Selection Sunday 2022

[Hammersmith]

Like I said......

I knew that's what's you were getting at last night, but we needed some confirmation first.

[POD Knows]

Weber got the home game even with the lower bid. Committee basically created a 9th seed this year.

https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/college/und-missouri-valley-view-break-in-precedence-as-committee-chair-says-hosting-not-just-about-financialsHas this ever been done before, I know that UND has a hockey homestand against somebody that weekend, was there an issue with motel rooms, did the committee think nobody would go to the football game? This is odd.

[F'N Hawks]

Has this ever been done before, I know that UND has a hockey homestand against somebody that weekend, was there an issue with motel rooms, did the committee think nobody would go to the football game? This is odd.

What do they care - they get their money regardless. Have you seen an opening round game in Brookings?

[POD Knows]

What do they care - they get their money regardless. Have you seen an opening round game in Brookings?Don't they get a % of the gate as well. Lil
ke I said, this is odd. If their primary concern is money, then why didn't it go to the highest bidder?

[uofmman1122]

This has been the criteria and process for bidding forever. This is supposed to be the most knowledgeable place about FCS that exists, and yet people act like they’ve never experienced the playoffs before.

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

There’s nothing in that article that says UND’s bid was that much higher than Weber’s. They were likely very close, monetarily speaking.

[POD Knows]

This has been the criteria and process for bidding forever. This is supposed to be the most knowledgeable place about FCS that exists, and yet people act like they’ve never experienced the playoffs before.

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

There’s nothing in that article that says UND’s bid was that much higher than Weber’s. They were likely very close, monetarily speaking.Well, speaking as an NDSU fan, we always get home games so we are probably not that up on the rules. I don't know what the average or expected attendance is between Weber State and El Forko Grande but I would probably guess that Weber State has a better facility and probably draws better. Clearly WSU performed better during the year, so there is that.

[Hammersmith]

This has been the criteria and process for bidding forever. This is supposed to be the most knowledgeable place about FCS that exists, and yet people act like they’ve never experienced the playoffs before.

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

There’s nothing in that article that says UND’s bid was that much higher than Weber’s. They were likely very close, monetarily speaking.

We know all that, but the problem is that everyone talked to (past committee members, conference commissioners, athletic directors) say this has NEVER happened before. That language(or some version of it) has been in the selection guidebook for decades, but it was never used in this way. To come out of nowhere and use it for just one case is questionable at best. If they gave Weber the home game based only off of performance, then why did the same committee give Montana a home game? After all, SEMO had a 9-2 record, only 1 FCS loss, and was undefeated in their conference, while Montana was a bubble team, 6th place in their conference(.500 at that), had 4 FCS losses, and none of the teams they beat had records over .500. If you're going to buck precedence in one case, you better have the spine to then use it in every applicable case that's within your power.

Now, if the bids were really close, you might have a point. But the rumors swirling at this point suggest they weren't. Hopefully some reporter files a FOI request on Weber to see what they bid. I believe the current understanding is that UND bid around $125k. (Old FOI shows UND bid $75k back in 2019, and UND's AD said they upped the bid 70% this year.)

[uofmman1122]

We know all that, but the problem is that everyone talked to (past committee members, conference commissioners, athletic directors) say this has NEVER happened before. That language(or some version of it) has been in the selection guidebook for decades, but it was never used in this way. To come out of nowhere and use it for just one case is questionable at best. If they gave Weber the home game based only off of performance, then why did the same committee give Montana a home game? After all, SEMO had a 9-2 record, only 1 FCS loss, and was undefeated in their conference, while Montana was a bubble team, 6th place in their conference(.500 at that), had 4 FCS losses, and none of the teams they beat had records over .500. If you're going to buck precedence in one case, you better have the spine to then use it in every applicable case that's within your power.

Now, if the bids were really close, you might have a point. But the rumors swirling at this point suggest they weren't. Hopefully some reporter files a FOI request on Weber to see what they bid. I believe the current understanding is that UND bid around $125k. (Old FOI shows UND bid $75k back in 2019, and UND's AD said they upped the bid 70% this year.)
Love how it’s still coming back to us lmao

This was the meltdown I was hoping for ;)

And it’s just rumors. Weber draws well. You have no idea what the bids were at this point. And this does happen. I distinctly remember games in the last decade in the first round where people were left scratching their heads wondering how the team that hosted ended up getting it. We just didn’t get an investigative report from the traveling school’s home newspaper about it lol. I don’t think this is some conspiracy. The wholistic bids from both teams were close, but they went with Weber based on their criteria. People are just looking for things to get mad at.

[F'N Hawks]

Nobody in FCS has a better setup than UND. That isn't the problem

[SDFS]

Because Fordham and Holy Cross are very good teams who deserve to be in. It’s that simple really.

So which win put them in for you? The 57, 67, 86, 88, 95, 106, 112, 119, 128 wins. USD is ranked 39. They would finish 9-2 with that schedule.

[SDFS]

Weber got the home game even with the lower bid. Committee basically created a 9th seed this year.

https://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/college/und-missouri-valley-view-break-in-precedence-as-committee-chair-says-hosting-not-just-about-financials

Wasn't the NDSU President on that committee? Classic NDSU - BS..

[Professor Chaos]

Wasn't the NDSU President on that committee? Classic NDSU - BS..
False! Utter fabrication! Fake news!
























....it was their AD

[kab]

Bison should not have been in top 4
Montana should not have been in period
i believe UND had better attendance than Weber state by about 3000 per game
it is what it is, NCAA must consult states that can’t count the votes the day of an election to see how to f up results

[nodak651]

This has been the criteria and process for bidding forever. This is supposed to be the most knowledgeable place about FCS that exists, and yet people act like they’ve never experienced the playoffs before.

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

There’s nothing in that article that says UND’s bid was that much higher than Weber’s. They were likely very close, monetarily speaking.

Same criteria as when UND and USD used tents instead of locker rooms at Nichols? xeyebrowx

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

So which win put them in for you? The 57, 67, 86, 88, 95, 106, 112, 119, 128 wins. USD is ranked 39. They would finish 9-2 with that schedule.

There's context to all those games relative to how others would perform, even in victory. Fordham has a great offense this year. They are legitimately fun to watch. IMO, they've taken EWU's place as the team filled with great athletes on offense and a defense just good enough. They went out and scheduled 3 CAA teams and an FBS team OOC. You cannot hold against them the failure of other program's. Plus, Fordham has history of aggressive OOC scheduling. The PL has always been top heavy and this year is no different. Thankfully, with 5 OOC games at least there's a opportunity to show you honestly try to step up your game.

These are the same things mid-majors battle in basketball. At some point you can only do so much because it takes two to tango. At least make a real attempt given the parameters in which you exist....

[SDFS]

Wait, the NCAA was willing to take less money to keep another team from having to go to Grand Forks? Wow. I'll be using this one in smack threads for awhile.

Come on the NDSU president was on the committee representing UND's and the MVFC interests. Let's see, I represent the highest ranked conference in FCS. Let's make sure NDSU is overrated and gets a 3 seed. Then make sure the conference only has three teams and a big screw you to YSU and to top it off send UND packing. Stay classy NDSU!

[F'N Hawks]

Athletic Director. Not president

[SDFS]

False! Utter fabrication! Fake News
....it was their AD

Sorry about that - it was the AD:

Missouri Valley Football Conference
North Dakota State AD Matt Larsen
Term Expiration: Aug. 2025

[uofmman1122]

Same criteria as when UND and USD used tents instead of locker rooms at Nichols? xeyebrowx
Are you saying this has happened before? If so, how is this shocking?

Also not sure what comparing Nichols with UND and USD has to do with Weber, either. Weber isn't Nichols.

[Chalupa Batman]

Given the teams the committee selected I think they could have done a much better job setting the first round matchups. I would have preferred to see these first round matchups instead (would-be seed according to AGS ranking in parenthesis):

(11) Elon/(24) Davidson
(10) Furman/(23) Gardner-Webb
(14) New Hampshire/(17) Fordham
(13) Southeast Missouri State/(22) Eastern Kentucky
(12) Richmond/(21) St. Francis
(9) Weber State/(20) Delaware
(18) North Dakota/(19) Montana
(15) Idaho/(16) Southeastern Louisiana

This setup has the same number of bus trips (5) as the actual matchups while keeping the best unseeded teams from playing each other. And it avoids the (20) Delaware/(21) St. Francis & (22) Eastern Kentucky/(23) Gardner-Webb matchups we'll see this weekend. Nobody really gets an unfair draw like Elon & Furman playing each other or SEMO having to go to to Missoula.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yet Montana has higher football expenses (almost 25% more), garnering a much higher % of that budget. A little misleading, no? I have no doubt where the athletic department priorities are between the two schools.

Our history with the NACDA directors cup speaks for itself, before we jumped, that culture hasn’t changed.

I don't think you understood the point. It was stated that UC Davis couldn't afford to not play that game and that if they could have afforded to have a schedule like UM they would have been in. They could have afforded it if they wished. Much more money, just placing the priority elsewhere. It was not a cut down and I did not smite you. I did not focus on the athletic budgets because there is always so much creative accounting and moving money to "plant" types of areas that is a rabbit hole I did not want to go down with either school.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Montana didn't beat a team over .500 record and finished 6th in their conference behind UC Davis Sac, MSU, Weber, and Idaho. So, if Davis wasn't invited neither should Montana.

You guys just don't seem to understand some basics and that happens a lot when it comes to playoff time. 6 wins puts a team in serious jeopardy of not making it. You did not deserve to be in and neither did Montana, that is true. When you get to that area which we call the bubble...stop making all the silly arguments and comparisons and accept your fate. It sucks but I know as we've had to do it too.

[Professor Chaos]

Given the teams the committee selected I think they could have done a much better job setting the first round matchups. I would have preferred to see these first round matchups instead (would-be seed according to AGS ranking in parenthesis):

(11) Elon/(24) Davidson
(10) Furman/(23) Gardner-Webb
(14) New Hampshire/(17) Fordham
(13) Southeast Missouri State/(22) Eastern Kentucky
(12) Richmond/(21) St. Francis
(9) Weber State/(20) Delaware
(18) North Dakota/(19) Montana
(15) Idaho/(16) Southeastern Louisiana

This setup has the same number of bus trips (5) as the actual matchups while keeping the best unseeded teams from playing each other. And it avoids the (20) Delaware/(21) St. Francis & (22) Eastern Kentucky/(23) Gardner-Webb matchups we'll see this weekend. Nobody really gets an unfair draw like Elon & Furman playing each other or SEMO having to go to to Missoula.
SEMO and EKU along with Richmond and St Francis played each other in the regular season out of conference which they're supposed to avoid unless it adds another flight.

[SDFS]

This has been the criteria and process for bidding forever. This is supposed to be the most knowledgeable place about FCS that exists, and yet people act like they’ve never experienced the playoffs before.

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

There’s nothing in that article that says UND’s bid was that much higher than Weber’s. They were likely very close, monetarily speaking. Well let's take a look at it:

Criteria 1) Last year 2021 Attendance: UND - 24th in FCS 9,661 Weber St - 59th in FCS - 6,404 - clearly UND.

Criteria 2) UND - indoor - weather would not impact the outcome of the game. Indoor practice facilities that both teams could use to prep for the game if needed. - no advantage either way.

Criteria 3) UND placed a higher bid - UND.

Criteria 4) Push no advantage either way

Criteria 5) Conference place (UND 3rd is the highest ranked conference, Weber 3rd in another very difficult conference, No head to head, common opponents both played @NAU - Weber won 33-31: UND won 27-24

I guess the AGS rankings made the difference: Weber ranked 8th and UND 20th ranked is the difference.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

No one argues with most who get in. They are pretty much self evident. It’s the tail end of a handful to teams where the “ criteria” are often hidden and subject to questionable ,unannounced or altered rationale. There needs to be a firmer outline of what gets you in. This happens every year. Lots of fans look down at this division because of this. It doesn’t have a clean smell. JMHO.

You really make some nonsensical arguments with this crap. They have a pretty firm outline, you just want to pick and choose what suits you and your argument. xolx

[Gil Dobie]

He started against Montana State...

I didn't mention Montana St.

[SDFS]

There's context to all those games relative to how others would perform, even in victory. Fordham has a great offense this year. They are legitimately fun to watch. IMO, they've taken EWU's place as the team filled with great athletes on offense and a defense just good enough. They went out and scheduled 3 CAA teams and an FBS team OOC. You cannot hold against them the failure of other program's. Plus, Fordham has history of aggressive OOC scheduling. The PL has always been top heavy and this year is no different. Thankfully, with 5 OOC games at least there's a opportunity to show you honestly try to step up your game.

These are the same things mid-majors battle in basketball. At some point you can only do so much because it takes two to tango. At least make a real attempt given the parameters in which you exist....

So, showcasing the NCAA's All Time Rushing Leader with over 8,000 career yards is too boring. Got it. And the vaunted CAA schools scheduled are: Monmouth, Stony, Albany - OK.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

None of those games were also part of ESPN2's broadcasting plans. The fact the Griz get in, are at home and on nationally television is deeply rooted in financial motives....

Oh bull**** with this conspiracy crap. How is the Selection Committee getting paid for this move. This f'n game will look good, won't realy draw a huge crowd that will make money for ESPN2 etc. Your argument is silly man.

Like MTFan said, this is the same crap that was being touted prior to the 2017 show and all you nuts STFU and did not address it once it did not happen you all predicted because it was some "financial windfall". xlolx

[AggiePride]

I don't think you understood the point. It was stated that UC Davis couldn't afford to not play that game and that if they could have afforded to have a schedule like UM they would have been in. They could have afforded it if they wished. Much more money, just placing the priority elsewhere. It was not a cut down and I did not smite you. I did not focus on the athletic budgets because there is always so much creative accounting and moving money to "plant" types of areas that is a rabbit hole I did not want to go down with either school.

I understood, but I just wanted to make it clear how the budgets are allocated, because anyone reading your post might simply assume that UC Davis is underperforming with what would be a massive budget relative to most FCS schools.

[Chalupa Batman]

SEMO and EKU along with Richmond and St Francis played each other in the regular season out of conference which they're supposed to avoid unless it adds another flight.

Ahhh crap how did I miss those!? I'm adding a special addendum that only conference rematches should be avoided in the first round! :D


So then the St. Francis/Delaware matchup would have to stay but the rest of the matchups could've been:

(9) Weber State/(18) North Dakota
(10) Furman/(22) Eastern Kentucky
(11) Elon/(24) Davidson
(12) Richmond/(23) Gardner-Webb
(13) Southeast Missouri State//(19) Montana
(14) New Hampshire/(17) Fordham
(15) Idaho/(16) Southeastern Louisiana
(20) Delaware/(21) St. Francis

Would still be able to get a little more balance and break up the Furman/Elon & Gardner-Webb/Eastern Kentucky matchups in the first round.

[penguinpower]

Don't they get a % of the gate as well. Lil
ke I said, this is odd. If their primary concern is money, then why didn't it go to the highest bidder?

dIvErSiTy

[taper]

You guys just don't seem to understand some basics and that happens a lot when it comes to playoff time. 6 wins puts a team in serious jeopardy of not making it. You did not deserve to be in and neither did Montana, that is true. When you get to that area which we call the bubble...stop making all the silly arguments and comparisons and accept your fate. It sucks but I know as we've had to do it too.
2015 WIU - Beat #5 SDSU week 12.
2017 Lehigh - PL autobid.
2018 Elon - beat #2 JMU and had a cancelled game due to hurricane.
2018 UIW - beat #6 McNeese and #21 SHSU by huge margins.
I think this is a complete list of 6 or less win teams in the FCS playoffs. Pretty clear you need to do something exceptional to get in at 6. UCD is a good team but they didn't clear the bar.

[SDFS]

2015 WIU - Beat #5 SDSU week 12.
2017 Lehigh - PL autobid.
2018 Elon - beat #2 JMU and had a cancelled game due to hurricane.
2018 UIW - beat #6 McNeese and #21 SHSU by huge margins.
I think this is a complete list of 6 or less win teams in the FCS playoffs. Pretty clear you need to do something exceptional to get in at 6. UCD is a good team but they didn't clear the bar.

Little context with the 2015 - SDSU basically spent 24 hrs trying to get to Macomb. They asked for a 3 or 4 hour delay. So, the team could prep. WIU agreed to 90 minutes. Needless to say.. SDSU was a little sluggish in the game. A game that WIU won in double overtime.

the start of the game was delayed by 90 minutes after SDSU was delayed en route to Macomb due to traffic accidents in wintry weather that hit the area early Saturday … the Jackrabbits encountered travel difficulties throughout the trip, arriving in Illinois about 10 hours later than scheduled Friday night

[AggiePride]

You guys just don't seem to understand some basics and that happens a lot when it comes to playoff time. 6 wins puts a team in serious jeopardy of not making it. You did not deserve to be in and neither did Montana, that is true. When you get to that area which we call the bubble...stop making all the silly arguments and comparisons and accept your fate. It sucks but I know as we've had to do it too.

This is true, you leave it to the judges and this is what you get. You have to determine your own fate and we came up short.

Anyway, the conclusion is simple. Schedule soft in FCS, knowing the arbitrary “7 win” benchmark that appears to be by far the most important factor in playoff selection.

[lionsrking2]

2015 WIU - Beat #5 SDSU week 12.
2017 Lehigh - PL autobid.
2018 Elon - beat #2 JMU and had a cancelled game due to hurricane.
2018 UIW - beat #6 McNeese and #21 SHSU by huge margins.
I think this is a complete list of 6 or less win teams in the FCS playoffs. Pretty clear you need to do something exceptional to get in at 6. UCD is a good team but they didn't clear the bar.

UIW got the Southland autobid in 2018.

[nodak651]

Are you saying this has happened before? If so, how is this shocking?

Also not sure what comparing Nichols with UND and USD has to do with Weber, either. Weber isn't Nichols.

No. N/A. Historical context. Duh.

[SDFS]

This is true, you leave it to the judges and this is what you get. You have to determine your own fate and we came up short.

Anyway, the conclusion is simple. Schedule soft in FCS, knowing the arbitrary “7 win” benchmark that appears to be by far the most important factor in playoff selection.

No, don't fall for it.. UND 7 wins plus FBS win... The fifth team in the Valley at 6-5 was put into the playoffs. It changes yearly - expect the unexpected.

[FUBeAR]

Ahhh crap how did I miss those!? I'm adding a special addendum that only conference rematches should be avoided in the first round! :D


So then the St. Francis/Delaware matchup would have to stay but the rest of the matchups could've been:

(9) Weber State/(18) North Dakota
(10) Furman/(22) Eastern Kentucky
(11) Elon/(24) Davidson
(12) Richmond/(23) Gardner-Webb
(13) Southeast Missouri State//(19) Montana
(14) New Hampshire/(17) Fordham
(15) Idaho/(16) Southeastern Louisiana
(20) Delaware/(21) St. Francis

Would still be able to get a little more balance and break up the Furman/Elon & Gardner-Webb/Eastern Kentucky matchups in the first round.
That works - Great Work!

OR …. Elon/EKU, Furman/G-W, Davidson/Richmond works and probably is fewer miles…not sure.

Using Google Maps, FUBeAR found Elon, NC & Richmond, KY addresses that are exactly 400 miles apart, so…ALL GOOD. All bus rides, fewer miles, and better competitive balance.

The Committee, as usual, just didn’t try hard enough to make it make sense. So, the SoCon bends over and greases up. Guess Elon still has some of that SoCon ‘Stink’ on them that the Committee seems to hate so much.

#10 vs. #11 in Round 1 is stupid…regardless of all the pseudo-macho trolling commentary by fans of Teams with “AutoSeeds” / “AutoAtLarge Bids” or the Irrelevant Ineligible.

