FCS playoffs - 18 teams for 2008

[aceinthehole]

Word from NEC officials is the NCAA committee this week voted to approve expansion of the FCS playoffs to 18 teams for 2008! It is assumed this will be in the form of 2 PIGs before the first round.

Expect to hear more deatils soon!

[FargoBison]

Word from NEC officials is the NCAA committee this week voted to approve expansion of the FCS playoffs to 18 teams for 2008! It is assumed this will be in the form of 2 PIGs before the first round.

Expect to hear more deatils soon!


Great to hear!!!!

[FCSFAN]

Can you say KOWTOW? xlolx

[aceinthehole]

Can you say KOWTOW? xlolx

Can you say bitter? :p

[Mr. C]

It will be interesting to see how they set up the timing of the playoffs to do that. Will the first round be moved back to the weekend after Thanksgiving? Would that move the title game to AFTER Christmas?

[Mr. C]

Can you say bitter? :p
Why would he, or anyone else be bitter? You can have a difference of opinion without being bitter. I think you TOTALLY misread what he said.

[Dane96]

About time.

[Dane96]

Why would he, or anyone else be bitter? You can have a difference of opinion without being bitter. I think you TOTALLY misread what he said.

Mr C., no offense, but there are some (and you were included at the time) that said this would never, ever, ever happen. In fact, some of us had phone conversations with certain people stating what our teams were told. There were others who were not reporters who also had "inside" information that was constantly bashed by those who were told by Patty V...or others...this would not happen. Basically, the word of others were taken as gospel...while we were tossed to the side as CRAZY.

I don't think ACE is bitter. Rather, I think ACE is saying some should have kept a more open mind to others on this board.

Then again, I can't speak for ACE.

I dont think anyone is bitter.

[aceinthehole]

Why would he, or anyone else be bitter? You can have a difference of opinion without being bitter. I think you TOTALLY misread what he said.

I don't think I misread it. Regradless of anyone's OPINION on playoff expansion, certain posters stated with CERTAINTY expansion WAS NOT POSSIBLE in the near furture. I (and others) have been steadfast in posts that expansion was in fact INEVITABLE, and only the details had to be agreeed upon.

Certain posters (or memebrs of the "media") still produce propoganda on the issue of playoff expansion and report opinion or editorial and not the real story. xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Check your pm ace

[danefan]

Good to see. Can't wait for official announcement.

[aceinthehole]

Mr C., no offense, but there are some (and you were included at the time) that said this would never, ever, ever happen. In fact, some of us had phone conversations with certain people stating what our teams were told. There were others who were not reporters who also had "inside" information that was constantly bashed by those who were told by Patty V...or others...this would not happen. Basically, the word of others were taken as gospel...while we were tossed to the side as CRAZY.

I don't think ACE is bitter. Rather, I think ACE is saying some should have kept a more open mind to others on this board.

Then again, I can't speak for ACE.

I dont think anyone is bitter.

Yes, thank you.

[th0m]

I'm interested as to how this will be realized.

[rmutv]

Ace, thanks a bunch for passing this on! Maybe they'll use the Gridiron Classic as one PiG?

[slycat]

well this is good news. it will be interesting to see how its implemented but this was needed.

[Go...gate]

Sounds good.

[danefan]

I would think it has to be a play-in game (maybe NEC v. PFL) and then another at large.

[slycat]

I would think it has to be a play-in game (maybe NEC v. PFL) and then another at large.

thats what i would expect but i wonder how itll effect scheduling. it would be weird for the season to be one week longer just to accomidate the a play-in game.

[danefan]

wasn;t the gridiron class game the week before the playoffs started last year?

[danefan]

wow...$9800 50/50 raffle is awesome

[rmutv]

wasn;t the gridiron class game the week before the playoffs started last year?

Originally, yes. Then it was pushed back to give Monmouth and San Diego a chance to get into the playoffs.

It was held in week 2 of the playoffs.

[Eyes of Old Main]

If they add 2 or 8, they are adding a week to the playoffs. It may start with the 2, but once implimented, the NCAA's greedy spirit will expand it farther. If this is true, mark my words, you'll see something like a 24 team slate with byes to the top 8 teams within 5 years.

[appfan2008]

If they add 2 or 8, they are adding a week to the playoffs. It may start with the 2, but once implimented, the NCAA's greedy spirit will expand it farther. If this is true, mark my words, you'll see something like a 24 team slate with byes to the top 8 teams within 5 years.

would that be a bad thing?

I along with everyone else am curious as to how the scheduling of this will work out!

[youwouldno]

What's next, make the whole season one tournament? Why not, more is better, right? Heck, make it double elimination, that would probably work out schedule-wise.

[blur2005]

something that is not only not official but is bad the FCS. xrolleyesx
Agreed. Let's dilute the tournament to decide the champion. A real positive step. xconfusedx

[Dane96]

Really sucks; Ask the most likely No. 1 or No. 2 team what it was like to play against Albany today.

Considering the NEC is most likely jumping to 45 rides...no reason to think we cant put a nice scare in a first round opponent.

[youwouldno]

Really sucks; Ask the most likely No. 1 or No. 2 team what it was like to play against Albany today.

Considering the NEC is most likely jumping to 45 rides...no reason to think we cant put a nice scare in a first round opponent.

Why can't an NEC team just earn a spot into the field of 16?

Expanding the playoffs does you no good, whether you realize it or not. Expansion actually reduces the odds of winning the title for many programs because it means a bye for the top seeds. An NEC team could have a chance of making the title game in a field of 16, a la Colgate, but 24? No chance whatsoever.

[Dane96]

Why can't an NEC team just earn a spot into the field of 16?

Expanding the playoffs does you no good, whether you realize it or not. Expansion actually reduces the odds of winning the title for many programs because it means a bye for the top seeds. An NEC team could have a chance of making the title game in a field of 16, a la Colgate, but 24? No chance whatsoever.

That is weak argument, with all due respect. The odds of winning a national title are less if YOU AREN'T in the playoffs. They increase dramatically, no matter the "difficult" run you may have, if you are actually IN THE PLAYOFFS.

[youwouldno]

That is weak argument, with all due respect. The odds of winning a national title are less if YOU AREN'T in the playoffs. They increase dramatically, no matter the "difficult" run you may have, if you are actually IN THE PLAYOFFS.

Not that much. When is the last time the OVC autobid even won a single game? Just making the playoffs isn't enough to compete for titles.

The odds of any team winning 5 games, against top competition, mostly on the road, are unbelievably low. In fact, I would be pretty surprised if any team, from any conference, will ever do it. And I mean "ever" literally.

[Dane96]

I don't disagree with your basic premise. I do disagree with your odds on winning. Fact is, however, you need to be in the playoffs to have any odds at all.

