An increase in the number of seeds in the FCS playoffs?

[bonarae]

As early as this coming season?

https://herosports.com/fcs-playoff-increase-seeds-bzbz/

[ElCid]

As early as this coming season?

https://herosports.com/fcs-playoff-increase-seeds-bzbz/

I'm not sure. Let's look at it from a money aspect, the root of all evil.

Let's say I'm on the selection committee. I am interested in maximizing the money coming in. I have two teams who are fairly close in on field performance this last season. Say they were both 8-3 and runners up in their conference. One team averages 16k per home game. The other a mere 5k. I have a decision to make. Which one gets seeded higher. Higher seeding obviously gives a huge leg up by getting that home game instead of traveling. It moves the odds more favorably to having another game with 16k instead of just 5k. Sure playoff games might have a little more, or probably, a little less attendance, but I'm looking at averages. Who do you think I will pick for that higher seed? Everything else being equal that is.

Some people probably have no issue with this. Why not choose the hugely more popular program with greater support and attendance? But what will happen is these popular, bigger, programs locking in higher seeds will experience more success, on average, and simply perpetuate the status quo. Home field advantage doesn't guarantee wins, but on average it certainly helps.

But even more concerning is that some teams may be seeded higher than actually more deserving teams simply because of "other" factors. Especially when it may be close and not obvious to the casual observer. We've seen it here and there already, especially when it was close. It will happen a lot more, with more teams in the mix.

Is it better than allowing schools with deep pockets to simply buy their way to having home games with unseeded teams? Maybe. Probably. But as with any change in format, you have to be careful to not create an unfair process or situation that locks in certain teams for reasons other than on field performance and results.

There are always arguments now on who gets in and who doesn't. I'm sure they will now be a lot more of who gets seeded higher, in addition to those seeding arguments that happen now.

It would be nice to have a very clear objective methodology, rather than simply a committee making subjective evaluations like it does now in regard to seeding and participation. Maybe we should have clearer, even if not precise, guidelines. Maybe a different composition on the committee as well. Or shorter terms for it's members to ensure fresh blood and different perspectives are present. Or maybe we need to break the playoffs into true regions where all selections and games are locked into those regions and only chosen from specific conferences and seeding happens within it. That would freak some people out. Might be hard for some strung out conferences. But they could all be placed. It would certainly help with travel, at least a little. Just thinking out of the box.

It may be a better situation in seeding the entire field. Time will tell. I personally don't like seeding when it locks in home fields. When it happens for games at a neutral location, like in BB it's ok I guess. But neutral games will never happen in FCS football except for the Championship game. The FBS has avoided this so far with it Bowl game tie in and small number of participants.

At least we have held off more teams in the playoffs. Nearly 25% of participating schools is more than enough. Still too many in my mind.

[Professor Chaos]

I'm not sure. Let's look at it from a money aspect, the root of all evil.

Let's say I'm on the selection committee. I am interested in maximizing the money coming in. I have two teams who are fairly close in on field performance this last season. Say they were both 8-3 and runners up in their conference. One team averages 16k per home game. The other a mere 5k. I have a decision to make. Which one gets seeded higher. Higher seeding obviously gives a huge leg up by getting that home game instead of traveling. It moves the odds more favorably to having another game with 16k instead of just 5k. Sure playoff games might have a little more, or probably, a little less attendance, but I'm looking at averages. Who do you think I will pick for that higher seed? Everything else being equal that is.

Some people probably have no issue with this. Why not choose the hugely more popular program with greater support and attendance? But what will happen is these popular, bigger, programs locking in higher seeds will experience more success, on average, and simply perpetuate the status quo. Home field advantage doesn't guarantee wins, but on average it certainly helps.

But even more concerning is that some teams may be seeded higher than actually more deserving teams simply because of "other" factors. Especially when it may be close and not obvious to the casual observer. We've seen it here and there already, especially when it was close. It will happen a lot more, with more teams in the mix.

Is it better than allowing schools with deep pockets to simply buy their way to having home games with unseeded teams? Maybe. Probably. But as with any change in format, you have to be careful to not create an unfair process or situation that locks in certain teams for reasons other than on field performance and results.

There are always arguments now on who gets in and who doesn't. I'm sure they will now be a lot more of who gets seeded higher, in addition to those seeding arguments that happen now.

It would be nice to have a very clear objective methodology, rather than simply a committee making subjective evaluations like it does now in regard to seeding and participation. Maybe we should have clearer, even if not precise, guidelines. Maybe a different composition on the committee as well. Or shorter terms for it's members to ensure fresh blood and different perspectives are present. Or maybe we need to break the playoffs into true regions where all selections and games are locked into those regions and only chosen from specific conferences and seeding happens within it. That would freak some people out. Might be hard for some strung out conferences. But they could all be placed. It would certainly help with travel, at least a little. Just thinking out of the box.

It may be a better situation in seeding the entire field. Time will tell. I personally don't like seeding when it locks in home fields. When it happens for games at a neutral location, like in BB it's ok I guess. But neutral games will never happen in FCS football except for the Championship game. The FBS has avoided this so far with it Bowl game tie in and small number of participants.

At least we have held off more teams in the playoffs. Nearly 25% of participating schools is more than enough. Still too many in my mind.
The selection committee has no incentive to maximize profit/revenue. This notion that the teams with more money/attendance potential always get the benefit of the doubt is proven wrong as often as it is proven right. I'm all for more seeds since it makes it more of a true tournament. I also don't think it would be better to have a algorithm or computer rating determine the seeds but I do wish there was more transparency in how the selection committee is feeling in the weeks leading up to the playoffs. Ideally it would be nice if they released rankings weekly from midseason on like the CFP committee does. Ask anyone who votes in the AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does) - nothing makes you more aware of your own biases like constructive criticism.

[ST_Lawson]

The selection committee has no incentive to maximize profit/revenue. This notion that the teams with more money/attendance potential always get the benefit of the doubt is proven wrong as often as it is proven right. I'm all for more seeds since it makes it more of a true tournament. I also don't think it would be better to have a algorithm or computer rating determine the seeds but I do wish there was more transparency in how the selection committee is feeling in the weeks leading up to the playoffs. Ideally it would be nice if they released rankings weekly from midseason on like the CFP committee does. Ask anyone who votes in the AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does) - nothing makes you more aware of your own biases like constructive criticism.

I pretty much agree with you. I think more seeds will overall be a better thing, especially for those teams in the "second 8" area. In the past, when you had 8 teams seeded, then the remaining 16 matched up mostly by geography, you could end up with two teams who both just missed being the top 8 ending up playing each other, while two teams who might actually be the 23rd and 24th best teams in the playoffs playing each other.

I'm particularly sensitive to this due to what happened to my own team the last time we were good enough to play in the playoffs. In 2017, we were 8-3 going into the playoffs, ranked 9th in the STATS FCS poll, and because we just missed out on a top 8 seeding, we were sent on the road to play against a very good 9-2 Weber State team (at the time ranked around 11th in the STATS FCS poll). If they had ranked the top 16, we would have been probably 9 or 10, and would have hosted a playoff game against a likely weaker opponent. As it was, we gave Weber a dogfight, losing by 3.

As it stands right now, due to our financial situation, our only shot at hosting a playoff game is to finish in the top 8 because we'll never be able to outbid someone. Ranking 16 teams give more teams a shot at hosting a game based on whether they prove themselves worthy of it on the field during the season, not based on how many zeroes they can add to the number on the check to the NCAA.

[FUBeAR]

Increasing the number of seeds makes people FEEL like the NCAA FCS peeps are trying…

Here’s what needs to be done with every current aspect of the FCS Playoffs…

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/XFzD8aRLQRGfof94YFZQyfckGG4=/900x504/media/img/photo/2015/07/70-years-since-trinity-when-we-test/n15_00530011/original.gif


…and then, start with this…

https://cdn.dribbble.com/users/1525393/screenshots/4236035/hand___jallal___2.gif
…a complete “reimagining” is what is needed; not a tweak.

[caribbeanhen]

The selection committee has no incentive to maximize profit/revenue. This notion that the teams with more money/attendance potential always get the benefit of the doubt is proven wrong as often as it is proven right. I'm all for more seeds since it makes it more of a true tournament. I also don't think it would be better to have a algorithm or computer rating determine the seeds but I do wish there was more transparency in how the selection committee is feeling in the weeks leading up to the playoffs. Ideally it would be nice if they released rankings weekly from midseason on like the CFP committee does. Ask anyone who votes in the AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does) - nothing makes you more aware of your own biases like constructive criticism.

This is one of the best things going on AGS

[FUBeAR]

AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does)

Really? How do you know?

The Committee uses every possible piece of information that any individual committee member chooses to use as criteria and each committee member determines how they weight any possible pieces of information that they individually choose to use.

But don't believe FUBeAR. Listen to the Commissioner tell you that. Now, you have to listen closely because he is a good Sr. Level Administrator and is good at answering questions truthfully, but leaving the listener with the impression that he may have said something very specific, when, in fact, he didn't "box himself in" (a phrase he uses later in the podcast) to anything specific at all.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/herosports/final-jermaine

Bottom Line - there is no specific criteria for determining the field, the seeds, and/or the brackets used by the Committee, regardless of what is published on the website. Whatever the committee ultimately determines subjectively will then very easily be justified using post-decision derived/cited data that sounds like it supports whatever they subjectively decided.

#DefundTheCommittee

[Libertine]

The selection committee has no incentive to maximize profit/revenue. This notion that the teams with more money/attendance potential always get the benefit of the doubt is proven wrong as often as it is proven right. I'm all for more seeds since it makes it more of a true tournament. I also don't think it would be better to have a algorithm or computer rating determine the seeds but I do wish there was more transparency in how the selection committee is feeling in the weeks leading up to the playoffs. Ideally it would be nice if they released rankings weekly from midseason on like the CFP committee does. Ask anyone who votes in the AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does) - nothing makes you more aware of your own biases like constructive criticism.

I agree with most of this, especially the transparency aspect. I think the worst part of the playoff selection committee is the whole "final weekend Star Chamber" vibe of the committee that make some its decisions seem so arbitrary. Honestly, I think it would be better if the committee never met at all to consider seedings and simply tabulated the votes of its members. Because the way that AGS does it seems to work.

[caribbeanhen]

Really? How do you know?

The Committee uses every possible piece of information that any individual committee member chooses to use as criteria and each committee member determines how they weight any possible pieces of information that they individually choose to use.

But don't believe FUBeAR. Listen to the Commissioner tell you that. Now, you have to listen closely because he is a good Sr. Level Administrator and is good at answering questions truthfully, but leaving the listener with the impression that he may have said something very specific, when, in fact, he didn't "box himself in" (a phrase he uses later in the podcast) to anything specific at all.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/herosports/final-jermaine

Bottom Line - there is no specific criteria for determining the field, the seeds, and/or the brackets used by the Committee, regardless of what is published on the website. Whatever the committee ultimately determines subjectively will then very easily be justified using post-decision derived/cited data that sounds like it supports whatever they subjectively decided.

#DefundTheCommittee

Jekyll Island Club

[FUBeAR]

Jekyll Island Club
LOL - Wrong forum. Don't take FUBeAR down with you when ursus comes in a-growlin' and a-clawin'

[caribbeanhen]

LOL - Wrong forum. Don't take FUBeAR down with you when ursus comes in a-growlin' and a-clawin'

I knew you would kind of get it but you from Georgia

perfect reference for the committee and not political at all …. In case the Bear is aware

[Professor Chaos]

Really? How do you know?

The Committee uses every possible piece of information that any individual committee member chooses to use as criteria and each committee member determines how they weight any possible pieces of information that they individually choose to use.

But don't believe FUBeAR. Listen to the Commissioner tell you that. Now, you have to listen closely because he is a good Sr. Level Administrator and is good at answering questions truthfully, but leaving the listener with the impression that he may have said something very specific, when, in fact, he didn't "box himself in" (a phrase he uses later in the podcast) to anything specific at all.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/herosports/final-jermaine

Bottom Line - there is no specific criteria for determining the field, the seeds, and/or the brackets used by the Committee, regardless of what is published on the website. Whatever the committee ultimately determines subjectively will then very easily be justified using post-decision derived/cited data that sounds like it supports whatever they subjectively decided.

#DefundTheCommittee
Because our rankings mirror pretty darn closely what the selection committee puts out year after year. If we don't use the same criteria we end up at roughly the same conclusion.

[OhioHen]

I'm not sure. Let's look at it from a money aspect, the root of all evil.

Let's say I'm on the selection committee. I am interested in maximizing the money coming in. I have two teams who are fairly close in on field performance this last season. Say they were both 8-3 and runners up in their conference. One team averages 16k per home game. The other a mere 5k. I have a decision to make. Which one gets seeded higher. Higher seeding obviously gives a huge leg up by getting that home game instead of traveling. It moves the odds more favorably to having another game with 16k instead of just 5k. Sure playoff games might have a little more, or probably, a little less attendance, but I'm looking at averages. Who do you think I will pick for that higher seed? Everything else being equal that is.

This wouldn't make any difference in the first round. Right now, the bigger potential income host gets the home game. With more seeding, in your scenario, the bigger potential income host gets the seed and thus the home game.

The winner of that first round game (whether seeded or unseeded) will always advance to play one of the top eight seeds in the second round. No change there.

Should a pair of teams that played in the first round both upset top eight seeds (AND be in the same part of the bracket), THEN seeded or unseeded might come into play. Again, using your logic, the team from that pairing who has the greatest income potential is likely already the highest seed of the two, changing nothing from what would be assigned as the home game anyway.

[FUBeAR]

Because our rankings mirror pretty darn closely what the selection committee puts out year after year. If we don't use the same criteria we end up at roughly the same conclusion.

Which is the dog and which is the tail? Maybe the Committee Members all use the AGS poll and weight it the most heavily of the various criteria they choose to use.

We just don’t know and that’s the point. There is zero transparency to the Committee’s actual criteria / process. Saying they use anything they want as criteria and weight it however they want is not transparency. Well, y’know, actually it is. It transparently reveals their deliberations are completely without any defined criteria / process and are completely subjective.

But this is just one broken aspect of the horribly broken FCS playoffs. Fixing how the committee operates would only be touching up the lipstick that is already on that pig.

A demolition of the current structure & a complete reimagining is needed.

FUBeAR is really not interested in something that merely alters the recline positions on the deck chairs.

[ElCid]

The selection committee has no incentive to maximize profit/revenue.


Hmm. I obviously don't agree. Big crowds are obviously important to anyone in the process. Product branding, enthusiasm, NCAA influence, etc. Unless it happens to be a supporter of teams with smallish attendance, who just want in. I'm not talking about the major, overall process, but the borderline cases. People with little or no dog in fight may want to opt for the flashy dog. And I'm not convinced that the committee does use the same logic and determinations that our poll voters do. As a voter for nearly ten years, I've seen plenty of head scratchers. And they were itches that proved them wrong once the games were played. To me the process appears a bit too much subjective. That will always be present, but the scales are tilted a bit much in the wrong direction currently.

[Libertine]

Big crowds are obviously important to anyone in the process. Product branding, enthusiasm, NCAA influence, etc.

Compared to what? Every other FCS school in the country? Many of these AD's have some form of experience at the FBS level so what they see week in and week out at the FCS level likely has less meaning to them than it does to the average fan of an FCS school.

To be frank, there is no recognizable "FCS" brand. Whatever product branding and enthusiasm is generated by an FCS program is generated at the school level by the school and long before playoff selection ever comes into the picture. I'm not going to even touch on "NCAA influence" because that simply is not a thing that FCS programs generate.

I agree that the process is too subjective but any system that relies on arbitrary rankings is always going to be.

[ST_Lawson]

...

But this is just one broken aspect of the horribly broken FCS playoffs. Fixing how the committee operates would only be touching up the lipstick that is already on that pig.

A demolition of the current structure & a complete reimagining is needed.

FUBeAR is really not interested in something that merely alters the recline positions on the deck chairs.

Do you have any thoughts on what the system should become or things you'd like to see?

[FUBeAR]

Do you have any thoughts on what the system should become or things you'd like to see?
Yes - Many. Have laid them out in various places & iterations.

1 more time…here’s a few…

Premise - start with a completely blank slate and assume ANYTHING is possible.

1) Find a way to involve MEAC/SWAC & Ivies and it has to make financial/institutional sense for them. Not having 20% of Teams involved - and that 20% being the highest profile Teams in the subdivision makes no sense. Something makes the Ivies participate in other NCAA Championships. Find out how it makes sense for them to participate in this one and make it happen. Build HBCU Bowls into Playoffs, reworks dates, give Celebration Bowl Champion a “Super-Bye” - whatever makes it make sense, let’s do it.

2) Consider D2/D3 model of full regionalization. 4 regions / 8 Teams - all 8 seeded.

3) Make calendar make sense. Nobody plays on T’Giving weekend.

4) Consider filling brackets by X Teams/Conference based on prior season’s non-playoff OOC results. Create formula to assess results and go into next season knowing Conf A gets 2 Teams, Conf B gets 1 Team, Conf C gets 3 Teams. Conferences pre-submit their tie-breaking procedures in advance. Could even establish brackets & seeds before season starts - “ConfA1 plays ConfB3” - no committee needed. Works for HS and Pro Teams. Why not College?

5) Final 4 - bring 4 Teams to a TRUE “destination city” and play 2 Semi-Finals & Championship Game on short cycle - 4-5 days or so between games


Lot to work thru, lot of reasons to says these ideas will never work. Prolly a lot of other good / better ideas out there.

But … gotta admit the Playoffs are badly broken FIRST.

Otherwise…everything’s fine. Let’s seed a few more Teams and everything will be just perfect!!!

[MR. CHICKEN]

Yes - Many. Have laid them out in various places & iterations.

1 more time…here’s a few…

Premise - start with a completely blank slate and assume ANYTHING is possible.

1) Find a way to involve MEAC/SWAC & Ivies and it has to make financial/institutional sense for them. Not having 20% of Teams involved - and that 20% being the highest profile Teams in the subdivision makes no sense. Something makes the Ivies participate in other NCAA Championships. Find out how it makes sense for them to participate in this one and make it happen. Build HBCU Bowls into Playoffs, reworks dates, give Celebration Bowl Champion a “Super-Bye” - whatever makes it make sense, let’s do it.

2) Consider D2/D3 model of full regionalization. 4 regions / 8 Teams - all 8 seeded.

3) Make calendar make sense. Nobody plays on T’Giving weekend.

4) Consider filling brackets by X Teams/Conference based on prior season’s non-playoff OOC results. Create formula to assess results and go into next season knowing Conf A gets 2 Teams, Conf B gets 1 Team, Conf C gets 3 Teams. Conferences pre-submit their tie-breaking procedures in advance. Could even establish brackets & seeds before season starts - “ConfA1 plays ConfB3” - no committee needed. Works for HS and Pro Teams. Why not College?

5) Final 4 - bring 4 Teams to a TRUE “destination city” and play 2 Semi-Finals & Championship Game on short cycle - 4-5 days or so between games


Lot to work thru, lot of reasons to says these ideas will never work. Prolly a lot of other good / better ideas out there.

But … gotta admit the Playoffs are badly broken FIRST.

Otherwise…everything’s fine. Let’s seed a few more Teams and everything will be just perfect!!!

........THIS ONE....xnodx....BRAWK!

[FUBeAR]

........THIS ONE....xnodx....BRAWK!
FUBeAR is your rooster


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKrh4Q5ucow

[ST_Lawson]

Premise - start with a completely blank slate and assume ANYTHING is possible.

1) Find a way to involve MEAC/SWAC & Ivies and it has to make financial/institutional sense for them. Not having 20% of Teams involved - and that 20% being the highest profile Teams in the subdivision makes no sense. Something makes the Ivies participate in other NCAA Championships. Find out how it makes sense for them to participate in this one and make it happen. Build HBCU Bowls into Playoffs, reworks dates, give Celebration Bowl Champion a “Super-Bye” - whatever makes it make sense, let’s do it.

2) Consider D2/D3 model of full regionalization. 4 regions / 8 Teams - all 8 seeded.

3) Make calendar make sense. Nobody plays on T’Giving weekend.

4) Consider filling brackets by X Teams/Conference based on prior season’s non-playoff OOC results. Create formula to assess results and go into next season knowing Conf A gets 2 Teams, Conf B gets 1 Team, Conf C gets 3 Teams. Conferences pre-submit their tie-breaking procedures in advance. Could even establish brackets & seeds before season starts - “ConfA1 plays ConfB3” - no committee needed. Works for HS and Pro Teams. Why not College?

5) Final 4 - bring 4 Teams to a TRUE “destination city” and play 2 Semi-Finals & Championship Game on short cycle - 4-5 days or so between games

Some interesting ideas here. Some I agree with, some I don't, but thanks for following up (seriously...not being sarcastic or anything).

1. MEAC/SWAC & Ivies - I think with the HBCU conferences, you're looking at a combination of tradition and money. Games like the Bayou Classic and Celebration Bowl bring in tons of fans and money to the schools and conferences involved. I wonder if a schedule might be able to be worked out that combines your #3 point (no playoff games on Thanksgiving weekend) with bringing in the HBCU's...maybe something like: Bayou Classic happens Thanksgiving weekend as it always does, the weekend after that is the start of the playoffs, but the Celebration Bowl game is one of the playoff games that pits the top team from MEAC and from SWAC against each other, winner gets the bragging rights they usually do, plus they get to advance to the next round of the playoffs. I think that might be something like what you were getting at in your point.

Ivy League - This one might not be so easy. My personal theory on why they participate in every other postseason/playoff but not football is because they don't compete with the "top level" there. Just look at what Princeton is doing in basketball right now...taking down a PAC12 Arizona and then a SEC Missouri team to make it into the Sweet 16 as a 15 seed. Or hockey, where Cornell and Harvard are both in the championship bracket with 4 Big 10 teams and the best college hockey teams in the country. Now look at where they would be for football...Yale wins the Ivy League and gets their automatic bid to the playoffs where they probably are unseeded (in the 8-seeds format we currently have) and end up playing maybe Fordham or Delaware with the winner headed to Holy Cross. They're not playing against Alabama...Michigan...Notre Dame...they're playing a handful of games against teams that few non-FCS fans even realize are still technically DI. We obviously enjoy the FCS, but compared to the level of teams they play in all their other sports, it's not really that comparable. I think that's a big hurdle for a lot of Ivy League people.

2. I'm not a fan of regionalization personally...in fact I think we have too much of it already...but I am aware that it often saves money for travel costs and allows fans of the "away" team a better chance to travel to the games.

3. I like it, but also point #1, allow the "traditional games" to be played that weekend. Nobody is interested in watching Western Illinois win at Dayton on a rainy day two days after Thanksgiving (as evidenced by the fewer than 1k people at that game in 2015).

4. Not sure about that one...I'll have to think on it a bit.

5. I feel like the problem with that is that you have the fans going into the situation not knowing if their team will be playing in that championship game. I think a lot of people are going to be pretty hesitant to shell out the money for nearly a week's worth of hotel rooms and restaurant meals in addition to the travel costs and possibly having to take time off work to fit in both weekends. You'll likely end up with two semifinal games that have the parents of the players, a few local FCS fans, and that's about it (giving you an attendance of a couple thousand people), while everyone else waits to see if their team makes the championship game and then hits the road/airport later in the week.
Personally, I think a better idea for the championship game would be to combine them with DIII and DII. Have them in the same location and the same weekend. DIII on Friday night, DII on Saturday at noon, FCS on Saturday at like 7 PM (rather than the current Sunday game that competes with the NFL right at the end of their season). Have a special deal on tickets for all three games for the "serious" football fans. You'll get all your usual FCS team's fans at the games, plus a number of DIII and DII fans that just want to watch more football.

[NY Crusader 2010]

Lawson -- you're idea regarding the MEAC/SWAC dilemma is the best I've heard. The issue is you also have the SWAC Championship Game the week after Thanksgiving. You'd have to convince them to eliminate that but be able to keep the Celebration Bowl which would double as a first round playoff game.

Regarding the Ivies, I thought the same thing about the "not top level" argument but they still had a postseason ban in football even when they were I-A. The last Ivy team to finish with a UPI Top 20 ranking was Dartmouth in 1970 and they notoriously turned down overtures from Joe Paterno for a bowl game against Penn State.

[ST_Lawson]

Lawson -- you're idea regarding the MEAC/SWAC dilemma is the best I've heard. The issue is you also have the SWAC Championship Game the week after Thanksgiving. You'd have to convince them to eliminate that but be able to keep the Celebration Bowl which would double as a first round playoff game.

Yeah, that is still an issue. Really the only ways to fix it would be to:

- shift the Bayou Classic to the weekend before Thanksgiving - seems HIGHLY unlikely that they would do that given the attendance and TV numbers they get being on national television (something that would be much less likely if they played the weekend before). Also there's a ton of "history" with this game...having been played since 1932 (although only called the "Bayou Classic" since 1974).

- drop the SWAC Championship like you mentioned - slightly more likely, if they can convince the conference that it'd be financially worth it. Still a tough argument to make though, since it's always pulled quite a few more fans than pretty much any playoff game and gets featured nationally on ESPN2. The last couple of years have seen over 50k fans at the stadium (although in both games, it was Jackson State who won and the game was held in Jackson, MS...so essentially a "home game" for them). That one has only been played since 1999.

Unfortunately, I don't really see either happening in the near future though.

[FUBeAR]

We are starting to think the right way, but given the financials; we have to accept as a ‘tight’ that the SWAC and MEAC Teams are not going to change one single thing about these 4 games…



Turkey Day Classic (T’Giving Day)
Arkansas Pine-Bluff at Alabama State (https://www.ncaa.com/game/6007086?utm_campaign=inline-article)
Montgomery, AL


Bayou Classic (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-02-18/grambling-state-southern-football-memorable-moments-all-time-history-bayou-classic?utm_campaign=inline-article) (Sat after T’Giving)
Grambling State vs. Southern (https://www.ncaa.com/game/6007087?utm_campaign=inline-article)
New Orleans, LA


SWAC Championship (1 week after Sat after T’Giving)
TBD
TBD


Celebration Bowl (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-08-10/2022-celebration-bowl-date-time-location-tv-channel-history?utm_campaign=inline-article) (3 weeks after Sat after T’Giving)
TBD
Atlanta, GA



So… on the FUBeAR plan, FCS Playoffs start the week after the Sat after T’Giving…

So… we add an AutoBid to the winner of each SWAC Division and call the SWAC Championship a 1st round game … and the winner of that game is going to get a SUPER BYE - and the MEAC Champion gets an even more SUPER BYE … into a 3rd round game (the Celebration Bowl) …

yep - that’s not fair … not at all, but it is inclusive and doesn’t ask any Team to make stupid financial decisions to be part of something that they ain’t really all that interested in…but a thing that would greatly benefit from inclusive participation.

