If There were 24 Playoff Spots...

[Go Apps]

If there were 24 spots, here's how things might look based on todays records...

1) UNI
E. Illinois/Dayton

8)GSU
Wofford/EKU


4)Delaware
Fordham/Hofstra

5)App St
Elon/JMU


2)Montana
Cal Poly/E. Wash

7)UMass
N Hamp/Del St.


3)McNeese St
Ala A&M/Jax St

6)S. Illinois
Richmond/Norfolk St

[andy7171]

DF is going to want a seed for Dayton. :p

[SuperJon]

If there were 24 spots, and we finished at 8-3 and won the Big South, we'd deserve to at least get in at the 24 spot.

[appfan2008]

I like it... I am a proponent of the 24 team bracket and would like to see it implemented

[Saint3333]

16 IS ENOUGH, this isn't little league...xnonox

[Go Apps]

But 24 is where we are headed

[89Hen]

If there were 24 spots, here's how things might look based on todays records...
1) UNI
E. Illinois/Dayton
8)GSU
Wofford/EKU
4)Delaware
Fordham/Hofstra
5)App St
Elon/JMU
2)Montana
Cal Poly/E. Wash
7)UMass
N Hamp/Del St.
3)McNeese St
Ala A&M/Jax St
6)S. Illinois
Richmond/Norfolk St
Thank you for proving that 24 is not a good idea.

[PaladinFan]

keep 16 and get rid of the autobids.

[aceinthehole]

Why don't you try it with 18 teams? Add the NEC AQ and 1 more at-large. xthumbsupx

24 teams is YEARS away from happening! This is going to be a GRADUAL process. You could project 20 teams (NEC&PFL AQ, plus 2 at-large).

Why does everybody focus on 24 teams? xnonono2x Deal with the most likely scenearios first. Do what is most probabal for NEXT YEAR, not in 2014!

[pantherfan]

If there were 24 spots this year, YSU and/or WIU from the Gateway would be in the playoffs. Adding 8 teams would assure at least one of them, and probably both.

NOTE: If the playoffs expand, I fully anticipate dropping the "7 DI wins" criteria, or the selection committee will be watering down the field rather than giving decent teams a shot...

[aust42]

keep 16 and get rid of the autobids.

Why would you get rid of the autobids? The winners of the current AQ conferences would get in anyway. 16 is plenty enough, like the other poster stated, "this ain't Little League". There would be too many mediocre 7-4 teams in the playoff field. The Albany's, San Diego's and everyone else crying about not having access to the playoffs are not even ranked in the top 24 each year. Giving their conference an AQ bid would require starting the season early, and/or eliminating a bye week. This is not feasable for many obvious reasons. And who wants to see them get slaughtered by the power FCS schools in the 1st round? If the field were increased to 24 teams you'd end up having 3/4's of the CAA, Southern, Gateway teams making the playoffs every year.

[URMite]

If there were 24 spots this year, YSU and/or WIU from the Gateway would be in the playoffs. Adding 8 teams would assure at least one of them, and probably both.

NOTE: If the playoffs expand, I fully anticipate dropping the "7 DI wins" criteria, or the selection committee will be watering down the field rather than giving decent teams a shot...

Did either play a DII game?

I'm not sure how requiring more DI wins is watering down... but I might change it from DI wins to a different definition.

7 wins over teams that score at least 10 pts total on their schedule as follows: FBS=2pts FCS=1pt other=0pts (that would encourage equivalent scheduling by any conference that wanted an at-large)

I also think that right now there are usually 20 teams that are playoff worthy (including some 7-4 teams that playoffs teams would not want to play) But I don't see a good way to have a 5 week playoff..

[pantherfan]

Did either play a DII game?

I'm not sure how requiring more DI wins is watering down... but I might change it from DI wins to a different definition.

7 wins over teams that score at least 10 pts total on their schedule as follows: FBS=2pts FCS=1pt other=0pts (that would encourage equivalent scheduling by any conference that wanted an at-large)

I also think that right now there are usually 20 teams that are playoff worthy (including some 7-4 teams that playoffs teams would not want to play) But I don't see a good way to have a 5 week playoff..

My point is that it shouldn't/wouldn't matter if they'd played a DII team and ended up with 7 wins, because the "7 DI wins" would be dropped. I would tweak your formula (a good idea btw) and make FBS wins worth 3 pts., FCS=2, and DII=1. Then have 13 as the magic number or something similar, ie. 6 FCS wins and a DII win and you'd still be eligible. DIII and NAIA would be worth zero points. The "points system" makes more sense than "7 DI wins" because it isn't always easy to schedule non-con FCS games AND there are several DII teams that are on par with top FCS programs.xcoffeex

[Ronin]

keep 16 and get rid of the autobids.