Even with scheduling the way the NEC does, the odds are MUCH lower they get in the playoffs...then if they were granted an auto. It is still a subjective possibility that a 10-1 or 9-2 Albany team (with this years schedule) gets Woofed.

Those odds are less with the auto.

Do I think the at-large or PIG can take it to the proverbial house? No, probably not...but they should be given a fighting chance.

[Boogs]

Math: 122 - 8 (Ivy League) - 4 (MAAC) - 7 (NEC) - 8 (PFL) -10 (SWAC) = 85 deserving teams (using 2007 data of course)

18/85 = 21% of the teams in a pool of bonafide teams make the playoffs. That's roughly 1 out of 5.

Do we want to go that route?

Keep in mind, FCS is the only category I see that ranks mid-major teams and we know what that means (huge differences in qualifications) I don't see that in the other divisions on Don Hansen's or the Sports Network sites that ranks the various categories.

Correct?

I said on another thread about Stony Brook being mid-major concerning the stupidity the road the NCAA has gone down, and the unintended results (St. Peter's) on having loopholes in placing teams in categories of competition -- FBS, FCS, D2, and D3.

[dbackjon]

Math: 122 - 8 (Ivy League) - 4 (MAAC) - 7 (NEC) - 8 (PFL) -10 (SWAC) = 85 deserving teams (using 2007 data of course)

18/85 = 21% of the teams in a pool of bonafide teams make the playoffs. That's roughly 1 out of 5.

Do we want to go that route?

Keep in mind, FCS is the only category I see that ranks mid-major teams and we know what that means (huge differences in qualifications) I don't see that in the other divisions on Don Hansen's or the Sports Network sites that ranks the various categories.

Correct?

I said on another thread about Stony Brook being mid-major concerning the stupidity the road the NCAA has gone down, and the unintended results (St. Peter's) on having loopholes in placing teams in categories of competition -- FBS, FCS, D2, and D3.

With the NEC upping schollies, I would put the bonafide teams at 92....

[Boogs]

What will be the per team schollies in the NEC for 2008? How does that compare with the CAA? If those additional schollies go to freshmen, would it not be better to wait until 2010 until the NEC truly gets ripe as far as going to a 18 team playoff?

I don't like the problem solving in the NCAA. Getting the right teams in the proper categories (divisions) should take priority over expanding a playoff due to major differences in qualifications.

Can't believe I'm not getting the support here on reforming the criteria for placing schools in FBS, FCS, D2, and D3 for football.

I don't like the way things are. Schools should not be in the same category for all sports. That needs to change.

[rmutv]

What will be the per team schollies in the NEC for 2008? How does that compare with the CAA? If those additional schollies go to freshmen, would it not be better to wait until 2010 until the NEC truly gets ripe as far as going to a 18 team playoff?


For now, the per team schollies in the NEC will be 30. They could be bumped to 45, but more than likely that's another year or two down the road.

The schollies are spread out over the team over several different classes right now. That will continue to be the norm. RMU has pledged to continue striving for supremacy in the NEC and a shot every year at the FCS playoffs. That's from those who are responsible in the NEC.

If RMU is on board, most of the NEC will be. Duquesne will keep pace with RMU come hell or highwater once they join in 2008. CCSU, Monmouth, and Albany are already at the top of the class in terms of their goals. Wagner, St. Francis, and Sacred Heart will refuse to be at the bottom for long.

The NEC is extremely healthy and hungry. That's why the NCAA is willing to include them now.

On a personal note, I've butted heads with Dane96 a bit over the years because we both have strong personalities and a lot of love for our respective schools, but you would all do yourselves a favor in listening to what he has to say. When he comes in with information from his sources, he's usually on the button. And I've yet to see aceinthehole come up with any wrong information, and he's the one that started this thread.

Just because we represent the quieter conferences in FCS doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about.

[SO ILLmatic]

The NEC is extremely healthy and hungry.


A true testament shown by Stony Brook leaving, becoming independent, and then joining the Big South so they could move into scholarship football at a quicker pace.

"I kid, I kid."

In all seriousness it may add a flavor that replicates the basketball tournament every March where everyone roots for the 12 through 16 seeds. Or it could water down the tournament, stretch out the duration, give fans more reasons to argue, and basically give the top 2 seeds a bye game after the play-in games. Only time will tell, but it seems to me that the competition across the board is becoming level for the most part.

Maybe the OVC teams can add a measure to this legislation before its approved so they can be put into the play-on games, and have a better chance of finally winning a game in the tournament...

[UAalum72]

Stony Brook probably left because they thought the Big South would get an autobid before the NEC. Looks like they may have been misinformed.

If the NEC rep were to be one of the top 16 teams, they shouldn't be in the PIG.

But I'd argue as I would for basketball, the PIG should be reserved for teams that finish 3rd or 4th in their conference while league champions get round-of-16 spots.

[gophoenix]

Expansion by two only provides the opportunity for 1 more automatic bid, unless they changes the wording of that too.

So, if another automatic bid is awarded, it won't go the the Great West. The Big South is ineligible until 2010. So, who would it be?

[Boogs]

For now, the per team schollies in the NEC will be 30. They could be bumped to 45, but more than likely that's another year or two down the road.

Then postpone expanding to 18 teams in the playoffs.


The schollies are spread out over the team over several different classes right now. That will continue to be the norm. RMU has pledged to continue striving for supremacy in the NEC and a shot every year at the FCS playoffs. That's from those who are responsible in the NEC.

If RMU is on board, most of the NEC will be. Duquesne will keep pace with RMU come hell or highwater once they join in 2008. CCSU, Monmouth, and Albany are already at the top of the class in terms of their goals. Wagner, St. Francis, and Sacred Heart will refuse to be at the bottom for long.

The NEC is extremely healthy and hungry. That's why the NCAA is willing to include them now.

On a personal note, I've butted heads with Dane96 a bit over the years because we both have strong personalities and a lot of love for our respective schools, but you would all do yourselves a favor in listening to what he has to say. When he comes in with information from his sources, he's usually on the button. And I've yet to see aceinthehole come up with any wrong information, and he's the one that started this thread.

Just because we represent the quieter conferences in FCS doesn't mean we don't know what we're talking about.

The NEC will be mid-major for next year based on the data you just said for the 2008 season -- same ole 30 schollies for 2008. That is not progress and justification for 18 teams in the playoffs.

Some might say the NEC needs to either poop or get off the pot. Stony Brook and Austin Peay made a move and there were no delays (years).

[Boogs]

Expansion by two only provides the opportunity for 1 more automatic bid, unless they changes the wording of that too.

So, if another automatic bid is awarded, it won't go the the Great West. The Big South is ineligible until 2010. So, who would it be?

Who cares? The lines are blurred by the NCAA's criteria for categorizing teams.

