FCS expansion of playoff field unlikely in ’08 (T-FP)

[chattanoogamocs]

http://www.timesfreepress.com/images/header/logo.png

By John Frierson Staff Writer

Much was discussed but nothing was decided Tuesday morning at Finley Stadium, where officials from the NCAA and local Football Championship Subdivision championship game organizers met to exchange ideas and opinions regarding the possible expansion of the playoffs.

Chattanooga has been home to the FCS championship game for the past 10 years, and the city’s support for the game continues to grow. Damani J. Leech, the NCAA director for baseball and football, said more than 4,500 tickets for this year’s game have already been sold.

[chattanoogamocs]

Sorry, double posted.

Ok, so here's the deal. The full article is not on the T-FP website (it can only be accessed in the "full paper" mode which is for subscribers...there is partial view of this article on the front of the T-FP, but not the full article).

But...I have permission from the Times-Free Press to reprint articles relating to UC on Mocfans.com

Unfortunately, the last time I did that, I was given a copyright violation by the mysterious admins :). So, to avoid another X on my User CP, I will just give you the link to the mocfans football board, you will be on your own to find the article (note: it should be close to the top and wont be that hard to find :D)

Interesting article on expansion, option years for Chattanooga, and future hosting.

http://p197.ezboard.com/fmoctalkfrm3

[appfan2008]

very interesting... thanks for the work cmocs!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Fascinating. But who's in the driver's seat here?


Leech said the NCAA has been in contact with ESPN, which televises numerous playoff games and the championship game, but hasn’t heard back from the network about whether moving the game back would interfere with ESPN’s schedule. More than likely, he said, the NCAA wouldn’t know ESPN’s position until January.
“Philisophically, our membership supports expansion. Practically, it’s not something that’s easy to achieve,” Leech said. “We understand what Chattanooga’s issues are with expansion, and we’re also still trying to figure out what expansion would mean from a broadcast standpoint from ESPN.”

xeyebrowx

Is ESPN determining when the championship game is being played? Sounds like it to me.

[89Hen]

Is ESPN determining when the championship game is being played? Sounds like it to me.
They have in the past. xnodx

[danefan]

What expansion proponents feared the most......money issues.

[bluehenbillk]

There is a lot of logistical work to figure out if you have to change the date of the NC game. Matters a lot to the fans, to TV & to the local organizers all.

[89Hen]

What expansion proponents feared the most......money issues.
And what those of us opposed to expansion have told you over and over would be the case.

[WUTNDITWAA]

xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx xhurrayx

Keep it at 16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[danefan]

And what those of us opposed to expansion have told you over and over would be the case.

This isn't saying expansion isn't going to happen. Its just saying that its looking difficult to get it done in time for the 2008 season.

I think its pretty much a done deal that it is going to happen. The question is when.

[DetroitFlyer]

Sounds to me like the 18 team plan should go in the hopper and the 24 team plan should be worked out now. If not, the same issue will be on the table in the not so distant future.

[walliver]

Sounds to me like the 18 team plan should go in the hopper and the 24 team plan should be worked out now. If not, the same issue will be on the table in the not so distant future.

The logistical issues are the same whether you go to 17 teams or 32 teams. The main issue is moving the last 4 weeks of the playoffs back a week. This would put the Championship game into the beginning of Toilet Bowl season and well into basketball season. (I suspect basketball conflicts may be a bigger issue than the early minor bowls.) Once the last four rounds are moved back, the first round can be modified easily. Going to 24 teams will involve more expenses than 18 (unless Montana can be forced to play a play-in game:D ) So it's probably best, if expansion is required, to add teams only as needed.

[GannonFan]

Sounds to me like the 18 team plan should go in the hopper and the 24 team plan should be worked out now. If not, the same issue will be on the table in the not so distant future.

Doesn't really matter if they go to 18 or 24 - in all likliehood, the same issues that have to be overcome are the same for both. Once they figure out how to work the 18 team playoff in then going to 24 wouldn't be that big of an issue. The big issue, as it's always been, is how to fit another week of playoffs into the schedule - having the playoffs go a week earlier probably doesn't work for ESPN and runs into Christmas, eliminating any bye weeks is sure to raise the eyebrows of people concerned about the well-being of the players (both physically as well as academically) and starting the season a week earlier (which I think is the answer) is something that would need to be worked out far in advance and will have to convince people you can play football without school in session yet (for many schools).

But again, whether it's an 18 team playoff or a 24 one, those questions have to be answered - going for one plan over another doesn't change that equation.

[GannonFan]

The logistical issues are the same whether you go to 17 teams or 32 teams. The main issue is moving the last 4 weeks of the playoffs back a week. This would put the Championship game into the beginning of Toilet Bowl season and well into basketball season. (I suspect basketball conflicts may be a bigger issue than the early minor bowls.) Once the last four rounds are moved back, the first round can be modified easily. Going to 24 teams will involve more expenses than 18 (unless Montana can be forced to play a play-in game:D ) So it's probably best, if expansion is required, to add teams only as needed.


Beat me to the punch! ;)

[Retro]

GOOD! No expansion... Plenty of room for every team to earn their way...

Right now the Conferences and NCAA need to increase the money given to schools via a sponsor or a new NETWORK TV deal.. If ESPN is paying anything, then shop it around to somewhere that will and maybe increase some funding.. If you can get more money to each school at least in the finals, then you'll see more schools worker harder to play quality competition and be included in the playoffs, scholarships or not.

[89Hen]

Plenty of room for every team to earn their way...
Don't tell that to the hand out crowd.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

What's happening is that the NCAA's wishes have been laid out, and there is basic agreement that there is no reason why to purposefully exclude the NEC from the playoffs. They've essentially said "money" and "ESPN" are not good enough reasons in and of themselves to exclude them and they should be allowed an autobid.

If "16 And Don't Change It" playoff proponents are hoping that this will deep-six playoff expansion, prepare to be disappointed. Expansion will happen, and if ESPN (and Chatty, or anyone else) is firm on that date for the championship, prepare to go to the really ugly solutions like getting rid of bye weeks or starting the season earlier.

You think the NEC is going to all of a sudden not want an autobid because the schedule is pushed back a week or there are no bye weeks? The only way to stop this is to convince the NEC that they secretly don't want an autobid, and Virginia, that ain't happening.

[89Hen]

They've essentially said "money" and "ESPN" are not good enough reasons in and of themselves to exclude them and they should be allowed an autobid.
Really? Where have they said this?

[FargoBison]

What's happening is that the NCAA's wishes have been laid out, and there is basic agreement that there is no reason why to purposefully exclude the NEC from the playoffs. They've essentially said "money" and "ESPN" are not good enough reasons in and of themselves to exclude them and they should be allowed an autobid.

If "16 And Don't Change It" playoff proponents are hoping that this will deep-six playoff expansion, prepare to be disappointed. Expansion will happen, and if ESPN (and Chatty, or anyone else) is firm on that date for the championship, prepare to go to the really ugly solutions like getting rid of bye weeks or starting the season earlier.

You think the NEC is going to all of a sudden not want an autobid because the schedule is pushed back a week or there are no bye weeks? The only way to stop this is to convince the NEC that they secretly don't want an autobid, and Virginia, that ain't happening.


I'm with you and keep in my mind the Big South is heading towards auto-bid status and the GWFC is also just a team away. The playoffs can't stay at 16 forever, it just won't work.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Really? Where have they said this?

http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=87791


Yet it’s unusual to be adding a conference that has had no playoff history to the ranks of teams that get AQs. Every other conference that has an AQ had at least one of their members who had qualified for the playoffs as an at-large team -- and also had won at least one playoff game. The NEC have had no teams that have been awarded playoff selection in their short history (including last year). Why the change of heart?

"It’s not about having a team that’s good enough," Femovich said. "It’s about access to the playoffs. In other NCAA team sports, every conference that is eligible for an autobid into that sport’s postseason tournament gets an autobid."

The principle is every eligible conference that asks for an autobid (and meets the criteria) should get access, not to deny people access due to external factors that have nothing to do with that (ESPN, Chatty officials like the game on the the 18th, love of the 16-team bracket, etc.).

[lizrdgizrd]

The only way to stop this is to convince the NEC that they secretly don't want an autobid, and Virginia, that ain't happening.
Or convince the NCAA that an autobid isn't forever. They supposedly give them out every season, but it's time to pull the auto from some conference if the NEC really deserves one. xcoffeex

[danefan]

Or convince the NCAA that an autobid isn't forever. They supposedly give them out every season, but it's time to pull the auto from some conference if the NEC really deserves one. xcoffeex

That's really a short-term solution to avoid giving the NEC an auto-bid, isn't it? What happens when the Big South and GWFC become eligible?

Surely no conference with an AQ is going to allow the NCAA to take their's away.

[lizrdgizrd]

That's really a short-term solution to avoid giving the NEC an auto-bid, isn't it? What happens when the Big South and GWFC become eligible?

That's the solution to having a 16 team playoff. No one's AQ should be sacrosanct. Hell, just get rid of AQs altogether then everyone has to earn their way to the playoffs the hard way. xpeacex


Surely no conference with an AQ is going to allow the NCAA to take their's away.
Guess that means the NCAA needs to grow a pair. xnodx

[danefan]

That's the solution to having a 16 team playoff. No one's AQ should be sacrosanct. Hell, just get rid of AQs altogether then everyone has to earn their way to the playoffs the hard way. xpeacex



Why not get rid of conferences all together. If the conference championship means nothing, why even play for it? Just have all independents and allow teams to go out and create "scheduling agreements" amongst themselves. xconfusedx

[FargoBison]

Or convince the NCAA that an autobid isn't forever. They supposedly give them out every season, but it's time to pull the auto from some conference if the NEC really deserves one. xcoffeex

Yeah, I'm sure a conference will just glady hand over an autobid they have had forever to the NEC or Big South, or whoever. Dealing with ESPN would be a cakewalk comapared to that.

[lizrdgizrd]

Why not get rid of conferences all together. If the conference championship means nothing, why even play for it? Just have all independents and allow teams to go out and create "scheduling agreements" amongst themselves. xconfusedx
That's basically what conferences are for anyway. The fact that the champion gets an AQ in some of them is just icing. xpeacex

[lizrdgizrd]

Yeah, I'm sure a conference will just glady hand over an autobid they have had forever to the NEC or Big South, or whoever. Dealing with ESPN would be a cake walk comapared to that.
Never said they'd be happy about it. But if the NCAA actually started rewarding conferences for good performance by removing the AQ from conferences who have done nothing with it in several years I think it'd be a good thing.

[Go...gate]

http://www.timesfreepress.com/images/header/logo.png

By John Frierson Staff Writer

Much was discussed but nothing was decided Tuesday morning at Finley Stadium, where officials from the NCAA and local Football Championship Subdivision championship game organizers met to exchange ideas and opinions regarding the possible expansion of the playoffs.

Chattanooga has been home to the FCS championship game for the past 10 years, and the city’s support for the game continues to grow. Damani J. Leech, the NCAA director for baseball and football, said more than 4,500 tickets for this year’s game have already been sold.

Leech was a fine FB player at Princeton in the 1990's.

[FargoBison]

Never said they'd be happy about it. But if the NCAA actually started rewarding conferences for good performance by removing the AQ from conferences who have done nothing with it in several years I think it'd be a good thing.

It would be but they won't do it, every sport in DI the conference champ gets an autobid. Autobids have become a security blanket and I doubt a sinlge member school would vote to get rid of them.

[lizrdgizrd]

It would be but they won't do it, every sport in DI the conference champ gets an autobid. Autobids have become a security blanket and I doubt a sinlge member school would vote to get rid of them.
Security blankets are for babies, not college students and football players. xnonox

[Dane96]

Really? Where have they said this?


They have alluded to it in the article LFN brings up. ESPN and the NCAA consipiring, via anti-trust violations, to keep out a league via money and scheduling conferences (not at-large mind you...we all know the conferences are all eligible) would be a case I would take...ANY DAY. You have the simple fact that this is the ONLY NCAA sanctioned playoff that does not include EVERY LEAGUE CHAMP. FCS is a whole other animal that the NCAA has little, if any, control over (they approve of Bowls...but not the BCS process or choosing of Bowl teams).

Again, as always, the NEC if it wanted to go the legal route, which clearly they do not right now, would have a HUGE shot at winning an anti-trust case...HUGE! Add on the GWFC and the BIG SOUTH to that suit...and you have quite the argument.

They are not going the legal route because the need does not exist...yet! However, if the NCAA backtracks on this issue...and precludes the NEC for the 2009 season (2008 may be too quick...arguably)...bet your house they will threaten legal action.

