SN - Around FCS: A New Playoff Recipe

[danefan]

Surprised no one picked this up yesterday. Coulson's insight on the playoff expansion:

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/news/AGN4142522.htm



Four more teams in the field would mean that the NCAA could add auto bids for the NEC and the Big South, beginning in 2010.

Damani Leach, the NCAA's director for football, said Wednesday that the football committee is looking at a concept called "earned access" for conferences without auto bids desiring to find a way into the field before 2010.

While this new concept will likely be refined at the committee meeting this month, criteria being discussed include requirements that teams play a minimum of two games against schools from auto-bid conferences while limiting lower- division scheduling to no more than two games, and that the teams under consideration be ranked in the top 20 by such polls as the Sports Network top-25, the FCS coaches poll, and the Gridiron Power Index, a system that takes computer rankings and polls into consideration. If a team from a league like the NEC met that criteria, it could be granted a spot in the 16-team field as an at-large entrant.

[SideLine Shooter]

Surprised no one picked this up yesterday. Coulson's insight on the playoff expansion:

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/news/AGN4142522.htm

The BIG SOUTH does not deserve an automatic bid yet.xlolx
Maybe in a few years. Don't do as the NCHSAA has done and put half the teams in the playoffs just to fill there coffers from the gate money.xeyebrowx

[andy7171]

Can't wait for the Dayton beat Forham take.

[UAalum72]

But at least there's a criteria. Dayton only had one game vs. autobid conference teams, and I don't think either Dayton or Albany were in the top 20.

[danefan]

The BIG SOUTH does not deserve an automatic bid yet.xlolx
Maybe in a few years. Don't do as the NCHSAA has done and put half the teams in the playoffs just to fill there coffers from the gate money.xeyebrowx

Big South isn't eligible yet, but if they were they'd deserve an Auto just as much as the MEAC or OVC.......xtwocentsx

xpopcornx

[UAalum72]

Should games vs. FBS, the Ivy, SWAC, Big South and Great West count as much as games against the autoconference teams?

[danefan]

Should games vs. FBS, the Ivy, SWAC, Big South and Great West count as much as games against the autoconference teams?

I think they should not use the "games against auto-bid conferences" criteria and instead use a system similar to FBS's "counter" system. For example, games would count if they were played against a conference with schools offering an average of 45 equivalencies. This way it doesn't rule out games against the Big South, Ivy, SWAC, Great West and FBS.

Totally fair or not, measuring conferences by equivalencies is really the most accurate way to measure the strength of a conference. It may not hold true on all occassions, but by and large, it is the most accurate.

[CCU97]

I think they should just do away with auto bids in general...if you can't earn your way to the playoffs then they shouldn't be there!

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Again, the Patriot League becomes an interesting case if these criteria are implemented.

Do league games "count" for playoff criteria? If so, (say) Lafayette plays Georgetown and Bucknell who are in their "playoff league" and therefore qualify for the playoffs. However, San Diego could play Yale and Fordham and be shut out since Yale is not in a playoff conference. That doesn't make any sense, and if the Ivy League has any pride (is a win against Harvard or Yale *really* not worth as much as one against Bucknell?) they will fight this.

If league games don't count, then the Patriot League is in effect being forced to schedule more non-Ivy opponents from playoff leagues. It's already like pulling teeth to get one CAA opponent on Patriot League schedules at time - and with their OOC schedules that's unlikely to change. That means that Patriot League schools would have to start taking plane trips to play games against OVC or Gateway schools to get that second game.

In that second scenario, you can say goodbye to scheduling NEC or non-scholarship games OOC for the Patriot League - or money-making FBS teams. Scheduling priorities would probably be: CAA; second playoff conference; Ivy, FBS, and finally "the rest" (Big South, NEC, PFL). That puts non-playoff teams *way, way down the food chain*.

I understand that you don't want teams qualifying for the playoffs playing teams like Waldorf and William Penn every week, but the idea of subdividing FCS team wins into "counters" and "non-counters" is a terrible precedent that will ultimately end up in the break-up into another subdivision. For the Ivy/Patriot it's one thing, but for HBCU's it's an even bigger issue. There the MEAC will have to make the impossible choice: do we schedule FBS money games, money-making classics against SWAC schools, or play... Southern Illinois?

[McTailGator]

Surprised no one picked this up yesterday. Coulson's insight on the playoff expansion:

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/news/AGN4142522.htm

xthumbsupx

That is a good proposal that I suspect McNeese and the SLC would support.

The SLC LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE AUTO BID CONFERENCES, will NOT support an expansion of the 4 week or 16 team playoff system.


I would however tweak it a bit in requiring those games against the auto conference teams to be against those schools with an average winning percentage of at least 75% of their conference games over a 3 or 4 year period. This would require those schools to seek out the BEST teams and not just the perennial cellar dwellers.

[danefan]

xthumbsupx

That is a good proposal that I suspect McNeese and the SLC would support.

The SLC LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE AUTO BID CONFERENCES, will NOT support an expansion of the 4 week or 16 team playoff system.


I would however tweak it a bit in requiring those games against the auto conference teams to be against those schools with an average winning percentage of at least 75% of their conference games over a 3 or 4 year period. This would require those schools to seek out the BEST teams and not just the perennial cellar dwellers.

You better believe that a lot of auto-bid conferences are supporting an expansion. More at-larges for their schools to get, especially for the CAA.xnodx

[McTailGator]

Should games vs. FBS, the Ivy, SWAC, Big South and Great West count as much as games against the autoconference teams?

FBS Yes,

But not the other NON-Auto bid teams. The need to play the BEST of the BEST PROVEN teams.

In-fact, the proposal should be tweaked to require an average winning percentage of at least 75% over a 3 or 4 year period amoung the Auto Bid schools so they do not try to play only the Cellar Dweller types.


The problem is FBS schools will avoid playing any school with less than 55 scholarships so that they can meet Bowl requirements.

[McTailGator]

You better believe that a lot of auto-bid conferences are supporting an expansion. More at-larges for their schools to get, especially for the CAA.xnodx

Where on earth do you get you info?

The Auto bid conference schools want a 12th game vs FBS schools so we can make money.

They will not support an additional week of playoffs, which COST us money.

What they will do is go after the NCAA again to let us play a 12th regualar season game EVERY year. THAT is what the Southland wants too.


That is why the proposal you shared only has a 16 tean format.



12 games YES.

Additional playoff week NO.

[appfan2008]

I liked all of dave's suggestions

[UAalum72]

The Patriot and MEAC, already being autobid conferences, wouldn't be affected - it seems these requirements only apply to leagues without the autobid.


I would however tweak it a bit in requiring those games against the auto conference teams to be against those schools with an average winning percentage of at least 75% of their conference games over a 3 or 4 year period.

Mathematically impossible. You have to schedule two games against teams that average 6-2 in their conference? How many of those teams are there? How many OOC games can those teams play? If every team in the NEC scheduled two, Montana App St. and who else would have to have their scheds filled with NEC games - think that's gonna happen? Or do you think the conference would decide ahead who's going to win the league to make sure that team had the required opponents?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Mathematically impossible. You have to schedule two games against teams that average 6-2 in their conference? How many of those teams are there? How many OOC games can those teams play? If every team in the NEC scheduled two, Montana App St. and who else would have to have their scheds filled with NEC games - think that's gonna happen? Or do you think the conference would decide ahead who's going to win the league to make sure that team had the required opponents?

To put extra emphasis on this, CCSU's win over Georgia Southern wouldn't count for playoff participation. That's ridiculous. Albany's wins over Lehigh wouldn't count either, and possibly their win over Delaware as well.

[danefan]

These scenarios make this a very complicated suggestion for a short-term fix. Its inevitable that the playoffs will be expanded to 20 teams by 2010 at the latest.

Why not just leave it like it is until then? If Albany goes 10-1 this year we should be a lock for an at-large regardless of the formula, right? So why do we need the formula for two years? To appease the masses?

[UAalum72]

Why not just leave it like it is until then? If Albany goes 10-1 this year we should be a lock for an at-large regardless of the formula, right? So why do we need the formula for two years? To appease the masses?
It's still nice to have something in writing, to point to during the inevitable firestorm - suppose Albany went 9-2 instead of 10-1?

[MplsBison]

I believe the criteria he is talking about only apply to teams that are not in auto bid conferences.

[danefan]

It's still nice to have something in writing, to point to during the inevitable firestorm - suppose Albany went 9-2 instead of 10-1?

True.

[aust42]

Its inevitable that the playoffs will be expanded to 20 teams by 2010 at the latest.

I'll believe it when I see it. I agree with MCTailGator, I don't believe there is widespread support for playoff expansion other than from the NEC type conferences that want an auto-bid.