Put D3 Mount Union in the PIG game. That school can run the table against the rep from the NEC/PFL/MAAC.

The overlap doesn't even faze the fans on this board that something is off.

[appfan2008]

Expansion by two only provides the opportunity for 1 more automatic bid, unless they changes the wording of that too.

So, if another automatic bid is awarded, it won't go the the Great West. The Big South is ineligible until 2010. So, who would it be?

It would probably go to the NEC

[Saint3333]

Word from NEC officials is the NCAA committee this week voted to approve expansion of the FCS playoffs to 18 teams for 2008! It is assumed this will be in the form of 2 PIGs before the first round.

Expect to hear more deatils soon!

Not excitedxcoffeex.

This will soon be expanded to 24 once the door is open which cheapens the playoffs. The goal of the playoffs is to decide a champion not give 24 teams a pat on the back, this isn't little league or the bowl system. We can't have the 12th game and 5 rounds of playoff games. It's not fair to the student athletes to play potentially 17 games a year.

I am 100% against expanding the number the negatives far outway the positives.

[footballguy7]

[QUOTE=UAalum72;661215]Stony Brook probably left because they thought the Big South would get an autobid before the NEC. Looks like they may have been misinformed.QUOTE]

Stony Brook left the NEC because they want to increase scholarships past the 30 allowable by the NEC.

[danefan]

[quote=UAalum72;661215]Stony Brook probably left because they thought the Big South would get an autobid before the NEC. Looks like they may have been misinformed.QUOTE]

Stony Brook left the NEC because they want to increase scholarships past the 30 allowable by the NEC.

True. But the reason they went to the Big South was b/c of the potential for an AQ. Whoops.

[rmutv]

Then postpone expanding to 18 teams in the playoffs.
The NEC will be mid-major for next year based on the data you just said for the 2008 season -- same ole 30 schollies for 2008. That is not progress and justification for 18 teams in the playoffs.

Some might say the NEC needs to either poop or get off the pot. Stony Brook and Austin Peay made a move and there were no delays (years).

And this is what confirms that the blinders you have on in your hatred of the current system are forcing you to ignore the facts of any situation.

You want an ideal fix to the NCAA and their classification system. You want to rip apart the NEC for only offering 30 scholarships when they JUST STARTED OFFERING THEM! You cannot expect an institution to boost the budget from ZERO scholarships to 63 scholarships in one season. It's a process that you need to have patience with.

But, no, since it flies in the face of the "Grand Boogs Master Plan" it's stupid and worthless. xsmhx

If you're going to rip conferences for not offering scholarships, stop focusing on the NEC, MAAC, and PFL and add the Patriot League to it. Heck, the NEC offers more scholarships than the Patriot League! Your problem isn't the lack of scholarships, it's the notion that these smaller teams - the runts of yesteryear - are coming in and are ready to sit at the big kids table.

Boogs, you belong to the Old Guard notions more than anyone else on this message board.

By the way, neither Stony Brook nor Austin Peay are offering 63 scholarships. Stony Brook - a state school with state support - is offering 40 MAX right now.

[Dane96]

WHile I agree with your premise, the PL offers more scholarships...in MONEY that is.

The top teams in the PL spend multi-millions. That being said, the top 4 teams in the NEC would be solid, week in and week out in the NEC. The PL and NEC are nearly similar at this point.

[Dane96]

BTW...if this goes down...expect Stony Brook to be thinking differently. The President, if I understand correctly, is leaving...and that free flowing $$$ wont be around for athletics much longer.

If the NEC shoots to 45...I would expect the Brook to come back home.

[rmutv]

WHile I agree with your premise, the PL offers more scholarships...in MONEY that is.

The top teams in the PL spend multi-millions. That being said, the top 4 teams in the NEC would be solid, week in and week out in the NEC. The PL and NEC are nearly similar at this point.

Yeah, I'm well aware of that. Just using the fact that the Patriot League doesn't offer "scholarships" as evidence that financing and fielding a football team isn't as cut and dry as it seems to Boogs.

[BigApp]

The NCAA is also looking into adding 2 more bowl games...

[grizband]

Why do we automatically assume that if the playoffs are expanded to 18 teams, that the bids will go to a "mid-major' team? Couldn't these spots just as easily go to another SoCon, CAA, Gateway, Southland or Big Sky team? Sure, some seasons there may not be a worthy candidate from one of the big conferences, but this season already it appears the Gateway has 3 playoff worthy teams, the CAA has at least 4 potential teams, and the Big Sky has at least two. Opening up two more playoff spots might give the mid-majors a chance at the playoffs, but it doesn't automatically guarantee the spot to them.

[aust42]

Word from NEC officials is the NCAA committee this week voted to approve expansion of the FCS playoffs to 18 teams for 2008! It is assumed this will be in the form of 2 PIGs before the first round.

Expect to hear more deatils soon!

I just woke up not too long ago and haven't had any coffee yet but expanding to 18 teams would leave 9 teams in the 2nd round. I would think any expansion would have to leave us with an even # of teams in the 2nd round and so on. Until I see something official this is all speculation anyway. I think 16 teams is plenty enough IMO.

[rmutv]

I just woke up not too long ago and haven't had any coffee yet but expanding to 18 teams would leave 9 teams in the 2nd round. I would think any expansion would have to leave us with an even # of teams in the 2nd round and so on. Until I see something official this is all speculation anyway. I think 16 teams is plenty enough IMO.

There would be two play-in-games using the last four teams in (15-16-17-18). The winners of those two games would be 15 and 16 in the bracket for the playoffs, which would then continue as normal.

[TexasTerror]

There would be two play-in-games using the last four teams in (15-16-17-18). The winners of those two games would be 15 and 16 in the bracket for the playoffs, which would then continue as normal.

Essentially, the NCAA is allowing the OVC a chance to win a playoff game, am I right?

[aust42]

There would be two play-in-games using the last four teams in (15-16-17-18). The winners of those two games would be 15 and 16 in the bracket for the playoffs, which would then continue as normal.

That makes sense but adding an extra week of playoffs would put the Championship game over the Christmas weekend. That would prevent many fans from traveling to Chattanooga. Scheduling the 1AA Championship past the Christmas weekend would conflict with the major bowl games being played. I don't see it happening unless they start the season earlier.

[Boogs]

And this is what confirms that the blinders you have on in your hatred of the current system are forcing you to ignore the facts of any situation.

You want an ideal fix to the NCAA and their classification system.

Under my system, I'd have the general male enrollment in grades soph. to senior at the school in the prior year, plus athletic scholarships, plus equivalencies in the current year, ... as factors in a formula that would determine which classification the school competes in football for the current year.

What's the problem?


