholarships make you a better program. Scholarships don't mean jack.... look at what scholarships do for Northern Colorado xeekx .

[FargoBison]

Aside from obvious beneficiaries like the NEC, I don't see who votes for this.



Wofford possibly?[/QUOTE]

the entire Big South, the entire GWFC, the entire Gateway.

[JDC325]

That's rediculous that you think there should be a scholarship requirement xnonox . Scholarships are never required, even in the FBS, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure there is only a maximum limit. If a school wants to have fewerm then so be it. Quit having this elitist attitude that for some reason you think scholarships make you a better program. Scholarships don't mean jack.... look at what scholarships do for Northern Colorado xeekx .


The FBS does and so should any division that want to be taken seriously and not excuse to have a DIV I basketball team. The NCAA agrees and is the motivating factor behind the moratorium. You cant justify having a full scholarshiped basketball team and not offering any to your football team. DIV I should have standards and they will soon.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

the entire Big South, the entire GWFC, the entire Gateway.

The NEC, Big South, and GWFC, I believe. But why the Gateway? They're pretty much a lock for two teams a year in the playoffs anyway most years, possibly three. How does this benefit them? On the off chance that they get a fourth team into the field every four or five years or so? So that their at-large teams would now probably have to play an extra playoff game? xconfusedx

More importantly, would they have to go to a 10 game schedule to do it, and give up games like UNI/Iowa State for that?

[89Hen]

For example, let's pretend Albany goes 3-1 non conference with wins over a #19 Hofstra, unranked Lehigh (7-4; 3rd in PL) and Cornell (7-3; 3rd in Ivy), and quality loss at #2 Montana. They get 6 wins vs. very mediocre NEC teams (no opponent has a "quality" win) and lose to a good, but unspectacular CCSU (8-3, NEC runner up) on the road, do they get an at large?
Most likely yes! Look at Coastal in 2005. They weren't hurt by their Big South schedule... they scheduled four SoCon teams including two of the big three.

[lizrdgizrd]

89 - I'm not defending Flyer here becasue I belive he still has the wrong argument, but I don't think is really fair to compare an Indy team to a non-AQ conference for at-large consideration.

For example, let's pretend Albany goes 3-1 non conference with wins over a #19 Hofstra, unranked Lehigh (7-4; 3rd in PL) and Cornell (7-3; 3rd in Ivy), and quality loss at #2 Montana. They get 6 wins vs. very mediocre NEC teams (no opponent has a "quality" win) and lose to a good, but unspectacular CCSU (8-3, NEC runner up) on the road, do they get an at large?

UA finishes 9-2, has 1 win over a ranked team plus 2 "good" wins vs a PL and Ivy teams, without any "bad" losses. Just a guess, but its likely they will be hurt by conference wins vs. SFPA (0-11), SHU (2-9), Wag (3-8), Mon (5-5), Duq (5-5), RMU (6-5).

They are punished by a conference schedule they can't control. An Indy team can schedule the 7 or more "quaility" opponents they need for an at-large, an NEC team has just 4 OOC games to prove its at-large worth. JMO :)


Most likely yes! Look at Coastal in 2005. They weren't hurt by their Big South schedule... they scheduled four SoCon teams including two of the big three.
As long as UA wins their conference and goes 3-1 with that OOC competition, they'll make the playoffs at 9-2.

[FargoBison]

The NEC, Big South, and GWFC, I believe. But why the Gateway? They're pretty much a lock for two teams a year in the playoffs anyway most years, possibly three. How does this benefit them? On the off chance that they get a fourth team into the field every four or five years or so? So that their at-large teams would now probably have to play an extra playoff game? xconfusedx

More importantly, would they have to go to a 10 game schedule to do it, and give up games like UNI/Iowa State for that?


Longtime Gateway commissioner Patty Viverito declined to set odds on the outcome, but said that a pro-expansion consensus reached during a recent conference call of FCS commissioners was "a huge step forward."

Throw in the fact that both NDSU and SDSU are really pushing this and I think you'll see complete support from the Gateway. I also don't for see a ten game schedule, I think the 12th game was voted down in order to pave the way for expansion.

[brownbear]

The FBS does and so should any division that want to be taken seriously and not excuse to have a DIV I basketball team. The NCAA agrees and is the motivating factor behind the moratorium. You cant justify having a full scholarshiped basketball team and not offering any to your football team. DIV I should have standards and they will soon.

Why should having no scholarships penalize a team's playoff chances? They have chosen to play with the big boys, and if they can perform in the regular season, let them show it in the postseason. We have all seen this year that having more scholarships (Michigan) does not mean a better team.

[JDC325]

Why should having no scholarships penalize a team's playoff chances? They have chosen to play with the big boys, and if they can perform in the regular season, let them show it in the postseason. We have all seen this year that having more scholarships (Michigan) does not mean a better team.


Ok.....Go look at ALL the FBS vs. FCS & SCHOLLIE FCS vs. NON SChOLLIE, DIV II or NAIA scores and tell me if you see a trend. xcoffeex

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Throw in the fact that both NDSU and SDSU are really pushing this and I think you'll see complete support from the Gateway. I also don't for see a ten game schedule, I think the 12th game was voted down in order to pave the way for expansion.


Money is one of the two hang-ups, Grom said. And time is the other.

Adding eight teams to the playoff mix would cost the NCAA about $1 million annually in travel and per diem costs. That's a sizable chunk of the $1.5 million allocation that the cabinet will likely receive to cover all of its requests for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years.

Plus, extending the postseason by one week would force teams to report to campus earlier and at a cost to each school. It would cost SDSU about $20,000, according to associate athletic director Rob Peterson. They also could do away with an in-season off-week. Otherwise, the FCS risks having its national championship game get lost in the mix of the big-schools' bowl season.

The other expansion option under consideration is going to 18 teams by adding two play-in games. It makes fiscal sense, at a cost of $250,00, but that seems less feasible given that at least three leagues will soon make a run at becoming automatic qualifiers, not to mention that does little for perennially powerful, automatic qualifier conferences like the Southland and the Gateway - SDSU's home beginning in 2008.

...

Longtime Gateway commissioner Patty Viverito declined to set odds on the outcome, but said that a pro-expansion consensus reached during a recent conference call of FCS commissioners was "a huge step forward."

"The NCAA isn't going to spend more money on increased opportunities if half the people in the subdivision aren't that excited about it," said Viverito, whose league has earned as many as four berths in a single postseason. "Now, we're past the philosophical and into the financial. That's where I think the debate will center."

This, to me says quite a bit. There are huge questions, all with financial implications. How much will this cost? What would you have to do with the season? Would an increase in the per-diem be a part of this (and it took forever for the NCAA to finally increase it *last year*)? And is it worth it?

See what happens when you take the WHOLE context of the article? It seems less like a slam-dunk and instead sound like an open debate with a ton of important details not ironed out. That's not to say that playoff expansion getting this far isn't important, but "close to happening"? I don't think so.

[bluehenbillk]

I've never been a fan of having too many teams in the postseason, as it de-values making it. I think it'll give more fuel for the FBS to stay where they're at & say "look at the mess the lower divisions have created".

[DetroitFlyer]

Stange isn't it how folks that are not for playoff expansion are all fans of teams that are already in an autobid conference for the most part?

[GannonFan]

Stange isn't it how folks that are not for playoff expansion are all fans of teams that are already in an autobid conference for the most part?

And strange isn't it that most of those teams get in irregardless of their conferences having an autobid? Very strange indeed. xlolx

[FargoBison]

This, to me says quite a bit. There are huge questions, all with financial implications. How much will this cost? What would you have to do with the season? Would an increase in the per-diem be a part of this (and it took forever for the NCAA to finally increase it *last year*)? And is it worth it?

See what happens when you take the WHOLE context of the article? It seems less like a slam-dunk and instead sound like an open debate with a ton of important details not ironed out. That's not to say that playoff expansion getting this far isn't important, but "close to happening"? I don't think so.

That is why I put a question mark after the title because who knows how close it is to happening. I will say if it has as much support as the article implies it might have a good shot. When everyone is on the same page it is easier to work out issues like money and scheduling then when you have some against it from the start.

[Retro]

If you're good enough, If you win 8-9 games and they are againest some quality OOC opponents, you will get in provided other teams don't have better records againest better competition..

It has nothing to do with conference or scholarships.. It has everything to do with earning your way! The playoffs exist to determine a national champion..

The only things that needs to change is more money for winning teams in each round... If the NCAA has the money to finance extra post season games, then they have the money to up the benefits to the existing system.... The rest will take care of itself....

I do however believe we can give another automatic bid out provided certain qualifications are meet..

[henfan]

Cost is important since the post-season is essentially funded by host institution guarantees. The tournament isn't a huge money maker. The NCAA is simply trying to recoup their costs from year to year. Teams aren't awarded money as it is, though host schools do get to keep some of the gameday revenues.

If PIGs (love that acronym!) are part of the equation, will those host institutions be able/willing to cover first round guarantees? Will the guarantees raise for institutions hosting successive rounds? These are the type of issues that will likely have to be resolved before you'll get wholesale buy-in.

The more I read on this topic, the more I thoroughly support an invitational tournament consisting entirely of at-large bids... but that isn't likely to happen.

[89Hen]

Stange isn't it how folks that are not for playoff expansion are all fans of teams that are already in an autobid conference for the most part?
Also strange that those of us against playoff expansion would benefit possibly MORE by having more spots... if you expanded by 8, you may get one NEC, one PFL or Big South and 6 more from conferences that already have autobids... remember the proposal's example field from last year?... it included Maine AND Towson. xcoffeex xcoffeex xcoffeex

STILL have yet to address how other teams from non-autobid conferences have gotten in. xreadx

[henfan]

STILL have yet to address how other teams from non-autobid conferences have gotten in. xreadx

Still holding your breath, 89'? Time to come up for air.xlolx

[putter]

Ok.....Go look at ALL the FBS vs. FCS & SCHOLLIE FCS vs. NON SChOLLIE, DIV II or NAIA scores and tell me if you see a trend. xcoffeex

Some NAIA teams have more scholarships than some FCS teams.

[DetroitFlyer]

How many NAIA teams with 24 scholarships are going to defeat top 10, fully funded, Illinois State University, at ISU like Drake did with ZERO scholarships?

[UAalum72]

Look at Coastal in 2005. They weren't hurt by their Big South schedule... they scheduled four SoCon teams including two of the big three.
Because their BS 'schedule' was only four games, allowing them to play 4 SoCon teams plus three other non-conf. games.


STILL have yet to address how other teams from non-autobid conferences have gotten in.
and other than Coastal, weren't GSU, Hofstra, FAU and Youngstown all independents with the freedom to schedule up to eleven games against whoever they wanted to, and NOT from 'non-autobid conferences'?

[lizrdgizrd]

Because their BS 'schedule' was only four games, allowing them to play 4 SoCon teams plus three other non-conf. games.


and other than Coastal, weren't GSU, Hofstra, FAU and Youngstown all independents with the freedom to schedule up to eleven games against whoever they wanted to, and NOT from 'non-autobid conferences'?
It may have been more of a free to schedule whoever would schedule them rather than "whoever they wanted to".

[UAalum72]

It may have been more of a free to schedule whoever would schedule them rather than "whoever they wanted to".
Either way, if they had been in a league with enough teams to qualify for an autobid, they wouldn't have been able to play seven non-conf games.

[lizrdgizrd]

Either way, if they had been in a league with enough teams to qualify for an autobid, they wouldn't have been able to play seven non-conf games.
True, but just because you aren't forced to play specific teams doesn't necessarily mean you get to pick better competition. xpeacex

[89Hen]

Because their BS 'schedule' was only four games, allowing them to play 4 SoCon teams plus three other non-conf. games.


and other than Coastal, weren't GSU, Hofstra, FAU and Youngstown all independents with the freedom to schedule up to eleven games against whoever they wanted to, and NOT from 'non-autobid conferences'?
You make it sound like they all had 11 stud games. Not true... they ALL had a mix of games, but at least had SOME tough games (and WON the tough games).

Albany, CCSU, Monmouth... have all figured out the formula. The problem is that people like DF want the PFL teams to get a bid with three weak OOC games (or losses if they do happen to schedule a tough team).

Coastal did only have four Big South games, but they also played Savannah State and Winston-Salem and Elon, a weaker SoCon. People like DF like to speak in hyperbole and say that the "old guard" wants PFL teams to play and beat AppSt, Montana and McNeese in order to get a bid... that's simply not true. Albany has the schedule to get a bid this year, so does Drake (if they beat UNI, because they would only have 8 DI wins without it), even Monmouth would have had a shot with their schedule.

[aceinthehole]

lizrd - you, 89 and other are right, play a good schedule, win and you're in. I would say that Albany and CCSU fans agree! UA72 and I are just pointing out that an Indy schedule has an ADVANTAGE over a NEC schedule, period.

As you can see Albany, Monmouth, and CCSU have tried to schedule and have won some of those games. Look at Monmouth last year they were 10-1, (with 3 wins ws AQ-conference teams, and 2 more wins vs. NEC teams that were nationally ranked at some point) yet they didn't get a bid.

My point is that a team like UA, Monmouth or CCSU will be punished by the committe for its conference schedule. Simply put it is not as easy you make it seem for a team from a non-AQ conference to get into the playofs as an at-large.

Look at the flexibility Stony Brook has this year. They may finally have a tougher schedule than UA for the first time since leaving the NEC. That is a at-large worthy schedule (if they win the games).

[UAalum72]

True, but just because you aren't forced to play specific teams doesn't necessarily mean you get to pick better competition. xpeacex
But you get a chance to play enough teams that even if the ones you thought were going to be ranked turn out to suck, you still can get enough quality wins to make the playoffs. If you only have four OOC games, and two of them that you beat are Lehigh and Delaware, that should be good enough, but last year...

And being told 'tough luck that they weren't good enough' doesn't help any.