[already123]

I think we should just let the top 16 play...auto-bid or not. we'll jus pick straws....

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I'll believe it when I see it. I agree with MCTailGator, I don't believe there is widespread support for playoff expansion other than from the NEC type conferences that want an auto-bid.

Prepare to believe. The reason is one of inclusion rather than exclusion, and it goes beyond the confines of football.

Think basketball. How angry would people be in, say the SLC if the NCAA decided to take away their autobid in the NCAA tournament unless they scheduled a certain number of teams from "big" conferences? Well, if in FCS those same schools exclude NEC teams because they're "not strong enough" the argument then could be used against them for men's basketball.

And nearly every conference in FCS has this issue. The Big Sky, the OVC, the Patriot League, the SLC, the MVC (Gateway), the MEAC. Even the CAA and SoCon have good reason to not give the rest of the NCAA the stick to beat themselves with in terms of basketball.

If you ask almost everyone who has an autobid if in a vacuum they want the playoffs to expand, many might say no. However, nobody wants to lose their men's basketball autobid, and if teams in football start excluding teams that have met all the criteria...

[DetroitFlyer]

Four more teams in the field would mean that the NCAA could add auto bids for the NEC and the Big South, beginning in 2010.

Damani Leach, the NCAA's director for football, said Wednesday that the football committee is looking at a concept called "earned access" for conferences without auto bids desiring to find a way into the field before 2010.

While this new concept will likely be refined at the committee meeting this month, criteria being discussed include requirements that teams play a minimum of two games against schools from auto-bid conferences while limiting lower- division scheduling to no more than two games, and that the teams under consideration be ranked in the top 20 by such polls as the Sports Network top-25, the FCS coaches poll, and the Gridiron Power Index, a system that takes computer rankings and polls into consideration. If a team from a league like the NEC met that criteria, it could be granted a spot in the 16-team field as an at-large entrant.




This "earned access" thing needs some work.... Basing "earned access" on the polls will simply mean that the old guard poll voters simply will not vote for a non-autobid team. This situation hit Dayton squarely last year! You might remember me calling it the San Diego factor. USD was voted high in the polls and it brought serious attention to the crappy playoff selection process that FCS has in place. So.... Last year, the old guard simply avoided the issue by not voting Dayton high in the polls. In fact, in many polls, Dayton was well behind Fordham, a team that Dayton defeated at Fordham, ( just in case you forgot ). Meanwhile, teams like Harvard and Yale were voted higher because they pose no threat to the old guard. Heck, you could vote them #1 and #2 if you wanted, and it would not threaten the old guards stranglehold on the playoffs one iota! This is a very thinly veiled attempt to look like something meaningful is going on, all the while knowing that the old guard is "safe" and teams from the PFL or NEC are not going to have access to the playoffs! Yeah, OK, if Albany can go 12-0 or 11-1 with their "challenging" schedule, it might be a bit more difficult to keep them out, ( I have my doubts ), but the point is a PFL or NEC team has to walk on freakin water to get a sniff, while an OVC, or MEAC or PL team need only win it's conference....

As I said, this "earned access" thing needs a ton more work.... I know, why don't we award autobids to any team that wins its conference, ( assuming the conference is 100% eligible )? Not rocket science, but that old guard seems to have the world of FCS by the you know whats....

[danefan]

I agree with DetrotFlyer that I do not like relying on polls for anything.

Human polls = human bias and error.
GPI = fancy compilation of human bias and error.

I mean come on folks. Iona was receiving votes in the coaches poll last year. Just plain crazy talk.

[USDFAN_55]

Four more teams in the field would mean that the NCAA could add auto bids for the NEC and the Big South, beginning in 2010.

Damani Leach, the NCAA's director for football, said Wednesday that the football committee is looking at a concept called "earned access" for conferences without auto bids desiring to find a way into the field before 2010.

While this new concept will likely be refined at the committee meeting this month, criteria being discussed include requirements that teams play a minimum of two games against schools from auto-bid conferences while limiting lower- division scheduling to no more than two games, and that the teams under consideration be ranked in the top 20 by such polls as the Sports Network top-25, the FCS coaches poll, and the Gridiron Power Index, a system that takes computer rankings and polls into consideration. If a team from a league like the NEC met that criteria, it could be granted a spot in the 16-team field as an at-large entrant.




This "earned access" thing needs some work.... Basing "earned access" on the polls will simply mean that the old guard poll voters simply will not vote for a non-autobid team. This situation hit Dayton squarely last year! You might remember me calling it the San Diego factor. USD was voted high in the polls and it brought serious attention to the crappy playoff selection process that FCS has in place. So.... Last year, the old guard simply avoided the issue by not voting Dayton high in the polls. In fact, in many polls, Dayton was well behind Fordham, a team that Dayton defeated at Fordham, ( just in case you forgot ). Meanwhile, teams like Harvard and Yale were voted higher because they pose no threat to the old guard. Heck, you could vote them #1 and #2 if you wanted, and it would not threaten the old guards stranglehold on the playoffs one iota! This is a very thinly veiled attempt to look like something meaningful is going on, all the while knowing that the old guard is "safe" and teams from the PFL or NEC are not going to have access to the playoffs! Yeah, OK, if Albany can go 12-0 or 11-1 with their "challenging" schedule, it might be a bit more difficult to keep them out, ( I have my doubts ), but the point is a PFL or NEC team has to walk on freakin water to get a sniff, while an OVC, or MEAC or PL team need only win it's conference....

As I said, this "earned access" thing needs a ton more work.... I know, why don't we award autobids to any team that wins its conference, ( assuming the conference is 100% eligible )? Not rocket science, but that old guard seems to have the world of FCS by the you know whats....

The concept of giving auto-bids to all confrence champs in the basketball tournament has seemed to work just fine. These are championship tournaments, right? How can it be a true championship tournament if not all the confrence champions are represented? Will giving more auto-bids exclude some "worthy" teams each year? Of course it will, but it happens in basketball every year. There is always going to be a team each year that can make a case for why they should be in the play-offs, but not everyone can be in the play-offs.

I'm sure arguments will be made that not all confrence champs are deserving..... the OVC has proven that year in and year outxnodx

[FargoBison]

I'll believe it when I see it. I agree with MCTailGator, I don't believe there is widespread support for playoff expansion other than from the NEC type conferences that want an auto-bid.

There is support for it in the Gateway.

[aust42]

Prepare to believe. The reason is one of inclusion rather than exclusion, and it goes beyond the confines of football.

Think basketball. How angry would people be in, say the SLC if the NCAA decided to take away their autobid in the NCAA tournament unless they scheduled a certain number of teams from "big" conferences? Well, if in FCS those same schools exclude NEC teams because they're "not strong enough" the argument then could be used against them for men's basketball.

And nearly every conference in FCS has this issue. The Big Sky, the OVC, the Patriot League, the SLC, the MVC (Gateway), the MEAC. Even the CAA and SoCon have good reason to not give the rest of the NCAA the stick to beat themselves with in terms of basketball.

If you ask almost everyone who has an autobid if in a vacuum they want the playoffs to expand, many might say no. However, nobody wants to lose their men's basketball autobid, and if teams in football start excluding teams that have met all the criteria...

Comparing football and basketball is apples and oranges. The conf champ teams from the "big FCS" would receive at-large bids anyway if for instance there were no auto bids. Until the Big South and NEC provide the full alloted scholarships their conf champs won't be able to compete with the top 16 teams in the FCS and would get slaughtered in the 1st round of the playoffs. Sounds arrogant but it's really true. I'm not in favor of playoff expansion. The top 16 teams are sufficient to field a champion. If the NEC and Big South want to be included, provide the fully alloted amount of scholarships and increase your level of play. In reality their not that far off. Albany for example certainly has gotten much better the past few years.

Just my opinion.

[DetroitFlyer]

Comparing football and basketball is apples and oranges. The conf champ teams from the "big FCS" would receive at-large bids anyway if for instance there were no auto bids. Until the Big South and NEC provide the full alloted scholarships their conf champs won't be able to compete with the top 16 teams in the FCS and would get slaughtered in the 1st round of the playoffs. Sounds arrogant but it's really true. I'm not in favor of playoff expansion. The top 16 teams are sufficient to field a champion. If the NEC and Big South want to be included, provide the fully alloted amount of scholarships and increase your level of play. In reality their not that far off. Albany for example certainly has gotten much better the past few years.

Just my opinion.


Yep, just like Dayton and Albany got "slaughtered" by playoff participant Fordham last season....

