Change of tune?

[aceinthehole]

The most recent "CSN Way" article fully SUPPORTS the propsed FCS playoff expansion. xnodx

(9/27/07) Eighteen and I like it! http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=87791

In principle, more college football, in the oh-so-humble opinion of CSN writers, is never a bad thing.

No matter what the details end up being for implementing the expanded playoffs, there is a considerable upside, not the least being more FCS football to enjoy.

If the end result is to have every school participate in the FCS playoffs, that may only be a good thing. Even if it’s difficult to achieve, it might be more than worth it.

Yet as recently as this July, the same writers were arguing AGAINST expansion. xsmhx

(7/29/07) Tough Playoff Spot? http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86567

As much as we are loath to argue against MORE FCS football games, the logic simply isn’t right. The number of FCS teams that can qualify for the playoffs isn’t 122.

Expanding the D-I playoffs even by a single team would make the tournament field the easiest to achieve.

Do we really want to do the same thing for FCS, increasing participation so far that we get the same type of matchup?

The highest level of NCAA championship football deserves better than that for 2008 and beyond.

So my question is this, WHY THE CHANGE OF OPINION? Don't you owe your readers an answer of why you switched sides on this topic? xwhistlex

[appfan2008]

good question... i wonder why they changed... though i am glad they did! bc i am in favor of expansion!

[GOKATS]

The most recent "CSN Way" article fully SUPPORTS the propsed FCS playoff expansion. xnodx

(9/27/07) Eighteen and I like it! http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=87791


Yet as recently as this July, the same writers were arguing AGAINST expansion. xsmhx

(7/29/07) Tough Playoff Spot? http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86567


So my question is this, WHY THE CHANGE OF OPINION? Don't you owe your readers an answer of why you switched sides on this topic? xwhistlex

My opinion? CSN is totally disfunctional at the present time.xconfusedx

[aceinthehole]

My opinion? CSN is totally disfunctional at the present time.xconfusedx

I don't know what the expalantion is, but when Tony Graham of the Asbury Park Press broke the story on playoff expansion and a NEC AQ, it was poo-pooed by may posters and some "writers" here as not "big news."

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26522


To me there is a bit more hope today than yesterday for a future AQ for the NEC, true. But it's hardly the "big news", IMO, that people are saying.

-----
I have stated everything that was in the mast recent article more than 2 years before it took some in the "media" to get on board xlolx


Let's leave terms like "scholarships" "grant-in-aid" and "mid-major" out of this discussion and focus on the point of an expanded playoff with more access, period. This is not a budgetary exercise of "playoff worthyness."



Now, what is the purpose of an auto-bid? The answer is also very simple. It is to allow equal access to a post season tourney based on "conference qualification" and regular season participation in a NCAA sanctioned sport. The argument is the same for football, men's basketball, softball, baseball, womens volleyball or any other NCAA sport. It is entirely UNFAIR to deny access to a "sanctioned" conference winner in the NCAA playoffs in their respective sport. Strenght of league play is irrelevant.

[bluehenbillk]

Good catch aceinthehole.

[Grizzaholic]

I am guessing the almighty dollar!

[danefan]

My guess:

(9/27/07) Eighteen and I like it! http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=87791

Written by FCSFAN.



(7/29/07) Tough Playoff Spot? http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86567

Written by Ralph or *****


Oh wait that doesn't answer the question at all does it?xcoffeex

[blukeys]

If I recall Chuck Burton proposed play in games last year on his blog.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The "change of tune" is in regards to getting all of the teams of FCS involved with the playoffs (i.e., the Ivy League and SWAC).


"If the end result is to have every school participate in the FCS playoffs, that may only be a good thing. Even if it’s difficult to achieve, it might be more than worth it."


The number of FCS teams that can qualify for the playoffs isn’t 122. Expanding the D-I playoffs even by a single team would make the tournament field the easiest to achieve.

These quotations are not inconsistent. With the Ivy not participating and the SWAC in effect not participating, the number of teams that can participate in the playoffs is not 122, it's 104 - which doesn't include transitionals. Add one team to that playoff equation, all other variables being equal, and it's the easiest playoff to get into - one that I'm not in favor of.