[UAalum72]

From the NCAA online news report of September's Divison I Championships/Competition Committee budget request:

Initiatives receiving the strongest support from the cabinet include adding two opening-round games to the Football Championhip Subdivision tournament ($250,000) —


http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kW hCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVKBMpDlQwNTIQz8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9A vyA3NDSiPN8RANobkoo!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUsvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CO NTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2007/Division+I/Cabinet+asks+to+fund+football+championship+growth+-+10-08-07+-+NCAA+News

[89Hen]

"It’s not about having a team that’s good enough," Femovich said. "It’s about access to the playoffs. In other NCAA team sports, every conference that is eligible for an autobid into that sport’s postseason tournament gets an autobid."
We already knew that Femovich and the Championships Committee was in favor of it... it was them that said OK... I was talking about the NCAA governing body as a whole.

[89Hen]

ESPN and the NCAA consipiring, via anti-trust violations, to keep out a league via money and scheduling conferences (not at-large mind you...we all know the conferences are all eligible) would be a case I would take...ANY DAY.... the NEC if it wanted to go the legal route, which clearly they do not right now, would have a HUGE shot at winning an anti-trust case...HUGE! Add on the GWFC and the BIG SOUTH to that suit...and you have quite the argument.
I'm not an attorney or judge, but the fact that the NEC, GW, PFL, BS... aren't prohibited from applying for a bid (except if they don't have enough teams) makes it seem like it may not be such an open and shut case to me. The NCAA does have provisions for ANY eligible conferences to get a bid.

[henfan]

I understand the concern for equal access to the post-season. However, it's competely irresponsible to ignore the very real time/money issues involved as well. It just makes no sense to expand the playoffs without improving the whole system- financial and otherwise.

I've said from the beginning that one of the few ways we can avoid serious disruption to the FCS regular and postseason setup is to completely eliminate all FCS auto bids. A committee with no vested interest in NCAA or conferences involved would be elected to select the 16 teams most deserving of a post-season opportunity based on transparent criteria. We should revive the idea that the tournament is an NCAA invitational tournament, not a birthright.

The committee's rationale for including or excluding schools should be clear &, most of all, public knowledge. The committee would conduct a weekly poll with results made public to minimize the suprise factor on Selection Sunday. Not a perfect system, but, IMO, better than what's been suggested so far.

[henfan]

I'm not an attorney or judge, but the fact that the NEC, GW, PFL, BS... aren't prohibited from applying for a bid (except if they don't have enough teams) makes it seem like it may not be such an open and shut case to me. The NCAA does have provisions for ANY eligible conferences to get a bid.


Additionally, the NCAA is a voluntary institution. How does anti-trust caselaw address this subject.xreadx

The fact that the NEC already has access, albeit not automatic access for its champ, weakens the case, I would guess.

[Ruler 79]

If they want the NEC out make it mandatory that you need 50 scholarships/aid/whatever you want to call it to be considered for an AQ and as fast as you can say AQ it will be DOA. There are 3 teams in the NEC that do not want to anti up for 50 let alone 63. In the NEC only 4 programs want expansion, UA, CCSU, RM, and Monmouth. Trust me this is going to be a headache going forward.

I hate to say it and my fellow Dane posters have heard me say this but I AGREE WITH THE OLD GAURD. Give me 50 or give me death! 50 rides will (in theory Montana fans) allow UA or CCSU to go toe to toe with Montana!

[UAalum72]

Give me 50 or give me death! 50 rides will (in theory Montana fans) allow UA or CCSU to go toe to toe with Montana!
But it still won't get them equal access to the playoffs unless there's expansion for an autobid or another league gets denied. It would mean you're following the rules and spending the money but still at a disadvantage in making the playoffs compared to teams in any of the privileged leagues.

[McTailGator]

This isn't saying expansion isn't going to happen. Its just saying that its looking difficult to get it done in time for the 2008 season.

I think its pretty much a done deal that it is going to happen. The question is when.


Last year just over 51% of college Presidents (many urged by their coaches) opposed expansion of the regular season to allow for 12 regular season games every year if a school wanted to schedule a money game.

About 49% of schools wanted the 12 "Money Game".

Do you REALLY believe the the majority of those that did NOT want even a choice for an expanded season, and those that still want a 12th money game are going to vote to expand the season for more games that we don't make money on? xnonox

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

[McTailGator]

But it still won't get them equal access to the playoffs unless there's expansion for an autobid or another league gets denied. It would mean you're following the rules and spending the money but still at a disadvantage in making the playoffs compared to teams in any of the privileged leagues.


Get 50+ and then we'll talk...

Until then...

NO EXPANSIONxnonox

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Get 50+ and then we'll talk...

Until then...

NO EXPANSIONxnonox

This is not the position of the NCAA committee, whose opinions matter in this case and who voted that it's the existing criteria that will be used, i.e. no scholly limits.

You can also say they voted against the 12th game since they read the tea leaves and said playoff expansion is a near-certainty in the future...

[Syntax Error]

There has to be expansion. They'll figure it out.

[Ruler 79]

Most of the "Old Gaurd" does not want expansion because a 9-2 or 10-1 San Diego team or a UA or a CCSU etc would keep out an 8-3 or 7-4 fully funded program. Make a 50 scholly minimum (Is this an actual consideration? I thought I read it somewhere) then CCSU or whoever is as much a prospect for a playoff bid as an overated 7-4 Portland State or Montana State.

[GannonFan]

Most of the "Old Gaurd" does not want expansion because a 9-2 or 10-1 San Diego team or a UA or a CCSU etc would keep out an 8-3 or 7-4 fully funded program. Make a 50 scholly minimum (Is this an actual consideration? I thought I read it somewhere) then San Diego is as much a prospect for a playoff bid as an overated 7-4 Portland State or Montana State.

And again, that idea is kinda silly - I agree that many of the "Old Guard" are against the expansion of the playoffs, but not for the reasons you say. If anything, the "Old Guard" conferences will probably stand to be the biggest winners of a playoff expansion. Sure, the PFL, NEC, and say the Big South may get autos into the playoffs, but that would, in a new 24 team playoff, still leave 5 more spots, and in almost all certainty those spots would be claimed by the "Old Guard" whom you talk of. With the CAA's unbalanced schedules, you could easily see 5-7 teams from the CAA in the playoffs every year under that scenario. An expansion would benefit the existing "Old Guard" conferences much more than it would fledgling conferences. Oh, and those "overrated" 7-4 Montana St's and Portland St's would also be more likely to make the playoffs once you expand them. Be careful what you wish for. xpeacex

[Syntax Error]

And again, that idea is kinda silly - I agree that many of the "Old Guard" are against the expansion of the playoffs, but not for the reasons you say. If anything, the "Old Guard" conferences will probably stand to be the biggest winners of a playoff expansion. Sure, the PFL, NEC, and say the Big South may get autos into the playoffs, but that would, in a new 24 team playoff, still leave 5 more spots, and in almost all certainty those spots would be claimed by the "Old Guard" whom you talk of. With the CAA's unbalanced schedules, you could easily see 5-7 teams from the CAA in the playoffs every year under that scenario. An expansion would benefit the existing "Old Guard" conferences much more than it would fledgling conferences. Oh, and those "overrated" 7-4 Montana St's and Portland St's would also be more likely to make the playoffs once you expand them. Be careful what you wish for. xpeacex

xnodx xthumbsupx

[aceinthehole]

LFN - I'm impressed with your posts. I couldn't agree more.

The point is ACCESS and expansion is going to happen, period the end. The NCAA can not and will not deny eligible FCS conferences from the AQ. They have gone on record saying as much.

Some of the reasons posters here think we should keep it at 16 teams, such as "deserving" or "worthy" are not even being debated by the NCAA. That argument is simply not valid and ist time to move on.

The NEC has been banging on the door for a while, but we know the Big South, Great West, and possibly a future faction of the CAA will be at the table asking for the same thing. Its not a matter of if, but when.

--
"Old Guard" :)

I agree with much of what you guys have said regarding the implemnation of expansion. It doesn't matter if we go to 17 teams or 32, it adds a week to the season.

Yes, there are important factors to consider, such as byes, television, and venue. I've always said that implementation would not be easy at all. Expansion for 2008 is not a certainty, but I think its still pretty likely (but that's just a hunch and not based on much more).

I will say of the all factors in the way, I think toughest to get agreement on is the start of the season and bye weeks - that is the big deal breaker. IMO - the TV rights and venue are not that big of a stumbiling block.

[Dane96]

I'm not an attorney or judge, but the fact that the NEC, GW, PFL, BS... aren't prohibited from applying for a bid (except if they don't have enough teams) makes it seem like it may not be such an open and shut case to me. The NCAA does have provisions for ANY eligible conferences to get a bid.

I wrote a law review article on this (has not been published--being reviewed right now). Believe me...it would be pretty open and shut:

1. NCAA is not transparent with the auto-bid process- No way they are going to change that.

2. THE AUTO-BID process is NOT open to all-- As in the NEC has NOT been given a reason they have been rejected.

3. ESPN and the NCAA (if this DOES happen) use money and scheduling as reasons for not expanding the playoffs. For one, ESPN should have ZERO say. For two, the excuse is valid if the above two points are changed.

4. While the result is the same (a team in the playoffs), the AT-LARGE process and the AUTO-BID process are two completely separate animals. The AT-LARGE process is open to all. The AUTO-BID process, while technically speaking open to all conferences, has HISTORICALLY gone to only some conferences...and that has not changed in YEARS.

5. The NCAA FCS playoffs are the ONLY PLAYOFFS AN FCS TEAM CAN PARTICIPATE IN (this is key...in Sherman Act argument, you must prove there are no other alternatives for your argument...no other forms of recourse). The only form of recourse for an FCS league not receiving an auto-bid is to drop divisions...or move up divisions.

There are so many other arguments and facts you could toss into the pot...this doesn't even scratch the surface.

Fact is, the NCAA is not stupid...and most certainly would not want an embarrassing legal fight considering they are all about equality. IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY...a judge would at the minimum tell the NCAA to make the selection of autobids and at-large bids transparent. Or, they would say do away with autobids.

There are many reasons why this argument could, and most likely would be won.

That being said, I dont think this would ever make it into a brief...because the NCAA WILL expand the playoffs...whether ESPN or others here like it or not.

[Dane96]

Additionally, the NCAA is a voluntary institution. How does anti-trust caselaw address this subject.xreadx

The fact that the NEC already has access, albeit not automatic access for its champ, weakens the case, I would guess.

WHAT? Ummm...all institutions are subject to anti-trust law. In fact, if you mean they are NON-PROFIT...then I would agree with the title...but not the actuality-- THEY ARE FAR FROM non-profit...and is often why CONGRESS threatens them.

THEY ARE SUBJECT TO US LAWS...especially the FEDERAL CODE (Sherman Act) and this is precisely the reason member schools MUST follow Title IX.

[Dane96]

If they want the NEC out make it mandatory that you need 50 scholarships/aid/whatever you want to call it to be considered for an AQ and as fast as you can say AQ it will be DOA. There are 3 teams in the NEC that do not want to anti up for 50 let alone 63. In the NEC only 4 programs want expansion, UA, CCSU, RM, and Monmouth. Trust me this is going to be a headache going forward.

I hate to say it and my fellow Dane posters have heard me say this but I AGREE WITH THE OLD GAURD. Give me 50 or give me death! 50 rides will (in theory Montana fans) allow UA or CCSU to go toe to toe with Montana!

And I agree with this as well...I think, at the very least, 45 should be the minimum.

What is not an argument...is the arbitrary reasons the NCAA and ESPN are giving. Bottom line: If an extra week and money are an issue....do away with ALL auto-bids.

[McTailGator]

This is not the position of the NCAA committee, whose opinions matter in this case and who voted that it's the existing criteria that will be used, i.e. no scholly limits.

You can also say they voted against the 12th game since they read the tea leaves and said playoff expansion is a near-certainty in the future...



NEGATIVE...


THEY DO NOT WANT EXPANSION. The presidents say Final Exams, the Coaches say too many games.

THE 49% OF SCHOOLS THAT WANT A 12TH GAME IN THE REGULAR SEASON WILL BE ENOUGH ALONE TO BLOCK THE EXPANSION.

And we only need about 2% of the other group to block the entire thing.


AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

WANT INCLUSION.

SCHEDULE THE TEAMS FROM CONFERENCES THAT HAVE AUTO BIDS AND BEAT THEM HALF THE TIME FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEM LET's TALK.

UNTIL THEN

xnonox xdeadhorsex

[UAalum72]

Get 50+ and then we'll talk...

Until then...

NO EXPANSIONxnonox
Big South will be there by 2010. Your early-start-no-bye-week-late-final objections will still exist. What's your solution then?

[lizrdgizrd]

And I agree with this as well...I think, at the very least, 45 should be the minimum.

What is not an argument...is the arbitrary reasons the NCAA and ESPN are giving. Bottom line: If an extra week and money are an issue....do away with ALL auto-bids.
Great idea! xthumbsupx

[Dane96]

NEGATIVE...


THEY DO NOT WANT EXPANSION. The presidents say Final Exams, the Coaches say too many games.