I think we need to keep the autobids, so Montana can play. xwhistlex

[URMite]

My point is that it shouldn't/wouldn't matter if they'd played a DII team and ended up with 7 wins, because the "7 DI wins" would be dropped. I would tweak your formula (a good idea btw) and make FBS wins worth 3 pts., FCS=2, and DII=1. Then have 13 as the magic number or something similar, ie. 6 FCS wins and a DII win and you'd still be eligible. DIII and NAIA would be worth zero points. The "points system" makes more sense than "7 DI wins" because it isn't always easy to schedule non-con FCS games AND there are several DII teams that are on par with top FCS programs.xcoffeex

That's an interesting idea. But I was looking at defining who the wins are against not changing how many. I think a win against a DI with 3 or more non-DIs on the schedule should count less. I'm trying to avoid conferences having multiple teams playing multiple non-DI teams.

I was trying to refine the definition of SOS not success against your schedule. I do like your idea for a point system for judging success, but it may need further tweeking as well to avoid loopholes. A 5-6 team could have 13pts with 3 FBS wins. Or a 6-5 with 2 FBS, 1 DII, 3FCS...both are remote but possible.

[URMite]

My point is that it shouldn't/wouldn't matter if they'd played a DII team and ended up with 7 wins, because the "7 DI wins" would be dropped. I would tweak your formula (a good idea btw) and make FBS wins worth 3 pts., FCS=2, and DII=1. Then have 13 as the magic number or something similar, ie. 6 FCS wins and a DII win and you'd still be eligible. DIII and NAIA would be worth zero points. The "points system" makes more sense than "7 DI wins" because it isn't always easy to schedule non-con FCS games AND there are several DII teams that are on par with top FCS programs.xcoffeex

Another point was do you think a team with a record of 6-4 FCS and 1-0 DII should get an at-large in general?

[SuperJon]

You'd have to do something for teams like Presby. We were forced to play them last year and they were neither a DI or a DII.

[pantherfan]

Another point was do you think a team with a record of 6-4 FCS and 1-0 DII should get an at-large in general?

Most of the time, with the current 16 team format; NO. With 24 teams and 12-16 at-larges? Why not? There have been several 7-4 teams in the past few years alone that would have had a shot had they made the playoffs. Not to mention, last years UNI team lost to DII UND, but ended up with 7 "DI wins". xcoffeex

[URMite]

Most of the time, with the current 16 team format; NO. With 24 teams and 12-16 at-larges? Why not? There have been several 7-4 teams in the past few years alone that would have had a shot had they made the playoffs. Not to mention, last years UNI team lost to DII UND, but ended up with 7 "DI wins". xcoffeex

I do like to see teams win 2/3 of their own div games. 24 teams right now, might bring in a team with too many flaws. 20 seems a better fit. More teams may be added or improve by the time it arrives.

I will admit my opinion on DII teams may come from an east coast bias. There seems to be fewer good DII teams around here.

I guess I see 7-4 teams ranked like this:

1) 0-1 FBS 7-3 FCS
2) 7-4 FCS
3) 0-1 FBS 6-3 FCS 1-0 DII
4) 6-4 FCS 1-0 DII

[SuperJon]

Look at our situation this year if we win out:

2-0 DII
1-0 Black Hole
5-2 FCS
0-1 FBS

We had the loss to the FBS by 2 points and an FCS loss in double OT. Now, that looks TERRIBLE because there are only 5 FCS wins. We were forced to play Presbyterian who counts as nothing this year. 6-2 FCS, 2-0 DII looks a lot better, even though it's just one more FCS win. I'm not saying we deserve to get in this year because we don't, I just think there needs to be a change made to transitioning teams.

[89Hen]

With 24 teams and 12-16 at-larges? Why not?
Again somebody proves that 24 is silly. Remember when bowls used to mean something? Now every 6-5 or 7-5 team gets to go to a bowl. They're like participation trophies. xsmhx

[GannonFan]

Again somebody proves that 24 is silly. Remember when bowls used to mean something? Now every 6-5 or 7-5 team gets to go to a bowl. They're like participation trophies. xsmhx

Maybe we could have some of the player's Moms cut up some orange wedges for halftime? And ice cream after each game would be a must!!! xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Uncle Buck]

My only issue with keeping 16 is that as conferences are granted AQ's, deserving at large teams could get left out. But i agree, too many teams and it waters down the championship like all of the worthless bowl games.

[pantherfan]

Again somebody proves that 24 is silly. Remember when bowls used to mean something? Now every 6-5 or 7-5 team gets to go to a bowl. They're like participation trophies. xsmhx

Exactly!xthumbsupx

[aceinthehole]

Come on guys, I agree 24 teams now (or in the next few seasons) is a bad idea. I agree - almost here everyone agrees. Why don't we cross that bridge in 2014 or some later date.