However, if there is a change to get not only the NEC involved, but the Ivy and SWAC, I'm much more enthusiastic. Then the number of teams that can compete for the playoffs is 122 (minus transitionals). This decreases significantly the chance that 6-5 at-large teams find themselves in the field and/or the 4th and 5th place teams in the CAA/SoCon/Gateway.

Tellingly, in their meetings the commissioners used 122 teams being eligible for the playoffs as their numbers for participation, not 104. To me, that speaks volumes.

[DetroitFlyer]

All I am going to say is that the information published in this article concerning the PFL is not completely accurate!

[aceinthehole]

All I am going to say is that the information published in this article concerning the PFL is not completely accurate!


Ms. Viverito, however, made it clear that one of those conferences would not be the Pioneer Football League. "We are a non-scholarship football league," she said, "and we want our own postseason opportunity separate from scholarship teams. Although if a non-scholarship team was invited to the playoffs as an at-large team, they could accept that invitation."

Unless they misquoted her (which I do not believe), how can this not be a 100% accurate statement?

As a fan of a PFL team, I can fully understand that your frustration and the fact that you may not like what she has said, but it seems very clear to the reader - the PFL does not want to participate in the playoffs and will not apply for an AQ.

This is no different that what the Ivy and SWAC has said to date. Of course this can change in the future, but that news is straight from the source. What do you have to contridict that quote?

[DetroitFlyer]

The Ivy League and the SWAC have clearly stated that they will not accept a bid to the FCS playoffs, "AQ" or "at large". The PFL has stated that they have not applied for an "AQ" but that as the article states: "Although if a non-scholarship team was invited to the playoffs as an at-large team, they could accept that invitation." This is a significant difference between the PFL, Ivy and SWAC.

[aceinthehole]

The "change of tune" is in regards to getting all of the teams of FCS involved with the playoffs (i.e., the Ivy League and SWAC).





These quotations are not inconsistent. With the Ivy not participating and the SWAC in effect not participating, the number of teams that can participate in the playoffs is not 122, it's 104 - which doesn't include transitionals. Add one team to that playoff equation, all other variables being equal, and it's the easiest playoff to get into - one that I'm not in favor of.

However, if there is a change to get not only the NEC involved, but the Ivy and SWAC, I'm much more enthusiastic. Then the number of teams that can compete for the playoffs is 122 (minus transitionals). This decreases significantly the chance that 6-5 at-large teams find themselves in the field and/or the 4th and 5th place teams in the CAA/SoCon/Gateway.

Tellingly, in their meetings the commissioners used 122 teams being eligible for the playoffs as their numbers for participation, not 104. To me, that speaks volumes.

OK, let me get this right. What you are saying is expansion is good if we can also get the Ivy and the SWAC to join too, but if this is only to add the NEC then its not worth it?

So it seems you are ignoring the statement from the NCAA that this is all about EQUAL ACCESS and not about how "hard" its is to qualify for the playoffs.

[aceinthehole]

The Ivy League and the SWAC have clearly stated that they will not accept a bid to the FCS playoffs, "AQ" or "at large". The PFL has stated that they have not applied for an "AQ" but that as the article states: "Although if a non-scholarship team was invited to the playoffs as an at-large team, they could accept that invitation." This is a significant difference between the PFL, Ivy and SWAC.

OK, so back to your orginal post. What is "not completely accurate" about the PFL?

[downbythebeach]

I'd be pissed if I was a PFL fan after what the commish said.

[danefan]

I'd be pissed if I was a PFL fan after what the commish said.

Me too.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

OK, let me get this right. What you are saying is expansion is good if we can also get the Ivy and the SWAC to join too, but if this is only to add the NEC then its not worth it?

So it seems you are ignoring the statement from the NCAA that this is all about EQUAL ACCESS and not about how "hard" its is to qualify for the playoffs.

We're not ignoring that statement. That's in the article: about the NCAA's "fair, inclusive culture". We're also acknowledging that it will not be easy, and we showed exactly what some of the issues were. We also said that there was no real good basis against discriminating against the NEC, sine they beat schools from autobid conferences last year and "more resembled the auto-bid conferences than the non-scholarship conferences".