THE 49% OF SCHOOLS THAT WANT A 12TH GAME IN THE REGULAR SEASON WILL BE ENOUGH ALONE TO BLOCK THE EXPANSION.

And we only need about 2% of the other group to block the entire thing.


AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN

WANT INCLUSION.

SCHEDULE THE TEAMS FROM CONFERENCES THAT HAVE AUTO BIDS AND BEAT THEM HALF THE TIME FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEM LET's TALK.

UNTIL THEN

xnonox xdeadhorsex

Learn the law...then we can talk.

[GannonFan]

And I agree with this as well...I think, at the very least, 45 should be the minimum.

What is not an argument...is the arbitrary reasons the NCAA and ESPN are giving. Bottom line: If an extra week and money are an issue....do away with ALL auto-bids.

I don't see any reason to have a minimum scholarship limit - if you can field a good team with less than that then there's no reason to mandate you do more - let the quality of the play on the field and against quality competition be the measure.

As for the bolded measure, I agree, I think that's the direction we need to be headed towards - auto bids do one of two things 1) they get a team into the playoffs that would've qualified anyway or 2) they get a team into the playoffs that would not have qualified anyway. Let's face it, every year there's maybe 1 or two auto bid teams that would fall into category 2 - they wouldn't have gotten in without it. No sense why this needs to be the case and no sense why, especially in the smaller conferences, that a team could be terrible OOC but then sneak in with a good conference record and the auto bid. Since games are played on campus there's no fear that without autobids people won't want to still win in the regular season and try to win a conference title - drop the autobids and see who shakes out. I'm fine with that.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't see any reason to have a minimum scholarship limit - if you can field a good team with less than that then there's no reason to mandate you do more - let the quality of the play on the field and against quality competition be the measure.

As for the bolded measure, I agree, I think that's the direction we need to be headed towards - auto bids do one of two things 1) they get a team into the playoffs that would've qualified anyway or 2) they get a team into the playoffs that would not have qualified anyway. Let's face it, every year there's maybe 1 or two auto bid teams that would fall into category 2 - they wouldn't have gotten in without it. No sense why this needs to be the case and no sense why, especially in the smaller conferences, that a team could be terrible OOC but then sneak in with a good conference record and the auto bid. Since games are played on campus there's no fear that without autobids people won't want to still win in the regular season and try to win a conference title - drop the autobids and see who shakes out. I'm fine with that.

The problem is that autobids aren't going away: unless you'd enjoy the same logic to be applied to CAA and Southland basketball in the NCAA men's basketball tournament? xeyebrowx

[GannonFan]

The problem is that autobids aren't going away: unless you'd enjoy the same logic to be applied to CAA and Southland basketball in the NCAA men's basketball tournament? xeyebrowx

Different beast - it's like comparing apples to oranges when you compare college football with college basketball. With that being said, though, and with the CAA becoming a multi-bid league in college basketball, especially after the run George Mason of the CAA enjoyed, I don't think the CAA would be hurt by losing the auto-bid. ;)

[bluehenbillk]

I think that even the threat of threatening a lawsuit would lock the NEC into a play-in game for all eternity.

[chattanoogamocs]

Just for those who are new to the board this year, I will mention again that I used to work for the Greater Chattanooga Sports and Events Committee

...and while I have not spoken to Merrill Eckstein in the last few weeks (I will make a point to now to get his thoughts), I would assume that the GCSEC board/staff is probably pushing for an earlier start to the season over pushing back the NC game.

Personally, I think the game date is pretty optimal (except for wishing it was on Saturday as opposed to Friday). I worry that....

1) If it is only a day or two before Christmas, it will not only hurt local sales, but it might also hurt from the fact that many people (fans of the final two teams) would be driving back home on Christmas Eve.

2) The current dates does not conflict with the lower bowl games and the meat of holiday basketball tournaments. I like that FCS pretty much has a date unto themselves (well, FCS and DII share a weekend)

If they keep the game date, I would definitely be more in favor moving the season up a week as opposed to the other option of eliminating the bye week.

I think the biggest reason for the GCSEC wanting to keep the original date is just simple continuity. They have worked very hard for a decade to make that date "Championship Weekend" in Chattanooga...and it has paid off with the local fans. It wasn't just a switch that got flipped, it was built over time and their is probably a fear that moving the date will lose some of that forward momentum (and we all know in football, forward momentum is critical!).

[McTailGator]

Big South will be there by 2010. Your early-start-no-bye-week-late-final objections will still exist. What's your solution then?


IF, they meet the scholarship requirments (Max and Min) then they get one of the existing open bid spots we have now.

No need to expand.

[danefan]

IF, they meet the scholarship requirments (Max and Min) then they get one of the existing open bid spots we have now.

No need to expand.


If you mean they get one of the spots that is currently reserved for an at-large, then that's not possible. The NCAA rules mandate that the field for all NCAA playoffs must be half at large, half auto-bids.

[McTailGator]

I don't see any reason to have a minimum scholarship limit - if you can field a good team with less than that then there's no reason to mandate you do more - let the quality of the play on the field and against quality competition be the measure.

I do. It's helping to ensure the quality of the final product.

PLUS, there is now way to know if a team is any good, unless they play the perenial top 16 FCS teams during their OOC scheduling.

They want consideration?

Schedule about two of these a year: Dalaware, UNI, JMU, Montana, Youngstown, App State, Geo South, McNeese...

And then throw in a couple middle of the packers from those schools conferences each and every year.

Beat them consistantly, and then wait for an invite.


Until them, we should not even be discussing this.xnonono2x

[89Hen]

I wrote a law review article on this (has not been published--being reviewed right now). Believe me...it would be pretty open and shut:

1. NCAA is not transparent with the auto-bid process- No way they are going to change that.

2. THE AUTO-BID process is NOT open to all-- As in the NEC has NOT been given a reason they have been rejected.
I can't get past the first two. The NCAA makes no comment, but the selection committee is comprised of officials from NCAA schools including the NEC. The NEC has been rejected because the NCAA felt they weren't one of the 8 most deserving conferences that applied that year. The autobid process is open to all, but not all are selected.

[henfan]

WHAT? Ummm...all institutions are subject to anti-trust law. In fact, if you mean they are NON-PROFIT...then I would agree with the title...but not the actuality-- THEY ARE FAR FROM non-profit...and is often why CONGRESS threatens them.

Not what I meant at all. 1) Participation in the NCAA is voluntary, as is the decision to join a particular conference, limit the amount & nature of athletic funding, etc. 2) No school or conference has been excluded from FCS post-season competition though, admittedly, the NEC has been denied an auto-bid request. Not sure either give you a strong case. Just curious, in all of the cases brought against the NCAA for alleged anti-trust violations, how many have been successfully prosecuted?

Besides, there are many who appear to favor expanding the playoffs to give even more access to existing auto-bid conference teams. The sticking point remains how to pull it off without screwing up FCS regular and postseason financials, making it more difficult on student-athletes, etc.

[UAalum72]

They want consideration?

Schedule about two of these a year: Dalaware, UNI, JMU, Montana, Youngstown, App State, Geo South, McNeese...

And then throw in a couple middle of the packers from those schools conferences each and every year.

Beat them consistantly, and then wait for an invite.
The Patriot, MEAC, OVC, and Big Sky Conferences are all UNDER .500 this year. By your standards they should all lose their autobid. You don't want to hold them to lower standards than what you want to hold the NEC to, do you?

[89Hen]

The Patriot, MEAC, OVC, and Big Sky Conferences are all UNDER .500 this year. By your standards they should all lose their autobid. You don't want to hold them to lower standards than what you want to hold the NEC to, do you?
Yes

1. Colonial Athletic Association (23.55)
2. Gateway Football Conference (26.27)
3. Southern Conference (27.07)
4. Great West Football Conference (27.73)
5. Southland Conference (39.61)
6. Big Sky Conference (40.92)
7. Ivy League (49.13)
8. Patriot League (49.23)
9. Southwestern Athletic Conference (53.16)
10. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (53.99)
11. Ohio Valley Conference (55.88)
12. Big South Conference (57.40)
13. Pioneer Football League (65.88)
14. Northeast Conference (68.61)
15. Independents (69.72)
16. Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (77.53)

[blukeys]

The problem is that autobids aren't going away: unless you'd enjoy the same logic to be applied to CAA and Southland basketball in the NCAA men's basketball tournament? xeyebrowx

The CAA would do just fine in the Men's basketball tournament without an autobid. The CAA and the MVC are the most competitive mid-major conferences in the country and both have been recently getting multiple teams into the tournament with much success (George Mason???)

I don't know about the Southland. Now if you want to apply your logic to a weak basketball conference the Patriot is always available. xsmiley_wix

[Shockerman]

As far as C-town being worried about low attendance if the game is moved a week back... Lets go with the simple soultion and move the game to Vegas where it belongs.

[Retro]

OK, The most reasonable solution for this is for the NCAA to change it's NCAA PLAYOFFS criteria (from half autobids and half at large) and establish new criteria for conferences to receive autobids.. Either that or these conferences play their way in with stronger schedules and wins..

1. Let's say we give two more autobids to 2 more conferences.. Ok, no big deal, but you have to eliminate 2 at large bids at the same time. Ok, that's fine too, but if that is to happen and we have some newer, mostly weaker conferences getting an autobid, then the criteria for an autobid should be adjusted.

Example: a. Conferences must have 8 football playing schools and if a school leaves the conference for another or another level, that conference has 3 years to add a new school or lose the bid... b. To receive an autobid, the conference champ must have at least 7 Div I wins, regardless if they win the conference outright or not.. If they do not have 7 wins at Div I level, then the autobid is changed to an at large for any team elsewhere..

We can still keep the playoffs at 16, but toughen the standards a little to ensure the quality of teams going to the playoffs.. That's what it's about.. We don't need 5-6 member conferences getting in with 7-8 wins and 2 wins over div II or naia teams each year..

In addition, making a conference have 8 football playing members, would likely entice conferences to either merge or change conferences thus creating maybe 1 or 2 fewer lower tier conferences, but a group of stronger FCS conferences overall... It may even create larger more regionally competitive conferences like the SLC or SOCON with some new teams who want to compete for the Playoffs while at the same time upgrading their weekly competition to help build stronger programs and draw new fans..

That is what we should be looking to do, not dilute the quality of those in the playoffs just to please everyone under the FCS label.

CURRENT CONFERENCE NUMBERS WITH WHAT THEY NEED TO GET AUTOBID :

BIG SKY - 9
BIG SOUTH - 5 (MERGE OR MOVE SEPERATELY, NO AUTOBID)
CAA - 12
GATEWAY - 7 (1 ON THE WAY)
GREAT WEST - 5 (MERGE OR MOVER SEPERATELY, NO AUTOBID)
IVY - 8 (DOESN'T PARTICIPATE)
MAAC - 4 (MERGE OR MOVER SEPERATELY, NO AUTOBID)
MEAC - 10
NEC - 7 (1 MORE, THEN AUTOBID CONSIDERATION)
OVC - 10
PATRIOT - 7 (1 MORE, THEN AUTOBID CONTINUES)
PIONEER - 8 (CONSIDER FOR AUTOBID WITH NEW GUIDELINES)
SOCON - 10
SOUTHLAND - 8
SWAC - 10 (DOESN'T PARTICIPATE DUE TO OTHER POSTSEASON)
INDEPENDENTS - 4 (JOIN A CONFERENCE)

I think it's only reasonable for teams that aren't in autobid conferences currently to consider joining conferences that already have strong football programs and autobids if that is truly something they want to accomplish, especially if they are currently in conferences that aren't strong in another sport like Basketball. Almost every current autobid conference has roome for 1 or 2 more teams not counting the teams already in those conferences that don't play football.

[blukeys]

As far as C-town being worried about low attendance if the game is moved a week back... Lets go with the simple soultion and move the game to Vegas where it belongs.

Vegas on XMAS eve??? How will this solve the problem? Give Chatty credit, they have done a good job building interest in the event. I love a good blackjack table but I'm not sure that Vegas will solve the problem.

[Hansel]

Don't tell that to the hand out crowd.

Those that don't want to dump the autobid ;)

[Dane96]

I think that even the threat of threatening a lawsuit would lock the NEC into a play-in game for all eternity.

Exactly...which is why they have been quietly doing what they have been doing. However, if the NCAA balks at this point (e.g by 2009)...I would not be surpised to see a suit.

[Dane96]

I can't get past the first two. The NCAA makes no comment, but the selection committee is comprised of officials from NCAA schools including the NEC. The NEC has been rejected because the NCAA felt they weren't one of the 8 most deserving conferences that applied that year. The autobid process is open to all, but not all are selected.

That...is COMPLETELY FALSE. The NEC asked for a reason...flat out was never given one. Ratner publicly stated that and, unless he is a liar, I have to believe him. I have heard the same story from UA.

The reason the NEC is pissed off...is because the NCAA hasnt given them a reason...because there is no good reason. It's why the committee voted for playoff expansion.