Nice try, but way off base. Please feel free to try again!xlolx

[USDFAN_55]

Comparing football and basketball is apples and oranges. The conf champ teams from the "big FCS" would receive at-large bids anyway if for instance there were no auto bids. Until the Big South and NEC provide the full alloted scholarships their conf champs won't be able to compete with the top 16 teams in the FCS and would get slaughtered in the 1st round of the playoffs. Sounds arrogant but it's really true. I'm not in favor of playoff expansion. The top 16 teams are sufficient to field a champion. If the NEC and Big South want to be included, provide the fully alloted amount of scholarships and increase your level of play. In reality their not that far off. Albany for example certainly has gotten much better the past few years.

Just my opinion.


How can you have a championship tournament, if all of the confrence champions are not represented? As far as these teams from the Big South or NEC or even PFL getting slaughtered in the first round; why don't you apply the same opinion towards the OVC? There are a lot of teams in the basketball tournament that get slaughtered in the first round, but at least they get a shot.... and every now and then you get a team that can pull off a huge upset. Now that is exciting. Everyone likes to pull for the underdog.

[McTailGator]

Prepare to believe. The reason is one of inclusion rather than exclusion, and it goes beyond the confines of football.

Think basketball. How angry would people be in, say the SLC if the NCAA decided to take away their autobid in the NCAA tournament unless they scheduled a certain number of teams from "big" conferences? Well, if in FCS those same schools exclude NEC teams because they're "not strong enough" the argument then could be used against them for men's basketball.

And nearly every conference in FCS has this issue. The Big Sky, the OVC, the Patriot League, the SLC, the MVC (Gateway), the MEAC. Even the CAA and SoCon have good reason to not give the rest of the NCAA the stick to beat themselves with in terms of basketball.

If you ask almost everyone who has an autobid if in a vacuum they want the playoffs to expand, many might say no. However, nobody wants to lose their men's basketball autobid, and if teams in football start excluding teams that have met all the criteria...


The 16 team format that offers the non auto conferences a chance to get in by playing the teams that do IS inclusion. That is all you need to prove you belong.

The coaches and AD's of the Southern, Big Sky, Southland, Gateway, and probably a good amount of the CAA WILL NOT support playoff expansion beyond 4 weeks and 16 teams. Those conferences and their coaches and AD's want a 12 game regular season instead. They need and want the money from guarantee games with BCS schools.

Money Rules,,,

SO, this thread needs to get back on the original threads proposal of including the little guys in the current 16 team format, which we are perfectly willing to accept.

[McTailGator]

To put extra emphasis on this, CCSU's win over Georgia Southern wouldn't count for playoff participation. That's ridiculous. Albany's wins over Lehigh wouldn't count either, and possibly their win over Delaware as well.


Yes it should count.

I originally said Conference teams, but I should have said, 70% winning percentage vs Conference teams, ANY Top 16 team, or FBS team over a three or 4 year period.

That would of course count playoff games too.

So, if we had a 12 game season, those games would need to be scheduled vs auto bid league teams that averaged 8 wins or more over the previous 3 years.

I would even go as low as 7 win average teams.

If teams want to earn inclusion, they need to prove they can play with the type of teams they will meet in the playoffs year after year.

[Bison_Kent]

The Pioneer Football League, a non-scholarship conference, has never asked for an auto bid, and the Metro-Atlantic Athletic Conference has decided to drop its sponsorship of football, with just two football-playing members (Iona and Marist) remaining. Iona has announced it will join the PFL in 2009, while Marist will play as a football independent.

One correction, Marist is going to the Pioneer League in 2009, with Iona questionable yet on its intensions past 2008. Both are indy's this year.

[downbythebeach]

I like how these threads always start out good, but then turn into madness

[Tod]

I know it's kind of the opposite way of doing business, but doesn't it make some sense that by giving the NEC and Big South auto-bids, that in itself would help with recruitment, dollars, etc.?

Both have already made great headway in the last few years.

Maybe the last part of "build it and they will come"?

xconfusedx

[aust42]

Yep, just like Dayton and Albany got "slaughtered" by playoff participant Fordham last season....

Nice try, but way off base. Please feel free to try again!xlolx

That just goes to show how bad the Patriot League was last year. xlolx

[DetroitFlyer]

That just goes to show how bad the Patriot League was last year. xlolx

And yet their champion received an automatic bid to the playoffs, and then proceeded to play a very competitive first round game.... Looks like another great argument for inclusion rather than exclusion....

[BeauFoster]

Four more teams in the field would mean that the NCAA could add auto bids for the NEC and the Big South, beginning in 2010.

Damani Leach, the NCAA's director for football, said Wednesday that the football committee is looking at a concept called "earned access" for conferences without auto bids desiring to find a way into the field before 2010.

While this new concept will likely be refined at the committee meeting this month, criteria being discussed include requirements that teams play a minimum of two games against schools from auto-bid conferences while limiting lower- division scheduling to no more than two games, and that the teams under consideration be ranked in the top 20 by such polls as the Sports Network top-25, the FCS coaches poll, and the Gridiron Power Index, a system that takes computer rankings and polls into consideration. If a team from a league like the NEC met that criteria, it could be granted a spot in the 16-team field as an at-large entrant.




This "earned access" thing needs some work.... Basing "earned access" on the polls will simply mean that the old guard poll voters simply will not vote for a non-autobid team. This situation hit Dayton squarely last year! You might remember me calling it the San Diego factor. USD was voted high in the polls and it brought serious attention to the crappy playoff selection process that FCS has in place. So.... Last year, the old guard simply avoided the issue by not voting Dayton high in the polls. In fact, in many polls, Dayton was well behind Fordham, a team that Dayton defeated at Fordham, ( just in case you forgot ). Meanwhile, teams like Harvard and Yale were voted higher because they pose no threat to the old guard. Heck, you could vote them #1 and #2 if you wanted, and it would not threaten the old guards stranglehold on the playoffs one iota! This is a very thinly veiled attempt to look like something meaningful is going on, all the while knowing that the old guard is "safe" and teams from the PFL or NEC are not going to have access to the playoffs! Yeah, OK, if Albany can go 12-0 or 11-1 with their "challenging" schedule, it might be a bit more difficult to keep them out, ( I have my doubts ), but the point is a PFL or NEC team has to walk on freakin water to get a sniff, while an OVC, or MEAC or PL team need only win it's conference....

As I said, this "earned access" thing needs a ton more work.... I know, why don't we award autobids to any team that wins its conference, ( assuming the conference is 100% eligible )? Not rocket science, but that old guard seems to have the world of FCS by the you know whats....


USD was falsely voted high because they weren't losing to (high school) teams when other schools were losing conference games to playoff contenders. San Diego was undefeated until they played a decent team and then were proven a fraud. All of your old guard talk has gotten so old. Show me an internal NCAA memo that proves that the committee doesn't want the Daytons and USD of the world in the playoffs and then you might begin to convince me. Until then, you are nothing more than hot air.

[danefan]

I know it's kind of the opposite way of doing business, but doesn't it make some sense that by giving the NEC and Big South auto-bids, that in itself would help with recruitment, dollars, etc.?

Both have already made great headway in the last few years.

Maybe the last part of "build it and they will come"?

xconfusedx

Holy cow logic in a playoff expansion thread. Can't be. Really?

Of course it will help recruting and help to raise the level of competition in the NEC, et al. Maybe that's why some folks are against it. Maybe then they'll actually have to work harder to recruit kids.

[DetroitFlyer]

USD was falsely voted high because they weren't losing to (high school) teams when other schools were losing conference games to playoff contenders. San Diego was undefeated until they played a decent team and then were proven a fraud. All of your old guard talk has gotten so old. Show me an internal NCAA memo that proves that the committee doesn't want the Daytons and USD of the world in the playoffs and then you might begin to convince me. Until then, you are nothing more than hot air.

Well, since you did not learn a very simple fact as a child, I will take this opportunity to help you out.... Actions speak louder than words! Got it?

When a PFL or NEC team is invited to the playoffs, then and only then will it be clear that the old guard has changed its ways.

[JoltinJoe]

So.... Last year, the old guard simply avoided the issue by not voting Dayton high in the polls. In fact, in many polls, Dayton was well behind Fordham, a team that Dayton defeated at Fordham, ( just in case you forgot ). .

I couldn't forget, even if tried, since you mention it in every thread.

The reason Fordham was voted higher than Dayton in the polls is that, notwithstanding the outcome of one game, Fordham was better than Dayton.

In the end, most poll voters probably knew that the first half of the Fordham-Dayton game was played in a freakish, windy downpour, and Dayton led 21-3 at the half due to five first-half Fordham turnovers in the harsh conditions.

In the fourth quarter, when the rain stopped and the wind subsided, Fordham scored three TDs and rallied to tie the score at 24-24, really pushing Dayton around in the process.

In the end, poll voters (coaches, writers, fans) probably discounted the result, given Fordham's status as an extremely young team which emerged as the season progressed, and the unusual conditions under which the game was played.