You want to rip apart the NEC for only offering 30 scholarships when they JUST STARTED OFFERING THEM! You cannot expect an institution to boost the budget from ZERO scholarships to 63 scholarships in one season. It's a process that you need to have patience with.

I applaud the effort and spreading the wealth (I assume this comes from private funding) but I don't buy your line of reasoning.

As soon as you get high number schollies you get bumped up to the next classification.


But, no, since it flies in the face of the "Grand Boogs Master Plan" it's stupid and worthless. xsmhx

You're fearful that if a plan such as I proposed ever took place, Robert Morris would be Div. II in football and that scares the hell out of you.

What's the big deal? When you finally meet the criteria you move up.


If you're going to rip conferences for not offering scholarships, stop focusing on the NEC, MAAC, and PFL and add the Patriot League to it. Heck, the NEC offers more scholarships than the Patriot League!

Equivalencies count as athletic deals in my plan. We know that because the Patriot League doesn't appear on Don's or the TSN's mid-major poll.


Your problem isn't the lack of scholarships, it's the notion that these smaller teams - the runts of yesteryear - are coming in and are ready to sit at the big kids table.

Welcome! Do you have the qualifications (at this time) or is this like a government program where there's token folks on the staff so-to-speak?


Boogs, you belong to the Old Guard notions more than anyone else on this message board.

You are right. I belong to the open minded, free thinking society that doesn't submit to the special interests groups when the well-being of the whole is at stake = Old Guard.

The quality from top to down in each category is at stake. The lines are blurred and that sucks.


By the way, neither Stony Brook nor Austin Peay are offering 63 scholarships. Stony Brook - a state school with state support - is offering 40 MAX right now.

They may be Div. II in my plan as well.

Time for some coffee. xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Why do we automatically assume that if the playoffs are expanded to 18 teams, that the bids will go to a "mid-major' team? Couldn't these spots just as easily go to another SoCon, CAA, Gateway, Southland or Big Sky team? Sure, some seasons there may not be a worthy candidate from one of the big conferences, but this season already it appears the Gateway has 3 playoff worthy teams, the CAA has at least 4 potential teams, and the Big Sky has at least two. Opening up two more playoff spots might give the mid-majors a chance at the playoffs, but it doesn't automatically guarantee the spot to them.

Because that is what the source has intimated. Pretty reliable source.

[BigApp]

I don't like the idea of playoff expansion. However, I could live with it if these Play-in games are the weekend of Thanksgiving, giving the better teams a week off.

That, essentially, gives teams an extra week to rest/heal. Too, it places a little more emphasis on teams scheduling a regular season game the week BEFORE T-giving weekend.

No team is going to want to take 2 weeks off before starting the playoffs.

[BigApp]

One more way I could stomach it:

IF they tied playoff eligibility to a minimum number of scholarships, say 50-55.

[Boogs]

One more way I could stomach it:

IF they tied playoff eligibility to a minimum number of scholarships, say 50-55.

That's a great idea for teams in transition going down in category under my plan.

[danefan]

One more way I could stomach it:

IF they tied playoff eligibility to a minimum number of scholarships, say 50-55.

I don't think you'll get much of an argument against that from the Albany guys. That's a reason for the NEC to push up the scholarship initiative. If that happens and the NEC doesn't follow, expect teams like Central Conn, Albany and Monmouth to bolt pretty fast.

You might get an argument by some of the Patriot League guys.

Maybe I'm confused, but isn't Thanksgiving weekend usually off for most teams (in between season and playoffs)? If you make the play-in game, you lose that week off. Maybe its naivety, but I don't see how that changes anything for those not in the play-in games.

[danefan]

That's a great idea for teams in transition going down in category under my plan.

Boogs,
I agree with you in some respects. I don't think teams should be forced to play Div. I football. The MAAC and bottom end of both the NEC and PFL are prime examples thereof.

But there are some great arguments for it, namely the unequal funding a Div III football team with a Div I basketball counterpart would have.

[rmutv]

Under my system, I'd have the general male enrollment in grades soph. to senior at the school in the prior year, plus athletic scholarships, plus equivalencies in the current year, ... as factors in a formula that would determine which classification the school competes in football for the current year.

What's the problem?



The problem is that your plan create too much fluctuation in a school's classification. That is something that the NCAA doesn't want, as evidenced by the fact that the NCAA put a moratorium on teams moving up to FBS football. It was creating an influx of teams moving up and a lot of jumbled conferences, creating schedule headaches.

Football is not an isolated program at any school. It is one part of a grander athletic plan set forth by that particular school and athletic department. You want to isolate it, and every other sport apparently, by determining individually which classification each sport fits in to. That wreaks havoc on finances, scheduling, and travel and those reasons are why the NCAA has every school in one classification.

[Boogs]

Boogs,
I agree with you in some respects. I don't think teams should be forced to play Div. I football. The MAAC and bottom end of both the NEC and PFL are prime examples thereof.

But there are some great arguments for it, namely the unequal funding a Div III football team with a Div I basketball counterpart would have.

Explain what you mean. If the basketball folks don't give aid to their football students how does that matter?

[Dane96]

It is a recruiting advantage according to the NCAA. If you dont know the reasoning, you should probably research all the articles and issues revolving around the DIII and DI classification PRIOR to making a grand master plan.

[Boogs]

The problem is that your plan create too much fluctuation in a school's classification. That is something that the NCAA doesn't want, as evidenced by the fact that the NCAA put a moratorium on teams moving up to FBS football. It was creating an influx of teams moving up and a lot of jumbled conferences, creating schedule headaches.

Football is not an isolated program at any school. It is one part of a grander athletic plan set forth by that particular school and athletic department. You want to isolate it, and every other sport apparently, by determining individually which classification each sport fits in to. That wreaks havoc on finances, scheduling, and travel and those reasons are why the NCAA has every school in one classification.

Minor details. We have to agree on principle first.

A simple 5 year average of those 3 variables being tracked determines your classification.

Again, we have to agree on principle before coming up with something that is exact and doable and in writing and measurable, and ...most important effective.

You are biased and still fearful about the Div. II thing in the short-term for your school.

[TheValleyRaider]

One more way I could stomach it:

IF they tied playoff eligibility to a minimum number of scholarships, say 50-55.

I really don't see why it matters. There's no iron law that says giving scholarships (or equivalencies) makes you a better team than one that does not. Will the National Title really mean less if a non-scholarship program, or one with less than say 50 schollys/equivalencies makes the postseason? I just don't see it, and I'm not sure where this idea that not giving out scholarships makes one an unworthy program comes from.

[BigApp]

isn't Thanksgiving weekend usually off for most teams (in between season and playoffs)? If you make the play-in game, you lose that week off. Maybe its naivety, but I don't see how that changes anything for those not in the play-in games.

The 16 teams selected for the playoffs begin the road to Chattanooga that weekend.