IT IS FAR...FAR FROM TRANSPARENT.

I agree with scholarship minimums...but not transparency.

[Dane96]

Not what I meant at all. 1) Participation in the NCAA is voluntary, as is the decision to join a particular conference, limit the amount & nature of athletic funding, etc. 2) No school or conference has been excluded from FCS post-season competition though, admittedly, the NEC has been denied an auto-bid request. Not sure either give you a strong case. Just curious, in all of the cases brought against the NCAA for alleged anti-trust violations, how many have been successfully prosecuted?

Besides, there are many who appear to favor expanding the playoffs to give even more access to existing auto-bid conference teams. The sticking point remains how to pull it off without screwing up FCS regular and postseason financials, making it more difficult on student-athletes, etc.

Participation in all leagues is voluntary act...including the NFL, for example. Teams could break off at anytime and form there OWN league at all levels (NCAA and PRO). Voluntary has nothing to do with it.

This is strictly an auto-bid issue...and right now...we are the only league that HAS APPLIED...that has BEEN DENIED...without good cause. There are no scholarship mandates, there are no financial mandates, and there are no scheduling mandates, that are required for awarding of an autobid.

So...one league is being excluded...one eligible league. IF the NCAA used the argument of money, tv rights, and length of season...it would be WEAK.

Most cases against the NCAA...anti-trust or otherwise, are settled.

You want to end this all?

1- Start a week early...they play games over winter break in hoops when kids are not in school; there is little difference here.

2- Mandate scholarship minimums.

3- With both those in place, the NEC is arguably a deserving conference.

I honestly don't want to hear the "we are looking after the athletes" argument. Not saying you promote this view, however the NCAA is far from looking out for kids best interests in class. Anyone who has played a sport in school knows this. Anyone who has played in the playoffs in hoops, hockey, and lax knos this.

[Dane96]

'Nuff said.

http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Mark's%20View2001/NCAANITsuit.htm

[DetroitFlyer]

Why implement scholarship minimums? Did "scholarship minimums" help Fordham when they played Albany and Dayton? Did "scholarship minimums" help ISU when they played Drake? Setting minimums is simply another form of NCAA discrimination. Maximums are OK, as they ensure that no financial powerhouse schools can abuse the system and always dominate.

For some reason, you all seem to forget why FCS exists at all.... I'll provide a remedial lesson for you, only two words, so maybe you will remember, COST CONTAINMENT! Simple enough?

If you want to play FBS football, with mandated scholarship levels and mandated attendance levels, go for it! There should not be much difficulty for a school to go from 63 to 85 scholarships. Now, finding 15,000 fans that want to watch you play.... But hey, if you play a full FBS schedule they will come, (LOL)!!

The only thing that needs to be "fixed" in FCS is providing playoff access, via AQ's for all conferences that qualify and desire an AQ.

[Seahawks Fan]

'Nuff said.

http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/Mark's%20View2001/NCAANITsuit.htm



Check out this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/sports/ncaabasketball/18nit.html

[lizrdgizrd]

The only thing that needs to be "fixed" in FCS is providing playoff access, via AQ's for all conferences that qualify and desire an AQ.
Everyone has access to the playoffs as an at-large. If your team won't schedule or can't beat quality competition then why should you get into the playoffs? AQs are only an answer to cater to the hand-holding nanny-staters. xnonono2x

[89Hen]

That...is COMPLETELY FALSE. The NEC asked for a reason...flat out was never given one. Ratner publicly stated that and, unless he is a liar, I have to believe him. I have heard the same story from UA.

The reason the NEC is pissed off...is because the NCAA hasnt given them a reason...because there is no good reason. It's why the committee voted for playoff expansion.

IT IS FAR...FAR FROM TRANSPARENT.

I agree with scholarship minimums...but not transparency.

xconfusedx What is false. I said the NCAA does NOT comment or give reasons publically. xconfusedx

[Dane96]

xconfusedx What is false. I said the NCAA does NOT comment or give reasons publically. xconfusedx

My apologies. However, I still believe you think the NCAA is ok by saying "You are not one of the most eligible conferences." I say...WHY? What was the logic. That is what the NCAA withheld from the NEC...and that is not a PUBLIC thing...it is private. The NEC has been given ZERO direction on what to do, other than the obvious scheduling. Not picking on the MEAC...but what did they do to get the bid over the NEC for the upcoming year? I think that is subjective...and SUBJECTIVITY is the CRUX of the PROBLEM when you are rejecting 1 of 9 conferences applying for a bid. Parameters plus subjectivity-- You got me. SUBJECTIVITY on its own-- The NCAA loses me.

While I disagree with the overall logic (and the courts probably would as well), I do agree with the "old guard" (I love to laught at that)-- Scholarship and $ mins should be required simply to keep a competitive balance. While they do not exist in DI hoops...the fact that all teams give more than 3/4's rides should be noted.

And yes...the IVY kids are ALL on rides...no matter how you shake it out...in hoops. Not one kid, other than preferred walk-ons, is paying for school. Not in the years I have been associated with the IVIES.

[Dane96]

Check out this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/sports/ncaabasketball/18nit.html

And there are plenty more. The NCAA is on tenuous ground with the govt at all times because of the enjoyment they receive for tax status. Very similar to MLB-- They don't want to piss the government off...and usually settle these things.

[Cranium716]

Everyone has access to the playoffs as an at-large. If your team won't schedule or can't beat quality competition then why should you get into the playoffs? AQs are only an answer to cater to the hand-holding nanny-staters. xnonono2x

Amen! The best FCS teams will always make the playoffs, always. Bubble teams who are left out should have done more during the season, one more win or schedule tougher teams. And those conferences that have clearly inferior teams should in no way be guaranteed a spot to play with the big boys. I agree that AQs are a cop-out for those people who also think that every little leaguer should get a trophy no matter if they win or lose and those people who think that everything has to be "fair."

[Dane96]

Everyone has access to the playoffs as an at-large. If your team won't schedule or can't beat quality competition then why should you get into the playoffs? AQs are only an answer to cater to the hand-holding nanny-staters. xnonono2x

Is there an argument in there...at ALL?!?! While I agree with your premise that AQ's should be gone...they are NOT...and never will be. We have to deal with what is here...not what isn't. Again...discounting 1 league of 9...is not equality when it comes to AUTO-BIDS.

At-large has never been the issue. An eligible conference getting denied....THE ONLY CONFERENCE TO BE ELIGIBLE AND DENIED...is suspetc.

Period...end of story.

Either set minimums and become subjective or do away with auto-bids.

Argument is stupid anyway-- Expansion, in one form or another, is coming.

As for the PFL...I can't listen to much arguing out of them-- Until you APPLY you have no dog in this fight. Spend the time getting your pseudo commish to step up to the plate. The support of the PFL would help the other leagues in the expansion fight. Right now...the NEC is a lone wolf.

[89Hen]

An eligible conference getting denied....THE ONLY CONFERENCE TO BE ELIGIBLE AND DENIED...is suspetc.

Period...end of story.
xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx Are you saying the NCAA should have denied conferences that didn't apply? The current rules state that 8 spots are for autos, 8 are for at-large as long as at least 8 conferences apply. When 9 apply, somebody is going to get denied.

[89Hen]

My apologies. However, I still believe you think the NCAA is ok by saying "You are not one of the most eligible conferences." I say...WHY? What was the logic. That is what the NCAA withheld from the NEC...and that is not a PUBLIC thing...it is private. The NEC has been given ZERO direction on what to do, other than the obvious scheduling.
No apology necessary Dane. xthumbsupx

But I'm not sure what you'd like the NCAA to say. 9 conferences applied for 8 spots. They are to choose the top 8 in their estimation. Other than saying the NEC was not one of the top 8, what would you have them say?

[Dane96]

No...I think it is much simpler than that:

GIVE THE NEC SOMETHING TO SHOOT FOR-- What did the MEAC do, other than offer full rides-- that the NEC did not?

Right now...the process is a faux one. You, 89Hen, are smart enough to know the politics: A BID WILL NOT BE TAKEN FROM 1 of the CURRENT 8. There will NEVER be access to the NEC as the current set-up exists.

That...is the simple point.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

No...I think it is much simpler than that:

GIVE THE NEC SOMETHING TO SHOOT FOR-- What did the MEAC do, other than offer full rides-- that the NEC did not?

Right now...the process is a faux one. You, 89Hen, are smart enough to know the politics: A BID WILL NOT BE TAKEN FROM 1 of the CURRENT 8. There will NEVER be access to the NEC as the current set-up exists.

That...is the simple point.

I'm on your side here Dane96, but what the MEAC did do was get one of their teams invited to the playoffs as an at-large team (FAMU) and win a championship.

I wholeheartedly agree that nobody will ever take a bid away from an existing conference, and think that if the issue is access, the FCS folks will need to find a way to do this. But using the MEAC as your argument is a loser IMO.

[lizrdgizrd]

Is there an argument in there...at ALL?!?! While I agree with your premise that AQ's should be gone...they are NOT...and never will be. We have to deal with what is here...not what isn't. Again...discounting 1 league of 9...is not equality when it comes to AUTO-BIDS.

At-large has never been the issue. An eligible conference getting denied....THE ONLY CONFERENCE TO BE ELIGIBLE AND DENIED...is suspetc.

Period...end of story.

Either set minimums and become subjective or do away with auto-bids.

Argument is stupid anyway-- Expansion, in one form or another, is coming.

As for the PFL...I can't listen to much arguing out of them-- Until you APPLY you have no dog in this fight. Spend the time getting your pseudo commish to step up to the plate. The support of the PFL would help the other leagues in the expansion fight. Right now...the NEC is a lone wolf.

I think it's obvious why the NEC was denied. 1) They aren't one of the top 8 conferences. Let's look at the conference GPI again for support:



1. Colonial Athletic Association (23.55) AQ #1
2. Gateway Football Conference (26.27) AQ #2
3. Southern Conference (27.07) AQ #3
4. Great West Football Conference (27.73) No AQ. Too few teams.
5. Southland Conference (39.61) AQ #4
6. Big Sky Conference (40.92) AQ #5
7. Ivy League (49.13) No AQ. They're snobs.
8. Patriot League (49.23) AQ #6
9. Southwestern Athletic Conference (53.16) No AQ. They're also snobs.
10. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (53.99) AQ #7
11. Ohio Valley Conference (55.88) AQ #8
12. Big South Conference (57.40) No AQ. Too few teams.
13. Pioneer Football League (65.88) No AQ. Never requested one. First conference out.
14. Northeast Conference (68.61) No AQ. Not one of the top 8 eligible conferences.
15. Independents (69.72)
16. Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (77.53)
The NEC is the #10 of the AQ-possible conferences.(if the PFL bothered applying).

2) Must have at least half of the playoff field as at-large. 9 AQs would mean only 7 at-larges and that's not half.

How much more clear-cut does it have to be to be transparent? xconfusedx

[89Hen]

No...I think it is much simpler than that:

GIVE THE NEC SOMETHING TO SHOOT FOR-- What did the MEAC do, other than offer full rides-- that the NEC did not?

Right now...the process is a faux one. You, 89Hen, are smart enough to know the politics: A BID WILL NOT BE TAKEN FROM 1 of the CURRENT 8. There will NEVER be access to the NEC as the current set-up exists.

That...is the simple point.
A bid will not be taken away from one of the current eight unless there is a compelling reason to do so other than "the MEAC and OVC haven't won a playoff game recently". Personally I thought the MEAC and OVC's automatic were on thin ice with the recent improvement of the NEC. But with the loss of Stony and Albany and Monmouth having tough years... IMO you've lost all that you gained in the last couple years.

[Seahawks Fan]

A bid will not be taken away from one of the current eight unless there is a compelling reason to do so other than "the MEAC and OVC haven't won a playoff game recently". Personally I thought the MEAC and OVC's automatic were on thin ice with the recent improvement of the NEC. But with the loss of Stony and Albany and Monmouth having tough years... IMO you've lost all that you gained in the last couple years.

Where did Albany go? We play them next week! :)

[89Hen]

I'm on your side here Dane96, but what the MEAC did do was get one of their teams invited to the playoffs as an at-large team (FAMU) and win a championship.

I wholeheartedly agree that nobody will ever take a bid away from an existing conference, and think that if the issue is access, the FCS folks will need to find a way to do this. But using the MEAC as your argument is a loser IMO.
I kind of agree, but honestly, the MEAC has done NOTHING to keep their auto... but until the NEC does SOMETHING to take it away.. it remains theirs.

A very unpopular statement and one that people are probably afraid to make, but the fact that the MEAC is comprised of HBCU's will help them keep their auto and the OVC is the one who would be in more jeopardy of losing theirs. Imagine the outcry if the MEAC were the only conference left out. xtwocentsx

[89Hen]

Where did Albany go? We play them next week! :)
Probably would have been better worded:

the loss of Stony, and the way Albany and Monmouth...