[89Hen]

UA72 and I are just pointing out that an Indy schedule has an ADVANTAGE over a NEC schedule, period.
I won't disagree... you can choose your entire schedule.

BTW, I completely forgot Cal Poly 2005, sorry guys!

Cal Poly with an OOC of...
Troy - L
SacSt - W
Montana State - W
Montana - L
Eastern Washington - W
Idaho State - W

They got a spot by virtue of not only winning the Great West, but finishing second in the Big Sky. xsmiley_wix

[BDKJMU]

It's not exactly a done deal, but playoff expansion in the Football Championship Subdivision has advanced further along the NCAA's chain of command than it has in 20 years, and for the first time all of the commissioners from member conferences support the idea.

Raising the number of postseason participants from 16 to as many as 24 - potentially good news for South Dakota's two largest schools - is one of several significant action items on the agenda at the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet meetings scheduled for today and Thursday in Indianapolis.

"A lot of the people on the committee would be for it if they could get it where everybody's happy," said Ed Grom, a cabinet member and commissioner of the Great West Football Conference, "and I don't think everybody will be happy with every decision that's made. But I think there's some momentum now."

It's been a long time coming. The last time the FCS - formerly Division I-AA - expanded its playoff field was 1986. There were 84 schools in the division at that time. There are 120 this season - with at least four more to join by 2009 - and yet still just 16 playoff spots, split equally between at-large selections and conference champions.

The problem is that the division now has more than eight leagues that meet the requirements for being an automatic qualifier - consisting of at least six active (non-transitional) programs that have competed together the previous two years.....


http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070919/SPORTS0202/709190332/1002/SPORTS

As far as there being 120 teams vying for 16 spots, that's not the case. Including transitional, I counted 102 teams. You have a doz non scholly's in the Pioneer and Metro Atlantic who've never gotten a playoff bid due to their lack of competitiveness and still scheduling DIII schools, and it would probably take an 11-0 accompanied by knocking off a ranked team from the CAA/Gateway/Big Sky/So Con to get a bid. Yes, Drake knocked of Ill State, ranked 7th at the time in the SN poll. They'd probably have to knock off UNI, ranked 3, 4 and 5 in the 3 major polls this weekend and run the table to get a bid, considering they beat Div III, yes Div III Wis Platteville last Sat only 20-7. Talk about a huge diff in caliber of opponent in a week! 10-1 won't get Drake in. Plus there's the 8 Ivies who don't allow their teams to play in the playoffs. So there's really 102 teams (NDSU, SDSU and any other transitionals (Presbyterian) become eligible competing for 16 spots. Expanding to 24 is watering it down too much. Plus, you could have 2 teams facing a 16 game season. Thats unheard of in college.

[BDKJMU]

I think it's a good idea. People are always complaining about the lack of SoS by Patriot League and MEAC teams. This is a chance to have more AL bids than just 8.

Think of all of the good teams last year that were left out - Portland State (had two FBS games and won 1), Northern Iowa, Wofford, Towson, and a few others I can't think of. This year there will probably be even more good candidates who will have to sit at home. I can see the CAA having 5 8+ win teams. The Socon could have 4. The Big Sky could also have 4. The Gateway could have 4. The SLC I think willl have two or maybe even 3.

If there is one thing that the FCS playoffs has taught us is tha the most hyped teams aren't always the best. How many people gave UMass a chance in '98, WKU a chance in '02, Wofford and Colgate in '03, and JMU in '04 to get as far as they did?

I say expnd it and start the playoffs a week earlier. It's worth losing an off week or a 12th game.

With all due respect to Towson, they weren't a "good team that was left out last year". Weak OOC schedule as usual, 4-4 in the CAA, got waxed by UMass and JMU (I saw that game which JMU won 38-3. Wasn't impressed at all with Towson). No way should anyone get in the playoffs with 4 I-AA losses.

[BDKJMU]

Not likely. ASU is in a conference that already enjoys an automatic bid. You can have a few horrible years, but you always know that if you recover and win the conference, you have a playoff bid. Not so for the PFL and NEC. Expansion cannot happen soon enough. Although the PFL has never applied for an automatic bid, it has never said that it would not accept a bid like the IVY and SWAC. If two more bids are awarded for 2008, I have to think that one way or another, they will go to the NEC and PFL, quite possibly using the Gridirion Classic as a "play-in"game. Man, I am SO tired of all of these "Old Guarders" and their lame excuses for not exanding the playoffs. Ask Illinois State University how watered down the playoffs would be if Drake received an automatic bid. Let's just hope that the committee and the NCAA do the right thing and expand!!!!!

Then why are PFL teams, including Drake (Wis Platteville last Sat), still scheduling Div III teams? That should be a definite requirement. No autobid conference is allowed to schedule Div III.

[OL FU]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/kevncoll/Emoticons/th_1f4e507c.gif

[lizrdgizrd]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/kevncoll/Emoticons/th_1f4e507c.gif
You love your little popcorn guy, don't you? xlolx

[USDFAN_55]

Then why are PFL teams, including Drake (Wis Platteville last Sat), still scheduling Div III teams? That should be a definite requirement. No autobid conference is allowed to schedule Div III.

Come on. It's not just the PFL that schedules sub FCS schools. Look at other teams schedules in the FCS and you will see a lot of NAIA, D-III, and D-II schools. That is always going to be like that, just like FBS schools playing FCS schools. If you think FCS shouldn't play D-III schools, then FBS shouldn't play FCS school, huh? xnodx

[BDKJMU]

No on expansion! Before we expand the playoffs I would like to see the schools that are in the FCS/I-AA football only to have a Div I basketball team actually have to also fund their football teams with scholarships. It is a joke we do not have a sholarship requirement for this division. Since the last expansion in 1986 we have not added nearly 40+/- playoff caliber teams. Mainly added 40+/- football teams so their respective schools could try and snag some March Madness money. Either fund your football team or get out it is embarassing. Are any teams really getting left out that have a real chance of winning the NC? NO, 16 is enough. xnonono2x

Ditto..well said. No to expansion!

[bkrownd]

If there is one thing that the FCS playoffs has taught us is tha the most hyped teams aren't always the best. How many people gave UMass a chance in '98, WKU a chance in '02, Wofford and Colgate in '03, and JMU in '04 to get as far as they did?


16 is more than plenty. I'd downsize to 12, if anything. UMass had no business playing for the NC in 1998, and only managed about 3rd place in our own conference that year. They just got on a lucky hot streak for the playoffs and drew the right opponents at the right time. The first round of any playoff system should be winning your own conference. If you want to expand the playoffs to little-guys, then have play-ins for 1 or 2 reserved 'little guy' spots.

[GoldandBlack]

Ditto..well said. No to expansion!

Gee, but look what expansion did for the NBA----xrolleyesx xcoolx

[lizrdgizrd]

Come on. It's not just the PFL that schedules sub FCS schools. Look at other teams schedules in the FCS and you will see a lot of NAIA, D-III, and D-II schools. That is always going to be like that, just like FBS schools playing FCS schools. If you think FCS shouldn't play D-III schools, then FBS shouldn't play FCS school, huh? xnodx
A lot of NAIA and DIII schools? How many non PFL schools have scheduled NAIA and DIII schools? xnonono2x

FBS playing FCS is like FCS playing DII, not DIII or NAIA. One step down is no big deal if you only do it once a season. Or are you considering PFL as a step down from regular FCS in which case I guess DII is 2 steps down? xeyebrowx

[BDKJMU]

Come on. It's not just the PFL that schedules sub FCS schools. Look at other teams schedules in the FCS and you will see a lot of NAIA, D-III, and D-II schools. That is always going to be like that, just like FBS schools playing FCS schools. If you think FCS shouldn't play D-III schools, then FBS shouldn't play FCS school, huh? xnodx

I'm not talking D-II. I'm talking DIII! Okay, who from the autobid conferences is playing DIII schools? Name someone who has gotten a playoff bid in recent years (AQ or at large) who has scheduled a Div III school?xnonox I-AA scheduling DIII, 2 levels down, is a complete joke!

[walliver]

Aside from obvious beneficiaries like the NEC, I don't see who votes for this.



Wofford possibly?[/QUOTE]

No, we would still get woofed:D

I personally think there are too many teams in the playoffs now. I believe it should be conference champions and a handful of well-derserving teams. If you come in third or fourth in your conference, maybe you should stay home. Yes, 3d or 4th place teams could win the national championship, but with that argument, everybody should get a bid. There are probably few other fans who agree with me.xsmiley_wix

From a practical standpoint, I would support 24 teams IF:

The playoff first round is kept in place or preferentially moved back a week
AND the National Championship game is played during bowl season (and not the Tidy Bowl Toilet Bowl early-to-mid-December time frame).

[USDFAN_55]

I'm not talking D-II. I'm talking DIII! Okay, who from the autobid conferences is playing DIII schools? Name someone who has gotten a playoff bid in recent years (AQ or at large) who has scheduled a Div III school?xnonox I-AA scheduling DIII, 2 levels down, is a complete joke!

I will do some research for you guys, but in the mean time.... what is the difference between playing a D-III school and a D-II school? There are some D-III schools, such as Mount Union, that would give top FCS schools a run for their money. I'll get back to you guys.

[OL FU]

You love your little popcorn guy, don't you? xlolx

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/kevncoll/Emoticons/th_1f4e507c.gifhttp://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/kevncoll/Emoticons/th_1f4e507c.gifhttp://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/kevncoll/Emoticons/th_1f4e507c.gifhttp://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/kevncoll/Emoticons/th_1f4e507c.gifxnodx

[lizrdgizrd]

I will do some research for you guys, but in the mean time.... what is the difference between playing a D-III school and a D-II school? There are some D-III schools, such as Mount Union, that would give top FCS schools a run for their money. I'll get back to you guys.
Top FCS schools? Don't get carried away there, 55. Do your digging and let us know if you find one team that played a DIII school and made the playoffs in the same season.

[BDKJMU]

Here's the PFL last season against DIII that I saw, and I may have missed some:
Butler:
beat Hanover 30-20
lost to Albion 31-10
Dayton beat Wittenberg 35-28
Valparaiso beat West Lutheran 54-0

And the MAAC is still scheduling them too. Now look at where the PFL teams are attendance wise the last 2 seasons compared to the other conferences AS A WHOLE:

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/2005/2005_football_attendance.pdf
http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/2006/2006_football_attendance.pdf

No way does the PFL come close to deserving an AQ or an at large if anything less than running the table. Like I said, IF Drake upsets UNI after alreading upsetting ILL St, AND runs the table, to finish 11-0, despite playing a DIII, they should get an at large. But 10-1 for them, no way.

Most of us know the reason the Pioneer and MAAC are technically in I-AA is because of that rule the NCAA implemented back in 93' that said if you're Div I in other sports you have to be Div I in football. So all these schools that were Div III in football but DI everything else just had to start calling themselves Div I-AA in football, which made them ineligible for the DIII playoffs, but without giving schollies, which makes them for the most part unable to compete with the scholly schools (Drake's upset of Ill State being an exception), and even if they go 10-1, 11-0, there will be no playoff bid.

I don't like the NCAA rule, and think you should be able to have Div I b-ball and Div III football, but as long as that rule is in place, the PFL and MAAC should go at least partial scholly and up their caliber of play (like the NEC has done) or drop football.

[USDFAN_55]

Here's the PFL last season against DIII that I saw, and I may have missed some:
Butler:
beat Hanover 30-20
lost to Albion 31-10
Dayton beat Wittenberg 35-28
Valparaiso beat West Lutheran 54-0

And the MAAC is still scheduling them too. Now look at where the PFL teams are attendance wise the last 2 seasons compared to the other conferences AS A WHOLE:

http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/2005/2005_football_attendance.pdf
http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/2006/2006_football_attendance.pdf

No way does the PFL come close to deserving an AQ or an at large if anything less than running the table. Like I said, IF Drake upsets UNI after alreading upsetting ILL St, AND runs the table, to finish 11-0, despite playing a DIII, they should get an at large. But 10-1 for them, no way.

Most of us know the reason the Pioneer and MAAC are technically in I-AA is because of that rule the NCAA implemented back in 93' that said if you're Div I in other sports you have to be Div I in football. So all these schools that were Div III in football but DI everything else just had to start calling themselves Div I-AA in football, which made them ineligible for the DIII playoffs, but without giving schollies, which makes them for the most part unable to compete with the scholly schools (Drake's upset of Ill State being an exception), and even if they go 10-1, 11-0, there will be no playoff bid.

I don't like the NCAA rule, and think you should be able to have Div I b-ball and Div III football, but as long as that rule is in place, the PFL and MAAC should go at least partial scholly and up their caliber of play (like the NEC has done) or drop football.

Why don't you look to see what teams in the NEC played D-III?

[USDFAN_55]

Top FCS schools? Don't get carried away there, 55. Do your digging and let us know if you find one team that played a DIII school and made the playoffs in the same season.

I may or may not find anything, but can you honestly tell me that D-II is that much better than D-III. There really isn't that much of a difference. I really don't think you can base a teams worthiness just on their division alone.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No way does the PFL come close to deserving an AQ or an at large if anything less than running the table. Like I said, IF Drake upsets UNI after alreading upsetting ILL St, AND runs the table, to finish 11-0, despite playing a DIII, they should get an at large. But 10-1 for them, no way.

I think a Drake team that goes 10-1 with a strong showing against UNI would get very, very strong consideration, especially if UNI and Illinois State are slam-dunk playoff teams. That would mean they ran the table in their division, beat a San Diego team that is very, very tough, and also beat some decent mid-majors along the way in Dayton and Butler.

Remember, as far as the playoff committee is concerned those D-II games don't exist. Win 2-0 or 102-0 it's wiped from the record. All that will matter to them is your record against D-I teams.

[bkrownd]

Then why are PFL teams, including Drake (Wis Platteville last Sat), still scheduling Div III teams? That should be a definite requirement. No autobid conference is allowed to schedule Div III.