[uofmman1122]

Well, since you did not learn a very simple fact as a child, I will take this opportunity to help you out.... Actions speak louder than words! Got it?

When a PFL or NEC team is invited to the playoffs, then and only then will it be clear that the old guard has changed its ways.Or when the committee gives a playoff spot to a PFL or NEC team because that team can compete with the entire playoff field (not just with Fordham) instead of giving a berth to one just for the sake of including the PFL or NEC in the playoffs. You keep talking about Dayton and Albany competing with Fordham, but who's to say that Dayton or Albany wouldn't have been rolled by a top seeded team, or any other team in last year's playoffs?

I find it kind of funny and ironic how you complain about people not giving the PFL and NEC it's due, when you turn around and condescend to everyone on this board as if you understand something that we don't.

I personally would like to see Dayton in the playoffs. Nothing like a cupcake first round game. xlolx xthumbsupx

[BeauFoster]

Well, since you did not learn a very simple fact as a child, I will take this opportunity to help you out.... Actions speak louder than words! Got it?

When a PFL or NEC team is invited to the playoffs, then and only then will it be clear that the old guard has changed its ways.

Don't tell me what I did and didn't learn as a child. I see no actions, as you call them. I see teams that play an actual schedule, against actual competition, competing for a national championship in the playoffs. You can't address my requests, because you can't show me proof. All you can do is say "Oh! Oh! We should be in the playoffs because we beat one team, once upon a time!" Again, put your money where your mouth is and show me some proof. I dare you.


And there is no "old guard".

[USDFAN_55]

Or when the committee gives a playoff spot to a PFL or NEC team because that team can compete with the entire playoff field (not just with Fordham) instead of giving a berth to one just for the sake of including the PFL or NEC in the playoffs. You keep talking about Dayton and Albany competing with Fordham, but who's to say that Dayton or Albany wouldn't have been rolled by a top seeded team, or any other team in last year's playoffs?

I find it kind of funny and ironic how you complain about people not giving the PFL and NEC it's due, when you turn around and condescend to everyone on this board as if you understand something that we don't.

I personally would like to see Dayton in the playoffs. Nothing like a cupcake first round game. xlolx xthumbsupx

Which takes us back to the OVC. When was the last time they fielded a competetive team in the play-offs? Yet, they still get an auto-bid.

[danefan]

Which takes us back to the OVC. When was the last time they fielded a competetive team in the play-offs? Yet, they still get an auto-bid.

AND AN AT-LARGE

[AppMan]

Perhaps it is time for a two division format. Since 16 teams is to many for 6-7 conferences go back to the 12 team format used from 1982 to '85 with four #1 seeds receiving a bye in the first round. Now everybody is happy their conference gets into the playoffs.

Big Sky, CAA, Gateway, MEAC, Southland, Southern, OVC in one division.

Big South, Great West, MAAC, NEC, Patriot, Pioneer in the other.

[UAalum72]

Perhaps it is time for a two division format. Since 16 teams is to many for 6-7 conferences go back to the 12 team format used from 1982 to '85 with four #1 seeds receiving a bye in the first round. Now everybody is happy their conference gets into the playoffs.

Big Sky, CAA, Gateway, MEAC, Southland, Southern, OVC in one division.

Big South, Great West, MAAC, NEC, Patriot, Pioneer in the other.
Pay attention!

The MAAC no longer exists as a football league.

By NCAA rules, the Great West does not have enough teams to earn an automatic bid. (The Big South not until next year)

On recent merit, the Patriot League is far more qualified to be in your first division than either the OVC or the MEAC.

Unless you're proposing the champions of these two division then meet for a real FCS championship.

[AppMan]

Pay attention!

The MAAC no longer exists as a football league.

By NCAA rules, the Great West does not have enough teams to earn an automatic bid. (The Big South not until next year)

On recent merit, the Patriot League is far more qualified to be in your first division than either the OVC or the MEAC.

Unless you're proposing the champions of these two division then meet for a real FCS championship.

Forgive me, but I to not pay very much attention to the MAAC, Great West and these other leagues. I only see a lot of whinning about not being included in the playoffs from people who support schools and was simply attempting to come up with some type of a solution. Some sanity needs to be brought into this thing and placing like minded schools in the same divisions is a start. Much like the SoCon, the FCS is a hodge podge of schools with different academic philosophies, funding issues, support, and resources. Make all the statements how your team has the right to the same championship you want, but the cold, hard fact is Furman is the only small/private school to win a 1-aa or FCS championship in the 19 history of the division and only five have ever made the national championship game. That is a whopping 13% success rate. Perhaps I am way off base here, but if I were in your shoes I would want a more level playing field to compete on. Just my .02 for what it's worth.

[USDFAN_55]

Forgive me, but I to not pay very much attention to the MAAC, Great West and these other leagues. I only see a lot of whinning about not being included in the playoffs from people who support schools and was simply attempting to come up with some type of a solution. Some sanity needs to be brought into this thing and placing like minded schools in the same divisions is a start. Much like the SoCon, the FCS is a hodge podge of schools with different academic philosophies, funding issues, support, and resources. Make all the statements how your team has the right to the same championship you want, but the cold, hard fact is Furman is the only small/private school to win a 1-aa or FCS championship in the 19 history of the division and only five have ever made the national championship game. That is a whopping 13% success rate. Perhaps I am way off base here, but if I were in your shoes I would want a more level playing field to compete on. Just my .02 for what it's worth.

Doesn't this sound familiar to the BCS? We all know how screwed up that system isxnodx

[McNeese_beat]

Surprised no one picked this up yesterday. Coulson's insight on the playoff expansion:

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/default.asp?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/news/AGN4142522.htm

If you schedule good enough non-conference, it will reflect in your power ratings, particularly if you have success against the tougher schedule.

In other words, if the NEC, Pioneer, Great West, etc., schedule competitive Gateway, CAA, Southland, etc. teams and win, they will have GPIs, Sagarins, etc., that reflect their success and would/should be considered for the playoffs, especially in a 20-team field. To me there is no need to spell out scheduling requirements.

If, say, the NEC required its members to try to upgrade their out of conference schedules (like the Sun Belt did in basketball by disallowing D-II games) then you would not only get a boost if your team has success with a tougher schedule, but also would get an ostensibly get boosted by your conference mates' tougher SOSs. Of course, that could also work against you. A couple of years ago, the SLC loaded with I-A money games and everybody had crappy non-conference records that ultimately hurt the league's power ratings.

Don't change a thing, I say.

[USDFAN_55]

If you schedule good enough non-conference, it will reflect in your power ratings, particularly if you have success against the tougher schedule.

In other words, if the MAAC, Pioneer, Great West, etc., schedule competitive Gateway, CAA, Southland, etc. teams and win, they will have GPIs, Sagarins, etc., that reflect their success and would/should be considered for the playoffs, especially in a 20-team field. To me there is no need to spell out scheduling requirements.

If, say, the MAAC required its members to try to upgrade their out of conference schedules (like the Sun Belt did in basketball by disallowing D-II games) then you would not only get a boost if your team has success with a tougher schedule, but also would get an ostensibly get boosted by your conference mates' tougher SOSs. Of course, that could also work against you. A couple of years ago, the SLC loaded with I-A money games and everybody had crappy non-conference records that ultimately hurt the league's power ratings.

Don't change a thing, I say.

Two year ago San Diego was ranked high enough in the GPI, Sagarin, and polls to warrant a play-off selection; yet they weren't chosen, so that blows your notion that those matter out of the water.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

If league games don't count, then the Patriot League is in effect being forced to schedule more non-Ivy opponents from playoff leagues. It's already like pulling teeth to get one CAA opponent on Patriot League schedules at time - and with their OOC schedules that's unlikely to change. That means that Patriot League schools would have to start taking plane trips to play games against OVC or Gateway schools to get that second game.


I don't agree with you on CAA-Patriot scheduling. From the mid 70's through the mid 80's, UNH often played Lehigh, Lafayette, Bucknell, Colgate and Holy Cross. Since that time they've virtually never played. And yes it is concurrent with the Yankee Conference expansion with Delaware and Richmond joining. But IMHO the more relevant factor is the scheduling agreement instituted around the same time between the Ivy and the Patriot. The Patriot schools sent a very clear message that they'd rather play the Ivies than the other regional schools.

I don't think it would take a tooth pull to get some more CAA-Patriot match-ups at all. The CAA North schools face the same problem you brought up -- flights to travel to OOC opponents. Over these past years, I'm guessing that UNH would have preferred a Patriot opponent over Stony Brook, Iona and Central CT. I'm guessing that having a series with the home game in Durham on the years we play at Dartmouth would have been a very easy sell with our AD.