[danefan]

Albany and Monmouth having tough years... IMO you've lost all that you gained in the last couple years.


Why is Albany having a tough year?

We've got losses to two good ranked teams and one medicore Patriot League team. We've also got a win over the current first place Patriot League team, a close win over a scholarship team (albeit not a very good one in Stony) and a big win over a conference opponent.

I'm not saying its at-large material, but its not a bad year. In fact if we run the table I would consider 8-3 with our schedule a pretty decent year.xcoffeex

[Seahawks Fan]

I agree Albany is doing fine this year. But they haven't played Wagner yet. xpeacex

[89Hen]

Why is Albany having a tough year?

We've got losses to two good ranked teams and one medicore Patriot League team...
Didn't mean any offense... I guess I was just writing you off after the 1-3 start... compared to a 3-1 start last year with wins over Lehigh and Delaware. I would have to believe, even with LU and UD not having great years last year, that most people would view last year's results better. xpeacex

edit...

Last year after week four

Monmouth was 4-0 with wins over Fordham and Colgate
Albany was 3-1 with wins over Lehigh and Delaware
CCSU was 3-1 with a win over Georgia Southern

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I kind of agree, but honestly, the MEAC has done NOTHING to keep their auto... but until the NEC does SOMETHING to take it away.. it remains theirs.

A very unpopular statement and one that people are probably afraid to make, but the fact that the MEAC is comprised of HBCU's will help them keep their auto and the OVC is the one who would be in more jeopardy of losing theirs. Imagine the outcry if the MEAC were the only conference left out. xtwocentsx

Actually, unlike the OVC the MEAC leadership has made the occasional hint that they might not want to be a part of the playoffs. But, as has been exhaustively covered elsewhere on this thread, even if the MEAC were booted or "opted out" this issue would still be raised in 2011 when the Big South becomes eligible.

As long as the MEAC wants an auto, they'll have one.

I don't see that the MEAC and OVC champs are "light years" behind the leaders, by the way. Although they haven't won a playoff game in a while, they have played competitive games. Tenn-Martin and Hampton came very very close to breaking their conference's playoff drought last year, and '04 (W&M 42, Hampton 35) and '05 (SIU 21, EIU 6) weren't exactly uncompetitive either.

[danefan]

Didn't mean any offense... I guess I was just writing you off after the 1-3 start... compared to a 3-1 start last year with wins over Lehigh and Delaware. I would have to believe, even with LU and UD not having great years last year, that most people would view last year's results better. xpeacex

Gotcha. No doubt last year's start was better, but the likliehood of that ever happening again is slim unless we continue to increase our funding. We just can't sneak up on people anymore.

[Ruler 79]

Don't worry Wagner we will be there in 2 weeks with something to prove. You should be thinking CCSU.

[89Hen]

We just can't sneak up on people anymore.
You didn't sneak up on Delaware, you just flat out beat them. :( xthumbsupx

[Dane96]

I kind of agree, but honestly, the MEAC has done NOTHING to keep their auto... but until the NEC does SOMETHING to take it away.. it remains theirs.

A very unpopular statement and one that people are probably afraid to make, but the fact that the MEAC is comprised of HBCU's will help them keep their auto and the OVC is the one who would be in more jeopardy of losing theirs. Imagine the outcry if the MEAC were the only conference left out. xtwocentsx

Bingo-- You hit the sore spot! The MEAC will never, ever lose the bid.

And yes, while FAMU did get invited as an at-large and won a title-- That is history...almost going on ancient ;)

As for the GPI (other poster)...PLEASE...you want me to get into a logical discussion of an illogical index? THE GPI is not used solely to pick teams-- It is one of many tools.

89Hen- One last thing-- Is Albany a Top 16 team-- Heck no. Not even Top 25. Not the issue because some of the teams that have received auto-bids in recent years (see OVC, MEAC, and Patriot--Lafayette) have been in the same boat.

Facts are facts-- No AD/President is going to take a bid away from a league that has one-- Too much politically to lose!

[lizrdgizrd]

Bingo-- You hit the sore spot! The MEAC will never, ever lose the bid.

And yes, while FAMU did get invited as an at-large and won a title-- That is history...almost going on ancient ;)

As for the GPI (other poster)...PLEASE...you want me to get into a logical discussion of an illogical index?

THE GPI is not used solely to pick teams-- It is one of many tools.

Facts are facts-- No AD/President is going to take a bid away from a league that has one-- Too much politically to lose!
Dismiss the GPI if you'd like, but do you have a more objective method for comparing conferences? xeyebrowx

[89Hen]

Facts are facts-- No AD/President is going to take a bid away from a league that has one-- Too much politically to lose!
xeyebrowx Fact? Of what politics are you speaking?

[Dane96]

Oh come on 89...I think you are on the same page as me for the most part. Dont make me force feed you the political ramifications of conferences booting one which has a bid already.

YOU ARE TOO SMART FOR THAT...SERIOUSLY. Save that for guys who dont understand the process...

If you would like...I could PM you the laundry list.

[Dane96]

Dismiss the GPI if you'd like, but do you have a more objective method for comparing conferences? xeyebrowx

Ummmm....I dont have to...because the committee does not use it as a sole factor for deciding-- YOU DID!

[lizrdgizrd]

Ummmm....I dont have to...because the committee does not use it as a sole factor for deciding-- YOU DID!
I never claimed the committee used it. I used it as an example of an objective measurement of conferences. The fact is that the NEC as a conference has yet to prove that it is better than any of the 8 AQ conferences and therefore worthy of taking an AQ from one of them. xrolleyesx

[DetroitFlyer]

The NCAA has never given the NEC a reason for being denied because they would hang for it. The only reason the NEC does not receive a bid is because they spend far less than any other autobid conference. Hence the proposed "OVC rule ". This is the same reason why no current AQ conference will lose a bid. You pay your money, you buy your AQ. If you choose to believe any other explanation, you simply have your head in the sand. Virtually everything to do with the NCAA is driven by cold, hard, cash.

In 2007, due to the NEC's efforts, the NCAA has been exposed and now can no longer hide behind weak arguments. It will not stop the Old Guard from working to protect their hallowed ground via the "OVC Rule", but I do not see that avenue having a prayer of being passed....

[aceinthehole]

Guys, there is no reason to rehash the merits of this issue. One article says they host city is concered about a change in dates, but nothing really has changed.

The NCAA has gone on record saying they will EXPAND and provide ACCESS to all eligible conferences. There is nothing philosophically to debate and expansion proponents have won this battle already. We don't have to justify inclusion anymore - it’s about equal access!

The real issue is now about how to IMPLEMENT the additional spots. Do we start a week early, do we eliminate byes? These are what we should be discussing. This is going to happen - in 2008 or in 2009, or 2010 - so there is no need to fight it.

Move on, the NCAA has. :)

[89Hen]

Oh come on 89...I think you are on the same page as me for the most part. Dont make me force feed you the political ramifications of conferences booting one which has a bid already.

YOU ARE TOO SMART FOR THAT...SERIOUSLY. Save that for guys who dont understand the process...

If you would like...I could PM you the laundry list.
I think you may have to force feed me that... wouldn't an AD voting basically against the NEC have the same ramifications of voting against the OVC or MEAC? SOMEBODY has to lose on that deal and AFAIK, the OVC or MEAC reps to the committee don't carry any more weight than the NEC rep. xconfusedx

[89Hen]

The only reason the NEC does not receive a bid is because they spend far less than any other autobid conference.

In 2007, due to the NEC's efforts, the NCAA has been exposed and now can no longer hide behind weak arguments.
The rankings would prove otherwise and what happened in 2007 that I am unaware of?

[henfan]

Guys, there is no reason to rehash the merits of this issue. One article says they host city is concered about a change in dates, but nothing really has changed.

Ace, there remain significant hurdles to overcome before any final agreement can be approved by the NCAA. Let's not underestimate how these barriers might impact any final decision for or against. However, there does seem to be more widespread support for playoff expansion and at least there is now an NCAA directive for expansion. I'm not ready to call it a foregone conclusion just yet.

You're right though. It's probably pointless to focus on why there should or shouldn't be expansion. We should turn our attention more towards discussions how to accomplish expansion in a way that satisfies all involved. It's not going to be easy to pull off.

[aceinthehole]

Detroit - you don't get it.

The NEC does not have an AQ now, becasue there are 9 applicants for 8 spots. We were the LAST to apply. No one should kid themselves and think the NCAA is evaluating the strenght of the applicants. Its politics, period.

Fact is, if hypothetically the MEAC said "we're out of the playoffs - we want to compete for a HBCU championship game with the SWAC, ala the Gridiron Classic" and then the AQ spot would open up. The NEC would be in the playoffs with grants-in-aid or schollys, it wouldn't matter.

If there was an AQ spot available right now, we'd have it already! The NCAA isn't trying to keep the NEC down! They have to expand to offer the NEC and future elligible access to an AQ. Quit the conspericy theories.

[aceinthehole]

Ace, there remain significant hurdles to overcome before any final agreement can be approved by the NCAA. Let's not underestimate how these barriers might impact any final decision for or against. However, there does seem to be more widespread support for playoff expansion and at least there is now an NCAA directive for expansion. I'm not ready to call it a foregone conclusion just yet.

You're right though. It's probably pointless to focus on why there should or shouldn't be expansion. We should turn our attention more towards discussions how to accomplish expansion in a way that satisfies all involved. It's not going to be easy to pull off.

From my perspective the NCAA directive is what I've been waiting for. It clearly states the criteria and intent of the NCAA for awarding AQs. IMO that hurdle was much bigger than the implentation we now face. It took the NEC years to get that statement and the full support from all the football representaives. Remember, there is near unamious support for the CONCEPT of expansion and the directive to implement this concept. I personally don't underestimte the progress that has been made to date, but we can agree to disagree on this point. xpeacex

I fully agree with your second point, and honestly think this hasn't been discussed enough! If your boss told you you HAD to implement an extra week to the playoffs, what would you suggest? Every day at work people are asked to implment a directive they might might not agree with, but its their job to find a workable solution. xthumbsupx

[Dane96]

I never claimed the committee used it. I used it as an example of an objective measurement of conferences. The fact is that the NEC as a conference has yet to prove that it is better than any of the 8 AQ conferences and therefore worthy of taking an AQ from one of them. xrolleyesx

The word objective and GPI can NEVER be used in the same category. It is the collection of subjective data that is combined with subjective reference points/weighted factors set up by humans.

INDEXES AND POLLS ARE ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE!

[DetroitFlyer]

I get it, you are simply not seeing the entire picture. Yeah, if the MEAC decided to drop their AQ the NEC would get it by default because there is no good reason for keeping them out! Why do you think the NCAA will not provide an official reason for keeping the NEC out? Why are conferences that never win a playoff game still receiving AQ's? Why are AQ's rubber-stamped for renewal each season? Call it "politics" if you want, "politics" are driven by money. Why, exactly, do you think the "OVC Rule" is on the table? Tell me that you honestly believe that the OVC of all conferences is concerned about leveling up the competition level.... Give me a break. The OVC is worried that an "underfunded in their view" NEC team or maybe a PFL team one day, is going to win a playoff game. That looks very bad to the supporters of OVC teams. The first obvious question is why do we, (OVC), have to spend so much money on football when the NEC or PFL spends far less and enjoys more success?

[Dane96]

89Hen...I see your point about the rejection of the conference. However, I think taking away bids, opposed to not awarding a NEW one, will have a more significant effect on football, hoop, and olympic sport scheduling than vice versa.

Just my opinion.

[henfan]

Every day at work people are asked to implment a directive they might might not agree with, but its their job to find a workable solution. xthumbsupx

Absolutely, though I don't think original position to the measure is what is bound to get in the way; it will be practicality. This thing may yet get done, but I've yet to hear a good way to make it happen without complete disruption to the regular or post-seasons.

I'm content to let brighter minds sort it out, since simple elimination of all autobids doesn't seem to be in the offing.

[89Hen]

89Hen...I see your point about the rejection of the conference. However, I think taking away bids, opposed to not awarding a NEW one, will have a more significant effect on football, hoop, and olympic sport scheduling than vice versa.

Just my opinion.
But who would that affect negatively? If a SoCon AD voted for the NEC as opposed to the OVC or MEAC... honestly, what kind of repurcussions would there be?

[89Hen]

Why are conferences that never win a playoff game still receiving AQ's? Why are AQ's rubber-stamped for renewal each season?
Ahhh, the illogical arguement finally rears its ugly head. The NEC doesn't deserve a bid because the OVC or MEAC hasn't won recently... and just because the NCAA didn't choose the NEC the one year they applied means the AQ's are rubber stamped? xconfusedx xrolleyesx xcoolx

[lizrdgizrd]

The word objective and GPI can NEVER be used in the same category. It is the collection of subjective data that is combined with subjective reference points/weighted factors set up by humans.