Ask South Dakota State about them wimpy DIII teams xlolx

[USDFAN_55]

Ask South Dakota State about them wimpy DIII teams xlolx

Are we talking about the loss to D-III Wisconsin-La Crosse last season? xsmiley_wix

[GOKATS]

As far as there being 120 teams vying for 16 spots, that's not the case. You have a doz non scholly's in the Pioneer and Metro Atlantic who've never gotten a playoff bid due to their lack of competitiveness and still scheduling DIII schools, and it would probably take an 11-0 accompanied by knocking off a ranked team from the CAA/Gateway/Big Sky/So Con to get a bid. Yes, Drake knocked of Ill State, ranked 7th at the time in the SN poll. They'd probably have to knock off UNI, ranked 3, 4 and 5 in the 3 major polls this weekend and run the table to get a bid, considering they beat Div III, yes Div III Wis Platteville last Sat only 20-7. Talk about a huge diff in caliber of opponent in a week! 10-1 won't get Drake in. Plus there's the 8 Ivies who don't allow their teams to play in the playoffs. So there's really 100 teams competing for 16 spots. Expanding to 24 is watering it down too much. Plus, you could have 2 teams facing a 16 game season. Thats unheard of in college.

Good post, I've always said leave it at 16.

[FCSFAN]

PFL > NEC

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I may or may not find anything, but can you honestly tell me that D-II is that much better than D-III. There really isn't that much of a difference. I really don't think you can base a teams worthiness just on their division alone.

Well you can base a teams worthiness on this and most people do because that is what the selection committee does.

[USDFAN_55]

Well you can base a teams worthiness on this and most people do because that is what the selection committee does.

So you're telling me, in your opinion, a victory over the worst FCS team possible is better than a victory over the number one D-III school?

[james_lawfirm]

McNeese will not support an expansion, which will devalue the top 16.

Keep it tough to acheive, Keep it of value.

OTHER WISE, IT's JUST ANOTHER BUNCH OF POST SEAON BOWL GAMES.

I"D rather the NCAA get financial support for the existing 16 teams and reqard those.

24 is just too many teams to make it financially rewarding.



Example: Each of the top 16 teams get a $50,000 check plus expenses once they reach the playoffs;

The 8 Quarter finalists get $100,000 each; bring the total to 100K for those that make it to this point;

Semi-Finalists should get another $150,000

Finalists should get another $300,000 each to bring the grand total of possible rewards to $600,000, which is on par with what the bottom tierd bowls get now.

One of the biggest complaints we get from the teams that bolt for the FBS is that the financial rewards (or costs) for the playoffs is not worth their time.


That's an interesting proposal, but where is all of that money (totalling in the millions) going to come from? I understood that the playoffs were pretty much a money loser right now. That's why the host team must guarantee its bid to the NCAA just in order to be eligible to host.

In other words, get real.

[FCSFAN]

As far as there being 120 teams vying for 16 spots, that's not the case. You have a doz non scholly's in the Pioneer and Metro Atlantic who've never gotten a playoff bid due to their lack of competitiveness and still scheduling DIII schools, and it would probably take an 11-0 accompanied by knocking off a ranked team from the CAA/Gateway/Big Sky/So Con to get a bid. Yes, Drake knocked of Ill State, ranked 7th at the time in the SN poll. They'd probably have to knock off UNI, ranked 3, 4 and 5 in the 3 major polls this weekend and run the table to get a bid, considering they beat Div III, yes Div III Wis Platteville last Sat only 20-7. Talk about a huge diff in caliber of opponent in a week! 10-1 won't get Drake in. Plus there's the 8 Ivies who don't allow their teams to play in the playoffs. So there's really 100 teams competing for 16 spots. Expanding to 24 is watering it down too much. Plus, you could have 2 teams facing a 16 game season. Thats unheard of in college."Two of the transitioning teams this year will be playoff-eligible next season (North Dakota State and South Dakota State), so in 2008 the D-I field will be at 106 teams.

Are we ready for 19% of the FCS in the playoffs?

How about 22.8% if the suggested expansion is to 24 teams?

When do we say 'that's enough teams?' Should one team in four really make the playoffs?

The NCAA also has a rule that requires seven D-I wins to be eligible for the playoffs if the team doesn't win an autobid conference championship. Guess how many of the 104 D-I playoff hopefuls last year even had seven total wins? The answer is 32*.

Heck, only 31% of the teams had that chance to make the field and now it is being considered that 75% of those should be included in the tournament!

*72 eligible teams at playoff selection time in 2006 did not have 7 wins of any kind including Lafayette (6-5) who won their conference AQ.

32 teams had at least 7 wins:
7 won their conference AQ
Appalachian State (10-1)
Hampton (10-1)
Massachusetts (10-1)
Montana (10-1)
Tennessee-Martin (9-2)
Youngstown State (9-2)
McNeese State (7-4) (only 6 D-I wins)

8 had at least 7 D-I wins and were selected for the playoffs
Coastal Carolina (9-2)
James Madison (9-2)
Furman (8-3)
Illinois State (8-3)
New Hampshire (8-3)
Southern Illinois (8-3)
Eastern Illinois (8-4)
Montana State (7-4)

11 had at least 7 D-I wins but were not selected for the playoffs
San Diego (10-0)
Monmouth (10-1)
Central Connecticut State (8-3)
Delaware State (8-3)
Duquesne (7-3)
Albany (7-4)
Holy Cross (7-4)
Northern Iowa (7-4)
Portland State (7-4)
Towson (7-4)
Wofford (7-4)

6 did not qualify for the playoffs with at least 7 D-I wins
Charleston Southern (9-2)
Drake (9-2)
Cal Poly (7-4)
Florida A&M (7-4)
Robert Morris (7-4)
South Carolina State (7-4)"

Page 14 of this year's yearbook (http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86744).

[ursus arctos horribilis]

So you're telling me, in your opinion, a victory over the worst FCS team possible is better than a victory over the number one D-III school?

I am telling you that is what the committee considers. Us arguing about who plays the better division 2 or division 3 or NAIA team in a thread about the playoffs doesn't mean JACK because it doesn't matter to the committee.

[kardplayer]

I won't disagree... you can choose your entire schedule.

BTW, I completely forgot Cal Poly 2005, sorry guys!

Cal Poly with an OOC of...
Troy - L
SacSt - W
Montana State - W
Montana - L
Eastern Washington - W
Idaho State - W

They got a spot by virtue of not only winning the Great West, but finishing second in the Big Sky. xsmiley_wix
On the contra to that, don't forget Cal Poly 2004 who didn't get in despite being 9-2 with wins (some OOC, some in conference) over Montana State (road), Texas State (home), Idaho State (road), ND State and SD State (home and away, respectively). A pretty good list and they didn't get in - largely because their conference didn't have an AQ nor did it have a reputation. The next year when they went 8-3, they got their shot, and all they did was beat Montana at Wash-Griz. Who knows what they might have done in '04 with a bid or in '05 with experience.

[PaladinFan]

I say keep it at 16 and get rid of some of the autobids. Heck, get rid of all the autobids. I still say pick the 16 best teams and seed them all.

[saluki_in_ohio]

I say keep it at 16 and get rid of some of the autobids. Heck, get rid of all the autobids. I still say pick the 16 best teams and seed them all.

I agree.

This would mean every team in the Gateway except Indiana State would go this year. :D

[Polywog]

Maybe we should reduce the number of teams in the playoffs to eight, or even to four teams. That way no one has to worry about the quality of the playoffs being watered down...they would in fact be even more exclusive.

Pleeeeease. When the playoffs went to 16 teams FCS had 84 schools, so 19% of the teams went to the playoffs. If the playoffs expand to 24 teams with 120 teams in the division, then 20% make the playoffs. It would be just as difficult to get in as it ever was.

[james_lawfirm]

I say keep it at 16 and get rid of some of the autobids. Heck, get rid of all the autobids. I still say pick the 16 best teams and seed them all.


Which poll are you going to use to choose the 16? Talk about your political mess. THAT would be a big step backwards.

At least by insuring that the champion of the better conferences get automatic bids, some of the subjective-ness is eliminated. There are a handful of teams each year that holler they were "Woff'd" under today's system. But if a subjective poll were used to pick the 16, then there would be alot more teams hollerin' (unless of course I get to choose the 16 myself - then it would be perfectly fair).

The autobid system may not be perfect, but there is no better way to do it. Any complainers in autobid conferences should just work to win their conference next time. Any complainers in non-autobid conferences should work to make sure their conference qualifies next time.

[brownbear]

I think it should be all auto bids. How do you justify being the national champion if you are not the conference champion? The same problem occurs in the BCS like last year with Michigan or in 2003 with Oklahoma.

[BDKJMU]

PFL > NEC

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx
Yeah, and JMU could beat the Indianapolis Colts

[BDKJMU]

So you're telling me, in your opinion, a victory over the worst FCS team possible is better than a victory over the number one D-III school?

Well, not if your talking about the majority of the MAAC or PFL. But a victory over the worst scholly team and/or worst of the AQ league teams is better than a victory over Mount Union.

[BigApp]

It's worth losing an off week or a 12th game.

If you don't make the playoffs, it's not. that's a home gate or guarantee game you don't get.

[BigApp]

the vast majority of the playoff field gets there by the simple formula of: play a tough schedule and win a lot of those games. Simple.

For the life of me GF, I can't figure out what part of that DetroitFlyer doesn't understand (or refuses to).

[USDFAN_55]

Well, not if your talking about the majority of the MAAC or PFL. But a victory over the worst scholly team and/or worst of the AQ league teams is better than a victory over Mount Union.

Better in the eyes of the comittee, yes........ But don't you think Mount Union could beat Northern Colorado? Hence making it a better win in my eyes because it is a better team.

[BDKJMU]

"Two of the transitioning teams this year will be playoff-eligible next season (North Dakota State and South Dakota State), so in 2008 the D-I field will be at 106 teams.

Are we ready for 19% of the FCS in the playoffs?

How about 22.8% if the suggested expansion is to 24 teams?

When do we say 'that's enough teams?' Should one team in four really make the playoffs?

The NCAA also has a rule that requires seven D-I wins to be eligible for the playoffs if the team doesn't win an autobid conference championship. Guess how many of the 104 D-I playoff hopefuls last year even had seven total wins? The answer is 32*.

Heck, only 31% of the teams had that chance to make the field and now it is being considered that 75% of those should be included in the tournament!

*72 eligible teams at playoff selection time in 2006 did not have 7 wins of any kind including Lafayette (6-5) who won their conference AQ.

32 teams had at least 7 wins:
7 won their conference AQ
Appalachian State (10-1)
Hampton (10-1)
Massachusetts (10-1)
Montana (10-1)
Tennessee-Martin (9-2)
Youngstown State (9-2)
McNeese State (7-4) (only 6 D-I wins)

8 had at least 7 D-I wins and were selected for the playoffs
Coastal Carolina (9-2)
James Madison (9-2)
Furman (8-3)
Illinois State (8-3)
New Hampshire (8-3)
Southern Illinois (8-3)
Eastern Illinois (8-4)
Montana State (7-4)

11 had at least 7 D-I wins but were not selected for the playoffs
San Diego (10-0)
Monmouth (10-1)
Central Connecticut State (8-3)
Delaware State (8-3)
Duquesne (7-3)
Albany (7-4)
Holy Cross (7-4)
Northern Iowa (7-4)
Portland State (7-4)
Towson (7-4)
Wofford (7-4)

6 did not qualify for the playoffs with at least 7 D-I wins
Charleston Southern (9-2)
Drake (9-2)
Cal Poly (7-4)
Florida A&M (7-4)
Robert Morris (7-4)
South Carolina State (7-4)"

Page 14 of this year's yearbook (http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86744).

Including transitional I count 122 teams. 122 teams - 20 IVY/PFL/MAAC= 102 teams, not 106.

Again your numbers are off because you're including MAAC and PFL teams that aren't being considered since they're still in the non scholly, mostly non competitive (yes we know Drake as an exception) mid major category. The NEC has only stepped out of that category in the last 2 seasons, not coincidentally, when they went (partial) scholly. So it was only 9 with at least 7 Div I wins not selected, not 11.
Monmouth (10-1)
Central Connecticut State (8-3)
Delaware State (8-3)
Albany (7-4)
Holy Cross (7-4)
Northern Iowa (7-4)
Portland State (7-4)
Towson (7-4)
Wofford (7-4)

Again, expansion= watered down. I could maybe see if the PFL went at least partial scholly, upped their caliber of play, and then wanted in to the playoffs by way of an expanded field, but you PFL guys want in despite having the same very weak (for I-AA) level of play for the conference as a whole.

[BDKJMU]

I say keep it at 16 and get rid of some of the autobids. Heck, get rid of all the autobids. I still say pick the 16 best teams and seed them all.

Ditto- No way a 6-5 like Lafayette last yr should get in. Either by committee or BCS type rankings, pick and seed the top 16.

[USDFAN_55]

With the addition of NDSU and SDSU that would only be 102 teams, not 106. (120 teams - 20 IVY/PFL/MAAC + NDSU & SDSU). Again your numbers are off because you're including MAAC and PFL teams that aren't being considered since they're still in the non scholly, mostly non competitive (yes we know Drake as an exception) mid major category. The NEC has only stepped out of that category in the last 2 seasons, not coincidentally, when they went (partial) scholly. So it was only 9 with at least 7 Div I wins not selected, not 11.
Monmouth (10-1)
Central Connecticut State (8-3)
Delaware State (8-3)
Albany (7-4)
Holy Cross (7-4)
Northern Iowa (7-4)
Portland State (7-4)
Towson (7-4)
Wofford (7-4)

Again, expansion= watered down. I could maybe see if the PFL went at least partial scholly, upped their caliber of play, and then wanted in to the playoffs by way of an expanded field, but you PFL guys want in despite having the same very weak (for I-AA) level of play for the conference as a whole.