Also - FUBeAR ain’t smart enough to piece together what that funny-looking bracket might look like, but somebody is. Heck, we put a man on Venus, surely someone at NASA can figure out the bracket…

Problem solved … now someone else solve the Ivies.

[caribbeanhen]

We are starting to think the right way, but given the financials; we have to accept as a ‘tight’ that the SWAC and MEAC Teams are not going to change one single thing about these 4 games…



Turkey Day Classic (T’Giving Day)
Arkansas Pine-Bluff at Alabama State (https://www.ncaa.com/game/6007086?utm_campaign=inline-article)
Montgomery, AL


Bayou Classic (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-02-18/grambling-state-southern-football-memorable-moments-all-time-history-bayou-classic?utm_campaign=inline-article) (Sat after T’Giving)
Grambling State vs. Southern (https://www.ncaa.com/game/6007087?utm_campaign=inline-article)
New Orleans, LA


SWAC Championship (1 week after Sat after T’Giving)
TBD
TBD


Celebration Bowl (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-08-10/2022-celebration-bowl-date-time-location-tv-channel-history?utm_campaign=inline-article) (3 weeks after Sat after T’Giving)
TBD
Atlanta, GA



So… on the FUBeAR plan, FCS Playoffs start the week after the Sat after T’Giving…

So… we add an AutoBid to the winner of each SWAC Division and call the SWAC Championship a 1st round game … and the winner of that game is going to get a SUPER BYE - and the MEAC Champion gets an even more SUPER BYE … into a 3rd round game (the Celebration Bowl) …

yep - that’s not fair … not at all, but it is inclusive and doesn’t ask any Team to make stupid financial decisions to be part of something that they ain’t really all that interested in…but a thing that would greatly benefit from inclusive participation.

Also - FUBeAR ain’t smart enough to piece together what that funny-looking bracket might look like, but somebody is. Heck, we put a man on Venus, surely someone at NASA can figure out the bracket…

Problem solved … now someone else solve the Ivies.

sounds familiar

[FUBeAR]

sounds familiar
FUBeAR thinks he understands the meaning of your comment, but facts is facts…

1) Ain’t a Team in FCS that would be willing to give away the kinda kwan that these Teams make from these games if they already had it established…no matter how loudly and frequently their pseudo-macho fans say they would

2) TV and other sponsorships would be much more FCS Playoffs-friendly (and that means $$$’s for all) if’n the ‘HBCU Conferences’ were fully participating.

3) Life ain’t fair.

[POD Knows]

We are starting to think the right way, but given the financials; we have to accept as a ‘tight’ that the SWAC and MEAC Teams are not going to change one single thing about these 4 games…



Turkey Day Classic (T’Giving Day)
Arkansas Pine-Bluff at Alabama State (https://www.ncaa.com/game/6007086?utm_campaign=inline-article)
Montgomery, AL


Bayou Classic (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-02-18/grambling-state-southern-football-memorable-moments-all-time-history-bayou-classic?utm_campaign=inline-article) (Sat after T’Giving)
Grambling State vs. Southern (https://www.ncaa.com/game/6007087?utm_campaign=inline-article)
New Orleans, LA


SWAC Championship (1 week after Sat after T’Giving)
TBD
TBD


Celebration Bowl (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-08-10/2022-celebration-bowl-date-time-location-tv-channel-history?utm_campaign=inline-article) (3 weeks after Sat after T’Giving)
TBD
Atlanta, GA



So… on the FUBeAR plan, FCS Playoffs start the week after the Sat after T’Giving…

So… we add an AutoBid to the winner of each SWAC Division and call the SWAC Championship a 1st round game … and the winner of that game is going to get a SUPER BYE - and the MEAC Champion gets an even more SUPER BYE … into a 3rd round game (the Celebration Bowl) …

yep - that’s not fair … not at all, but it is inclusive and doesn’t ask any Team to make stupid financial decisions to be part of something that they ain’t really all that interested in…but a thing that would greatly benefit from inclusive participation.

Also - FUBeAR ain’t smart enough to piece together what that funny-looking bracket might look like, but somebody is. Heck, we put a man on Venus, surely someone at NASA can figure out the bracket…

Problem solved … now someone else solve the Ivies.
Why the **** should anybody over for this plan just to accommodate the MEAC and the SWAC. I don’t care if they aren’t in the FCS playoff picture. Let them run their own little dog and pony show the way the want. It isn’t as if any of them has any chance in the playoffs anyway.

[FUBeAR]

Why the **** should anybody over for this plan just to accommodate the MEAC and the SWAC. I don’t care if they aren’t in the FCS playoff picture. Let them run their own little dog and pony show the way the want. It isn’t as if any of them has any chance in the playoffs anyway.
If your last sentence is true, then take the late round free win and be gladdened.

FUBeAR has your money on his mind and his mind on your money.

Maybe not so much for your bizuns, but FCS in general. If we can find a way to make the Playoffs PROFITABLE for all involved, that solves a lot of problems.

POD may not care if ‘they’ aren’t in the FCS Playoff picture, but the peeps who broadcast those pictures and the people who pay their bills do care.

[Professor Chaos]

If your last sentence is true, then take the late round free win and be gladdened.

FUBeAR has your money on his mind and his mind on your money.

Maybe not so much for your bizuns, but FCS in general. If we can find a way to make the Playoffs PROFITABLE for all involved, that solves a lot of problems.

POD may not care if ‘they’ aren’t in the FCS Playoff picture, but the peeps who broadcast those pictures and the people who pay their bills do care.
We'll find out next summer how what the profit margins really are for the FCS playoffs when they will allegedly bid out the media contract for all NCAA championships separately. There's a ton of live sporting events that would be money losers without factoring in the media deals and when the FCS playoffs are branded a money loser no one is factoring in what chunk of the $30M+ annually ESPN gives the NCAA for the non-men's basketball NCAA championships contract the FCS playoffs are responsible for.

Last fall ESPN put 7 FCS playoff games on their national networks (ESPN2, ESPN, and ABC) so I think they could draw a decent number for a media deal.

[GAD]

Yeah, that is still an issue. Really the only ways to fix it would be to:

- shift the Bayou Classic to the weekend before Thanksgiving - seems HIGHLY unlikely that they would do that given the attendance and TV numbers they get being on national television (something that would be much less likely if they played the weekend before). Also there's a ton of "history" with this game...having been played since 1932 (although only called the "Bayou Classic" since 1974).

- drop the SWAC Championship like you mentioned - slightly more likely, if they can convince the conference that it'd be financially worth it. Still a tough argument to make though, since it's always pulled quite a few more fans than pretty much any playoff game and gets featured nationally on ESPN2. The last couple of years have seen over 50k fans at the stadium (although in both games, it was Jackson State who won and the game was held in Jackson, MS...so essentially a "home game" for them). That one has only been played since 1999.

Unfortunately, I don't really see either happening in the near future though.
Bayou Classic was put on Thanksgiving weekend for a reason a lot of those people don't live here, they come in to visit family for Thanksgiving and to go to the game. Estimates have gone as high as 20K fans we could lose by moving the game off of Thanksgiving weekend.

[FUBeAR]

Last fall ESPN put 7 FCS playoff games on their national networks (ESPN2, ESPN, and ABC) so I think they could draw a decent number for a media deal.
And you believe/know that will be paid out (March Madness style) to the participating FCS schools / conferences?

None of it has been previously…right?

[uni88]

We'll find out next summer how what the profit margins really are for the FCS playoffs when they will allegedly bid out the media contract for all NCAA championships separately. There's a ton of live sporting events that would be money losers without factoring in the media deals and when the FCS playoffs are branded a money loser no one is factoring in what chunk of the $30M+ annually ESPN gives the NCAA for the non-men's basketball NCAA championships contract the FCS playoffs are responsible for.

Last fall ESPN put 7 FCS playoff games on their national networks (ESPN2, ESPN, and ABC) so I think they could draw a decent number for a media deal.

Good post as usual.

To the FUbarian's post ("a thing that would greatly benefit from inclusive participation"), would the FCS playoff media deal be worth even more if the SWAC and MEAC were somehow included? I don't particularly like what he's proposing but think it could boost the popularity and thus value of the FCS playoffs.

[FUBeAR]

Good post as usual.

To the FUbarian's post ("a thing that would greatly benefit from inclusive participation"), would the FCS playoff media deal be worth even more if the SWAC and MEAC were somehow included? I don't particularly like what he's proposing but think it could boost the popularity and thus value of the FCS playoffs.
FUBeAR is proposing smart people FIND A WAY to…

1) Make the FCS Playoffs include the 3 Conferences with the most media value and national name recognition
2) Make the FCS Playoffs PROFITABLE for participating schools / conferences.
3) Make the Selection, Seeding, and Bracketing process more transparent & less subjective

However we get those 3 things done works for FUBeAR.

[Professor Chaos]

And you believe/know that will be paid out (March Madness style) to the participating FCS schools / conferences?

None of it has been previously…right?
I highly doubt any of it would be paid out but it could potentially dispel the notion that the FCS playoffs lose money and take the risk out of it for teams who would never host in the current format to be able to host if they earned that opportunity with their regular season performance.

[ElCid]

With the frequency that we have changed the format and process over the years, this probably isn't that daring of an idea. Even with some unintentional consequences popping up, it won't be catastrophic if it doesn't work perfect.

Not sure what to do with the self imposed exiled conferences. The way to bring them in, to have them banging at the door to get in, is always $. Forget the talk of matching their format to the playoffs. Make it very profitable, and they will come. Even the Ivies. Now, coming up with that format and process is challenging.

Need some out of the box thinking, while still maintaining the standards and desires of our member schools. It'll take some leadership. First thing I'd do is forget the NCAA. The CFP did it. We don't have as much horsepower, obviously, but we have a huge voting block, and obviously the power of the lawsuit. Not saying we need to go outside of the NCAA, but first, come up with what might work, totally ignoring any arbitrary NCAA rules dealing with the playoffs. Then go to them and either make it work with them or force the issue as appropriate. Now, what any new process is or how it would work, is the tough part. Especially considering the huge number of competing interests, and different level of resources of the FCS schools.

We keep tweaking the NCAA model instead of looking for alternatives. There may be none. But we should at least look, shouldn't we?

[NY Crusader 2010]

Only way the Ivies ever join the playoffs is if the players and coaches make enough of a stink and convince several key university presidents to get rid of the archaic postseason ban. Like, let's say the Harvard football team clinches the Ivy title the week prior to the Yale game and threatens to boycott playing in "The Game" unless they're allowed to go to the NCAA's.

As far as the HBCU are concerned, I think the most likely answer is if/when the MEAC collapses (it may not). Then the SWAC Championship Game would become the de facto Celebration Bowl. And you could make that a play-in game into the FCS playoffs IF you go with Lawson's model and move the first round of the playoffs to the week AFTER Thanksgiving.

[FUBeAR]

Lawson's model and move the first round of the playoffs to the week AFTER Thanksgiving.Lawson = Edison
FUBeAR = Tesla


Do you have any thoughts on what the system should become or things you'd like to see?

3) Make calendar make sense. Nobody plays on T’Giving weekend.

[KPSUL]

I get how 16 seeded teams would look in a 24 team field; 8 of the seeded teams would get a Round 1 bye, and the next 8 seeded teams (9-16) would host all the 1st Round games. But does anyone know how 12 seeds would work in a 24 team field?
Seems like it might cause as many or more issues than the current 8 seeded teams.

[bonarae]

Only way the Ivies ever join the playoffs is if the players and coaches make enough of a stink and convince several key university presidents to get rid of the archaic postseason ban. Like, let's say the Harvard football team clinches the Ivy title the week prior to the Yale game and threatens to boycott playing in "The Game" unless they're allowed to go to the NCAA's.

As far as the HBCU are concerned, I think the most likely answer is if/when the MEAC collapses (it may not). Then the SWAC Championship Game would become the de facto Celebration Bowl. And you could make that a play-in game into the FCS playoffs IF you go with Lawson's model and move the first round of the playoffs to the week AFTER Thanksgiving.

xoutofrepx

I agree with those points. Let the Ivies start play at the same time as the scholarship and PFL teams first, then they'll finish the regular season at the same time as their D-III brethren do. (Or better yet, expand their playing footprint.)

[Professor Chaos]

I get how 16 seeded teams would look in a 24 team field; 8 of the seeded teams would get a Round 1 bye, and the next 8 seeded teams (9-16) would host all the 1st Round games. But does anyone know how 12 seeds would work in a 24 team field?
Seems like it might cause as many or more issues than the current 8 seeded teams.
My guess is the top 4 teams (in the eyes of the selection committee) playing in the first round would be able to host with just a minimum bid. I'd also guess that they wouldn't necessarily face the bottom 4 teams in the field but would still be paired regionally with any of the 12 unseeded teams. Had this been the case this past year perhaps SEMO, if they were determined to be one of the #9-#12 teams in the field, would've hosted Montana rather than vice versa.

I'd think common sense would dictate that if you're going to seed to 12 in a 24 team format you might as well seed to 16 but this might be a compromise to get the NCAA to approve more seeds without risking that they lose more money paying visiting team expenses in the playoffs.

[ST_Lawson]

Lawson = Edison
FUBeAR = Tesla

While true (it was FUBeAR's idea first), why'd you have to go and make me Edison?
I'm not out here electrocuting elephants to prove you wrong xlolx

[FUBeAR]

While true (it was FUBeAR's idea first), why'd you have to go and make me Edison?
I'm not out here electrocuting elephants to prove you wrong xlolx
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ST_Lawson again.

no idea what that means, but it is funny.

[ElCid]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ST_Lawson again.

no idea what that means, but it is funny.

Really? Edison, in his fight for making DC as the universal type of electricity current, versus AC, attempted to show how dangerous AC was by publicly electrocuting an elephant to death.

[FUBeAR]

Really? Edison, in his fight for making DC as the universal type of electricity current, versus AC, attempted to show how dangerous AC was by publicly electrocuting an elephant to death.
120 years (at least) of Fake News


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImQpof9hhY

[ElCid]

120 years (at least) of Fake News


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImQpof9hhY

Eh, he still didn't like the fact that he lost. Fake? Maybe exaggerated, but not fake. He was a sore loser. Presenting only some facts doesn't make it fake.

[Sycamore62]

While true (it was FUBeAR's idea first), why'd you have to go and make me Edison?
I'm not out here electrocuting elephants to prove you wrong xlolx

That elephant was an asshole and lived a life of crime. It deserved everything it got. And I dont want to hear you guys whining about its rough upbringing or seeing its father killed for his tusks. It had every chance to turn its life around. A guy had got it an interview at the factory on the edge of town and it chose to trample people instead. Good Riddance!

[atthewbon]

Seeding the top 16 seems like a good idea that they should have been doing for awhile. Even though SDSU has benefitted from the current system with first round home games they may not get under the new system, the better seeded team should get to host. Also it should reduce some of the later round regionalization that has been a problem in the past.

[OhioHen]

Seeding the top 16 seems like a good idea that they should have been doing for awhile. Even though SDSU has benefitted from the current system with first round home games they may not get under the new system, the better seeded team should get to host. Also it should reduce some of the later round regionalization that has been a problem in the past.
But there's nothing to stop the committee from "seeding" 9-16 to match the regionalization and higher bids getting home games now in place.

[ElCid]

But there's nothing to stop the committee from "seeding" 9-16 to match the regionalization and higher bids getting home games now in place.

So what you are saying, is that the seeding could take place without consideration to bids. Bids which help the NCAA bottom line by helping pay for the game. Sure.

We already know, via this past season, that a team's monetary potential has an impact on selection, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Some of the questionable selections and home game assignments were mind boggling. I'm sure seeding will be impacted as well as long as we have subjective evaluations being made. Attendance, has already been acknowledged as a factor in assignments. Seeding may take out a marginally performing team, with deep pockets, from getting an "undeserved" home game in a "seeding" world. But it "may" tilt the scales of the actual seeding rank order so as to cash in on the ticket scales of say, 20k vs 7k.

Going to seeding may fix an issue, but will not fix the big issue. Whenever you have a committee of people, trying to decide something, like selections or seeding, you will be at the mercy of strong personalities, group think, influence of some kind, etc. Sometimes they nail it. Other times.... That's why I absolutely love the one objective factor we have. It's a bedrock. Win your conference and you are in. Doesn't get any better than that. Wish we had more objective criteria, but they are hard to come by.

If I was king of the FCS, the playoffs would be limited to the champs and the top runners up of each conference to fill the field. Everyone else has already proved, on the field, they are not worthy. The only subjective decisions would be seeding and who the most worthy runners up are. I know a lot of people don't like this because they believe their third place conf team may better than the champ of another conference. In some cases that might be true. Oh well. Win your conference next time.

[atthewbon]

But there's nothing to stop the committee from "seeding" 9-16 to match the regionalization and higher bids getting home games now in place.

As far as I'm aware the bids are not factored into the top 8 seeds. I'd assume under this new proposal they won't be either.

[atthewbon]

So what you are saying, is that the seeding could take place without consideration to bids. Bids which help the NCAA bottom line by helping pay for the game. Sure.

We already know, via this past season, that a team's monetary potential has an impact on selection, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Some of the questionable selections and home game assignments were mind boggling. I'm sure seeding will be impacted as well as long as we have subjective evaluations being made. Attendance, has already been acknowledged as a factor in assignments. Seeding may take out a marginally performing team, with deep pockets, from getting an "undeserved" home game in a "seeding" world. But it "may" tilt the scales of the actual seeding rank order so as to cash in on the ticket scales of say, 20k vs 7k.

Going to seeding may fix an issue, but will not fix the big issue. Whenever you have a committee of people, trying to decide something, like selections or seeding, you will be at the mercy of strong personalities, group think, influence of some kind, etc. Sometimes they nail it. Other times.... That's why I absolutely love the one objective factor we have. It's a bedrock. Win your conference and you are in. Doesn't get any better than that. Wish we had more objective criteria, but they are hard to come by.

If I was king of the FCS, the playoffs would be limited to the champs and the top runners up of each conference to fill the field. Everyone else has already proved, on the field, they are not worthy. The only subjective decisions would be seeding and who the most worthy runners up are. I know a lot of people don't like this because they believe their third place conf team may better than the champ of another conference. In some cases that might be true. Oh well. Win your conference next time.

I think that would severely dilute the quality of the fcs playoffs. Based on some rough math, since 2016 MVFC team that finished 3rd or lower are 16-16 in the playoffs so they are holding their own. The simple fact in college sports is that conferences aren't anywhere close to as balanced as divisions are in pro sports. Should the ACC and Big Ten only get 2 teams in March Madness, I don't think that makes for the most compelling tournament.

[ElCid]

I think that would severely dilute the quality of the fcs playoffs. Based on some rough math, since 2016 MVFC team that finished 3rd or lower are 16-16 in the playoffs so they are holding their own. The simple fact in college sports is that conferences aren't anywhere close to as balanced as divisions are in pro sports. Should the ACC and Big Ten only get 2 teams in March Madness, I don't think that makes for the most compelling tournament.

Except that this isn't BB. And the decision that team #3 from conf X is better than team #2 from Conf Y is totally subjective since the sampling of competition is so small. Maybe one inter-conf game, or maybe none, and you need to go transitory two, or even three times to get a comparison. And history is irrelevant when it comes to "this" year.

[SDFS]

Except that this isn't BB. And the decision that team #3 from conf X is better than team #2 from Conf Y is totally subjective since the sampling of competition is so small. Maybe one inter-conf game, or maybe none, and you need to go transitory two, or even three times to get a comparison. And history is irrelevant when it comes to "this" year.

You realize that we would have the 2nd place OVC team more than likely having a loss to the 5th place MVFC team in playoffs.

[atthewbon]

Except that this isn't BB. And the decision that team #3 from conf X is better than team #2 from Conf Y is totally subjective since the sampling of competition is so small. Maybe one inter-conf game, or maybe none, and you need to go transitory two, or even three times to get a comparison. And history is irrelevant when it comes to "this" year.

I don't think history is completely irrelevant when it comes to "this" year. I'm not saying it should be a primary factor but history tends to repeat itself. Yes there is some subjectivity to it but I think it's worth it to have a playoff with the best teams. The fact of the matter is there is not even close to enough parity to just take the top two teams from each conference in a college football playoff. Seeding teams 1-16 takes the bidding process out, which just rewarded teams willing to shell out money, reduces regionalization (prevents the same teams from playing each other in early rounds year after year), and creates a more fair tournament while still ensuring the best teams participate and everyone has a chance (with the autobid).

[nodak651]

Except that this isn't BB. And the decision that team #3 from conf X is better than team #2 from Conf Y is totally subjective since the sampling of competition is so small. Maybe one inter-conf game, or maybe none, and you need to go transitory two, or even three times to get a comparison. And history is irrelevant when it comes to "this" year.

Part of the solution to this is finding a way to incentivize better FCS vs FCS out of conference scheduling. Some form of punishment could be necessary. For example, teams that schedule x number of non-FCS out of conference games over X number of years could be punished in some way. I'd include OOC games vs teams within the same conference in that. Perhaps barring teams from hosting playoff games would be a form of punishment. More FCS OOC data points are necessary to make better selections for the playoff field and seeding.

[OhioHen]

As far as I'm aware the bids are not factored into the top 8 seeds. I'd assume under this new proposal they won't be either.
I'm referring to the 9-16 seeds - those first round home games that currently go to the highest bidders. All the additional "seeding" would accomplish at that point is to put a number in front of each team. And there's nothing to prevent two otherwise similar teams at 9 and 10 from being flip-flopped to assist with regionalization and keeping that aberration in place.

As FUBeAR has stated, the system needs a much bigger overhaul than simply increasing the number of seeds.

[atthewbon]

I'm referring to the 9-16 seeds - those first round home games that currently go to the highest bidders. All the additional "seeding" would accomplish at that point is to put a number in front of each team. And there's nothing to prevent two otherwise similar teams at 9 and 10 from being flip-flopped to assist with regionalization and keeping that aberration in place.

As FUBeAR has stated, the system needs a much bigger overhaul than simply increasing the number of seeds.

I should clarify under this system I’m assuming bids and regionalization won’t be a factor when seeding teams 9-16. If they are why even go to the bother to lie about seeding them. Who those teams play in the first round out of teams 17-24 could still be regionalized but it should ensure the best 16 teams according to the committee get to host a game which to me is a big improvement. I don’t think the selection committee conspires for regionalization as much as some think. They are just currently working within a set of regulations that requires them to do so. Seeding teams 1-16 helps reverse this.

[nodak651]

But there's nothing to stop the committee from "seeding" 9-16 to match the regionalization and higher bids getting home games now in place.

Is it? Because the opposite explanation was given as to why Weber hosted North Dakota in the playoffs this year.

[NY Crusader 2010]

Part of the solution to this is finding a way to incentivize better FCS vs FCS out of conference scheduling. Some form of punishment could be necessary. For example, teams that schedule x number of non-FCS out of conference games over X number of years could be punished in some way. I'd include OOC games vs teams within the same conference in that. Perhaps barring teams from hosting playoff games would be a form of punishment. More FCS OOC data points are necessary to make better selections for the playoff field and seeding.

The issue with this is that it takes two to tango. A given school may be trying to schedule a certain non-conference FCS game but cannot find a dance partner. This would also penalize teams out west where there are less options geography-wise.

[ElCid]

I don't think history is completely irrelevant when it comes to "this" year. I'm not saying it should be a primary factor but history tends to repeat itself. Yes there is some subjectivity to it but I think it's worth it to have a playoff with the best teams. The fact of the matter is there is not even close to enough parity to just take the top two teams from each conference in a college football playoff. Seeding teams 1-16 takes the bidding process out, which just rewarded teams willing to shell out money, reduces regionalization (prevents the same teams from playing each other in early rounds year after year), and creates a more fair tournament while still ensuring the best teams participate and everyone has a chance (with the autobid).

Well I didn't say take the top two necessarily. Take the champ and the best of the number twos. That eliminates the possibility of screwing a second place team who had a bad game against the champ or simply lost a tie breaker. 16 teams max. It's just an idea. As I said, if you can't win your conf, or at least be the runner up in the major conferences, you probably don't have a great shot anyway.

[atthewbon]

Well I didn't say take the top two necessarily. Take the champ and the best of the number twos. That eliminates the possibility of screwing a second place team who had a bad game against the champ or simply lost a tie breaker. 16 teams max. It's just an idea. As I said, if you can't win your conf, or at least be the runner up in the major conferences, you probably don't have a great shot anyway.

I don't agree that if you don't come top two you don't have a great shot. 3 teams that weren't top two in their conference have made the semifinals since 2016 (SDSU in 2021, Montana st in 2019, and Youngstown st in 2016). In the same time period teams from only 4 conferences have made the semifinals (MVFC, Big Sky, CAA, and Southland). It seems like these teams that don't finish top 2 in their conference have a better shot than teams from all but 4 conferences...

I'm not advocating for removing the autobid or expanding the playoffs past 24 to flood it with more MVFC, Big Sky, and CAA teams but these teams that aren't top 2 don't perform bad, especially those from the MVFC.

[ElCid]

I don't agree that if you don't come top two you don't have a great shot. 3 teams that weren't top two in their conference have made the semifinals since 2016 (SDSU in 2021, Montana st in 2019, and Youngstown st in 2016). In the same time period teams from only 4 conferences have made the semifinals (MVFC, Big Sky, CAA, and Southland). It seems like these teams that don't finish top 2 in their conference have a better shot than teams from all but 4 conferences...

I'm not advocating for removing the autobid or expanding the playoffs past 24 to flood it with more MVFC, Big Sky, and CAA teams but these teams that aren't top 2 don't perform bad, especially those from the MVFC.

Except you prove my point. Had you listed the FCS champs who were not their conferences champs or runners up, you may have disproven my point. My point was not not how far the #3s, etc could go, but actually win the championship. Has it ever happened? And in any event picking just a seven year period is hardly a good dataset to go by when crafting a lasting playoff formula.