So you are correct, for 100 or so teams not in the playoffs, they are off that weekend xsmiley_wix

[Boogs]

I really don't see why it matters. There's no iron law that says giving scholarships (or equivalencies) makes you a better team than one that does not. Will the National Title really mean less if a non-scholarship program, or one with less than say 50 schollys/equivalencies makes the postseason? I just don't see it, and I'm not sure where this idea that not giving out scholarships makes one an unworthy program comes from.

Then do it my way if it doesn't matter to you, ok?

[UMass922]

Math: 122 - 8 (Ivy League) - 4 (MAAC) - 7 (NEC) - 8 (PFL) -10 (SWAC) = 85 deserving teams (using 2007 data of course)

18/85 = 21% of the teams in a pool of bonafide teams make the playoffs. That's roughly 1 out of 5.

Do we want to go that route?

I, for one, do. I don't think 21% is an unreasonable percentage at all--if anything, it's still not enough. If any sport demands as inclusive a playoff field as possible, it's college football.

Consider: how many of the 84 other teams does a typical FCS team play in a season? Nine, ten? Eleven at most? College football schedules are unavoidably unbalanced and largely uncomparable. It's only with an educated guess at best that we can say one team's 9-2 is clearly better than another team's 7-4.And even when SOS formulas and power rankings suggest that the seven-win team might just be as good as, or better than, its nine-win counterpart, a lot of people are troubled by the idea of a seven-win team "watering down" the playoff field.

My view is that, given how short the college football regular season is--given, that is, how relatively few of the 84 any one team has the opportunity to play (10-15%)--it's not at all unreasonable to let in as many teams as is feasible. One of the purposes of the playoff should be to sort out the uncertainties that an unavoidably inadequate regular season leaves us. So I think that the playoff field should be as large as is workable, feasible, logistically possible, etc.

So, if a four-week playoff is all that's feasible (as may very well be the case), then the field should be 16, as we have now. But if it's determined that a five-week playoff is feasible (and clearly there's a lot of debate over this, and I don't have the answer myself), then I would have no problem with a 24- or even 32-team field. If every seven-win team were to get in--and even, in certain years, one or two 6-5 teams that played very challenging schedules--I'd be ok with that. I suspect, though, that I'm in the minority on this one. Oh well.

[Boogs]

It is a recruiting advantage according to the NCAA. If you dont know the reasoning, you should probably research all the articles and issues revolving around the DIII and DI classification PRIOR to making a grand master plan.

Answer my question. I know of one isolated school that fits that criteria.

Can you name at least 5 schools with basketball in the black (very black/huge $$$ generated) that are non-scholarship in football that subsidize all of the department's sports programs using basketball funding?

That knee-jerk basketball ruling that created I-AA mid-major made matters worse in blurring the line in categorizing schools in division assignments.

[TheValleyRaider]

Then do it my way if it doesn't matter to you, ok?

You're missing my point. You seem to believe that not giving out scholarships makes a team inherently inferior and therefore undeserving of Division I status, while I think that's total nonsense. I was responding to the belief that a team should give some minimum of money to its players in order to be considered eligible for a National Championship, which I also happen to think is total nonsense.

None of you have managed to answer my question: Why does it matter if a team doesn't give scholarships?

[rmutv]

Answer my question. I know of one isolated school that fits that criteria.

Can you name at least 5 schools with basketball in the black (very black/huge $$$ generated) that are non-scholarship in football that subsidize all of the department's sports programs using basketball funding?

No school subsidizes all of the department's programs with one sport. But the following schools are non-scholarship/partial scholarship in football and have had recent success in basketball: Butler, Dayton, Drake, Duquesne, Marist, Iona, Monmouth, Central Connecticut State, Albany, Robert Morris, and Sacred Heart.

[rmutv]

None of you have managed to answer my question: Why does it matter if a team doesn't give scholarships?

It doesn't.

[danefan]

Answer my question. I know of one isolated school that fits that criteria.

Can you name at least 5 schools with basketball in the black (very black/huge $$$ generated) that are non-scholarship in football that subsidize all of the department's sports programs using basketball funding?

It has less to do with funding as it does with facilities and the distinct recruiting advantage. Do a search on the "Dayton Rule" and see why it was implemented and the people who supported it. I don't agree with it as a flat out rule, but I can see why people do.

[TheValleyRaider]

It doesn't.

Exactly xthumbsupx

..and I'm pretty sure you can add Georgetown to your list, as they are pretty low on the number of equivalencies they offer, I believe. The Hoyas' round-ball success I think outshines any of the sides you mentioned as well.

[Boogs]

You're missing my point. You seem to believe that not giving out scholarships makes a team inherently inferior and therefore undeserving of Division I status, while I think that's total nonsense. I was responding to the belief that a team should give some minimum of money to its players in order to be considered eligible for a National Championship, which I also happen to think is total nonsense.

None of you have managed to answer my question: Why does it matter if a team doesn't give scholarships?

Apparently you want all 400+ NCAA football schools to be in the same category?

Divisions are setup to create competitive matchups. The best way to do that fairly is male enrollment, scholarships, and equivalencies.

[Dane96]

Answer my question. I know of one isolated school that fits that criteria.

Can you name at least 5 schools with basketball in the black (very black/huge $$$ generated) that are non-scholarship in football that subsidize all of the department's sports programs using basketball funding?

That knee-jerk basketball ruling that created I-AA mid-major made matters worse.

I have no desire to do so, because, quite frankly, it is not you or I to decide...it is the NCAA. Further, it was not simply a basketball decision...it was an all sport decision. But I guess you knew that. I guess you knew of the grandfather vote three years ago that was based on lax, soccer, and hockey.

But...to amuse you here are two:

DAYTON
BUTLER

The funny thing is...ONLY A HANDFUL OF TEAMS RUN AN ATHLETIC DEPT IN THE BLACK...EVEN IN BIG TIME FBS....or BIG TIME DI HOOP...like Gonzaga.

THis has nothing to do with a sport generating revenue...

[danefan]

The best way to do that fairly is male enrollment, scholarships, and equivalencies.

But that's what we're saying to you. You're in the very very very small (one-person) minority who thinks that is not the way to apportion schools. The NCAA has decided to do it based on a different criteria, one of which is absent any special "grandfathered" exception institutions must play all sports at the same level. The small exceptions occur in hockey and lacrosse.

[Boogs]

It has less to do with funding as it does with facilities and the distinct recruiting advantage. Do a search on the "Dayton Rule" and see why it was implemented and the people who supported it. I don't agree with it as a flat out rule, but I can see why people do.

And the good that came from that exceeded the good that would have come if the D1 basketball rule was not in effect ... or refined?

St. Peter's football (and their friends) was the result.