Why would you include a Monmouth team that lost to San Diego (a team from the weak PFL)? Just because they give scholarships? Apparently it hasn't helped them much. There is nothing in the FCS bylaws that says a team needs scholarships to qualify for the play-offs. Just need a minimum number of FCS wins. Unless you know of some bylaw that I haven't read?

[BDKJMU]

Maybe we should reduce the number of teams in the playoffs to eight, or even to four teams. That way no one has to worry about the quality of the playoffs being watered down...they would in fact be even more exclusive.

Pleeeeease. When the playoffs went to 16 teams FCS had 84 schools, so 19% of the teams went to the playoffs. If the playoffs expand to 24 teams with 120 teams in the division, then 20% make the playoffs. It would be just as difficult to get in as it ever was.

No it wouln't be as difficult because you're including a bunch of mostly non competitive mid majors who are basically a bunch of glorified DIII schools in caliber of play. As I've pointed out before, it would be like taking 24 out of 102 schools, not 122

[USDFAN_55]

No it wouln't be as difficult because you're including a bunch of mostly non competitive mid majors who are basically a bunch of glorified DIII schools in caliber of play. As I've pointed out before, it would be like taking 24 out of 102 schools, not 120.


Man, why do you hate non-scholarship teams so much? Maybe they shouldn't allow those 15 and 16 seeds in the basketball tournament either, since most of them get in without any voctories over the "major" confrences. Just because a team won't win the national title, doesn't mean they shouldn't at least get in and experience the post season.

[BDKJMU]

Man, why do you hate non-scholarship teams so much? Maybe they shouldn't allow those 15 and 16 seeds in the basketball tournament either, since most of them get in without any voctories over the "major" confrences. Just because a team won't win the national title, doesn't mean they shouldn't at least get in and experience the post season.

I don't hate them, I just don't think they're deserving of consideration for the playoffs. Why don't these non schollies simply ante up and give scholarships? Simple.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Man, why do you hate non-scholarship teams so much? Maybe they shouldn't allow those 15 and 16 seeds in the basketball tournament either, since most of them get in without any voctories over the "major" confrences. Just because a team won't win the national title, doesn't mean they shouldn't at least get in and experience the post season.

Of course, that's what most of the Big Ten, Big East and "power conferences" want to do to the NCAA basketball tournament. So I'm not sure you want to use that in your argument here.

Unfortunately, the only way to end debate is for non-scholarship teams to schedule teams from power conferences, beat them, and go on to win their conference. Drake has a chance to do just that this year.

[BigApp]

I really don't think you can base a teams worthiness just on their division alone.

Then, why aren't you guys playing San Diego State or Southern Cal?http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-17372.gif

[USDFAN_55]

Then, why aren't you guys playing San Diego State or Southern Cal?http://planetsmilies.net/tired-sleeping-smiley-17372.gif

Well we did challenge San Diego State, but the State coach said no. And if you read what I said again, I said just on their division alone. Again I'll say it, Mount Union is a tougher team than Northern Colorado.... but according to you guys that isn't so just because they are division III.

[USDFAN_55]

Of course, that's what most of the Big Ten, Big East and "power conferences" want to do to the NCAA basketball tournament. So I'm not sure you want to use that in your argument here.

Unfortunately, the only way to end debate is for non-scholarship teams to schedule teams from power conferences, beat them, and go on to win their conference. Drake has a chance to do just that this year.

The essence of that tournament is the underdog factor. The cinderella story. What's wrong with having a team or two in the FCS play-offs considered the Cinderella team?

[USDFAN_55]

I don't hate them, I just don't think they're deserving of consideration for the playoffs. Why don't these non schollies simply ante up and give scholarships? Simple.

What is scholarships going to change? Again, scholarships does not equal good/competetive. It helps, but there are teams with scholarships/equivalencies that get spanked by non-scholarship teams.

[WUTNDITWAA]

Good grief. Let's expand the field to every FCS team out there. No. 1 will play No. 120 and work down from there. You lose, your season is over. That way it's fair for everyone.

If you want to get into the playoffs, man up and beat a few teams worthy of being in the field. Drake has a shot at doing that this year.

[USDFAN_55]

Good grief. Let's expand the field to every FCS team out there. No. 1 will play No. 120 and work down from there. You lose, your season is over. That way it's fair for everyone.

If you want to get into the playoffs, man up and beat a few teams worthy of being in the field. Drake has a shot at doing that this year.

But how can you say that, when a team from the Patriot didn't have the minimum number of wins to qualify last year; yet they got in with and AQ.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Well we did challenge San Diego State, but the State coach said no. And if you read what I said again, I said just on their division alone. Again I'll say it, Mount Union is a tougher team than Northern Colorado.... but according to you guys that isn't so just because they are division III.

Mount Union, Mount Union, Mount Union, if you're so in love with them why don't you marry em'

Sorry USD but I couldn't resist that one.

[USDFAN_55]

Mount Union, Mount Union, Mount Union, if you're so in love with them why don't you marry em'

Sorry USD but I couldn't resist that one.

It's just an easy example to use. Afterall they are the traditional D-III power house.

[bulldog10jw]

Well we did challenge San Diego State.

Gotta love that. Most teams schedule opponents. USD challenges them.xthumbsupx

[BigApp]

Well we did challenge San Diego State, but the State coach said no. And if you read what I said again, I said just on their division alone. Again I'll say it, Mount Union is a tougher team than Northern Colorado.... but according to you guys that isn't so just because they are division III.

why don't you go play Mt Union then?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Good grief. Let's expand the field to every FCS team out there. No. 1 will play No. 120 and work down from there. You lose, your season is over. That way it's fair for everyone.

If you want to get into the playoffs, man up and beat a few teams worthy of being in the field. Drake has a shot at doing that this year.

Actually we all ready have that and I believe it's called the regular season. Some get left out as their regular season doesn't match up to the teams in the playoffs in the committee's eyes, which by the way are the owners of the only opinion that counts.

[USDFAN_55]

Gotta love that. Most teams schedule opponents. USD challenges them.xthumbsupx

Challenge.... AKA asked to schedule them, but they refused. Just like how you guys will refuse to play us now. It looks bad when you get beat by a so called "weak" "non-competetive" team.

[BigApp]

Gotta love that. Most teams schedule opponents. USD challenges them.xthumbsupx

USD > Chuck Norris

[USDFAN_55]

why don't you go play Mt Union then?

Why would we travel across the coutry to play a D-III school? Get real.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It's just an easy example to use. Afterall they are the traditional D-III power house.

Yeah I understood what you were doing but I wanted to apply the neener neener neener defense.

[USDFAN_55]

Yeah I understood what you were doing but I wanted to apply the neener neener neener defense.

Gotta go for when the opportunity presents itself.xthumbsupx

[bulldog10jw]

Challenge.... AKA asked to schedule them, but they refused. Just like how you guys will refuse to play us now. It looks bad when you get beat by a so called "weak" "non-competetive" team.

But Yale is a weak non-competitive team!xlolx

Please provide us with the full list of teams you have challenged who won't play you because they are afraid(I'm assuming that's the reason). So far it's:

1. SDSU
2. Yale

There must be others. People want to know.

[Proud Griz Man]

Expand the playoffs? xeyebrowx

These poor FCS players could end up playing 17 games (12 plus 5 in the playoffs) and barely getting done before Christmas.

xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xnonono2x xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx xoopsx

[BigApp]

Actually we all ready have that and I believe it's called the regular season. Some get left out as their regular season doesn't match up to the teams in the playoffs in the committee's eyes, which by the way are the owners of the only opinion that counts.

really? xeyebrowx Are you aware of the NCAA's Regional Advisory Committee? These are the 26 people assigned by the NCAA to evaluate teams for playoff-worthiness. Last season it was comprised of (among others):

Valparaiso
St Francis (PA)
an MAAC conference official
an NEC official
Marist
an SWAC conference official

[BigApp]

Why would we travel across the coutry to play a D-III school? Get real.

you travel across the country to play Davidson and Valpo (and who ever else you play.

Hell, invite 'em to your place! But, as we've already seen from USD this season, you don't have an issue traveling to play at NAIA schools...

[ursus arctos horribilis]

really? xeyebrowx Are you aware of the NCAA's Regional Advisory Committee? These are the 26 people assigned by the NCAA to evaluate teams for playoff-worthiness. Last season it was comprised of (among others):

Valparaiso
St Francis (PA)
an MAAC conference official
an NEC official
Marist
an SWAC conference official


No I am not aware, but what I was saying was win against a quality schedule and get in. I wasn't being too technical about it. My reply to that post was supposed to be in agreement with it.

[USDFAN_55]

you travel across the country to play Davidson and Valpo (and who ever else you play.

Hell, invite 'em to your place! But, as we've already seen from USD this season, you don't have an issue traveling to play at NAIA schools...

Unfortunately they are in our confrence, so we kind of have to travel to their homefield. Unless of course you know something I don't. And keep harping on the NAIA game, but we have played them over 40 times in our young football program years. We are not the only team in the FCS playing NAIA.

[BDKJMU]

But Yale is a weak non-competitive team!xlolx


No Yale, you aren't. But I was lumping in the Ivies with the PFL and MAAC as far as the 20 teams not being considered for the playoffs because the PFL & MAAC are weak non scholly mid majors & the Ivies (while strong enough to have their top team every season considered for an at large), just don't let their teams compete in the playoffs.

[USDFAN_55]

No Yale, you aren't. But I was lumping in the Ivies with the PFL and MAAC as far as the 20 teams not being considered for the playoffs because the PFL & MAAC are weak non scholly mid majors & the Ivies (while strong enough to have their top team every season considered for an at large, just don't let their teams compete in the playoffs.

Now that sounds like an "Old Guard" comment.

[BDKJMU]

What is scholarships going to change? Again, scholarships does not equal good/competetive. It helps, but there are teams with scholarships/equivalencies that get spanked by non-scholarship teams.

Sure, maybe a few times a full scholly has gotten spanked by a non scholly. Most of the time when the non scholly has beaten a full scholly its been a close game. But taken as a whole, the majority of the time the scholly teams are more talented, deeper, and beat the non schollies the overwhelming majority of the time they play. In terms of individual teams schlorships doesn't always = good/competitive, but leaguewide it does, and full scholly leagues = A LOT better than non scholly year in, year out, with the Ivies being somewhat of an exception since they're some of the oldest, most esteemed institutions in America. The Patriot gives equivalencies, while not as good as 63 full athletic, is better than non scholly, and the NEC has already gone partial (what, 35 schollies a team now). The one hand you PFL are whining about not getting playoff opportunities, and on the other hand your schools don't man up and give schollies to make your league, and your teams, that much better.

[USDFAN_55]

Sure, maybe a few times a full scholly has gotten spanked by a non scholly. Most of the time when the non scholly has beaten a full scholly its been a close game. But taken as a whole, the majority of the time the scholly teams are more talented, deeper, and beat the non schollies the overwhelming majority of the time they play. In terms of individual teams schlorships doesn't always = good/competitive, but leaguewide it does, and full scholly leagues = A LOT better than non scholly year in, year out, with the Ivies being somewhat of an exception since they're some of the oldest, most esteem institutions in America. The Patriot gives equivalencies, while not as good as 63 full athletic, is better than non scholly, and the NEC has already gone partial (what, 35 schollies a team now). The one hand you PFL are whining about not getting playoff opportunities, and on the other hand your schools don't man up and give schollies to make your league, and your teams, that much better.

Oh, sure you make it sound so simple. We just need to "man up" and give scholarships. Geez why didn't we think of that? This whole time we've been racking our brains out here in San Diego trying to figure out a way to be accepted by the rest of the FCS..... give scholarships of course xoopsx . If it were that easy it would be done. You see with title IX that is impossible since the female to male ratio is 60:40, therefore 60% of the sholarships need to go to women's sports. The other issue is funding. I'm not sure how much it cost to go to most of the scholarship schools, but with tuition, room and board San Diego is over 40k per year. Times that by 63, and the cost for just scholarships is 2.52 million! The school was only established in 1949, so the endowment is not big enough to handle such an expense. If it were only as easy as manning up.

[BDKJMU]

Oh, sure you make it sound so simple. We just need to "man up" and give scholarships. Geez why didn't we think of that? This whole time we've been racking our brains out here in San Diego trying to figure out a way to be accepted by the rest of the FCS..... give scholarships of course xoopsx . If it were that easy it would be done. You see with title IX that is impossible since the female to male ratio is 60:40, therefore 60% of the sholarships need to go to women's sports. The other issue is funding. I'm not sure how much it cost to go to most of the scholarship schools, but with tuition, room and board San Diego is over 40k per year. Times that by 63, and the cost for just scholarships is 2.52 million! The school was only established in 1949, so the endowment is not big enough to handle such an expense. If it were only as easy as manning up.

But Div I football should be schlorship. Even DII allows something like 30 some schlorships. I know DII or DIII isn't an option since you're DI in other sports due to that NCAA rule (asinine IMHO). Title IX is wrong to include football in the equation because their is no equivalent female sport (that has a roster size anwhere close to as big). But JMU is 58% (06-07) school year and has fully funded (63 scholarships). They ended up cutting 7 mens sports (and 3 womens) in part to get in compliance with Title IX. Now they have the minimum 6 men's sports. If San Diego wants to be in a competitive full schollyI-AA league in football, they may have to do that.

As far as cost, I doubt the university is actually spending 40k per student. I know with JMU for full tuition/room/board + what the university gets from the state per student its in the low 20s k. I'm sure as with most expensive private schools the majority of the student population doesn't pay full tuition/room/board, and of those that do, a big chunk of that 40k probably goes to tuition assistance for those that can't afford to pay in full, so it wouldn't cost anywhere close to 2.52 million. Put it this way, how much tuition do you think the avg USD football player is paying right now. I bet its well under half that 40k. Say if the avg football player was now paying about 15k in tuition, it would only cost the university about 1 million.