INDEXES AND POLLS ARE ALWAYS SUBJECTIVE!
Well, when you can come up with a less subjective way to compare entire conferences, you let me know. xpeacex

[Dane96]

Again...it doesnt matter because the only subjectivity is in the minds of the Committee...and they use various subjective measures.

Fact is, you brought up GPI to defend your point when, in fact, it is far from the only tool used.

[lizrdgizrd]

Again...it doesnt matter because the only subjectivity is in the minds of the Committee...and they use various subjective measures.

Fact is, you brought up GPI to defend your point when, in fact, it is far from the only tool used.
I think it's obvious that the NEC isn't sufficiently better (if at all) than the MEAC or OVC to warrant them getting one of the 8 AQs. The GPI is one widely available measure (and easily quotable from 89Hen xsmiley_wix ) that supports my point. If you can find something that refutes my point, I'd be willing to view such information. xpeacex

[GannonFan]

GPI???? Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

:p

[bluehenbillk]

Dismiss the GPI if you'd like, but do you have a more objective method for comparing conferences? xeyebrowx

The toilet paper in my bathroom & a marker are more objective resources. Sticking up for the GPI?? xnonox xnonox 15 yard personal foul penalty!

[lizrdgizrd]

GPI???? Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

:p


The toilet paper in my bathroom & a marker are more objective resources. Sticking up for the GPI?? xnonox xnonox 15 yard personal foul penalty!
What's your better method to compare conferences? xeyebrowx

[89Hen]

What's your better method to compare conferences? xeyebrowx
Height

[GannonFan]

What's your better method to compare conferences? xeyebrowx


You could ask me, I've outperformed the GPI over its lifetime. What do you want to know???? xthumbsupx xlolx xlolx xlolx :p

[Dane96]

I think it's obvious that the NEC isn't sufficiently better (if at all) than the MEAC or OVC to warrant them getting one of the 8 AQs. The GPI is one widely available measure (and easily quotable from 89Hen xsmiley_wix ) that supports my point. If you can find something that refutes my point, I'd be willing to view such information. xpeacex

Ok...I got one for you, at the risk of the wrath of my Patriot League friends (just an example)--

The top of the NEC (and Duquense...a new member) has been pretty much even with the PL for the past two years.

Again, not advocating the taking away of bids--silly in my opinion-- but if we are going that route...head to head...Albany, CCSU, Monmouth, and future member Duquense...have beaten just about every PL team...or played them extremely tight.

Now, the NEC's lowest team, St. Francis...brings down our GPI significantly more than GTOWN does to the PL. Doesn't mean our Top 3-4 can't stick with the PL Top 3-4 from the past two seasons...and in the future.

We all know what the PL did in the playoffs (or can do)...which is saying more than the MEAC has in recent years.

Following the bread crumbs yet?xwhistlex

[lizrdgizrd]

Height
Is that height above sea-level for the stadium, the average around the campus or the average height of the athletes? xlolx

[lizrdgizrd]

You could ask me, I've outperformed the GPI over its lifetime. What do you want to know???? xthumbsupx xlolx xlolx xlolx :p
Well, if I'd known earlier, I would have just asked you!

What is the order from best to worst of the FCS conferences?

[lizrdgizrd]

Ok...I got one for you, at the risk of the wrath of my Patriot League friends (just an example)--

The top of the NEC (and Duquense...a new member) has been pretty much even with the PL for the past two years.

Again, not advocating the taking away of bids--silly in my opinion-- but if we are going that route...head to head...Albany, CCSU, Monmouth, and future member Duquense...have beaten just about every PL team...or played them extremely tight.

Now, the NEC's lowest team, St. Francis...brings down our GPI significantly more than GTOWN does to the PL. Doesn't mean our Top 3-4 can't stick with the PL Top 3-4 from the past two seasons...and in the future.

We all know what the PL did in the playoffs (or can do)...which is saying more than the MEAC has in recent years.

Following the bread crumbs yet?xwhistlex
I understand that the top of the NEC is ok, but we're talking about the conferences as a whole. Like I said, if you can provide some less-subjective measure of the conferences that says the NEC is #8 or better, I'm all ears (well, eyes).

[89Hen]

The top of the NEC (and Duquense...a new member) has been pretty much even with the PL for the past two years.

36. Monmouth (33.89)
40. Lehigh (35.33)
49. Lafayette (41.67)
51. Holy Cross (43.67)
64T. Albany NY (50.44)
67. Central Conn (52.56)
69T. Colgate (55.33)
74. Bucknell (57.33)
81T. Stony Brook (63.56)
86. Robert Morris (64.67)
96. Duquesne (70.67)
103T. Fordham (77.56)
107. Georgetown (79.67)
111. Wagner (82.33)
113. St Francis (83.67)
114. Sacred Ht (84.78)

[GannonFan]

Well, if I'd known earlier, I would have just asked you!

What is the order from best to worst of the FCS conferences?

Well, you start by the basic rule of thumb that whatever the rankings are the CAA is better than the Montana et al... er... Big Sky Conference...:p

[lizrdgizrd]

Well, you start by the basic rule of thumb that whatever the rankings are the CAA is better than the Montana et al... er... Big Sky Conference...:p
I thought that was a law of nature. xsmiley_wix

[Dane96]

Why the GPI is bad:

Albany, playing two Top 10 teams and losing by respectable margins...and losing to a PL team, on the road, by two, in the opener...is ranked BELOW a team they BEAT...at that TEAM'S FIELD.

Fordham, the class of the PL right now...is that team.

Explain that LizGriz.

[Dane96]

36. Monmouth (33.89)
40. Lehigh (35.33)
49. Lafayette (41.67)
51. Holy Cross (43.67)
64T. Albany NY (50.44)
67. Central Conn (52.56)
69T. Colgate (55.33)
74. Bucknell (57.33)
81T. Stony Brook (63.56)
86. Robert Morris (64.67)
96. Duquesne (70.67)
103T. Fordham (77.56)
107. Georgetown (79.67)
111. Wagner (82.33)
113. St Francis (83.67)
114. Sacred Ht (84.78)


Dont sully yourself with GPI stuff...again...you are too smart. Albany beat Fordham...your best PL team this year...on the road.

The GPI...as you know...is one tool. Why dont we check Sagarin...in his polls, currently...we have:

13 GATEWAY (AA)= 57.62 55.65 ( 15) 7
14 GREAT WEST (AA)= 56.89 57.52 ( 13) 5
15 COLONIAL (AA)= 56.72 56.13 ( 14) 12
16 SOUTHERN (AA)= 54.09 54.48 ( 16) 8
17 BIG SKY (AA)= 50.96 50.43 ( 17) 9
18 SOUTHLAND (AA)= 47.86 48.98 ( 18) 8
19 PATRIOT LEAGUE (AA)= 43.53 42.91 ( 20) 7
20 IVY LEAGUE (AA)= 43.24 44.28 ( 19) 8
21 BIG SOUTH (AA)= 40.60 39.80 ( 21) 5
22 MID-EASTERN (AA)= 39.03 38.48 ( 22) 10
23 SOUTHWESTERN (AA)= 37.84 37.70 ( 23) 10
24 OHIO VALLEY (AA)= 36.40 37.42 ( 24) 10
25 PIONEER (AA)= 30.60 31.44 ( 25) 8
26 NORTHEAST (AA)= 28.62 28.53 ( 26) 7
27 I-AA INDEPENDENTS (AA)= 26.24 26.46 ( 27) 4
28 METRO ATLANTIC (AA)= 21.04 20.36 ( 28) 4
29 ***UNRATED*** (**)= -90.00 -90.00 ( 29) 1


This is done on the field...and the NEC...on the field...has compared favorably to the PL in the last two or three years. Even the staunchest PL fan has recognized that...as have their coaches (publicly

Additionally, using your stuff 89Hen, Albany BEAT Lehigh last season. So, based on FIELD results, Albany would have to slide into that two spot...behind Monmouth...NO?!

LizGriz, the fact is, while it is conferences as a whole, the MEAC has crap teams, the OVC crap teams, heck...the CAA has some crap teams (though the crap in the top conferences is better than the crap at the bottom of bad conferences). If you want to argue bids should be given out on overall conference strength, again, the NEC has beaten teams (with no scholarships for the most part until this year) in the PL, the MEAC, the CAA, etc. Doesnt mean we are taking away bids from those leagues because the NEC beat (as part of the overall wins we have collected) the bottom half of those leagues.

[lizrdgizrd]

Why the GPI is bad:

Albany, playing two Top 10 teams and losing by respectable margins...and losing to a PL team, on the road, by two, in the opener...is ranked BELOW a team they BEAT...at that TEAM'S FIELD.

Fordham, the class of the PL right now...is that team.

Explain that LizGriz.
I'm not trying to defend the GPI. If you would provide me with a better measuring stick, I'll take a look at it. xrolleyesx

[Seahawks Fan]

36. Monmouth (33.89)
40. Lehigh (35.33)
49. Lafayette (41.67)
51. Holy Cross (43.67)
64T. Albany NY (50.44)
67. Central Conn (52.56)
69T. Colgate (55.33)
74. Bucknell (57.33)
81T. Stony Brook (63.56)
86. Robert Morris (64.67)
96. Duquesne (70.67)
103T. Fordham (77.56)
107. Georgetown (79.67)
111. Wagner (82.33)
113. St Francis (83.67)
114. Sacred Ht (84.78)


Wagner 45 - Monmouth 16 10/13/07

[89Hen]

Additionally, using your stuff 89Hen, Albany BEAT Lehigh last season. So, based on FIELD results, Albany would have to slide into that two spot...behind Monmouth...NO?!
And Georgetown beat Stony Brook so move them up four spots. xcoffeex :p

[lizrdgizrd]

LizGriz
It's actually LizGiz (no griz around here) xthumbsupx


the fact is, while it is conferences as a whole, the MEAC has crap teams, the OVC crap teams, heck...the CAA has some crap teams (though the crap in the top conferences is better than the crap at the bottom of bad conferences). If you want to argue bids should be given out on overall conference strength, again, the NEC has beaten teams (with no scholarships for the most part until this year) in the PL, the MEAC, the CAA, etc. Doesnt mean we are taking away bids from those leagues because the NEC beat (as part of the overall wins we have collected) the bottom half of those leagues.
I'm also not defending the MEAC or OVC, neither of them have made much of a blip in the playoffs lately. Does that mean it's your turn to one-and-done? Maybe, maybe not.

[Dane96]

Wagner 45 - Monmouth 16 10/13/07

Seahawks fan- This is last year's GPI.

Again, LizGriz...maybe I have to spell it out for you:

HEAD TO HEAD THE TOP OF THE NEC HAS BEATEN THE TOP OF THE PL.

What is more to explain. If the top of the PL and the top of the NEC are matched up...you would generally have a near wash. If the bottom of the PL and the bottom of the NEC matched up...probably the same.

The PL has an auto...the NEC does not. The PL has a higher GPI then the NEC.

Which, I must asked, is the more valuable predictor- THE GPI...or head to head?!

Rhetorical my friend, rhetorical.

[lizrdgizrd]

13 GATEWAY (AA)= 57.62 55.65 ( 15) 7
14 GREAT WEST (AA)= 56.89 57.52 ( 13) 5
15 COLONIAL (AA)= 56.72 56.13 ( 14) 12
16 SOUTHERN (AA)= 54.09 54.48 ( 16) 8
17 BIG SKY (AA)= 50.96 50.43 ( 17) 9
18 SOUTHLAND (AA)= 47.86 48.98 ( 18) 8
19 PATRIOT LEAGUE (AA)= 43.53 42.91 ( 20) 7
20 IVY LEAGUE (AA)= 43.24 44.28 ( 19) 8
21 BIG SOUTH (AA)= 40.60 39.80 ( 21) 5
22 MID-EASTERN (AA)= 39.03 38.48 ( 22) 10
23 SOUTHWESTERN (AA)= 37.84 37.70 ( 23) 10
24 OHIO VALLEY (AA)= 36.40 37.42 ( 24) 10
25 PIONEER (AA)= 30.60 31.44 ( 25) 8
26 NORTHEAST (AA)= 28.62 28.53 ( 26) 7
27 I-AA INDEPENDENTS (AA)= 26.24 26.46 ( 27) 4
28 METRO ATLANTIC (AA)= 21.04 20.36 ( 28) 4
29 ***UNRATED*** (**)= -90.00 -90.00 ( 29) 1

And we'll look at your Sagarin rankings:
1 Gateway
2 CAA
3 SoCon
4 BSC
5 Southland
6 PL
7 MEAC
8 OVC
so still no top 8 for the NEC. xeyebrowx

[lizrdgizrd]

Seahawks fan- This is last year's GPI.

Again, LizGriz...maybe I have to spell it out for you:

HEAD TO HEAD THE TOP OF THE NEC HAS BEATEN THE TOP OF THE PL.

What is more to explain. If the top of the PL and the top of the NEC are matched up...you would generally have a near wash. If the bottom of the PL and the bottom of the NEC matched up...probably the same.