Might have missed the window of opportunity though because with Albany and Stony Brook upgrading, I'm guessing that America East mate's UNH and Maine will be scheduling them most years. Of course, I won't make any assumptions about Stony Brook because of their AD and affiliation with the Big South. But if the rumor comes true about Dartmouth wussing out once the current contract expires, then there will be another opportunity with UNH. Colgate? Holy Cross?

Holy Cross is within what, an hour and a half bus ride from UMass, UNH, Northeastern and Rhode Island. Why has it taken so long to get ONE game scheduled?

Fordham could have scheduled games versus their A-10 mates UMass and Richmond, but they chose Dayton. They could have played Hofstra too for a great regional game. But they at least do play Rhody often.

Colgate has played UMass recently, but aren't they switching to Stony Brook? They've been all sports league mates with Maine, UNH and Northeastern over the years and they're all hockey schools as well.

Didn't Hofstra used to be conference mates with Lehigh, Lafayette and Bucknell in the old East Coast Conference? I don't see why Hofstra would be a trip to the orthodontist to schedule?

I read on other forums how Bucknell is always looking for basketball games. UNH and Maine are often in the same boat. I bet negotiating a series for both sports would be a reasonable sell.

Sorry LFN, but you're going to need to give me more info before I believe the CAA schools are the problem with scheduling.

[DetroitFlyer]

I couldn't forget, even if tried, since you mention it in every thread.

The reason Fordham was voted higher than Dayton in the polls is that, notwithstanding the outcome of one game, Fordham was better than Dayton.

In the end, most poll voters probably knew that the first half of the Fordham-Dayton game was played in a freakish, windy downpour, and Dayton led 21-3 at the half due to five first-half Fordham turnovers in the harsh conditions.

In the fourth quarter, when the rain stopped and the wind subsided, Fordham scored three TDs and rallied to tie the score at 24-24, really pushing Dayton around in the process.

In the end, poll voters (coaches, writers, fans) probably discounted the result, given Fordham's status as an extremely young team which emerged as the season progressed, and the unusual conditions under which the game was played.


Yeah, that great effort against Bucknell really pointed out to the "objective" pollsters just how much better Fordham was than Dayton.... If you do not believe that pollsters are absolutely biased against non-scholarship teams of the PFL and even the partial scholarship NEC teams, you simply have not looked very hard.... Dayton improved as the season progressed, thumping San Diego and Albany.... Fordham did not losing badly to a terrible Bucknell team.... Yep, no doubt about it, Fordham was "better" than Dayton and deserved to be ranked higher.... LOL big time!!!!!

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

Why hasn't the Pioneer League asked for an auto-bid? You'd think that with all the outspoken posters on this forum from schools in that league that they'd have made enough noise with their AD's to request an auto-bid. xconfusedx xconfusedx

[UAalum72]

Forgive me, but I to not pay very much attention to the MAAC, Great West and these other leagues.
Then don't offer solutions if you can't be bothered to find out what you have to work with. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF OLD-GUARD THINKING

Just my .02 for what it's worth.
Obviously not worth even that

In other words, if the MAAC, Pioneer, Great West, etc., schedule competitive ....If, say, the MAAC
REPEAT AFTER ME - "THE MAAC FOOTBALL LEAGUE IS NO MORE"

"THE GREAT WEST IS NOT PART OF THE AUTOBID DISCUSSION"

And what kind of out-of-conference wins has the OVC had in the last couple of years to keep warranting an autobid AND an at-large?

[JoltinJoe]

Yeah, that great effort against Bucknell really pointed out to the "objective" pollsters just how much better Fordham was than Dayton.... If you do not believe that pollsters are absolutely biased against non-scholarship teams of the PFL and even the partial scholarship NEC teams, you simply have not looked very hard.... Dayton improved as the season progressed, thumping San Diego and Albany.... Fordham did not losing badly to a terrible Bucknell team.... Yep, no doubt about it, Fordham was "better" than Dayton and deserved to be ranked higher.... LOL big time!!!!!

We were already in the playoffs when we faced Bucknell. Obviously we took that week off after the win against Holy Cross clinched our playoff berth.

If you think Dayton could have hung tough with UMass, guess again.

Fordham was ranked higher because its body of work, over a full season, merited it. In the end, Fordham was simply better than Dayton.

[DetroitFlyer]

We were already in the playoffs when we faced Bucknell. Obviously we took that week off after the win against Holy Cross clinched our playoff berth.

If you think Dayton could have hung tough with UMass, guess again.

Fordham was ranked higher because its body of work, over a full season, merited it. In the end, Fordham was simply better than Dayton.

Wow, I guess you are a major fan of the FBS system.... Yep, that head to head competition thing is vastly overrated.... LOL! So Fordham was better than both Albany and Dayton because they lost to both teams on their home field.... I get it now, the idea is to lose on your home field to prove you are better.... No wonder Dayton was not ranked higher, we did not lose a single game on our home field. I will inform the AD about this new technique, as I'm sure we did not get the memo.... LOL!!!! Oh, and did I mention that Dayton defeated Fordham at Fordham last year? Oh, and come to think of it, all time Fordham is 0-3 against the Flyers. Yep, given my newfound knowledge, all time, Fordham is much better than the Flyers...!

[JoltinJoe]

Wow, I guess you are a major fan of the FBS system.... Yep, that head to head competition thing is vastly overrated.... LOL! So Fordham was better than both Albany and Dayton because they lost to both teams on their home field.... I get it now, the idea is to lose on your home field to prove you are better.... No wonder Dayton was not ranked higher, we did not lose a single game on our home field. I will inform the AD about this new technique, as I'm sure we did not get the memo.... LOL!!!! Oh, and did I mention that Dayton defeated Fordham at Fordham last year? Oh, and come to think of it, all time Fordham is 0-3 against the Flyers. Yep, given my newfound knowledge, all time, Fordham is much better than the Flyers...!

You need help.

Incidentally, all time, it is ridiculous to compare Dayton and Fordham.

[DetroitFlyer]

You need help.

Incidentally, all time, it is ridiculous to compare Dayton and Fordham.

All I can say is that my Flyers better defeat the Rams in Dayton this season or I will never hear the end of it....

[BeauFoster]

Wow, I guess you are a major fan of the FBS system.... Yep, that head to head competition thing is vastly overrated.... LOL! So Fordham was better than both Albany and Dayton because they lost to both teams on their home field.... I get it now, the idea is to lose on your home field to prove you are better.... No wonder Dayton was not ranked higher, we did not lose a single game on our home field. I will inform the AD about this new technique, as I'm sure we did not get the memo.... LOL!!!! Oh, and did I mention that Dayton defeated Fordham at Fordham last year? Oh, and come to think of it, all time Fordham is 0-3 against the Flyers. Yep, given my newfound knowledge, all time, Fordham is much better than the Flyers...!


Was GSU or Wofford better than ASU last year? By your way of thinking, they were, simply because of one game. I would argue differently, and I bet the majority of posters on this site would agree with me. The body of work over an entire season, including wins and losses are taken into account when determining the playoff field. Obviously, Dayton's body of work didn't persuade the committee enough. Maybe you should talk to the AD about that.

[DetroitFlyer]

Was GSU or Wofford better than ASU last year? By your way of thinking, they were, simply because of one game. I would argue differently, and I bet the majority of posters on this site would agree with me. The body of work over an entire season, including wins and losses are taken into account when determining the playoff field. Obviously, Dayton's body of work didn't persuade the committee enough. Maybe you should talk to the AD about that.


Frankly, I am disappointed but not suprised to find an App fan that is an FBS wannabee.... Bring on the polls and all of the subjectivity. Welcome to the wonderful world of FBS! Maybe you are headed there anyway, so not too surprising that you have already adopted the thought process....

[uofmman1122]

Frankly, I am disappointed but not suprised to find an App fan that is an FBS wannabee.... Bring on the polls and all of the subjectivity. Welcome to the wonderful world of FBS! Maybe you are headed there anyway, so not too surprising that you have already adopted the thought process....His post had nothing to do with FBS, and he has a point.

I still say you're focusing too much on Fordham. Even if you were a better team than Fordham, it's very likely that Dayton would have been forced to travel to a top seed, and more than likely would have been blown out. It probably would have been McNeese St., Montana, or UNI, and unfortunately, Dayton is not at that level yet.

You can talk all you want about belonging instead of Fordham, but would Dayton really belong next to all of the other teams?

Not trying to knock Fordham, either, but their ability showed on the field.

[danefan]

His post had nothing to do with FBS, and he has a point.

I still say you're focusing too much on Fordham. Even if you were a better team than Fordham, it's very likely that Dayton would have been forced to travel to a top seed, and more than likely would have been blown out. It probably would have been McNeese St., Montana, or UNI, and unfortunately, Dayton is not at that level yet.