[Professor Chaos]

Except you prove my point. Had you listed the FCS champs who were not their conferences champs or runners up, you may have disproven my point. My point was not not how far the #3s, etc could go, but actually win the championship. Has it ever happened? And in any event picking just a seven year period is hardly a good dataset to go by when crafting a lasting playoff formula.
If the pertinent data point is capability to win a championship should any teams outside of the top 2 in the Big Sky, CAA, and MVFC make the field?

[Chalupa Batman]

We are starting to think the right way, but given the financials; we have to accept as a ‘tight’ that the SWAC and MEAC Teams are not going to change one single thing about these 4 games…



Turkey Day Classic (T’Giving Day)
Arkansas Pine-Bluff at Alabama State (https://www.ncaa.com/game/6007086?utm_campaign=inline-article)
Montgomery, AL


Bayou Classic (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-02-18/grambling-state-southern-football-memorable-moments-all-time-history-bayou-classic?utm_campaign=inline-article) (Sat after T’Giving)
Grambling State vs. Southern (https://www.ncaa.com/game/6007087?utm_campaign=inline-article)
New Orleans, LA


SWAC Championship (1 week after Sat after T’Giving)
TBD
TBD


Celebration Bowl (https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-08-10/2022-celebration-bowl-date-time-location-tv-channel-history?utm_campaign=inline-article) (3 weeks after Sat after T’Giving)
TBD
Atlanta, GA



So… on the FUBeAR plan, FCS Playoffs start the week after the Sat after T’Giving…

So… we add an AutoBid to the winner of each SWAC Division and call the SWAC Championship a 1st round game … and the winner of that game is going to get a SUPER BYE - and the MEAC Champion gets an even more SUPER BYE … into a 3rd round game (the Celebration Bowl) …

yep - that’s not fair … not at all, but it is inclusive and doesn’t ask any Team to make stupid financial decisions to be part of something that they ain’t really all that interested in…but a thing that would greatly benefit from inclusive participation.

Also - FUBeAR ain’t smart enough to piece together what that funny-looking bracket might look like, but somebody is. Heck, we put a man on Venus, surely someone at NASA can figure out the bracket…

Problem solved … now someone else solve the Ivies.

I know you're eager to include HBCU's in the playoffs, and I would like to see them in the playoffs too, but including them should be on relatively equal footing with the other conferences participating in the playoffs. In a 24 or 32 team playoff field the 3rd round game is the quarterfinals. In your scenario the Celebration Bowl is a quarterfinal game which means the champion is in the semifinals after 1 win (if a MEAC team wins), or 2 wins (if a SWAC team wins) while every other team has to win 2 games (at minimum, possibly 3). That is going to ruffle a lot of feathers. I could see the idea get more traction if the Celebration Bowl was moved up a week and therefore a round-of-16 playoff game, though I don't know if the SWAC & MEAC would even entertain that idea.

Speaking of equal footing, are we to expect the SWAC & MEAC to share ticket revenue (or minimum bid amount) from the SWAC championship and Celebration Bowl (assuming they're included in the playoff format) with the NCAA the way every other hosting team in the playoffs does now? I'm guessing giving up that revenue would be a non-starter on their end.



Except you prove my point. Had you listed the FCS champs who were not their conferences champs or runners up, you may have disproven my point. My point was not not how far the #3s, etc could go, but actually win the championship. Has it ever happened? And in any event picking just a seven year period is hardly a good dataset to go by when crafting a lasting playoff formula.

2 times for sure that I can find with a couple other possiblities. 2008 Richmond finished 3rd in the CAA, 1997 Youngstown State finished 3rd in the Gateway.

Also, 1992 Marshall finished in a 3 way tie for 2nd in the SoCon (not sure how the tiebreaker would shake out, but they did lose to the two teams they were tied with). In 2004 James Madison finished in a 3 way tie for first in the Atlantic-10 (not sure where they would've finished in the tiebreaker order).

[AmsterBison]

I'm all for seeding more teams.

Not sure that it matters, but the next TV contract should dwarf the current one.

[Bisonoline]

I'm all for seeding more teams.

Not sure that it matters, but the next TV contract should dwarf the current one.

seeding wont mean **** if they still use regionalization.

[NY Crusader 2010]

seeding wont mean **** if they still use regionalization.

There will naturally be less regionalization if you have more seeds because seeds are set in stone when it comes to bracketing. Every unseeded team in the bracket is subject to being paired up with as much of a regional opponent as possible, without fail. The committee will always regionalize the unseeded teams as much as possible but at least their ability to regionalize SOME of the games will be taken away with more seeds.

[ElCid]

If the pertinent data point is capability to win a championship should any teams outside of the top 2 in the Big Sky, CAA, and MVFC make the field?

Well if you want to restrictively look at recent history. But that would be silly.

[ElCid]

2 times for sure that I can find with a couple other possiblities. 2008 Richmond finished 3rd in the CAA, 1997 Youngstown State finished 3rd in the Gateway.

Also, 1992 Marshall finished in a 3 way tie for 2nd in the SoCon (not sure how the tiebreaker would shake out, but they did lose to the two teams they were tied with). In 2004 James Madison finished in a 3 way tie for first in the Atlantic-10 (not sure where they would've finished in the tiebreaker order).

I figured it might have happened. Thanks for looking. But twice in 44 years isn't a big deal or an argument to not narrow down the field.

We won the 1992 SOCON title. Beat Army and Arkansas that year as well. But lost to Marshall. I was at that game. UHG! Only reason we won the title was Marshall lost two conf games. Pretty sure they had the tie breaker for second since they beat us, but the teams that beat them lost to us.

In any event conferences just need to have good, easily interpreted rules for tie breaking. In nearly all years, the conf champs or one of the runners up will be the FCS champ. Conf matchups are chock full of "history" and rivalries that skew quality evaluations when it comes to playoff performance. Overall I still stand by my theory for an overhaul, even if it has an occasional wart. Not that it will ever get traction until I am installed as the God Emperor.

[atthewbon]

I figured it might have happened. Thanks for looking. But twice in 44 years isn't a big deal or an argument to not narrow down the field.

We won the 1992 SOCON title. Beat Army and Arkansas that year as well. But lost to Marshall. I was at that game. UHG! Only reason we won the title was Marshall lost two conf games. Pretty sure they had the tie breaker for second since they beat us, but the teams that beat them lost to us.

In any event conferences just need to have good, easily interpreted rules for tie breaking. In nearly all years, the conf champs or one of the runners up will be the FCS champ. Conf matchups are chock full of "history" and rivalries that skew quality evaluations when it comes to playoff performance. Overall I still stand by my theory for an overhaul, even if it has an occasional wart. Not that it will ever get traction until I am installed as the God Emperor.

In nearly all years the top two teams from one of three or four conferences will be fcs champions….

It’s been 15 years since a team outside of the MVFC, Big Sky, CAA or Southland (in the spring season) has won the title. You have to go back to 1988 to find a current fcs team who has won the title that’s not currently in the MVFC, Big Sky, or CAA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NY Crusader 2010]

Amongst all the talk of downsizing, there remains an NCAA rule that the # of at-large playoff berths must be equal to or greater than the number of auto-bids. The CFP is different because it's not run by the NCAA.

But in football, I'd be all for making the field as small as allowed. I think right now there are 10 FCS auto-qualifiers so the NCAA could reduce the field to 20 if it so chose. I'd be for that.

[bonarae]

Amongst all the talk of downsizing, there remains an NCAA rule that the # of at-large playoff berths must be equal to or greater than the number of auto-bids. The CFP is different because it's not run by the NCAA.

But in football, I'd be all for making the field as small as allowed. I think right now there are 10 FCS auto-qualifiers so the NCAA could reduce the field to 20 if it so chose. I'd be for that.

xoutofrepx

Oh, there's still the NCAA rule... xsighx

[ElCid]

Amongst all the talk of downsizing, there remains an NCAA rule that the # of at-large playoff berths must be equal to or greater than the number of auto-bids. The CFP is different because it's not run by the NCAA.

But in football, I'd be all for making the field as small as allowed. I think right now there are 10 FCS auto-qualifiers so the NCAA could reduce the field to 20 if it so chose. I'd be for that.

Pretty sure that is not a rule. Or at least if it is technically, it's a rule that could be changed easily for FCS if the NCAA would allow a vote. No rule is sacrosanct. 10 auto bids and the best 6 from conf runner ups. Eliminates an entire week. A week that might be a good carrot for the SWAC/MEAC and Ivies to join in the festivities or get rid of the Thanksgiving week. Everyone could be on board for that.

[Sycamore62]

16 or 32, there shouldnt be byes in football, any level

[FUBeAR]

16 or 32, there shouldnt be byes in football, any level
https://media.tenor.com/images/f368162c4a2694d104b5801c36bed713/raw

…and there dang sure shouldn’t be byes combined with home games (not to mention home games in extremely ‘differentiated’ environments/climates) combined with substandard early round competition due to favorable bracketing.

[Professor Chaos]

Amongst all the talk of downsizing, there remains an NCAA rule that the # of at-large playoff berths must be equal to or greater than the number of auto-bids. The CFP is different because it's not run by the NCAA.

But in football, I'd be all for making the field as small as allowed. I think right now there are 10 FCS auto-qualifiers so the NCAA could reduce the field to 20 if it so chose. I'd be for that.


Pretty sure that is not a rule. Or at least if it is technically, it's a rule that could be changed easily for FCS if the NCAA would allow a vote. No rule is sacrosanct. 10 auto bids and the best 6 from conf runner ups. Eliminates an entire week. A week that might be a good carrot for the SWAC/MEAC and Ivies to join in the festivities or get rid of the Thanksgiving week. Everyone could be on board for that.
It is a rule but only for the men's basketball tournament I believe. Pretty sure I've heard before the NCAA D1 lacrosse tournament has more autobids than at-large. It might be an unwritten type rule that many D1 championships try to abide by but I don't think they have to.

[UAalum72]

31.3.4.7.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball. In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.6-(a), excluding
football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, the sport committee
must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the
championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria.
In sports other than men’s volleyball, men’s water polo and women’s water polo, the remaining 50 percent
of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams. It will be the responsibility of the Championships/
Sports Management Cabinet to determine if a conference play-in to a championship field is to be
administered by the NCAA championships staff or by the member conference.

Since the field is already less than 50% autobids they could reduce the number of at-larges, unless they have to keep the number up in case the SWAC and Ivy decide to participate. When that's decided seems undetermined.

[NY Crusader 2010]

31.3.4.7.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball. In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.6-(a), excluding
football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, the sport committee
must award, if a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the
championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide play-in criteria.
In sports other than men’s volleyball, men’s water polo and women’s water polo, the remaining 50 percent
of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams. It will be the responsibility of the Championships/
Sports Management Cabinet to determine if a conference play-in to a championship field is to be
administered by the NCAA championships staff or by the member conference.

Since the field is already less than 50% autobids they could reduce the number of at-larges, unless they have to keep the number up in case the SWAC and Ivy decide to participate. When that's decided seems undetermined.

And MEAC. Right now ten conferences send auto-bids => CAA, MVFC, Big Sky, Southland, SoCon, OVC/BS, WAC/ASUN, Patriot, NEC, Pioneer

So with 10 autos, a return to a 20 team field would be completely feasible right now.

[atthewbon]

https://www.inforum.com/sports/bison-media-zone/mens-sports/mcfeely-fcs-inches-toward-seeding-16-teams-for-playoffs

Good article on what seeding 1-16 could look like. One thing I don't love is "Under the proposed format, seeds 1-16 would not be based on geographic location although the committee could make minor tweaks to the seeding -- moving 9-16 seeded teams up or down one spot, for example -- to help the brackets. The NCAA men's basketball committee does the same thing."

I'm guessing this is to prevent early rematches and is inevitable. Overall I think it's still a big improvement that makes it much more fair. A team should not be able to bid to get a home game and this gets rid of that system.

[The Cats]

…and there dang sure shouldn’t be byes combined with home games (not to mention home games in extremely ‘differentiated’ environments/climates) combined with substandard early round competition due to favorable bracketing.

Totally agree...

[SteelSD]

Anything that can cut back on buying home games and regionalization is a good thing. As a fan of an MVFC team I'm ready for a playoff format where we get to play teams outside of our region that we aren't familiar with. I enjoyed meeting Delaware and Holy Cross fans and would like to see us playing other teams. I'm ready for us play Furman and shut that group up already...

[FUBeAR]

Anything that can cut back on buying home games and regionalization is a good thing. As a fan of an MVFC team I'm ready for a playoff format where we get to play teams outside of our region that we aren't familiar with. I enjoyed meeting Delaware and Holy Cross fans and would like to see us playing other teams. I'm ready for us play Furman and shut that group up already...
You left out @

[SteelSD]

You left out @
Uh, ok... We've won multiple playoff games on the road versus seeded teams. We don't make excuses.

[SDFS]

https://www.inforum.com/sports/bison-media-zone/mens-sports/mcfeely-fcs-inches-toward-seeding-16-teams-for-playoffs

Good article on what seeding 1-16 could look like. One thing I don't love is "Under the proposed format, seeds 1-16 would not be based on geographic location although the committee could make minor tweaks to the seeding -- moving 9-16 seeded teams up or down one spot, for example -- to help the brackets. The NCAA men's basketball committee does the same thing."

I'm guessing this is to prevent early rematches and is inevitable. Overall I think it's still a big improvement that makes it much more fair. A team should not be able to bid to get a home game and this gets rid of that system.

The problem came about when a "team" (Weber St) was treated like a seeded team. I find most of this interesting, because the buying of playoff preferential treatment starts with regular season scheduling.

[atthewbon]

Uh, ok... We've won multiple playoff games on the road versus seeded teams. We don't make excuses.

In the last 10 playoffs SDSU has won at NAU(2013), Montana St(2014), (4)Kennesaw St(2018), (4)Sacramento St(2021), (5)Villanova(2021) in the playoffs.

SDSU has won 3 playoff road games against seeded teams in the last 5 years.

I believe these are all of the teams that have done it in the last 5 years may have missed one or two.
2018: Maine, SDSU
2019: Illinois St, Austin Peay, Northern Iowa
2020: Delaware (covid year)
2021: SDSU, SDSU, Montana St
2022: Incarnate Word

There are 10 such wins in the last 5 years. Half of which are from the MVFC.

The seeded home teams that lost...
2018: Weber st, Kennesaw st
2019: Central Arkansas, Sacramento st, SDSU
2020: Jacksonville st
2021: Sacramento st, Villanova, Sam Houston
2022: Sacramento st

[Professor Chaos]

Not really related to increasing the seeds in the playoffs but with the CFP moving to a 12 team format in 2024 they're going to covering the time slots traditionally held by the FCS semifinals - in 2024 that's Friday 12/20 and Saturday 12/21: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/36304982/cfp-committee-confirms-dates-first-year-expanded-playoff

Typically there are a few C-list bowl games played on those days but this might really put a damper on TV viewership for the FCS games to be going head-to-head with CFP first round games.

[caribbeanhen]

The problem came about when a "team" (Weber St) was treated like a seeded team. I find most of this interesting, because the buying of playoff preferential treatment starts with regular season scheduling.

If it gets the Big Sky bias rinsed out of the process it’s a good thing

[SteelSD]

If it gets the Big Sky bias rinsed out of the process it’s a good thing
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about the CAA.

[caribbeanhen]

This is really an excellent thread and the most knowledgeable AGS FCS heavyweights have weighed in

I have been begging for any type of Ivy league versus SWAC / MEAC matchups for years, as well as somehow working the The Classic Bowl games into the FCS playoff format for years, but reading through this thread I couldn’t help but think that those conferences would collectively laugh at this thread, as they absolutely want no part of our stinking playoffs

However, now that the Abigail Fremantle of FCS, also known as Mother Abigail Sanders, has moved out to the FBS Rocky Mountains with the following flock, there might be a chance it could happen. Let’s just say no way they were going to let Jackson St take a playoff beating

[atthewbon]

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about the CAA.

Some teams from conferences that have the number of teams that the Big Sky and CAA now have seem to get a benefit when it comes to playoff selection. Teams that are in these conferences that receive favorable schedules can get propped up because of the strength of the conference even when they haven't played the best the conference has to offer. For example, Idaho avoided Montana st and Weber st last year and New Hampshire avoided Delaware and William & Mary. Not to say these two teams shouldn't have made the playoffs last year but I do think the committee has to be sure to examine each schedule individually and not just say "oh they played in the CAA so they must have played a tough schedule."

The MVFC is now at this point with the addition of Murray st. For example, Indiana st avoids SDSU and NDSU on their schedule next year. While unlikely they could conceivably end up next year 6-5 with two FBS losses, a record that with 2 fbs losses that could get an MVFC team in some years. A team with these hypothetical results should not even be in the playoff conversation but it wouldn't surprise me if next year they were because they are in the MVFC despite not playing two of the top teams.

The CAA will be particularly interesting, the loss of JMU and the expansion to 15 means a lot of teams in the conference won't be playing each other.

[caribbeanhen]

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about the CAA.

what I remember was Richmond getting sent across the country to get a beating (I say this because nobody gave CAA a chance in this game) by Sac St, who at one point had been rated #1. Only thing was it was Richmond delivering the big blows until the refs stepped in and stole a TD from the Spiders. That killed the momentum and then the downpour started and the one legged Richmond QB didn’t seem to be able to grip the football anymore

Delaware getting sent once again to the slaughterhouse in Brookings

William getting sent to the Antarctic where they were crushed up against a Montana iceberg

New Hampshire getting dominated against Holy Cross

So tell me, what teams were more deserving to make these suicide runs last year?

[SteelSD]

what I remember was Richmond getting sent across the country to get a beating (I say this because nobody gave CAA a chance in this game) by Sac St, who at one point had been rated #1. Only thing was it was Richmond delivering the big blows until the refs stepped in and stole a TD from the Spiders. That killed the momentum and then the downpour started and the one legged Richmond QB didn’t seem to be able to grip the football anymore

Delaware getting sent once again to the slaughterhouse in Brookings

William getting sent to the Antarctic where they were crushed up against a Montana iceberg

New Hampshire getting dominated against Holy Cross

So tell me, what teams were more deserving to make these suicide runs last year?

I think my point was quite clearly that if you live in a glass house you should be careful slinging stones. But if you are asking me if I think a UC Davis, Youngstown State, or Chattanooga could have beaten a St. Francis at home and then gotten beaten down in Brookings I would say yes.

[caribbeanhen]

I think my point was quite clearly that if you live in a glass house you should be careful slinging stones. But if you are asking me if I think a UC Davis, Youngstown State, or Chattanooga could have beaten a St. Francis at home and then gotten beaten down in Brookings I would say yes.

Haha. A sermon on a Saturday morning, I feel so much better. Tell those teams you mentioned to get Navy on the schedule and go into Annapolis and beat them.

[FUBeAR]

Some teams from conferences that have the number of teams that the Big Sky and CAA now have seem to get a benefit when it comes to playoff selection. Teams that are in these conferences that receive favorable schedules can get propped up because of the strength of the conference even when they haven't played the best the conference has to offer. For example, Idaho avoided Montana st and Weber st last year and New Hampshire avoided Delaware and William & Mary. Not to say these two teams shouldn't have made the playoffs last year but I do think the committee has to be sure to examine each schedule individually and not just say "oh they played in the CAA so they must have played a tough schedule."

The MVFC is now at this point with the addition of Murray st. For example, Indiana st avoids SDSU and NDSU on their schedule next year. While unlikely they could conceivably end up next year 6-5 with two FBS losses, a record that with 2 fbs losses that could get an MVFC team in some years. A team with these hypothetical results should not even be in the playoff conversation but it wouldn't surprise me if next year they were because they are in the MVFC despite not playing two of the top teams.

The CAA will be particularly interesting, the loss of JMU and the expansion to 15 means a lot of teams in the conference won't be playing each other.
That’s a lot of words to say that the Playoff Selection Committee should earnestly do the job they are tasked to do. FUBeAR agrees with you 100%. They won’t. They’ve proven that repeatedly.

#DefundTheCommittee

[SteelSD]

Haha. A sermon on a Saturday morning, I feel so much better. Tell those teams you mentioned to get Navy on the schedule and go into Annapolis and beat them.
I certainly don’t want to get into debating all the warts on your respective frogs. I think there has already been plenty of debate about that. But if you want to claim a BSC bias and then deny one exists for the CAA, well then I have 15, 25, 36, and 48 reasons why I think you are wrong.

Amen!

[caribbeanhen]

I certainly don’t want to get into debating all the warts on your respective frogs. I think there has already been plenty of debate about that. But if you want to claim a BSC bias and then deny one exists for the CAA, well then I have 15, 25, 36, and 48 reasons why I think you are wrong.

Amen!

Good to see you agree the best FCS teams they could come up with were sent on those suicide runs…. I say that because you avoided my point

South Dak St was top 25 FBS good last year, they would have brutalized any playoff team at home. I was pulling for Delaware to get sent out to Sac St, or Weber or Idaho …. anywhere but Brookings. If Richmond can play with Sac St on the road, no doubt that Delaware and William & Mary could have done the same

Montana St would have beat down anyone on that bone chilling frozen pond frigid cold night … only exception would be North Dakota St and South Dak St

The bias against the CAA is their better teams weren’t ranked high enough all year, nobody watches Flosports and even CAA fans are down on the CAA and this mindset is rooted in more than a decade ago dominance that has long since departed. The CAA fans haven’t forgotten and view todays CAA as weak, even though they had 6 or 7 ranked teams

You have a few amber waves of grain bullies at the FCS level, and toss in the Montonabomidable Snowman…. Without those Top teams you have a total crap shot in FCS. Flubear is lucky Furman didn’t get sent to The Hostel the CAA got sent too in the playoffs …. had IW beat but let it slip away

[nodak651]

Good to see you agree the best FCS teams they could come up with were sent on those suicide runs…. I say that because you avoided my point

South Dak St was top 25 FBS good last year, they would have brutalized any playoff team at home. I was pulling for Delaware to get sent out to Sac St, or Weber or Idaho …. anywhere but Brookings. If Richmond can play with Sac St on the road, no doubt that Delaware and William & Mary could have done the same

Montana St would have beat down anyone on that bone chilling frozen pond frigid cold night … only exception would be North Dakota St and South Dak St

The bias against the CAA is their better teams weren’t ranked high enough all year, nobody watches Flosports and even CAA fans are down on the CAA and this mindset is rooted in more than a decade ago dominance that has long since departed. The CAA fans haven’t forgotten and view todays CAA as weak, even though they had 6 or 7 ranked teams

You have a few amber waves of grain bullies at the FCS level, and toss in the Montonabomidable Snowman…. Without those Top teams you have a total crap shot in FCS. Flubear is lucky Furman didn’t get sent to The Hostel the CAA got sent too in the playoffs …. had IW beat but let it slip away

Yeah, how unfair for W&M. Had to face BYE and then Gardner Webb to get the quarter finals... OMG.
CAA also with first round match ups vs Davidson and St. Francis. Furman IS lucky they got to play a first round game vs a CAA team. You're right.

[caribbeanhen]

Yeah, how unfair for W&M. Had to face BYE and then Gardner Webb to get the quarter finals... OMG.
CAA also with first round match ups vs Davidson and St. Francis. Furman IS lucky they got to play a first round game vs a CAA team. You're right.

Was very unfair to William & Mary to be paired up with an inferior Gardner Webb, you’re right about that because they would of represented themselves well vs any FCS team minus the handful of bullies.

[SteelSD]

Good to see you agree the best FCS teams they could come up with were sent on those suicide runs…. I say that because you avoided my point

South Dak St was top 25 FBS good last year, they would have brutalized any playoff team at home. I was pulling for Delaware to get sent out to Sac St, or Weber or Idaho …. anywhere but Brookings. If Richmond can play with Sac St on the road, no doubt that Delaware and William & Mary could have done the same

Montana St would have beat down anyone on that bone chilling frozen pond frigid cold night … only exception would be North Dakota St and South Dak St

The bias against the CAA is their better teams weren’t ranked high enough all year, nobody watches Flosports and even CAA fans are down on the CAA and this mindset is rooted in more than a decade ago dominance that has long since departed. The CAA fans haven’t forgotten and view todays CAA as weak, even though they had 6 or 7 ranked teams

You have a few amber waves of grain bullies at the FCS level, and toss in the Montonabomidable Snowman…. Without those Top teams you have a total crap shot in FCS. Flubear is lucky Furman didn’t get sent to The Hostel the CAA got sent too in the playoffs …. had IW beat but let it slip away
Ok, just so I get this straight:

The CAA getting boat raced in the playoffs proves that their teams should have been ranked higher all season.

The BSC was over ranked because they were 2-0 versus the CAA in the playoffs and bad weather is bad.

Got it!

[caribbeanhen]

Ok, just so I get this straight:

The CAA getting boat raced in the playoffs proves that their teams should have been ranked higher all season.

The BSC was over ranked because they were 2-0 versus the CAA in the playoffs and bad weather is bad.

Got it!

I knew you would see it my way

[SteelSD]

I knew you would see it my way
Yep, just had to drastically increase the number of Daiquiri's I drank and then it made perfect sense.

[caribbeanhen]

Yep, just had to drastically increase the number of Daiquiri's I drank and then it made perfect sense.

If you’re ever down on the Isla …give me a ring, as long as it’s not a Diamond ring my friend

[KPSUL]

Ok, just so I get this straight:

The CAA getting boat raced in the playoffs proves that their teams should have been ranked higher all season.

The BSC was over ranked because they were 2-0 versus the CAA in the playoffs and bad weather is bad.

Got it!

The CAA playoff teams were ranked right about where they should have been at the end of the regular season. There was no dominant team, or teams, but there was a lot of good teams that were in the 8th to 20th position. The fact that all but one of the five CAA playoff teams won one game, but then lost when playing seeded teams on the road should be a surprise to no one. The fact that W&M played @ Montana St. like they were wearing bowling shoes, and the fact that Richmond outplayed Sac. St. in CA for most the game were both a little surprising, one under and one over achieving.