[danefan]

And the good that came from that exceeded the good that would have come if the D1 basketball rule was not in effect ... or refined?

St. Peter's football (and their friends) was the result.

I agree that as a blanket rule it simply doesn't work. But it does have its merits. There is no telling how many DIII national championships Dayton would have had they not been forced to DI football. Maybe that's fine, but according the NCAA its not. After all that's who makes the rules, not us.

You can run a search here and see that I think certain teams should be able to elect to play DII football and DI basketball. But it should have nothing to do with enrollment and it should be a competitive choice.

[Dane96]

Apparently you want all 400+ NCAA football schools to be in the same category?

Divisions are setup to create competitive matchups. The best way to do that fairly is male enrollment, scholarships, and equivalencies.

So how do you explain wins over Delaware, Georgia Southern, Lehigh, Colgate, etc...and close games against Top 25 teams.

Even in down years, if financials had everything to do with it...the NEC teams would be getting pasted left and right. Same with Drake, Dayton, etc.

BOOGS...you should lay off the pipe...considering that Richmond was considering a non-scholly/grant-in-aid move as of a year or two ago (PL move).

Your avatar indicates you support Richmond.

[Boogs]

But that's what we're saying to you. You're in the very very very small (one-person) minority who thinks that is not the way to apportion schools. The NCAA has decided to do it based on a different criteria, one of which is absent any special "grandfathered" exception institutions must play all sports at the same level. The small exceptions occur in hockey and lacrosse.

...and sure enough a bunch of schools found loopholes and blurred the categories.

Thanks for doing that.

The solution should be viewed in the entire picture. Which is the better format?

I say my plan is the lesser of the two evils.

[Dane96]

LOOPHOLES? These schools had been playing hockey and lax when there was still a COLLEGE DIVISION.

There were no loopholes...hence the term grandfather clause. Why dont you look up that definition while your looking up all the other things we are spoon feeding you.

It doesnt matter WHAT YOUR PLAN IS. You are not on the competition committee...so your opinion is meaningless...but to hear your own words.

[danefan]

...and sure enough a bunch of schools found loopholes and blurred the categories.



What loopholes and what category is blurred? NCAA rules states that Division I schools have to play Division I football. There is no requirement of scheduling, or funding, or anything.

[Boogs]

So how do you explain wins over Delaware, Georgia Southern, Lehigh, Colgate, etc...and close games against Top 25 teams.

Even in down years, if financials had everything to do with it...the NEC teams would be getting pasted left and right. Same with Drake, Dayton, etc.

BOOGS...you should lay off the pipe...considering that Richmond was considering a non-scholly/grant-in-aid move as of a year or two ago (PL move).

Your avatar indicates you support Richmond.

Let's keep levelheaded in the debate here and leave out the emotion. Let's don't resort to the segregation guy tactics.

22 guys vs. some other schools' 22 guys. As the season goes on the lesser schools don't have depth to maintain their success against the better teams week in and week out.

You're right. Grab 22 guys from the NFL and don't dress anyone else and them play some D1 school with 80+ players. The NFL guys would win.

What's your point?

Do you want everyone in Division 1?

[danefan]

I have to cut my lawn. Have fun guys. Beautiful day in New Jersey (if there is such a thing)

[CCU97]

The solution to much of this is to eliminate all AQs! The top 16 teams make it to the playoffs....forget what conference you play in and just win! It doesn't make since that a horrible team froman AQ league could(key word could) make the playoffs....and a good team from a non-AQ league could be left out....Just put the 16 best in the playoffs and there you go...a simple solution to a long on going problem....

[Boogs]

What loopholes and what category is blurred? NCAA rules states that Division I schools have to play Division I football. There is no requirement of scheduling, or funding, or anything.

You're just playing games now.

[Dane96]

I have to have a reasonable conversation, clearly impossible to do here. Boogs...you should hook up with FCSFAN.

I'm out.

[danefan]

The solution to much of this is to eliminate all AQs! The top 16 teams make it to the playoffs....forget what conference you play in and just win! It doesn't make since that a horrible team froman AQ league could(key word could) make the playoffs....and a good team from a non-AQ league could be left out....Just put the 16 best in the playoffs and there you go...a simple solution to a long on going problem....

But will you agree when the CAA gets 8 bids in one year? Distinct possibility.

[Dane96]

The solution to much of this is to eliminate all AQs! The top 16 teams make it to the playoffs....forget what conference you play in and just win! It doesn't make since that a horrible team froman AQ league could(key word could) make the playoffs....and a good team from a non-AQ league could be left out....Just put the 16 best in the playoffs and there you go...a simple solution to a long on going problem....


Before I go...have to say...while maybe a possibility...this does nothing to differentiate us from bowl games. Who is going to pick the top 16?

Going to be lots of pawing from team 14-20.

[Boogs]

I have to have a reasonable conversation, clearly impossible to do here. Boogs...you should hook up with FCSFAN.

I'm out.

That doesn't solve anything, Dane96...unless you have obligatory yard work, etc. that has to get done right now.

Glittering generalities don't solve anything.

[TheValleyRaider]

Apparently you want all 400+ NCAA football schools to be in the same category?

Yes, that's clearly what I'm saying xrolleyesx

Schools choose the levels at which they compete, which are made on department-level considerations. The NCAA says you can play up in some sports, but not Football and Basketball. Those have to be at the same level. So going Division I in either sport has repercussions outside of just that. By going Division I the school has stated they are willing to spend X dollars on the minimum amount of sports at that level. That's it. Nothing more. There's no rule that says a D-I school that continually loses to D-IIs will be forced to move down, nor should there be. If a school wants to be D-I, doesn't give scholarships, and manages to go 0-11/1-10 every year, what does it matter to you? Or what if they're even good, like San Diego? Does that just not count?

[Dane96]

That doesn't solve anything, Dane96...unless you have obligatory yard work, etc. that has to get done right now.

Glittering generalities don't solve anything.

I have a life.

And stop using deep sounding phrases to lend credibility to your inane arguments.

My three degrees are not impressed by your use of grammar, phrases, and especially not of your knowledge of FCS football.

[rmutv]

Apparently you want all 400+ NCAA football schools to be in the same category?

Divisions are setup to create competitive matchups. The best way to do that fairly is male enrollment, scholarships, and equivalencies.

You keep talking about male enrollment. What about female enrollment? What about female programs? You could have a D-1 men's basketball program, a D-2 women's basketball program, a D-3 football program, a club soccer program, a D-1 hockey program, and a D-3 baseball program under the same roof.

That is sheer lunacy.

[Boogs]

I have no desire to do so, because, quite frankly, it is not you or I to decide...it is the NCAA. Further, it was not simply a basketball decision...it was an all sport decision. But I guess you knew that. I guess you knew of the grandfather vote three years ago that was based on lax, soccer, and hockey.