You can talk all you want about belonging instead of Fordham, but would Dayton really belong next to all of the other teams?

Not trying to knock Fordham, either, but their ability showed on the field.


Ok, see this is where this argument (which many try to argue) breaks down. You are arguing that Dayton (or Albany or any other NEC, PFL team) doesn't belong next to the top seeds so they shouldn't be allowed an auto-bid to the playoffs.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that there are other leagues who have an auto-bid and are not at the same level of the CAA, Socon, etc..

Namely, OVC, MEAC, Patriot. Yet they all have an autobid and sometimes get at-larges and therein lies the crack in your argument.

And you cannot expect only the top leagues to get bids to the playoffs can you? That defeats the purpose of a playoff. A playoff should have a 1 v 16 game with the #1 team being theoretically better then the #16. That's what makes college athletics so fun.

[Fordham]

All I can say is that my Flyers better defeat the Rams in Dayton this season or I will never hear the end of it....

why would you assume we'd be as ridiculously classless as that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

[BeauFoster]

Frankly, I am disappointed but not suprised to find an App fan that is an FBS wannabee.... Bring on the polls and all of the subjectivity. Welcome to the wonderful world of FBS! Maybe you are headed there anyway, so not too surprising that you have already adopted the thought process....

Where did I say anything about FBS? Subjectivity is going to be involved in setting the playoff field as long as there is even one at large bid. I'm not an anything-wannabee, I am just providing some arguement to your point that, because Dayton beat one team, they belonged in the playoffs. By your reasoning, GSU should have been included over ASU. That's all I'm saying - and it's exactly what you are saying, too.

[JoltinJoe]

All I can say is that my Flyers better defeat the Rams in Dayton this season or I will never hear the end of it....

You won't hear anything from Fordham or me, but you may hear it from everyone else on AGS.

It's fine you think Dayton deserved a playoff spot, but at a certain point, to continually harp on the Fordham win in these debates only invites responses that put Fordham down. A few posts up, you'll see there is some Griz fan, who no doubt has never seen our team play, putting our program down just because you mentioned the game. We had an enjoyable season and it is frustrating to see these comments directed our way, when we did nothing to invite them in the first place.

Dayton was the better team on September 22. On that day, Fordham was still starting a lot of freshmen and sophmores -- talented players -- who had not yet taken that next step. We played like an inexperienced team in bad conditions, and made way too many mistakes. Dayton was a well-coached, more experienced squad, and handled the conditions with far more skill than we did.

It is a pretty common belief around Fordham that the Dayton game, and the six turnovers we made, was a huge learning experience for us. In fact, Coach Masella was said to have frequently cited to Dayton as an example of the level of commitment and preparation necessary to win football games.

One insider posted on the Fordham board that the season we had, and the growth we showed as a team, would not have happened without the Dayton experience.

[DetroitFlyer]

why would you assume we'd be as ridiculously classless as that? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)


Just a hunch.... To be honest, when I made the trip from Detroit to Fordham, the Fordham fans were very nice and helpful. There was only one guy talking trash when we first walked into the stadium. Oddly enough, I did not see him on the way out.... LOL!!!!

The game this year should be interesting. We lost our all everything QB that gave Fordham, ( and many other teams ), fits last year. Fordham should be more experienced, and your QB should be excellent this year. I am very much looking forward to the game, and hope that many Fordham fans make the trip to Dayton. I hope to have a "feel" for the 2008 Flyers after the Spring game in a couple of weeks, especially our QB situation.

[uofmman1122]

Ok, see this is where this argument (which many try to argue) breaks down. You are arguing that Dayton (or Albany or any other NEC, PFL team) doesn't belong next to the top seeds so they shouldn't be allowed an auto-bid to the playoffs.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that there are other leagues who have an auto-bid and are not at the same level of the CAA, Socon, etc..

Namely, OVC, MEAC, Patriot. Yet they all have an autobid and sometimes get at-larges and therein lies the crack in your argument.

And you cannot expect only the top leagues to get bids to the playoffs can you? That defeats the purpose of a playoff. A playoff should have a 1 v 16 game with the #1 team being theoretically better then the #16. That's what makes college athletics so fun.Well, if they field a team that is good enough, then by all means, let them in, but last year, it wasn't the case.

I'd like to see the PFL and the NEC have an autobid, but only if they expanded the playoffs, since giving them one now would take away 2 spots for, more likely than not, better teams.

[UAalum72]

I'd like to see the PFL and the NEC have an autobid, but only if they expanded the playoffs, since giving them one now would take away 2 spots for, more likely than not, better teams.
Well, you don't have to worry your little heart about that, because that's the written NCAA rule - no more than half the playoff field may be composed of conference autobid winners. More autobids must be matched by more at-large selections.

[crusader11]

I feel bad that Fordham has to go out to Dayton and play on that green parking lot. Detroit Flyer- when the football season is over do cars park on the section of the parking lot that is painted green for the basketball games?

[danefan]

I feel bad that Fordham has to go out to Dayton and play on that green parking lot. Detroit Flyer- when the football season is over do cars park on the section of the parking lot that is painted green for the basketball games?


Don't worry, I think it will be field turf before you get there.xthumbsupx

[crusader11]

Ohhh very exciting. Will they be playing football powerhouses such as Urbana, Central State, Albion, or Hanover on this BRAND new field turf?

[AppMan]

Then don't offer solutions if you can't be bothered to find out what you have to work with. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF OLD-GUARD THINKING

No, it is an example of reality. Why should I pay attention to these conferences when they have never a blip on the radar screen of the national picture? That is a fact you can not argue. All I was attempting to do is offer a solution to an obvious problem.

[/QUOTE]Obviously not worth even that.[/QUOTE]

Guess that depends on your point of view.

[uofmman1122]

Well, you don't have to worry your little heart about that, because that's the written NCAA rule - no more than half the playoff field may be composed of conference autobid winners. More autobids must be matched by more at-large selections.Thank you for informing me with your incredible, unmatched, courageous knowledge of the NCAA and it's many rules and regulations. Forgive my ineptness on the subject, for I know that we, as AGS members, are required to read and memorize the entire rulebook, but sloth has overtaken me, and I forgot to do so. xwhistlex

[McNeese_beat]

Two year ago San Diego was ranked high enough in the GPI, Sagarin, and polls to warrant a play-off selection; yet they weren't chosen, so that blows your notion that those matter out of the water.

But remember, we're talking about expanding the field to 20, which adds two at-large bids. If there was a 20-team field in 2006, would San Diego have made it?

Plus, I think when the playoff expansion happens, the mentality of the committee will change a little bit. It is expanding not because there are 6-5 Colonial and Big Sky teams being left out that "deserve" to be in, but because there are new FCS teams and new FCS leagues that are currently being left out of the process and this playoff expansion is specifically being considered to allow those teams more opportunity.

I realize that the various tournament changes in other D-I sports never seem to benefit the little guy (for example, the basketball tournament's move to 64 teams years ago seemed to get 18-12 SEC teams in and not 25-5 Big Sky teams and the expansion of the baseball tournament to 64 teams meant more regionals at Pac-10, SEC, Big 12 and ACC ballparks) but I think there is a difference between what the "big guys" and the "little guys" are in basketball and baseball and what the "big guys" and "little guys" are in FCS football.

[TheValleyRaider]

No, it is an example of reality. Why should I pay attention to these conferences when they have never a blip on the radar screen of the national picture? That is a fact you can not argue. All I was attempting to do is offer a solution to an obvious problem.