[caribbeanhen]

The CAA playoff teams were ranked right about where they should have been at the end of the regular season. There was no dominant team, or teams, but there was a lot of good teams that were in the 8th to 20th position. The fact that all but one of the five CAA playoff teams won one game, but then lost when playing seeded teams on the road should be a surprise to no one. The fact that W&M played @ Montana St. like they were wearing bowling shoes, and the fact that Richmond outplayed Sac. St. in CA for most the game were both a little surprising, one under and one over achieving.

I agree with everything you said right up until the last part, Richmond didn’t over achieve out in Sacramento. Have you moved to South or North Dakota ? I spent all year telling this board Richmond was not getting a fair shake in the polls

[KPSUL]

I agree with everything you said right up until the last part, Richmond didn’t over achieve out in Sacramento. Have you moved to South or North Dakota ? I spent all year telling this board Richmond was not getting a fair shake in the polls

No, even worse; West Virginia!

I went into the season thinking Delaware was our conference's best team - the Navy game reinforced it. Then I was thinking Richmond, followed by Elon and at the end of the regular season, like everyone else, W&M. This upcoming season I'm bullish on New Hampshire.

[NY Crusader 2010]

The CAA playoff teams were ranked right about where they should have been at the end of the regular season. There was no dominant team, or teams, but there was a lot of good teams that were in the 8th to 20th position. The fact that all but one of the five CAA playoff teams won one game, but then lost when playing seeded teams on the road should be a surprise to no one. The fact that W&M played @ Montana St. like they were wearing bowling shoes, and the fact that Richmond outplayed Sac. St. in CA for most the game were both a little surprising, one under and one over achieving.

I would love to see W&M-Montana State rematch in the playoffs this year so we can see how the Tribe stack up with the footwear being even.

[caribbeanhen]

No, even worse; West Virginia!

I went into the season thinking Delaware was our conference's best team - the Navy game reinforced it. Then I was thinking Richmond, followed by Elon and at the end of the regular season, like everyone else, W&M. This upcoming season I'm bullish on New Hampshire.

West Virginia…. Yikes

must be a good job or a grandchild

[atthewbon]

https://twitter.com/samherderfcs/status/1664348363096047616?s=46&t=LiebPekwplvKDIgyArVI4A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNAPride]

From D1.ticker:

Earlier this month, the Football Oversight Committee approved the recommendation to seed the top 16 teams in the FCS Championship this upcoming season, pending budget approval from the Board of Directors Finance Committee.

KEY ITEM.

• NCAA Division I Football Championship Committee recommendation. Ty Halpin,director of championships, provided an update on recent NCAA Division I FootballChampionship Committee meetings, including the championship committee’srecommendation to seed the top 16 teams in the NCAA Division I football championship,effective with the 2023 championship. The FOC approved the recommendation, subject tobudget approval from the NCAA Division I Board of Directors Finance Committee.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/committees/d1/fboversight/Jun2023D1FOC_June08Report.pdf

[caribbeanhen]

So who wants to take a crack at the 16 seeds and how the playoff brackets will look?

hoping for less regionalization and more interesting games

[ElCid]

So who wants to take a crack at the 16 seeds and how the playoff brackets will look?

hoping for less regionalization and more interesting games

The smart money says that the seeds will miraculously align with regionalization here and there. Still has to be passed by the "finance committee." Want to bet there will be winks and nods.

[FUBeAR]

So who wants to take a crack at the 16 seeds and how the playoff brackets will look?

hoping for less regionalization and more interesting games
Pick your favorite 16 from these 39 and you’ll have your answer…

* FUBeAR’s guesses as to the 16 that the Playoff Committee will select based on whatever subjective criteria they decide to use this year

Big Sky (https://bigskyconf.com/sports/football)


Cal Poly (https://www.gopoly.com/sports/fball/index)
Eastern Washington (https://goeags.com/sports/football)*
Idaho (https://govandals.com/sports/football)*
Idaho State (https://isubengals.com/sports/football)
Montana (https://gogriz.com/sports/football)*
Montana State (https://msubobcats.com/sports/football)*
Northern Arizona (https://nauathletics.com/sports/football)
Northern Colorado (https://uncbears.com/sports/football)
Portland State (https://goviks.com/sports/football)
Sacramento State (http://www.hornetsports.com/sports/fball/index)*
UC Davis (https://ucdavisaggies.com/sports/football)
Weber State (https://weberstatesports.com/sports/football)*


Colonial Athletic (https://caasports.com/sports/football)


Albany (https://ualbanysports.com/sports/football)
Campbell (https://gocamels.com/sports/football)
Delaware (https://bluehens.com/sports/football)*
Elon (https://elonphoenix.com/sports/football)*
Hampton (https://hamptonpirates.com/sports/football)
Maine (https://goblackbears.com/sports/football)
Monmouth (https://monmouthhawks.com/sports/football)
New Hampshire (https://unhwildcats.com/index.aspx?path=football)*
North Carolina A&T (https://ncataggies.com/sports/football)
Rhode Island (https://gorhody.com/sports/football?path=football)
Richmond (https://richmondspiders.com/sports/football)*
Stony Brook (https://stonybrookathletics.com/sports/football)
Towson (https://towsontigers.com/sports/football)
Villanova (https://villanova.com/sports/football)*
William & Mary (https://tribeathletics.com/sports/football)*


Missouri Valley (https://valley-football.org/index.aspx)


Illinois State (https://goredbirds.com/sports/football)
Indiana State (https://gosycamores.com/sports/football)
Missouri State (https://missouristatebears.com/sports/football)*
Murray State (https://goracers.com/sports/football)
North Dakota (https://fightinghawks.com/sports/football)
North Dakota State (https://gobison.com/sports/football)*
Northern Iowa (https://unipanthers.com/sports/football)*
South Dakota (https://goyotes.com/sports/football)
South Dakota State (https://gojacks.com/sports/football)*
Southern Illinois (https://siusalukis.com/sports/football)
Western Illinois (https://goleathernecks.com/sports/football)
Youngstown State (https://ysusports.com/sports/football?path=football)

[Professor Chaos]

So who wants to take a crack at the 16 seeds and how the playoff brackets will look?

hoping for less regionalization and more interesting games
I would guess the 2022 bracket would've looked something like this with 16 seeds:

Montana @ #16 SLU to #1 SDSU
Eastern Kentucky @ #9 Weber St to #8 Holy Cross

Gardner-Webb @ #12 Elon to #5 William & Mary
Delaware @ #13 SEMO to #4 Montana St

Fordham @ #14 UNH to #3 NDSU
St Francis @ #11 Richmond to #6 Samford

Davidson @ #10 Furman to #7 UIW
UND @ #15 Idaho to #2 Sac St

[caribbeanhen]

Pick your favorite 16 from these 39 and you’ll have your answer…

* FUBeAR’s guesses as to the 16 that the Playoff Committee will select based on whatever subjective criteria they decide to use this year

Big Sky (https://bigskyconf.com/sports/football)


Cal Poly (https://www.gopoly.com/sports/fball/index)
Eastern Washington (https://goeags.com/sports/football)*
Idaho (https://govandals.com/sports/football)*
Idaho State (https://isubengals.com/sports/football)
Montana (https://gogriz.com/sports/football)*
Montana State (https://msubobcats.com/sports/football)*
Northern Arizona (https://nauathletics.com/sports/football)
Northern Colorado (https://uncbears.com/sports/football)
Portland State (https://goviks.com/sports/football)
Sacramento State (http://www.hornetsports.com/sports/fball/index)*
UC Davis (https://ucdavisaggies.com/sports/football)
Weber State (https://weberstatesports.com/sports/football)*


Colonial Athletic (https://caasports.com/sports/football)


Albany (https://ualbanysports.com/sports/football)
Campbell (https://gocamels.com/sports/football)
Delaware (https://bluehens.com/sports/football)*
Elon (https://elonphoenix.com/sports/football)*
Hampton (https://hamptonpirates.com/sports/football)
Maine (https://goblackbears.com/sports/football)
Monmouth (https://monmouthhawks.com/sports/football)
New Hampshire (https://unhwildcats.com/index.aspx?path=football)*
North Carolina A&T (https://ncataggies.com/sports/football)
Rhode Island (https://gorhody.com/sports/football?path=football)
Richmond (https://richmondspiders.com/sports/football)*
Stony Brook (https://stonybrookathletics.com/sports/football)
Towson (https://towsontigers.com/sports/football)
Villanova (https://villanova.com/sports/football)*
William & Mary (https://tribeathletics.com/sports/football)*


Missouri Valley (https://valley-football.org/index.aspx)


Illinois State (https://goredbirds.com/sports/football)
Indiana State (https://gosycamores.com/sports/football)
Missouri State (https://missouristatebears.com/sports/football)*
Murray State (https://goracers.com/sports/football)
North Dakota (https://fightinghawks.com/sports/football)
North Dakota State (https://gobison.com/sports/football)*
Northern Iowa (https://unipanthers.com/sports/football)*
South Dakota (https://goyotes.com/sports/football)
South Dakota State (https://gojacks.com/sports/football)*
Southern Illinois (https://siusalukis.com/sports/football)
Western Illinois (https://goleathernecks.com/sports/football)
Youngstown State (https://ysusports.com/sports/football?path=football)



Just know that Furman has replaced Kennydoll St as a the lil darlings of FCS

[atthewbon]

I would guess the 2022 bracket would've looked something like this with 16 seeds:

Montana @ #16 SLU to #1 SDSU
Eastern Kentucky @ #9 Weber St to #8 Holy Cross

Gardner-Webb @ #12 Elon to #5 William & Mary
Delaware @ #13 SEMO to #4 Montana St

Fordham @ #14 UNH to #3 NDSU
St Francis @ #11 Richmond to #6 Samford

Davidson @ #10 Furman to #7 UIW
UND @ #15 Idaho to #2 Sac St

That’s about how I think it would look as well. Seems like a way better bracket overall. I think it would end up being worse for one seeds as they usually get one of the weakest first round matchups sent to them. For example, from last year I would way rather face the winner of Delaware vs St Frances as opposed to Montana vs SLU. IMO that’s a good thing though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[caribbeanhen]

I would guess the 2022 bracket would've looked something like this with 16 seeds:

Montana @ #16 SLU to #1 SDSU
Eastern Kentucky @ #9 Weber St to #8 Holy Cross

Gardner-Webb @ #12 Elon to #5 William & Mary
Delaware @ #13 SEMO to #4 Montana St

Fordham @ #14 UNH to #3 NDSU
St Francis @ #11 Richmond to #6 Samford

Davidson @ #10 Furman to #7 UIW
UND @ #15 Idaho to #2 Sac St

Montana at SLU would have been fun, the Lions owe em one

Montana at anywhere is rare in round 1

[The Cats]

Pick your favorite 16 from these 39 and you’ll have your answer…

* FUBeAR’s guesses as to the 16 that the Playoff Committee will select based on whatever subjective criteria they decide to use this year

Big Sky (https://bigskyconf.com/sports/football)


Cal Poly (https://www.gopoly.com/sports/fball/index)
Eastern Washington (https://goeags.com/sports/football)*
Idaho (https://govandals.com/sports/football)*
Idaho State (https://isubengals.com/sports/football)
Montana (https://gogriz.com/sports/football)*
Montana State (https://msubobcats.com/sports/football)*
Northern Arizona (https://nauathletics.com/sports/football)
Northern Colorado (https://uncbears.com/sports/football)
Portland State (https://goviks.com/sports/football)
Sacramento State (http://www.hornetsports.com/sports/fball/index)*
UC Davis (https://ucdavisaggies.com/sports/football)
Weber State (https://weberstatesports.com/sports/football)*


Colonial Athletic (https://caasports.com/sports/football)


Albany (https://ualbanysports.com/sports/football)
Campbell (https://gocamels.com/sports/football)
Delaware (https://bluehens.com/sports/football)*
Elon (https://elonphoenix.com/sports/football)*
Hampton (https://hamptonpirates.com/sports/football)
Maine (https://goblackbears.com/sports/football)
Monmouth (https://monmouthhawks.com/sports/football)
New Hampshire (https://unhwildcats.com/index.aspx?path=football)*
North Carolina A&T (https://ncataggies.com/sports/football)
Rhode Island (https://gorhody.com/sports/football?path=football)
Richmond (https://richmondspiders.com/sports/football)*
Stony Brook (https://stonybrookathletics.com/sports/football)
Towson (https://towsontigers.com/sports/football)
Villanova (https://villanova.com/sports/football)*
William & Mary (https://tribeathletics.com/sports/football)*


Missouri Valley (https://valley-football.org/index.aspx)


Illinois State (https://goredbirds.com/sports/football)
Indiana State (https://gosycamores.com/sports/football)
Missouri State (https://missouristatebears.com/sports/football)*
Murray State (https://goracers.com/sports/football)
North Dakota (https://fightinghawks.com/sports/football)
North Dakota State (https://gobison.com/sports/football)*
Northern Iowa (https://unipanthers.com/sports/football)*
South Dakota (https://goyotes.com/sports/football)
South Dakota State (https://gojacks.com/sports/football)*
Southern Illinois (https://siusalukis.com/sports/football)
Western Illinois (https://goleathernecks.com/sports/football)
Youngstown State (https://ysusports.com/sports/football?path=football)



In one of his rare lucid moments, FUBeAR hit a home run with this one!!!

[atthewbon]

https://twitter.com/craighaley/status/1674116551513890817?s=46&t=LiebPekwplvKDIgyArVI4A

Looks like this won’t be happening this year but probably in 2024


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FUBeAR]

https://twitter.com/craighaley/status/1674116551513890817?s=46&t=LiebPekwplvKDIgyArVI4A (https://twitter.com/craighaley/status/1674116551513890817?s=46&t=LiebPekwplvKDIgyArVI4A)

Looks like this won’t be happening this year but probably in 2024
LOL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68eue5cpbsE

[KPSUL]

I'm thinking that FUBeAR and Wimpy's post is pretty clever IF it suggests that the 16 Seed proposal SHOULD be able able to fund the increased cost by increasing revenue through better match-ups in early rounds of the playoffs??

[FUBeAR]

I'm thinking that FUBeAR and Wimpy's post is pretty clever IF it suggests that the 16 Seed proposal SHOULD be able able to fund the increased cost by increasing revenue through better match-ups in early rounds of the playoffs??
Nope - that statement might be true, but FUBeAR believes, nay, KNOWS, that a complete re-thinking of the FCS Playoffs from a For-Profit Business perspective vs. the current ‘cost-center’ mentality would be required to optimize the cash flows for the participants.

FUBeAR’s reference to the great Wimpy is more of a commentary regarding the tone of several of the comments, in a related article, from the esteemed MVFC/PFL Commissioner regarding funding the proposed/"endorsed" enhancements and atthewbon seeming to have confidence in these ‘enhancements’ occurring in 2024…also known as “Tuesday.”

[atthewbon]

Nope - that statement might be true, but FUBeAR believes, nay, KNOWS, that a complete re-thinking of the FCS Playoffs from a For-Profit Business perspective vs. the current ‘cost-center’ mentality would be required to optimize the cash flows for the participants.

FUBeAR’s reference to the great Wimpy is more of a commentary regarding the tone of several of the comments, in a related article, from the esteemed MVFC/PFL Commissioner regarding funding the proposed/"endorsed" enhancements and atthewbon seeming to have confidence in these ‘enhancements’ occurring in 2024…also known as “Tuesday.”

I have no real knowledge of when it’s going to happen, I’m just relaying what knowledgeable people are saying on Twitter. I also don’t think this is going to have any massive impact on the playoffs. I think it’s a good, small, change and a more fair way of making the bracket that should have been used the entire time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

I don't think it's a coincidence that this "16 seeds" can was kicked down the road a year and the NCAA Championships media contract with ESPN is also done after this year. Going forward the NCAA will be bidding out their championships a la carte rather than bundled altogether and I'm guessing the proponents of this 16 seed system are hoping for a significant bump in the revenue generated by the FCS playoffs now that the media contract will be factored in and that will offset the cost of increased seeds and de-regionalization of the FCS playoffs.

[Professor]

Not really related to increasing the seeds in the playoffs but with the CFP moving to a 12 team format in 2024 they're going to covering the time slots traditionally held by the FCS semifinals - in 2024 that's Friday 12/20 and Saturday 12/21: https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/36304982/cfp-committee-confirms-dates-first-year-expanded-playoff

Typically there are a few C-list bowl games played on those days but this might really put a damper on TV viewership for the FCS games to be going head-to-head with CFP first round games.


very important details people need to pay attention too

[FUBeAR]

FUBeAR just built hisself an FCS 24 Team/8 Seeds Playoffs Era (2013-2022 (so far), excluding 2020) database with Seeds and Results...lots of different findings....and different ways to interpret the data...will just drop a few here...and may edit this post from time to time to add other interesting tidbits. By the way - if you have a question....something like "Hey FUBeAR, over the "24/8x2020" Playoff era, comparing the PFL to the NEC, which Conference has performed better with respect to expectations based on their Seeds?"...my little 'machine' can spin up an answer to that for you. Just HMU here on this thread...

RESULTS Key & 'Assigned' (non-cumulative) Point Values
0 Points = Lost Round 1 game
1 Point = Won Round 1 game
2 Points = QF = Won Round 2 game / reached Quarterfinals
3 Points = SF = Won Quarterfinal game / reached Semifinals
4 Points = RU = Won Semifinal game / runner-up / lost in Championship game
5 Points = CH = Won Championship game / Champion
=> equal to or further than



Seed
Mean Result Points 2013-2022 (x2020)


1
4.00


2
3.33


3
2.78


4
2.00


5
2.33


6
1.78


7
2.33


8
1.89


UNS
0.66



A few FUBeAR comments...
* Apparently, no Team should want to be a #6 Seed
* #8 Seed is better than #6 Seed
* #7 Seed is as good as #5 Seed, which is better than #4 Seed




Unseeded chance of =>QF
11.81%


#8 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#7 Seed chance of =>QF
77.78%


#6 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#5 Seed chance of =>QF
77.78%


#4 Seed chance of =>QF
55.56%


#3 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#2 Seed chance of =>QF
100.00%


#1 Seed chance of =>QF
100.00%






Unseeded chance of =>SF
3.47%


#8 Seed chance of =>SF
11.11%


#7 Seed chance of =>SF
44.44%


#6 Seed chance of =>SF
11.11%


#5 Seed chance of =>SF
44.44%


#4 Seed chance of =>SF
22.22%


#3 Seed chance of =>SF
66.67%


#2 Seed chance of =>SF
55.56%


#1 Seed chance of =>SF
88.89%






Unseeded chance of = RU
0.69%


#8 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#7 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#6 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#5 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#4 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#3 Seed chance of =>RU
33.33%


#2 Seed chance of =>RU
44.44%


#1 Seed chance of =>SF
66.67%






Unseeded chance of = CH
0.00%


#8 Seed chance of =>CH
0.00%


#7 Seed chance of =>CH
0.00%


#6 Seed chance of =>CH
0.00%


#5 Seed chance of =>CH
0.00%


#4 Seed chance of =>CH
11.11%


#3 Seed chance of =>CH
11.11%


#2 Seed chance of =>CH
33.33%


#1 Seed chance of =>CH
44.44%




SAME STUFF ... Presented 'the other way'...



Uns. chance of =>QF
11.81%


Uns. chance of =>SF
3.47%


Uns. chance of = RU
0.69%


Uns. chance of = CH
0.00%






#8 chance of =>QF
66.67%


#8 chance of =>SF
11.11%


#8 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#8 chance of =>CH
0.00%






#7 chance of =>QF
77.78%


#7 chance of =>SF
44.44%


#7 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#7 chance of =>CH
0.00%






#6 chance of =>QF
66.67%


#6 chance of =>SF
11.11%


#6 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#6 chance of =>CH
0.00%






#5 chance of =>QF
77.78%


#5 chance of =>SF
44.44%


#5 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#5 chance of =>CH
0.00%






#4 chance of =>QF
55.56%


#4 chance of =>SF
22.22%


#4 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#4 chance of =>CH
11.11%






#3 chance of =>QF
66.67%


#3 chance of =>SF
66.67%


#3 chance of =>RU
33.33%


#3 chance of =>CH
11.11%






#2 chance of =>QF
100.00%


#2 chance of =>SF
55.56%


#2 chance of =>RU
44.44%


#2 chance of =>CH
33.33%






#1 chance of =>QF
100.00%


#1 chance of =>SF
88.89%


#1 chance of =>RU
66.67%


#1 chance of =>CH
44.44%




Playoff Performance by conference to 'expected' result based upon seed (had to do some 'voodoo math' here - assigning a common value of 12.5 and an expected result of .5 (50% chance of winning a 1st round game) to ALL unseeded Teams and assigning actual point values of 1 for Teams losing in 2nd round, 2 for Teams losing quarterfinals, 3 for Teams losing in semifinals, 4 for runner-up, 5 for champion). If you don't like the math ... or more likely the results ... feel free to do your own ish.




ALL SEEDS Including Unseeded


Rank
Conference
Perf. To Exp.


1
MVFC
168.51%


2
Big South
158.97%


3
Southland
149.28%


4
CAA
137.33%


5
OVC
122.00%


6
SoCon
118.42%


7
Patriot League
100.00%







8
Big Sky
91.19%


9
PFL
44.44%


10
NEC
22.22%


11
WAC / ASUN-WAC
13.33%


12
Independent
0.00%


12
MEAC
0.00%


12
SWAC
0.00%







SEEDS NOT Including Unseeded


Rank
Conference
Perf. To Exp.


1
MVFC
114.69%


2
CAA
108.21%


3
Patriot League
100.00%







4
SoCon
90.00%


5
Big South
88.89%


6
Big Sky
83.77%


7
Southland
79.17%


8
OVC
46.00%


9
WAC / ASUN-WAC
40.00%



"Performance to expectations," in FUBeAR's opinion, is a bit of a misleading term, however, as FUBeAR believes part of the 'expectation' is 'self-fulfilling' due to the system that FUBeAR believes OVERLY advantages Seeded Teams - particularly more highly seeded Teams - Week off Bye / Home game(s), and often weak 2nd round opponents are too much of a 'reward' for becoming SUBJECTIVELY Seeded...in FUBeAR's opinion. You may disagree, but FUBeAR is still correct. :)

Big Sky is bolded above because....
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/iStock-917882036-1024x683.jpg

Feel free to weigh in on that...

[atthewbon]

FUBeAR just built hisself an FCS 24 Team/8 Seeds Playoffs Era (2013-2022 (so far), excluding 2020) database with Seeds and Results...lots of different findings....and different ways to interpret the data...will just drop a few here...and may edit this post from time to time to add other interesting tidbits. By the way - if you have a question....something like "Hey FUBeAR, over the "24/8x2020" Playoff era, comparing the PFL to the NEC, which Conference has performed better with respect to expectations based on their Seeds?"...my little 'machine' can spin up an answer to that for you. Just HMU here on this thread...

RESULTS Key & 'Assigned' (non-cumulative) Point Values
0 Points = Lost Round 1 game
1 Point = Won Round 1 game
2 Points = QF = Won Round 2 game / reached Quarterfinals
3 Points = SF = Won Quarterfinal game / reached Semifinals
4 Points = RU = Won Semifinal game / runner-up / lost in Championship game
5 Points = CH = Won Championship game / Champion
=> equal to or further than



Seed
Mean Result Points 2013-2022 (x2020)


1
4.00


2
3.33


3
2.78


4
2.00


5
2.33


6
1.78


7
2.33


8
1.89


UNS
0.66



A few FUBeAR comments...
* Apparently, no Team should want to be a #6 Seed
* #8 Seed is better than #6 Seed
* #7 Seed is as good as #5 Seed, which is better than #4 Seed




Unseeded chance of =>QF
11.81%


#8 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#7 Seed chance of =>QF
77.78%


#6 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#5 Seed chance of =>QF
77.78%


#4 Seed chance of =>QF
55.56%


#3 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#2 Seed chance of =>QF
100.00%


#1 Seed chance of =>QF
100.00%






Unseeded chance of =>SF
3.47%


#8 Seed chance of =>SF
11.11%


#7 Seed chance of =>SF
44.44%


#6 Seed chance of =>SF
11.11%


#5 Seed chance of =>SF
44.44%


#4 Seed chance of =>SF
22.22%


#3 Seed chance of =>SF
66.67%


#2 Seed chance of =>SF
55.56%


#1 Seed chance of =>SF
88.89%






Unseeded chance of = RU
0.69%


#8 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#7 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#6 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#5 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#4 Seed chance of =>RU
11.11%


#3 Seed chance of =>RU
33.33%


#2 Seed chance of =>RU
44.44%


#1 Seed chance of =>SF
66.67%






Unseeded chance of = CH
0.00%


#8 Seed chance of =>CH
0.00%


#7 Seed chance of =>CH
0.00%


#6 Seed chance of =>CH
0.00%


#5 Seed chance of =>CH
0.00%


#4 Seed chance of =>CH
11.11%


#3 Seed chance of =>CH
11.11%


#2 Seed chance of =>CH
33.33%


#1 Seed chance of =>CH
44.44%




SAME STUFF ... Presented 'the other way'...



Uns. chance of =>QF
11.81%


Uns. chance of =>SF
3.47%


Uns. chance of = RU
0.69%


Uns. chance of = CH
0.00%






#8 chance of =>QF
66.67%


#8 chance of =>SF
11.11%


#8 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#8 chance of =>CH
0.00%






#7 chance of =>QF
77.78%


#7 chance of =>SF
44.44%


#7 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#7 chance of =>CH
0.00%






#6 chance of =>QF
66.67%


#6 chance of =>SF
11.11%


#6 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#6 chance of =>CH
0.00%






#5 chance of =>QF
77.78%


#5 chance of =>SF
44.44%


#5 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#5 chance of =>CH
0.00%






#4 chance of =>QF
55.56%


#4 chance of =>SF
22.22%


#4 chance of =>RU
11.11%


#4 chance of =>CH
11.11%






#3 chance of =>QF
66.67%


#3 chance of =>SF
66.67%


#3 chance of =>RU
33.33%


#3 chance of =>CH
11.11%






#2 chance of =>QF
100.00%


#2 chance of =>SF
55.56%


#2 chance of =>RU
44.44%


#2 chance of =>CH
33.33%






#1 chance of =>QF
100.00%


#1 chance of =>SF
88.89%


#1 chance of =>RU
66.67%


#1 chance of =>CH
44.44%




Playoff Performance by conference to 'expected' result based upon seed (had to do some 'voodoo math' here - assigning a common value of 12.5 and an expected result of .5 (50% chance of winning a 1st round game) to ALL unseeded Teams and assigning actual point values of 1 for Teams losing in 2nd round, 2 for Teams losing quarterfinals, 3 for Teams losing in semifinals, 4 for runner-up, 5 for champion). If you don't like the math ... or more likely the results ... feel free to do your own ish.