[Professor Chaos]

Ahhh crap how did I miss those!? I'm adding a special addendum that only conference rematches should be avoided in the first round! :D


So then the St. Francis/Delaware matchup would have to stay but the rest of the matchups could've been:

(9) Weber State/(18) North Dakota
(10) Furman/(22) Eastern Kentucky
(11) Elon/(24) Davidson
(12) Richmond/(23) Gardner-Webb
(13) Southeast Missouri State//(19) Montana
(14) New Hampshire/(17) Fordham
(15) Idaho/(16) Southeastern Louisiana
(20) Delaware/(21) St. Francis

Would still be able to get a little more balance and break up the Furman/Elon & Gardner-Webb/Eastern Kentucky matchups in the first round.
It's all good... I've been saying for years that they should put the 16 teams unseeded teams into 4 team pools - think of it as 3 seeds through 6 seeds using NCAA basketball tournament structure where the 3 seeds match up with the 6 seeds feeding into the #5-#8 national seeds and the 4 seeds match up with the 5 seeds feeding into the #1-#4 national seeds. You could still regionalize it to a certain extent. Here's an example of what it could've looked like this year:

3 seeds
Weber St
Furman
Elon
Richmond

4 seeds
SEMO
UNH
Idaho
SLU

5 seeds
Fordham
UND
Montana
Delaware

6 seeds
St Francis
EKU
Gardner-Webb
Davidson


So the national bracket could be:

(5) Delaware vs (4) SLU to #1 SDSU
(6) Davidson vs (3) Richmond to #8 Holy Cross
(6) EKU vs (3) Elon to #5 William & Mary
(5) UND vs (4) Idaho to #4 Montana St
(5) Fordham vs (4) UNH to #3 NDSU
(6) Gardner-Webb vs (3) Furman to #6 Samford
(6) St Francis vs (3) Weber St to #7 Incarnate Word
(5) Montana vs (4) SEMO to #2 Sac St



I call it Chaos Theory. :)

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Oh bull**** with this conspiracy crap. How is the Selection Committee getting paid for this move. This f'n game will look good, won't realy draw a huge crowd that will make money for ESPN2 etc. Your argument is silly man.

Like MTFan said, this is the same crap that was being touted prior to the 2017 show and all you nuts STFU and did not address it once it did not happen you all predicted because it was some "financial windfall". xlolx

ESPN2 wants maximum value for their 8 pm Saturday time slot. Montana presents the highest ROI on that FCS playoff investment of all the possible first round opponents. This is not a conspiracy theory or some radical train of thought. This is based on conversations I have had who represent the MAC and Big East when it comes to media deals, establishing equity for both parties.

You can laugh all you want but ESPN wanted Montana in that time slot. Their value to a 24 field bracket is impressive thus worthy of a bid...

[Chalupa Batman]

2015 WIU - Beat #5 SDSU week 12.
2017 Lehigh - PL autobid.
2018 Elon - beat #2 JMU and had a cancelled game due to hurricane.
2018 UIW - beat #6 McNeese and #21 SHSU by huge margins.
I think this is a complete list of 6 or less win teams in the FCS playoffs. Pretty clear you need to do something exceptional to get in at 6. UCD is a good team but they didn't clear the bar.

UNI made it with 6 wins last year. They blew out 4 seed Sac State at their place, and beat fellow fellow playoff teams SDSU & SIU

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This has been the criteria and process for bidding forever. This is supposed to be the most knowledgeable place about FCS that exists, and yet people act like they’ve never experienced the playoffs before.

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

There’s nothing in that article that says UND’s bid was that much higher than Weber’s. They were likely very close, monetarily speaking.

Yes, it is surprising every damn year how little people around here understand about the process and how sure they always are that they know better. xlolx

I put this together years ago now and it hasn't changed. It is there for anyone that wants to see a video, hear the podcasts, or just read the rules so they are not so uninformed about this.

https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?238904

It's pretty easy to just sit back and listen and learn something if anybody feels like it. But if you are pissed off already because your undeserving team got left out while another undeserving team got in that it won't help you. You've convinced yourself that you really have a case for you bubble team...which is impossible since your team was on the bubble in the first place.

[Professor Chaos]

2015 WIU - Beat #5 SDSU week 12.
2017 Lehigh - PL autobid.
2018 Elon - beat #2 JMU and had a cancelled game due to hurricane.
2018 UIW - beat #6 McNeese and #21 SHSU by huge margins.
I think this is a complete list of 6 or less win teams in the FCS playoffs. Pretty clear you need to do something exceptional to get in at 6. UCD is a good team but they didn't clear the bar.


UNI made it with 6 wins last year. They blew out 4 seed Sac State at their place, and beat fellow fellow playoff teams SDSU & SIU
Illinois St also made it at 6-5 in 2016. They beat Northwestern and 8 seed SDSU (SDSU's only MVFC loss that year).

[FUBeAR]

It's all good... I've been saying for years that they should put the 16 teams unseeded teams into 4 team pools - think of it as 3 seeds through 6 seeds using NCAA basketball tournament structure where the 3 seeds match up with the 6 seeds feeding into the #5-#8 national seeds and the 4 seeds match up with the 5 seeds feeding into the #1-#4 national seeds. You could still regionalize it to a certain extent. Here's an example of what it could've looked like this year:

3 seeds
Weber St
Furman
Elon
Richmond

4 seeds
SEMO
UNH
Idaho
SLU

5 seeds
Fordham
UND
Montana
Delaware

6 seeds
St Francis
EKU
Gardner-Webb
Davidson


So the national bracket could be:

(5) Delaware vs (4) SLU to #1 SDSU
(6) Davidson vs (3) Richmond to #8 Holy Cross
(6) EKU vs (3) Elon to #5 William & Mary
(5) UND vs (4) Idaho to #4 Montana St
(5) Fordham vs (4) UNH to #3 NDSU
(6) Gardner-Webb vs (3) Furman to #6 Samford
(6) St Francis vs (3) Weber St to #7 Incarnate Word
(5) Montana vs (4) SEMO to #2 Sac St



I call it Chaos Theory. :)Exactly what FUBeAR just came up with for FU, G-W, Elon, EKU, Davidson, Richmond. And, we Paladins would LOVE go to Samford in Round 2. Prefer the Semi’s as it’s set up now, but no problem with that rematch…wherever, whenever.

How can we amateurs figure this ish out in 10 minutes and the “Professionals” **** it up EVERY **** -ing year

[uofmman1122]

You guys just don't seem to understand some basics and that happens a lot when it comes to playoff time. 6 wins puts a team in serious jeopardy of not making it. You did not deserve to be in and neither did Montana, that is true. When you get to that area which we call the bubble...stop making all the silly arguments and comparisons and accept your fate. It sucks but I know as we've had to do it too.
If we could simply buy our way into the tournament, we wouldn't have been left out in 2010 and 2017.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

2015 WIU - Beat #5 SDSU week 12.
2017 Lehigh - PL autobid.
2018 Elon - beat #2 JMU and had a cancelled game due to hurricane.
2018 UIW - beat #6 McNeese and #21 SHSU by huge margins.
I think this is a complete list of 6 or less win teams in the FCS playoffs. Pretty clear you need to do something exceptional to get in at 6. UCD is a good team but they didn't clear the bar.

Exactly, it happens very infrequently and it also may have to count on a lot of other very week bubble opponents to get it to happen.

[Chalupa Batman]

That works - Great Work!

OR …. Elon/EKU, Furman/G-W, Davidson/Richmond works and probably is fewer miles…not sure.

Using Google Maps, FUBeAR found Elon, NC & Richmond, KY addresses that are exactly 400 miles apart, so…ALL GOOD. All bus rides, fewer miles, and better competitive balance.

The Committee, as usual, just didn’t try hard enough to make it make sense. So, the SoCon bends over and greases up. Guess Elon still has some of that SoCon ‘Stink’ on them that the Committee seems to hate so much.

#10 vs. #11 in Round 1 is stupid…regardless of all the pseudo-macho trolling commentary by fans of Teams with “AutoSeeds” / “AutoAtLarge Bids” or the Irrelevant Ineligible.

Because Elon vs. Gardner-Webb had to be avoided in the first round, the committee had 4 options when pairing Furman, Elon, Richmond, EKU, GW, & Davidson (with AGS ranking).

1. (10) Furman/(22) Eastern Kentucky
(11) Elon/(24) Davidson
(12) Richmond/(23) Gardner-Webb

2. (10) Furman/(23) Gardner-Webb
(11) Elon/(22) Eastern Kentucky
(12) Richmond/(24) Davidson

3. (10) Furman/(24) Davidson
(11) Elon/(22) Eastern Kentucky
(12) Richmond/(23) Gardner-Webb

4. (10) Furman/(11) Elon
(22) Eastern Kentucky/(23) Gardner-Webb
(12) Richmond/(24) Davidson


So of course they went with #4, BY FAR the worst option. xcrazyx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This is true, you leave it to the judges and this is what you get. You have to determine your own fate and we came up short.

Anyway, the conclusion is simple. Schedule soft in FCS, knowing the arbitrary “7 win” benchmark that appears to be by far the most important factor in playoff selection.

7 wins has been the standard since the 80's and it is not unknown that you need to manage a schedule to gain access. If you schedule a pretty tough FBS, and a D2, your are basically giving up 2 in your stretch to 7. You can say schedule soft but that can put you in a position like FAMU (rightfully so) and they had 3 more soft wins that UC Davis but it does not help.

It is not one thing, it is a mix of many and they are not all easy to cross reference and it does change every year because the teams change every year. There are also different members over time that have different opinions about what they themselves value so that adds to the dynamic nature of it too.

[AmsterBison]

That all depends is you are Youngstown. They've been left out more than any other team on the bubble and that's a fact.

This is true.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

ESPN2 wants maximum value for their 8 pm Saturday time slot. Montana presents the highest ROI on that FCS playoff investment of all the possible first round opponents. This is not a conspiracy theory or some radical train of thought. This is based on conversations I have had who represent the MAC and Big East when it comes to media deals, establishing equity for both parties.

You can laugh all you want but ESPN wanted Montana in that time slot. Their value to a 24 field bracket is impressive thus worthy of a bid...

Of course they do, nobody is arguing that they want the best of the lot they have to choose from. That is dumb as hell to act they would not.

It does not have jack **** to do with the Selection Committee selecting anyone to please ESPN. That is a conspiracy theory, and a dumb one.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

No, don't fall for it.. UND 7 wins plus FBS win... The fifth team in the Valley at 6-5 was put into the playoffs. It changes yearly - expect the unexpected.

You said 7 wins. Did you mean 7 D1 wins? Which year are we talking about here?

[Catbooster]

ESPN2 wants maximum value for their 8 pm Saturday time slot. Montana presents the highest ROI on that FCS playoff investment of all the possible first round opponents. This is not a conspiracy theory or some radical train of thought. This is based on conversations I have had who represent the MAC and Big East when it comes to media deals, establishing equity for both parties.

You can laugh all you want but ESPN wanted Montana in that time slot. Their value to a 24 field bracket is impressive thus worthy of a bid...
Does the committee chair call ESPN Sunday morning to find out who they should put in the first round? Seems like it would be hard to arrange before the last games are played and while the bubble is still uncertain.

[F'N Hawks]

You said 7 wins. Did you mean 7 D1 wins? Which year are we talking about here?

2015. UND had a FBS win and win over #7 seed PSU on the road. Still didn't get in. Never know with these committees

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Of course they do, nobody is arguing that they want the best of the lot they have to choose from. That is dumb as hell to act they would not.

It does not have jack **** to do with the Selection Committee selecting anyone to please ESPN. That is a conspiracy theory, and a dumb one.

Ursus,

If you do not believe the FCS Playoff Committee and the FBS Playoff Committee work with ESPN, you're wrong. If you do think the NCAA Selection takes input from CBS and Turner Broadcasting you're wrong. If you do not think NASCAR's scheduling is dictated by the networks you're wrong

Montana or Montana State were destined to be in the ESPN2 spot Saturday night. When MSU won they secured the seed and Montana took the opening week slot. NDSU will be one of the nationally televised teams next week.

There's factual evidence to support this. It's the way sports work given the influence of media/scheduling.

[MSUBobcat]

It's all good... I've been saying for years that they should put the 16 teams unseeded teams into 4 team pools - think of it as 3 seeds through 6 seeds using NCAA basketball tournament structure where the 3 seeds match up with the 6 seeds feeding into the #5-#8 national seeds and the 4 seeds match up with the 5 seeds feeding into the #1-#4 national seeds. You could still regionalize it to a certain extent. Here's an example of what it could've looked like this year:

3 seeds
Weber St
Furman
Elon
Richmond

4 seeds
SEMO
UNH
Idaho
SLU

5 seeds
Fordham
UND
Montana
Delaware

6 seeds
St Francis
EKU
Gardner-Webb
Davidson


So the national bracket could be:

(5) Delaware vs (4) SLU to #1 SDSU
(6) Davidson vs (3) Richmond to #8 Holy Cross
(6) EKU vs (3) Elon to #5 William & Mary
(5) UND vs (4) Idaho to #4 Montana St
(5) Fordham vs (4) UNH to #3 NDSU
(6) Gardner-Webb vs (3) Furman to #6 Samford
(6) St Francis vs (3) Weber St to #7 Incarnate Word
(5) Montana vs (4) SEMO to #2 Sac St



I call it Chaos Theory. :)

That is basically how college hockey does it. They are called "bands". The field is ranked 1 through 16 by a computer model (Pairwise in the case of hockey), then the matchups are doled out as appropriate for bracket integrity (1 vs 16, 2 vs 15, etc.). They have the same rule about not playing conference opponents in the first game, so any intra-conference matchups are moved. Then they look to maximize bus trips. Finally, they may swap out teams to increase attendance, as they are played at "neutral" regional sites rather than on campus. Under no circumstances can you move outside of your band, i.e. a 1-4 (1 seed) cannot play lower than the 13th ranked team (4 seed).

True bracket integrity is never achieved throughout, but you wouldn't have the situation where a Furman plays Elon while 2 weaker AQ's play each other. Granted, the field is smaller (16 vs 24) but there is a LOT less griping about the bracket. There's even a Pairwise Predictor app where you can put any combination of results of the conference tournament games not yet played to see what results your team needs to make the field, or get X seed vs Y seed. The only complaints are usually about moves made for attendance purposes (for example, UND gets hosed a fair bit because the fans travel well, so they get stuck out east to help a regional with a bunch of teams with that don't typically draw well.) It's a pretty good system, everyone knows which teams are going to be in and bracket prognosticators can typically get even the placement of the field pretty accurate (matchups and even which regional the pairing will be sent to).

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Does the committee chair call ESPN Sunday morning to find out who they should put in the first round? Seems like it would be hard to arrange before the last games are played and while the bubble is still uncertain.

They absolutely discuss who will be in the 8 time slot on ESPN2. ESPN2 has a significant vested interest in that slot given the Thanksgiving Weekend's connection with football. That game has to attract eyeballs.

This will be the Griz's second appearance on ESPN2 this year, the Bobcats had an ESPNU game earlier in the year.

[AggiePride]

7 wins has been the standard since the 80's and it is not unknown that you need to manage a schedule to gain access. If you schedule a pretty tough FBS, and a D2, your are basically giving up 2 in your stretch to 7. You can say schedule soft but that can put you in a position like FAMU (rightfully so) and they had 3 more soft wins that UC Davis but it does not help.

It is not one thing, it is a mix of many and they are not all easy to cross reference and it does change every year because the teams change every year. There are also different members over time that have different opinions about what they themselves value so that adds to the dynamic nature of it too.

So your point is the committee is free to place bubble teams on whatever whims or secretive criteria they desire. I don’t think anyone is disputing that xdrunkyx

[SDFS]

You said 7 wins. Did you mean 7 D1 wins? Which year are we talking about here?

2015, UND 7 D1 wins which included a FBS win against Wyoming. WIU 6-5 in the Valley. WIU was placed in the playoffs. UND was not.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

2015. UND had a FBS win and win over #7 seed PSU on the road. Still didn't get in. Never know with these committees

You never know because that would get you in some years while it might not have in that year due to bubble competition. You lost to Idaho State and their only other win that year was over Black Hills so that bad loss negated the FBS win over a Wyoming team that won 2 games that year. So in context it might not have been as rosy looking to the committee by years end.

[MSUBobcat]

Of course they do, nobody is arguing that they want the best of the lot they have to choose from. That is dumb as hell to act they would not.

It does not have jack **** to do with the Selection Committee selecting anyone to please ESPN. That is a conspiracy theory, and a dumb one.

Not only are they picking the best of what they have available, but what they had available for FCS playoffs was limited by the time slot given. This is an 8 PM time slot.... in MOUNTAIN TIME. Of the first round games, there are 2 in MST (UM-SEMO and WSU-UND) and 1 in CST (UI-SLU). SLU would be a 9 PM local time start, so that was probably dismissed out of hand. Now it's down to WSU or UM... which are you going to give it to?

If ESPN had allotted the FCS playoff game the 5pm MST time slot, then the EST teams would have been up for consideration, but I suspect Furman, Delaware, UNH, Richmond and EKU had zero desire for a 10pm local time kickoff.

[Catbooster]

This is true, you leave it to the judges and this is what you get. You have to determine your own fate and we came up short.

Anyway, the conclusion is simple. Schedule soft in FCS, knowing the arbitrary “7 win” benchmark that appears to be by far the most important factor in playoff selection.
Not too soft or you'll get dinged for strength of schedule.

Sac State - weaker FBS, middle FCS, weaker FCS
Montana State - stronger FBS, 2 weaker FCS
Idaho - 2 FBS, weaker FCS
UC Davis - strong FBS, strong FCS, weaker FCS
Griz - 1 moderate FCS, 2 weaker FCS

Generally in the Big Sky, you're getting risky if you schedule more than 1 tough OOC game. But it depends on who's on your conference schedule - UC Davis played the 4 top Big Sky teams; MSU only had to play 3. Add in that when you're scheduling a team is usually years ahead, so who knows whether they'll be tough or cupcakes by then.

It also depends on your conference - MVFC might get enough schedule strength from just conference games, other conferences might need to be more aggressive in their OOC schedule

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Ursus,

If you do not believe the FCS Playoff Committee and the FBS Playoff Committee work with ESPN, you're wrong. If you do think the NCAA Selection takes input from CBS and Turner Broadcasting you're wrong. If you do not think NASCAR's scheduling is dictated by the networks you're wrong

Montana or Montana State were destined to be in the ESPN2 spot Saturday night. When MSU won they secured the seed and Montana took the opening week slot. NDSU will be one of the nationally televised teams next week.

There's factual evidence to support this. It's the way sports work given the influence of media/scheduling.

Sorry, I actually know and talk to two members over the years and your statement about what they do is pure bull****. They don't talk to ESPN at any point about who ESPN wants to see. You are making **** up.

[penguinpower]

Wick250 on the YSU board posted this solution, which I happen to find to be well thought out:

"Reading these comments, the only thing that surprised me is that some of you are surprised. The NCAA selection committee has been a corrupt institution for decades. The NCAA organization really does not care about IAA/FCS football. They know this system is flawed but have failed to fix it for generations.

If the NCAA were interested in running an honest playoff, they need do only three simple things.

First, eliminate the conference ADs and staff the committee with about five retired, well-respected football people who no longer had any institutional affiliation. And pay them well for their service.

Second, publish for all to see the criteria that will be used for at-large selections. And stick to that criteria.

Third, and most importantly, how the five-man committee release a power ranking of all teams with a .500 or above record after the games on the first Saturday of November. And make it clear that the at-large bids will come from that list. You may or may not like your position, but you would know exactly where you stood. And the possibility for corruption would dramatically decrease.

That is what the NCAA would do if they cared. They don't."

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Not only are they picking the best of what they have available, but what they had available for FCS playoffs was limited by the time slot given. This is an 8 PM time slot.... in MOUNTAIN TIME. Of the first round games, there are 2 in MST (UM-SEMO and WSU-UND) and 1 in CST (UI-SLU). SLU would be a 9 PM local time start, so that was probably dismissed out of hand. Now it's down to WSU or UM... which are you going to give it to?