Is expansion of the playoffs and AQs worth it in a 104 team field, where 1 in 4 teams would qualify for the playoffs, including 6-5 or 6-6 at-large teams? It's a legitimate question. You could argue that if the field is expanded than the NEC would most likely get teams into the playoffs on their merits alone (like last years' 10-1 Monmouth team) and an AQ isn't necessary. And the NEC doesn't have a history of beating playoff-bound teams, something that all previous autobid conferences had before they got autobids. As great as the wins against Delaware, Colgate and Georgia Southern were last year, none were playoff teams.

The SWAC has won playoff games in the past, and Ivy League teams have beaten Patriot League teams that have made it to the playoffs and won.

Expansion of the playoffs is a good thing - if it's done right and it brings more schools into the fold. That includes the NEC, SWAC, and Ivy.

[DetroitFlyer]

Come on guys, look at the clear bias in the article.... Yeah, this is great if the Ivy and SWAC join in.... What makes you think that the quote on the PFL is 100% accurate? This "change of heart" has a clear agenda of the authors....

[GannonFan]

I'd be pissed if I was a PFL fan after what the commish said.

Yeah, but the anger always seems misplaced - the commish works for the members of the PFL - she does what she's told to do by the Presidents of each PFL institution. She's not, on her own, deciding to say these things about the PFL, she simply represents the view of the member institutions. If anything, it just appears that some fans have a disconnect with what their schools seem to want. That's where the anger should be directed.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Come on guys, look at the clear bias in the article.... Yeah, this is great if the Ivy and SWAC join in.... What makes you think that the quote on the PFL is 100% accurate? This "change of heart" has a clear agenda of the authors....

It's great if the Ivy and SWAC join since 18 teams who basically CHOOSE not to participate in the playoffs could be CHOOSING to participate, while the NEC COULD participate in the playoffs if they were selected as an at-large bid.

122 - the SWAC 10 - Ancient 8=104.

All the PFL and NEC teams can, and always could have, qualified for the playoffs if they beat playoff-bound teams and have enough D-I wins. The NEC is about autoqualifiers, the Ivy and SWAC are about participation.

[aceinthehole]

We're not ignoring that statement. That's in the article: about the NCAA's "fair, inclusive culture". We're also acknowledging that it will not be easy, and we showed exactly what some of the issues were. We also said that there was no real good basis against discriminating against the NEC, sine they beat schools from autobid conferences last year and "more resembled the auto-bid conferences than the non-scholarship conferences".

Is expansion of the playoffs and AQs worth it in a 104 team field, where 1 in 4 teams would qualify for the playoffs, including 6-5 or 6-6 at-large teams? It's a legitimate question. You could argue that if the field is expanded than the NEC would most likely get teams into the playoffs on their merits alone (like last years' 10-1 Monmouth team) and an AQ isn't necessary. And the NEC doesn't have a history of beating playoff-bound teams, something that all previous autobid conferences had before they got autobids. As great as the wins against Delaware, Colgate and Georgia Southern were last year, none were playoff teams.

The SWAC has won playoff games in the past, and Ivy League teams have beaten Patriot League teams that have made it to the playoffs and won.

Expansion of the playoffs is a good thing - if it's done right and it brings more schools into the fold. That includes the NEC, SWAC, and Ivy.

LFN - OK, fair enough xthumbsupx

I appluad the most recent article, I do wish certain unamed FCS supporters would have seen the light 2 years ago and been more open to the concept of equal access that I and others posted. Finally, I agree, expansion won't be easy, but it was ALWAYS worth it. Thanks for responding!

[DetroitFlyer]

Come on guys, look at the clear bias in the article.... Yeah, this is great if the Ivy and SWAC join in.... What makes you think that the quote on the PFL is 100% accurate? This "change of heart" has a clear agenda of the authors....

Drake 27 Illinois State 24

Dayton 31 Fordham 24

San Diego 49 Northern Colorado 14

Yeah, the "non-scholarship" conferences, ( read PFL ), just cannot beat those teams from autobid conferences.