ALL SEEDS Including Unseeded


Rank
Conference
Perf. To Exp.


1
MVFC
168.51%


2
Big South
158.97%


3
Southland
149.28%


4
CAA
137.33%


5
OVC
122.00%


6
SoCon
118.42%


7
Patriot League
100.00%







8
Big Sky
91.19%


9
PFL
44.44%


10
NEC
22.22%


11
WAC / ASUN-WAC
13.33%


12
Independent
0.00%


12
MEAC
0.00%


12
SWAC
0.00%







SEEDS NOT Including Unseeded


Rank
Conference
Perf. To Exp.


1
MVFC
114.69%


2
CAA
108.21%


3
Patriot League
100.00%







4
SoCon
90.00%


5
Big South
88.89%


6
Big Sky
83.77%


7
Southland
79.17%


8
OVC
46.00%


9
WAC / ASUN-WAC
40.00%



"Performance to expectations," in FUBeAR's opinion, is a bit of a misleading term, however, as FUBeAR believes part of the 'expectation' is 'self-fulfilling' due to the system that FUBeAR believes OVERLY advantages Seeded Teams - particularly more highly seeded Teams - Week off Bye / Home game(s), and often weak 2nd round opponents are too much of a 'reward' for becoming SUBJECTIVELY Seeded...in FUBeAR's opinion. You may disagree, but FUBeAR is still correct. :)

Big Sky is bolded above because....
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/iStock-917882036-1024x683.jpg

Feel free to weigh in on that...

Awesome you put this together. Really shows how far behind the NEC and Pioneer are compared to the rest of the subdivision and how much more successful the Patriot has been in comparison. I’d be interested to see the record by conference for unseeded teams in the playoffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FUBeAR]

Awesome you put this together. Really shows how far behind the NEC and Pioneer are compared to the rest of the subdivision and how much more successful the Patriot has been in comparison. I’d be interested to see the record by conference for unseeded teams in the playoffs.
Well - we know that we are covering 9 years of Playoffs and we know we start with 8 games where unseeded teams are going to go 8-8...so, we know the overall record of unseeded teams 'begins' at...72-72.

Then we have had 17 unseeded teams win their 72 Round 2 games (.236 - more on this below*) against seeded opponents vs. 55 losses, so that gives us 89-127.

Then we had 5 of those 17 win quarterfinal games (.294 - more on this below*) vs. 12 losses, so we're at 94-139

And only 1 of those 5 won their semifinal game, so that means 95-143

...But the upstart YSU Penguins fell to the JMU Dukes in the 2016 Championship game, to give ALL unseeded Teams an overall 9 year Playoff record of 95-144 or .397


* VERY INTERESTING that Unseeded Teams have had a higher winning % in Quarterfinal games than they have in 2nd round games....almost 25% better. Thinking that supports FUBeAR's 'too much advantage' premise because of the week off / home game 'double-stack' for seeded Teams in Round 2 vs. just (most likely) the home game in the quarterfinals. But...after further review...2 of those 5 wins were over other unseeded Teams that had won their Round 2 game, so it may just be more of a function of having a fortunate draw in 40% of those wins. Oh well, FUBeAR still stands behind his premise...

But that wasn't your question, was it?

You wanted it by Conference - a bit harder for FUBeAR to spin up, but not impossible...just had to write 1 more formula and it was a 'snap!'



Unseeded Teams - Record by Conference




Rank
Conference
W
L
%


1
MVFC
22
21
0.512


2
Southland
14
15
0.483


3
Big South
9
10
0.474


4
OVC
8
10
0.444


5
CAA
17
22
0.436


6
SoCon
9
14
0.391


7T
Big Sky
8
16
0.333


7T
Patriot League
5
10
0.333


9
PFL
2
9
0.182


10
NEC
1
9
0.100


11T
Independent
0
1
0.000


11T
MEAC
0
4
0.000


11T
SWAC
0
1
0.000


11T
WAC / ASUN-WAC
0
2
0.000


Total
ALL FCS Unseeded Playoffs
95
144
0.397

[FUBeAR]

Awesome you put this together. Really shows how far behind the NEC and Pioneer are compared to the rest of the subdivision and how much more successful the Patriot has been in comparison. I’d be interested to see the record by conference for unseeded teams in the playoffs.
FUBeAR hears you on this, but whether or not you fully accept FUBeAR's premise - advantages subjectively granted to Seeded Teams are WAAAYYY TOO MUCH, especially for higher seeded Teams - you have to at least acknowledge that it is within the realm of possibilities, i.e., it's not an entirely unreasonable or ludicrous position - it could be true.

Well, neither the PFL nor the NEC had a Seeded Team during this Playoff era...so, while your conclusion may be accurate, they may have had a bit better showing if they had just had 1 or 2 seeded teams during the era...perhaps.

INSTEAD...FUBeAR is much more struck by the results of a conference on the opposite end of the # of Seeds received spectrum...




Number of Seeded Teams by Conference



Rank
Conference
# of Top 8 Seeds
Top 8 SEEDS ONLY - Perf. to Exp. Rank


1
Big Sky
19
6


2
MVFC
16
1


3
CAA
13
2


4
Southland
8
7


5
OVC
5
8


6
SoCon
5
4


7
Big South
3
5


8
PL
2
3


9
WAC
1
9


ALL
Total
72







Number of Top 4 Seeded Teams by Conference






Rank
Conference
# of Top 4 Seeds
Top 4 Seeds - Perf. To Exp.
% Above / (Below) Avg.
Top 4 SEEDS ONLY - Perf. to Exp. Rank


1
MVFC
11
107.73%
27.08
1


2
Big Sky
10
74.17%
(6.48)
3


3T
CAA
5
101.33%
20.68
2


3T
OVC
5
46.00%
(34.65)
5


5
Southland
3
44.44%
(36.21)
6


6T
Big South
1
66.67%
(13.98)
4


6T
WAC
1
40.00%
(40.65)
7



Total
36
80.65%






Just lookin' at the data...seems somethin' has, perhaps, been a bit amiss with these subjectively granted seeds.

[atthewbon]

FUBeAR hears you on this, but whether or not you fully accept FUBeAR's premise - advantages subjectively granted to Seeded Teams are WAAAYYY TOO MUCH, especially for higher seeded Teams - you have to at least acknowledge that it is within the realm of possibilities, i.e., it's not an entirely unreasonable or ludicrous position - it could be true.

Well, neither the PFL nor the NEC had a Seeded Team during this Playoff era...so, while your conclusion may be accurate, they may have had a bit better showing if they had just had 1 or 2 seeded teams during the era...perhaps.

INSTEAD...FUBeAR is much more struck by the results of a conference on the opposite end of the # of Seeds received spectrum...




Number of Seeded Teams by Conference



Rank
Conference
# of Top 8 Seeds
Top 8 SEEDS ONLY - Perf. to Exp. Rank


1
Big Sky
19
6


2
MVFC
16
1


3
CAA
13
2


4
Southland
8
7


5
OVC
5
8


6
SoCon
5
4


7
Big South
3
5


8
PL
2
3


9
WAC
1
9


ALL
Total
72







Number of Top 4 Seeded Teams by Conference






Rank
Conference
# of Top 4 Seeds
Top 4 Seeds - Perf. To Exp.
% Above / (Below) Avg.
Top 4 SEEDS ONLY - Perf. to Exp. Rank


1
MVFC
11
107.73%
27.08
1


2
Big Sky
10
74.17%
(6.48)
3


3T
CAA
5
101.33%
20.68
2


3T
OVC
5
46.00%
(34.65)
5


5
Southland
3
44.44%
(36.21)
6


6T
Big South
1
66.67%
(13.98)
4


6T
WAC
1
40.00%
(40.65)
7



Total
36
80.65%






Just lookin' at the data...seems somethin' has, perhaps, been a bit amiss with these subjectively granted seeds.

Thanks again for all this data it's really interesting to look at. FWIW I agree with your point that the Big Sky has underperformed in the playoffs and has received some preferential treatment from the committee. I also don't think this is intentional from the committee, I think it's a by product of the Big Sky's scheduling and how the committee views SOS. The committee has to do a better job of examining each team's individual schedule instead of lumping each team as just Big Sky and assuming that means a tough SOS. This is going to be especially important for the CAA as they have now expanded beyond the Big Sky's size. This is also going to be true of the MVFC, especially this year when there will be 12 teams.

I also agree that there is a big advantage given to seeded teams, but I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. I think it adds more value to the regular season, and I think teams should be rewarded for doing well. While no playoff model is perfect, in college football I think there is value is rewarding byes to the top preforming regular season teams (the FBS just copied this model in their 12 team format).

Looking at the data you provided the seeded teams don't preform way better than I would expect...


#8 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#7 Seed chance of =>QF
77.78%


#6 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#5 Seed chance of =>QF
77.78%


#4 Seed chance of =>QF
55.56%


#3 Seed chance of =>QF
66.67%


#2 Seed chance of =>QF
100.00%


#1 Seed chance of =>QF
100.00%



You have to remember the seeded teams are "better" so you'd expect them to win even if it was on a neutral field (especially the top 2 seeds). If you exclude the top 2 seeds who would typically be huge favorites against anybody, seeded teams have a 68.5% chance of winning their first game. IMO that doesn't feel like they have way too big of an advantage in that second round game. I'm not denying their is a big advantage being a seeded team, but I don't think it is way too big and I think it provides more intrigue to the regular season which I think is a good thing.

Sidenote its interesting the 4 seed has been the most likely to be upset in the second round.

[FUBeAR]

Thanks again for all this data it's really interesting to look at. FWIW I agree with your point that the Big Sky has underperformed in the playoffs and has received some preferential treatment from the committee.

Sidenote its interesting the 4 seed has been the most likely to be upset in the second round.
yes…

The #4 Seed had 4 2nd round losses to unseeded Teams in 9 years…

Big Sky 2x - Sacramento State 2x (‘19 & ‘21)
Southland’s 2x - McNeese ‘15 & Central Arkansas ‘17

#8 Seed and #6 Seed each had 3 2nd Round losses during the same timeframe (1/2 of those were Big Sky Teams & 1/3 were Southland Teams.)

Interestingly, the #3 Seed also had 3 2nd Round losses - All 3 were Jax St. (‘14 to SHSU, ‘16 to YSU, ‘17 to Kennesaw)

[caribbeanhen]

Awesome you put this together. Really shows how far behind the NEC and Pioneer are compared to the rest of the subdivision and how much more successful the Patriot has been in comparison. I’d be interested to see the record by conference for unseeded teams in the playoffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

watching some actual Pioneer and NEC games would leave you with same conclusions

[Redbird 4th & short]

Well - we know that we are covering 9 years of Playoffs and we know we start with 8 games where unseeded teams are going to go 8-8...so, we know the overall record of unseeded teams 'begins' at...72-72.

Then we have had 17 unseeded teams win their 72 Round 2 games (.236 - more on this below*) against seeded opponents vs. 55 losses, so that gives us 89-127.

Then we had 5 of those 17 win quarterfinal games (.294 - more on this below*) vs. 12 losses, so we're at 94-139

And only 1 of those 5 won their semifinal game, so that means 95-143

...But the upstart YSU Penguins fell to the JMU Dukes in the 2016 Championship game, to give ALL unseeded Teams an overall 9 year Playoff record of 95-144 or .397


* VERY INTERESTING that Unseeded Teams have had a higher winning % in Quarterfinal games than they have in 2nd round games....almost 25% better. Thinking that supports FUBeAR's 'too much advantage' premise because of the week off / home game 'double-stack' for seeded Teams in Round 2 vs. just (most likely) the home game in the quarterfinals. But...after further review...2 of those 5 wins were over other unseeded Teams that had won their Round 2 game, so it may just be more of a function of having a fortunate draw in 40% of those wins. Oh well, FUBeAR still stands behind his premise...

But that wasn't your question, was it?

You wanted it by Conference - a bit harder for FUBeAR to spin up, but not impossible...just had to write 1 more formula and it was a 'snap!'



Unseeded Teams - Record by Conference




Rank
Conference
W
L
%


1
MVFC
22
21
0.512


2
Southland
14
15
0.483


3
Big South
9
10
0.474


4
OVC
8
10
0.444


5
CAA
17
22
0.436


6
SoCon
9
14
0.391


7T
Big Sky
8
16
0.333


7T
Patriot League
5
10
0.333


9
PFL
2
9
0.182


10
NEC
1
9
0.100


11T
Independent
0
1
0.000


11T
MEAC
0
4
0.000


11T
SWAC
0
1
0.000


11T
WAC / ASUN-WAC
0
2
0.000


Total
ALL FCS Unseeded Playoffs
95
144
0.397




Very impressive Fubear !!

Since you clearly have this in a flat file of sorts and can pivot it. Do you have a field with each playoff opponent AND their conference listed ?

If so, can you pivot the results on all playoff game records against non-conference opponents ? So in 2016, my ISUr beat WIU .. combined, MVFC went 1-1, no matter who won. Would be nice to see playoff records net of games against your own conference.

[FUBeAR]

Very impressive Fubear !!

Since you clearly have this in a flat file of sorts and can pivot it. Do you have a field with each playoff opponent AND their conference listed ?

If so, can you pivot the results on all playoff game records against non-conference opponents ? So in 2016, my ISUr beat WIU .. combined, MVFC went 1-1, no matter who won. Would be nice to see playoff records net of games against your own conference.
No - that's out of scope for what FUBeAR has...

1) Not a pivot table guy - have used them - never really 'took' with FUBeAR - (simple) Filter guy instead...yes, understand pivots are more powerful. Jets are more powerful than bicycles, but less useful if you don't like to fly 'em

2) Didn't include all games/opponents in database - just...
* Playoff Team
* year
* Conference
* Seed
* Playoff advancement level (which readily yields # of games won/lost)

No info on opponents and scores in current database - could add it (207 games - about 828 data points w/scores included) - might - maybe this weekend - maybe not...

Sorry.

[ElCid]

I also agree that there is a big advantage given to seeded teams, but I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. I think it adds more value to the regular season, and I think teams should be rewarded for doing well.


But if you just ask the question, what are the playoffs designed to ultimately do? Is rewarding a team a goal? I totally get this viewpoint, but if your goal is to determine the best team, does seeding and the home field advantage contribute to that? This has always been a pet peeve of mine.

Using the regular season, where playoff teams mostly play entirely different teams makes any comparison primarily subjective. Get it wrong and you are giving, or withholding advantages. Advantages that may very well give a team a victory they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. And all because the perception was that they had a more successful regular season. Flip every home and away game in last season's playoffs. Would the results be the same? Maybe. Maybe not.

With larger conferences, the real danger comes when teams luck out and have extremely favorable or weak conf schedules, but get bumped up in people's minds simply due to the reputation of better conference-mates. On the other end of the equation, this doesn't even touch on conf rivalries where a middling team can take down a conf leader and it isn't unexpected. The regular conf season is sometimes a poor comparison when determining seeds. And people don't take the time to drill down and evaluate a teams schedule and results. So ultimately, since deciding the seeds "can" be influenced by subjective perceptions, we are giving advantages that may be not truly warranted.

I just wince every time I think, team X had an outstanding season as part of conf A, so let's stack the deck even more and give them home field advantage throughout the playoffs. All that said, there isn't a better workable method. So I know I'm wasting my breath.

[Preferred Walk-On]

But if you just ask the question, what are the playoffs designed to ultimately do? Is rewarding a team a goal? I totally get this viewpoint, but if your goal is to determine the best team, does seeding and the home field advantage contribute to that? This has always been a pet peeve of mine.

Using the regular season, where playoff teams mostly play entirely different teams makes any comparison primarily subjective. Get it wrong and you are giving, or withholding advantages. Advantages that may very well give a team a victory they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. And all because the perception was that they had a more successful regular season. Flip every home and away game in last season's playoffs. Would the results be the same? Maybe. Maybe not.

With larger conferences, the real danger comes when teams luck out and have extremely favorable or weak conf schedules, but get bumped up in people's minds simply due to the reputation of better conference-mates. On the other end of the equation, this doesn't even touch on conf rivalries where a middling team can take down a conf leader and it isn't unexpected. The regular conf season is sometimes a poor comparison when determining seeds. And people don't take the time to drill down and evaluate a teams schedule and results. So ultimately, since deciding the seeds "can" be influenced by subjective perceptions, we are giving advantages that may be not truly warranted.

I just wince every time I think, team X had an outstanding season as part of conf A, so let's stack the deck even more and give them home field advantage throughout the playoffs. All that said, there isn't a better workable method. So I know I'm wasting my breath.

El Cid, you beat me to this, to some extent.

While I don't disagree with FUBeAR in that there are obvious apparent advantages for the seeds (home games, no travel, same time zone, stadium noise, etc.), the questions I propose are two-fold. "Why were these teams seeded in the first place?" AND "Isn't the W/L you show simply reflective of those seeds actually being better teams, and hence deserving of seeds?". Oh, and maybe a third question is, "Doesn't your data potentially justify the seeds to and exonerate the committee to some extent?". (And did I use "exonerate" correctly? - seems to have lots of meanings these days)

The only way to make the determination that it is the "advantages" awarded (fairly or not) and not the fact that those teams are simply better, would be for every playoff game to be on a neutral field. You don't have that, AND therefore, this cannot be included that into your data (it doesn't exist). Therefore, there is some (lots of?) doubt about interpretation. It is a lot like the fact that the average temperature globally is rising (it has been measured); it is the interpretation of that fact that is open for discussion and debate. I think your interpretation of the results may be lacking at least a little bit in really considering (or at least acknowledging) the alternative (simply better teams) as a possibility.

I am a data guy (I am a scientist for f***'s sake). But all the data says is that seeded teams do better...period. It does not say, nor can anyone say that this demonstrates that it is due to those teams having advantages and not simply because they are the better teams. Is playoff seeding fair? That is a judgement call, since there is no way, at all, to judge how teams from one conference stack up against another until they play. The "better" systems proposed elsewhere all have their advantages AND disadvantages, and it is entirely subjective as to why one thinks one is better.

Ultimately, we will never know if seeded teams won because of advantages or because of talent/execution, but I appreciate you delving into and presenting the data (which is interesting).

Just as an aside, your data did confirm what most people already knew, which is #4 seeds are often ripe for the picking. They seem kind of like the FCS version of a #5-#12 matchup in March Madness. ;)

[ElCid]

El Cid, you beat me to this, to some extent.

While I don't disagree with FUBeAR in that there are obvious apparent advantages for the seeds (home games, no travel, same time zone, stadium noise, etc.), the questions I propose are two-fold. "Why were these teams seeded in the first place?" AND "Isn't the W/L you show simply reflective of those seeds actually being better teams, and hence deserving of seeds?". Oh, and maybe a third question is, "Doesn't your data potentially justify the seeds to and exonerate the committee to some extent?". (And did I use "exonerate" correctly? - seems to have lots of meanings these days)

The only way to make the determination that it is the "advantages" awarded (fairly or not) and not the fact that those teams are simply better, would be for every playoff game to be on a neutral field. You don't have that, AND therefore, this cannot be included that into your data (it doesn't exist). Therefore, there is some (lots of?) doubt about interpretation. It is a lot like the fact that the average temperature globally is rising (it has been measured); it is the interpretation of that fact that is open for discussion and debate. I think your interpretation of the results may be lacking at least a little bit in really considering (or at least acknowledging) the alternative (simply better teams) as a possibility.

I am a data guy (I am a scientist for f***'s sake). But all the data says is that seeded teams do better...period. It does not say, nor can anyone say that this demonstrates that it is due to those teams having advantages and not simply because they are the better teams. Is playoff seeding fair? That is a judgement call, since there is no way, at all, to judge how teams from one conference stack up against another until they play. The "better" systems proposed elsewhere all have their advantages AND disadvantages, and it is entirely subjective as to why one thinks one is better.

Ultimately, we will never know if seeded teams won because of advantages or because of talent/execution, but I appreciate you delving into and presenting the data (which is interesting).

Just as an aside, your data did confirm what most people already knew, which is #4 seeds are often ripe for the picking. They seem kind of like the FCS version of a #5-#12 matchup in March Madness. ;)

Well, yeah, exactly. Nobody could prove otherwise in regard to home advantage and there is no better solution. My beef was just as a principle regarding seed advantage.

Looking at the Bball tournament, they are seeded but the venue is theoretically neutral. Some teams get a home field advantage obviously depending on the year. The #1 might start out with a gimme #16, but they may eventually have to play the #2 team at that same venue. They might get more revenue by being in more games, but they don't get any special advantage in regard to travel or home field even if they get an easy path initially.

Football is obviously different. Can't have a neutral field until the championship game, realistically. Seeding 16 appears to be as good of an idea as paying for home field advantage in round 1. But seeding in general, when it comes to the FCS playoffs gives the higher seed a definite advantage. It's just unknown what the extent is.

The one thing I really like with seeding 16 is the recurring geographic pairings might get blown up. That is good idea. I just hope that seeding isn't magically influenced by the regions of borderline seeded teams. You know, a team should be seeded at 15 or 16 and they don't get seeded simply so they can play a team which is closer in regard to travel. I'll be watching for that. It's subjective, but I think it will be obvious.

[FUBeAR]

El Cid, you beat me to this, to some extent.

While I don't disagree with FUBeAR in that there are obvious apparent advantages for the seeds (home games, no travel, same time zone, stadium noise, etc.), the questions I propose are two-fold. "Why were these teams seeded in the first place?" AND "Isn't the W/L you show simply reflective of those seeds actually being better teams, and hence deserving of seeds?". Oh, and maybe a third question is, "Doesn't your data potentially justify the seeds to and exonerate the committee to some extent?". (And did I use "exonerate" correctly? - seems to have lots of meanings these days)

The only way to make the determination that it is the "advantages" awarded (fairly or not) and not the fact that those teams are simply better, would be for every playoff game to be on a neutral field. You don't have that, AND therefore, this cannot be included that into your data (it doesn't exist). Therefore, there is some (lots of?) doubt about interpretation. It is a lot like the fact that the average temperature globally is rising (it has been measured); it is the interpretation of that fact that is open for discussion and debate. I think your interpretation of the results may be lacking at least a little bit in really considering (or at least acknowledging) the alternative (simply better teams) as a possibility.

I am a data guy (I am a scientist for f***'s sake). But all the data says is that seeded teams do better...period. It does not say, nor can anyone say that this demonstrates that it is due to those teams having advantages and not simply because they are the better teams. Is playoff seeding fair? That is a judgement call, since there is no way, at all, to judge how teams from one conference stack up against another until they play. The "better" systems proposed elsewhere all have their advantages AND disadvantages, and it is entirely subjective as to why one thinks one is better.

Ultimately, we will never know if seeded teams won because of advantages or because of talent/execution, but I appreciate you delving into and presenting the data (which is interesting).

Just as an aside, your data did confirm what most people already knew, which is #4 seeds are often ripe for the picking. They seem kind of like the FCS version of a #5-#12 matchup in March Madness. ;)
We seem to struggle with shades of gray (hey - that might make a cool book/movie title)

Let's try this - FUBeAR interviews his own self (responding in 1st person - cuz, y'know...self-interview...it's math...like a reciprocal or something)...

1) Should FCS Playoffs use some Seeding methodology? - Sure, that's fine. Not sure that it's entirely necessary or 'better,' but peeps seem to like some type of seeding and with the number of the Teams in the mix and multiple Teams from the same conference, yeah...we should probably have some seeding with 24 Teams from 11ish conferences...even though we don't really have enough regular-season inter-conference play to validate the conference strength calculus that goes into these mostly subjective decisions. Most of that data (or 'sense') is derived from Playoff results where advantages built-in by prior seeding (see below) is already 'baked-in,' i.e., self-fulfilling....

I told these 2 guys I know to fight each other. I gave the guy I rated higher a gun and I gave the other guy a knife. The guy with the gun absolutely killed the guy with the knife. See, I had them rated PERFECTLY, didn't I?

Regular season interconference matchups with a sufficient number of home and away data points is the only way to get 'good data' to drive these calculations...but I digress...

2) Is the current Seeding methodology perfect?
https://media.tenor.com/xZuzfC-tYSAAAAAM/james-harden-eye-roll.gif

3) What's not perfect, FUBeAR?

Let me answer it for you this way, FUBeAR...

We have a lot of data what shows seeded Teams are FAR MORE successful in the Playoffs (under the current structure) than unseeded Teams, don't we? Well, FUBeAR, let me ask you this...

Has the Committee (which will NEVER be EXONERATED) proven over the past 9-10 years that they are just THAT GOOD at SUBJECTIVELY ranking the seeds, at knowing, for example, that their 8th seed is just far superior to almost any of the other 16 unseeded Teams?

OR

Has the Committee (which will NEVER be EXONERATED) proven over the past 9-10 years that IF College Football Teams can....

1) get a week to rest and heal up at the end of a long, hard regular season AND

2) those same Teams can get to...
a. play at Home after their week of rest, where they are very comfortable AND
b. often, in December, in game 'environments' which can be particularly hostile and/or problematic to visiting Teams unfamiliar with playing in such environments AND
c. face an opponent that not only didn't have a week of rest, but may have been engaged in a 'WAR' of a Football game...perhaps on the road...and perhaps in a hostile / problematic environment

3) face competition in the 1st game after the week of rest that is somewhat to considerably subpar in comparison to the competition their next/future opponent/s may have faced

...then those college Football Teams have a pretty good chance of winning more Playoff games?


Now, I'm gonna answer my own question for you, FUBeAR. I am sure that it AIN'T the 1st option. The Committee may have done OK and they may have gotten a few things right, much akin to the proverbial blind squirrel...and there's some 'built-in gimmes' that skew things to make them look good (NEC, PFL, MEAC...usually) data-wise, but when I look at the treasure-trove of riches (advantages) that are subjectively handed to Seeded, particularly highly Seeded Teams, and ... I really hate to say this 'play this card', but I have Played and Coached the game at the FCS level ... it's just too, too much.