If ESPN had allotted the FCS playoff game the 5pm MST time slot, then the EST teams would have been up for consideration, but I suspect Furman, Delaware, UNH, Richmond and EKU had zero desire for a 10pm local time kickoff.

I don't think we really do either. xlolx

All great points.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

Sorry, I actually know and talk to two members over the years and your statement about what they do is pure bull****. They don't talk to ESPN at any point about who ESPN wants to see. You are making **** up.

Absolutely not Ursus!

I will firmly stand my ground on the relationship between ESPN or any influential media entity and these various committees, conferences etc in terms of scheduling and developing brand equity for programs. If you do not believe ESPN and the NCAA track the analytical impact of televised games, hosting GameDay, what time slots are better, what teams attract more eyeballs, what programs have the potential to gain value at the G5 level, P5 level you're wrong.

Continue your train of thought given the relationship between the media and sports these days as you may but its ignorant to reality. CBS finally had the balls to look at some of the data all these gambling outlets have on the legitimacy of games. This is entertainment to the decision makers but competitive sports for the consumer.

ESPN is determining as well as attempt to create mutual equity for Montana and MSU in order to see if they are viable at the next level of college football should realignment present such an opportunity in the west.

I have no idea why you're fighting this or denying it. I am not attacking Montana in anyway. Their value to the bracket and to FCS football come Saturday night is tremendous. The casual football fan does not know nor do not care the 'Griz were a controversial inclusion to some. They're legitimized by the entire package. And that's the point.....

[Catbooster]

They absolutely discuss who will be in the 8 time slot on ESPN2. ESPN2 has a significant vested interest in that slot given the Thanksgiving Weekend's connection with football. That game has to attract eyeballs.

This will be the Griz's second appearance on ESPN2 this year, the Bobcats had an ESPNU game earlier in the year.
No one disputes that they discuss who will be in what time slot. I don't know but would guess that ESPN picks the game for the 8PM time slot.

But you seem to be saying that NCAA/ESPN pervert the selection process by selecting teams for the tournament based on their ability to attract eyeballs or to make appealing match-ups for ESPN.

The rest of us think that the committee picks the teams/makes the pairings, and then ESPN can choose which games they want to pick up.

[BeamMeUp]

Wick250 on the YSU board posted this solution, which I happen to find to be well thought out:

"Reading these comments, the only thing that surprised me is that some of you are surprised. The NCAA selection committee has been a corrupt institution for decades. The NCAA organization really does not care about IAA/FCS football. They know this system is flawed but have failed to fix it for generations.

If the NCAA were interested in running an honest playoff, they need do only three simple things.

First, eliminate the conference ADs and staff the committee with about five retired, well-respected football people who no longer had any institutional affiliation. And pay them well for their service.

Second, publish for all to see the criteria that will be used for at-large selections. And stick to that criteria.

Third, and most importantly, how the five-man committee release a power ranking of all teams with a .500 or above record after the games on the first Saturday of November. And make it clear that the at-large bids will come from that list. You may or may not like your position, but you would know exactly where you stood. And the possibility for corruption would dramatically decrease.

That is what the NCAA would do if they cared. They don't."

How could anyone argue against this!? All great points!

[SDFS]

You never know because that would get you in some years while it might not have in that year due to bubble competition. You lost to Idaho State and their only other win that year was over Black Hills so that bad loss negated the FBS win over a Wyoming team that won 2 games that year. So in context it might not have been as rosy looking to the committee by years end.

Yes, UND lost it's starting QB in the middle of the season for 3 weeks (lost 3 straight) and then got him back at the end of the season to finish with 3 game winning streak (scoring 44, 45 and 45) and a 7-4 record. I thought that all of those things were considered. And most importantly, it was how you were playing at the end of the season that really mattered. NOTE: Prior to 2015, it was noted at the time that no 6-5 team had ever been selected. It was a break from precedence.

[caribbeanhen]

How could anyone argue against this!? All great points!

Nope

keep it free and loose Lol

let’s see the list of five well respected knowledgeable FCS football people that are not biased?

[uofmman1122]

No one disputes that they discuss who will be in what time slot. I don't know but would guess that ESPN picks the game for the 8PM time slot.

But you seem to be saying that NCAA/ESPN pervert the selection process by selecting teams for the tournament based on their ability to attract eyeballs or to make appealing match-ups for ESPN.

The rest of us think that the committee picks the teams/makes the pairings, and then ESPN can choose which games they want to pick up.
Yeah, it's just kooky nonsense. Just people mad that their completely subjective personal selection criteria that didn't include Montana doesn't match up with the committee's equally subjective selection criteria that did, and trying to justify that discrepancy with nonsense.

[Go Lehigh TU Owl]

No one disputes that they discuss who will be in what time slot. I don't know but would guess that ESPN picks the game for the 8PM time slot.

But you seem to be saying that NCAA/ESPN pervert the selection process by selecting teams for the tournament based on their ability to attract eyeballs or to make appealing match-ups for ESPN.

The rest of us think that the committee picks the teams/makes the pairings, and then ESPN can choose which games they want to pick up.

I believe there's far more compromise given the forces at play. ESPN has had a significant hand in conference alignment. Hell, they pressured NASCAR to throw debris cautions to keep races interesting which then turned into stage racing for transparency purposes. You have forces of diversity openly acknowledged/discussed in the selection process. There are both stated and unstated influences. There are also varying degrees of such. The playoff selection process at any level and the whole premise of establishing a winner has drastically changed over the last 15-2o years in college football, PGA Tour, NASCAR, NFL and MLB has added teams, NBA has added a play-in round at the advisement of TV.

ESPN has learned there is significant value in JMU, App State, Montana, Montana State and NDSU at the FCS level. How does that influence people's thought processes? There's a precedent to support a stance....

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Absolutely not Ursus!

I will firmly stand my ground on the relationship between ESPN or any influential media entity and these various committees, conferences etc in terms of scheduling and developing brand equity for programs. If you do not believe ESPN and the NCAA track the analytical impact of televised games, hosting GameDay, what time slots are better, what teams attract more eyeballs, what programs have the potential to gain value at the G5 level, P5 level you're wrong.

Continue your train of thought given the relationship between the media and sports these days as you may but its ignorant to reality. CBS finally had the balls to look at some of the data all these gambling outlets have on the legitimacy of games. This is entertainment to the decision makers but competitive sports for the consumer.

ESPN is determining as well as attempt to create mutual equity for Montana and MSU in order to see if they are viable at the next level of college football should realignment present such an opportunity in the west.

I have no idea why you're fighting this or denying it. I am not attacking Montana in anyway. Their value to the bracket and to FCS football come Saturday night is tremendous. The casual football fan does not know nor do not care the 'Griz were a controversial inclusion to some. They're legitimized by the entire package. And that's the point.....

You keep making other arguments that don't have a thing to do with your original premise. Your specious reasoning does not have anything to do with the fact that the Selection Committee does not take direction from ESPN as to who goes in.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yes, UND lost it's starting QB in the middle of the season for 3 weeks (lost 3 straight) and then got him back at the end of the season to finish with 3 game winning streak (scoring 44, 45 and 45) and a 7-4 record. I thought that all of those things were considered. And most importantly, it was how you were playing at the end of the season that really mattered. NOTE: Prior to 2015, it was noted at the time that no 6-5 team had ever been selected. It was a break from precedence.

Well that is not true as it is very rare as pointed out, but it has happened. I even think Idaho started really slow one year in the 80's and then made the field but I'd have to go look it up. But 8-5 us very rare. Trust me I know how Idaho State can mess things up being a bad team and playing tough. I think when we won the chipper in 2001 we only beat them by a field goal in Holt. xlolx

It's always a mix of many things. It is by virture of the task never going to be apples to apples comparisons from year to year.

We've been left out a couple times when on the bubble as well so it goes around to even the team that ESPN demands get in!:D

[Professor Chaos]

Wick250 on the YSU board posted this solution, which I happen to find to be well thought out:

"Reading these comments, the only thing that surprised me is that some of you are surprised. The NCAA selection committee has been a corrupt institution for decades. The NCAA organization really does not care about IAA/FCS football. They know this system is flawed but have failed to fix it for generations.

If the NCAA were interested in running an honest playoff, they need do only three simple things.

First, eliminate the conference ADs and staff the committee with about five retired, well-respected football people who no longer had any institutional affiliation. And pay them well for their service.

Second, publish for all to see the criteria that will be used for at-large selections. And stick to that criteria.

Third, and most importantly, how the five-man committee release a power ranking of all teams with a .500 or above record after the games on the first Saturday of November. And make it clear that the at-large bids will come from that list. You may or may not like your position, but you would know exactly where you stood. And the possibility for corruption would dramatically decrease.

That is what the NCAA would do if they cared. They don't."
The selection committee is not the NCAA they're a group of ADs from various schools in the FCS conferences that have playoff autobids - they have no financial incentive to make the NCAA money but they do have rules dictated by the NCAA they need to abide by put in place to maximize revenue and minimize cost.

The at-large selection criteria is published for anyone with internet access; on page 18 of https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf


At-large teams shall be selected by the NCAA Division I Football Championship Committee, assisted by four regional advisory committees that serve in an advisory capacity only.

The following principles shall apply when selecting at-large teams:

1. The committee shall select the best teams available on a national at-large basis to complete the bracket. Per NCAA Bylaw 31, the basic criteria used in the selection of at-large participants are (1) won-lost record, (2) strength of schedule, and (3) eligibility and availability of student-athletes for the NCAA championship;

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

3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, fewer than six Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected;

4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all Division I opponents; and

5. If a committee member’s institution is under consideration, that committee member will not be allowed in the room during discussions involving his/her team and may not vote for his/her team during the voting process. Similarly, a committee member from a conference office may not be present during discussions, nor vote for any team from his/her conference

I'd agree that having more transparency around where teams stand before Selection Sunday would be a good thing. They used to release a top 10 around Halloween (in fact one year I think they had 2 or 3 midseason releases) - I'm not sure why they did away with that. In a perfect world you wouldn't have direct employees of the schools up for selection on the committee as well but the NCAA does that for far more lucrative championships than this one so I doubt it'll change anytime soon.

[penguinpower]

You are all arguing with the assumption that the committee follows a set of rules. That may be the case, but the standards/rules they choose from year to year are different. The process is not transparent. It has to be in order to be fair. They aren't interested in making it fair.

Therefore we need to talk reform.

Perhaps some of the great minds on here could come up with a set of criteria with priority and transparency where WE THE FANS propose the ultimate solution. It would be in everyone's interest AND we could get it to the commissioners to that will help lean on the NCAA.

ESPN is a factor. MONEY IS A FACTOR. Facilities are a factor. But wins and how a team is playing late in the year are the most important factors for bubble teams.

We also need to include seeding.

I am suggesting that we start a threat and vote on the proposals and then aggregate it into one solution that the fans would like to see with the interests of the schools and costs in mind. A fair and transparent system that they couldn't refuse.

[BeamMeUp]

You are all arguing with the assumption that the committee follows a set of rules. That may be the case, but the standards/rules they choose from year to year are different. The process is not transparent. It has to be in order to be fair. They aren't interested in making it fair.

Therefore we need to talk reform.

Perhaps some of the great minds on here could come up with a set of criteria with priority and transparency where WE THE FANS propose the ultimate solution. It would be in everyone's interest AND we could get it to the commissioners to that will help lean on the NCAA.

ESPN is a factor. MONEY IS A FACTOR. Facilities are a factor. But wins and how a team is playing late in the year are the most important factors for bubble teams.

We also need to include seeding.

I am suggesting that we start a threat and vote on the proposals and then aggregate it into one solution that the fans would like to see with the interests of the schools and costs in mind. A fair and transparent system that they couldn't refuse.

Make it happen. Beam Me Up!
https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/c0f0d998f0b56ec80c7519cc615909993733e7af/c=0-116-2000-1241/local/-/media/2016/03/02/USATODAY/usatsports/traficant-ethics.jpg?width=660&height=372&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp

[uofmman1122]

I'd agree that having more transparency around where teams stand before Selection Sunday would be a good thing. They used to release a top 10 around Halloween (in fact one year I think they had 2 or 3 midseason releases) - I'm not sure why they did away with that. In a perfect world you wouldn't have direct employees of the schools up for selection on the committee as well but the NCAA does that for far more lucrative championships than this one so I doubt it'll change anytime soon.
Yeah, this is where I'm at. They desperately need more transparency, and for as ****ty as the FBS system is, they get a weekly poll showing exactly where teams stand. No idea why they couldn't do a top 10-15 every week, but I guess that still doesn't clarify the positions at 15-24, which is usually where all the issues show up.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

ESPN is a factor. MONEY IS A FACTOR. Facilities are a factor. But wins and how a team is playing late in the year are the most important factors for bubble teams.

Then again, why does it so closely mirror what all of us completely independent souls did with the AGS Poll? I'm not getting any coin from ESPN and they did not call me to try and influence the outcome of the poll on Saturday night.

There could be more transparency toward the end I guess but don't know what good it would do...since anyone wanting to make up excuses for their bubledom would just start the BS arguments a few weeks earlier. Also, there is a ton of transparency already in place that a lot of people on here don't seem to know even though the information is right here on the site. So that is a transparency issue as well since some people seem to be trying to view things with closed eyes.

[Professor Chaos]

Then again, why does it so closely mirror what all of us completely independent souls did with the AGS Poll? I'm not getting any coin from ESPN and they did not call me to try and influence the outcome of the poll on Saturday night.

There could be more transparency toward the end I guess but don't know what good it would do...since anyone wanting to make up excuses for their bubledom would just start the BS arguments a few weeks earlier. Also, there is a ton of transparency already in place that a lot of people on here don't seem to know even though the information is right here on the site. So that is a transparency issue as well since some people seem to be trying to view things with closed eyes.
Yep, for as flawed, corrupt, and inconsistent as the FCS selection process apparently is the fact that the AGS Poll consensus has correctly projected 118 of 128 (92.2%) at-large sections since 2013 is even more mind-boggling I guess.... it's almost like we have the same conversations about who the bubble teams played and who they beat relative to other bubble teams that the committee has. ;)

[MSUBobcat]

You are all arguing with the assumption that the committee follows a set of rules. That may be the case, but the standards/rules they choose from year to year are different. The process is not transparent. It has to be in order to be fair. They aren't interested in making it fair.

Therefore we need to talk reform.

Perhaps some of the great minds on here could come up with a set of criteria with priority and transparency where WE THE FANS propose the ultimate solution. It would be in everyone's interest AND we could get it to the commissioners to that will help lean on the NCAA.

ESPN is a factor. MONEY IS A FACTOR. Facilities are a factor. But wins and how a team is playing late in the year are the most important factors for bubble teams.

We also need to include seeding.

I am suggesting that we start a threat and vote on the proposals and then aggregate it into one solution that the fans would like to see with the interests of the schools and costs in mind. A fair and transparent system that they couldn't refuse.

The reason "the standards/rules they choose from year to year are different" is because the committee is always changing as members' terms expire. The group that didn't put YSU, or Mercer, FAMU, or any other bubble team in may come up with a different bracket if it didn't include Truax (Bucknell-PL) or Moniaci (HCU-Southland). Just like we all don't agree with the field this year because we weigh each criteria differently, the same thing happens in the committee. Weighing criteria is subjective so changing out 2 AD's from an 11-person committee may have resulted in a drastically different field based on this year's very tough bubble.

I like PC's idea of seeding the whole field in bands/pods and I also liked when they would do a release of where teams were before Selection Sunday. Either or both would do wonders for transparency.

[Catbooster]

Yeah, this is where I'm at. They desperately need more transparency, and for as ****ty as the FBS system is, they get a weekly poll showing exactly where teams stand. No idea why they couldn't do a top 10-15 every week, but I guess that still doesn't clarify the positions at 15-24, which is usually where all the issues show up.
Heck, it's usually the last one or two in/out that are controversial. And this is why, when this complaint comes up annually, I think this is much ado about nothing. The primary purpose of the playoffs is to determine the national champion. The field is big enough that I'm confident the best team is in the pool regardless of those last few teams.

I know it hurts to just miss the playoffs. And if you were the last one in, it's great to get to keep playing. Hope springs eternal but I'll bet those last few teams have never won the championship. Being on the bubble is kind of like losing a game that had a controversial call by the referees. If you'd made a few more plays, you wouldn't be at the mercy of the refs.

[SDFS]

Well that is not true as it is very rare as pointed out, but it has happened. I even think Idaho started really slow one year in the 80's and then made the field but I'd have to go look it up. But 8-5 us very rare. Trust me I know how Idaho State can mess things up being a bad team and playing tough. I think when we won the chipper in 2001 we only beat them by a field goal in Holt. xlolx

It's always a mix of many things. It is by virture of the task never going to be apples to apples comparisons from year to year.

We've been left out a couple times when on the bubble as well so it goes around to even the team that ESPN demands get in!:D

Hey, I looked through the 80's and into the 90's. It had several 6-5 teams but they were all conference AQs (81 RI 6-5 Yankee AQ, 82 Montana 6-5 Big Sky AQ, 82 BU 6-5 Yankee AQ, Chatty 6-5 Southern AQ). But, I did not see any At Large. Doesn't mean they didn't. Man 1-AA/FCS in the 90's to 00's had a list of school. Kind of had to be the golden age of the Subdivision.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Heck, it's usually the last one or two in/out that are controversial. And this is why, when this complaint comes up annually, I think this is much ado about nothing. The primary purpose of the playoffs is to determine the national champion. The field is big enough that I'm confident the best team is in the pool regardless of those last few teams.

I know it hurts to just miss the playoffs. And if you were the last one in, it's great to get to keep playing. Hope springs eternal but I'll bet those last few teams have never won the championship. Being on the bubble is kind of like losing a game that had a controversial call by the referees. If you'd made a few more plays, you wouldn't be at the mercy of the refs.

JMU might be the only one I can think of that might have been a serious bubble team in 2008 and won it all. Those bastards.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Hey, I looked through the 80's and into the 90's. It had several 6-5 teams but they were all conference AQs (81 RI 6-5 Yankee AQ, 82 Montana 6-5 Big Sky AQ, 82 BU 6-5 Yankee AQ, Chatty 6-5 Southern AQ). But, I did not see any At Large. Doesn't mean they didn't. Man 1-AA/FCS in the 90's to 00's had a list of school. Kind of had to be the golden age of the Subdivision.

Yeah, I just remember them having a tough start with a QB or maybe a RB injured and they went on a tear the 2nd 1/s of the season beating everybody tough like Nevada, Boise, etc. but it could be they got the AQ but I sure think they were at large...when it was 16.

It was a fantastic era man. The mid 80's to mid 90's had huge games in conference, the playoffs, it was always really intersting with Youngstown, Georgia Souther, App, Boise, Idaho, Nevada, etc. in the field.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Yeah, I just remember them having a tough start with a QB or maybe a RB injured and they went on a tear the 2nd 1/s of the season beating everybody tough like Nevada, Boise, etc. but it could be they got the AQ but I sure think they were at large...when it was 16.

It was a fantastic era man. The mid 80's to mid 90's had huge games in conference, the playoffs, it was always really intersting with Youngstown, Georgia Souther, App, Boise, Idaho, Nevada, etc. in the field.

Here it is SDFS.
https://govandals.com/sports/football/schedule/1995

We lost two games that year to teams within 8 miles of each other on our way to winning the National Championship and they got in with a good 2nd 1/2 of the season. It was surprising even back then thogh for a team to get in like that and I remember it being controversial even without message boards. xlolx

[ElCid]

Hey, I looked through the 80's and into the 90's. It had several 6-5 teams but they were all conference AQs (81 RI 6-5 Yankee AQ, 82 Montana 6-5 Big Sky AQ, 82 BU 6-5 Yankee AQ, Chatty 6-5 Southern AQ). But, I did not see any At Large. Doesn't mean they didn't. Man 1-AA/FCS in the 90's to 00's had a list of school. Kind of had to be the golden age of the Subdivision.