Fortunately, I have been around long enough to know when personal bias creeps into articles that pretend to be objective. This is not a change of heart at all, this is simply folks that have long argued against the NCAA doing the right thing trying to put their spin on something that will probably occur in spite of their protests! If you do not think that these writers are against the NEC and especially the PFL obtaining an AQ to the playoffs, I have some land in Florida I want to sell you!

[Tealblood]

Yeah, but the anger always seems misplaced - the commish works for the members of the PFL - she does what she's told to do by the Presidents of each PFL institution. She's not, on her own, deciding to say these things about the PFL, she simply represents the view of the member institutions. If anything, it just appears that some fans have a disconnect with what their schools seem to want. That's where the anger should be directed.

Bingo---lots of these fans love to bitch and moan about the system when in fact it themselves( respective Boards of Trustees & school Presidents ) who make these tactical decisions years in advance

[Tealblood]

My remarks come from a member of the old guard--despite the fact that we may be newer at football than any school in FCS

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Fortunately, I have been around long enough to know when personal bias creeps into articles that pretend to be objective.

Irony police? Hello?


Drake 27 Illinois State 24
Dayton 31 Fordham 24
San Diego 49 Northern Colorado 14

Yeah, the "non-scholarship" conferences, ( read PFL ), just cannot beat those teams from autobid conferences.

We honored Drake Week One as one of the biggest upsets in history, on par with Appalachian State over Michigan, so don't tell us we didn't honor that enough. As for the victories over Fordham and Northern Colorado, neither are fully funded, one has never made the playoffs and one last made it in 2002. That's different than:


Nobody can argue that the arrival of scholarships made an immediate impact on the competitiveness of NEC teams, too. They showed how good they had become in a short time when their teams started making headlines by shocking teams from autobid conferences: Albany beating Delaware, Monmouth beating Colgate, and Central Connecticut State beating Georgia Southern. Although none of these foes were playoff teams in 2006, the fact that NEC teams had beaten the schools whose teams had played in the 2003 Championship game and beat the program with the most FCS Championships (Georgia Southern with six) dispelled the illusion that NEC teams weren’t good enough for the playoffs.


This is not a change of heart at all, this is simply folks that have long argued against the NCAA doing the right thing trying to put their spin on something that will probably occur in spite of their protests! If you do not think that these writers are against the NEC and especially the PFL obtaining an AQ to the playoffs, I have some land in Florida I want to sell you!

Where in the article did I say that I am against the NEC or PFL obtaining an AQ into the playoffs? Aren't we essentially agreeing that the NCAA shouldn't deny the NEC a chance at an autobid? As for the PFL, they can choose to apply if they want to, a fact that hasn't changed, but it sounds like from Ms. Viverito herself that she wants to pursue a different non-scholarship opportunity altogether.

[DetroitFlyer]

Here is my view.... The leader of the league exists so that every issue someone has relative to the league does not have to be pursued with 16 people at least, ( 8 Presidents and 8 AD's ), and maybe more if you throw in the Trustees.

If I say something to the leader of my team's league, good or bad, it is my expectation that the leader conveys my concerns to his/her employers. I also understand that the leader of my team's league will also convey her employer's vision for the league to me and others....

Leaders exist for a reason. From my perspective, taking the brunt of the complaints from the fan base is just another part of the job. I do not believe that a leader has to agree or disagree with the thoughts of fans, but I certainly expect that leader to take the fan's concerns to the appropriate people.

And yes, personally, I have expressed my thoughts to my team's AD, coach, and the PFL leader from time to time....

[DetroitFlyer]

The NEC wins cited in the article last year are no more impressive than the PFL wins this year.... In fact, the objective rankings available so far this season have the NEC and PFL rated virtually the same.... It is simply how you chose to spin them towards your bias. Look, I am not saying that I am not biased in my opinions either.... But, I am not a writer on the national stage. I am simply a message board poster, and some would say I'm not very good at that either....:D

I have just followed Ralph's writings for a few years and LFN's for about two seasons to the point that I can clearly see the bias that for whatever reason, you cannot. Fortunately, I am not bashful in pointing out bias when I see it....