Eliminate the bye week - go to 16 or 32 Teams to make that happen, if necessary. That's the biggest thing. Play the Semi's at neutral sites (I have a plan how we can do this profitably). And, if we can't do those things, re-jigger the brackets non-traditionally - instead of 1-8 / 5-4 / 3-6 / 2-7 'chalk' in the quarterfinals...make it work out to 1-3 / 2-4 / 5-7 / 6-8 or similar - know y'all will hate that one, but, remember, it's too much - alternative is for Seeds to play on the road after their Off week - sound good? I know it doesn't...but, remember, currently, it's too much. Or do all of just 1 of these things.

If you don't think it's too much (which FUBeAR knows most of you don't), none of these 'solutions' will appeal to you...because, by definition, you don't need a solution....cuz you don't have a problem.

FUBeAR (out of interview now) thinks the Advantages subjectively GIFTED to Seeds, particularly higher seeds is TOO MUCH....already mentioned that a time or 3, didn't he?

[ElCid]

We seem to struggle with shades of gray (hey - that might make a cool book/movie title)

Let's try this - FUBeAR interviews his own self (responding in 1st person - cuz, y'know...self-interview...it's math...like a reciprocal or something)...

1) Should FCS Playoffs use some Seeding methodology? - Sure, that's fine. Not sure that it's entirely necessary or 'better,' but peeps seem to like some type of seeding and with the number of the Teams in the mix and multiple Teams from the same conference, yeah...we should probably have some seeding with 24 Teams from 11ish conferences...even though we don't really have enough regular-season inter-conference play to validate the conference strength calculus that goes into these mostly subjective decisions. Most of that data (or 'sense') is derived from Playoff results where advantages built-in by prior seeding (see below) is already 'baked-in,' i.e., self-fulfilling....

I told these 2 guys I know to fight each other. I gave the guy I rated higher a gun and I gave the other guy a knife. The guy with the gun absolutely killed the guy with the knife. See, I had them rated PERFECTLY, didn't I?

Regular season interconference matchups with a sufficient number of home and away data points is the only way to get 'good data' to drive these calculations...but I digress...

2) Is the current Seeding methodology perfect?
https://media.tenor.com/xZuzfC-tYSAAAAAM/james-harden-eye-roll.gif

3) What's not perfect, FUBeAR?

Let me answer it for you this way, FUBeAR...

We have a lot of data what shows seeded Teams are FAR MORE successful in the Playoffs (under the current structure) than unseeded Teams, don't we? Well, FUBeAR, let me ask you this...

Has the Committee (which will NEVER be EXONERATED) proven over the past 9-10 years that they are just THAT GOOD at SUBJECTIVELY ranking the seeds, at knowing, for example, that their 8th seed is just far superior to almost any of the other 16 unseeded Teams?

OR

Has the Committee (which will NEVER be EXONERATED) proven over the past 9-10 years that IF College Football Teams can....

1) get a week to rest and heal up at the end of a long, hard regular season AND

2) those same Teams can get to...
a. play at Home after their week of rest, where they are very comfortable AND
b. often, in December, in game 'environments' which can be particularly hostile and/or problematic to visiting Teams unfamiliar with playing in such environments AND
c. face an opponent that not only didn't have a week of rest, but may have been engaged in a 'WAR' of a Football game...perhaps on the road...and perhaps in a hostile / problematic environment

3) face competition in the 1st game after the week of rest that is somewhat to considerably subpar in comparison to the competition their next/future opponent/s may have faced

...then those college Football Teams have a pretty good chance of winning more Playoff games?


Now, I'm gonna answer my own question for you, FUBeAR. I am sure that it AIN'T the 1st option. The Committee may have done OK and they may have gotten a few things right, much akin to the proverbial blind squirrel...and there's some 'built-in gimmes' that skew things to make them look good (NEC, PFL, MEAC...usually) data-wise, but when I look at the treasure-trove of riches (advantages) that are subjectively handed to Seeded, particularly highly Seeded Teams, and ... I really hate to say this 'play this card', but I have Played and Coached the game at the FCS level ... it's just too, too much.

Eliminate the bye week - go to 16 or 32 Teams to make that happen, if necessary. That's the biggest thing. Play the Semi's at neutral sites (I have a plan how we can do this profitably). And, if we can't do those things, re-jigger the brackets non-traditionally - instead of 1-8 / 5-4 / 3-6 / 2-7 'chalk' in the quarterfinals...make it work out to 1-3 / 2-4 / 5-7 / 6-8 or similar - know y'all will hate that one, but, remember, it's too much - alternative is for Seeds to play on the road after their Off week - sound good? I know it doesn't...but, remember, currently, it's too much. Or do all of just 1 of these things.

If you don't think it's too much (which FUBeAR knows most of you don't), none of these 'solutions' will appeal to you...because, by definition, you don't need a solution....cuz you don't have a problem.

FUBeAR (out of interview now) thinks the Advantages subjectively GIFTED to Seeds, particularly higher seeds is TOO MUCH....already mentioned that a time or 3, didn't he?

.......Yeah.

[FUBeAR]

Very impressive Fubear !!

Since you clearly have this in a flat file of sorts and can pivot it. Do you have a field with each playoff opponent AND their conference listed ?

If so, can you pivot the results on all playoff game records against non-conference opponents ? So in 2016, ISUr beat WIU .. combined, MVFC went 1-1, no matter who won. Would be nice to see playoff records net of games against your own conference.

I think this answers your question...for the MVFC (plus a little bonus analysis FUBeAR thought y'all would like). Pulling this together for other Conferences may be interesting. Since FUBeAR Filters instead of Pivots...it takes a bit of an effort. I do have all games / scores / Home/Away info in the DB now...



Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


MVFC
ALL
68
29
0.701


MVFC
ALL except MVFC
55
16
0.775









MVFC
Big South
4
0
1.000


MVFC
NEC
1
0
1.000


MVFC
Patriot League
2
0
1.000


MVFC
PFL
4
0
1.000


MVFC
SoCon
6
1
0.857


MVFC
OVC
5
1
0.833


MVFC
Southland
8
2
0.800


MVFC
CAA
11
5
0.688


MVFC
Big Sky
14
7
0.667
















Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


MVFC less NDSU
ALL
34
20
0.630


MVFC less NDSU
ALL except MVFC
29
15
0.659









MVFC less NDSU
Big South
2
0
1.000


MVFC less NDSU
NEC
1
0
1.000


MVFC less NDSU
Patriot League
1
0
1.000


MVFC less NDSU
PFL
2
0
1.000


MVFC less NDSU
OVC
4
1
0.800


MVFC less NDSU
SoCon
2
1
0.667


MVFC less NDSU
Southland
4
2
0.667


MVFC less NDSU
CAA
5
4
0.556


MVFC less NDSU
Big Sky
8
7
0.533



EDIT - ADDED Big Sky below - Unlike the Playoff Committee's subjective opinions, FUBeAR's study of the data renders him rather unimpressed with the Big Sky's Playoff results, particularly in light of the huge advantages this conference has received in those subjective Seeding decisions. Good Lord, if the Big Sky Teams hadn't had those 5 matchups against Unseeded OVC Teams, they would have lost over 60% of their Playoff games...with ALL them Seeds xconfusedx (See below)

EDIT2 - ADDED Big Sky w/o EWU below. Not good.



Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


Big Sky
ALL
30
35
0.462


Big Sky
ALL less Big Sky
24
29
0.453









Big Sky
WAC
1
0
1.000


Big Sky
OVC
5
1
0.833


Big Sky
Big South
1
1
0.500


Big Sky
Southland
4
4
0.500


Big Sky
CAA
5
6
0.455


Big Sky
MVFC
7
14
0.333


Big Sky
PFL
1
2
0.333


Big Sky
SoCon
0
1
0.000





Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


Big Sky-EWU
ALL-EWU
20
28
0.417


Big Sky-EWU
ALL-Big Sky-EWU
17
25
0.405









Big Sky-EWU
WAC
1
0
1.000


Big Sky-EWU
OVC
4
1
0.800


Big Sky-EWU
Big South
1
1
0.500


Big Sky-EWU
CAA
3
5
0.375


Big Sky-EWU
PFL
1
2
0.333


Big Sky-EWU
Southland
2
4
0.333


Big Sky-EWU
MVFC
5
11
0.313


Big Sky-EWU
SoCon
0
1
0.000

[caribbeanhen]

Now I'm a jet fuel genius
I can solve the world's problems
Without even trying
I've got dozens of friends, and the fun never ends
That is as long as I'm buying

Too much time on my hands

[FUBeAR]

Now I'm a jet fuel genius
I can solve the world's problems
Without even trying
I've got dozens of friends, and the fun never ends
That is as long as I'm buying

Too much time on my hands

Oh yeah, Mr. Tommy Shaw from Montgomery, AL? Oh yeah?

Well...how 'bout this?



W-L by Seed





Rank
Seed
W
L
%


1
1
27
6
0.818


2
2
21
6
0.778


3
3
16
8
0.667


4T
5
12
9
0.571


4T
7
12
9
0.571


6
4
9
8
0.529


7
8
8
9
0.471


8
6
7
9
0.438


9
Uns
95
143
0.399



All
207
207
0.500



You'll never look at the #7 Seed the same again, will you?

[caribbeanhen]

Oh yeah, Mr. Tommy Shaw from Montgomery, AL? Oh yeah?

Well...how 'bout this?



W-L by Seed





Rank
Seed
W
L
%


1
1
27
6
0.818


2
2
21
6
0.778


3
3
16
8
0.667


4T
5
12
9
0.571


4T
7
12
9
0.571


6
4
9
8
0.529


7
8
8
9
0.471


8
6
7
9
0.438


9
Uns
95
143
0.399



All
207
207
0.500



You'll never look at the #7 Seed the same again, will you?

Lucky 7 ?

[Redbird 4th & short]

I think this answers your question...for the MVFC (plus a little bonus analysis FUBeAR thought y'all would like). Pulling this together for other Conferences may be interesting. Since FUBeAR Filters instead of Pivots...it takes a bit of an effort. I do have all games / scores / Home/Away info in the DB now...



Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


MVFC
ALL
68
29
0.701


MVFC
ALL except MVFC
55
16
0.775
















Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


MVFC less NDSU
ALL
34
20
0.630


MVFC less NDSU
ALL except MVFC
29
15
0.659









MVFC less NDSU
Big South
2
0
1.000


MVFC less NDSU
NEC
1
0
1.000


MVFC less NDSU
Patriot League
1
0
1.000


MVFC less NDSU
PFL
2
0
1.000


MVFC less NDSU
OVC
4
1
0.800


MVFC less NDSU
SoCon
2
1
0.667


MVFC less NDSU
Southland
4
2
0.667


MVFC less NDSU
CAA
5
4
0.556


MVFC less NDSU
Big Sky
8
7
0.533



EDIT - ADDED Big Sky below -



Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


Big Sky
ALL
30
35
0.462


Big Sky
ALL less Big Sky
24
29
0.453









Big Sky
WAC
1
0
1.000


Big Sky
OVC
5
1
0.833


Big Sky
Big South
1
1
0.500


Big Sky
Southland
4
4
0.500


Big Sky
CAA
5
6
0.455


Big Sky
MVFC
7
14
0.333


Big Sky
PFL
1
2
0.333


Big Sky
SoCon
0
1
0.000




Great stuff .. and agree with your comment on Big Sky when looking at this over 10 years, or even since 2010 say. But in last 4 or 5 years, I believe Big Sky is the most improved conference and more in par with MVFC.

Can you do same pivots with Colonial ?

Ive done similar stuff but was too lazy to create full flat file. It get's real interesting (for MVFC fans anyway), when you look the big 4 conferences in similar ways:

- MVFC incl and excl NDSU
- Big Sky incl and excl EWU .. back when the were the only perenially strong team, not so anymore
- Colonial incl and excl either JMU or UNH or both. Though if you did this for Colonial for the 2000-2009 era, they would completely dominate.
- Southland incl or excl SHSU .. back when they used to make runs more often

What the data should show is how strong the MVFC has been since 2013 or even 2010 even when excl NDSU's 95% win rate in playoffs. I knew the MVFC playoff record (since 2010) excl NDSU was close to a .650 win rate. For Colonial, I think the number is much closer to .500 no matter how you cut it incl or excl JMU and/or UNH. For Big Sky, I think the number falls to about .330 win rate excl EWU - though certainly higher now due to Big Sky's recent successes. Then Southland was closer to .250 win rate excl SHSU ... all removing same conference playoff games that will always be .500 for the conference.

By the way, I do think Southern has shown some recent improvement as well .. not like Big Sky, nor the good old days for Southern given programs lost to FBS .. but still improved over last few seasons, I think.

Would love to see Colonial splits though like above .. thanks, great stuff !!

p.s. couple other fields/dimensions would be inciteful as well .. 5 vs 10 year, home vs away games, and autobids vs at large bids .. particularly auto bids from traditionally weak conferences, who might not ever have received an at large. Just some food for thought, since you've already built a nice flat file and pivot table of sorts.

[FUBeAR]

Great stuff .. and agree with your comment on Big Sky when looking at this over 10 years, or even since 2010 say. But in last 4 or 5 years, I believe Big Sky is the most improved conference and more in par with MVFC.

Can you do same pivots with Colonial ?

Ive done similar stuff but was too lazy to create full flat file. It get's real interesting (for MVFC fans anyway), when you look the big 4 conferences in similar ways:

- MVFC incl and excl NDSU
- Big Sky incl and excl EWU .. back when the were the only perenially strong team, not so anymore - FUBeAR NOTE: Added the requested w/o EWU data for the Big Sky to the prior post which showed all of the Big Sky data
- Colonial incl and excl either JMU or UNH or both. Though if you did this for Colonial for the 2000-2009 era, they would completely dominate.
- Southland incl or excl SHSU .. back when they used to make runs more often

What the data should show is how strong the MVFC has been since 2013 or even 2010 even when excl NDSU's 95% win rate in playoffs. I knew the MVFC playoff record (since 2010) excl NDSU was close to a .650 win rate. For Colonial, I think the number is much closer to .500 no matter how you cut it incl or excl JMU and/or UNH. For Big Sky, I think the number falls to about .330 win rate excl EWU - though certainly higher now due to Big Sky's recent successes. Then Southland was closer to .250 win rate excl SHSU ... all removing same conference playoff games that will always be .500 for the conference.

By the way, I do think Southern has shown some recent improvement as well .. not like Big Sky, nor the good old days for Southern given programs lost to FBS .. but still improved over last few seasons, I think.

Would love to see Colonial splits though like above .. thanks, great stuff !!

p.s. couple other fields/dimensions would be inciteful as well .. 5 vs 10 year, home vs away games, and autobids vs at large bids .. particularly auto bids from traditionally weak conferences, who might not ever have received an at large. Just some food for thought, since you've already built a nice flat file and pivot table of sorts.

Here's the CAA data requested.

The Colonials just don't seem to fare very well against what FUBeAR (based on the data) would call "the Big 2 Conferences" - the MVFC and the SoCon...we'll let the CAA in if we want to go with the Big 3...and the Big Sky (perhaps) if we're doing "Big 4"...but need to drill down on Southland data to be sure. They may be better than Big Sky. Never really thought of them in the Top 4...as you did in your (shockingly omissive) determination of your Big 4.

On the other hand, the CAA bunch has been amazing at running up their Winning % by defeating "Playoff Teams" from the MEAC, the NEC, the PFL, and the Patriot League (particularly with JMU removed...the Dukes had some kind of mental problem playing the Patriot League Teams...maybe Jimmy M. haunted them from the grave for trying to defeat "Patriots").




Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


CAA
ALL
41
34
0.547


CAA
ALL-CAA
36
29
0.554









CAA
MEAC
2
0
1.000


CAA
PFL
1
0
1.000


CAA
NEC
5
1
0.833


CAA
OVC
2
1
0.667


CAA
Southland
4
2
0.667


CAA
Patriot League
7
4
0.636


CAA
Big South
3
2
0.600


CAA
Big Sky
6
5
0.545


CAA
MVFC
5
11
0.313


CAA
SoCon
1
3
0.250









Conf1
Conf2


Win %


CAA-JMU
ALL
28
25
0.528


CAA-JMU
ALL-CAA-JMU
26
25
0.510









CAA-JMU
MEAC
2
0
1.000


CAA-JMU
PFL
1
0
1.000


CAA-JMU
NEC
5
1
0.833


CAA-JMU
Patriot League
7
2
0.778


CAA-JMU
Big South
2
1
0.667


CAA-JMU
OVC
2
1
0.667


CAA-JMU
Southland
2
2
0.500


CAA-JMU
Big Sky
3
5
0.375


CAA-JMU
SoCon
1
3
0.250


CAA-JMU
MVFC
1
8
0.111




EDIT: ADDED SOUTHLAND INFO with and without SHSU

Not great ... and REALLY NOT GREAT without SHSU. But it is a much smaller sample size without the BearKats results.


Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


Southland
ALL
20
23
0.465


Southland
ALL-Southland
17
20
0.459









Southland
Big South
1
0
1.000


Southland
Independent
1
0
1.000


Southland
MEAC
1
0
1.000


Southland
Patriot League
1
0
1.000


Southland
PFL
1
0
1.000


Southland
SoCon
2
1
0.667


Southland
Big Sky
4
4
0.500


Southland
WAC
1
1
0.500


Southland
CAA
2
4
0.333


Southland
OVC
1
2
0.333


Southland
MVFC
2
8
0.200









Conf1
Conf2


Win %


Southland-SHSU
ALL-SHSU
10
15
0.400


Southland-SHSU
ALL-Southland-SHSU
9
15
0.375









Southland-SHSU
Independent
1
0
1.000


Southland-SHSU
MEAC
1
0
1.000


Southland-SHSU
PFL
1
0
1.000


Southland-SHSU
WAC
1
0
1.000


Southland-SHSU
SoCon
1
1
0.500


Southland-SHSU
Big Sky
2
4
0.333


Southland-SHSU
CAA
1
3
0.250


Southland-SHSU
MVFC
1
6
0.143


Southland-SHSU
OVC
0
1
0.000





And here's some partial 'rough' Home and Away data compiled.

Think there is more to learn from this with some additional analysis; just haven't done it yet.

Even in the 'rough state,' FUBeAR's thinks it does support his contention that Home Field Advantage, along with the other HUGE advantage of a week to rest and heal while the post-week opponent is slugging it out with another Playoff Team, is just too much to subjectively GIFT to seeded teams in light of the paucity of regular season, home & away, inter-conference data we (the goofball committee actually) can analyze to gain TRUE Strength of Schedule data. The data we currently have/use for these measures is 'self-fulfilling' / circular reference error-ridden.



‘Group’
H-W
‘Group’
A-W
Home Winning %


All Home Wins
149
All Away Wins
49
0.753


(seems high to FUBeAR ... just sayin' - Are we looking for the best Team or are we looking for the Team that plays the best at Home

FBS Home Teams ‘01-‘11 won at 0.628 rate…FCS Home Playoff wins are 20% higher than that metric. That’s a BIG skew.)



Rd1 Home Wins
54
Rd1 Away Wins
18
0.750


This metric is really screwy. Should, theoretically, be closer to that 0.628 rate (above). Thought that PFL, NEC, MEAC et al Teams that almost never win and have never ‘bought’ a Home game skewed this metric, but it’s still 0.725 with those Conferences removed. Probably goes to Teams having a pretty good idea they are going to win being willing to spend more to win that Playoff game in front of the Home crowd before having a 76.4% (see below) chance of losing on the road the following week.



Rd2 #8 Home Wins
6
Rd2 Uns Away Wins
3
0.667


Rd 2 Seeds Home Wins
55
Rd Uns Away Wins
17
0.764


#1 Seeds Home Wins
23
#4 Seeds Home Loss
3
0.885


#2 Seeds Home Wins
21
#4 Seeds Home Loss
5
0.808


#3 Seeds Home Wins
15
#4 Seeds Home Loss
4
0.790


#4 Seeds Home Wins
7
#4 Seeds Home Loss
7
0.500

[SteelSD]

So what appears to be completely backed up by FUBeAR’s own data analysis we can confirm that Furman wasn’t actually better than Elon. The victory was purely a result of Furman being unfairly “gifted” a home game. I mean we can’t expect teams to go on the road and win in the playoffs after all, the data confirms this. Had that game been at Elon it’s quite clear they would have beaten Furman. The data is pretty clear on this.

[caribbeanhen]

So what appears to be completely backed up by FUBeAR’s own data analysis we can confirm that Furman wasn’t actually better than Elon. The victory was purely a result of Furman being unfairly “gifted” a home game. I mean we can’t expect teams to go on the road and win in the playoffs after all, the data confirms this. Had that game been at Elon it’s quite clear they would have beaten Furman. The data is pretty clear on this.

Nice try but if you had actually watched the Furman Elon game you would see how Elon was dominated

[FUBeAR]

Nice try but if you had actually watched the Furman Elon game you would see how Elon was dominated
LOL - Yeah, FUBeAR doesn't see SteelSD's foolishness....but since you quoted...

1) 1st round Home Games aren't “gifted” (subjectively determined), as are almost all later round home games. 1st round home games are, essentially, purchased by the home Team...usually. No impact if “gifted” or “purchased,” from an 'advantage value' perspective; just providing accurate information for readers.

2) The Home Game Advantage is just part of a rich tableau of advantages, as previously noted, subjectively gifted to Seeded Teams, particularly beneficial to more highly seeded Teams.

3) 1st round Home Games carry less of an advantage than later rounds Home Games for several obvious reasons - obvious to anyone with any measure of insight and awareness

4) None of these cited advantages, taken singly, nor as a whole, are dispositive of a specific outcome for a specific event. To even imply such just demonstrates a significant lack of awareness and/or insight OR a significant degree of asininity. FUBeAR suspects more of the latter in this case, but, as always, he could be wrong.

[Redbird 4th & short]

Here's the CAA data requested.

The Colonials just don't seem to fare very well against what FUBeAR (based on the data) would call "the Big 2 Conferences" - the MVFC and the SoCon...we'll let the CAA in if we want to go with the Big 3...and the Big Sky (perhaps) if we're doing "Big 4"...but need to drill down on Southland data to be sure. They may be better than Big Sky. Never really thought of them in the Top 4...as you did in your (shockingly omissive) determination of your Big 4.

On the other hand, the CAA bunch has been amazing at running up their Winning % by defeating "Playoff Teams" from the MEAC, the NEC, the PFL, and the Patriot League (particularly with JMU removed...the Dukes had some kind of mental problem playing the Patriot League Teams...maybe Jimmy M. haunted them from the grave for trying to defeat "Patriots").




Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


CAA
ALL
41
34
0.547


CAA
ALL-CAA
36
29
0.554









CAA
MEAC
2
0
1.000


CAA
PFL
1
0
1.000


CAA
NEC
5
1
0.833


CAA
OVC
2
1
0.667


CAA
Southland
4
2
0.667


CAA
Patriot League
7
4
0.636


CAA
Big South
3
2
0.600


CAA
Big Sky
6
5
0.545


CAA
MVFC
5
11
0.313


CAA
SoCon
1
3
0.250









Conf1
Conf2


Win %


CAA-JMU
ALL
28
25
0.528


CAA-JMU
ALL-CAA-JMU
26
25
0.510









CAA-JMU
MEAC
2
0
1.000


CAA-JMU
PFL
1
0
1.000


CAA-JMU
NEC
5
1
0.833


CAA-JMU
Patriot League
7
2
0.778


CAA-JMU
Big South
2
1
0.667


CAA-JMU
OVC
2
1
0.667


CAA-JMU
Southland
2
2
0.500


CAA-JMU
Big Sky
3
5
0.375


CAA-JMU
SoCon
1
3
0.250


CAA-JMU
MVFC
1
8
0.111




EDIT: ADDED SOUTHLAND INFO with and without SHSU

Not great ... and REALLY NOT GREAT without SHSU. But it is a much smaller sample size without the BearKats results.


Conf1
Conf2
W
L
Win %


Southland
ALL
20
23
0.465


Southland
ALL-Southland
17
20
0.459









Southland
Big South
1
0
1.000


Southland
Independent
1
0
1.000


Southland
MEAC
1
0
1.000


Southland
Patriot League
1
0
1.000


Southland
PFL
1
0
1.000


Southland
SoCon
2
1
0.667


Southland
Big Sky
4
4
0.500


Southland
WAC
1
1
0.500


Southland
CAA
2
4
0.333


Southland
OVC
1
2
0.333


Southland
MVFC
2
8
0.200









Conf1
Conf2


Win %


Southland-SHSU
ALL-SHSU
10
15
0.400


Southland-SHSU
ALL-Southland-SHSU
9
15
0.375









Southland-SHSU
Independent
1
0
1.000


Southland-SHSU
MEAC
1
0
1.000


Southland-SHSU
PFL
1
0
1.000


Southland-SHSU
WAC
1
0
1.000


Southland-SHSU
SoCon
1
1
0.500


Southland-SHSU
Big Sky
2
4
0.333


Southland-SHSU
CAA
1
3
0.250


Southland-SHSU
MVFC
1
6
0.143


Southland-SHSU
OVC
0
1
0.000





And here's some partial 'rough' Home and Away data compiled.

Think there is more to learn from this with some additional analysis; just haven't done it yet.

Even in the 'rough state,' FUBeAR's thinks it does support his contention that Home Field Advantage, along with the other HUGE advantage of a week to rest and heal while the post-week opponent is slugging it out with another Playoff Team, is just too much to subjectively GIFT to seeded teams in light of the paucity of regular season, home & away, inter-conference data we (the goofball committee actually) can analyze to gain TRUE Strength of Schedule data. The data we currently have/use for these measures is 'self-fulfilling' / circular reference error-ridden.



‘Group’
H-W
‘Group’
A-W
Home Winning %


All Home Wins
149
All Away Wins
49
0.753


(seems high to FUBeAR ... just sayin' - Are we looking for the best Team or are we looking for the Team that plays the best at Home

FBS Home Teams ‘01-‘11 won at 0.628 rate…FCS Home Playoff wins are 20% higher than that metric. That’s a BIG skew.)



Rd1 Home Wins
54
Rd1 Away Wins
18
0.750


This metric is really screwy. Should, theoretically, be closer to that 0.628 rate (above). Thought that PFL, NEC, MEAC et al Teams that almost never win and have never ‘bought’ a Home game skewed this metric, but it’s still 0.725 with those Conferences removed. Probably goes to Teams having a pretty good idea they are going to win being willing to spend more to win that Playoff game in front of the Home crowd before having a 76.4% (see below) chance of losing on the road the following week.