Well, with all due respect, if you're going to try to propose a change to the system, understanding how the current one actually works is a good start. The fact that you choose not to pay attention to these schools/conferences does not preclude them from competing in the postseason. Certainly the preoccupation some members have of promoting the OVC/MEAC over the Patriot League given our relative postseason success over recent seasons continues to boggle my mind (especially since it rarely, if ever, comes from OVC/MEAC fans xchinscratchx)


Forgive my ineptness on the subject, for I know that we, as AGS members, are required to read and memorize the entire rulebook, but sloth has overtaken me, and I forgot to do so. xwhistlex

Well, if we are to be discussing the playoffs, I think it would be best if we all understood exactly how the playoffs work. It would no doubt save some unnecessary complaining from certain fans who feel their team has been treated unfairly (Georgia Southern, Dayton this year)

xpeacex

The NEC and Big South are next on the list of autobids, and unless the Ivy/SWAC/Pioneer have been rumbling about jumping in line, the expansion to 20 will accomodate those 2 conferences, plus likely a 2nd "non-power conference" ("power conference" being defined as a conference that regularly recieves consideration for at least 1 at large bid) team (MEAC/OVC/PL) and another from the remaining "power" conferences". I suppose the SLC is in a bit of no-man's land there, but that's more a function of their relatively balanced conference and schedules that seem to have more than 1 sub-DIs, which when combined manage to hurt their ability to meet the 7-win level xtwocentsx

[DetroitFlyer]

I feel bad that Fordham has to go out to Dayton and play on that green parking lot. Detroit Flyer- when the football season is over do cars park on the section of the parking lot that is painted green for the basketball games?


http://daytonflyers.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/032608aab.html

You can read up on the renovations at Welcome Stadium. As for basketball, we had so many sellouts this year that fans had to park across I-75 in the Delphi parking lots and take a shuttle to the Arena.... Just a bit different than the 15 to 20 fans that show up for a HC basketball game.... Come to think of it, does HC even have a basketball team? I have a vague memory of Dayton playing a scrimage out east this year, maybe in the gym at HC? As I recall, there were probably more Dayton fans there than HC fans....xlolx

[crusader11]

Since 2001, HC has been to 4 NCAA Tournaments, while Dayton has been to 2. I'll take having less fans, as long as we get to the dance more frequently. And a "scrimmage?" If you call a scrimmage losing by 2 at the buzzer in a back and forth type game and nearly giving Dayton its second loss of the year a scrimmage, then I guess you're right DF, it was a scrimmage.

[lizrdgizrd]

Two year ago San Diego was ranked high enough in the GPI, Sagarin, and polls to warrant a play-off selection; yet they weren't chosen, so that blows your notion that those matter out of the water.
And they proved they shouldn't have been when they were defeated in a regular-season game by a 5-5 UC Davis on the first weekend of the playoffs.

Can't schedule a regular season game for the same day as the playoffs and expect to go to the playoffs. Can't loose to a non-playoff bound team that's only your second DI OOC game of the season and expect to get to the playoffs. xnonono2x

[eaglesrthe1]

These scenarios make this a very complicated suggestion for a short-term fix. Its inevitable that the playoffs will be expanded to 20 teams by 2010 at the latest.

Why not just leave it like it is until then? If Albany goes 10-1 this year we should be a lock for an at-large regardless of the formula, right? So why do we need the formula for two years? To appease the masses?

Amen. Except that it's not to appease the masses, but a minority. The term "earned access"? That's a scam to use as an excuse for some team to be woffed. I thought that an at-large bid was for teams that "earned access".xnonox

[USDFAN_55]

And they proved they shouldn't have been when they were defeated in a regular-season game by a 5-5 UC Davis on the first weekend of the playoffs.

Can't schedule a regular season game for the same day as the playoffs and expect to go to the playoffs. Can't loose to a non-playoff bound team that's only your second DI OOC game of the season and expect to get to the playoffs. xnonono2x

You mean the same UC-Davis team that stomped Montana State @ Montana State that year? Didn't Montana State win in the first round, and barely lose in the second round that year?

[putter]

I don't mind expansion as long as the NCAA does away with regionalization, seeds all the teams, and picks up the tab for the schools. I also would want a committment from the growing conferences (NEC etc.) to make a committment that they increase their scholly's to put a good product on the field. As long as expansion does not water down the level of competition I am all for it.

[eaglesrthe1]

How can you have a championship tournament, if all of the confrence champions are not represented? As far as these teams from the Big South or NEC or even PFL getting slaughtered in the first round; why don't you apply the same opinion towards the OVC? There are a lot of teams in the basketball tournament that get slaughtered in the first round, but at least they get a shot.... and every now and then you get a team that can pull off a huge upset. Now that is exciting. Everyone likes to pull for the underdog.

I wish that people would stop using the BB tounament as an analogy. The BB tournament has TWO purposes. 1) to crown a champion, and 2) to make money. Don't think that #2 isn't just as important as #1. If having 64 teams didn't make more money than having 32, then there wouldn't be 64 teams. Period.

There is no money to be made in the FCS playoffs. Period. So there is just reason #1... to crown a champion.

There isn't a #16 regional seed going to be crowned champion in BB, and there isn't a #20 seed in the FCS going to be either.

[lizrdgizrd]

You mean the same UC-Davis team that stomped Montana State @ Montana State that year? Didn't Montana State win in the first round, and barely lose in the second round that year?
The same UC Davis team that was 5-5 before the USD game. 6 wins won't get you in the playoffs (unless you're the PL champ xnonono2x).

And MSU lost 38-17 in the semis.

[TheValleyRaider]

The same UC Davis team that was 5-5 before the USD game. 6 wins won't get you in the playoffs (unless you're the PL champ xnonono2x).

I think that should say "as an at-large" xrolleyesx

The 7-win requirement is only for at-larges. Conferences with autobids are allowed to give them in whatever way they choose, and yes, that year no PL met the 7-win requirement for an at-large bid

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I wish that people would stop using the BB tounament as an analogy. The BB tournament has TWO purposes. 1) to crown a champion, and 2) to make money. Don't think that #2 isn't just as important as #1. If having 64 teams didn't make more money than having 32, then there wouldn't be 64 teams. Period.

There is no money to be made in the FCS playoffs. Period. So there is just reason #1... to crown a champion.

There isn't a #16 regional seed going to be crowned champion in BB, and there isn't a #20 seed in the FCS going to be either.

Finish this thought. Nobody would consider going from 64 back to 32 teams... but that's not because Mississippi Valley State would be screwed... it's because the seventh Big East team would be screwed (this year, Villanova). The tournament is at 64 teams precisely becausee it allows teams like Villanova to make money (at the expense of teams that are more deserving, like (IMO) Dayton).

The "power athletic conferences" have been discussing this, and I believe most would just as well screw the George Mason's, Gonzaga's and Davidson's and make it a power conference invitational.

Does this make it different than FCS? Yeah, but those decisions loom over these playoffs too. Like I said before, these FCS decisions do not exist in a vacuum. If FCS football starts a trend of inventing new hurdles to cross for membership, what's to stop the Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 10 and others from inventing hurdles to play in the men's NCAA tournament and (for that matter) any other championship? This moratorium on D-I moves is to prevent future NJITs to call themselves D-I and have their students call themselves Division I athletes. That was done to close D-I down - and don't think the power conferences want to stop there. They would be quite happy to make D-I-BCS and separate themselves from everyone.

You say it's only about "crowning a champion", but it's about so much more than that.

[eaglesrthe1]

Finish this thought. Nobody would consider going from 64 back to 32 teams... but that's not because Mississippi Valley State would be screwed... it's because the seventh Big East team would be screwed (this year, Villanova). The tournament is at 64 teams precisely becausee it allows teams like Villanova to make money (at the expense of teams that are more deserving, like (IMO) Dayton).

The "power athletic conferences" have been discussing this, and I believe most would just as well screw the George Mason's, Gonzaga's and Davidson's and make it a power conference invitational.

Does this make it different than FCS? Yeah, but those decisions loom over these playoffs too. Like I said before, these FCS decisions do not exist in a vacuum. If FCS football starts a trend of inventing new hurdles to cross for membership, what's to stop the Big Ten, Big XII, Pac 10 and others from inventing hurdles to play in the men's NCAA tournament and (for that matter) any other championship? This moratorium on D-I moves is to prevent future NJITs to call themselves D-I and have their students call themselves Division I athletes. That was done to close D-I down - and don't think the power conferences want to stop there. They would be quite happy to make D-I-BCS and separate themselves from everyone.

You say it's only about "crowning a champion", but it's about so much more than that.


As far as the FCS is concerned, that is all it's about. You might can hope for some small expansion, just based on schools altruistic nature to be inclusive. Since that will cost money however, don't count on much.

Somehow it's much easier to be giving... when it doesn't actually cost anything.xrolleyesx

[USDFAN_55]

The same UC Davis team that was 5-5 before the USD game. 6 wins won't get you in the playoffs (unless you're the PL champ xnonono2x).

And MSU lost 38-17 in the semis.

Ok, but lost to UC-Davis 45-0!xeekx That is not a fluke win. Davis destroyed Montana State because they were a better team. So don't try and say San Diego was beaten by a mediocre team, because clearly that was proven otherwise with an absolute thumping of a play-off team on the road.

[89Hen]

Mentioning basketball, or ANY other sport is COMPLETELY irrelevant. No other sport plays only one game per week. No other sport only plays 11 regular season games. The only one that's close is LAX and that's just because there are so few DI teams.