The PL has an auto...the NEC does not. The PL has a higher GPI then the NEC.

Which, I must asked, is the more valuable predictor- THE GPI...or head to head?!

Rhetorical my friend, rhetorical.
The top of the PL certainly weren't deserving of the playoffs last season despite their AQ. xpeacex

[Dane96]

So...how would that support your argument, unless your argument is no autobids. If that is the case...there is no argument...Autobids are here to stay.

And, logically speaking, if the first part of my statement encompasses your argument...then the NEC is just as equally deserving of an auto as an undeserving PL team.

WHEW! Peace out...

[Dane96]

And we'll look at your Sagarin rankings:
1 Gateway
2 CAA
3 SoCon
4 BSC
5 Southland
6 PL
7 MEAC
8 OVC
so still no top 8 for the NEC. xeyebrowx


Correct...but...who beat who: ALBANY TOPPLED FORDHAM. So...the PL's top team is arguably 6 on here...but the team that beat them isnt?

Interesting.

[lizrdgizrd]

Correct...but...who beat who: ALBANY TOPPLED FORDHAM. So...the PL's top team is arguably 6 on here...but the team that beat them isnt?

Interesting.

You picked sagarin, not me. xpeacex

[lizrdgizrd]

So...how would that support your argument, unless your argument is no autobids. If that is the case...there is no argument...Autobids are here to stay.

And, logically speaking, if the first part of my statement encompasses your argument...then the NEC is just as equally deserving of an auto as an undeserving PL team.

WHEW! Peace out...
I'd say the PL is more deserving only because of their history. xnodx

[danefan]

I'd say the PL is more deserving only because of their history. xnodx

Is history part of the requirements for awarding AQ's? I don't know. Do you know? Does the NEC know? Does the NCAA know?????

[Syntax Error]

Is history part of the requirements for awarding AQ's? I don't know. Do you know? Does the NEC know? Does the NCAA know?????Soon enough the requirements for an AQ will be mere eligibility. Sort of like, voting.

[lizrdgizrd]

Is history part of the requirements for awarding AQ's? I don't know. Do you know? Does the NEC know? Does the NCAA know?????
Would you consider it all square if the committee simply came out and said that the reason the NEC didn't get the AQ was because they were the 9th most worthy conference? xeyebrowx

[Dane96]

You picked sagarin, not me. xpeacex

I know why I picked it...TOO PROVE MY POINT!

The point is...ratings are bull****. It is taken care of on the field...and the NEC has done that against higher rated conferences.

Is this a really difficult thing to comprehend?

[Dane96]

Is history part of the requirements for awarding AQ's? I don't know. Do you know? Does the NEC know? Does the NCAA know?????

Exactly. WE DONT KNOW! And that is what we have been kvetching about.

Like Ace said...at this point, to the NCAA, it is moot- Expansion will occur. Bugs need to be worked out...but it is coming.

[Dane96]

Would you consider it all square if the committee simply came out and said that the reason the NEC didn't get the AQ was because they were the 9th most worthy team? xeyebrowx

Sure. Then I would asked based on what? Then they would say ratings. Then I would say "didnt our top teams before equal to that of certain leagues above us?" Then they would say "historical".

Around and around the merry go round we go.

[lizrdgizrd]

I know why I picked it...TOO PROVE MY POINT!

The point is...ratings are bull****. It is taken care of on the field...and the NEC has done that against higher rated conferences.

Is this a really difficult thing to comprehend?
The AQ isn't about one team versus another, it's about the league champ being worthy of going to the playoffs.

[aceinthehole]

The AQ isn't about one team versus another, it's about the league champ being worthy of going to the playoffs.

No, its not. Its about eligibility and access. xrulesx

Dane fans, give up arguing - its happening we just have to figure out how!

[Dane96]

Liz...listen up. THE AQ is about what Ace said...plus: AWARDING THE BEST TEAM IN THE CONFERENCE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY FOR A TITLE. It isnt just about representing the conference...but having the BEST in that conference play against similar bests for one goal.

Arguably, the NEC's best is equal to the at of the PL and MEAC...and possibly the OVC.

Comprhende?

It is hard Ace...when you have people who cannot see the writing...and then posit horrifically organized arguments.

But you are correct!

[89Hen]

Liz...listen up. THE AQ is about what Ace said...plus: AWARDING THE BEST TEAM IN THE CONFERENCE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY FOR A TITLE. It isnt just about representing the conference...but having the BEST in that conference play against similar bests for one goal.

Arguably, the NEC's best is equal to the at of the PL and MEAC...and possibly the OVC.

Comprhende?
I think you're trying to run two arguements at once here. One is whether all conferences should be given access, the other is whether the NEC has been one of the top 8. xrotatehx

[DetroitFlyer]

Just for fun, the latest rankings I saw, (Sagarin, GPI ), have the PFL ranked above the NEC again!:D

[lizrdgizrd]

No, its not. Its about eligibility and access. xrulesx

Dane fans, give up arguing - its happening we just have to figure out how!
All the conferences have had access via at-large even those who aren't eligible for an AQ. xrolleyesx

[lizrdgizrd]

Liz...listen up. THE AQ is about what Ace said...plus: AWARDING THE BEST TEAM IN THE CONFERENCE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY FOR A TITLE. It isnt just about representing the conference...but having the BEST in that conference play against similar bests for one goal.

Arguably, the NEC's best is equal to the at of the PL and MEAC...and possibly the OVC.

Comprhende?

It is hard Ace...when you have people who cannot see the writing...and then posit horrifically organized arguments.

But you are correct!
I guess we have different understandings of an AQ. If you need a hand-out to reach the playoffs then it looks like you're going to get it eventually. I figured the NEC would get there without it eventually anyway.

I would always prefer to have the best 16 teams play for a title, not the best 8-12 plus some hand-outs. xpeacex

[aceinthehole]

All the conferences have had access via at-large even those who aren't eligible for an AQ. xrolleyesx


WRONG, AGAIN! THE POLICY IS ABOUT ACCESS TO AN AUTOMATIC QUALIFIER, NOT AN AT-LARGE BID.

Re-read LFN's post and the attached article - http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showpost.php?p=695904&postcount=20

The exact quote from the NCAA is:


"It’s not about having a team that’s good enough," Femovich said. "It’s about access to the playoffs. In other NCAA team sports, every conference that is eligible for an autobid into that sport’s postseason tournament gets an autobid."

There is no real argument to be had here. You have a right to your own opinion and may disagree, but your objection to expansion to IS NOT supported by the NCAA.

[lizrdgizrd]

WRONG, AGAIN! THE POLICY IS ABOUT ACCESS TO AN AUTOMATIC QUALIFIER, NOT AN AT-LARGE BID.

Re-read LFN's post and the attached article - http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showpost.php?p=695904&postcount=20

The exact quote from the NCAA is:



There is no real argument to be had here. You have a right to your own opinion and may disagree, but your objection to expansion to IS NOT supported by the NCAA.
You're right, the policy is about access to an AQ. Doesn't change the fact that all teams have access to the playoffs via at-large. Teams that prove they deserve a shot in the playoffs don't need an AQ. xpeacex

[skinny_uncle]

Expansion is coming. The only question is when.

[Seahawks Fan]

Expansion is coming. The only question is when.

You are correct. There is no turning back. xthumbsupx xthumbsupx

[blukeys]

Liz...listen up. THE AQ is about what Ace said...plus: AWARDING THE BEST TEAM IN THE CONFERENCE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PLAY FOR A TITLE. It isnt just about representing the conference...but having the BEST in that conference play against similar bests for one goal.

Arguably, the NEC's best is equal to the at of the PL and MEAC...and possibly the OVC.

Comprhende?

It is hard Ace...when you have people who cannot see the writing...and then posit horrifically organized arguments.

But you are correct!

Like 89 I'm not sure which point you are arguing. Do you believe that the NEC deserved an AQ over the 3 conferences you mentioned? My view is that the NEC should have been able to make this case with some guidelines from the NCAA regarding what criteria the NCAA would use in June of every year for determining the 8 AQ conferences for that year. In fact this is what the NCAA says they are doing but to my eye they are not.

I can understand the NEC's frustration when one gets turned down and there is no real explanation from the governing body and I have supported the NEC in this area. I never thought AQ's should be an inherited right. (I guess this is what it has now turned into and will become with expansion)

I disagree with the argument that expansion is required to address what some see as the injustice of the NEC not getting an AQ when some other conferences are not performing well on the playing field. If the NEC offers a better option then they should get the AQ.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

As much as many argue for playoffs with the best 16 teams, that has never been the way with any NCAA playoffs! You don't seriously think the best 65 teams are playing for the NCAA Basketball crowns? AQ's are given to every D-I conference. There are many teams from "power" conferences that are better than the champions of many conferences especially when upsets occur in the league championship tournaments.

Go back to NCAA Men's Ice Hockey a few years ago. Two new conferences wanted access. They really didn't measure up to the existing AQ conferences. The NCAA increased the size of the field from 12 to 16 despite not having the number of participant schools to support a 16 team field.

I've always felt that FCS expansion was inevitable because like with hockey it is the easiest way out for the NCAA. Although scheduling around the holidays and bowl season does throw a huge factor into the mix!

FWIW, the net result in the hockey tournament besides the obvious inclusion of all conference champions has been two more at large bids for the power conferences. To date the two new conferences have not had a team strong enough to garner an at large bid.

[aceinthehole]

UNH - exactly! And most hockey fans would agree it was great for the sport. In the first year there was a huge upset.

http://www.doubleazone.com/2006/04/final_fours_over_frozen_four_s.html

While the usual suspects are chasing the national title in Milwaukee during the next couple of days, the tournament’s biggest story involved Holy Cross, which beat top-ranked Minnesota in overtime in the opening round.

In perhaps the biggest upset in tournament history, the Crusaders became the first No. 4 seed to defeat a top-ranked team since the field expanded to 16 teams. It was Holy Cross’ first-ever postseason victory.

Although the Crusaders fell in the next round to North Dakota, the excitement in the community and on the campus has yet to subside. The win was as big for Holy Cross as George Mason’s win over Connecticut was to the Patriot faithful. Victories like that remind us of the talent and desire that characterize student-athletes all across the country, not just those in the elite programs.

[UCABEARS75]

What is this hockey you speak of?

[89Hen]

You don't seriously think the best 65 teams are playing for the NCAA Basketball crowns? AQ's are given to every D-I conference. There are many teams from "power" conferences that are better than the champions of many conferences especially when upsets occur in the league championship tournaments.
Doesn't matter... the best 30+ teams are in... you really think having the Ohio Mountain Horizon Champ in instead of the 8th place ACC team really makes the tournament less legitimate? FOOTBALL is like NO other NCAA sport. There is not a single other tournament in which four games take four weeks. xsmhx It is a completly different beast.

[Dane96]

Bad argument my friend.

March Madness takes three weeks...and requires 5 victories to be crowned Champion.

By my math...it requires more games in less of a time period...thus kids are asked to do more OUT OF CLASS (like having tests taken on the road like I witnessed the 1994 Gator team do after upsetting UCONN and the night before playing BC to earn a trip to the Final Four).

It is not different than March Madness...no matter how you try to frame it. The argument has been length, time away from class, and $. All legit...but not much different than other tourneys.

You really telling me that the 3 week vs. 4 week differntial is that much more difficult for the football schools?

We are also forgetting CONFERENCE tourney's usually take at least a week...most a week and a half to two weeks.

So, by that math....players are usually playing 8-9 games in 4-5 weeks in hoop....compared to 4 games in 4 weeks.

Again...you are smarter than this!!!!

[lizrdgizrd]

Bad argument my friend.

March Madness takes three weeks...and requires 5 victories to be crowned Champion.

By my math...it requires more games in less of a time period...thus kids are asked to do more OUT OF CLASS (like having tests taken on the road like I witnessed the 1994 Gator team do after upsetting UCONN and the night before playing BC to earn a trip to the Final Four).

It is not different than March Madness...no matter how you try to frame it.
They play 2 games per week. They could play 3 (and often do during the regular season). How many do we play per week? And how much prep time per game? xeyebrowx

[Dane96]

They play 2 games per week. They could play 3 (and often do during the regular season). How many do we play per week? And how much prep time per game? xeyebrowx


Clearly, you have neither coached or played college hoops. IT REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE PREP TIME IN TOURNEY TIME. The day often starts in the 7am range...and ends at 1am. Film, strategy, practice, walk-through, film again....it is freaking crazy.

Most schools bring tutors on the road for this reason. That is how I met the UF team in 1994...a friend was the tutor for Bryan Thompson and Damitri HIll.

Believe me...these kids dont study or do **** from Conference tourney time up to the day they are eliminated.

[89Hen]

Bad argument my friend.

March Madness takes three weeks...and requires 5 victories to be crowned Champion.

