Playoff seeding expands to 16

[wapiti]

https://herosports.com/fcs-playoffs-seed-16-bzbz/

[Professor Chaos]

xsmileyclapx

Very nice - should pretty much put an end to bids making a difference in terms of who is hosting. Of course it will also give more opportunities to whine about the selection committee. It'll be interesting to see how the AGS Poll does versus the STATS and Coaches polls in terms of mirroring the playoff seeds with the seeding expanding to 16.

[JacksFan40]

Good, bidding for games was dumb. Just rank them 1-24 and be done with regionalization and all that nonsense.

[Paladin1aa]

It’s a step up and an improvement.

[uofmman1122]

The cynical side of me wonders if it will really make that much difference.

With how subjective a lot of the seeding for teams in the 9-16 range would be, what's stopping the committee from just seeding the teams that would have bid higher/have bigger gates over other teams unless it's extremely obvious?

For example: Montana in 2022 was a very contentious choice not just to host a game, but get in the playoffs at all, but they were ranked #17 and #18 in the coaches and stats polls, respectively, after the last week of the year. So why wouldn't the committee have just put them as the #16 seed? Sure, they'll take flack for it, but they took flack, anyways.

[Ridge1982]

Good. Spread the wealth.

[Professor Chaos]

The cynical side of me wonders if it will really make that much difference.

With how subjective a lot of the seeding for teams in the 9-16 range would be, what's stopping the committee from just seeding the teams that would have bid higher/have bigger gates over other teams unless it's extremely obvious?

For example: Montana in 2022 was a very contentious choice not just to host a game, but get in the playoffs at all, but they were ranked #17 and #18 in the coaches and stats polls, respectively, after the last week of the year. So why wouldn't the committee have just put them as the #16 seed? Sure, they'll take flack for it, but they took flack, anyways.
Because the committee isn't the NCAA and has no direct incentive to maximize profits in the playoffs. I can pull out plenty of examples of where they didn't seed teams to make the most money. In the 2022 playoffs UIW was a team many people said didn't deserve to be seeded despite being 10-1 due to a horrendous SOS and the fact that they didn't even win the SLC auto - they averaged less than 2k in attendance at their home games yet the committee seeded them at #7 over teams like Weber St and Furman who were just on the edge of the seed line and would've drawn much better. Or last year NDSU was the presumptive first team out of the seeds and would've significantly outdrawn Furman (the #7 seed) or Villanova (the #8 seed) yet the committee seeded it the way they did.

[uofmman1122]

Because the committee isn't the NCAA and has no direct incentive to maximize profits in the playoffs. I can pull out plenty of examples of where they didn't seed teams to make the most money. In the 2022 playoffs UIW was a team many people said didn't deserve to be seeded despite being 10-1 due to a horrendous SOS and the fact that they didn't even win the SLC auto - they averaged less than 2k in attendance at their home games yet the committee seeded them at #7 over teams like Weber St and Furman who were just on the edge of the seed line and would've drawn much better. Or last year NDSU was the presumptive first team out of the seeds and would've significantly outdrawn Furman (the #7 seed) or Villanova (the #8 seed) yet the committee seeded it the way they did.
I mean sure, but I'm not talking about 7 vs 8. I feel like there's normally a pretty legit case for whatever team gets seeded in the top 8, with notable exceptions.

I'm talking about the bottom seeds. Like on any given year, you could very easily just mix the order of 12-16 with half of the unseeded teams, and it's fine.

I agree that these things shouldn't​ happen, but I am not fully convinced they won't.

[taper]

I mean sure, but I'm not talking about 7 vs 8. I feel like there's normally a pretty legit case for whatever team gets seeded in the top 8, with notable exceptions.

I'm talking about the bottom seeds. Like on any given year, you could very easily just mix the order of 12-16 with half of the unseeded teams, and it's fine.

I agree that these things shouldn't​ happen, but I am not fully convinced they won't.
We can talk what if's all day long, but I've actually been very impressed with the selection committee the last few years. They've done their job and put in the best teams. You can argue the bubble, but they really haven't missed a seed.

[Professor Chaos]

I mean sure, but I'm not talking about 7 vs 8. I feel like there's normally a pretty legit case for whatever team gets seeded in the top 8, with notable exceptions.

I'm talking about the bottom seeds. Like on any given year, you could very easily just mix the order of 12-16 with half of the unseeded teams, and it's fine.

I agree that these things shouldn't​ happen, but I am not fully convinced they won't.
I'd disagree that the seed bubble is any different from the at-large bubble in terms of how many hairs they have to split to differentiate teams. There's probably less belly-aching from teams just on the wrong side of the seed bubble than teams on the wrong side of the at-large bubble because if you just miss the seeds you're still in the dance. I don't think it'll be much different at all to compare the 15/16 seeds with the top unseeded teams in the new format versus comparing the 7/8 seeds with the top unseeded teams in the old format. And there will still be much more wailing and gnashing of teeth from teams left on the wrong side of the at-large bubble.