But...to amuse you here are two:

DAYTON
BUTLER

The funny thing is...ONLY A HANDFUL OF TEAMS RUN AN ATHLETIC DEPT IN THE BLACK...EVEN IN BIG TIME FBS....or BIG TIME DI HOOP...like Gonzaga.

THis has nothing to do with a sport generating revenue...

Sooooooo...how is this a recruiting advantage? Football players still foot their own tuition? Every team has a stadium, weight room, what else? If basketball doesn't generate revenue to cover expenditures, what exactly are these phantom intangibles people seem to think give a recruiting advantage?

The point isn't bowing to the NCAA rule makers. I know they make the rules. The point is they made so real lousy decisions in making the criteria to categorize teams in their respective sports.

[Boogs]

You keep talking about male enrollment. What about female enrollment? What about female programs? You could have a D-1 men's basketball program, a D-2 women's basketball program, a D-3 football program, a club soccer program, a D-1 hockey program, and a D-3 baseball program under the same roof.

That is sheer lunacy.

Works for me.

[rmutv]

Works for me.

You've got to be kidding me. There's no cohesiveness at all.

Boogs, let me ask you...did you play a sport in college? Have you spent any time in a college athletic department? Have you followed college sports at all? Because it sure as heck doesn't appear like you have.

[Dane96]

Sooooooo...how is this a recruiting advantage? Football players still foot their own tuition? Every team has a stadium, weight room, what else? If basketball doesn't generate revenue to cover expenditures, what exactly are these phantom intangibles people seem to think give a recruiting advantage?

The point isn't bowing to the NCAA rule makers. I know they make the rules. The point is they made so real lousy decisions in making the criteria to categorize teams in their respective sports.

You clearly dont understand the financial aspects of the game. When I was at DIII Albany...we lost kids to certain DIII schools with, ahem...grants. Grants don't exist in DIII. DI schools...would have a distinct advantage at circumventing rules. Happens all the time at every level...and the NCAA curbed it in a sense.

Do your research...come back with a plausible argument...we can chat. Until then...most of us are done force feeding you.

Now...I am really out.

[UAalum72]

Let's keep levelheaded in the debate here and leave out the emotion. Let's don't resort to the segregation guy tactics.
I said 'segregate' not "Segregation" and would it have made any difference if I'd said 'separate'? Fine.

Meanwhile maybe you could explain exactly who you mean by the token folks when you said 'is this like a government program where there's token folks on the staff so-to-speak?' And try not to get too emotional.

[BigApp]

You're missing my point. You seem to believe that not giving out scholarships makes a team inherently inferior and therefore undeserving of Division I status, while I think that's total nonsense. I was responding to the belief that a team should give some minimum of money to its players in order to be considered eligible for a National Championship, which I also happen to think is total nonsense.

None of you have managed to answer my question: Why does it matter if a team doesn't give scholarships?

what's the overall record of non-scholly teams vs. full-scholly teams?

[TheValleyRaider]

what's the overall record of non-scholly teams vs. full-scholly teams?

It's not good, but then I say, so what? Non-scholarship Drake beat full scholarship Illinois State. It happens. Giving scholarships or equivalencies is not a guarantor of success. Highly likely, yeah, but not a guarantee. I don't think we should be in the business of deciding how other schools run their football programs. And if they stink, who cares? Butler losing to a D-III (for example) doesn't mean anything to me as a Colgate fan. Can we really say that by not giving scholarships, their programs are somehow not legitimate?

This is a seperate consideration from the expansion of the playoff field, which I also support.

[rmutv]

what's the overall record of non-scholly teams vs. full-scholly teams?

Since 2003:

The MAAC is 3-25, the Pioneer is 9-39, and the NEC is 11-29.

[Boogs]

When I was at DIII Albany...we lost kids to certain DIII schools with, ahem...grants. Grants don't exist in DIII. DI schools...would have a distinct advantage at circumventing rules. Happens all the time at every level...and the NCAA curbed it in a sense.

What does THAT mean?!

[kardplayer]

Since 2003:

The MAAC is 3-25, the Pioneer is 9-39, and the NEC is 11-29.

What are the stats for the top 2 Pioneer/NEC teams each year during that time period?

[Boogs]

I said 'segregate' not "Segregation" and would it have made any difference if I'd said 'separate'? Fine.

Meanwhile maybe you could explain exactly who you mean by the token folks when you said 'is this like a government program where there's token folks on the staff so-to-speak?' And try not to get too emotional.

Here's my rebuttal:

"They that can give up essential liberty are the most intelligent people of society who welcome a little temporary safety as frequent flyers who fear radical Islam at the local airport. " - Boogs xcoffeex

[rmutv]

Here's my rebuttal:

"They that can give up essential liberty are the most intelligent people of society who welcome a little temporary safety as frequent flyers who fear radical Islam at the local airport. " - Boogs

1. Your rebuttal has nothing to do with the topic.
2. Your rebuttal is not even a grammatically correct, coherent sentence.

[rmutv]

Oh, and here is my rebuttal:

"He who speaks without knowing simply enjoys the sound of his own voice and would rather speak on faulty grounds than remain silent and learn." - rmutv

[Boogs]

Gotta luv ya northeasterners! xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Gotta love a fool.

[R.A.]

Seems like an easy way to keep our at- large bids from being a part of the top 16...

[JALMOND]

Why do we automatically assume that if the playoffs are expanded to 18 teams, that the bids will go to a "mid-major' team? Couldn't these spots just as easily go to another SoCon, CAA, Gateway, Southland or Big Sky team? Sure, some seasons there may not be a worthy candidate from one of the big conferences, but this season already it appears the Gateway has 3 playoff worthy teams, the CAA has at least 4 potential teams, and the Big Sky has at least two. Opening up two more playoff spots might give the mid-majors a chance at the playoffs, but it doesn't automatically guarantee the spot to them.

Kind of what I was thinking. Using last year for example, if the 18 team playoffs were in place, I would think the last two spots would have gone to Northern Iowa and Portland State. I don't see how the NEC (or San Diego) could have argued for inclusion and one of those teams left out.

[rmutv]

Kind of what I was thinking. Using last year for example, if the 18 team playoffs were in place, I would think the last two spots would have gone to Northern Iowa and Portland State. I don't see how the NEC (or San Diego) could have argued for inclusion and one of those teams left out.

Both Northern Iowa and Portland State were 7-4.

Monmouth was 10-1 prior to the Gridiron Classic, including three wins over full scholarship teams and only one loss in a conference full of partial scholarship teams. All of their wins were against FCS teams. San Diego was also 10-1 with their only full scholly game a loss to UC Davis, but two of their wins were against sub-D1 teams.