It was our golden age for sure. In 92 we beat two FBS teams (Arkansas and Army) and almost ran the SOCON...damn Marshall. Stomped A&T in first round but couldn't get it done against YSU. I was at that game and horribly disappointed. Marshall won it all that year.

[caribbeanhen]

JMU might be the only one I can think of that might have been a serious bubble team in 2008 and won it all. Those bastards.

That reinforces just how strong the CAA was back in the good old days....

[ncspiderfan]

JMU might be the only one I can think of that might have been a serious bubble team in 2008 and won it all. Those bastards.

It was the Spiders that was bubble in 2008, though they had been ranked as high as #1 during the middle of the season.
They won at home, then had to travel to seeds the rest of the way beating the 2,3,4 seeds for the championship. Actually won in semis at UNI and beat Montana in Chattanooga.

[penguinpower]

Then again, why does it so closely mirror what all of us completely independent souls did with the AGS Poll? I'm not getting any coin from ESPN and they did not call me to try and influence the outcome of the poll on Saturday night.

There could be more transparency toward the end I guess but don't know what good it would do...since anyone wanting to make up excuses for their bubledom would just start the BS arguments a few weeks earlier. Also, there is a ton of transparency already in place that a lot of people on here don't seem to know even though the information is right here on the site. So that is a transparency issue as well since some people seem to be trying to view things with closed eyes.

Confirmation bias

[ursus arctos horribilis]

That reinforces just how strong the CAA was back in the good old days....

Oh yeah, the CAA South was a beast back then for certain. still tough but what the MVFC was the last 8 years or so the CAA definitely was then.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Confirmation bias

Except that you don't know how phrases work either apparently. 4 independent ranking systems (people) came up with the same basic thing with a small exception here or there. AGS was released before the Selection Committee so tell me how that works out in your logic. We ran playoff bracket games here for years and the funny thing back then was say a guy like you made a bracket to win the $100 gift card for the tournament....then some of them would come on bitch about the committee while having the same teams in their bracket...except for their homer pick.

Same thing happens on ballots, I pointed two yesterday that were bitching but their ballot said the same thing the committee did. xlolx

[ursus arctos horribilis]

It was the Spiders that was bubble in 2008, though they had been ranked as high as #1 during the middle of the season.
They won at home, then had to travel to seeds the rest of the way beating the 2,3,4 seeds for the championship. Actually won in semis at UNI and beat Montana in Chattanooga.

That's right, JMU was 2004 and I would not have ever imagined mixing those up like that but I think JMU was as well weren't they in 2004? I know they were on the road for the whole playoffs.

[BisonTru]

7 wins has been the standard since the 80's and it is not unknown that you need to manage a schedule to gain access. If you schedule a pretty tough FBS, and a D2, your are basically giving up 2 in your stretch to 7. You can say schedule soft but that can put you in a position like FAMU (rightfully so) and they had 3 more soft wins that UC Davis but it does not help.

It is not one thing, it is a mix of many and they are not all easy to cross reference and it does change every year because the teams change every year. There are also different members over time that have different opinions about what they themselves value so that adds to the dynamic nature of it too.

A six (not 7) D1 threshold has literally been cited in the rules since they expanded the playoffs. Often here folks talk about 7 D1 wins, but that is not what's in the rules the committee uses.

I've argued this for years from "It's never happened" to "It's only happened once" to "It's only happened a few times" to "It doesn't happen often." It's not going to happen often as most 6 win teams likely have no good wins and/or some bad losses. But 6 D1 wins gets your resume on the table.

[BisonTru]

This has been the criteria and process for bidding forever. This is supposed to be the most knowledgeable place about FCS that exists, and yet people act like they’ve never experienced the playoffs before.

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

There’s nothing in that article that says UND’s bid was that much higher than Weber’s. They were likely very close, monetarily speaking.

I want nothing but the worst for UND, but I don't ever remember the committee going past 1, 2, and 3 and citing 5 as a reason for home field advantage. Given attendance records it seems likely potential receipts would be advantage UND and if they outbid WSU then it seems like that'd be a slam dunk for UND.

I don't ever recall an incident were the team with potential revenue and the higher bid didn't get the game. Some teams have lost that didn't bid or didn't bid enough.

[SDFS]

Here it is SDFS.
https://govandals.com/sports/football/schedule/1995

We lost two games that year to teams within 8 miles of each other on our way to winning the National Championship and they got in with a good 2nd 1/2 of the season. It was surprising even back then thogh for a team to get in like that and I remember it being controversial even without message boards. xlolx

That is crazy, Idaho was 6-5 with one of the wins being a D-II. And of course winning the last three games against all ranked teams - helped.

[ncspiderfan]

That's right, JMU was 2004 and I would not have ever imagined mixing those up like that but I think JMU was as well weren't they in 2004? I know they were on the road for the whole playoffs.

Yes 2004 was JMU year for on the road championship. Beat Lehigh and Furman (2)14-13 Then number 3 William and Mary, finished with Montana in final.

[uofmman1122]

I want nothing but the worst for UND, but I don't ever remember the committee going past 1, 2, and 3 and citing 5 as a reason for home field advantage. Given attendance records it seems likely potential receipts would be advantage UND and if they outbid WSU then it seems like that'd be a slam dunk for UND.

I don't ever recall an incident were the team with potential revenue and the higher bid didn't get the game. Some teams have lost that didn't bid or didn't bid enough.
Weber's stadium seats 17,000+ while UND's capacity is 12,283, and Weber turns out fans pretty well for playoff games. The quality of facilities seems pretty similar. Not sure why you're automatically giving UND the edge there.

I still haven't seen anything saying UND's bid was that much more than Weber's, other than rumors and just that it was "very good" by the commissioner.

So with that in mind, it seems with all of those being close (probably closer than people here are willing to admit), why wouldn't they look at 5, where it's clearly in Weber's favor?

[lucchesicourt]

And Montana had 7 soft wins and 4 above .500 teams losses, right? Why should a 6th place team in a conference or even a 5th place conference team be in the playoffs. All you need to include. Is their own conference finish. If the team is lower than 3 rd place those teams would be excluded from the playoffs. If teams tie for 3rd place both 3rd place would be able to be considered. But if you cannot get a higher than 4th place in your own conference. It's obvious you cannot compete with the top teams.

[BisonTru]

And Montana had 7 soft wins and 4 above .500 teams losses, right? Why should a 6th place team in a conference or even a 5th place conference team be in the playoffs. All you need to include. Is their own conference finish. If the team is lower than 3 rd place those teams would be excluded from the playoffs. If teams tie for 3rd place both 3rd place would be able to be considered. But if you cannot get a higher than 4th place in your own conference. It's obvious you cannot compete with the top teams.

Playing in tough conference shouldn’t hinder your playoff chances just like playing a tough schedule. AQs then fill with the best teams at large.

[BisonTru]

Weber's stadium seats 17,000+ while UND's capacity is 12,283, and Weber turns out fans pretty well for playoff games. The quality of facilities seems pretty similar. Not sure why you're automatically giving UND the edge there.

I still haven't seen anything saying UND's bid was that much more than Weber's, other than rumors and just that it was "very good" by the commissioner.

So with that in mind, it seems with all of those being close (probably closer than people here are willing to admit), why wouldn't they look at 5, where it's clearly in Weber's favor?

Weber ave 6k a game. They could have 100k stadium. Empty seats don’t generate revenue.

[uofmman1122]

Weber ave 6k a game. They could have 100k stadium. Empty seats don’t generate revenue.
They average 7k in the playoffs while UND averages 8k. This isn't some colossal difference in potential revenue. If you want to argue about 1,000 seats, that's fine, but I don't think that makes this some no-brainer like everyone is suggesting. Sounds like the bids were close, and the committee went with Weber's much better football resume.

[MR. CHICKEN]

I want nothing but the worst for UND, but I don't ever remember the committee going past 1, 2, and 3 and citing 5 as a reason for home field advantage. Given attendance records it seems likely potential receipts would be advantage UND and if they outbid WSU then it seems like that'd be a slam dunk for UND.

I don't ever recall an incident were the team with potential revenue and the higher bid didn't get the game. Some teams have lost that didn't bid or didn't bid enough.

....ONE YEAR....JMU'S AD.....DID NOT BID......DUKES WENT TA E. KENTUCKY....B/4......2,000 CROWD.....COST DUH NCAA...PILE UH DUCATS.....AWK!

[F'N Hawks]

Sounds like the bids were close, and the committee went with Weber's much better football resume.

For the first time ever in committee history. But yah. Normal stuff.

[SDFS]

They average 7k in the playoffs while UND averages 8k. This isn't some colossal difference in potential revenue. If you want to argue about 1,000 seats, that's fine, but I don't think that makes this some no-brainer like everyone is suggesting. Sounds like the bids were close, and the committee went with Weber's much better football resume.

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

Well let's take a look at it:

Criteria (1) attendance history and potential,

Last year 2021 Attendance: UND - 24th in FCS 9,661 Weber St - 59th in FCS - 6,404 - clearly UND.

Last pre-covid playoffs: Weber average - 5,900 including a game against Montana. You would expect Montana to be a huge draw - they got 6,422.

December 7 1:00 p.m. Kennesaw State* No. 4
Stewart StadiumOgden, UT (FCS Playoffs Second Round)
ESPN3 W 26–20 5,422 [16]

December 13 8:00 p.m. No. 7 Montana* No. 4
Stewart StadiumOgden, UT (FCS Playoffs Quarterfinals)
ESPN2 W 17–10 6,422 [17]

UND has only hosted 1 FCS Playoff Football Game - 9,800 - if they host one of the Dakota Schools - it would be a much larger crowd.

December 3 5:00 pm No. 12 Richmond* No. 8
Alerus CenterGrand Forks, ND (Second Round)
ESPN3 L 24–27 9,837

Criteria (2) quality of facility

UND - indoor - weather would not impact the outcome of the game. Indoor practice facilities that both teams could use to prep for the game if needed. - no advantage either way.

Criteria (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts

UND placed a higher bid - UND.

Criteria (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time)

Push no advantage either way

Criteria (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents).

conference place finish

UND 3rd is the highest ranked conference, Weber 3rd in another very difficult conference,

head-to-head results

No head to head,

number of Division I opponents

UND - 11 and Weber State 10. Weber State played W. Oregon this year. So, this would go to UND.

Don't like that, well let's go off the board..

Common opponents both played @NAU - Weber won 33-31: UND won 27-24 - looks even to me..

So, you are going with.. better ranking. OK, then just seed all the teams. And high seed gets home field. But, that is NOT what the current guidelines say.. You can't just make **** up. And if you are seeding all the teams - Weber St and UND are not playing in the first round.

[lucchesicourt]

So. Playing a tough schedule and also playing in a tough conference does hinder your ability already to get selected eg.
UC Davis did both and was not selected (just an example here) and Montana beat not ONE team over .500. and finished behind the team in the exampleabovee. I have heard comments say well who did so and so play and beat. If you play a soft schedule don't expect being selected. Ask yourself this. If you placed Davidson 's name on Montana's schedule and results would they be selected?

[uofmman1122]

"From the FCS' Host Operations Manual: "When determining host institutions for playoff games when both teams are unseeded, criteria shall apply as follows (listed in alphabetical order): (1) attendance history and potential, (2) quality of facility, (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts, (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time); and (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents)."

Well let's take a look at it:

Criteria (1) attendance history and potential,

Last year 2021 Attendance: UND - 24th in FCS 9,661 Weber St - 59th in FCS - 6,404 - clearly UND.

Last pre-covid playoffs: Weber average - 5,900 including a game against Montana. You would expect Montana to be a huge draw - they got 6,422.

December 7 1:00 p.m. Kennesaw State* No. 4
Stewart StadiumOgden, UT (FCS Playoffs Second Round)
ESPN3 W 26–20 5,422 [16]

December 13 8:00 p.m. No. 7 Montana* No. 4
Stewart StadiumOgden, UT (FCS Playoffs Quarterfinals)
ESPN2 W 17–10 6,422 [17]

UND has only hosted 1 FCS Playoff Football Game - 9,800 - if they host one of the Dakota Schools - it would be a much larger crowd.

December 3 5:00 pm No. 12 Richmond* No. 8
Alerus CenterGrand Forks, ND (Second Round)
ESPN3 L 24–27 9,837

Criteria (2) quality of facility

UND - indoor - weather would not impact the outcome of the game. Indoor practice facilities that both teams could use to prep for the game if needed. - no advantage either way.

Criteria (3) revenue potential plus estimated net receipts

UND placed a higher bid - UND.

Criteria (4) student-athlete well-being (e.g., travel, missed class time)

Push no advantage either way

Criteria (5) team’s performance (e.g., conference place finish, head-to-head results and number of Division I opponents).

conference place finish

UND 3rd is the highest ranked conference, Weber 3rd in another very difficult conference,

head-to-head results

No head to head,

number of Division I opponents

UND - 11 and Weber State 10. Weber State played W. Oregon this year. So, this would go to UND.

Don't like that, well let's go off the board..

Common opponents both played @NAU - Weber won 33-31: UND won 27-24 - looks even to me..

So, you are going with.. better ranking. OK, then just seed all the teams. And high seed gets home field. But, that is NOT what the current guidelines say.. You can't just make **** up. And if you are seeding all the teams - Weber St and UND are not playing in the first round.
You're right, I was looking at the wrong games for Weber like an idiot, but UND's 8,105 average is on their own website lol.

Sucks to suck, I guess. Just beat Weber and you'll feel better. At least you guys aren't like Idaho, who apparently didn't know how to bid and completely messed it up. xlolx

[TJT]

MONEY IS A FACTOR. Facilities are a factor. But wins and how a team is playing late in the year are the most important factors for bubble teams.



The first two applied to Delaware. They were enough to trump the last factor where UD lost three of its last four and four of its last six to finish extremely poorly. I guess money and facilities very much rank far above on field performance merit.

[nodak651]

You're right, I was looking at the wrong games for Weber like an idiot, but UND's 8,105 average is on their own website lol.

Sucks to suck, I guess. Just beat Weber and you'll feel better. At least you guys aren't like Idaho, who apparently didn't know how to bid and completely messed it up. xlolx

Link? UND's lowest attended game this year was 8355, played they same day they also hosted a hockey game in Vegas with 15k plus in attendance. https://fightinghawks.com/sports/football/stats/2022/abilene-christian/boxscore/11563 UND's season average wasn't less than their lowest attended game...

Weber average 8,819 this year and UND averaged 9,780.

[uofmman1122]

Link? UND's lowest attended game this year was 8355, played they same day they also hosted a hockey game in Vegas with 15k plus in attendance. https://fightinghawks.com/sports/football/stats/2022/abilene-christian/boxscore/11563 UND's season average wasn't less than their lowest attended game...

Weber average 8,819 this year and UND averaged 9,780.
I think it was an older website for the Alerus Center that probably had D2 playoff totals.

[Ncagalum]

Step up during the season and Davis didn't. Too bad.


Davis is where they should be.....out of the playoffs. Win TT 1 more game....pretty easy.

I am not saying UCD should be in. I think what perturbs most of us Aggie fans is that Montana with their only wins coming against sub 0.500 teams, being 6th in the BSC (behind Davis), getting beat at home by Idaho (whom Aggies trounced in Moscow), and losing 4 of their last 6 games including that utter curb-stomping in Bozeman gets in. Again I do not think the Aggies should be in. Obviously Montana was selected prior to the MSU game and it wouldn’t have mattered if they lost 100-0; money and influence (AD on committee) we’re the primary factors because performance on the field sure wasn’t.

And it sounds like you and Hauck are birds of a feather. I’ll be watching for the fireworks if Montana makes it to Fargo which is problematic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paladin1aa]

Just accept the fact that the committee is long time corrupt. Has been and will continue to be.

[FUBeAR]

Just accept the fact that the committee is long time corrupt. Has been and will continue to be.
You omitted uninformed, lazy, and incompetent.

[lucchesicourt]

And Montana gets a home game too boot. Of course its about the money!

[abc123]

They average 7k in the playoffs while UND averages 8k. This isn't some colossal difference in potential revenue. If you want to argue about 1,000 seats, that's fine, but I don't think that makes this some no-brainer like everyone is suggesting. Sounds like the bids were close, and the committee went with Weber's much better football resume.

They weren't. Sounds like around 2x but Weber's bid needs to be made public before that can be confirmed.
UND's was between $125-130K, which I believe is 4x the 1st round minimum is.
UND increased their bid 70% over where it was in 2019 when they had the 3rd highest 1st round bid, behind UNI and Nicholls (thanks to the Southland juicing the pot for them).

[Paladin1aa]

You omitted uninformed, lazy, and incompetent.

Glad you fixed it ! 😎

[MSUBobcat]

They weren't. Sounds like around 2x but Weber's bid needs to be made public before that can be confirmed.
UND's was between $125-130K, which I believe is 4x the 1st round minimum is.
UND increased their bid 70% over where it was in 2019 when they had the 3rd highest 1st round bid, behind UNI and Nicholls (thanks to the Southland juicing the pot for them).

Can you cite a source for UND's bid this year, and also in 2019? And also a source that their 2019 bid of ~$75k was the 3rd highest? That seems incredibly low to me. If I recall correctly, NCAA takes 85% of the gate OR the school's bid, whichever is greater, and I would be SHOCKED if MSU's bid was less than $75k, knowing full well they'd sell 8k tickets at $40 each without breaking a sweat, giving the NCAA an automatic cut of $272k (we'd actually sell 10k easily, not counting student tickets, so 8k is pretty conservative). It's possible our administration forgot to put in a bid in 2019, but... the administration wouldn't make it 2 days if we were on the road in a first round game at this point. Heads would be on pikes. My guess is MSU doesn't submit bids under $150k, but I've never dug into it so I concede I may be wrong.

Can someone also please post the minimums by round and also confirm or deny that the NCAA takes 85% of the gate? I also believe there is a rule about the minimum the school can charge for the playoff tickets, something like no less than the lowest regular season ticket price. Can someone please provide details on that or correct me? I'm sure this has been discussed in prior years, but things get cloudy in my head after time.

[F'N Hawks]

Can you cite a source for UND's bid this year, and also in 2019? And also a source that their 2019 bid of ~$75k was the 3rd highest? That seems incredibly low to me. If I recall correctly, NCAA takes 85% of the gate OR the school's bid, whichever is greater, and I would be SHOCKED if MSU's bid was less than $75k, knowing full well they'd sell 8k tickets at $40 each without breaking a sweat, giving the NCAA an automatic cut of $272k (we'd actually sell 10k easily, not counting student tickets, so 8k is pretty conservative). It's possible our administration forgot to put in a bid in 2019, but... the administration wouldn't make it 2 days if we were on the road in a first round game at this point. Heads would be on pikes. My guess is MSU doesn't submit bids under $150k, but I've never dug into it so I concede I may be wrong.

Can someone also please post the minimums by round and also confirm or deny that the NCAA takes 85% of the gate? I also believe there is a rule about the minimum the school can charge for the playoff tickets, something like no less than the lowest regular season ticket price. Can someone please provide details on that or correct me? I'm sure this has been discussed in prior years, but things get cloudy in my head after time.

Bill Chaves stated in an interview that he bid 70% more than his last bid. His last bid was 75K in 2019 (FOIA verified). He stated over the past couple years that it was the 3rd highest, I believe. Nicholls barely beat it and they gave it to Nicholls STRICTLY based on money - ignoring the fact they had no visitor locker rooms (only tents)

[uofmman1122]

Can you cite a source for UND's bid this year, and also in 2019? And also a source that their 2019 bid of ~$75k was the 3rd highest? That seems incredibly low to me. If I recall correctly, NCAA takes 85% of the gate OR the school's bid, whichever is greater, and I would be SHOCKED if MSU's bid was less than $75k, knowing full well they'd sell 8k tickets at $40 each without breaking a sweat, giving the NCAA an automatic cut of $272k (we'd actually sell 10k easily, not counting student tickets, so 8k is pretty conservative). It's possible our administration forgot to put in a bid in 2019, but... the administration wouldn't make it 2 days if we were on the road in a first round game at this point. Heads would be on pikes. My guess is MSU doesn't submit bids under $150k, but I've never dug into it so I concede I may be wrong.