Rd2 #8 Home Wins
6
Rd2 Uns Away Wins
3
0.667


Rd 2 Seeds Home Wins
55
Rd Uns Away Wins
17
0.764


#1 Seeds Home Wins
23
#4 Seeds Home Loss
3
0.885


#2 Seeds Home Wins
21
#4 Seeds Home Loss
5
0.808


#3 Seeds Home Wins
15
#4 Seeds Home Loss
4
0.790


#4 Seeds Home Wins
7
#4 Seeds Home Loss
7
0.500




thanks FuBear .. great stuff. Couple points:

- clarification on Home vs Road games - my question had more to do with comparing conferences playoff records incl and excl top team, while looking at how many home vs road games (i.e. % splits) ... that is, who had to travel more often and win tougher road playoff games vs easier home playoff games. Point being tied to your (and my) ovservation that Colonial's playoff record is padded with a lot of easy playin games at home against the weaker east coast autobid conferences. While in the midwest and west, the only weak autobid conference is Pioneer .. and MVFC, Big Sky, and Southland take turns getting paired against Pioneer. While Colonial get's to draw usually easy playin games against 3 weaker conferences: Patriot, NEC, Big South with just a few exceptions like KSU for a few years. It all speaks to SOS associated with the playoff records in generic terms .. more home games against weaker conferences (autobids) vs more road games against at large bids from good or great conferences.

- would have agreed with your not including Big Sky as a dominant conference 5+ years ago .. they had EWU, and after them, no consistently strong program. But it seems like around 2017, they turned the corner. And then especially 2018 .. they really stepped up since. And I would argue they are now a close 2nd to MVFC since 2018. And that the main difference is NDSU .. otherwise, they are now as competitive as MVFC IMO since 2018.

Anyways .. great stuff. Thanks for the data and insights.

[FUBeAR]

thanks FuBear .. great stuff. Couple points:

would have agreed with your not including Big Sky as a dominant conference 5+ years ago .. they had EWU, and after them, no consistently strong program. But it seems like around 2017, they turned the corner. And then especially 2018 .. they really stepped up since. And I would argue they are now a close 2nd to MVFC since 2018. And that the main difference is NDSU .. otherwise, they are now as competitive as MVFC IMO since 2018.

Anyways .. great stuff. Thanks for the data and insights.

Will go back and parse out recent years vs. back to 2013, but FUBeAR sure doesn’t see where the full data (see Post #139) supports the Big Sky being a top conference, particularly in light of the relative number of seeds the conference has been subjectively gifted.

Looks like playing a lot of games against OVC Teams has been the only saving grace keeping the Big Sky from having a HORRIBLE Playoff record (.351 overall without EWU & without OVC games). They even have a losing record vs. the PFL.

EDIT - Parsed data by year 'grouping' below - what FUBeAR sees is that the 2018 Playoffs were an anomaly for the Big Sky and it was also the 1st year they ever rec'd 3 Seeds. Perhaps that tells us more about the advantage of being gifted with subjective seeds than it does about the strength of the conference. And, it seems that the Committee continued has continued since 2018 to gift the Big Sky with numerous and high seeds, but the Playoff performance sunk back to, actually, below pre-2018 levels after that 1 solid year. That's what FUBeAR sees in the data. Others may have different interpretations, of course...




Seeds
W
L
Winning %


Big Sky '17-22
13
23
21
0.523


Big Sky-Big Sky '17-'22

18
16
0.529


Big Sky-Big Sky-EWU '17-'22
12
15
15
0.500









Big Sky '18-22
12
21
18
0.538


Big Sky-Big Sky '18-'22

17
14
0.548


Big Sky-Big Sky-EWU '18-'22
11
14
13
0.519









Big Sky '19-22
9
15
14
0.517


Big Sky-Big Sky '19-'22

12
11
0.522


Big Sky-Big Sky-EWU '19-'22
9
11
11
0.500









Big Sky '21-22
5
10
10
0.500


Big Sky-Big Sky '21-'22

8
8
0.500


Big Sky-Big Sky-EWU '21-'22
5
7
8
0.467





Year
Seed
Team


2022
2
Sacramento State


2022
4
Montana State







2021
4
Sacramento State


2021
6
Montana


2021
8
Montana State







2019
3
Weber State


2019
4
Sacramento State


2019
5
Montana State


2019
6
Montana







2018
2
Weber State


2018
3
Eastern Washington


2018
6
UC Davis







2017
8
Southern Utah







2016
2
Eastern Washington







2015
6
Portland State







2014
4
Eastern Washington







2013
3
Eastern Washington


2013
8
Montana

[caribbeanhen]

Will go back and parse out recent years vs. back to 2013, but FUBeAR sure doesn’t see where the full data (see Post #139) supports the Big Sky being a top conference, particularly in light of the relative number of seeds the conference has been subjectively gifted.

Looks like playing a lot of games against OVC Teams has been the only saving grace keeping the Big Sky from having a HORRIBLE Playoff record. They even have a losing record vs. the PFL.

Generally agree but I do think The Fluffy has improved top to bottom a lil bit over the past few years

what has the Big Sky done in the past decade? Not much

[FUBeAR]

So…FUBeAR was just reading a post on Facebook and that started him thinking more about the idea of seeding 9-16 and what the impact would be … and thinking about it more, really for the 1st time, within the context of his thoughts that Seeds, particularly high Seeds, are already overly advantaged from receiving a subjective gift from the committee, and also thinking about it with the additional context of the data through which he has been grinding over the past week or so.

FUBeAR, from this cogitation, has derived that seeding 9-16 will only serve to make the primrose path subjectively gifted to seeds, particularly higher seeds, even more of a cakewalk (intentionally mixing metaphors there, in case anyone noticed)…

Yeah…Seeding and Bracketing, with no upsets, produces what FUBeAR believes is called a ‘chalk’ result…and the more Seeding / Bracketing that is determined subjectively by the Committee in advance, the further ‘chalk’ can be derived in the bracket. One could say the ‘goal’ of seeding 16 Teams is to produce 2nd round matchups that, ideally, match up 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, 4-13, 5-12, 6-11, 7-10, and 8-9....whereas not seeding 9-16 could give us 1-possibly 12, 2-possibly 9, 3-possibly 16, 4-possibly 10, 5-possibly 15...etc. So instead of at random(ishly) getting matchups that aren't the easiest for those subjectively deemed "the best"…now we want to give the Teams that the Committee subjectively feels are the best, particularly the higher seeded Teams 1) a week off, 2) a home game or 2...or 3, also 3) GUARANTEE most likely the easiest possible matchup - truly and definitively triple stacking the deck.

And, the “reward” for being ‘gifted’ the #16 seed is a home game that they very likely may have had anyway, and, if they win in Round 1, possibly a trip cross country into a possible horrible weather situation to play, most likely, the best Team in FCS …. whereas now the #8 seed could be within 50 miles of the #16 seed, in the same weather type, and, theoretically, not nearly as much of a challenge as playing the #1 seed.

If, for example, say I’m FAMU, and Montana State is the #1 Seed and Mercer is the #8 Seed, pretty sure I’d rather be unseeded and go play PFL Champ, (also) unseeded Stetson, on the road in Round 1 than be ‘rewarded’ with that #16 seed and a 1st round Home game vs. unseeded Stetson. Heading to Macon from Tallahassee to play #8 instead of to Bozeman in December to play #1 seems to make that Round 1 road game as an unseeded Team a whole helluva lot more attractive than what that #16 seed 'reward' brings to me, Right?

Yeah - just don’t see that adding to the already too large subjective gifts makes things better. Really should just go to a 4 Team Playoff in that case. Kinda seems like that’s the goal….Let’s give the 4 Teams that we THINK are the best so many advantages in the Playoffs that the odds exceed 90% those 4 Teams will advance to the Semi’s…then we say…”Look how well we did seeding these Teams. Ain’t we just the smartest!!!”

Dunno - maybe FUBeAR is missing something. Like he said 1st time he’s really given it much thought cuz he didn’t think it was gonna happen anyway … right again.

[atthewbon]

So…FUBeAR was just reading a post on Facebook and that started him thinking more about the idea of seeding 9-16 and what the impact would be … and thinking about it more, really for the 1st time, within the context of his thoughts that Seeds, particularly high Seeds, are already overly advantaged from receiving a subjective gift from the committee, and also thinking about it with the additional context of the data through which he has been grinding over the past week or so.

FUBeAR, from this cogitation, has derived that seeding 9-16 will only serve to make the primrose path subjectively gifted to seeds, particularly higher seeds, even more of a cakewalk (intentionally mixing metaphors there, in case anyone noticed)…

Yeah…Seeding and Bracketing, with no upsets, produces what FUBeAR believes is called a ‘chalk’ result…and the more Seeding / Bracketing that is determined subjectively by the Committee in advance, the further ‘chalk’ can be derived in the bracket. One could say the ‘goal’ of seeding 16 Teams is to produce 2nd round matchups that, ideally, match up 1-16, 2-15, 3-14, 4-13, 5-12, 6-11, 7-10, and 8-9....whereas not seeding 9-16 could give us 1-possibly 12, 2-possibly 9, 3-possibly 16, 4-possibly 10, 5-possibly 15...etc. So instead of at random(ishly) getting matchups that aren't the easiest for those subjectively deemed "the best"…now we want to give the Teams that the Committee subjectively feels are the best, particularly the higher seeded Teams 1) a week off, 2) a home game or 2...or 3, also 3) GUARANTEE most likely the easiest possible matchup - truly and definitively triple stacking the deck.

And, the “reward” for being ‘gifted’ the #16 seed is a home game that they very likely may have had anyway, and, if they win in Round 1, possibly a trip cross country into a possible horrible weather situation to play, most likely, the best Team in FCS …. whereas now the #8 seed could be within 50 miles of the #16 seed, in the same weather type, and, theoretically, not nearly as much of a challenge as playing the #1 seed.

If, for example, say I’m FAMU, and Montana State is the #1 Seed and Mercer is the #8 Seed, pretty sure I’d rather be unseeded and go play PFL Champ, (also) unseeded Stetson, on the road in Round 1 than be ‘rewarded’ with that #16 seed and a 1st round Home game vs. unseeded Stetson. Heading to Macon from Tallahassee to play #8 instead of to Bozeman in December to play #1 seems to make that Round 1 road game as an unseeded Team a whole helluva lot more attractive than what that #16 seed 'reward' brings to me, Right?

Yeah - just don’t see that adding to the already too large subjective gifts makes things better. Really should just go to a 4 Team Playoff in that case. Kinda seems like that’s the goal….Let’s give the 4 Teams that we THINK are the best so many advantages in the Playoffs that the odds exceed 90% those 4 Teams will advance to the Semi’s…then we say…”Look how well we did seeding these Teams. Ain’t we just the smartest!!!”

Dunno - maybe FUBeAR is missing something. Like he said 1st time he’s really given it much thought cuz he didn’t think it was gonna happen anyway … right again.

Of course FAMU would rather play a pioneer league team in the first round and then the 8 seed in the second round, everyone would, but why should they get that opportunity simply because of geography vs a team that had a better regular season? I know seeding is subjective but giving teams benefits based solely on geography isn’t fair either. Seeding 16 teams at least ensures they get to host a home game against a team that’s not in the top 16.

The other side of your hypothetical. Say San Diego wins the Pioneer. They would rather be the 16 seed and get to host a 17-24 than be shipped to someone like Weber st from last year in the first round because of geography. Yes if they win they’d then have to play the 1 seed. But someone will always have to play the 1 seed. I feel like a process where you seed all the teams (or even just 16) is fairer than basing it on geography.

[FUBeAR]

Of course FAMU would rather play a pioneer league team in the first round and then the 8 seed in the second round, everyone would, but why should they get that opportunity simply because of geography vs a team that had a better regular season? I know seeding is subjective but giving teams benefits based solely on geography isn’t fair either. Seeding 16 teams at least ensures they get to host a home game against a team that’s not in the top 16.

The other side of your hypothetical. Say San Diego wins the Pioneer. They would rather be the 16 seed and get to host a 17-24 than be shipped to someone like Weber st from last year in the first round because of geography. Yes if they win they’d then have to play the 1 seed. But someone will always have to play the 1 seed. I feel like a process where you seed all the teams (or even just 16) is fairer than basing it on geography.
Better season? My FAMU Team is 11-0 with an FBS win, but so, so many really good 8-3 ‘Power Conference’ Teams in the MVFC and the Big Sky, the Committee just couldn’t give them higher than a #16 Seed based on prior performance of MEAC / HBCU Teams in the Playoffs.

Heck - if I have my conference clinched and I think I’m gonna might get a low seed vs. being unseeded … and all the likely top seeds are in western Canada…. I might even tank my last game to keep from being seeded.

And…besides…isn’t getting a Seed a reward? So…that ‘reward’ is really a big penalty…as FUBeAR laid out. 1/2 the Teams or maybe all 8…with the ‘opportunity’ provided thru a 9-16 seed were in position to get that, oh so valuable, home game (on Thanksgiving weekend) anyway…and maybe get to play the next week around the corner. Don’t make no sense

Nah - it’s already too much

4 Team Playoff - Committee selected, totally selective

OR

32 Teams with 4 8 Team Geographical Regionals - if you’re not good enough to win your Region, you don’t deserve a chance to win the Natty

[KPSUL]

No matter what playoff system is devised, there will always be issues of fairness. Given the current system of 24 teams and 8 "seeds" getting first round byes and 2nd round home games, I think granting 16 seeds would be incrementally better, but it still will not be completely fair. Dropping to 16 teams would be more fair to the teams that make the playoffs - at least they would all have to win the same number of games to get to the championship. But dropping to 16 teams may be perceived as unfair to the 8 teams not making it at all and with only 6 at large bids available there would always be room for legitimate complaint for teams from the more competitive conferences.

[atthewbon]

Better season? My FAMU Team is 11-0 with an FBS win, but so, so many really good 8-3 ‘Power Conference’ Teams in the MVFC and the Big Sky, the Committee just couldn’t give them higher than a #16 Seed based on prior performance of MEAC / HBCU Teams in the Playoffs.

Heck - if I have my conference clinched and I think I’m gonna might get a low seed vs. being unseeded … and all the likely top seeds are in western Canada…. I might even tank my last game to keep from being seeded.

And…besides…isn’t getting a Seed a reward? So…that ‘reward’ is really a big penalty…as FUBeAR laid out. 1/2 the Teams or maybe all 8…with the ‘opportunity’ provided thru a 9-16 seed were in position to get that, oh so valuable, home game (on Thanksgiving weekend) anyway…and maybe get to play the next week around the corner. Don’t make no sense

Nah - it’s already too much

4 Team Playoff - Committee selected, totally selective

OR

32 Teams with 4 8 Team Geographical Regionals - if you’re not good enough to win your Region, you don’t deserve a chance to win the Natty

Under this system no one would try to lose games to avoid being the 16 seed… Unseeded teams could just as easily end up matched up with a 1 or 2 seed in the second round except they’d have to play on the road in the first. No team would be stupid enough to throw away a home playoff game against 17-24 because if they do they will go on the road against a 9-16 and if they win might avoid playing the 1 or 2 seed a week early.

To call getting to host a playoff game under the new format vs maybe hosting if you have enough money a big penalty is just plain wrong. Yea the teams that win that home game probably lose the next round especially if they get matched up with the 1 seed. Maybe that has something to do with the quality of the teams that received the byes and is not just because they got the bye… your data shows that 1 and 2 seeds win more than 7 and 8 seeds… just maybe the committee has some idea what they are doing and the the big reason seeded teams do well is they are the better teams…
Or maybe it’s just impossible to win road playoff games in the latter rounds as an unseeded team… Unless you are from the MVFC…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FUBeAR]

Or maybe it’s just impossible to win road playoff games in the latter rounds as an unseeded team… Unless you are from the MVFC…...and SO, SO frequently... Of the 63 quarterfinal, semifinal, and championship games that have been played in the 9 years of the 24/8 playoff structure, that has happened exactly 4 times....



"...maybe it’s just impossible to win road playoff games in the latter rounds as an unseeded team… Unless you are from the MVFC…"


Year
Round
Win Seed
Winning Team
H/A
Win Conference
Win Score
Win Result
Loss Seed
Losing Team
H/A
Loss Conference
Loss Score


2021
QF
Unseeded
South Dakota State
A
MVFC
35
SF
5
Villanova
H
CAA
21


2016
SF
Unseeded
Youngstown State
A
MVFC
40
CG
2
Eastern Washington
H
Big Sky
38


2014
QF
Unseeded
Sam Houston State
A
Southland
34
SF
6
Villanova
H
CAA
31


2013
QF
Unseeded
New Hampshire
A
CAA
20
SF
4
Southeastern Louisiana
H
Southland
17

















4
4
Unseeded
4
4
4
AVG = 32
4
AVG = 4
4
4
4
AVG = 27



...and, oh wow, half of those 4 wins HAVE been MVFC Teams, but 1/2 of those 4 wins have also been over Villanova and 1/2 have been over CAA Teams...so either one of those factors appears to be as relevant to your postulate as membership in the MVFC seems to be.

So...the TRUTH, as opposed to your statistically specious claim, is...

"It's nearly impossible for an unseeded Team that has fought through a regular season to win a conference championship and/or compile an outstanding record, with no week off to rest and heal up at the end of that regular season, to have then successfully fought through what very well could have been 2 straight weeks on the road in highly inhospitable and unfamiliar climes against, possibly, 2 Top 10 Teams, to then go on the road again, possibly, for the 3rd straight week, to most likely face a Top 3/Top 4 Team, who has had a week of rest and afterward, while comfortable in its home environment, defeating a team that quite possibly isn't even ranked in the Top 20, and lays await in its home lair, fresh and ready for another game, just a-raring to go.”

Thus, there’s really no reason to have unseeded Teams participate in the Playoffs. Right? So, we’re down to 8. But, you know what…#5-8 Seeds have NEVER won the Championship, so we obviously don’t need them either. Y’all agree we should stop wasting time and money with having those loser #5-8 Seeds, don’t you? Of course you do, So…let’s just let the Committee subjectively select the Top 4 Teams and let them have at it. BUT…Y’know though, only 1 #4 Seed and 1 #3 Seed has ever won the Championship, so, jeez, let’s just let the Committee subjectively select the Top 2 Teams…and hold 1 game for all the marbles…winner take all!!! PROBLEM RESOLVED!!!


Nope ... The "double-stack" with the possible "triple stack" (current 24/8 structure) is too much to award completely subjectively AND the DEFINITE "Triple Stack" (derived by seeding Teams 9-16) goes beyond "piling on." It's "extreme targeting with intent to kill." The penalty for such an egregious miscarriage of Playoff Justice should be...

#DefundTheCommittee

[FUBeAR]

FUBeAR was just listening to Sam Herder's "FCS Football Talk" podcast from 6/15/23.

Here's an excerpt of something Mr. Herder said that FUBeAR found particularly interesting...

"...the Big Sky gets too much love and that there's too many Big Sky Teams ranked too high in the pre-season. And then due to unbalanced scheduling, there are a lot of 8 and 9 win, and even 7 win Big Sky Teams. So they just stay highly ranked and that leads to good records. And that leads to multiple Playoff Seeds. And that leads to Playoff success and multiple Teams in the quarterfinals. And it all just kind of sets up perfectly for the Big Sky to always have multiple Teams in the Top 10 or Top 15 just because of, like I said, preseason rankings, and then records, and then seeds."

Now FUBeAR is not 100% sure if Mr. Herder was expressing his own opinion or, perhaps, what he's heard from a subset of FCS Fans. Either way, he's done a nice job of framing things up fairly accurately and, to a great extent, what the data we've been deep-diving into here is kinda telling us vs. the more popular and committee-adopted narrative. Yes?

[caribbeanhen]

No matter what playoff system is devised, there will always be issues of fairness. Given the current system of 24 teams and 8 "seeds" getting first round byes and 2nd round home games, I think granting 16 seeds would be incrementally better, but it still will not be completely fair. Dropping to 16 teams would be more fair to the teams that make the playoffs - at least they would all have to win the same number of games to get to the championship. But dropping to 16 teams may be perceived as unfair to the 8 teams not making it at all and with only 6 at large bids available there would always be room for legitimate complaint for teams from the more competitive conferences.

They will increase to 32 before they go back to 16

[KPSUL]

Since the 2013 season (not counting the pandemic season) only 4 times has an unseeded team won a Quarter - Final game: UNH-2013, SHSU-2014 and 2015, YSU 2016 and SDSU 2021. Only once has an unseeded team won a Semi-Final game: YSU - 2016. Last season all eight of the seeded teams made it to the Quarter-Finals

That's one win out of 18 games for the unseeded in Semi-Finals, and four wins out of 36 in the Quarter-Finals. And during that time period there have been twice as many unseeded as seeded teams in the playoff field.

[FUBeAR]

Since the 2013 season (not counting the pandemic season) only 4 times has an unseeded team won a Quarter - Final game: UNH-2013, SHSU-2014 and 2015, YSU 2016 and SDSU 2021. Only once has an unseeded team won a Semi-Final game: YSU - 2016. Last season all eight of the seeded teams made it to the Quarter-Finals

That's one win out of 18 games for the unseeded in Semi-Finals, and four wins out of 36 in the Quarter-Finals. And during that time period there have been twice as many unseeded as seeded teams in the playoff field.
https://i.imgflip.com/7rv8rh.jpg

[caribbeanhen]

Since the 2013 season (not counting the pandemic season) only 4 times has an unseeded team won a Quarter - Final game: UNH-2013, SHSU-2014 and 2015, YSU 2016 and SDSU 2021. Only once has an unseeded team won a Semi-Final game: YSU - 2016. Last season all eight of the seeded teams made it to the Quarter-Finals

That's one win out of 18 games for the unseeded in Semi-Finals, and four wins out of 36 in the Quarter-Finals. And during that time period there have been twice as many unseeded as seeded teams in the playoff field.

Ok but a lot of that is credited to North Dakota State and JMU

2 teams that were FCS in name only

[FUBeAR]

Ok but a lot of that is credited to North Dakota State and JMU

2 teams that were FCS in name only
QF Winning % of Unseeded Teams defeating a Seeded Team, including NDSU & JMU in QF's = 0.111
QF Winning % of Unseeded Teams defeating a Seeded Team, excluding NDSU & JMU from QF's = 0.174

SF Winning % of Unseeded Teams, including NDSU & JMU in SF's = 0.056
SF Winning % of Unseeded Teams, excluding NDSU & JMU from SF's = 0.143

So....chances of Unseeded Teams winning over Seeded Teams in the QF's and SF's moves from "Damn near zero" to "Nearly zero" given the change suggested by your postulate.

Y'all can keep 'fightin' the data,' but 2 conclusions are pretty clear to FUBeAR from this data analysis so far...

1) As FUBeAR has long-contended, the "Double-Stack" & Possible "Triple-Stack" of benefits derived from being subjectively gifted a Seed, particularly a higher seed, by the Playoff Committee are just too lucrative. Overcoming a much, much better rested team, in their comfortable home environment, which may be a highly unfamiliar and/or extremely hostile environment after a cross-country journey for the Unseeded Visitor, combined with possibly being (actually) overmatched yields a near impossible track for Unseeded Playoff Teams, particularly those that must also travel in Round 1, to pull off an 'upset' and navigate much beyond Round 2. Nearly identical Playoff results would have been realized by just having an 8 Team Playoff as Unseeded Teams have almost no chance of advancing beyond Round 2. So, essentially, the Committee is subjectively selecting the 'REAL Playoffs' when they hand out those 8 Golden Tickets...particularly the ones with the #1-#4 'endorsement' on them!

https://www.thepropgallery.com/media/wysiwyg/Wonka-Charlie-Ticket.jpg

2) The Big Sky Conference has been extensively over-rewarded with Seeds far exceeding their expected performance giving the number of seeds and the advantages those seeds provide.

3) Seeding 8 more Teams is likely to be a significant disadvantage for Teams Seeded #13-#16. While their chances of advancing past the 2nd round still remain minimal, they would likely, at least have an ‘easier’ opponent if they were Unseeded, as opposed, to getting 1 of the 4 counterfeit Golden Tickets, guaranteeing them a game against a 1-4 Seed if they can win their Round 1 game, whereas they could have been Unseeded, played and defeated the #9 Seed in Round 1 and, statistically, have a much better shot vs. the #8 seed….than #1 thru #4. Teams WILL tank games to avoid getting the cement shoes a #13 thru #16 seed would ‘provide’ for them. Remember, that Round 1 Home Game ‘reward’ they receive is T’Giving weekend. They are likely to lose money and not really have much of an advantage.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtxbIkfDDO4

[KPSUL]

Ok but a lot of that is credited to North Dakota State and JMU

2 teams that were FCS in name only

Actually, in 2015 a seeded JMU team lost to unseeded Colgate in the 2nd round, setting up the only quarter or semifinal game between unseeded teams in the nine season period. (SHSU beat Colgate)

[FUBeAR]

Actually, in 2015 a seeded JMU team lost to unseeded Colgate in the 2nd round, setting up the only quarter or semifinal game between unseeded teams in the nine season period. (SHSU beat Colgate)
yes - thus, removed that game from the QF Calculations in FUBeAR's prior post

[caribbeanhen]

QF Winning % of Unseeded Teams defeating a Seeded Team, including NDSU & JMU in QF's = 0.111
QF Winning % of Unseeded Teams defeating a Seeded Team, excluding NDSU & JMU from QF's = 0.174

SF Winning % of Unseeded Teams, including NDSU & JMU in SF's = 0.056
SF Winning % of Unseeded Teams, excluding NDSU & JMU from SF's = 0.143

So....chances of Unseeded Teams winning over Seeded Teams in the QF's and SF's moves from "Damn near zero" to "Nearly zero" given the change suggested by your postulate.

Y'all can keep 'fightin' the data,' but 2 conclusions are pretty clear to FUBeAR from this data analysis so far...