[USDFAN_55]

But Div I football should be schlorship. Even DII allows something like 30 some schlorships. I know DII or DIII isn't an option since you're DI in other sports due to that NCAA rule (asinine IMHO). Title IX is wrong to include football in the equation because their is no equivalent female sport (that has a roster size anwhere close to as big). But JMU is 58% (06-07) school year and has fully funded (63 scholarships). They ended up cutting 7 mens sports (and 3 womens) in part to get in compliance with Title IX. Now they have the minimum 6 men's sports. If San Diego wants to be in a competitive I-AA legue in football, they may have to do that.

As far as cost, I doubt the university is actually spending 40k per student. I know with JMU for full tuition/room/board + what the university gets from the state per student its in the low 20s k. I'm sure as with most expensive private schools the majority of the student population doesn't pay full tuition/room/board, and of those that do, a big chunk of that 40k probably goes to tuition assistance for those that can't afford to pay in full, so it wouldn't cost anywhere close to 2.52 million. Put it this way, how much tuition do you think the avg USD football player is paying right now. I bet its well under half that 40k. Say if the avg football player was now paying about 15k in tuition, it would only cost the university about 1 million.

Well I did play football there, and I still left with over 60k in loans. The largest trustee grant/scholarship at USD is only 12k. Granted, there are ways of getting multiple grants and scholarships; however for the most part the players at USD are paying a huge chunk if not all of the cost.

[FCSFAN]

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx
Yeah, and JMU could beat the Indianapolis ColtsGuess you missed the Gridiron Classic. xrolleyesx

[blur2005]

Honestly, expanding the playoffs is a horrible idea. Let's not water down such a great tournament. The only reason to expand is if there is a marked increase in competitive FCS teams. As in when the Big South is stronger, the NEC is stronger, etc. Even the PFL. If or when this happens, that is when we should expand. Not now. There aren't enough competitive teams to make it worthwhile. There will be like five 7-4 teams in the playoffs every year, if not more. What value does a football regular season have if a 7-4 team can get into the playoffs?

[FCSFAN]

Including transitional I count 122 teams. 122 teams - 20 IVY/PFL/MAAC= 102 teams, not 106.

Again your numbers are off because you're including MAAC and PFL teams that aren't being considered since they're still in the non scholly, mostly non competitive (yes we know Drake as an exception) mid major category. The NEC has only stepped out of that category in the last 2 seasons, not coincidentally, when they went (partial) scholly. So it was only 9 with at least 7 Div I wins not selected, not 11.
Monmouth (10-1)
Central Connecticut State (8-3)
Delaware State (8-3)
Albany (7-4)
Holy Cross (7-4)
Northern Iowa (7-4)
Portland State (7-4)
Towson (7-4)
Wofford (7-4)

Again, expansion= watered down. I could maybe see if the PFL went at least partial scholly, upped their caliber of play, and then wanted in to the playoffs by way of an expanded field, but you PFL guys want in despite having the same very weak (for I-AA) level of play for the conference as a whole.They aren't my numbers. You are off according to the yearbook. Did you read it? You are also off by saying PFL teams aren't considered because everyone at AGS knows that San Diego was very seriously considered last year (sorry if that rocks your east coast world but listen to the archives).

[FCSFAN]

Good grief. Let's expand the field to every FCS team out there.Every team in the FCS is already eligible. Only 8 get in besides the autobids.

[FCSFAN]

No it wouln't be as difficult because you're including a bunch of mostly non competitive mid majors who are basically a bunch of glorified DIII schools in caliber of play. As I've pointed out before, it would be like taking 24 out of 104 schools, not 120.You have the numbers sort of right (happy that you have changed your numbers) but I guess you missed that "mostly non competitive mid majors who are basically a bunch of glorified DIII schools in caliber of play" that beat Illinois State this year in addition to the Gridiron Classic last year.

[BDKJMU]

Guess you missed the Gridiron Classic. xrolleyesx

You can't judge 2 whole conferences by 1 game.

[BDKJMU]

Well I did play football there, and I still left with over 60k in loans. The largest trustee grant/scholarship at USD is only 12k. Granted, there are ways of getting multiple grants and scholarships; however for the most part the players at USD are paying a huge chunk if not all of the cost.

I assume most of the players are middle class to lower middle class, since most college teams as a whole have a lower socioeconomic background than the student body ON AVG (esp at wealthy private schools). So if as you say most of the players are paying a huge chunk if not most of the cost, then boy I bet most of them graduated saddled with massive student loan debt. If so, that obviously puts USD at a HUGE disadvantage when going after a kid who can get a full ride at a scholly school. I mean imagine the options for junior, go to USD at 40k, have to pay a big chunk & possibly be saddled with student loan debt after graduating, or go to school x on a full ride. Thats a no brainer for him & his parents.

[DetroitFlyer]

Here is the deal.... If you are all such FBS wannabees, man up and provide 22 more scholarships, draw 15,000 fans to your games and join FBS!!!! SIMPLE!!!!! FCS is not now nor will it ever be FBS! Winning the PFL is more than enough to warrant an automatic bid to the playoffs! Hopefully, the NCAA does the right thing! If they do and you do not like it, see my recommendations above!!!!!

[lizrdgizrd]

Here is the deal.... If you are all such FBS wannabees, man up and provide 22 more scholarships, draw 15,000 fans to your games and join FBS!!!! SIMPLE!!!!! FCS is not now nor will it ever be FBS! Winning the PFL is more than enough to warrant an automatic bid to the playoffs! Hopefully, the NCAA does the right thing! If they do and you do not like it, see my recommendations above!!!!!
That is incorrect at this time. It is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for a PFL team to make the playoffs. I have faith that one day a PFL team will not only schedule well but also win the necessary games and make the playoffs. xpeacex

[lizrdgizrd]

Better in the eyes of the comittee, yes........ But don't you think Mount Union could beat Northern Colorado? Hence making it a better win in my eyes because it is a better team.
As it stands, I think most high school teams could beat Northern Colorado, so don't hang your hat on that point. xnonono2x

[lizrdgizrd]

I may or may not find anything, but can you honestly tell me that D-II is that much better than D-III. There really isn't that much of a difference. I really don't think you can base a teams worthiness just on their division alone.
Any results on your DIII/NAIA hunt yet?

[OL FU]

I have stayed out of the debate but what the heck let's jump in.

1) I think 16 teams is sufficient.
2) However, since the NCAA makes the rules and the NCAA has forced schools in certain conferences that don't really want to be D-I in football into the D-I classification then the NCAA really has no choice but to allow those schools an opportunity to participate in the playoffs, therefore those Conferences should get an AQ.


Do I agree personally that they should, no. Do I think it is incumbent upon the NCAA to provide the AQ, Yes.

Other than thathttp://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/kevncoll/Emoticons/th_1f4e507c.gif

[Seahawks Fan]

I have stayed out of the debate but what the heck let's jump in.

1) I think 16 teams is sufficient.
2) However, since the NCAA makes the rules and the NCAA has forced schools in certain conferences that don't really want to be D-I in football into the D-I classification then the NCAA really has no choice but to allow those schools an opportunity to participate in the playoffs, therefore those Conferences should get an AQ.


Do I agree personally that they should, no. Do I think it is incumbent upon the NCAA to provide the AQ, Yes.

Other than thathttp://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e131/kevncoll/Emoticons/th_1f4e507c.gif


Excellent point no. 2. I couldn't say it better.

xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[USDFAN_55]

I assume most of the players are middle class to lower middle class, since most college teams as a whole have a lower socioeconomic background than the student body ON AVG (esp at wealthy private schools). So if as you say most of the players are paying a huge chunk if not most of the cost, then boy I bet most of them graduated saddled with massive student loan debt. If so, that obviously puts USD at a HUGE disadvantage when going after a kid who can get a full ride at a scholly school. I mean imagine the options for junior, go to USD at 40k, have to pay a big chunk & possibly be saddled with student loan debt after graduating, or go to school x on a full ride. Thats a no brainer for him & his parents.

But when school x doesn't compare academically to San Diego? That's how USD get's some of the god players. Student athletes in the truest sence. The way college football was founded.

[DetroitFlyer]

More outright ignorance on the PFL.... It is hard to believe that some of you think that USD, Drake, Dayton, Davidson, etc. are recruiting against Division III teams.... We are recruiting against you! EVERY single PFL team has players that could be playing on scholarship for some other FCS team! Of course they also have players that could have taken NAIA or Division II scholarships! This season, USD, Drake, Butler and Jacksonville ALL have kids that transfered in from FBS schools.... Do we get 63 of these kids? Heck no, but we get enough that with some good health, and good coaching, beating anyone if FCS once in a while is not out of the question.

Kids and parents pick schools for all kinds of reasons, money, although a very important factor, is not the only factor! Maybe we are not as deep as a full scholarship teams, but we absolutely have Divison I athletes starting at the majority of positions week in and week out!

Just a side note on USD. They had a QB give up an FBS scholarship at Utah in order to transfer into USD. I do not know the kid or his family, but a little research revealed that he was from California originally, and his father was a physician. I'm guessing that money was not a big deal for them.... The chance to replace Josh Johnson on an excellent team was more of a draw, in addition to being closer to home and let's face it, in San Diego, one of the nicest cities on the planet! And here is the kicker.... According to the USD fans, this kid is not even the #2 QB at USD!!!! So, it sure sounds like USD has some great depth at QB going forward....

[GannonFan]

More outright ignorance on the PFL.... It is hard to believe that some of you think that USD, Drake, Dayton, Davidson, etc. are recruiting against Division III teams.... We are recruiting against you! EVERY single PFL team has players that could be playing on scholarship for some other FCS team! Of course they also have players that could have taken NAIA or Division II scholarships! This season, USD, Drake, Butler and Jacksonville ALL have kids that transfered in from FBS schools.... Do we get 63 of these kids? Heck no, but we get enough that with some good health, and good coaching, beating anyone if FCS once in a while is not out of the question.

Kids and parents pick schools for all kinds of reasons, money, although a very important factor, is not the only factor! Maybe we are not as deep as a full scholarship teams, but we absolutely have Divison I athletes starting at the majority of positions week in and week out!

Just a side note on USD. They had a QB give up an FBS scholarship at Utah in order to transfer into USD. I do not know the kid or his family, but a little research revealed that he was from California originally, and his father was a physician. I'm guessing that money was not a big deal for them.... The chance to replace Josh Johnson on an excellent team was more of a draw, in addition to being closer to home and let's face it, in San Diego, one of the nicest cities on the planet! And here is the kicker.... According to the USD fans, this kid is not even the #2 QB at USD!!!! So, it sure sounds like USD has some great depth at QB going forward....

I don't doubt that the PFL could have very good teams. I just feel it's a shame that because of their scheduling those guys never have a chance to really prove it. Why you continue to ignore the fault that is entirely that of the PFL (go ahead, check out the OOC schedule for everyone in that conference and find me another conference that comes anywhere close to such a bad OOC schedule) is what weakens your argument. Your idea that a conference can play on an island all year, not challenge themselves with OOC games, and then want to come off of the island to play in the playoffs just rings hollow. Play a good schedule, win most of the games, and the rest takes care of itself.

I'll be one of many pulling real hard for Drake to knock off UNI this weekend if only for the purpose of stopping this drivel that the playoff selection is biased - Drake, even with the NAIA team and the DIII team, will get into the playoffs at 10-1 or 11-0 with wins against UNI and Ill St - they will have played two big programs that were both good in the year they played them - no hiding out behind conference games and a non-challenging OOC schedule. Go Drake!!!!!! xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

I think it should be all auto bids. How do you justify being the national champion if you are not the conference champion? The same problem occurs in the BCS like last year with Michigan or in 2003 with Oklahoma.
Not all conferences have a clear cut champion. In the CAA we don't get to play all the other teams. Most conferences end up with tie-breakers... so a team doesn't get to go at 10-1 because there's another 10-1 team, but a 6-5 conference champ gets to go? No thanks.xsmhx

[89Hen]

Now that sounds like an "Old Guard" comment.
:( Another one gets brainwashed.

[lizrdgizrd]

Not all conferences have a clear cut champion. In the CAA we don't get to play all the other teams. Most conferences end up with tie-breakers... so a team doesn't get to go at 10-1 because there's another 10-1 team, but a 6-5 conference champ gets to go? No thanks.xsmhx
I don't think that any team should be allowed into the playoffs with less than 7 DI wins regardless of AQ.

[89Hen]

I don't think that any team should be allowed into the playoffs with less than 7 DI wins regardless of AQ.
That could be a great caviat to the auto rule. xthumbsupx

[GannonFan]

I don't think that any team should be allowed into the playoffs with less than 7 DI wins regardless of AQ.


That could be a great caviat to the auto rule. xthumbsupx

I agree, but, has that happened before?

[lizrdgizrd]

I agree, but, has that happened before?
Last season, Lafayette was 6-5.

[89Hen]

I agree, but, has that happened before?
Last year Lafayette was 6-5 and in 2002 Montana State was 7-4 including a win over Adams State.

[lucchesicourt]

USD is at a disadvantage recruiting in CA, but maybe not from out-of-state since Poly and UCD do not really look there. Cal Poly and UCD both offer schollies and have as good or better academics than USD, depending on the major. UCD also offers many more programs (not sure about Poly, but I would guess they do too) than USD. And you are also competing with many CA FBS programs besides us two FCS programs.

[FCSFAN]

I agree, but, has that happened before?last year, yearbook page 14

[Seahawks Fan]

I don't think that any team should be allowed into the playoffs with less than 7 DI wins regardless of AQ.

That makes sense.

[GannonFan]

Last year Lafayette was 6-5 and in 2002 Montana State was 7-4 including a win over Adams State.

Thanks - didn't want to take the time to find it out. I'm all in favor of that qualification to pull an auto-bid, in that year, for a team that fails to meet the 7 win criteria. Hard to imagine there would be a lot of opposition to that.