Can someone also please post the minimums by round and also confirm or deny that the NCAA takes 85% of the gate? I also believe there is a rule about the minimum the school can charge for the playoff tickets, something like no less than the lowest regular season ticket price. Can someone please provide details on that or correct me? I'm sure this has been discussed in prior years, but things get cloudy in my head after time.
He said 1st round bid. The cats were a seed and didn't play in the 1st round.

[taper]

Bill Chaves stated in an interview that he bid 70% more than his last bid. His last bid was 75K in 2019 (FOIA verified). He stated over the past couple years that it was the 3rd highest, I believe. Nicholls barely beat it and they gave it to Nicholls STRICTLY based on money - ignoring the fact they had no visitor locker rooms (only tents)
It's almost like the NCAA doesn't like UND. What could your school possibly have done that would cause that?

[abc123]

Bill Chaves stated in an interview that he bid 70% more than his last bid. His last bid was 75K in 2019 (FOIA verified). He stated over the past couple years that it was the 3rd highest, I believe. Nicholls barely beat it and they gave it to Nicholls STRICTLY based on money - ignoring the fact they had no visitor locker rooms (only tents)
This.


He said 1st round bid. The cats were a seed and didn't play in the 1st round.
And this.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

A six (not 7) D1 threshold has literally been cited in the rules since they expanded the playoffs. Often here folks talk about 7 D1 wins, but that is not what's in the rules the committee uses.

I've argued this for years from "It's never happened" to "It's only happened once" to "It's only happened a few times" to "It doesn't happen often." It's not going to happen often as most 6 win teams likely have no good wins and/or some bad losses. But 6 D1 wins gets your resume on the table.

Yes that is true when it expanded but the language used was still 7 D1 wins puts you in serious jeopardy, doesn't take it off the table just moves it close to the trash can. I mean we've put up several examples of 6 wins (non AQ) making it from time to time.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

That is crazy, Idaho was 6-5 with one of the wins being a D-II. And of course winning the last three games against all ranked teams - helped.

Yep, that was exactly the reasoning and as I said I'm fuzzy on it but I think they had some people get healty at the end of the season that were a big part of the team.

[SDFS]

You omitted uninformed, lazy, and incompetent. - since NDSU AD was involved - Right on Man!!! xthumbsupx

[taper]

- since NDSU AD was involved - Right on Man!!! xthumbsupx
UND has no right to complain about opposing AD's after the 2000 Kitty Litter Bowl.

[SDFS]

UND has no right to complain about opposing AD's after the 2000 Kitty Litter Bowl.

Was that when NDSU had to go on the road for a playoff game and lost?

[ursus arctos horribilis]

And Montana gets a home game too boot. Of course its about the money!

You are not too sharp with some of this stuff are ya? xlolx

Montana did not DESERVE anything.
UCD also did not deserve anything.
Youngstown did not deserve anything.

One of them gets in though in spite of not deserving it. The one that got in matched all the human polls, Massey, etc. and yet the committee doing it is all wrong and you and several other people just know better because you were left out...6 wins...5 losses will do that. You had a good team at times and looked pretty good at the end but it was not enough to separate your team from the other mediocrity in that group.

And once you are in and not seeded Montana gets a home game? You damn straight Skippy, that will happen every time because Montana and the money brought in pays for other teams that don't add **** to the coffers. So say thank you.:D

Doesn't get you in as has been shown before but once selected...that is a forgone conclusion.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Can you cite a source for UND's bid this year, and also in 2019? And also a source that their 2019 bid of ~$75k was the 3rd highest? That seems incredibly low to me. If I recall correctly, NCAA takes 85% of the gate OR the school's bid, whichever is greater, and I would be SHOCKED if MSU's bid was less than $75k, knowing full well they'd sell 8k tickets at $40 each without breaking a sweat, giving the NCAA an automatic cut of $272k (we'd actually sell 10k easily, not counting student tickets, so 8k is pretty conservative). It's possible our administration forgot to put in a bid in 2019, but... the administration wouldn't make it 2 days if we were on the road in a first round game at this point. Heads would be on pikes. My guess is MSU doesn't submit bids under $150k, but I've never dug into it so I concede I may be wrong.

Can someone also please post the minimums by round and also confirm or deny that the NCAA takes 85% of the gate? I also believe there is a rule about the minimum the school can charge for the playoff tickets, something like no less than the lowest regular season ticket price. Can someone please provide details on that or correct me? I'm sure this has been discussed in prior years, but things get cloudy in my head after time.

I did not go verify it but you are in at least the right area with your numbers if not spot on. I was just going to also add the point about how much your home tickets cost during the season reflects how much is charged in the playoffs so if you have an avg. $40/game ticket vs. a team with an avg. $20/game ticket guess which one is more attractive? You covered it though so well done.

16k*35/ticket
$612,000

8K*17/ticket
$136,000

It's a tough choice. Now if you take that times two or three games...

[BlueGoldAg]

I am not saying UCD should be in. I think what perturbs most of us Aggie fans is that Montana with their only wins coming against sub 0.500 teams, being 6th in the BSC (behind Davis), getting beat at home by Idaho (whom Aggies trounced in Moscow), and losing 4 of their last 6 games including that utter curb-stomping in Bozeman gets in.

This pretty much sums it up for Aggie fans and a lot FCS fans in general as well. The selection of Montana, given their much less than stellar resume this season, has certainly sparked a lively and passionate discussion here and I've yet to see a post that has been able to make a bona fide, logical argument for their inclusion. Heck, I've even seen posts where Montana fans can't believe they got in and some who say they don't deserve to be in.

I'm not saying that Montana took our "rightful" place in the playoffs but their selection certainly took the place some other team that was definitely more qualified and deserving of being selected. It just smells of something rotten. I might add that Delaware getting in after losing 4 of their last 6 games is a head-scratcher as well.

[taper]

Was that when NDSU had to go on the road for a playoff game and lost?
No, that was when NDSU by rule should have hosted, but UND's AD used his influence to send us to an unmaintained and unplayable field at Delta St. Don't embarrass yourself by defending this. It was completely corrupt and against the rules.

[SDFS]

Yes that is true when it expanded but the language used was still 7 D1 wins puts you in serious jeopardy, doesn't take it off the table just moves it close to the trash can. I mean we've put up several examples of 6 wins (non AQ) making it from time to time.

Did the NCAA change the verbiage on those rules as they increased the playoff field from 16 to 20 in 2010 and then from 20 to 24 in 2013 or has it been consistent throughout the entire time period?

[POD Knows]

No, that was when NDSU by rule should have hosted, but UND's AD used his influence to send us to an unmaintained and unplayable field at Delta St. Don't embarrass yourself by defending this. It was completely corrupt and against the rules.
They are UND fans, they have no embarrassment threshold

[ursus arctos horribilis]

This pretty much sums it up for Aggie fans and a lot FCS fans in general as well. The selection of Montana, given their much less than stellar resume this season, has certainly sparked a lively and passionate discussion here and I've yet to see a post that has been able to make a bona fide, logical argument for their inclusion. Heck, I've even seen posts where Montana fans can't believe they got in and some who say they don't deserve to be in.

I'm not saying that Montana took our "rightful" place in the playoffs but their selection certainly took the place some other team that was definitely more qualified and deserving of being selected. It just smells of something rotten. I might add that Delaware getting in after losing 4 of their last 6 games is a head-scratcher as well.

No team on the bubble deserves to be in. Your 6 win team is in that group. Massey thought we played a fairly tough schedule and fared better against it than UCD did with their schedule. you do have a comparative win against Idaho vs. Montana but relying on what you all think is a better schedule and resume vs. ours just does not stack up.

I don't disagree with your points. They are valid. I just don't agree with how you weight the factors here and neither do any of the other sources out there that rank the teams.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Did the NCAA change the verbiage on those rules as they increased the playoff field from 16 to 20 in 2010 and then from 20 to 24 in 2013 or has it been consistent throughout the entire time period?

Man, I am not sure but I think it changed, very slightly in the expansion to 24 because it seems more recent but it was a fairly big deal around here at the time. But as pointed out it always depended on the at large field even back in the 90's as pointed out by the Idaho example earlier. It is not like it could not happen, it was just very rare for it to happen.

[penguinpower]

No team on the bubble deserves to be in. Your 6 win team is in that group. Massey thought we played a fairly tough schedule and fared better against it than UCD did with their schedule. you do have a comparative win against Idaho vs. Montana but relying on what you all think is a better schedule and resume vs. ours just does not stack up.

I don't disagree with your points. They are valid. I just don't agree with how you weight the factors here and neither do any of the other sources out there that rank the teams.

Then neither do the no scholarship conferences that get autobids and aren't competitive

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Then neither do the no scholarship conferences that get autobids and aren't competitive

Sure they do, they won their conference and get a seat at the table. One seat. Seems dumb that this a sticking point for all you YSU guys but the NCAA doesn't give a **** that you don't like it I bet. So toil away with getting that one thrown out...across all sports in the NCAA as that is how this all works.

It's been mentioned many time but this is about crowning one champion. So the very first place you start is with the champions you already have. Then fill in the field with the rest that have a chance at being the best. Good place to start if you ask me.

But your non sequiter arguments are fun.

[FUBeAR]

- since NDSU AD was involved - Right on Man!!! xthumbsupx
Starts with the Chairman from the Patsy League getting both a seed, and an at large for his conference, the 12th best/5th worst Conference in all of FCS and it rolls on down to the other 10 numbskulls that couldn’t figure out how to bracket Furman, Elon, Richmond, EKU, Gardner-Webb, and Davidson correctly to avoid any flights and not have the 2 highest ranked Teams of the 6 facing each other in Round 1 - while AGS posters figured it out in 10 minutes.

The FCS playoff format and the selection committee need to be “reimagined” (AKA blown the **** up) before next season.

[nodak651]

Can you cite a source for UND's bid this year, and also in 2019? And also a source that their 2019 bid of ~$75k was the 3rd highest? That seems incredibly low to me. If I recall correctly, NCAA takes 85% of the gate OR the school's bid, whichever is greater, and I would be SHOCKED if MSU's bid was less than $75k, knowing full well they'd sell 8k tickets at $40 each without breaking a sweat, giving the NCAA an automatic cut of $272k (we'd actually sell 10k easily, not counting student tickets, so 8k is pretty conservative). It's possible our administration forgot to put in a bid in 2019, but... the administration wouldn't make it 2 days if we were on the road in a first round game at this point. Heads would be on pikes. My guess is MSU doesn't submit bids under $150k, but I've never dug into it so I concede I may be wrong.

Can someone also please post the minimums by round and also confirm or deny that the NCAA takes 85% of the gate? I also believe there is a rule about the minimum the school can charge for the playoff tickets, something like no less than the lowest regular season ticket price. Can someone please provide details on that or correct me? I'm sure this has been discussed in prior years, but things get cloudy in my head after time.

I filed FOIA in 2019. This is a link to the actual bid: https://drive.proton.me/urls/YJKEXGYYGG#StPrkiJyCP1e
I also submitted a FOIA request, Sunday night, to Weber State for this years playoff bid. Hopefully they respond.
Bids by round are in the FCS Manual here: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf
That manual also details exactly how the Simple Ratings System is calculated, FYI. (It's terrible)

[taper]

Sure they do, they won their conference and get a seat at the table. One seat. Seems dumb that this a sticking point for all you YSU guys but the NCAA doesn't give a **** that you don't like it I bet. So toil away with getting that one thrown out...across all sports in the NCAA as that is how this all works.

It's been mentioned many time but this is about crowning one champion. So the very first place you start is with the champions you already have. Then fill in the field with the rest that have a chance at being the best. Good place to start if you ask me.

But your non sequiter arguments are fun.
The Dayton rule completely screwed FCS so D3 programs can feel better about themselves. PFL has no business in D1 football. There are enough people that believe the fallacy that you must have as many at large as autos that we'll never go back to 16. Giving autobids to cupcakes continues that.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I filed FOIA in 2019. This is a link to the actual bid: https://drive.proton.me/urls/YJKEXGYYGG#StPrkiJyCP1e
I also submitted a FOIA request, Sunday night, to Weber State for this years playoff bid. Hopefully they respond.

Wouldn't you want to do the same for UND so the actual numbers can be compared just for a verification type of thing with the trail put together already. I mean it seems fairly legit but just to be sure and all.

[Catbooster]

He said 1st round bid. The cats were a seed and didn't play in the 1st round.
Since bids are due before the season is over, I'm sure all of the teams who have a chance of making the post-season submit bids for every round. So whether they end up playing/hosting in a given round or not there should be info about their bids for all rounds if you know how to get it.

As I recall, the only thing that changes with the rounds is the minimum bid required, which is also all that the seeded team needs to bid in order to host. However, since the bids are due before the seeding is known, I suspect minimum bids are rare even for the seeded teams. Especially since (IIRC) the bid is essentially a minimum guarantee to the NCAA. If the game makes more, the NCAA gets more even if the bid amount was lower so there's really no advantage to bidding low.

[nodak651]

Yes that is true when it expanded but the language used was still 7 D1 wins puts you in serious jeopardy, doesn't take it off the table just moves it close to the trash can. I mean we've put up several examples of 6 wins (non AQ) making it from time to time.
Actually, teams can have less than six wins and still be eligible for selection. From the manual (posted above):
"3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, fewer than
six Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected"

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The Dayton rule completely screwed FCS so D3 programs can feel better about themselves. PFL has no business in D1 football. There are enough people that believe the fallacy that you must have as many at large as autos that we'll never go back to 16. Giving autobids to cupcakes continues that.

I doubt it is "feel better" but more to do with BBall and money and being able to compete in the tournament. I would not mind, and I doubt they would if they were allowed to move football down. But, there are always choices that need to be made and everybody is never gonna be happy.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Actually, teams can have less than six wins and still be eligible for selection. From the manual (posted above):
"3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, fewer than
six Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected"

Yeah that is the part I was unsure on because it was 7 and then changed to 6 but that was the language I was referring to. It used to be 7 with the smaller field and anyone with 7 wins was a bubble team. So now with the larger field it's is 6 with anyone having only 6 wins is in trouble on the bubble if they have 7 or 8 win teams on it with them. When they start looking at SOS and it just gets murky. Sort of like what we are doing here on this thread sifting through the gravel of the season to find some nuggets.

[nodak651]

Wouldn't you want to do the same for UND so the actual numbers can be compared just for a verification type of thing with the trail put together already. I mean it seems fairly legit but just to be sure and all.

I agree with you, yes, but I am assuming that Tom Miller or Mike Mcfeely already have done so. Basically, I feel like I bug them enough as it is, and I'm not confident that Weber will actually send a timely response if they actually did bid significantly lower. UND has also been really quick about responding to my FOIA requests so I wouldn't be surprised if they were to send the documents out, for this specific request, the same day I request them.

[nodak651]

Since bids are due before the season is over, I'm sure all of the teams who have a chance of making the post-season submit bids for every round. So whether they end up playing/hosting in a given round or not there should be info about their bids for all rounds if you know how to get it.

As I recall, the only thing that changes with the rounds is the minimum bid required, which is also all that the seeded team needs to bid in order to host. However, since the bids are due before the seeding is known, I suspect minimum bids are rare even for the seeded teams. Especially since (IIRC) the bid is essentially a minimum guarantee to the NCAA. If the game makes more, the NCAA gets more even if the bid amount was lower so there's really no advantage to bidding low.

I think the context was 2nd, 3rd highest bid out of non seeded teams in the playoffs, or in other words, of teams eligible to host first round games.

In regard to the revenue, I think I remember reading that all ticket revenue goes to the NCAA until the bid is paid off, at which point, any additional revenue is split between the NCAA and School. So the school does benefit from winning lower bids.

[uofmman1122]

Since bids are due before the season is over, I'm sure all of the teams who have a chance of making the post-season submit bids for every round. So whether they end up playing/hosting in a given round or not there should be info about their bids for all rounds if you know how to get it.

As I recall, the only thing that changes with the rounds is the minimum bid required, which is also all that the seeded team needs to bid in order to host. However, since the bids are due before the seeding is known, I suspect minimum bids are rare even for the seeded teams. Especially since (IIRC) the bid is essentially a minimum guarantee to the NCAA. If the game makes more, the NCAA gets more even if the bid amount was lower so there's really no advantage to bidding low.
Yes, every team bids, but teams that don't play in the first round shouldn't be included in "the top 3 bids for first round teams", which was his point.

[BisonTru]

Yes that is true when it expanded but the language used was still 7 D1 wins puts you in serious jeopardy, doesn't take it off the table just moves it close to the trash can. I mean we've put up several examples of 6 wins (non AQ) making it from time to time.

What language? Literally it’s said the word six for almost a decade now. Page 18 of the FCS championship manual.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221122/492f702224d653df9d5654ce79f21c38.jpg

[abc123]

I agree with you, yes, but I am assuming that Tom Miller or Mike Mcfeely already have done so. Basically, I feel like I bug them enough as it is, and I'm not confident that Weber will actually send a timely response if they actually did bid significantly lower. UND has also been really quick about responding to my FOIA requests so I wouldn't be surprised if they were to send the documents out, for this specific request, the same day I request them.

Plus the AD is on record on the radio yesterday saying that UND bid around 70% higher than 2019. I don't think he's going to put his neck out there if it isn't true when it is something that can be verified.

[nodak651]

Curious, are the guidelines in the FCS Playoff manual optional for the selection committee? Nowhere in the official playoff manual is there guideline that should have allowed Weber and Idaho to be split up in the first round. There is a specific formula that dictates where teams will be placed in the bracket - there are some exceptions, but nowhere is there verbiage that allows Idaho and Weber to be split up in the first round. Below are the guidelines in verbatim:

BRACKET PAIRINGS
All pairings will be made by the NCAA Division I Football Championship Committee. The following principles are applied when pairing teams:


1. The teams awarded the top eight seeds shall receive a bye in the first round and are placed in the appropriate
positions in the bracket (Nos. 1, 8, 4 and 5 in the upper half; and Nos. 2, 7, 3 and 6 in the lower half);
2. The remaining 16 teams will play first-round games and will be paired according to geographic proximity and then
placed in the bracket according to geographic proximity of the top eight seeds previously placed in the bracket;
3. The NCAA mileage threshold for mandatory team travel via ground is 400 miles (one way);
4. If a conference has four or more teams in the championship, the committee may allow an additional flight in the first
or second round in order to avoid a conference having all of its teams on the same side of the bracket;
5. Regular-season non-conference match-ups in the first round of the championship should be avoided, provided it
does not create an additional flight(s);
6. Teams from the same conference will not be paired for first-round games (except for teams from the same
conference that did not play against each other during the regular season; such teams may play each other in the
first round); and
7. Once the first-round pairings have been determined, there will be no adjustments to the bracket (e.g., a seeded team
may play a conference opponent that advanced out of the first round)

[SDFS]

They are UND fans, they have no embarrassment threshold

I was told by NDSU fans that D-II did not count. Please make up your minds. You're as bad as the NCAA - just making up rules as you go along.