The much more LIKELY scenario is 18 teams next year (NEC AQ and 1 at-large). You guys can at least agree, that doens't signfigantly weaken the tourney. And since we don't have to worry about the scheduling dilemia that the committee must face, we can all just have fun adding 1 more at-large and debating who's stuck in the PIG. Isn't that more fun, than porosing a 24-team bracket that is universally dislaked by everyone at this time?

I mean I'll even stir the pot a little right now saying CCSU upsets Albany for the NEC AQ and is in the PIG vs. Norfolk State, the 9th at-large bid. xsmiley_wix

[I Bleed Purple]

You'd have two PIGs if you had 18 teams...

[aceinthehole]

You'd have two PIGs if you had 18 teams...

Great, even better. More debate and discussion of what 4 teams would be relagated to the PIG. I can hear the PL fans shifting in their seats ;)

Isn't that is a much better exercise than silly 24-team brackets?

[pantherfan]

Great, even better. More debate and discussion of what 4 teams would be relagated to the PIG. I can hear the PL fans shifting in their seats ;)

Isn't that is a much better exercise than silly 24-team brackets?

The OVC is hoping that PIGs don't happen as well...xcoffeex

[skinny_uncle]

My only issue with keeping 16 is that as conferences are granted AQ's, deserving at large teams could get left out. But i agree, too many teams and it waters down the championship like all of the worthless bowl games.
At least half the field has to be at-larges. If we add AQs, we have to expand the field.



The Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet policy stipulates that for the Division I Football Championship at least 50 percent of the bracket shall be reserved for at-large selections, and no more than 50 percent of the bracket shall be available for automatic qualification of eligible conferences.

[aust42]

Come on guys, I agree 24 teams now (or in the next few seasons) is a bad idea. I agree - almost here everyone agrees. Why don't we cross that bridge in 2014 or some later date.

The much more LIKELY scenario is 18 teams next year (NEC AQ and 1 at-large). You guys can at least agree, that doens't signfigantly weaken the tourney. And since we don't have to worry about the scheduling dilemia that the committee must face, we can all just have fun adding 1 more at-large and debating who's stuck in the PIG. Isn't that more fun, than porosing a 24-team bracket that is universally dislaked by everyone at this time?

I mean I'll even stir the pot a little right now saying CCSU upsets Albany for the NEC AQ and is in the PIG vs. Norfolk State, the 9th at-large bid. xsmiley_wix

I don't think the NEC deserves an auto bid. Was there a link somewhere showing that the powers that be are actually considering expanding the playoffs?

[GreatAppSt]

participation trophies. xsmhx

My thoughts exactly. Up until the regionalization crap started (23 playoff years) the lowest seeded team to make the champ game was #12. 02, 03, 04, 05, and 06 all the champ game participants were ranked in polls higher that # 12. Yes a Cinderella could happen but adding 17 through 24 into the plauofs would be for participation reasons only,xmadx and possibly lead to undue injuries to teams that legitematly have a shot by having to play an extra let's beat the crap out of a patsy so they feel better about themselves game.xnonono2x xmadx xnonono2x xmadxxnonono2x xmadx

[Uncle Buck]

At least half the field has to be at-larges. If we add AQs, we have to expand the field.

Good, it's settled, no more AQ's xthumbsupx

[NDSUstudent]

Do a lot of people still think this way? That if we went to 24 teams in the playoffs it would be watered down? Too much of a good thing?

[tingly]

With everyone having an FCS loss or near loss, it wouldn't have been a big dip into the also-rans this season.

[TheRevSFA]

McNeese wouldn't be seeded. THey aren't even top 4 in our conference.

[Lehigh'98]

Thread from 2007, was McNeese good then?

[MTfan4life]

Thread from 2007, was McNeese good then?

They were undefeated heading in to the playoffs that season. Got stomped by EWash though.

[ysubigred]

keep 16 and get rid of the autobids.

+1 ^^ Let the conferences reward the "Champs" of their leagues and let's just get the 16 best team's in the playoffs!! xbowxxcoffeex

[TheRevSFA]

Whoops..Didn't read the date. My fault

They were good..I mean they went undefeated..but it was more like SFA was having a down decade :D

[tingly]

I didn't catch the date until I wondered why UNI was #1.

[MplsBison]

Come on....

It's BS to bring back a thread this old. There should be a rule preventing any thread from rising to the top one the last post is ___ days old.

[Go...gate]

Come on....

It's BS to bring back a thread this old. There should be a rule preventing any thread from rising to the top one the last post is ___ days old.

Oh, stop it.