[USDFAN_55]

USD is at a disadvantage recruiting in CA, but maybe not from out-of-state since Poly and UCD do not really look there. Cal Poly and UCD both offer schollies and have as good or better academics than USD, depending on the major. UCD also offers many more programs (not sure about Poly, but I would guess they do too) than USD. And you are also competing with many CA FBS programs besides us two FCS programs.

Yes, but San Diego has location. Have you ever been to Davis or SLO? Davis is all farmland, and SLO is a little town on the Central coast. Yes, it is near the ocean, but it is cold on the Central coast of California. On the other hand you have San Diego, "America's Finest City". You have miles and miles of beaches, downtown nightlife, Mexico, gorgeous women, great weather, professional sports, did I mention great beaches?

[USDFAN_55]

Also, San Diego is one of the Top 100 academic schools in the USA, according to News Week's yearly special issue of top colleges and universities.

[danefan]

OK, back on topic. When is this vote supposed to happen? or did it happen already?

[BlueHen86]

Mount Union, Mount Union, Mount Union, if you're so in love with them why don't you marry em'

Sorry USD but I couldn't resist that one.

Because once they are married, they won't be mounting them as often.:p

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Because once they are married, they won't be mounting them as often.:p

And there is also the distinct possibility that Mount Union won't be getting blown as often as well.

Again, I'm sorry USD but on some of these I just can't resist the temptation.

[USDFAN_55]

And there is also the distinct possibility that Mount Union won't be getting blown as often as well.

Again, I'm sorry USD but on some of these I just can't resist the temptation.

Hey, they set 'em up... you just knock 'em down.

[WUTNDITWAA]

I still like my idea: Start with 120 or so teams (maybe we can get 128) on September 1. Appalachian State plays Savannah State, Montana plays Northern Colorado, and so on down. Next week, play the next round. You lose, and it's an early exit to Crapsville for the rest of the season. Everything will be over by mid-October, but at least everyone will get a chance. And afterwards maybe we'll all get together to share orange slices.

xrolleyesx

[I-AA Fan]

That could be a great caviat to the auto rule. xthumbsupx

Could not disagree more strongly. xnonox

Conference champs are conference champs. They earned their play-off spot. There is no other way to look at it. The NCAA divides the country into regions and conferences. They set standards for the teams within that conference & that has nothing to do with W-L record. The reason they do this is to ensure equal representation nationally. If you want more DI wins, require more FCS/I-AA games ...disallow FCS/I-AA teams from playing BCS and sub-FCS/I-AA teams.

If you say that conference champs cannot go to the post-season, teams will begin jumping into different conferences.

[appfan2008]

I still like my idea: Start with 120 or so teams (maybe we can get 128) on September 1. Appalachian State plays Savannah State, Montana plays Northern Colorado, and so on down. Next week, play the next round. You lose, and it's an early exit to Crapsville for the rest of the season. Everything will be over by mid-October, but at least everyone will get a chance. And afterwards maybe we'll all get together to share orange slices.

xrolleyesx

that sure would cause some quick seasons for some teams!

[89Hen]

If you say that conference champs cannot go to the post-season, teams will begin jumping into different conferences.
May not be such a bad thing... YSU, NDSU, SDSU, UNC, Stony... xeyebrowx

[89Hen]

The NCAA divides the country into regions and conferences. They set standards for the teams within that conference & that has nothing to do with W-L record. The reason they do this is to ensure equal representation nationally.
xconfusedx The NCAA does not divide the country into conferences and they certainly don't set any standards for teams within conferences.

[lizrdgizrd]

Could not disagree more strongly. xnonox

Conference champs are conference champs. They earned their play-off spot. There is no other way to look at it. The NCAA divides the country into regions and conferences. They set standards for the teams within that conference & that has nothing to do with W-L record. The reason they do this is to ensure equal representation nationally. If you want more DI wins, require more FCS/I-AA games ...disallow FCS/I-AA teams from playing BCS and sub-FCS/I-AA teams.

If you say that conference champs cannot go to the post-season, teams will begin jumping into different conferences.
Lafayette didn't play any sub DI teams last season so mandating any more DI games wouldn't make any difference. They also didn't make it out of the 1st round. xnonox

[putter]

The SME program had an interesting take on expansion yesterday. If they did ok the expansion then the NCAA needs to do away with regionalization. Seed more of the teams and let the travel fall where it may.

[aceinthehole]

An inside source has said it is likely the NEC is getting the automatic bid in some form to the FCS playoffs next year. They said "all signs point to the NEC receiving a bid of some sort..play in or otherwise..."

Any updates from our media members here on the NCAA meetings in Indianapolis?

If this source is correct, there should be some big news coming this weekend, and we would have to wait for a final vote by the Division I Management Council in late October.

[89Hen]

An inside source has said it is likely the NEC is getting the automatic bid in some form to the FCS playoffs next year. They said "all signs point to the NEC receiving a bid of some sort..play in or otherwise..."

Any updates from our media members here on the NCAA meetings in Indianapolis?

If this source is correct, there should be some big news coming this weekend, and we would have to wait for a final vote by the Division I Management Council in late October.
Interesting because my source told me that it is likely that San Diego is getting the automatic bid in some form next year.

[danefan]

Interesting because my source told me that it is likely that San Diego is getting the automatic bid in some form next year.

??xconfusedx

Only San Diego? I'm confused?

[89Hen]

??xconfusedx

Only San Diego? I'm confused?
Yes. It was apparently in Harbaugh's contract with Stanford.

[blukeys]

The essence of that tournament is the underdog factor. The cinderella story. What's wrong with having a team or two in the FCS play-offs considered the Cinderella team?

The essence of the tournament is determining a national champion. Why exclude possible national champion type teams for a supposed Cinderella?

[USDFAN_55]

??xconfusedx

Only San Diego? I'm confused?

Obviously a stab at the San Diego fans. xnodx

[danefan]

Yes. It was apparently in Harbaugh's contract with Stanford.

Gotcha!xthumbsupx

[I-AA Fan]

Lafayette didn't play any sub DI teams last season so mandating any more DI games wouldn't make any difference. They also didn't make it out of the 1st round. xnonox

So what is your point? The NCAA does not mandate performance. Whether they go out in the first round or win the title does not matter. The fact still remains they won their conference and deserve to go to the post-season. Now, if someone is an independent, or looking for an at-large berth ..now we are talking a horse of a different color. I even say to take it one step further and make certain that there is an equal number of teams from each region in the post-season. Thus all parts of the nation are truly represented. The reason I mentioned eliminating the sub-DI games is because it would add one more DI game to each schedule, thus increasing the opportunity for more DI wins.

Also 89Hen...
Yes the NCAA does set standards for conferences, and assigns those teams to a region. That is why the Great West has not been accepted by the NCAA as of yet. That is also why most any conferences, including yours, has a compliance director. I believe yours is also an NCAA cabinet member. The conferences handle transfers, waivers, academics, violations, promotion, financial distributions (ie: post-season), etc., etc..

[USDFAN_55]

The essence of the tournament is determining a national champion. Why exclude possible national champion type teams for a supposed Cinderella?

So you're telling me that evey team in the field of 16 has an equal chance of winning the title?

[89Hen]

Also 89Hen...
Yes the NCAA does set standards for conferences, and assigns those teams to a region. That is why the Great West has not been accepted by the NCAA as of yet. That is also why most any conferences, including yours, has a compliance director. I believe yours is also an NCAA cabinet member. The conferences handle transfers, waivers, academics, violations, promotion, financial distributions (ie: post-season), etc., etc..
xconfusedx xsmhx What standards are you talking about?

[blukeys]

The SME program had an interesting take on expansion yesterday. If they did ok the expansion then the NCAA needs to do away with regionalization. Seed more of the teams and let the travel fall where it may.

Putter there is no regionalization in FCS. The best 16 teams are picked. 4 are seeded. Only in the first round is travel a consideration.

Regionalization does exist in D-2.

[lizrdgizrd]

So what is your point? The NCAA does not mandate performance. Whether they go out in the first round or win the title does not matter. The fact still remains they won their conference and deserve to go to the post-season. Now, if someone is an independent, or looking for an at-large berth ..now we are talking a horse of a different color.

Well, if every other team has to have at least 7 DI wins then why shouldn't conference champions too? Isn't that just taking away a spot for at team that does have at lest 7 DI wins?


I even say to take it one step further and make certain that there is an equal number of teams from each region in the post-season. Thus all parts of the nation are truly represented.

Why should there be an equal number of teams from each region? Teams aren't distributed equally between all the regions so wouldn't that be inequitable?


The reason I mentioned eliminating the sub-DI games is because it would add one more DI game to each schedule, thus increasing the opportunity for more DI wins.

Having to play all DI games obviously is no guarantee that all conference champions will have the required 7 DI wins.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

So you're telling me that evey team in the field of 16 has an equal chance of winning the title?

I think what he is saying or at least the way the committee sees it is that they are selecting the 8 at large teams based on their relative merits and their strengths to make the playoffs the most competitive they can be by selecting the best teams possible for the playoffs.

[USDFAN_55]

I think what he is saying or at least the way the committee sees it is that they are selecting the 8 at large teams based on their relative merits and their strengths to make the playoffs the most competitive they can be by selecting the best teams possible for the playoffs.

Can anyone come up with some stats on the winning percentage of the at-large teams in the history of the championships?

[blukeys]

So you're telling me that evey team in the field of 16 has an equal chance of winning the title?

No I'm saying the 16 teams with the best chance of winning a championship should be selected. Some worthy team should not be excluded because someone thinks a particular team is a Cinderella.

[89Hen]

Can anyone come up with some stats on the winning percentage of the at-large teams in the history of the championships?
That may take some work. I know UMass won in 1998 as at-large and four of GSU's six titles were at-large, three of four of YSU's were at-large. xpeacex

[blukeys]

Can anyone come up with some stats on the winning percentage of the at-large teams in the history of the championships?

At large teams do quite well. National Champs in 2002 and 2004. what's your point??

[USDFAN_55]

At large teams do quite well. National Champs in 2002 and 2004. what's your point??

I had no point. I just wanted to know. Thanks.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Can anyone come up with some stats on the winning percentage of the at-large teams in the history of the championships?

I think we can but to what end? They are considered to be the best teams available by the committee who does a good job most of the time. If you are in the category of being one of the last teams selected for the playoffs then there isn't A whole lot of difference competitively between the 8,9,&10th at large teams probably. Just as a side note you should ask a Cal Poly fan how this has all worked out for them as they used to have some good records and missed the playoffs with some teams that looked real good. They got the message and began changing their schedule and were rewarded for their efforts. They are now in the playoffs at an increasing clip due to their schedule and visibility as a team to keep an eye on.

[USDFAN_55]

For your confrence to receive an AQ I know there needs to be a minimum number of teams in your confrence, but what are the other requirements? Why does the committee keep denying the NEC. Under what grounds do they deny them? If the requirements are met, then I don't see why they should be excluded. Same for any other confrence that meets the requirements.

[USDFAN_55]

This is all I could find regarding AQ eligibility for a single sport confrence

31.3.4.4.2 Single Sport Conference.
To be considered for automatic qualification in a particular sport, a single sport member conference for a sport sponsored by less than 50 percent of the Division I membership must include six institutions that have conducted conference competition together the preceding two years in the sport in question at the Division I level. (Adopted: 8/5/04; Revised: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)



31.3.4.4.1 Multi-Sport Conference.
31.3.4.4.1.1 Exception.
A multisport conference that adds a conference-sponsored sport may be considered for automatic qualification in that sport, provided the conference includes at least six active NCAA Division I institutions that have conducted conference competition together at the Division I level in the sport the preceding two years and the sport is sponsored by less than 50 percent of the Division I membership. (Adopted: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)

Looks like the NEC and PFL meet that criteria. xthumbsupx

[Pete's Weekly]

Well, if every other team has to have at least 7 DI wins then why shouldn't conference champions too? Isn't that just taking away a spot for at team that does have at lest 7 DI wins?.

Okay, would you rather take an 8-3 Gateway team with 2 DII's on their schedule, that won the conference with a 5-1 record, or a 9-2 team from the Big South that has 3 non-scholarship clubs on their schedule? The bottom line is this: teams need rewarded for their accomplishments, and winning a conference is a MAJOR accomplishment & deserves rings, a bye-week if they go to the 24-team format, and all the accolades. 12 teams win a conference ...only 1 team wins a national title. Many argue it is more difficult to win a conference than the play-off, and although not entire, there is a great amount of truth to that.



Why should there be an equal number of teams from each region? Teams aren't distributed equally between all the regions so wouldn't that be inequitable?.

Actually, the conferences are almost perfectly distributed, and the teams are (for the most part) as well. This is by design. Using the current play-off 16-team format, take 4 from each of the following and call your doctor in the morning.:
1. East: CAA/PL
2. South: SoCon/MEAC
3. Midwest: GFC/OVC
4. West: Southland/Big Sky
If a given conference does not have a team that deserves an at-large (like the SLC last year). Take a third GFC team (a conference that has more than 2) and put them in the west region for the post-season.



Having to play all DI games obviously is no guarantee that all conference champions will have the required 7 DI wins.

No, but it does increase the odds now doesn't it? More importantly, removing the cross-breeding of playing intentionally-designed weaker & superior teams maintains the integrity of I-AA/FCS football ...AND IT'S SURVIVAL.