1) As FUBeAR has long-contended, the "Double-Stack" & Possible "Triple-Stack" of benefits derived from being subjectively gifted a Seed, particularly a higher seed, by the Playoff Committee are just too lucrative. Overcoming a much, much better rested team, in their comfortable home environment, which may be a highly unfamiliar and/or extremely hostile environment after a cross-country journey for the Unseeded Visitor, combined with possibly being (actually) overmatched yields a near impossible track for Unseeded Playoff Teams, particularly those that must also travel in Round 1, to pull off an 'upset' and navigate much beyond Round 2. Nearly identical Playoff results would have been realized by just having an 8 Team Playoff as Unseeded Teams have almost no chance of advancing beyond Round 2. So, essentially, the Committee is subjectively selecting the 'REAL Playoffs' when they hand out those 8 Golden Tickets...particularly the ones with the #1-#4 'endorsement' on them!

https://www.thepropgallery.com/media/wysiwyg/Wonka-Charlie-Ticket.jpg

2) The Big Sky Conference has been extensively over-rewarded with Seeds far exceeding their expected performance giving the number of seeds and the advantages those seeds provide.

3) Seeding 8 more Teams is likely to be a significant disadvantage for Teams Seeded #13-#16. While their chances of advancing past the 2nd round still remain minimal, they would likely, at least have an ‘easier’ opponent if they were Unseeded, as opposed, to getting 1 of the 4 counterfeit Golden Tickets, guaranteeing them a game against a 1-4 Seed if they can win their Round 1 game, whereas they could have been Unseeded, played and defeated the #9 Seed in Round 1 and, statistically, have a much better shot vs. the #8 seed….than #1 thru #4. Teams WILL tank games to avoid getting the cement shoes a #13 thru #16 seed would ‘provide’ for them. Remember, that Round 1 Home Game ‘reward’ they receive is T’Giving weekend. They are likely to lose money and not really have much of an advantage.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtxbIkfDDO4

You're killing it! 👏 I have long said that FCS footballs top teams are kind of like the Jekyll Island club

The Wonka tour ticket is priceless…. They can just print more money but only 5 of those tickets exist in the entire world

So point taken on the seeds, but inflation has increased the number of those tickets to 8 and likely will be doubling to 16 soon enough

by the way, who is the Veruca Salt of AGS?

[AmsterBison]

Just a reminder that in the good old days, Marshall played in the national championship game four times on their home field. Georgia Southern did it twice. They went 4-2 which is only a 66.7% winning percentage. And the SoCon won most of their other national championships less than a gas tank away from home. What do those stats prove?

Maybe home teams win so often because the playoffs got the seeding right. Or can your stats prove that assertion wrong? And if the best team wins the championship, isn't that one of the primary goals of a playoff system?

[FUBeAR]

Just a reminder that in the good old days, Marshall played in the national championship game four times on their home field. Georgia Southern did it twice. They went 4-2 which is only a 66.7% winning percentage. And the SoCon won most of their other national championships less than a gas tank away from home. What do those stats prove?

Maybe home teams win so often because the playoffs got the seeding right. Or can your stats prove that assertion wrong? And if the best team wins the championship, isn't that one of the primary goals of a playoff system?
Those stats prove that you should consider cherry farming as a career choice because you are rather adept at doing the picking.

OTOH, FUBeAR’s data includes every Playoff game conducted under the 24/8 structure. Analysis > Anecdotes

As stated, there is certainly some measure of the results which is due to the relative quality of the various Teams participating in each game and in each season of the Playoffs. Only an idiot would attempt to deny that.

There are also some measures of the results that are directly related and statistically correlated to other factors, such as…

- Home vs. Away
- Rested/Healed vs. Tired/Beat-up
- Competition levels of opponents and of opponents in recent prior games
- Climate / Environmental Factors / Familiarity / Preparedness

To deny that these factors affect the outcomes of Football games is equally as idiotic.

So…the challenge of this analysis is to assess…
1) how much do these ‘other factors’ contribute to the results?
2) based on 1), what is ‘the right’ amount of 1) to ‘award’ Teams that are SUBJECTIVELY assessed to be superior to other Teams?

There is no exact answer, but we can draw inferences from what we see in the data.

And…FUBeAR thinks there is an even more fundamental question we need to answer HONESTLY before we can decide the correct answers to 1) and 2) above…and this goes to your final comment / rhetorical question.

That question is…

Are we seeking, in our Playoff System, to determine which FCS Team plays the best at Home, particularly Teams that have and/or can create significantly more differentiated home field advantages, especially when those Home Teams are significantly better rested than their opponents OR are we seeking to determine the best FCS Team?

If it’s the former, we don’t need to change anything in the structure, although FUBeAR would still contend the data demonstrates that the selection and seeding process in the 24/8 era has not accurately reflected the relative quality of FCS Teams / Conferences to a fairly significant degree.

If it’s the latter and we are, in fact, seeking to determine the best FCS Team, the structure, in FUBeAR’s opinion, based on the inferences he draws from the full data set, warrants significant structural change.

[AmsterBison]

Those stats prove that you should consider cherry farming as a career choice because you are rather adept at doing the picking.


If seeding was perfect, wouldn't you expect the home team to win almost all the time, given that a better team is hosting and therefore gets what most most people consider a 3pt head start?

How would you change the playoff system to make it better?

[POD Knows]

If seeding was perfect, wouldn't you expect the home team to win almost all the time, given that a better team is hosting and therefore gets what most most people consider a 3pt head start?

How would you change the playoff system to make it better?All playoff games to be at a SoCon location even if a SoCon team is not in the playoffs.

[FUBeAR]

All playoff games to be at a SoCon location even if a SoCon team is not in the playoffs.
Hell no. We don’t want you people comin’ down here. If there’s one thing we already have too many of, it’s damn Yankees!

and….

Are SoCon Teams even eligible for the Playoffs? Who knew?

[FUBeAR]

If seeding was perfect, wouldn't you expect the home team to win almost all the time, given that a better team is hosting and therefore gets what most most people consider a 3pt head start?

How would you change the playoff system to make it better?There is a lot of data in the previous posts related to your 1st question. The average winning percentage of college football home Teams is ~63%. Other factors cause individual games to vary from that statistic. The concept of gradience is relevant as we assess data…or it should be.

Anyway…

…after much thought, FUBeAR has just about landed on the conclusion that a very, very, very unpopular fully regionalized 4 Region / 32 Team / No Byes Playoff structure (with a very unique “Final Four” event) would be best for FCS Football. He has not yet finalized his opinion on seeding methodology (if any) within the regions. Also, he has not finalized his opinion on the selection process within the regions, but if he has Committees, he would have 4 separate Committees to increase the chances that Committee Members actually had a clue about the Teams they would be charged with assessing, as they clearly do not now.

[bonarae]

While the offseason has been relatively quiet for most of us, the buzz to expand seeds in the FCS playoffs continues... xpopcornx

https://herosports.com/fcs-playoff-push-increase-seeds-bzbz/

[ysubigred]

While the offseason has been relatively quiet for most of us, the buzz to expand seeds in the FCS playoffs continues... xpopcornx

https://herosports.com/fcs-playoff-push-increase-seeds-bzbz/Uggh... already too many. Early round blowouts, good teams left out for auto bids.. This will make soccer mom happy. Everyone gets a participation trophy. Reduce the field to 16. Select the best 16 teams in the FCS. Then seed them.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[topher99]

It's not adding teams, just seeding 1-16 instead of 1-8.

[ST_Lawson]

Uggh... already too many. Early round blowouts, good teams left out for auto bids.. This will make soccer mom happy. Everyone gets a participation trophy. Reduce the field to 16. Select the best 16 teams in the FCS. Then seed them.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

While I agree that 16 is ideal, this isn't talking about adding more spots for the tournament (like, going to 32 or something). This is just talking about taking the same number of teams, but seeding down to 16 (rather than 8 like they currently do). Currently, the first-round matchups are determined regionally and the higher bid hosts the game, with the winners then playing at one of the top 8 seeds. If they implement 16 seeds, then the top 8 get a first round bye (like we currently do), but then 9-16 will host one of the non-seeded teams for the first-round matchup, which is better for overall quality of the tournament. Teams will be playing for more...if you finish in the top 8, you get a first-round bye and get to host your first game...if you're in 9-16 you get to host your first-round game.

[ysubigred]

While I agree that 16 is ideal, this isn't talking about adding more spots for the tournament (like, going to 32 or something). This is just talking about taking the same number of teams, but seeding down to 16 (rather than 8 like they currently do). Currently, the first-round matchups are determined regionally and the higher bid hosts the game, with the winners then playing at one of the top 8 seeds. If they implement 16 seeds, then the top 8 get a first round bye (like we currently do), but then 9-16 will host one of the non-seeded teams for the first-round matchup, which is better for overall quality of the tournament. Teams will be playing for more...if you finish in the top 8, you get a first-round bye and get to host your first game...if you're in 9-16 you get to host your first-round game.That's what I said reduce to 16. No automatic bids. Then seed them all 16.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

That's what I said reduce to 16. No automatic bids. Then seed them all 16.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
This is the Division 1 Football Championship - that means that any D1 conference (that wants it) should get access to it. If you want to argue that the non-scholly Pioneer or partial scholly NEC shouldn't be D1 conferences I'd say that's a valid argument but if you want to determine a champion of the (sub)division you should give all willing teams in that subdivision access to the championship tournament so they can gain or lose that access on the field not in a committee boardroom. That's why automatic bids are needed.

The only teams that would benefit from a 16 team format over a 24 team format are teams #9-#16 and their chances at winning the whole thing are about as good as teams #17-#24 anyway.

[ysubigred]

This is the Division 1 Football Championship - that means that any D1 conference (that wants it) should get access to it. If you want to argue that the non-scholly Pioneer or partial scholly NEC shouldn't be D1 conferences I'd say that's a valid argument but if you want to determine a champion of the (sub)division you should give all willing teams in that subdivision access to the championship tournament so they can gain or lose that access on the field. That's why automatic bids are needed.As bad as YSU was last year. We destroyed one of the champ/auto bid teams. It's just ridiculous to waste the time with these games..

xtwocentsx

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[clenz]

As bad as YSU was last year. We destroyed one of the champ/auto bid teams. It's just ridiculous to waste the time with these games..

xtwocentsx

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
Then we need to remove the autobid from basketball.

Sorry, YSU. I know you're having a good year and have a 99% chance of taking the autobid from the Horizon this year but guess what? In the big picture of NCAA basketball, you, and your league, ****ing suck ****.

You no longer get to participate or get NCAA tournament TV shares.

Doesn't matter if you want to be involved and you are an NCAA team winning and NCAA league to get to the NCAA tournament.

You suck compared to most every other NCAA team so you don't get to go anymore.

[ElCid]

This is the Division 1 Football Championship - that means that any D1 conference (that wants it) should get access to it. If you want to argue that the non-scholly Pioneer or partial scholly NEC shouldn't be D1 conferences I'd say that's a valid argument but if you want to determine a champion of the (sub)division you should give all willing teams in that subdivision access to the championship tournament so they can gain or lose that access on the field not in a committee boardroom. That's why automatic bids are needed.

The only teams that would benefit from a 16 team format over a 24 team format are teams #9-#16 and their chances at winning the whole thing are about as good as teams #17-#24 anyway.

Umm. Yes. Not sure why we need to revisit this over, and over, and over again. I get the argument, but we could also say, if a team couldn't even win their conference, they already proved they don't deserve a spot. They aren't the best. Win your damn conference or stay home. Now, I realize that is a bit overboard, but no more than saying a conf champ doesn't deserve a spot. We have too many teams as it is. I'd always vote to limit it to 16. No Thanksgiving weekend games, seed all teams, even though I don't like the entire concept of seeding. Not to mention the subjective aspect of it. And screw all travel considerations.

[ysubigred]

Then we need to remove the autobid from basketball.

Sorry, YSU. I know you're having a good year and have a 99% chance of taking the autobid from the Horizon this year but guess what? In the big picture of NCAA basketball, you, and your league, ****ing suck ****.

You no longer get to participate or get NCAA tournament TV shares.

Doesn't matter if you want to be involved and you are an NCAA team winning and NCAA league to get to the NCAA tournament.

You suck compared to most every other NCAA team so you don't get to go anymore.Ok nerd.. comparing apples to oranges YSUDS... They have Oakland penciled in for that slot..

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[MSUBobcat]

Umm. Yes. Not sure why we need to revisit this over, and over, and over again. I get the argument, but we could also say, if a team couldn't even win their conference, they already proved they don't deserve a spot. They aren't the best. Win your damn conference or stay home. Now, I realize that is a bit overboard, but no more than saying a conf champ doesn't deserve a spot. We have too many teams as it is. I'd always vote to limit it to 16. No Thanksgiving weekend games, seed all teams, even though I don't like the entire concept of seeding. Not to mention the subjective aspect of it. And screw all travel considerations.

It generally seems to be the same poster beating the dead horse regarding giving the conference champs an AQ. Everyone else has accepted it and moved on.

[clenz]

Ok nerd.. comparing apples to oranges YSUDS... They have Oakland penciled in for that slot..

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
No I'm not.

A NCAA sponsored event taking an automatic bid away from an NCAA sanctioned conference champion beacuse that champion isn't "good enough" is what you're advocating.

Fine. We then play that out for every sport, because there isn't an NCAA sanctioned team championship for that doesn't give every conference an automatic bid (outside of small/unique sports).

Thus all automatic bids for all NCAA tournaments go away

Horizon league now loses it's spot for the following NCAA championships

men's basketball
women's basketball
men's soccer
women's soccer
baseball
softball
volleyball

A Horizon team will never play in any NCAA post season sponsored event in your dream world, all beacuse you don't like the PFL or NEC having a bid to the FCS playoffs.

Also, showing you don't understand how "penciling in" works. Before conference tournaments, for one bid leagues, they just put the team in first place in the tournament as a placeholder at the seed where the conference would be.

As of today it is Okland because they have played one less game and thus have a half game lead on YSU, on a technicality.

If you look at any metric that looks at SOS, SOR, ELO, etc. YSU is the heavy favorite in the Horizon, and the tournament.

[ysubigred]

No I'm not.

A NCAA sponsored event taking an automatic bid away from an NCAA sanctioned conference champion beacuse that champion isn't "good enough" is what you're advocating.

Fine. We then play that out for every sport, because there isn't an NCAA sanctioned team championship for that doesn't give every conference an automatic bid (outside of small/unique sports).

Thus all automatic bids for all NCAA tournaments go away

Horizon league now loses it's spot for the following NCAA championships

men's basketball
women's basketball
men's soccer
women's soccer
baseball
softball
volleyball

A Horizon team will never play in any NCAA post season sponsored event in your dream world, all beacuse you don't like the PFL or NEC having a bid to the FCS playoffs.

Also, showing you don't understand how "penciling in" works. Before conference tournaments, for one bid leagues, they just put the team in first place in the tournament as a placeholder at the seed where the conference would be.

As of today it is Okland because they have played one less game and thus have a half game lead on YSU, on a technicality.

If you look at any metric that looks at SOS, SOR, ELO, etc. YSU is the heavy favorite in the Horizon, and the tournament.Good to know.. thanks [emoji4]



Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[NDSU1980]

As bad as YSU was last year. We destroyed one of the champ/auto bid teams. It's just ridiculous to waste the time with these games..

xtwocentsx

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
There are a lot of teams that make the playoff field besides the autobids that don't deserve to get in. Look at some of the schools that get one of the last spots and then lose every year or win once every 10 years. It's time to make the playoffs for serious teams only.

[ysubigred]

There are a lot of teams that make the playoff field besides the autobids that don't deserve to get in. Look at some of the schools that get one of the last spots and then lose every year or win once every 10 years. It's time to make the playoffs for serious teams only.I agree.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[Paladin1aa]

First of all, YSU wasn’t a bad team last year . They typically were better than 90% of FCS. However, playing in the MVFC they look average there. YSU making the playoffs usually results in an opening win or a run into deeper playoffs.

The reality is there are a number of teams who do get in that are not deserving by ability. But the current system is what we have. It’s not fair but it is what it is.

[Professor Chaos]

First of all, YSU wasn’t a bad team last year . They typically were better than 90% of FCS. However, playing in the MVFC they look average there. YSU making the playoffs usually results in an opening win or a run into deeper playoffs.

The reality is there are a number of teams who do get in that are not deserving by ability. But the current system is what we have. It’s not fair but it is what it is.
What's more fair - determining a playoff spot by a selection committee or determining it based purely on the results on the field with teams earning conference championships? Aren't some of you YSU fans the loudest critics of the "corrupt" selection committee??? You should be fans of autobids since they take power away from the selection committee.

[ElCid]

What's more fair - determining a playoff spot by a selection committee or determining it based purely on the results on the field with teams earning conference championships? Aren't some of you YSU fans the loudest critics of the "corrupt" selection committee??? You should be fans of autobids since they take power away from the selection committee.

I just don't get how some people think sometimes when it comes to this. Why would anyone want to take away the one objective criteria that exists? One totally devoid of the committee politics of insider influence. Why? Probably because they have some other self-aggrandizing agenda.

[Pards Rule]

Absolutely NOT!

[Paladin1aa]

What's more fair - determining a playoff spot by a selection committee or determining it based purely on the results on the field with teams earning conference championships? Aren't some of you YSU fans the loudest critics of the "corrupt" selection committee??? You should be fans of autobids since they take power away from the selection committee.

Neither situation works. The committee is a joke as they change or don’t follow the same criteria year after year. Their picks are often embarrassing for legitimate tourney selections, picking those most deserving and competitive. The weak conferences send a “ champ” in as an auto bid get get their arse stomped by a third, fourth or fifth place team from a power conference. It is what it is. Most who follow this FCS brand gives little credence to the “ tourney”. Hell the selections for D-II & III are better run than FCS. However all suffer from regionalization and lack proper seeding.

It’s just a game. Nothing serious.

[ysubigred]

What's more fair - determining a playoff spot by a selection committee or determining it based purely on the results on the field with teams earning conference championships? Aren't some of you YSU fans the loudest critics of the "corrupt" selection committee??? You should be fans of autobids since they take power away from the selection committee.The conference should reward the champ.

The selection committee should select the best teams for a playoff 16 or 24.

Duquesne was automatically in. YSU was the last team in. Didn't bode well for a conference champ that was automatically in.

Bottom line: No one GAF about 1FCS playoffs, especially the first two/three rounds on espn+ or 3..



Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[ysubigred]

Neither situation works. The committee is a joke as they change or don’t follow the same criteria year after year. Their picks are often embarrassing for legitimate tourney selections, picking those most deserving and competitive. The weak conferences send a “ champ” in as an auto bid get get their arse stomped by a third, fourth or fifth place team from a power conference. It is what it is. Most who follow this FCS brand gives little credence to the “ tourney”. Hell the selections for D-II & III are better run than FCS. However all suffer from regionalization and lack proper seeding.

It’s just a game. Nothing serious.[emoji106]

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[Professor Chaos]

Neither situation works. The committee is a joke as they change or don’t follow the same criteria year after year. Their picks are often embarrassing for legitimate tourney selections, picking those most deserving and competitive. The weak conferences send a “ champ” in as an auto bid get get their arse stomped by a third, fourth or fifth place team from a power conference. It is what it is. Most who follow this FCS brand gives little credence to the “ tourney”. Hell the selections for D-II & III are better run than FCS. However all suffer from regionalization and lack proper seeding.

It’s just a game. Nothing serious.
How much of a joke is the AGS Poll then? Considering that the selection committee's choices for at-large selections have mirrored the AGS consensus on the Selection Sunday Poll 93% of the time since the field expanded to 24 in 2013 (link (https://www.anygivensaturday.com/showthread.php?216083-Which-poll-is-the-most-accurate-playoff-predictor&p=3160996&viewfull=1#post3160996)).

This all just sounds like sour grapes to me - claims that no one cares about the FCS playoffs yet whining about how unfair the selection process is. Teams in the Big Sky and MVFC have ample opportunity to make the field. Since the field expanded to 24 in 2013 no team ranked 18th or above in the AGS Selection Sunday Poll (who has been eligible for selection) has missed the playoffs.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

First of all, YSU wasn’t a bad team last year . They typically were better than 90% of FCS. However, playing in the MVFC they look average there. YSU making the playoffs usually results in an opening win or a run into deeper playoffs.

The reality is there are a number of teams who do get in that are not deserving by ability. But the current system is what we have. It’s not fair but it is what it is.

Play out your desire in every other sport and you are raging because YSU isn't allowed in March Madness.

[Paladin1aa]

Everyone missed my last paragraph - “. It’s just a game. Nothing serious.”

It’s no big deal. It’s a minor league tournament. It’s poorly run and leaves millions who question the integrity. Nothing to get excited about. And most football fans are not excited about the FCS division or playoffs.

Two degrees here neither of which is from YSU. I live in the metro area so went to games. YSU has had success in the division and on a year over year basis, they are better than 90% of FCS. This provides a quality team for entertainment purposes. Thus, by default, I watch and follow the Guins , but won’t miss an Ohio State game and watch far more of the big boys than the minor leagues.

Seems my opinion isn’t popular. That’s too bad. It remains that the division could be better and more relevant , but that it’s not is unfortunate , but not my fault. Weenie champs getting an auto bid or the committee bending or breaking rules produces ugly competitive results. If people laugh at the selections made by the committee or the on field match ups with weenies, it’s not my fault. Deal with the message and stop killing the messenger.

Live with it guys. Its just a game. It’s not a big deal. There’s always D- II and III. Or the big boys. Cheers ! 🍺

[WestCoastAggie]

That's what I said reduce to 16. No automatic bids. Then seed them all 16.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

How would you select the top-16 teams?

[FUBeAR]

How would you select the top-16 teams?
Top 12 from the MVFC and Top 4 from the Big Sky, of course. What a silly question!

[ysubigred]

How would you select the top-16 teams?Basically, the way it's done for the at large with enhanced criteria. Of course, most conference champs will be picked up. Will eliminate a 6-5 conference champ getting in over 8-3 teams with a better resume. Also, it might get weaker conferences to get on tougher schedules OOC.



Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[ysubigred]

Top 12 from the MVFC and Top 4 from the Big Sky, of course. What a silly question!Unfortunately, that ^^ may have some truth to it. Just like BCS, the FCS is starting to have a separation of teams being head and shoulders above others.

IMO, a real realignment needs to occur in college football to place teams where they can compete.

Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk

[GAD]

Auto bids are good because at the start of the season everyone can say "We can win a national championship". With at large bids someone will always be left out their is no way to avoid that

[MR. CHICKEN]

Top 12 from the MVFC and Top 4 from the Big Sky, of course. What a silly question!

.....DON'T FO'GET...'NOVA & ALBANY..........AWK!


Paladin 1aa
Neither situation works. The committee is a joke as they change or don’t follow the same criteria year after year. Their picks are often embarrassing for legitimate tourney selections, picking those most deserving and competitive. The weak conferences send a “ champ” in as an auto bid get get their arse stomped by a third, fourth or fifth place team from a power conference. It is what it is. Most who follow this FCS brand gives little credence to the “ tourney”. Hell the selections for D-II & III are better run than FCS. However all suffer from regionalization and lack proper seeding.

.....SO 'GUINS.....WOOD RATHER.....SKIP DUQUESNE.....AN' HEAD DIRECTLY....TA DUH MAIN-LINE.....xconfusedx...ASKIN'.....FO'....'CAT NATION.........BAWK!


YOUNGSTOWN 40
DUQUESNE 7

DELAWARE 43
DUQUESNE 17

.....AFTERAH DUH N & S DAKOTA STATES.......MVFC.... JES' LIKE DUH REST UH US......BRAWK!

[clenz]

Top 12 from the MVFC and Top 4 from the Big Sky, of course. What a silly question!
Valley is at 11 again with WIU going OVC.

The rest of the NCAA can rejoice for an extra bid.

[OhioHen]

There are a lot of teams that make the playoff field besides the autobids that don't deserve to get in. Look at some of the schools that get one of the last spots and then lose every year or win once every 10 years. It's time to make the playoffs for serious teams only.
So you advocate a committee that selects the top 4 and leaves out an undefeated SoCon champion in favor of the one loss CAA champion and the second team from the Big Sky?

[kdinva]

So you advocate a committee that .....leaves out an undefeated SoCon champion in favor of the one loss CAA champion and the second team from the Big Sky?

or a 3-loss Valley team?

[OhioHen]

or a 3-loss Valley team?
I was fully intentional in not including a second team from the Valley.

[SDFS]

or a 3-loss Valley team?

2023 - I think NDSU has 5-3 in conference this year. I think they made it to the semi-finals this year before losing in 2OT to Montana.
2022 - Only 3 bids - Two teams in the championship game.
2021 - SDSU was 5-3 tied for third and they made it to the semi-finals.

It seems like the MVFC has held it's own.

[Bisonator]

So you advocate a committee that selects the top 4 and leaves out an undefeated SoCon champion in favor of the one loss CAA champion and the second team from the Big Sky?

How would an undefeated SoCon champion ever be left out? That would be incredibly hard to accomplish even if there were no autobids.

[KnightoftheRedFlash]

Some folks here are making the exact same arguments that Big 10 and SEC fans make. The same arguments they supposedly hate and that the FCS format is supposed to avoid.

[ElCid]

Some folks here are making the exact same arguments that Big 10 and SEC fans make. The same arguments they supposedly hate and that the FCS format is supposed to avoid.

I really think they are just trying to sound reasonable and logical, but they just have self interest and ulterior motives at heart.

[taper]

I really think they are just trying to sound reasonable and logical, but they just have self interest and ulterior motives at heart.
Self interest? Of course. Everyone does.
Ulterior motives? Not even sure what motive that could be. Unless you think my idea that D1 schools should fund their programs at D1 levels is somehow a bad thing.

[OhioHen]

How would an undefeated SoCon champion ever be left out? That would be incredibly hard to accomplish even if there were no autobids.
Look no further than the recent CFP.
-Undefeated ACC Champion Florida State - out. (corollary - undefeated SoCon champion)
-One loss Big 12 champion Texas - in. (corollary - one loss CAA champion)
-Second team from the SEC Alabama - in. (corollary - 2nd team from Big Sky)

[taper]

Look no further than the recent CFP.
-Undefeated ACC Champion Florida State - out. (corollary - undefeated SoCon champion)
-One loss Big 12 champion Texas - in. (corollary - one loss CAA champion)
-Second team from the SEC Alabama - in. (corollary - 2nd team from Big Sky)
That's a terrible comparison. CFP only has 4 teams which means one of the P5 champions has to be left out. Florida St was consistently the lowest ranked P5. Committee got it right. Alabama was SEC champion, not 2nd team.