[Professor Chaos]

Curious, are the guidelines in the FCS Playoff manual optional for the selection committee? Nowhere in the official playoff manual is there guideline that should have allowed Weber and Idaho to be split up in the first round. There is a specific formula that dictates where teams will be placed in the bracket - there are some exceptions, but nowhere is there verbiage that allows Idaho and Weber to be split up in the first round. Below are the guidelines in verbatim:

BRACKET PAIRINGS
All pairings will be made by the NCAA Division I Football Championship Committee. The following principles are applied when pairing teams:


1. The teams awarded the top eight seeds shall receive a bye in the first round and are placed in the appropriate
positions in the bracket (Nos. 1, 8, 4 and 5 in the upper half; and Nos. 2, 7, 3 and 6 in the lower half);
2. The remaining 16 teams will play first-round games and will be paired according to geographic proximity and then
placed in the bracket according to geographic proximity of the top eight seeds previously placed in the bracket;
3. The NCAA mileage threshold for mandatory team travel via ground is 400 miles (one way);
4. If a conference has four or more teams in the championship, the committee may allow an additional flight in the first
or second round in order to avoid a conference having all of its teams on the same side of the bracket;
5. Regular-season non-conference match-ups in the first round of the championship should be avoided, provided it
does not create an additional flight(s);
6. Teams from the same conference will not be paired for first-round games (except for teams from the same
conference that did not play against each other during the regular season; such teams may play each other in the
first round); and
7. Once the first-round pairings have been determined, there will be no adjustments to the bracket (e.g., a seeded team
may play a conference opponent that advanced out of the first round)
I think the geographic proximity guideline gets a used a lot more loosely once you get outside of bus trip distance. Idaho is still 600+ miles from Weber St so it would still be a flight regardless. The intent of that rule is to minimize flights and pairing up Idaho with Weber St would've results in the same number of chartered flights the NCAA would be paying for.

If they were going to use geographic proximity it would've made more sense to pair up Idaho with Weber St, Montana with UND, and SEMO with SLU than their existing pairings but those are 3 flights for the visiting teams regardless.

[MSUBobcat]

He said 1st round bid. The cats were a seed and didn't play in the 1st round.

MSU would still have submitted a bid. We had 3 losses going into Cat-Griz. A seed was not assured prior to the deadline for a bid. I'm sure we submitted a bid package for this year also, as a loss in the Brawl would possibly have bounced us from a bid, if a 34 point drubbing only got us a 4-seed. I suppose he could have meant of the bids that were relevant to choosing 1st round host sites.

[MSUBobcat]

I filed FOIA in 2019. This is a link to the actual bid: https://drive.proton.me/urls/YJKEXGYYGG#StPrkiJyCP1e
I also submitted a FOIA request, Sunday night, to Weber State for this years playoff bid. Hopefully they respond.
Bids by round are in the FCS Manual here: https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf
That manual also details exactly how the Simple Ratings System is calculated, FYI. (It's terrible)

Thank you for these! I especially appreciate the manual, which I've had trouble finding. I thought the NCAA took 75% of the gate but saw an article on HERO Sports claiming it was 85% and I couldn't find anything to dispute it.

[Paladin1aa]

I get a chuckle here reading what is essentially propaganda FOR the committee. Excuses here, excuses there. What I know is that YSU won 4 National titles and were runners up 3 times. One of those titles was won after finishing THIRD in the MVFC. Most recently, YSU finished runners up in the title game and didnt win the MVFC that year either. Why did they win or nearly win ? Because they play in the toughest league and we’re certainly one of the top 16. I laugh at the inclusion of the lightweight league getting an auto. No chance at winning a Natty and few chances to even win a game. Worst, some of those leagues get more than their champ in. And then if that isn’t corrupt, you get the match ups and host teams assigned that make no sense and are obvious corrupt decisions as well. It’s a farce to say the best teams are playing in the tournament and it’s even more absurd to say there is a fair pairing and assigning of games. It’s a corrupt process……… period.

[nodak651]

MSU would still have submitted a bid. We had 3 losses going into Cat-Griz. A seed was not assured prior to the deadline for a bid. I'm sure we submitted a bid package for this year also, as a loss in the Brawl would possibly have bounced us from a bid, if a 34 point drubbing only got us a 4-seed. I suppose he could have meant of the bids that were relevant to choosing 1st round host sites.

If you guys are still referring to Chaves' statement, Yes. The bolded sentence is correct.

[penguinpower]

Sure they do, they won their conference and get a seat at the table. One seat. Seems dumb that this a sticking point for all you YSU guys but the NCAA doesn't give a **** that you don't like it I bet. So toil away with getting that one thrown out...across all sports in the NCAA as that is how this all works.

It's been mentioned many time but this is about crowning one champion. So the very first place you start is with the champions you already have. Then fill in the field with the rest that have a chance at being the best. Good place to start if you ask me.

But your non sequiter arguments are fun.

If the playoffs are about putting the best teams in the tournament then I have a sequiter argument. None of the non-Scholarship teams have a remote chance of winning the national championship. They're not even competitive. History proves that.

It's also the reason why they only take one team from those conferences. Because they know that none of them can compete. It's a diversity and inclusion deal. And it's b*******.

You won your conference but will give you a participation trophy and let you into the playoffs to get your ass kicked. Don't shoot the messenger just calling it as it is

[nodak651]

I get a chuckle here reading what is essentially propaganda FOR the committee. Excuses here, excuses there. What I know is that YSU won 4 National titles and were runners up 3 times. One of those titles was won after finishing THIRD in the MVFC. Most recently, YSU finished runners up in the title game and didnt win the MVFC that year either. Why did they win or nearly win ? Because they play in the toughest league and we’re certainly one of the top 16. I laugh at the inclusion of the lightweight league getting an auto. No chance at winning a Natty and few chances to even win a game. Worst, some of those leagues get more than their champ in. And then if that isn’t corrupt, you get the match ups and host teams assigned that make no sense and are obvious corrupt decisions as well. It’s a farce to say the best teams are playing in the tournament and it’s even more absurd to say there is a fair pairing and assigning of games. It’s a corrupt process……… period.

The reason that YSU isn't in the playoffs is because the MVFC was perceived to be down this year. SIU and Missouri State were average to bad, but given that they were ranked pre-season, and people thought they were the 3rd and 4th best teams in the conference, it was assumed that the MVFC was down because these top MVFC teams didn't look so great. Nobody thought SEMO or UIW were as good as they are when SIU lost to them either, but there was kinda a stigma that spawned from those results. If UND and YSU were ranked pre season instead of SIU and MSU, YSU would have made the playoffs. If UND was ranked pre season, your loss to us would not have looked as bad either. Wins vs Missouri State, for example, ended up not helping at all because Missouri State plummeted after losing to unranked "bad" MVFC teams (not saying MSU is good, but the optics of the MVFC we hurt by this). For example, UND only rose to like 23 in the polls while Missouri State dropped like 10 plus spots, so the MVFC lost like 10 something total rankings from that game alone, because the pre season rankings were wrong. The MVFC is still currently ranked as Massey's best conference, but perception is the reason why SDSU and NDSU were the only possibilities for us to get "ranked wins". It's a lot harder to rise in the polls than it is to maintain a pre season ranking. Example, the CAA had a bunch of teams ranked in the pre season, however, the conference won like 15 non conf games vs HBCU and Patriot league teams, and these wins don't typically help teams rise in the polls, but the CAA teams were already ranked, so when the CAA beat itself up during the conf season, those wins and losses were to "ranked teams". Massey has CAA rated as like the 5th best conference, but you wouldnt think thats the case if you looked at national polls, which are influenced by heavily by pre season rankings rather than objective numbers. The perception of the CAA was also boosted by a couple G5 wins, one to a terrible Charlotte team, which any ranked team SHOULD beat. Meanwhile, the MVFC played 10 of 11 of it's FBS games vs P5 schools (with one win). CAA had the luxury of playing half of it's FBS games vs G5 schools and they didn't have to play any non conf games vs the MVFC or Big Sky, meanwhile the Big Sky played 6 games vs each other. Pretty easy for the CAA to maintain its pre season rankings when they don't play anyone in the non conference, where teams like UNI have to play Sac State. UNI would be ranked right now and probably in the playoffs as well if they played a MEAC or SWAC team like the CAA schools rather than Sac State.

Sorry that was supposed to be one or two sentences and not a wall of text.

[Professor Chaos]

The reason that YSU isn't in is because the MVFC was perceived to be down this year. SIU and Missouri State were average to bad, but given that they were ranked pre-season, and people thought they were the 3rd and 4th best teams in the conference, it was assumed that the MVFC was down because these top MVFC teams didn't look so great. Nobody thought SEMO or UIW were as good as they are when SIU lost to them either, but there was kinda a stigma that spawned from those results. If UND and YSU were ranked pre season instead of SIU and MSU, YSU would have made the playoffs. If UND was ranked pre season, your loss to us would not have looked as bad either. Wins vs Missouri State, for example, ended up not helping at all because Missouri State plummeted after losing to unranked "bad" MVFC teams (not saying MSU is good, but the optics of the MVFC we hurt by this). For example, UND only rose to like 23 in the polls while Missouri State dropped like 10 plus spots, so the MVFC lost like 10 something total rankings from that game alone, because the pre season rankings were wrong. The MVFC is still currently ranked as Massey's best conference, but perception is the reason why SDSU and NDSU were the only possibilities for us to get "ranked wins". It's a lot harder to rise in the polls than it is to maintain a pre season ranking. Example, the CAA had a bunch of teams ranked in the pre season, however, the conference won like 15 non conf games vs HBCU and Patriot league teams, and these wins don't typically help teams rise in the polls, but the CAA teams were already ranked, so when the CAA beat itself up during the conf season, those wins and losses were to "ranked teams". Massey has CAA rated as like the 5th best conference, but you wouldnt think thats the case if you looked at national polls, which are influenced by heavily by pre season rankings rather than objective numbers.
To your point I think it's pretty telling that despite the MVFC "being down" Massey has these as the national SOS rankings for the MVFC teams:

USD: 1
UND: 2
SIU: 3
SDSU: 5
ISUb: 7
UNI: 9
MSU: 11
WIU: 12
ISUr: 19
NDSU: 20
YSU: 21

It's pretty tough to have 4 of the top 5 and 8 of the 12 toughest schedules when your conference isn't any good outside of a few teams as the narrative went this fall. It's why I was frustrated with some of the reasoning on this board about how MVFC teams didn't have any "good wins" because the best wins to be had outside of NDSU and SDSU (which nobody beat except SDSU) were over teams with middling records some of whom out of playoff contention. Not all wins over non-playoff contenders should be considered equal.

[nodak651]

I think the geographic proximity guideline gets a used a lot more loosely once you get outside of bus trip distance. Idaho is still 600+ miles from Weber St so it would still be a flight regardless. The intent of that rule is to minimize flights and pairing up Idaho with Weber St would've results in the same number of chartered flights the NCAA would be paying for.

If they were going to use geographic proximity it would've made more sense to pair up Idaho with Weber St, Montana with UND, and SEMO with SLU than their existing pairings but those are 3 flights for the visiting teams regardless.

I guess, but the rules say that teams WILL be paired up based on geographic proximity, not should, and Idaho vs Weber doesn't qualify for any of the listed exceptions. If there are rules, they should be followed or else they need to be changed. I'd be fine with UND @ Montana if that would make more sense, as long as rules are followed. Someone before mentioned the way college hockey does it.. I think a similar concept would work great for FCS. But this whole process needs to be blown up and redone, because the FCS playoffs have lost a lot of credibility this year IMO. And why the hell is the playoff chair from BUCKNELL of all schools?

IMO, the schools serious about football in the FCS should work with the SWAC to create a new post season tournament, outside of the NCAA, which would allow the SWAC to play their celebration bowl and participate in the FCS playoffs. The FCS could then figure out how to pool their money, maybe through the conferences, to finance the tournament, and the schools in the new post season tournament could negotiate their own TV contract, and at the same time prevent the NCAA from swindling the schools out of TV and ticket sales revenue. If the tournament doesn't have much TV value, I'm sure they could at least get some first round games on local TV while still keeping streaming rights with ESPN+ if they wanted. It's not like they currently benefit from the NCAA's **** TV deal as it is.

[BisonTru]

I guess, but the rules say that teams WILL be paired up based on geographic proximity, not should, and Idaho vs Weber doesn't qualify for any of the listed exceptions. If there are rules, they should be followed or else they need to be changed. I'd be fine with UND @ Montana if that would make more sense, as long as rules are followed. Someone before mentioned the way college hockey does it.. I think a similar concept would work great for FCS. But this whole process needs to be blown up and redone, because the FCS playoffs have lost a lot of credibility this year IMO. And why the hell is the playoff chair from BUCKNELL of all schools?

IMO, the schools serious about football in the FCS should work with the SWAC to create a new post season tournament, outside of the NCAA, which would allow the SWAC to play their celebration bowl and participate in the FCS playoffs. The FCS could then figure out how to pool their money, maybe through the conferences, to finance the tournament, and the schools in the new post season tournament could negotiate their own TV contract, and at the same time prevent the NCAA from swindling the schools out of TV and ticket sales revenue. If the tournament doesn't have much TV value, I'm sure they could at least get some first round games on local TV while still keeping streaming rights with ESPN+ if they wanted. It's not like they currently benefit from the NCAA's **** TV deal as it is.

Regionalization has always been about maximizing bus trips. Always been that way. If it doesn't create an extra bus trip there's no need to pair it.

Flying football teams is the major expense for the playoffs. Which is why the NCAA tries to limit them and why your second paragraph is never going to happen. FCS playoffs are at best a break even. Also the SWAC doesn't care about us and honestly I couldn't care less if they get a first round exit.

[caribbeanhen]

The reason that YSU isn't in the playoffs is because the MVFC was perceived to be down this year. SIU and Missouri State were average to bad, but given that they were ranked pre-season, and people thought they were the 3rd and 4th best teams in the conference, it was assumed that the MVFC was down because these top MVFC teams didn't look so great. Nobody thought SEMO or UIW were as good as they are when SIU lost to them either, but there was kinda a stigma that spawned from those results. If UND and YSU were ranked pre season instead of SIU and MSU, YSU would have made the playoffs. If UND was ranked pre season, your loss to us would not have looked as bad either. Wins vs Missouri State, for example, ended up not helping at all because Missouri State plummeted after losing to unranked "bad" MVFC teams (not saying MSU is good, but the optics of the MVFC we hurt by this). For example, UND only rose to like 23 in the polls while Missouri State dropped like 10 plus spots, so the MVFC lost like 10 something total rankings from that game alone, because the pre season rankings were wrong. The MVFC is still currently ranked as Massey's best conference, but perception is the reason why SDSU and NDSU were the only possibilities for us to get "ranked wins". It's a lot harder to rise in the polls than it is to maintain a pre season ranking. Example, the CAA had a bunch of teams ranked in the pre season, however, the conference won like 15 non conf games vs HBCU and Patriot league teams, and these wins don't typically help teams rise in the polls, but the CAA teams were already ranked, so when the CAA beat itself up during the conf season, those wins and losses were to "ranked teams". Massey has CAA rated as like the 5th best conference, but you wouldnt think thats the case if you looked at national polls, which are influenced by heavily by pre season rankings rather than objective numbers. The perception of the CAA was also boosted by a couple G5 wins, one to a terrible Charlotte team, which any ranked team SHOULD beat. Meanwhile, the MVFC played 10 of 11 of it's FBS games vs P5 schools (with one win). CAA had the luxury of playing half of it's FBS games vs G5 schools and they didn't have to play any non conf games vs the MVFC or Big Sky, meanwhile the Big Sky played 6 games vs each other. Pretty easy for the CAA to maintain its pre season rankings when they don't play anyone in the non conference, where teams like UNI have to play Sac State. UNI would be ranked right now and probably in the playoffs as well if they played a MEAC or SWAC team like the CAA schools rather than Sac State.

Sorry that was supposed to be one or two sentences and not a wall of text.

The CAA right now is the conference of the haves and the have Nots

there’s some really bad teams at the bottom of the conference that are pulling down the overall average

Hampton
Albany
Stony Brook
Monmouth - Remember when Monmouth was in the Big South, making the playoffs and starting to make a name for themselves? This was the first year in the CAA and they’re probably like the seventh best team in the Conference

[SDFS]

The CAA right now is the conference of the haves and the have Nots

there’s some really bad teams at the bottom of the conference that are pulling down the overall average

Hampton
Albany
Stony Brook
Monmouth - Remember when Monmouth was in the Big South, making the playoffs and starting to make a name for themselves? This was the first year in the CAA and they’re probably like the seventh best team in the Conference

The CAA was rewarded with 5 teams and plus some cupcakes in the playoffs. The highest ranked conference barely got three teams in and then made-up rules to have the 3rd team in travel. But, hey NDSU got its 3rd seed and SDSU their nemeses on the other side of the bracket. So, it's all good for the MVFC. SDSU is happy, NDSU is thrilled and UND & YSU are like what the hell. Thanks NDSU!! Patty are you paying attention?

[AggiePride]

No team on the bubble deserves to be in. Your 6 win team is in that group. Massey thought we played a fairly tough schedule and fared better against it than UCD did with their schedule. you do have a comparative win against Idaho vs. Montana but relying on what you all think is a better schedule and resume vs. ours just does not stack up.

I don't disagree with your points. They are valid. I just don't agree with how you weight the factors here and neither do any of the other sources out there that rank the teams.

I love how people don’t even consider actually watching the games or highlights and having an understanding of how competitive teams were in their SOS. I get it, it’s FCS, very few people have the time or interest in doing that like the FBS.

It’s just people looking at records and playing the “how they fared” shuffle each week with very little analysis beyond their conference/teams other than the basic wins and losses. Or simply bias/reputation.

It is what it is, but it’s obvious it is flawed (add auto bids in there) beyond the most obvious of choices. You basically admit bubble teams don’t get handled well. Using flawed analysis/polls to validate other flawed systems is not very convincing.

[Bisonoline]

I love how people don’t even consider actually watching the games or highlights and having an understanding of how competitive teams were in their SOS. I get it, it’s FCS, very few people have the time or interest in doing that like the FBS.

It’s just people looking at records and playing the “how they fared” shuffle each week with very little analysis beyond their conference/teams other than the basic wins and losses. Or simply bias/reputation.

It is what it is, but it’s obvious it is flawed (add auto bids in there) beyond the most obvious of choices. You basically admit bubble teams don’t get handled well. Using flawed analysis/polls to validate other flawed systems is not very convincing.

This is about playing for a National Championship. One needs to ask themselves---is your team the best team in the country? Not should we be in the playoffs.
If you have more than 2-3 losses the answer if youre honest
is no.

[lucchesicourt]

The Ags played 1FBS and 3 FCS schools finally ranked #1,#2,and#3 and were close games except for MSU. And Ursis says they did better than the Aggies. What are you drinking?
You lost to lower ranked teams than us. And Weber and Sac about the same. We did better than Montana against Idaho.
So, your strength of schedule was weaker than ours, and the scores were similar except for Idaho we beat convincingly on the road.

[penguinpower]

If you let non-Scholarship conference winners into the field and you say you are picking the best 24 teams, you aren't intellectualy honest.

St. Francis doesn't belong in the field. UND is still transitioning to an MVFC team but when they are finished, I could see them as a top tier MVFC team. The MVFC is the SEC of the FCS. Not trying to piss off the villagers but the CAA's only annual NC competitor in the last 12 years are is the ghey streamers of JMU. Now they are gone. Everyone else is filling the void. If JMU we're still there, the CAA would probably have less teams in the playoff because they would make the rest of the conference look weak by comparison.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that ZERO CAA teams make it to the semifinal game. AND THE NC will be held my an MCFC school once again (Although MSU does look pretty good). I will eat my crow cold if I'm wrong.

[Professor Chaos]

I love how people don’t even consider actually watching the games or highlights and having an understanding of how competitive teams were in their SOS. I get it, it’s FCS, very few people have the time or interest in doing that like the FBS.

It’s just people looking at records and playing the “how they fared” shuffle each week with very little analysis beyond their conference/teams other than the basic wins and losses. Or simply bias/reputation.

It is what it is, but it’s obvious it is flawed (add auto bids in there) beyond the most obvious of choices. You basically admit bubble teams don’t get handled well. Using flawed analysis/polls to validate other flawed systems is not very convincing.
I think Montana got in because the committee watched the games (not just last week but in previous weeks). Truax said that they thought Montana was just better than the other bubble teams. I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion if not primarily with the eye test. I'm of the opinion that the eye test is flawed because we tend to see what we want to see and unless you're watching a lot of games from all teams in consideration, which I doubt many of us (even the committee members) have time for, your sample size is too limited to draw accurate conclusions. That said I know committee members have access to condensed game replays that can let you get through a game in 30 minutes or so but that's still a ton of time needed to watch everybody when there's 30-40 team at least under consideration - and these guys all have day jobs outside of being on the committee.