And I never said that you specifically stated that the PFL and the NEC so not belong. What I did allude to was that your own personal bias clearly comes through in the article about how you feel....

Agree or disagree, I do not really care, but I will not stand by and let things slide that are so obvious to me.

[youwouldno]

The NEC wins cited in the article last year are no more impressive than the PFL wins this year.... In fact, the objective rankings available so far this season have the NEC and PFL rated virtually the same.... It is simply how you chose to spin them towards your bias. Look, I am not saying that I am not biased in my opinions either.... But, I am not a writer on the national stage. I am simply a message board poster, and some would say I'm not very good at that either....:D

I have just followed Ralph's writings for a few years and LFN's for about two seasons to the point that I can clearly see the bias that for whatever reason, you cannot. Fortunately, I am not bashful in pointing out bias when I see it....

Agree or disagree, I do not really care, but I will not stand by and let things slide that are so obvious to me.

You are horribly biased, to the point of being irrational in terms of assessing the PFL within the FCS landscape. You never address the several PFL teams that struggle to beat D-II and D-III programs, the overall weakness of PFL scheduling, and are wrong to say beating Ill St., Fordham and Northern Colorado is the same as being Colgate (been to title game) and two championship teams, GSU and Delaware.

There is no "conspiracy" or "old guard." I'm frickin 23 and have no beef with any PFL institution. Your conference just doesn't deserve an autobid and, regardless, spouting the same garbage over and over won't win anyone over to your erstwhile cause.

[FCSFAN]

The PFL deserves an AQ if they want it, and they'd get one too.

[DUPFLFan]

I'd be pissed if I was a PFL fan after what the commish said.

We are pissed. Email already sent to our AD...

Exhibit #1 why the PFL should fire her a** and get someone that will work for the betterment of the league.

[lizrdgizrd]

The PFL deserves an AQ if they want it, and they'd get one too.
Apparently the PFL will get one regardless of its worthiness. The only way it won't happen is if the Ivy and SWAC rejoin the playoffs and the Big South becomes eligible by the time the full 24 team playoffs begin and they are awarded the AQ over the PFL. Then we'll be hearing about how the playoffs should be expanded to 32 teams so the PFL can get a bid. xnodx

[DetroitFlyer]

PFL versus non-Division I:

Thank you for confirming what I said about MYSELF being biased.... I will sleep so much better tonight knowing that you agree with me....xcoolx

So, how has the PFL done agains sub-Division I teams:

2000 - 12-5, ( 17 games )

2001 - 13-15, ( 26 games )

2002 - 15-10, ( 25 games )

2003 - 17-8, ( 25 games )

2004 - 10-11, ( 21 games )

2005 - 15-11, ( 26 games )

2006 - 10-8, ( 18 games )

2007 - 16-2!!!!!, ( 18 games )

Over all since 2000: 92-68.

Yeah, the 2007 version of the PFL has not improved at all.... We just cannot seem to beat those pesky, lower division teams.... I do in fact address issues of this nature on other boards, but I'm certainly not going to come on here and air out the PFL's dirty laundry.... There are far too many posters here already who enjoy taking care of that activity!!!!!

[lizrdgizrd]

PFL versus non-Division I:

Thank you for confirming what I said about MYSELF being biased.... I will sleep so much better tonight knowing that you agree with me....xcoolx

So, how has the PFL done agains sub-Division I teams:

2000 - 12-5, ( 17 games )

2001 - 13-15, ( 26 games )

2002 - 15-10, ( 25 games )

2003 - 17-8, ( 25 games )

2004 - 10-11, ( 21 games )

2005 - 15-11, ( 26 games )

2006 - 10-8, ( 18 games )

2007 - 16-2!!!!!, ( 18 games )

Over all since 2000: 92-68.

Yeah, the 2007 version of the PFL has not improved at all.... We just cannot seem to beat those pesky, lower division teams.... I do in fact address issues of this nature on other boards, but I'm certainly not going to come on here and air out the PFL's dirty laundry.... There are far too many posters here already who enjoy taking care of that activity!!!!!
Good job on taking care of the little guys. xthumbsupx
Now you just need to stop scheduling 18-26 games per season with them. xnonono2x

[Model Citizen]

The PFL deserves an AQ if they want it, and they'd get one too.