[uofmman1122]

We can talk what if's all day long, but I've actually been very impressed with the selection committee the last few years. They've done their job and put in the best teams. You can argue the bubble, but they really haven't missed a seed.
Yeah, but that's what I mean. I think it's a lot easier to distinguish #7 and #8 from the non-seeds than it will be #12-#16 from half the non-seeded teams. The separation between teams just gets smaller and smaller.

I'm nitpicking here, for sure, but I don't think this is going to be as universally loved in practice as it is now in principle.

[uofmman1122]

I'd disagree that the seed bubble is any different from the at-large bubble in terms of how many hairs they have to split to differentiate teams. There's probably less belly-aching from teams just on the wrong side of the seed bubble than teams on the wrong side of the at-large bubble because if you just miss the seeds you're still in the dance. I don't think it'll be much different at all to compare the 15/16 seeds with the top unseeded teams in the new format versus comparing the 7/8 seeds with the top unseeded teams in the old format. And there will still be much more wailing and gnashing of teeth from teams left on the wrong side of the at-large bubble.
Right, but just wait until one "blue blood" team gets a very subjective #15 or #16 seed, and you'll have people raising hell like they always do lol.

[NDSU1980]

So is the NCAA just going to settle for a cut of the tickets sold or will the host schools have to guarantee a dollar amount or a certain number of tickets sold?

[OhioHen]

The proof will be in the pudding - if the 9-16 seeds are set up so that it's still just as regional as before, we'll know that the "seeds" are not true representations of the order the committee put the teams in based on qualifications.

[Professor Chaos]

So is the NCAA just going to settle for a cut of the tickets sold or will the host schools have to guarantee a dollar amount or a certain number of tickets sold?
I'd assume the (higher) seeded schools will still have to meet the minimum financial guarantee to the NCAA in order to host. That would be 40k for the first round increasing by 10k per round up to 70k for the semis (page 17 at https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/football/d1/2023-24D1MFB_PreChampManual.pdf). So there might still be scenarios where the seeded team does not host if they don't submit a bid but at least the requirements will be spelled out if you're a higher seed and there's no guesswork or blind bids.

[taper]

For the all the conspiracy theorists, remember that the committee hasn't made the playoffs as regional as they could.
2023
#1 SDSU
#2 Montana
#3 USD
#4 Sac St
NDSU unseeded

2022
#1 SDSU
#2 Sac St
#3 NDSU
#4 Montana St

Both those years could have easily swapped a pair of seeds and reduced travel. They didn't.

[uofmman1122]

For the all the conspiracy theorists, remember that the committee hasn't made the playoffs as regional as they could.
2023
#1 SDSU
#2 Montana
#3 USD
#4 Sac St
NDSU unseeded

2022
#1 SDSU
#2 Sac St
#3 NDSU
#4 Montana St

Both those years could have easily swapped a pair of seeds and reduced travel. They didn't.
All of these schools are in the west, and there were clear hierarchies here.

This won't be the case with the new 9-16 seeds.

We won't know if they're gonna game regionality into it until the field is released this year because none of the past recent playoffs have had anything similar.

I get that it is slightly conspiratorial to suggest that they'd do that, but nothing that's happened in the past disproves it. This year is completely different.

As it stands right now, the power in the FCS is in the west, so I have my doubts that they're going to fill the 9-16 seeds with mostly Big Sky and MVFC schools and send all the east coast teams out there. If they actually do, then that's great, and you won't hear any complaints from me.

[Professor Chaos]

Right, but just wait until one "blue blood" team gets a very subjective #15 or #16 seed, and you'll have people raising hell like they always do lol.
Oh yeah, people will raise hell no matter what about how the committee hates their team but it doesn't get much bluer than NDSU in the FCS and they were left out of the seeds last year despite being #8 in the AGS and STATS polls and #6 in the Coaches poll in the final regular season poll releases (and having their AD on the selection committee).

People will pick and choose where they want to see selection committee bias and ignore evidence to the contrary. And the committee will continue to make mistakes from time to time - I just don't think they're mistakes made with malicious or dubious intent.

[SDFS]

Good, bidding for games was dumb. Just rank them 1-24 and be done with regionalization and all that nonsense.

They still have regionalization.

[uofmman1122]

Oh yeah, people will raise hell no matter what about how the committee hates their team but it doesn't get much bluer than NDSU in the FCS and they were left out of the seeds last year despite being #8 in the AGS and STATS polls and #6 in the Coaches poll in the final regular season poll releases (and having their AD on the selection committee).

People will pick and choose where they want to see selection committee bias and ignore evidence to the contrary. And the committee will continue to make mistakes from time to time - I just don't think they're mistakes made with malicious or dubious intent.
I know I'm getting conspiratorial again, but I think they left them out because putting them at 8 meant NDSU-SDSU in the 2nd round, and putting them higher than 8 would mean bumping Furman, who was #2 before they lost their last game without Huff.

[TheKingpin28]

Much needed and ideally, entire field would be seeded but this is a step in the right direction.

Sent from my SM-A546U1 using Tapatalk