[MR. CHICKEN]

If you let non-Scholarship conference winners into the field and you say you are picking the best 24 teams, you aren't intellectualy honest.

St. Francis doesn't belong in the field. UND is still transitioning to an MVFC team but when they are finished, I could see them as a top tier MVFC team. The MVFC is the SEC of the FCS. Not trying to piss off the villagers but the CAA's only annual NC competitor in the last 12 years are is the ghey streamers of JMU. Now they are gone. Everyone else is filling the void. If JMU we're still there, the CAA would probably have less teams in the playoff because they would make the rest of the conference look weak by comparison.

I'm going out on a limb and saying that ZERO CAA teams make it to the semifinal game. AND THE NC will be held my an MCFC school once again (Although MSU does look pretty good). I will eat my crow cold if I'm wrong.

.....WOW!....LIVIN' DANGEOUS WHIFF PREDICTIONNS......MVFC ENTRANTS....RANKED #1/#4/#20....DAT LIMB YER ON...IS STRONGER DAN DUH WHOLE TREE........xrolleyesxxsighx.....BRAWK!

[AggiePride]

This is about playing for a National Championship. One needs to ask themselves---is your team the best team in the country? Not should we be in the playoffs.
If you have more than 2-3 losses the answer if youre honest
is no.

What a weak simplification that doesn’t hold true with scrutiny. We can play with anyone, and did, literally down to a couple plays against #1 and #2 on the road. You only make my point for me. And it is quite obviously about more than just the best teams looking at auto bids and other selections.

[AggiePride]

I think Montana got in because the committee watched the games (not just last week but in previous weeks). Truax said that they thought Montana was just better than the other bubble teams. I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion if not primarily with the eye test. I'm of the opinion that the eye test is flawed because we tend to see what we want to see and unless you're watching a lot of games from all teams in consideration, which I doubt many of us (even the committee members) have time for, your sample size is too limited to draw accurate conclusions. That said I know committee members have access to condensed game replays that can let you get through a game in 30 minutes or so but that's still a ton of time needed to watch everybody when there's 30-40 team at least under consideration - and these guys all have day jobs outside of being on the committee.

That is my point. I get it, it’s not going to happen. Just don’t point to an equally bad poll/ranking as “justification” as some are doing, I don’t think there is any mystery why they are similar.

I will caveat that for some cases this could be done, but I don’t think it mattered because name and reputation seemed to be the factor here.

[penguinpower]

Teams that win late in the year have a better chance to go far in the playoff. When you lose 3 of your last 4 or have a blowout loss, chances are that you are eliminated when the competition gets better.

[MR. CHICKEN]

....EYE TEST IS FLAWED...FO' MANY REASONS......YA WATCH...MONTANA ROUT UH TEAM....YER IMPRESSION IS DEY'RE GREAT.......BUT NEXT GAME.....PICK SIX...OFFAH SOMEBODYS HELMET.......AN' NOW DEY LOSE...IT'S HOW DUH MOB'S CASINOS....ARE STILL OPEN.........BRAWK!

[penguinpower]

....EYE TEST IS FLAWED...FO' MANY REASONS......YA WATCH...MONTANA ROUT UH TEAM....YER IMPRESSION IS DEY'RE GREAT.......BUT NEXT GAME.....PICK SIX...OFFAH SOMEBODYS HELMET.......AN' NOW DEY LOSE...IT'S HOW DUH MOB'S CASINOS....ARE STILL OPEN.........BRAWK!

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

But it's not intentional

[AmsterBison]

Here's a nerd stat: NDSU has played 12 games in the playoffs against teams in the 2022 field and won all of them with the average score of 39-12.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Here's a nerd stat: NDSU has played 12 games in the playoffs against teams in the 2022 field and won all of them with the average score of 39-12.


.....WHAA GO THRU DUH MOTIONS.........COMMITTEE.....FED EX DUH BLING.....TA FARGO........QUICK....B/4 DUH NEXT SNOW........AWK!

[Professor Chaos]

Teams that win late in the year have a better chance to go far in the playoff. When you lose 3 of your last 4 or have a blowout loss, chances are that you are eliminated when the competition gets better.
This isn't always the case. Teams shouldn't be punished for having a backloaded schedule of tough teams or rewarded for having a bunch of easy games at the end of the season. You still have to take into account who they played when evaluating those late season wins and losses.

[MR. CHICKEN]

..IN 2010.....YOU-DEE......LOST FINAL TWO REGULAR SEASON GAMES......(RICHMOND/'NOVA BAH 12 POINTS)........(SIMILAR TA DIS SEASON)........MADE DUH DANCE........AN' NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME......WHIFF E. WASHINGTON...........JES' SAYIN'......xwhistlex......AWK!

[AmsterBison]

I did the rest of the field for their postseason. St Francis AND Gardner-Webb have never played anybody in this year's field in the playoffs before so they aren't shown:



Team
Record
Avg Score


Montana
8-6
30-24


Richmond
6-3
26-20


Furman
6-4
22-19


South Dakota State
5-7
28-28


Delaware
4-5
29-27


Montana State
4-5
24-32


Eastern Kentucky
4-4
19-31


Weber State
3-2
27-25


Idaho
2-3
25-32


New Hampshire
2-6
19-33


William & Mary
2-3
24-32


Samford
1-1
25-35


North Dakota
0-1
24-27


Incarnate Word
0-1
14-35


Sacramento State
0-1
19-24


Fordham
0-1
19-44


Holy Cross
0-1
3-31


SE Missouri State
0-1
23-48


Southeastern LA
0-2
23-47


Elon
0-2
20-22

[MR. CHICKEN]

[QUOTE=AmsterBison;3096570]I did the rest of the field for their postseason. St Francis has never played anybody in this year's field in the playoffs before so they aren't shown:

WE....DID PLAY'EM......AS ONE OF.....OURAH OOC GAMES....LAST YEAR.......27-10.....YOU-DEE..........BUT DEY HAVE STUMBLED INTO....UH PROLIFIC QB......AH NEED UH XANAX.....xeekx....AWK!

[AmsterBison]

WE....DID PLAY'EM......AS ONE OF.....OURAH OOC GAMES....LAST YEAR.......27-10.....YOU-DEE..........BUT DEY HAVE STUMBLED INTO....UH PROLIFIC QB......AH NEED UH XANAX.....xeekx....AWK!

Well, if I included non-playoff games, then I'd have to acknowledge that NDSU lost to SDSU. So that's out. I only use SQL for the betterment of mankind.

[Bisonator]

The CAA was rewarded with 5 teams and plus some cupcakes in the playoffs. The highest ranked conference barely got three teams in and then made-up rules to have the 3rd team in travel. But, hey NDSU got its 3rd seed and SDSU their nemeses on the other side of the bracket. So, it's all good for the MVFC. SDSU is happy, NDSU is thrilled and UND & YSU are like what the hell. Thanks NDSU!! Patty are you paying attention?
xbabycryx

Do you need a tissue?

Somehow it's always NDSU's fault.xrolleyesx

[POD Knows]

xbabycryx

Do you need a tissue?

Somehow it's always NDSU's fault.xrolleyesxThat guy should be jumping for joy that UND is even in the playoffs, they deserve a spot about as much as Montana does.

[MR. CHICKEN]

Well, if I included non-playoff games, then I'd have to acknowledge that NDSU lost to SDSU. So that's out. I only use SQL for the betterment of mankind.

WASN'T ASKIN' YA TA ADJUST YER WORK.........JES' GENERAL INFO........FO' DIS THREADS POSTERS.........AWK!

[ursus arctos horribilis]

What language? Literally it’s said the word six for almost a decade now. Page 18 of the FCS championship manual.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20221122/492f702224d653df9d5654ce79f21c38.jpg

Yeah, I'm not disputing it. I was thinking the language might have changed but that it might have stated 7 wins, could not remember and did not go look back on that so you got me. The overal point is that you can't show up with the bare minimum and cry foul if you ain't picked but the point is conceded.


I'm still sticking with 7 for safety though. xlolx Oh look, it worked!

[F'N Hawks]

xbabycryx

Do you need a tissue?

Somehow it's always NDSU's fault.xrolleyesx

Not always but this one...yah. But you nutbeards couldn't figure it out so we had to spell it out

[ursus arctos horribilis]

If the playoffs are about putting the best teams in the tournament then I have a sequiter argument. None of the non-Scholarship teams have a remote chance of winning the national championship. They're not even competitive. History proves that.

It's also the reason why they only take one team from those conferences. Because they know that none of them can compete. It's a diversity and inclusion deal. And it's b*******.

You won your conference but will give you a participation trophy and let you into the playoffs to get your ass kicked. Don't shoot the messenger just calling it as it is

So March Madness is pver om your world? I'd rather we keep it the way we have it. That does not mean that the teams getting in are better than yours, mine, or several others but all the same this a better system than just packed with Power conference teams.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

I love how people don’t even consider actually watching the games or highlights and having an understanding of how competitive teams were in their SOS. I get it, it’s FCS, very few people have the time or interest in doing that like the FBS.

It’s just people looking at records and playing the “how they fared” shuffle each week with very little analysis beyond their conference/teams other than the basic wins and losses. Or simply bias/reputation.

It is what it is, but it’s obvious it is flawed (add auto bids in there) beyond the most obvious of choices. You basically admit bubble teams don’t get handled well. Using flawed analysis/polls to validate other flawed systems is not very convincing.

Wait a minute, you think you and some of the others around here that are not even willing to put in time to vote, discuss, and check out other conferences fairly in depth watch and know more about the strengths and weaknesses than those that do all of this and do watch games from other conferences every week?

I'm sorry but if you have watched more, discussed more, and so forth than I did this year that would be a true shock since I run the poll, edit and discuss content for the podcast, etc. but it's certainly possible. It seems unlikely but I could be wrong. The poll voters starteed all of these sorts of discussions in week 1, not week 12.

I guarantee you that as much as I was able to watch I probably pale in comparison to some of the guys voting and none of us compare to the Selection Committee. They get to watch games in about a 10 to 12 minute span with the games edited down to only the action so they watch a **** ton of them.

Unless you are on the committee, you don't know more than they do. You know your team, you value your schedule because everyone out there with a decent schedule thinks theirs is the tougher than another bubble teams is.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

The Ags played 1FBS and 3 FCS schools finally ranked #1,#2,and#3 and were close games except for MSU. And Ursis says they did better than the Aggies. What are you drinking?
You lost to lower ranked teams than us. And Weber and Sac about the same. We did better than Montana against Idaho.
So, your strength of schedule was weaker than ours, and the scores were similar except for Idaho we beat convincingly on the road.

7 wins vs. 6 wins.

you can sift the ashes all you want to find silly comparisons but if you need to do that you can't pretend to be deserving with 5 losses.

[ElCid]

Here's a nerd stat: NDSU has played 12 games in the playoffs against teams in the 2022 field and won all of them with the average score of 39-12.

Ok. Gee whiz. But not sure a score from 2012 is in any way relevant to 2022. Just saying. So irrelevant nerd factoid is pretty accurate.

[lucchesicourt]

You implied your schedule was more difficult than UCD's and their 5 losses were to all ranked FCS Or an unranked FBS team. And all the FCS teams that beat UCD were usually very close scores, UCD did not allow 55 points to any team they played and did not lose a game over. A 20 point margin (MSU largest and only double digit loss). So, I have no problem with the Age being out of the playoffs. But, Las I said after week 11 that Montana had a worse overall record than UCD, and UM would finish BEHIND the Age no matter the results of week #12 and should have less of us chance because of their poor conference record.
Al I ever hear if you don't beat a competitive team don't expect to make the playoffs. Montana did not beat a competitive team. As far as us not being selected, Ags obviously couldn't defeat 3 of the 4 top teams, and they had their chance. Montana was not
better than the Ags in conference, and thus not deserving of being invited. You can make any inference why you got in 7 wins against weak teams gets you in? Well, are other teams let in with weak wins? You guys finished in 6th place, and your schedule was less difficult than ours.
I will say many other UM fans agree the Griz were lucky to get an invite. If you just admit that there were other teams more qualified by record I would not have a problem. You actually don't believe you are a 6 th place team with an opportunity to win it all.

[NDSU1980]

No, that was when NDSU by rule should have hosted, but UND's AD used his influence to send us to an unmaintained and unplayable field at Delta St. Don't embarrass yourself by defending this. It was completely corrupt and against the rules.
Quoted for truth.

[AggiePride]

Wait a minute, you think you and some of the others around here that are not even willing to put in time to vote, discuss, and check out other conferences fairly in depth watch and know more about the strengths and weaknesses than those that do all of this and do watch games from other conferences every week?

I'm sorry but if you have watched more, discussed more, and so forth than I did this year that would be a true shock since I run the poll, edit and discuss content for the podcast, etc. but it's certainly possible. It seems unlikely but I could be wrong. The poll voters starteed all of these sorts of discussions in week 1, not week 12.

I guarantee you that as much as I was able to watch I probably pale in comparison to some of the guys voting and none of us compare to the Selection Committee. They get to watch games in about a 10 to 12 minute span with the games edited down to only the action so they watch a **** ton of them.

Unless you are on the committee, you don't know more than they do. You know your team, you value your schedule because everyone out there with a decent schedule thinks theirs is the tougher than another bubble teams is.

This quite obviously did not happen or Montana would not be in.

[The Yo Show]

One thing I hope we can all agree would be good... for transparency's sake the projected at large teams should start to be publicly listed and released by the NCAA each week 3 weeks before selection Sunday. That would give more transparency and at least let teams have more an idea of where they stand. The FBS does this with their CFP ranking system releasing it after a certain point in the season weekly.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

What a weak simplification that doesn’t hold true with scrutiny. We can play with anyone, and did, literally down to a couple plays against #1 and #2 on the road. You only make my point for me. And it is quite obviously about more than just the best teams looking at auto bids and other selections.


No you cannot! Davis has 5 losses and proved they cannot play with anyone.

Davis does not belong in the playoffs.

[lucchesicourt]

I don't think a UCD fan believes they should be in the playoffs. We played our playoff games already and lost. Cannot say we are ready for the cream of the top teams. We almost, shoulda, coulda, but didn't. But, the Ags surely had a better resume than Montana, and I think.most At fans couldn't believe they were a top 15 tram for so long. They had a crack at two of the cream of the crop teams, and lost both. They did beat 7 sub .500 teams. That is strong argument for entry into the playoffs

[BeamMeUp]

One thing I hope we can all agree would be good... for transparency's sake the projected at large teams should start to be publicly listed and released by the NCAA each week 3 weeks before selection Sunday. That would give more transparency and at least let teams have more an idea of where they stand. The FBS does this with their CFP ranking system releasing it after a certain point in the season weekly.
Who is going to propose to NCAA?

Happy Thanksgiving - Beam Me Up

[BlueGoldAg]

There had been hope that the strength of the Aggie schedule, plus close losses to No. 1 South Dakota State (24-22) and No. 2 Sacramento State (27-21) would sway the selection committee despite UCD’s 6-5 overall record.
Alas, it wasn’t to be.

And while I can make a case for a 6-5 team not getting into the playoff, it’s hard to imagine how both Idaho and Montana did make it into the final field over this 6-5 Aggie team.

In the next-to-last game of the season, the Aggies traveled to Moscow and drilled No. 15 Idaho, 44-26. UCD led, 31-7, at halftime and never looked back. You would think that late-season head-to-head matchups, especially one as lopsided as this one, would weigh heavily in the selection committee’s judgment.

Montana, meanwhile, limped to the finish line, losing four of its last six games, including a 30-23 setback to Idaho and a final game 55-21 shellacking by Montana State. Indeed, the much-hyped Brawl of the Wild turned into the Maul of the Wild.

Worse yet, the Griz finished 4-4 and sixth in the Big Sky Conference, while the Aggies were 5-3 and in fifth place. Again, you would think conference standings would weigh heavily in the selection committee’s judgment, especially with a team that failed to break .500 in the Big Sky and finished halfway down the league standings.

Montana and the Aggies had six common opponents. Montana was 2-4 against those six, while the Aggies were 3-3. Once again, what criteria could the committee be using if not this?

https://www.davisenterprise.com/sports/bob-dunning-uc-davis-season-ended-too-soon/

[caribbeanhen]

Idaho’s last three playoff games have taken place in Louisiana.

Shrimp vs boiled potatoes

Louisiana wins that

[caribbeanhen]

The real problem I have with Montana is that they have four fcs losses. If UC Davis had as much money as Montana and could afford to schedule a non fbs non conf, they'd be in.

I hope you have a problem with SEMO after they get bounced by Montana tomorrow

[F'N Hawks]

I hope you have a problem with SEMO after they get bounced by Montana tomorrow
That means nothing. Alot of bubble teams could beat SEMO at home.

[AggiePride]

No you cannot! Davis has 5 losses and proved they cannot play with anyone.

Davis does not belong in the playoffs.

Such thorough analysis. Talk about proving my point; “Poll perfection” indeed. Thank you.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Such thorough analysis. Talk about proving my point; “Poll perfection” indeed. Thank you.


Still whining a week later.

Davis didn't deserve to be in. How's this for analysis: Win more games. Really easy....xcoffeex

[BisonTru]

Shrimp vs boiled potatoes

Louisiana wins that

Now do dental hygiene.

[katss07]

Now do dental hygiene.
Idaho might be one of the few states that would give Louisiana a fight.

[lucchesicourt]

My question is this. Besides 7 wins against sub .500 teams can you make a case for Montana over UC Davis? I would bet not. If any other team had wins only against sub .500 teams you would be saying, but you didn't beat any above average teams and thus should not be in the playoffs. How do I know this is easy "we have heard this before". Yes, you can only play the teams on your schedule, but you must show you can beat the good ones.
And, Davis beat more good ones than Montana. And Davis showed too be more competetive also.

[F'N Hawks]

For all you mongo's that didn't understand what we were saying:

UND's bid guaranteed the NCAA $127,500. Weber State's bid guaranteed $41,683.50 - per the GF Herald.

[Professor Chaos]

For all you mongo's that didn't understand what we were saying:

UND's bid guaranteed the NCAA $127,500. Weber State's bid guaranteed $41,683.50 - per the GF Herald.
Yikes... unless Weber St netted $37.82 per ticket sold (they reported paid attendance of 4,495), which seems highly unlikely to me they got anywhere near that, the selection committee left (potentially significant) money on the table awarding the home game to Weber St.

If someone other than UND had gotten screwed by this I might be more upset. ;)

[uofmman1122]

For all you mongo's that didn't understand what we were saying:

UND's bid guaranteed the NCAA $127,500. Weber State's bid guaranteed $41,683.50 - per the GF Herald.
Yeah, I got nothing, that's absolutely egregious.

[taper]

For all you mongo's that didn't understand what we were saying:

UND's bid guaranteed the NCAA $127,500. Weber State's bid guaranteed $41,683.50 - per the GF Herald.
So you won 1 of 5 criteria and lost at least 1 other, with the overall bid winner going to Weber. You do understand there's more than 1 criteria, and you're not the first to lose a bid despite more revenue potential, right?

[abc123]

So you won 1 of 5 criteria and lost at least 1 other, with the overall bid winner going to Weber. You do understand there's more than 1 criteria, and you're not the first to lose a bid despite more revenue potential, right?
You understand they've only used that one criteria forever right? They match up the teams, open the envelopes and the highest bid gets the game. Dumb way to do it, but it is literally the only way they have ever done it. Patty V has confirmed that with her comments.