[BigApp]

Since 2003:

The MAAC is 3-25, the Pioneer is 9-39, and the NEC is 11-29.


Why did you choose 2003?
Who were the 3, 9 and 11 against?

[rmutv]

Why did you choose 2003?
Who were the 3, 9 and 11 against?

2003 was the farthest back ESPN had stats for.

The games appear to be predominantly against the CAA, Ivy, and Patriot League. There are a couple against the MEAC, Big South, and Gateway

[Boogs]

Seems like an easy way to keep our at- large bids from being a part of the top 16...

I agree.

[aceinthehole]

Here's your official source:


The Division I-AA football playoffs will grow by two teams to 18 next season if the NCAA board of directors approves expansion at its April meeting.

One of the teams will be a conference champion and the other an at-large entry. The proposal was approved by the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet last week.

Still to be determined: how to encompass an extra week in the schedule and which conference will receive an automatic qualifier. The new field will have nine conference champs and nine at-large schools.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2007-09-25-fcs-playoffs_N.htm

[USDFAN_55]

Looks like a step in the right direction. xthumbsupx

[danefan]

That to me say no play-in game. If it truly goes to only one new conference, will the PFL apply too? You know the NEC will continue to apply as it has done annually for the past three years I think.

[USDFAN_55]

That to me say no play-in game. If it truly goes to only one new conference, will the PFL apply too? You know the NEC will continue to apply as it has done annually for the past three years I think.

I see no reason why the NEC wouldn't get the AQ. They are showing that they are willing to evolve, while the PFL just stays idle. Good for the NEC. Hopefully the PFL will follow shortly.xconfusedx

[McTailGator]

<<<<if the NCAA board of directors approves expansion at its April meeting. >>>>>


WILL NOT happen...


For the same reason they would not allow 12 regular season games, AND the fact that the routine playoff continders would rather play the 12th game for money against a FBS than play some limited scholarship school in an expanded playoff session with no monetary reward.

Count on ZERO support from the Gateway, Southern, Soutland, or Big Sky


Ain't gonna happen.

[DetroitFlyer]

Looks to me like the NEC will have their request for an autobid honored while the PFL will remain on the outside looking in.... As you might guess, I am less than thrilled with this outcome.

[DetroitFlyer]

And another thing.... How does this address the mandate to provide playoff access to all eligible conferences? Did the NCAA change its mind or did this reporter get a bad story? Something just does not seem to add up here....

[FargoBison]

<<<<if the NCAA board of directors approves expansion at its April meeting. >>>>>


WILL NOT happen...


For the same reason they would not allow 12 regular season games, AND the fact that the routine playoff continders would rather play the 12th game for money against a FBS than play some limited scholarship school in an expanded playoff session with no monetary reward.

Count on ZERO support from the Gateway, Southern, Soutland, or Big Sky


Ain't gonna happen.


Your way off on the Gateway already, pretty sure the conference wants this.


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 coaches are also behind this as well. Ed Grom the comish of the Great West was on a Fargo radio station today and he said the move for playoff expansion was largely due to the coaches wanting it.


"I am totally for expanding the field because there are so many good football teams," SDSU coach John Stiegelmeier said.

[89Hen]

Here's your official source:

Still to be determined: how to encompass an extra week in the schedule
Nail in the coffin.

[aceinthehole]

Nail in the coffin.

I disagree.

The championship/competition cabinet was the hard part. According to the NEC Commissioner it passed the cabinet nearly unamiously. This was proposal was reviewed by the FCS conference commissionsers that are "football people." They know all the difficulties and challanges ahead, and they have some ideas already. Between now and April they will have to negoiate a plan to implement this proposal. IMO, the Board of Directors will pass the committiees' reccomendation.

Also, early indications are that it will be 2 play-in games.

[aceinthehole]

And another thing.... How does this address the mandate to provide playoff access to all eligible conferences? Did the NCAA change its mind or did this reporter get a bad story? Something just does not seem to add up here....


What doesn't add up to you? Only 1 eligible conference was denied a spot, and the committe was asked to address that issue. They have a propsal to expand for additional AQs if needed.

Once the PFL applies it will get an AQ, but you have to apply first!

This is not rocket science, your comissioner does not want to participate in the playofss. Its no different than the Ivy or SWAC situation, except your conference leadership may have a different reason for abstaining from the playoffs.

[Boogs]

This is not rocket science, your comissioner does not want to participate in the playofss. Its no different than the Ivy or SWAC situation, except your conference leadership may have a different reason for abstaining from the playoffs.

The PFL management/membered schools wants MM to stick around.

Plan is to recruit new schools into the MM mix and form new MM conferences and keep the Don and Sports Network cups intact...which is the way it should be until someone gets smart and reforms the criteria for placing teams in FBS, FCS, D2, and D3.

[danefan]

The PFL management/membered schools wants MM to stick around.

Plan is to recruit new schools into the MM mix and form new MM conferences and keep the Don and Sports Network cups intact...which is the way it should be.

Incorrect Boogs. The PFL wants Non-scholarship Div I football to stick around. Not necessarily mid-major. But maybe your definition of mid-major is non-scholarship.

[McNeese72]

I haven't had time to wade through this whole string but has anybody considered whether moving the playoffs back one week would affect the SWAC??


Doc

[MSUBear42]

Why wouldn't the gateway want it? Even more teams could get in and that looks good.

[youwouldno]

Why wouldn't the gateway want it? Even more teams could get in and that looks good.

More teams get in from every conference. It doesn't help the Gateway- on the balance it probably hurts.

[rmutv]

And another thing.... How does this address the mandate to provide playoff access to all eligible conferences? Did the NCAA change its mind or did this reporter get a bad story? Something just does not seem to add up here....

All FCS conferences are eligible. The PFL, SWAC, and Ivy have not applied for the bid. The NEC did, and the Big South wants one when they are eligible in 2012 (or is that 2010?).

Again, the problem is not with the NCAA. It is with the leadership of the PFL.

[DetroitFlyer]

Maybe my NEC friends are not quite sure either.... Maybe the conference champion of the NEC and the conference champion of the PFL will participate in a PIG. The PFL has not applied for a bid, but unlike the Ivy League and the SWAC, the PFL has never said it would not accept a bid if one were extended. That is a huge difference versus the "eligible" Ivy League and SWAC.

[rmutv]

Maybe my NEC friends are not quite sure either.... Maybe the conference champion of the NEC and the conference champion of the PFL will participate in a PIG. The PFL has not applied for a bid, but unlike the Ivy League and the SWAC, the PFL has never said it would not accept a bid if one were extended. That is a huge difference versus the "eligible" Ivy League and SWAC.

And the PFL waiting for a bid to be extended instead of pursuing it could be the difference between the NEC playing the FCS playoffs and the PFL simply crowning a champion.