By my math...it requires more games in less of a time period...thus kids are asked to do more OUT OF CLASS (like having tests taken on the road like I witnessed the 1994 Gator team do after upsetting UCONN and the night before playing BC to earn a trip to the Final Four).

It is not different than March Madness...no matter how you try to frame it. The argument has been length, time away from class, and $. All legit...but not much different than other tourneys.

You really telling me that the 3 week vs. 4 week differntial is that much more difficult for the football schools?

We are also forgetting CONFERENCE tourney's usually take at least a week...most a week and a half to two weeks.

So, by that math....players are usually playing 8-9 games in 4-5 weeks in hoop....compared to 4 games in 4 weeks.

Again...you are smarter than this!!!!
Nice try Dane, but surely YOU are too smart to be this wrong. The men's bball tournament started on March 15 and ended April 2... that's 2.5 weeks. Furthermore, the football tourney is only 4 weeks NOW... add two or more teams and you've gone to 5. So compare 2.5 to 5. xnonox

[lizrdgizrd]

Clearly, you have neither coached or played college hoops. IT REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE PREP TIME IN TOURNEY TIME. The day often starts in the 7am range...and ends at 1am. Film, strategy, practice, walk-through, film again....it is freaking crazy.

Most schools bring tutors on the road for this reason. That is how I met the UF team in 1994...a friend was the tutor for Bryan Thompson and Damitri HIll.

Believe me...these kids dont study or do **** from Conference tourney time up to the day they are eliminated.
And how much prep time do the kids in football programs take? I guess they just spend a couple hours the day before the next game to go over some stuff. xrolleyesx

[Dane96]

89HEN

Actually, I am right...the 2008 tourney starts:

Tuesday March 18

It ends:

Monday April 7

Conference Tourney's start March 7.
Conference Tourney's end March 16.

So...theoretically, teams can play from March 7th to April 7th.

Seasons end a week before playoffs usually...last week in Feb...first day of March.

So....there are 38 days of practice and playing that often go along with a team that is going to the FINALS.

Last math I did, 38 divided by 7 equals 5 weeks and 3 days.

Even if we add teams...extend the playoffs by a week...and with practice time...go to 6 weeks...I posit this question: IS THERE A PALPABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 5 weeks and 3 days, and 6 WEEKS? I would think not.

And to LizGriz...I know how much time it goes into prepping for football. That wasnt the point. The comparison, or non-comparison better yet, of the two as not being equal in prep time...is ridiculous.

ALL KIDS IN COLLEGE, ESPECIALLY IN DI, are putting in rindonkulous hours if you are playing a MAJOR SPORT (the minor ones do as well).

[89Hen]

89HEN

Actually, I am right...the 2008 tourney starts:

Tuesday March 18

It ends:

Monday April 7

Conference Tourney's start March 7...
Play in is March 18, everyone else starts March 20... 2.5 weeks. Conference tourneys? xlolx Shoot, if you're going to include that then I get to count the entire regular football season. xrolleyesx xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Seriously...come on now. You full well know conference tourney's are not the regular season.

If you are going to debate with me...which I do really enjoy...then please argue the facts I presented.

The facts are:

Hoops playoffs- 5 and a half weeks
Footbal extended playoffs- 6 weeks.

Hoop playoffs are MANDATORY BY CONFERENCE, except in the IVY...and the rumblings are the IVY League is going to a playoff format.

Yep, the playin is on the 18th...but teams are still practicing...and last I looked...the play in is considered the START of the NCAA TOURNEY. That is why the NCAA lists the start date as MARCH 18.

If you are going to say that football and hoops are different animals, that is fine. But then I can add the conference playoffs because, unlike football, hoops becomes a different animal because conference tourneys are fights to the death to get to the ultimate prize.

I know Delaware has been **** lately, but I do think you remember the days of Peagues and Co...fighting for a playoff bid.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE PEOPLE...except for the fact you can break a leg or tear a tendon much easier in football.

And one last thing:

I would let you count the regular season...if we played in that ****ty FBS Division- There, every game is a playoff. Here...we solve it on the field...hence you can still get a crack if you are 8-3.

[89Hen]

Seriously...come on now. You full well know conference tourney's are not the regular season.

If you are going to debate with me...which I do really enjoy...then please argue the facts I presented.
xlolx Fine, the "facts" (read opinions) you presented make the timeframe indistinguishible.

The fact is, the conference championships are sponsored by the conferences and are NOT part of the NCAA Basketball Championships.

[Dane96]

xlolx Fine, the "facts" (read opinions) you presented make the timeframe indistinguishible.

The fact is, the conference championships are sponsored by the conferences and are NOT part of the NCAA Basketball Championships.

First, it is not opinion...it is fact- Playoffs, as determined by both conference and the NCAA, and further defined by any dictionary in the world, start and end the dates I gave. Opinion...is what we formulate...from fact.

That being said,I would concur on your view of conference tourneys...but...currently to receive an auto-bid...you have to play in a conference tourney. Conference tourneys are NCAA SANCTIONED EVENTS. IF the NCAA didn't want them...they would band them.

See the logic here?

Call it what you want...but a spade is a spade: Playoffs are playoffs, conference or otherwise...and the FACT IS...PLAYOFF TIME IN HOOPS WOULD BE THE SAME AS EXPANDED PLAYOFFS.xnodx xwhistlex

[lizrdgizrd]

Seriously...come on now. You full well know conference tourney's are not the regular season.

If you are going to debate with me...which I do really enjoy...then please argue the facts I presented.

The facts are:

Hoops playoffs- 5 and a half weeks
Footbal extended playoffs- 6 weeks.

Hoop playoffs are MANDATORY BY CONFERENCE, except in the IVY...and the rumblings are the IVY League is going to a playoff format.

Yep, the playin is on the 18th...but teams are still practicing...and last I looked...the play in is considered the START of the NCAA TOURNEY. That is why the NCAA lists the start date as MARCH 18.

If you are going to say that football and hoops are different animals, that is fine. But then I can add the conference playoffs because, unlike football, hoops becomes a different animal because conference tourneys are fights to the death to get to the ultimate prize.

I know Delaware has been **** lately, but I do think you remember the days of Peagues and Co...fighting for a playoff bid.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE PEOPLE...except for the fact you can break a leg or tear a tendon much easier in football.

And one last thing:

I would let you count the regular season...if we played in that ****ty FBS Division- There, every game is a playoff. Here...we solve it on the field...hence you can still get a crack if you are 8-3.


First, it is not opinion...it is fact- Playoffs, as determined by both conference and the NCAA, and further defined by any dictionary in the world, start and end the dates I gave. Opinion...is what we formulate...from fact.

That being said,I would concur on your view of conference tourneys...but...currently to receive an auto-bid...you have to play in a conference tourney. Conference tourneys are NCAA SANCTIONED EVENTS. IF the NCAA didn't want them...they would band them.

See the logic here?

Call it what you want...but a spade is a spade: Playoffs are playoffs, conference or otherwise...and the FACT IS...PLAYOFF TIME IN HOOPS WOULD BE THE SAME AS EXPANDED PLAYOFFS.xnodx xwhistlex
Ok, so when football starts playing ~30 game season and mandatory conference tourneys and a 17-32 team NCAA tournament how long will that take? 40 weeks? 45 weeks? xeyebrowx

[Dane96]

WHAT? I have no clue what you are saying here?

[lizrdgizrd]

WHAT? I have no clue what you are saying here?

You keep including more and more games to try to stretch your comparison. I'm just making it directly comparable. xpeacex

[Dane96]

Ummm...no...I am included NCAA sanctioned PLAYOFF GAMES. I am including fact.

You are including something that would be comparable to a X-Files episode- Speculation and fiction.

JESUS. ONE DAY I WANT TO SEE THE NON-PLAYOFF EXPANSION PEOPLE LOOK DOWN AT FACTS AND SAY..."Ok, maybe this could work."

Y'all are blinded by your deep seeded beliefs.

FACT...is FACT.

PERIOD.

I am not including anything that is not already a factual part of two playoffs that eventually meld to one!

[lizrdgizrd]

Ummm...no...I am included NCAA sanctioned PLAYOFF GAMES. I am including fact.

You are including something that would be comparable to a X-Files episode- Speculation and fiction.

JESUS. ONE DAY I WANT TO SEE THE NON-PLAYOFF EXPANSION PEOPLE LOOK DOWN AT FACTS AND SAY..."Ok, maybe this could work."

Y'all are blinded by your deep seeded beliefs.

FACT...is FACT.

PERIOD.

I am not including anything that is not already a factual part of two playoffs that eventually meld to one!
The fact is that basketball teams routinely prepare for a game with 1 or 2 days preparation. Football teams generally take 4 or 5 days to prepare for a game.

To fairly compare the playoffs we'd have to take a similar number of teams. The FB tourney includes 16 (for now) and takes 4 weeks. From the Sweet 16 it takes less than 2 weeks to crown a BB champ. xpeacex

[Dane96]

WHOA K, Billy Logic.

[lizrdgizrd]

WHOA K, Billy Logic.
The point: They aren't directly comparable. xpeacex

[Syntax Error]

Why the GPI is bad:
Albany, playing two Top 10 teams and losing by respectable margins...and losing to a PL team, on the road, by two, in the opener...is ranked BELOW a team they BEAT...at that TEAM'S FIELD.
Fordham, the class of the PL right now...is that team.
Explain that LizGriz.Following that logic then the polls are bad:
AGS-- No. 23 EIU was beaten by unranked Illinois State
FCP-- No. 5 Appalachian State was beaten by No. 7 Wofford
SNW-- No. 19 Cal Poly was beaten by unranked Texas State

Here's what Dr. Kenneth Massey says in his FAQ:
Team A beat Team B, so why do your ratings still have B ahead of A?

This situation is usually called an "upset." It is generally impossible order the teams to eliminate all inconsistencies in actual game outcomes. Teams are not evaluated on the basis of one game, in which there is potential for high deviation from typical performance levels. Instead, a team's rating is based on its "average" level of performance over the entire season.

Your ratings stink! Why isn't my team ranked higher?

The implementation of a computer rating algorithm is completely objective. So if the computer gives your team a bad (or good) rating, it shouldn't be taken personally. You have the right to disagree with the computer, but more than likely this is evidence of your own subjectivity. I do not meddle with the algorithm to "fix" the ratings. The model defines certain criteria that determine a team's rating, and the results are published on this web site without any human intervention.

[Dane96]

Yeah...but we have beaten Fordham 2 of the last three years.

Computer...out!

[Syntax Error]

Yeah...but we have beaten Fordham 2 of the last three years.
Computer...out!Illinois State has beaten EIU three times in two years. xeekx
41 Illinois St GFC 3-4 35.63 207 33 39 41 64 51 24 43 26 26 26
52 E Illinois OVC 4-3 43.13 272 45 51 60 69 57 56 48 23 26 24

[Dane96]

Hmmmm...sounding a lot like another poster.

Interesting...Syntax Error joined a day ago.....is a donor....and is anti-NEC...and uses a computer screen name for his screen name.

Hmmmmmm.....

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

Doesn't matter... the best 30+ teams are in... you really think having the Ohio Mountain Horizon Champ in instead of the 8th place ACC team really makes the tournament less legitimate? FOOTBALL is like NO other NCAA sport. There is not a single other tournament in which four games take four weeks. xsmhx It is a completly different beast.

I wasn't commenting on the legitimacy of the hoop tournament, just clarifying that no NCAA Tournament includes the best teams no matter how many participate. Many on this forum argue against expansion because it would dilute the field. All I'm saying is that in the NCAA's eyes that is a non-issue. Only we fans make it an issue.

The hockey reference was to demonstrate how the NCAA will take the path of least resistance. They will expand rather than face legal procedures and all that other bureaucratic horse dung from the NEC and other leagues wanting to participate. JMHO, somehow they'll work around all the holiday and bowl season logistics.

[Seahawks Fan]

Hmmmm...sounding a lot like another poster.

Interesting...Syntax Error joined a day ago.....is a donor....and is anti-NEC...and uses a computer screen name for his screen name.

Hmmmmmm.....


Old guard?

[appfan2008]

i would like to see the playoffs expanded to 24 with 8 byes... i hope that happens one day

[Seahawks Fan]

i would like to see the playoffs expanded to 24 with 8 byes... i hope that happens one day


I'll second that. xthumbsupx This isn't rocket science.

[Syntax Error]

Old guard?Naw, just trumped his argument in several ways and that's how some respond... attack the messenger. Look at my posts on this thread. The NCAA consolidated this past summer and the new stance is all you have to do is be eligible to get an AQ. The point is moot. When they get it figured out it will happen. xnodx

[lizrdgizrd]

Naw, just trumped his argument in several ways and that's how some respond... attack the messenger. Look at my posts on this thread. The NCAA consolidated this past summer and the new stance is all you have to do is be eligible to get an AQ. The point is moot. When they get it figured out it will happen. xnodx
Doesn't mean I can't whine about it! xbawlingx xbawlingx







:p