[NDSU1980]

For all you mongo's that didn't understand what we were saying:

UND's bid guaranteed the NCAA $127,500. Weber State's bid guaranteed $41,683.50 - per the GF Herald.Why should teams be able to buy their way into a home game? What happens on the field over the season should be the major factor, otherwise you only have to win enough to make the playoffs.

[uofmman1122]

So you won 1 of 5 criteria and lost at least 1 other, with the overall bid winner going to Weber. You do understand there's more than 1 criteria, and you're not the first to lose a bid despite more revenue potential, right?
As someone that was defending it going to Weber, that all makes sense if the bids are close. That's not close at all, and it seems kind of arguable that the other 4 criteria were that much more in Weber's favor. The only really obvious one was season performance.

I have a feeling there was probably considerable disagreement on the committee about putting Holy Cross as the #8 over Weber, and they essentially just said "we'll make them the unofficial #9".

[clenz]

So you won 1 of 5 criteria and lost at least 1 other, with the overall bid winner going to Weber. You do understand there's more than 1 criteria, and you're not the first to lose a bid despite more revenue potential, right?
Here's how often those other criteria have been used in the history of the playoffs:

No one ever knew the existed. Ever.

It has always been we set the field and then open to see who had the highest bid. That's it. That's all it's ever been.


Listen, it's funny because it happened to UND and their fan base and Bubba's brother and his twitter account. Beyond that what happened opens a MASSIVE can a worms and creates significant precedent issues.

In a perfect world, I also agree Weber should 1000% have hosted. They had a better resume, a better team, a better rank, better metrics, etc. However, that's not how the FCS playoffs work. It never has been outside of seeds, and even then, seeds have to still have bid to be able to host.

The line from the NCAA, and committee, has always been it's about money and costs. This year they broke and set two very different precedents on the same subject and were far too open about it.

The first was going "Montana makes money and we know they'll bring a gate revenue, so we are putting them in". That's never been a criterion for putting a team in - at least publicly. To be as brash about it as they were and admit it in the open was jarring.

At the same time they admit it's about the money they give up $85,816.50 in guaranteed revenue by giving the host to Weber State over North Dakota in what is the first-ever case of giving it to someone other than the highest bidder (at least known, I guess should be added).

What's the point of bidding if the new rule is "We don't give a ****, we just give it to whomever now". If the bids were equal or within a 3-year-olds ability to throw a rock then I could understand it. That's not this.


The way the committee worked this year is very strange and antithetical to every other that has ever happened.

I hate that I'm defending UND on this one, but holy **** it's almost impossible to not.

Also I'm not sure Weber wins the other criteria. I would strongly argue that playing in that weather in front of 4000 fans is a major L for Weber in that match up as far as creating the best atmosphere and experience for the teams involved. Like domes or hate them having that game in good conditions in front of, what would have been double the number of fans, is a MASSIVE lean to UND over Weber in that regard.

[taper]

For all the people stuck on money:
WIU to Dayton 2015
JMU to EKU 2011
GaSO to Wofford 2010

Money is 1 of 5 criteria. UND to Weber is NOT unprecedented. Simple historical fact.

[F'N Hawks]

Why should teams be able to buy their way into a home game? What happens on the field over the season should be the major factor, otherwise you only have to win enough to make the playoffs.

That is certainly a noble thought - except for the fact is it has never been viewed that way ever before. But, now the AD's know that their bids mean nothing.

[nodak651]

For all the people stuck on money:
WIU to Dayton 2015
JMU to EKU 2011
GaSO to Wofford 2010

Money is 1 of 5 criteria. UND to Weber is NOT unprecedented. Simple historical fact.

Everyone wanted UND to show proof.. Your turn.

[F'N Hawks]

Here's how often those other criteria have been used in the history of the playoffs:

Listen, it's funny because it happened to UND and their fan base and Bubba's brother and his twitter account.


Bubba's brother doesn't do the UND 360 twitter account

- - - Updated - - -


For all the people stuck on money:
WIU to Dayton 2015
JMU to EKU 2011
GaSO to Wofford 2010

Money is 1 of 5 criteria. UND to Weber is NOT unprecedented. Simple historical fact.

Mongo, go chop some wood. Let us deal with it

[Professor Chaos]

For all the people stuck on money:
WIU to Dayton 2015
JMU to EKU 2011
GaSO to Wofford 2010

Money is 1 of 5 criteria. UND to Weber is NOT unprecedented. Simple historical fact.
Pretty sure in all of those cases the visiting teams didn't submit bids prior to the deadline. I recall JMU's and GSU's ADs both taking big time heat from their fans for that. WIU's AD probably wasn't confident they could meet the minimum bid guarantee.

EDIT: Actually Georgia Southern had to have submitted a bid in 2010 since they hosted a first round game... need to dig through the AGS archives to see if I can find out what happened there. FWIW, here's some chatter on the JMU/EKU hosting situation in 2011: https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?101096-Eastern-Kentucky-Really

[abc123]

For all the people stuck on money:
WIU to Dayton 2015
JMU to EKU 2011
GaSO to Wofford 2010

Money is 1 of 5 criteria. UND to Weber is NOT unprecedented. Simple historical fact.
Do you have the bids that show that's what happened?
Because a conference commissioner that has been in her position for 37 years is on record stating that the highest bid hosting has been sacrosanct, even when the other criteria are clearly slanted the other way. I'm going to trust her thoughts on it over yours.

[clenz]

For all the people stuck on money:
WIU to Dayton 2015
JMU to EKU 2011
GaSO to Wofford 2010

Money is 1 of 5 criteria. UND to Weber is NOT unprecedented. Simple historical fact.
WIU didn't bid at all. They were of firm belief they were not making the playoffs so they didn't bid - nor do they have the money to bid.

JMU 2011 is very different than JMU post 2013. EKU will/has thrown serious money around to host. I'm pretty sure JMU didn't bid and it was a big story and led to JMU significantly over bidding every year after and talking about how big their bids were to over compensate for it.

I have nothing on the last one other than it's entirely reasonable to believe that a broke as **** GSU - and they were regardless their pedigree - didn't spent a lot of money on bids. Look at that season, they were a thanksgiving weekend game. They were one of the last teams in. Wofford wasn't. They were given a bye. GSU had to bid to host the first game, then go on the road to play a seed in round two. Wofford has money to spend, and Wofford was a fairly big hitter at that time. I wouldn't be shocked to see the private school outbid a broke public for a third-round playoff game at that point. Much like JMU, I'm also pretty sure GSU didn't bid, and if they did it was the bare minimum, which Wofford would have easily topped.

[POD Knows]

Do you have the bids that show that's what happened?
Because a conference commissioner that has been in her position for 37 years is on record stating that the highest bid hosting has been sacrosanct, even when the other criteria are clearly slanted the other way. I'm going to trust her thoughts on it over yours.I am telling ya, it is the freaking hockey rubes and their racist hockey jerseys all over the place, who the hell wants to look at that, I would rather look at empty seats. xlolx This is the only thing that makes any sense given the gap in the bid.

[taper]

Wow, lots of strong views here. According to AGS Montana and Delaware got in solely on money, yet Weber hosts despite less money. Anyone want to explain that hypocrisy? Maybe it really was just the committee following the NCAA rules that have been in place for years. Anyone want to say the committee shouldn't weigh all 5 criteria listed in the rules?

[uofmman1122]

Wow, lots of strong views here. According to AGS Montana and Delaware got in solely on money, yet Weber hosts despite less money. Anyone want to explain that hypocrisy? Maybe it really was just the committee following the NCAA rules that have been in place for years. Anyone want to say the committee shouldn't weigh all 5 criteria listed in the rules?
Montana and Delaware got in because the committee thought they were better flawed, middling teams than a pool of other flawed, middling teams.

[abc123]

Wow, lots of strong views here. According to AGS Montana and Delaware got in solely on money, yet Weber hosts despite less money. Anyone want to explain that hypocrisy? Maybe it really was just the committee following the NCAA rules that have been in place for years. Anyone want to say the committee shouldn't weigh all 5 criteria listed in the rules?

The problem is, the committee literally did explain it. Which made it worse, because they chose to not explain why they cherry picked which criteria to use for different teams, including criteria that has literally never been used. They made it up as they went and then their terrible explanation proves that out.

[nodak651]

Why is the MVFC representative silent about this? xconfusedx

[Professor Chaos]

Why is the MVFC representative silent about this? xconfusedx
He was busy trying to figure out how to doctor photos tying UND's mascot to the Jeffrey Epstein estate circa 2005-ish.

[NDSU1980]

That is certainly a noble thought - except for the fact is it has never been viewed that way ever before. But, now the AD's know that their bids mean nothing.

Considering how people have been complaining about the differences between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" I'd say the committee did the right thing. How many have want cost of attendance and NIL eliminated from FCS because it supposedly allowed teams to buy success?

I'm sure it doesn't help that und insists on taunting the NCAA over the Sioux name. It's plastered all over the Ralph and fans show up at games wearing gear. Don't act so shocked that things came down the way they did.

[F'N Hawks]

Considering how people have been complaining about the differences between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" I'd say the committee did the right thing. How many have want cost of attendance and NIL eliminated from FCS because it supposedly allowed teams to buy success?

I'm sure it doesn't help that und insists on taunting the NCAA over the Sioux name. It's plastered all over the Ralph and fans show up at games wearing gear. Don't act so shocked that things came down the way they did.

A Bison fan talking about Sioux and hockey...shocked. weirdos

[NDSU1980]

A Bison fan talking about Sioux and hockey...shocked. weirdos

Well let's look at a different angle then. NCAA said und didn't have the quality of play, and apparently they were right. I see und had ZERO players on the MVFC All Conference first team, and I think they only had 2 on the second team. So it appears the committee had legit reasons to place you in Weber based on team caliber.

Maybe I should find the picture from a few years ago where your mascot is holding up a sign at the NDSU game saying "Play us in hockey". Talk about weirdos.

[F'N Hawks]

Well let's look at a different angle then. NCAA said und didn't have the quality of play, and apparently they were right. I see und had ZERO players on the MVFC All Conference first team, and I think they only had 2 on the second team. So it appears the committee had legit reasons to place you in Weber based on team caliber.

Maybe I should find the picture from a few years ago where your mascot is holding up a sign at the NDSU game saying "Play us in hockey". Talk about weirdos.

"Hockey"

[Christiank22]

Well let's look at a different angle then. NCAA said und didn't have the quality of play, and apparently they were right. I see und had ZERO players on the MVFC All Conference first team, and I think they only had 2 on the second team. So it appears the committee had legit reasons to place you in Weber based on team caliber.

Maybe I should find the picture from a few years ago where your mascot is holding up a sign at the NDSU game saying "Play us in hockey". Talk about weirdos.

My favorite is when they act like D1 hockey is some major sport that everyone is dying to watch. Nothing says the big time like playing Quinnipiac and Bemidji.

[F'N Hawks]

My favorite is when they act like D1 hockey is some major sport that everyone is dying to watch. Nothing says the big time like playing Quinnipiac and Bemidji.

^^^^^^^

[abc123]

Well let's look at a different angle then. NCAA said und didn't have the quality of play, and apparently they were right. I see und had ZERO players on the MVFC All Conference first team, and I think they only had 2 on the second team. So it appears the committee had legit reasons to place you in Weber based on team caliber.

Maybe I should find the picture from a few years ago where your mascot is holding up a sign at the NDSU game saying "Play us in hockey". Talk about weirdos.

Yeah, the committee really nailed that observation since UND had the ball with a chance to win/tie with 2 minutes to go. Not to mention only one first round game was decided by fewer points. But thanks for further emphasizing their incompetence.

And Bubba must be coach of the year to coach such a rag-tag bunch to a 3rd place finish in in the meat grinder known as the MVFC (which was ranked the toughest conference by Sagarin).

But you know all that, you just think you're being clever. And everyone, including the conference commissioner, stated the committee has never deviated from that precedent. Wonder where the MVFC rep was for that conversation?

[JacksFan40]

My favorite is when they act like D1 hockey is some major sport that everyone is dying to watch. Nothing says the big time like playing Quinnipiac and Bemidji.
Where does hockey even fall on the hierarchy of college athletics? It’s probably above volleyball, but below baseball/softball, and significantly below football and basketball. Maybe on par with wrestling?

Either way nobody cares about college hockey from a casual perspective.

[JacksFan40]

Wow, lots of strong views here. According to AGS Montana and Delaware got in solely on money, yet Weber hosts despite less money. Anyone want to explain that hypocrisy? Maybe it really was just the committee following the NCAA rules that have been in place for years. Anyone want to say the committee shouldn't weigh all 5 criteria listed in the rules?
Because Montana and Delaware are essentially FCS blue bloods and it’s easy to hate on them. They both proved they belong in the playoffs, with Montana taking out the 9-2 OVC champion, and Delaware dismantling the 9-2 NEC champion. Maybe people should focus on why teams like St. Francis and Davidson can get in, instead of Montana and Delaware.

[clenz]

Because conference champions

Don’t even start that “conference champions don’t deserve a bid” bull****.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

Where does hockey even fall on the hierarchy of college athletics? It’s probably above volleyball, but below baseball/softball, and significantly below football and basketball. Maybe on par with wrestling?

Either way nobody cares about college hockey from a casual perspective.


I'd say wrestling is above college hockey. UND draws the most fans in hockey and have the last decade or so....maybe even longer. Wrestling draws huge in the upper echelon of teams. Iowa draws huge along with Penn State. Probably both Iowa State and UNI probably draw very good wrestling crowds because Iowa is a great wrestling state.

The National Finals in wrestling is always sold out also. College hockey is great to watch IMO but I agree, it is far down the list of interest to most fans outside of the upper midwest and east coast.

[clenz]

I'd say wrestling is above college hockey. UND draws the most fans in hockey and have the last decade or so....maybe even longer. Wrestling draws huge in the upper echelon of teams. Iowa draws huge along with Penn State. Probably both Iowa State and UNI probably draw very good wrestling crowds because Iowa is a great wrestling state.

The National Finals in wrestling is always sold out also. College hockey is great to watch IMO but I agree, it is far down the list of interest to most fans outside of the upper midwest and east coast.
Big crowds at UNI can touch 6-7k. We've spent the last 120 years in a gym on campus that only holds 2100 or so but it's been sold out and them some the entire time. We are now in the basketball arena, which no one likes, for reasons that aren't worthy of this thread. We'll still probably draw 2100-3000 for most matches and some rivalry matches will touch the 4k+. Wisconsin last year was like 6300.

[abc123]

I'd say wrestling is above college hockey. UND draws the most fans in hockey and have the last decade or so....maybe even longer. Wrestling draws huge in the upper echelon of teams. Iowa draws huge along with Penn State. Probably both Iowa State and UNI probably draw very good wrestling crowds because Iowa is a great wrestling state.

The National Finals in wrestling is always sold out also. College hockey is great to watch IMO but I agree, it is far down the list of interest to most fans outside of the upper midwest and east coast.

They are roughly equal.
Both have die-hard followings. Both have great attendance at the national championships (which for hockey only includes 2-4 teams, yet still has fans from across the sport). Both are 2 of the few NCAA championships that make money.

[geaux_sioux]

Where does hockey even fall on the hierarchy of college athletics? It’s probably above volleyball, but below baseball/softball, and significantly below football and basketball. Maybe on par with wrestling?

Either way nobody cares about college hockey from a casual perspective.

I’m so sick of hockey at this point. People in Grand Forks act like the hockey team is God’s gift even though they choke every year while they have better facilities than every NHL team.

[nodak651]

My favorite is when they act like D1 hockey is some major sport that everyone is dying to watch. Nothing says the big time like playing Quinnipiac and Bemidji.

Both of which outdraw your D1 basketball program.

[Bison Fan in NW MN]

I’m so sick of hockey at this point. People in Grand Forks act like the hockey team is God’s gift even though they choke every year while they have better facilities than every NHL team.



This is what is confusing to me. Best arena in all of college hockey and better than most pro arenas. They should get the best of the best in recruits. There are a lot of good hockey players in the juniors and major juniors in Canada but having the best arena and best fan support you'd think would translate into more NCs.

- - - Updated - - -


Both of which outdraw your D1 basketball program.


I wouldn't be puffing your chest out too far there poindexter.....xrolleyesx

[nodak651]

This is what is confusing to me. Best arena in all of college hockey and better than most pro arenas. They should get the best of the best in recruits. There are a lot of good hockey players in the juniors and major juniors in Canada but having the best arena and best fan support you'd think would translate into more NCs.

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't be puffing your chest out too far there poindexter.....xrolleyesx

I'm not. He was the one talking trash so I was just letting him know how the attendance at the schools he makes fun of compares to his school. Something about glass houses. I'm well aware that hockey is a niche sport.

[nodak651]

This is what is confusing to me. Best arena in all of college hockey and better than most pro arenas. They should get the best of the best in recruits. There are a lot of good hockey players in the juniors and major juniors in Canada but having the best arena and best fan support you'd think would translate into more NCs.


You would think. The 05-06 team roster has combined for 4,572 career nhl games played and they still couldn't get it done. Junior hockey and older players, combined with the single elimination playoff format, makes winning championships much more difficult for teams that can theoretically recruit the best than in other sports, imo. For example, Michigan seems to be bringing in a couple first round NHL draft picks every year but they still haven't won a championship in 25 years and it's been 20 years for Minnesota.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Alright, came in and caught up finally. Hockey talk goes elsewhere so go ahead and go over to Other Sports if you feel like doing that going forward.

[F'N Hawks]

Alright, came in and caught up finally. Hockey talk goes elsewhere so go ahead and go over to Other Sports if you feel like doing that going forward.

Bisons are sad

[Chalupa Batman]

Interesting quote from the committee chairman:

https://twitter.com/Lucas_Semb/status/1597677729125892096

[geaux_sioux]

Oh by the way UND also outbid Montana… it just keeps getting better

[MSUBobcat]

Interesting quote from the committee chairman:

https://twitter.com/Lucas_Semb/status/1597677729125892096

Lucas Semb is a Griz beat writer, not the committee chairman. And I'm quite certain he is DEAD WRONG about a seeded team who bid the minimum being able to be outbid. That would render seeds irrelevant and schools like MSU, UM, NDSU, et al would have home field throughout the playoffs with as little as a 7-4 record. Per the NCAA manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf), in Section 2.4 Site Selection, Item 3 (P. 18-19). "If the minimum financial guarantees are met, the committee will award the playoff sites to the higher-seeded team." The five criteria for site selection that have been discussed ad nauseam apply when both teams are unseeded (Item 4 of same section).

Interestingly, the lightly floated theory about the Sioux logos in the crowd may, in fact, have had more to do with UND not hosting even with the higher bid than initially thought. In Item 1, "The committee will consider previous crowd-control measures and crowd behavior of the prospective host institution(regardless of seeding). To be clear, I think the logo worn by fans would be quite a stretch when evaluating "crowd behavior", but... could it have actually been a factor??

[Chalupa Batman]

Lucas Semb is a Griz beat writer, not the committee chairman. And I'm quite certain he is DEAD WRONG about a seeded team who bid the minimum being able to be outbid. That would render seeds irrelevant and schools like MSU, UM, NDSU, et al would have home field throughout the playoffs with as little as a 7-4 record. Per the NCAA manual (https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2022-23D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf), in Section 2.4 Site Selection, Item 3 (P. 18-19). "If the minimum financial guarantees are met, the committee will award the playoff sites to the higher-seeded team." The five criteria for site selection that have been discussed ad nauseam apply when both teams are unseeded (Item 4 of same section).

Interestingly, the lightly floated theory about the Sioux logos in the crowd may, in fact, have had more to do with UND not hosting even with the higher bid than initially thought. In Item 1, "The committee will consider previous crowd-control measures and crowd behavior of the prospective host institution(regardless of seeding). To be clear, I think the logo worn by fans would be quite a stretch when evaluating "crowd behavior", but... could it have actually been a factor??

Yes the tweet is from the Montana beat writer, but he says in one of the replies this is a direct quote from Truax. I would hope he's 100% wrong here also, so this thought even being floated out there was pretty shocking to me.