[89Hen]

Actually, the conferences are almost perfectly distributed, and the teams are (for the most part) as well. This is by design. Using the current play-off 16-team format, take 4 from each of the following and call your doctor in the morning.:
1. East: CAA/PL
2. South: SoCon/MEAC
3. Midwest: GFC/OVC
4. West: Southland/Big Sky
If a given conference does not have a team that deserves an at-large (like the SLC last year). Take a third GFC team (a conference that has more than 2) and put them in the west region for the post-season.
Pete, Pete, Pete, Pete.... didn't you do a long, drawn-out piece on this a couple years ago? How the hell can you say take a set number of teams from any conference or conferences before the games are played? Imagine you had this in place in 2003 when the SoCon and MEAC were absolutely abysmal. xnonono2x xnonono2x

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This is all I could find regarding AQ eligibility for a single sport confrence

31.3.4.4.2 Single Sport Conference.
To be considered for automatic qualification in a particular sport, a single sport member conference for a sport sponsored by less than 50 percent of the Division I membership must include six institutions that have conducted conference competition together the preceding two years in the sport in question at the Division I level. (Adopted: 8/5/04; Revised: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)



31.3.4.4.1 Multi-Sport Conference.
31.3.4.4.1.1 Exception.
A multisport conference that adds a conference-sponsored sport may be considered for automatic qualification in that sport, provided the conference includes at least six active NCAA Division I institutions that have conducted conference competition together at the Division I level in the sport the preceding two years and the sport is sponsored by less than 50 percent of the Division I membership. (Adopted: 4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)

Looks like the NEC and PFL meet that criteria. xthumbsupx

It looks like they meet the criteria to be considered. Not to just be handed one under the current format. If it is expanded then I am sure they will be CONSIDERED.

[USDFAN_55]

It looks like they meet the criteria to be considered. Not to just be handed one under the current format. If it is expanded then I am sure they will be CONSIDERED.

OK, so where in the Bylaws are these considerations laid out. There has to be some kind of criteria that needs to be met by the confrences. Or is this a completely opinion based "consideration"? Why is the NEC continue to get shot down? There needs to be some kind of reason.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

OK, so where in the Bylaws are these considerations laid out. There has to be some kind of criteria that needs to be met by the confrences. Or is this a completely opinion based "consideration"? Why is the NEC continue to get shot down? There needs to be some kind of reason.

I'm not sure but I would think that is probably opinion based. I don''t think they would change it under the current 16 team format that is in place. maybe this is the reason that the expansion is being more seriously considered.

[Lionsrking]

Said it before and I'll say it again, the more the merrier in my opinion. Obviously I say that tongue-in-cheek but I'm all for inclusion. More teams will mean more interest in FCS football.

[USDFAN_55]

It looks like they meet the criteria to be considered. Not to just be handed one under the current format. If it is expanded then I am sure they will be CONSIDERED.

Is this another one of those loopholes that the "Old Guard" uses to justify the exclusion of some teams? xeekx

[UAalum72]

The NEC was denied because of the policy of no more than half the playoff field can go to auto bids. The NEC applied for a waiver of this policy and was denied. The competition committee decides which eight conferences get in. The same eight conferences have had autobids for, what, 13 years?

Apparently they don't consider that some conferences haven't won a playoff game in many years, that might mean admitting the committee may have been wrong in the past.

[USDFAN_55]

Apparently they don't consider that some conferences haven't won a playoff game in many years, that might mean admitting the committee may have been wrong in the past.

Such as the OVC? I don't believe it... you mean the committee may be wrong? xeekx

[89Hen]

The same eight conferences have had autobids for, what, 13 years?

Apparently they don't consider that some conferences haven't won a playoff game in many years, that might mean admitting the committee may have been wrong in the past.
AFAIK, the NEC is the ONLY other conference to apply and given that they were ranked behind the 8 that did receive the autos when they applied... where exactly is your beef? Other conference futility in the playoffs does not make a case for the NEC. xpeacex

[UAalum72]

It just means that the ratings may be wrong and they may have picked the wrong league all these years. Won't know until everybody's on the field.

[Pete's Weekly]

Pete, Pete, Pete, Pete.... didn't you do a long, drawn-out piece on this a couple years ago? How the hell can you say take a set number of teams from any conference or conferences before the games are played? Imagine you had this in place in 2003 when the SoCon and MEAC were absolutely abysmal. xnonono2x xnonono2x

It would have worked out fine. Wofford and ASU had records that would meet the criteria then and now. The MEAC was excellent that year; with 3 teams that easily met the criteria, and Hampton technically met the 7 DI win rule as well. Also, the PL and GFC were solid & needed an extra spot.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Is this another one of those loopholes that the "Old Guard" uses to justify the exclusion of some teams? xeekx

Uh......I guess so. If the NEC is consistently better than any of the conferences with AQ then why wouldn't the NCAA want to put the better conference in there to have a better playoff system? If the NEC isn't consistently better than the 8 that have AQ's then why would they put one in there in place of what is already there.

[UAalum72]

If the NEC isn't consistently better than the 8 that have AQ's then why would they put one in there in place of what is already there.
If a conference that's in now is a failure, what difference would it make if the NEC was in instead?

Let the failed conference take a few years to get some out-of-conference wins and earn an at-large spot. If the NEC doesn't win in four (or eight) years, change 'em up again.

If the SWAC hadn't gone to a championship game, do you think the playoffs would have expanded and the SWAC still have an auto-bid, even if they were now 0-34?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If a conference that's in now is a failure, what difference would it make if the NEC was in instead?

Let the failed conference take a few years to get some out-of-conference wins and earn an at-large spot. If the NEC doesn't win in four (or eight) years, change 'em up again.

If the SWAC hadn't gone to a championship game, do you think the playoffs would have expanded and the SWAC still have an auto-bid, even if they were now 0-34?

That's pretty much what I was saying there. If they are consistently better then change them out, if not like for only a year or two then don't.

[appfan2008]

is there anyway to take away an autobid if a conference doesnt win a game for a number of straight years? (ovc)

[DetroitFlyer]

Here is the only ranking you need to know.... The NEC funds football at a lower rate than the 8 conferences that receive autobids. Think about it, why does it matter how the conference is rated? The champion of a low rated conference can absolutely be better than the champion of an AQ conference... If you think this is about SOS, you simply have your blinders on. It is 100% about not rewarding a conference that does not spend as much money as the 8 AQ conferences do currently. As I have mentioned,there is no rule and the NCAA cannot garner enough support to legislate one, but it really does not matter, the structure essentially supports the desired rule. Now after 15 years and oddly enough pressure from fans on forums like this, the hyprocrisy has been exposed and the NCAA is on the verge of doing the right thing.

[JDC325]

Some NAIA teams have more scholarships than some FCS teams.


Exactly my point it is embarassing.

[blukeys]

Uh......I guess so. If the NEC is consistently better than any of the conferences with AQ then why wouldn't the NCAA want to put the better conference in there to have a better playoff system? If the NEC isn't consistently better than the 8 that have AQ's then why would they put one in there in place of what is already there.

I have made this point for years!!!! We do not need to expand the field of 16 we simply need to enforce the current rules.

The OVC and the MEAC autobids have not won a playoff game in the 21st century. Why is the NCAA committee that determines autobids not doing their jobs? They need to consider other conferences.

I know it is a difficult job to diss your buddies but in the end these 2 conferences need to get the message they have not fulfilled the basic requirements of getting an autobid and that is performance in the playoffs. The OVC champ is the equivalent of a first round bye for whatever Gateway team gets to play them. Check the records. The Meac still points to Florida A&M's championship 30 years ago as their reason for getting an autobid.

Every conference should be made to state their case for an autobid every June. This should include the records of all of their teams for the previous 5 years.

I don't know if the NEC can make a better case than the MEAC or OVC but they should at least be given the opportunity to try.

The idea that autobids are an inherited right of certain conferences is crazy and needs to be challenged at the highest level of the NCAA.

[USDFAN_55]

I have made this point for years!!!! We do not need to expand the field of 16 we simply need to enforce the current rules.

The OVC and the MEAC autobids have not won a playoff game in the 21st century. Why is the NCAA committee that determines autobids not doing their jobs? They need to consider other conferences.

I know it is a difficult job to diss your buddies but in the end these 2 conferences need to get the message they have not fulfilled the basic requirements of getting an autobid and that is performance in the playoffs. The OVC champ is the equivalent of a first round bye for whatever Gateway team gets to play them. Check the records. The Meac still points to Florida A&M's championship 30 years ago as their reason for getting an autobid.

Every conference should be made to state their case for an autobid every June. This should include the records of all of their teams for the previous 5 years.

I don't know if the NEC can make a better case than the MEAC or OVC but they should at least be given the opportunity to try.

The idea that autobids are an inherited right of certain conferences is crazy and needs to be challenged at the highest level of the NCAA.

Very well said. There needs to be some kind of review of the confrences earning an AQ to make sure their caliber of play is still worthy of an AQ.

[blukeys]

Very well said. There needs to be some kind of review of the confrences earning an AQ to make sure their caliber of play is still worthy of an AQ.

Well I guess this is one time we agree. The rules of the NCAA suggest that autobid conferences need to be earned and are not an inherited right. In practice it appears that even conferences whose auto bid loses for years every time in the first round still gets the auto bid.

If the NCAA just enforced their own rules much of this playoff expansion controversy would end.

The playoff expansion argument will be advanced by those conferences who are in a position to lose their autobids.

The CAA, Gateway, and Southern Conferences could care less.

[Seawolf97]

I have made this point for years!!!! We do not need to expand the field of 16 we simply need to enforce the current rules.

The OVC and the MEAC autobids have not won a playoff game in the 21st century. Why is the NCAA committee that determines autobids not doing their jobs? They need to consider other conferences.

I know it is a difficult job to diss your buddies but in the end these 2 conferences need to get the message they have not fulfilled the basic requirements of getting an autobid and that is performance in the playoffs. The OVC champ is the equivalent of a first round bye for whatever Gateway team gets to play them. Check the records. The Meac still points to Florida A&M's championship 30 years ago as their reason for getting an autobid.

Every conference should be made to state their case for an autobid every June. This should include the records of all of their teams for the previous 5 years.

I don't know if the NEC can make a better case than the MEAC or OVC but they should at least be given the opportunity to try.

The idea that autobids are an inherited right of certain conferences is crazy and needs to be challenged at the highest level of the NCAA.

Excellent points xthumbsupx

[james_lawfirm]

Here is the only ranking you need to know.... The NEC funds football at a lower rate than the 8 conferences that receive autobids. Think about it, why does it matter how the conference is rated? The champion of a low rated conference can absolutely be better than the champion of an AQ conference... If you think this is about SOS, you simply have your blinders on. It is 100% about not rewarding a conference that does not spend as much money as the 8 AQ conferences do currently. As I have mentioned,there is no rule and the NCAA cannot garner enough support to legislate one, but it really does not matter, the structure essentially supports the desired rule. Now after 15 years and oddly enough pressure from fans on forums like this, the hyprocrisy has been exposed and the NCAA is on the verge of doing the right thing.


Detroit:
Unless I completely misunderstand what you are saying, I completely disagree.

I think what you are saying is that strength of schedule is meaningless in predicting who might actually win a game and thus qualify for the playoffs. Rather, you are saying a conference is somehow rewarded for spending money on football by giving it an AQ. I think you have the cart before the horse.

While I agree that teams like Hampton often get into the playoffs with a very low SOS, their #4 seed in 2005 was an anomaly. I thought SOS was a great predictor then when Hampton made a hasty exit in the first round. The committee has learned from this and I don't believe the MEAC champ will be seeded until their SOS improves.

Generally, the playoff committee has chosen wisely with its AQ rule, and in seeding the top 4 teams. Even the at-large bids are usually given judiciously, Wofford being the BIG exception. Last year, NO higher ranked team beat a lower ranked team, showing the committee got it right.

I think SOS is EXTREMELY important in determining who will do well in playoff games. Thus, I support the committee's use of it in determining the playoff field. But, SOS is not the only rule to follow.

As critical as various posters seem to be, I think the current system works pretty well. If it ain't broke ...

I don't know what your team is, but if it is one in a conference without an AQ, then the answer is for your conference to play better football. At some point, that means play against better teams (improving the SOS). Then, sooner or later that conference might qualify for an AQ.

[IaaScribe]

Honest question. I wrote an item on my paper's blog about this subject today, since I cover a team in one of the non-auto-bid leagues ... but this has more to do with the championship game rather than bids to the playoffs.

What do you all think about moving the title game to the same day as the BCS championship game and working it as a doubleheader (on TV) with the BCS game? I know it probably would never happen, but I think it would be fantastic in exposing FCS football to the casual college football fan. Look, I live in an area with two FBS teams and one FCS team, and the FCS championship game gets very little play. Most people don't know it exists on a Friday in mid-December.

But imagine, ESPN carrying the game on Jan. 8 or 10 or whatever day it would be, as a lead-in to the coverage of the BCS national championship. It gives the title game a bowl-game like feel, and a chance for the teams to rest up and get healthy. Gives a chance for fans to make travel plans on more than just a few days notice. I'm thinking, as a fan of FBS football, if I had a chance to watch App play UMass or whatever as a prelude to the big game, I'd probably watch it.

Thoughts?

[blur2005]

Honest question. I wrote an item on my paper's blog about this subject today, since I cover a team in one of the non-auto-bid leagues ... but this has more to do with the championship game rather than bids to the playoffs.

What do you all think about moving the title game to the same day as the BCS championship game and working it as a doubleheader (on TV) with the BCS game? I know it probably would never happen, but I think it would be fantastic in exposing FCS football to the casual college football fan. Look, I live in an area with two FBS teams and one FCS team, and the FCS championship game gets very little play. Most people don't know it exists on a Friday in mid-December.

But imagine, ESPN carrying the game on Jan. 8 or 10 or whatever day it would be, as a lead-in to the coverage of the BCS national championship. It gives the title game a bowl-game like feel, and a chance for the teams to rest up and get healthy. Gives a chance for fans to make travel plans on more than just a few days notice. I'm thinking, as a fan of FBS football, if I had a chance to watch App play UMass or whatever as a prelude to the big game, I'd probably watch it.

Thoughts?
Yawn. More impossible ideas. Of course we would all watch it if it happened...but it won't.

Also, as to the actualy subject of this thread, when the PFL and the NEC prove themselves to be better than a conference or two among the AQs, then we can talk. Until then, screw expansion of the playoffs. As I said earlier, it waters the product down and makes a mockery of a tough regular season.