You are correct, based on a comparison of NEC & PFL power ratings (Sagarin, for example) and head-to-head competition--especially the Gridiron Classic. However, the PFL (specifically the commissioner) doesn't want an AQ. Moot point.

[DetroitFlyer]

And another thing.... GSU, Delaware and Colgate last year were not any better than Ilinois State, Northern Colorado and Fordham appear to be this year so far.... Last year's NEC wins were over teams that had a horrible 2006 seasons. It is not like the NEC beat a bunch of teams that qualified for the playoffs for crying out loud. I guess that you manage to conveniently forget that the PFL Champion easily handled the NEC Champion, on the NEC Champion's home field last year as well.... Talk about bias. The PFL today is absolutely on a par with the NEC, by any way you can possibly choose to measure it.... Sorry to burst your bubble!

[FCSFAN]

Apparently the PFL will get one regardless of its worthiness. The only way it won't happen is if the Ivy and SWAC rejoin the playoffs and the Big South becomes eligible by the time the full 24 team playoffs begin and they are awarded the AQ over the PFL. Then we'll be hearing about how the playoffs should be expanded to 32 teams so the PFL can get a bid. xnodxI said they deserve one because they are eligible, same as the NEC. The only way they won't get one is if they don't ask. How good conferences are does not matter to the Committee these days.

[Dane96]

The "change of tune" is in regards to getting all of the teams of FCS involved with the playoffs (i.e., the Ivy League and SWAC).





These quotations are not inconsistent. With the Ivy not participating and the SWAC in effect not participating, the number of teams that can participate in the playoffs is not 122, it's 104 - which doesn't include transitionals. Add one team to that playoff equation, all other variables being equal, and it's the easiest playoff to get into - one that I'm not in favor of.

However, if there is a change to get not only the NEC involved, but the Ivy and SWAC, I'm much more enthusiastic. Then the number of teams that can compete for the playoffs is 122 (minus transitionals). This decreases significantly the chance that 6-5 at-large teams find themselves in the field and/or the 4th and 5th place teams in the CAA/SoCon/Gateway.

Tellingly, in their meetings the commissioners used 122 teams being eligible for the playoffs as their numbers for participation, not 104. To me, that speaks volumes.


Ok, then by that logic, what happened when PL finally got its bid to the playoffs. You do know that while the total number of playoff spots did not increase, the PL's bid for an automatic came at a time when there were LESS than 104 eligible teams...and transitionals.

Techinically, the road to the playoffs were EASIER when the PL got its bid...the now, if you want to play the total pct. game.

Adding two spots...is not an issue. We're not talking about 24 now...but 18.

The point is ACCESS. Period.

[FCSFAN]

You do know that while the total number of playoff spots did not increase, the PL's bid for an automatic came at a time when there were LESS than 104 eligible teams...and transitionals.How many were there? There were 121 teams total.

[citdog]

fcsfan check your pm

[Dane96]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but how could there have been 121 teams? I know there were some teams that have moved on, but in 1997, the number was less than 103. It is less than 103 because A) the schools which have moved up (the past few years and in the late 90's); and B) because the 121 number fails to take off the SWAC and IVY (unless the SWAC didnt have the playoff game back then...not sure).

What were the actual numbers of eligible teams in 1997. IF i had to guess...it is less than 103. Now we have 2 more slots...and more teams that will be eligible than in 1997. The numbers, at best for LFN's argument, are exactly the same.

It is not watering down what wasnt already watered down.

[Dane96]

And I should not use the word eligible...I should use the work particpate...since the SWAC and IVY are eligible but refuse to participate.