[aceinthehole]

Well I guess this is one time we agree. The rules of the NCAA suggest that autobid conferences need to be earned and are not an inherited right. In practice it appears that even conferences whose auto bid loses for years every time in the first round still gets the auto bid.

If the NCAA just enforced their own rules much of this playoff expansion controversy would end.

The playoff expansion argument will be advanced by those conferences who are in a position to lose their autobids.

The CAA, Gateway, and Southern Conferences could care less.

Sorry, I don't agree. I do not want to see the NEC take an AQ at the expense of the OVC or MEAC.

When is the last time an OVC, SWAC, MEAC, Southland, or Big West, NEC team won a NCAA men's basketball tourney game, olr some other NCAA tourney such as soccer, volleyball or baseball? Conferences don't lose AQ spots becasue they don't win games.

The NEC deserves an AQ becasue it is an ELIGEBLE confrerence that has REQUESTED a AQ, period. IMO that is the ONLY reason why we deserve a bid.

The PFL has the same standing as the NEC but they HAVEN'T APPLIED. The Ivy and SWAC CHOOSE to sit out.

[Cap'n Cat]

The division has grown in 21 years by 30+%. Logic dictates that there should be a parallel expansion in playoff teams.

No?

[USDFAN_55]

The division has grown in 21 years by 30+%. Logic dictates that there should be a parallel expansion in playoff teams.

No?

You mean evolve? What a novel idea xthumbsupx

Look at how much the NCAA Basketball tournament has evolved.

The NCAA tournament has expanded a number of times in the last 65 seasons. This is a breakdown of the history of the tournament format:

1939–1950: eight teams
1951–1952: 16 teams
1953–1974: varied from 22-25 teams
1975–1978: 32 teams
1979: 40 teams
1980–1982: 48 teams
1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
1985–2000: 64 teams
2001— : 65 teams (with an "opening round" game to determine whether the 64th or 65th team plays in the first round)

I think it's time for a change. I know people are afraid of change, but at this point I think it is a must.

[blur2005]

The division has grown in 21 years by 30+%. Logic dictates that there should be a parallel expansion in playoff teams.

No?
Except the playoff teams have doubled in that time - a 100% growth.

[Seahawks Fan]

The division has grown in 21 years by 30+%. Logic dictates that there should be a parallel expansion in playoff teams.

No?


Yes I think so.

[lizrdgizrd]

Okay, would you rather take an 8-3 Gateway team with 2 DII's on their schedule, that won the conference with a 5-1 record, or a 9-2 team from the Big South that has 3 non-scholarship clubs on their schedule?

An 8-3 Gateway team that beat 2 DIIs wouldn't qualify because they'd only have 6 DI wins.


The bottom line is this: teams need rewarded for their accomplishments, and winning a conference is a MAJOR accomplishment & deserves rings, a bye-week if they go to the 24-team format, and all the accolades.

They should be rewarded with a playoff spot only when they meet the minimum criteria. A 6-5 team does not belong in the playoffs. PERIOD.


No, but it does increase the odds now doesn't it? More importantly, removing the cross-breeding of playing intentionally-designed weaker & superior teams maintains the integrity of I-AA/FCS football ...AND IT'S SURVIVAL.
Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer that teams only play DI competition, but one DII doesn't really bother me. ADs are grown ups and should understand that they must face the consequences of their actions. Weak scheduling makes it more difficult to make the playoffs. If they're fine with that, so am I. xpeacex

[lizrdgizrd]

You mean evolve? What a novel idea xthumbsupx

That's not evolution, it's bloat. xnonono2x


Look at how much the NCAA Basketball tournament has evolved.

The NCAA tournament has expanded a number of times in the last 65 seasons. This is a breakdown of the history of the tournament format:

1939–1950: eight teams
1951–1952: 16 teams
1953–1974: varied from 22-25 teams
1975–1978: 32 teams
1979: 40 teams
1980–1982: 48 teams
1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
1985–2000: 64 teams
2001— : 65 teams (with an "opening round" game to determine whether the 64th or 65th team plays in the first round)

I think it's time for a change. I know people are afraid of change, but at this point I think it is a must.
The thing about basketball is that you can play 3 or 4 games per week. That makes it really easy to have a 65 team tournament only last 3 weeks. With football, you've got a lot more time pressure because you can only play one game per week. And with us having to keep the Championship before any of the big bowls in order to get TV time it makes it even more of a time crunch.

[lizrdgizrd]

Sorry, I don't agree. I do not want to see the NEC take an AQ at the expense of the OVC or MEAC.

When is the last time an OVC, SWAC, MEAC, Southland, or Big West, NEC team won a NCAA men's basketball tourney game, olr some other NCAA tourney such as soccer, volleyball or baseball? Conferences don't lose AQ spots becasue they don't win games.

The NEC deserves an AQ becasue it is an ELIGEBLE confrerence that has REQUESTED a AQ, period. IMO that is the ONLY reason why we deserve a bid.

The PFL has the same standing as the NEC but they HAVEN'T APPLIED. The Ivy and SWAC CHOOSE to sit out.
Basketball and football are not directly comparable. With 65 spots in the field, there's plenty of room for all the conferences plus a metric ton of at-larges. They don't loose AQs because they don't need the space.

I think that football conferences should have to make the case that they deserve an AQ and when approved they get one for 2-4 seasons. Once it expires, they have to make the case for getting one again. This gives conferences like the NEC a chance to make their case over a conference like the MEAC or OVC and some time to help prove they deserve to keep it when it's renewal time.

[danefan]

I think that football conferences should have to make the case that they deserve an AQ and when approved they get one for 2-4 seasons. Once it expires, they have to make the case for getting one again. This gives conferences like the NEC a chance to make their case over a conference like the MEAC or OVC and some time to help prove they deserve to keep it when it's renewal time.


Isn't that the rule now, but the AQ only lasts for one year? Its just rubber stamped though.

[Ruler 79]

I am late to this thread but as I posted on the Albany board I believe the scholarship minimum in the NEC should be moved up from 30 to 45 as the rumor suggests if they are to recieve an AQ. If teams like Sacred Heart or St. Francis do not wish to comply let them move to the PFL. I beleive RM,CCSU, MU, Wag, UA, would not have a problem adding 15 schollies. I beleive Stony Brook would return ASAP!.

[lizrdgizrd]

Isn't that the rule now, but the AQ only lasts for one year? Its just rubber stamped though.
I think so, but the rubber stamp is the real problem. If they'd actually evaluate the AQs, I think they'd be forced to give the NEC a shot. But if they only last 1 year you'd probably get the AQs bouncing back and forth between 5 or so conferences every season.

[NDB]

Weak scheduling makes it more difficult to make the playoffs.

ahem. montana. ahem.

[lizrdgizrd]

ahem. montana. ahem.
Yeah, but if they win them all then it's moot.

[NDB]

very true.

[lizrdgizrd]

very true.
The weak scheduling really only causes problems for bubble teams. xnodx

[danefan]

I think so, but the rubber stamp is the real problem. If they'd actually evaluate the AQs, I think they'd be forced to give the NEC a shot. But if they only last 1 year you'd probably get the AQs bouncing back and forth between 5 or so conferences every season.

I agree. Either way you look at it the, whether you're for expansion or not, people have to see that the AQ evaluation process is currently not functioning properly. The main reason is the fact that the current criteria does not really take into consideration the possibility of a more than the 8 teams who now have the AQ's.

If the expansion doesn't occur, I think the AQ's need a life of 3 years. Retroactively effective. If you're conference hasn't performed in the last three years you should lose it, so long as there is another conference to take your place.

[89Hen]

Look at how much the NCAA Basketball tournament has evolved.
Worthless example. Football is NOT basketball, end of story. Heck, bball has the Maui invitational, the San Juan shootout, the pre-season NIT... how about a long weekend where 8 football teams get together and play a round robin format?... after all, basketball does it.

[89Hen]

Every conference should be made to state their case for an autobid every June. This should include the records of all of their teams for the previous 5 years.

I don't know if the NEC can make a better case than the MEAC or OVC but they should at least be given the opportunity to try.

The idea that autobids are an inherited right of certain conferences is crazy and needs to be challenged at the highest level of the NCAA.
Agreed, but the arguement from a lot of NEC fans is "we can't possibly do worse" instead of "here's why we're better". The OVC and MEAC's ineptitude in the playoffs is not a reason to give their bid to somebody else... it's just the opening of the door to allow a conference that has a case. xtwocentsx

[89Hen]

It would have worked out fine. Wofford and ASU had records that would meet the criteria then and now. The MEAC was excellent that year; with 3 teams that easily met the criteria, and Hampton technically met the 7 DI win rule as well. Also, the PL and GFC were solid & needed an extra spot.
Meeting the criteria vs. being the best... xcoffeex

[USDFAN_55]

Worthless example. Football is NOT basketball, end of story. Heck, bball has the Maui invitational, the San Juan shootout, the pre-season NIT... how about a long weekend where 8 football teams get together and play a round robin format?... after all, basketball does it.

It is a good example of evolving. I'm not trying to say basketball did it, and so should football. I'm giving an example of how basketball evolved with the growth of the sport. FCS football is growing, yet the play-off system stays the same.

[SoCon48]

Thing is, too many football games in a season can have the potential to ruin the sport. With only 63 scholarships it's really tough already to play 15 games. With 15 games, it's not likely that the two championship contenders are going to be able to put their whole real teams on the field by mid-December.
Too, we don't want to be like the BCS and have every body and his brother playing post season.

[SoCon48]

If the NCAA tampers with the AQ aspect too much, I hope ASU jumps down to the Big South!!!!!

[kardplayer]

Keep in mind, that AQ's go to the BEST team in the conference, not the whole conference. Debating the relative worth of the strength of the entire conference is pretty much hogwash. If one or two teams choose to "step up" and the rest of the conference doesn't go with them, they should still have a berth in the playoffs.

Every conference has dogs - even the SoCon/CAA/BSC/Gateway do - its just the ratio that differs across conferences.

[FCSFAN]

FCS football is growing, yet the play-off system stays the same.There are fewer FCS teams now than there were five years ago. Do the math.

The FCS has increased the amount of playoff teams from four to 16 since it started. Do the math.

[GannonFan]

There are fewer FCS teams now than there were five years ago. Do the math.

The FCS has increased the amount of playoff teams from four to 16 since it started. Do the math.

Facts!!!! We don't need no stinkin' facts!!!!!! xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[danefan]

Keep in mind, that AQ's go to the BEST team in the conference, not the whole conference. Debating the relative worth of the strength of the entire conference is pretty much hogwash. If one or two teams choose to "step up" and the rest of the conference doesn't go with them, they should still have a berth in the playoffs.

Every conference has dogs - even the SoCon/CAA/BSC/Gateway do - its just the ratio that differs across conferences.

Best point in this entire thread, or for that matter, the entire 2.5 year long debate about the NEC's worth in the playoffs.

[eaglesrthe1]

Best point in this entire thread, or for that matter, the entire 2.5 year long debate about the NEC's worth in the playoffs.


I've seen several AQ's that wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs if they had to rely on their on the field accomplishments. Shoot, theres been four or five in the last several years in fact.

Before I would expand, I would say do away with them. If you win the conference, you should have the credentials, but it isn't a given. So why should it be a given?

[Cap'n Cat]

There are fewer FCS teams now than there were five years ago. Do the math.

The FCS has increased the amount of playoff teams from four to 16 since it started. Do the math.


Regarding doing math, Ralph, I believe some of us are thinking of the division having expanded since the last increase in playoff participation. Wasn't it 86 or therabouts that we went to 16 teams?

Five years ago? *****, I got underwear in my hamper older than that.

Your Cap'n

No badgering people. xnonox

[BDKJMU]

Here is the deal.... If you are all such FBS wannabees, man up and provide 22 more scholarships, draw 15,000 fans to your games and join FBS!!!! SIMPLE!!!!! FCS is not now nor will it ever be FBS! Winning the PFL is more than enough to warrant an automatic bid to the playoffs! Hopefully, the NCAA does the right thing! If they do and you do not like it, see my recommendations above!!!!!

I'm not an "FBS wannabe", as I don't want to see JMU move up. No, winning the PFL isn't enough for an AQ. Not even close, as the overwhelming majority of I-AA coaches, writers, and people making the decisions about the playoffs feel that way. You saying it is doesn't change that fact. The NCAA will do the right thing, not giving the PFL, or any other undeserving league, an AQ. Maybe in 8-10 years if the PFL teams quit playing Div III OOC, go at least partial scholly, up their strength of schedule by scheduling and beating schools from the AQ conferences, esp the CAA/Gateway/So Con/Big Sky, and showing they're not afraid to schedule Div IA. One win over Ill State by Drake isn't nearly enough. Try having 3-4 of your teams pull off wins against ranked teams 1st. Until then you can whine and cry about it all you want. xbawlingx xbawlingx xbawlingx xbawlingx xbawlingx An AQ for the PFL AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!

[FCSFAN]

Regarding doing math, Ralph, I believe some of us are thinking of the division having expanded since the last increase in playoff participation.Regarding doing math, Norton, I believe there were exactly 3 less teams that would meet the criteria in 1986 as there are today. Incredible growth huh (BTW, the member said it was growing as in present tense, not that it grew)? Heck let's expand the playoffs! xsmhx

29 eligible teams in 1986 had at least 7 wins of any kind
32 eligible teams in 2006 had at least 7 wins of any kind

Matter of fact we've always had around 50% of the playoff field make it from that group over the years.

[BDKJMU]

But when school x doesn't compare academically to San Diego? That's how USD get's some of the god players. Student athletes in the truest sence. The way college football was founded.

But 55, if I was a middle class parent of a kid who had a few Big Sky or Southland Scholly offers, it could be like, pay 40k, or even qualify for some aid package and pay 20k a year to go to USD academically, or have him go to school x, which might be a half notch or notch below USD, but where he could still get a good education for $0.00 tuition/room/board/books. Its really a no brainer IMHO.