[FCSFAN]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but how could there have been 121 teams?The Atlantic Ten Conference
Boston Univ
Villanova
Delaware
Northeastern
Richmond
New Hampshire
William & Mary
Connecticut
James Madison
Maine
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
The Big Sky Conference
E. Washington
Montana
Montana St.
N. Arizona
Weber St.
CS Northridge
Portland St.
Idaho St.
Sacramento St.
The Gateway Athletic Conference
W. Illinois
N. Iowa
Youngstown St.
SW Missouri St.
Indiana St.
S. Illinois
Illinois St.
The Mid-Eastern Conference
Hampton U.
Florida A&M
S. Carolina St.
Howard U.
N. Carolina A&T
Norfolk St.
Morgan St.
Delaware St.
Bethune-Cookman
The Ohio Valley Conference
E. Kentucky
Murray St.
E. Illinois
Tennessee St.
Tennessee Tech
Middle Tenn.
SE Missouri
Tenn.-Martin
The Southern Conference
Georgia Southern
Appalachian St.
Furman
E. Tennessee St.
Tn.-Chattanooga
Citadel
W. Carolina
Wofford
VMI
The Southland Conference
McNeese St.
NW Louisiana
Stephen F.Austin
Nicholls St.
Sam Houston St.
SW Texas St.
Troy St.
Jacksonville St.
The Southwestern Athletic Conference
Southern U.
Jackson St.
Ark.-Pine Bluff
Texas Southern
Alcorn St.
Miss. Valley St.
Alabama St.
Grambling St.
Prairie View
I-AA Independents
W. Kentucky
Hofstra
Samford
Liberty
Cal Poly-SLO
South Florida
St. Mary's, Cal.
LaSalle
S. Utah
Buffalo
Charleston So.
Austin Peay
The Ivy League Conference
Harvard
Dartmouth
Penn
Brown
Cornell
Princeton
Columbia
Yale
The Patriot League Conference
Colgate
Bucknell
Fordham
Lehigh
Lafayette
Towson St.
Holy Cross
The Pioneer League Conference
Dayton
San Diego
Drake
Butler
Valparaiso
Evansville
The Metro Atlantic Conference
Georgetown, D.C.
Duquesne
St. John's, NY
Fairfield
Siena
Marist
Canisius
St. Peter's
Iona
The Northeast Conference
Robert Morris
Monmouth, N.J.
Wagner
Central Conn. St.
Sacred Heart
St. Francis, Pa.
I-AA Non-scholarship Independents
Morehead St.
Elon

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/1997/conf.txt

[Dane96]

Thanks. And I just found that the SWAC participated in 97.

So...for the playoffs, it was 113 teams...is that correct?

[FCSFAN]

because the 121 number fails to take off the SWAC and IVY (unless the SWAC didnt have the playoff game back then...not sure).You are just wild-guessing. Jackson State was the #15 seed in the 1997 playoffs.

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=82976

[Dane96]

Yes...I know...I did some research...

[FCSFAN]

Thanks. And I just found that the SWAC participated in 97.

So...for the playoffs, it was 113 teams...is that correct?There was no 7 D-I win mandate then. Anyway, there was (now I'm wild-guessing) more teams eligible.

[Dane96]

Ok...but there was no IVY...so the number is 113...correct?

[Dane96]

There was no 7 D-I win mandate then. Anyway, there was (now I'm wild-guessing) more teams eligible.

If I am doing the math right...the number of teams that got in the playoffs in 97 compared to the 08 proposal was 14% to 17%.

Case closed.

[FCSFAN]

Case closed.xnodx The PL's bid for an automatic came at a time when there were MORE than 104 eligible teams (most likely), not LESS.

[Dane96]

xnodx The PL's bid for an automatic came at a time when there were MORE than 104 eligible teams (most likely), not LESS.

Yes...I understand this...but the pct. differential of 3% is still so miniscule...and UNDER 20% for the 2008 season.

So, if the number was 14% in 97...the number of 17% in 2008...isnt so far off.

That...is the point of contention with the article. It is less than a 2 percent increase over 10 years.

So yes, since the argument is that the playoffs are watered down a bit if the IVY's and SWAC are not involved, then yes...the CASE IS CLOSED because the differential is miniscule compared to that of the PL's auto inclusion year.

[FCSFAN]

Yes...I understand this.xthumbsupx

I didn't read anything that said "the playoffs are watered down a bit if the IVY's and SWAC are not involved" but the point seemed to be about the use of percentages by the NCAA committee.