[lizrdgizrd]

Ok, but lost to UC-Davis 45-0!xeekx That is not a fluke win. Davis destroyed Montana State because they were a better team. So don't try and say San Diego was beaten by a mediocre team, because clearly that was proven otherwise with an absolute thumping of a play-off team on the road.
And they were still 5-5 otherwise. xcoffeex

[USDFAN_55]

And they were still 5-5 otherwise. xcoffeex

Let's see who they lost to:

TCU (FBS): record 11-2 (lost by 33)
Youngstown State: record 11-3 (lost by 14)
Cal Poly: record 7-3 (lost by 6)
South Dakota State: record 7-4 (lost by 1)
North dakota State: record 10-1 (lost by 4)


Those don't look like easy games at all. UC-Davis was a lot better than their 5-5 record indicated. Except for the TCU game and the Youngstown game, each game was very very close.

[DetroitFlyer]

And they were still 5-5 otherwise. xcoffeex


So, what exactly was UC Davis's GPI in 2006? How about the GPI of their conference in 2006?

[USDFAN_55]

So, what exactly was UC Davis's GPI in 2006? How about the GPI of their conference in 2006?

Funny that you ask.......

http://greatwestfootball.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/012207aaa.html

[DetroitFlyer]

Funny that you ask.......

http://greatwestfootball.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/012207aaa.html


Yeah, that UC Davis team was really terrible and played in a cupcake conference....xlolx

[USDFAN_55]

Yeah, that UC Davis team was really terrible and played in a cupcake conference....xlolx

Obviously, anyone can just look at their 5-5 record and see thatxlolx

[BeauFoster]

Obviously, anyone can just look at their 5-5 record and see thatxlolx


Just like looking at a 10-1 team and thinking that they are the end all, be all.

[lizrdgizrd]

Obviously, anyone can just look at their 5-5 record and see thatxlolx
Just like we can see that you didn't belong in the playoffs that year. There are usually several UC Davis teams that just don't have the required # of wins to make the playoffs as an at-large but who would do quite well regardless. You played only one playoff team and got beat solidly. I guess you could have considered that UC-Davis game your playoffs. They certainly had a better resume for it.

[crusader11]

"You are what your record says you are." UC Davis was mediocre, according to Bill Parcells, one of the great football coaches ever, at least.

[USDFAN_55]

Just like we can see that you didn't belong in the playoffs that year. There are usually several UC Davis teams that just don't have the required # of wins to make the playoffs as an at-large but who would do quite well regardless. You played only one playoff team and got beat solidly. I guess you could have considered that UC-Davis game your playoffs. They certainly had a better resume for it.

So your position has changed on how worthy of an opponent Davis was? That game did nothing more than to prove that San Diego could of hung just as well, if not better than the OVC, MEAC, or PL representative.

[lizrdgizrd]

So your position has changed on how worthy of an opponent Davis was? That game did nothing more than to prove that San Diego could of hung just as well, if not better than the OVC, MEAC, or PL representative.
Don't get me started on them either. xlolx

I'm all for no AQs and let the chips land where they may. But if you want to start quoting GPIs, what was the PFL's GPI in 2006? 15 of 16. Guess that Conference schedule's a real scorcher! xrolleyesx

[UAalum72]

"You are what your record says you are." UC Davis was mediocre, according to Bill Parcells, one of the great football coaches ever, at least.
Not to fuel the fire or anything, but does that quote apply to EVERY school being talked about here, or just the teams you want to apply it to?

[DetroitFlyer]

Don't get me started on them either. xlolx

I'm all for no AQs and let the chips land where they may. But if you want to start quoting GPIs, what was the PFL's GPI in 2006? 15 of 16. Guess that Conference schedule's a real scorcher! xrolleyesx


Care to enlighten us as to what USD's GPI was in 2006? I guess that using the system proposed above, you would have put USD in the playoffs!

Thanks for the support!xnodx

[lizrdgizrd]

Care to enlighten us as to what USD's GPI was in 2006? I guess that using the system proposed above, you would have put USD in the playoffs!

Thanks for the support!xnodx

Actually you were in a tie for 16th. You certainly would have had a shot at making it had you managed to play and defeat Davis a week earlier. xpeacex

And if we were in a strictly at-large selection you would have gotten selected since SDSU wasn't eligible yet (and you hadn't scheduled your last game for the same week as the playoffs).

[USDFAN_55]

Actually you were in a tie for 16th. You certainly would have had a shot at making it had you managed to play and defeat Davis a week earlier. xpeacex

And if we were in a strictly at-large selection you would have gotten selected since SDSU wasn't eligible yet (and you hadn't scheduled your last game for the same week as the playoffs).

Actually before play-off selection they were 13th. http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=82343

With Portland State and North Dakota State not eligible for playoffs ahead of them. Which would mean they were actually 11th when it came to playoff eligible teams.

[danefan]

Actually before play-off selection they were 13th. http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=82343

With Maine, Portland State, and North Dakota State not eligible for playoffs ahead of them. Which would mean they were actually 10th when it came to playoff eligible teams.

No offense to San Diego, but even more fuel to the "GPI is worthless" argument. And getting slightly back on topic, the fact that Coulson mentions the use of the GPI as a factor for at-large selection makes me sick to my stomach. Can you say....baby BCS?

[lizrdgizrd]

Actually before play-off selection they were 13th. http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=82343

WithPortland State and North Dakota State not eligible for playoffs ahead of them. Which would mean they were actually 11th when it came to playoff eligible teams.
But before playoff selection you'd only played 10 games with one "significant" win - Yale. You may have even been chosen to make the playoffs if you had lost to Davis and completed your schedule prior to the playoffs starting if we'd had an all at-large selection method. The point is you fell just short of the playoffs in your best season so far.

[USDFAN_55]

But before playoff selection you'd only played 10 games with one "significant" win - Yale. You may have even been chosen to make the playoffs if you had lost to Davis and completed your schedule prior to the playoffs starting if we'd had an all at-large selection method. The point is you fell just short of the playoffs in your best season so far.

The only point I was getting at is the GPI is obviously meaningless when it comes to selecting at large playoff teams.

[lizrdgizrd]

The only point I was getting at is the GPI is obviously meaningless when it comes to selecting at large playoff teams.
Well, I don't know if it's meaningless, but it's certainly not an accurate predictor. xsmhx

[AppMan]

Well, with all due respect, if you're going to try to propose a change to the system, understanding how the current one actually works is a good start. The fact that you choose not to pay attention to these schools/conferences does not preclude them from competing in the postseason. Certainly the preoccupation some members have of promoting the OVC/MEAC over the Patriot League given our relative postseason success over recent seasons continues to boggle my mind (especially since it rarely, if ever, comes from OVC/MEAC fans xchinscratchx)

I am completely aware of how the playoffs work. The power conferences believe they should get all the bids and use strength of schedule as evidence to support their position. The smaller (for the lack of a better word) conferences believe they should get a shot at the same prize simply because they belong to the division. This arguement will go on and on until the playoffs are expanded to take in all conference champions. There are two problems with the proposal. #1: That would add 1-2 more games to an already long season. #2: ESPN isn't going to let the FCS playoffs intrude into their big revenue Bowl window. The only other alternative is to move the first game up a week or cut the regular season by a game. To schools like ASU that is cutting revenue streams and they won't consider either option. The only way I see to appease everyone is to split the playoffs into two divisions.

[Tod]

I am completely aware of how the playoffs work. The power conferences believe they should get all the bids and use strength of schedule as evidence to support their position. The smaller (for the lack of a better word) conferences believe they should get a shot at the same prize simply because they belong to the division. This arguement will go on and on until the playoffs are expanded to take in all conference champions. There are two problems with the proposal. #1: That would add 1-2 more games to an already long season. #2: ESPN isn't going to let the FCS playoffs intrude into their big revenue Bowl window. The only other alternative is to move the first game up a week or cut the regular season by a game. To schools like ASU that is cutting revenue streams and they won't consider either option. The only way I see to appease everyone is to split the playoffs into two divisions.

Couple of things;

First, to expand the playoffs to as many as 32 teams would only require one more week. There should be no reason whatsoever to have to add two weeks.

Second, according to NCAA rules, at least half of the teams have to be at-large. So if we add more conference champions, we have to add an at-large for each one.

Third, I don't know how you'd split the playoffs into two divisions without having the champions meet for a championship game. What do you have in mind?

[downbythebeach]

I would be all for having my alma mater split off with the ivys, patriot, and pfl schools

[TheValleyRaider]

I am completely aware of how the playoffs work. The power conferences believe they should get all the bids and use strength of schedule as evidence to support their position. The smaller (for the lack of a better word) conferences believe they should get a shot at the same prize simply because they belong to the division. This arguement will go on and on until the playoffs are expanded to take in all conference champions. There are two problems with the proposal. #1: That would add 1-2 more games to an already long season. #2: ESPN isn't going to let the FCS playoffs intrude into their big revenue Bowl window. The only other alternative is to move the first game up a week or cut the regular season by a game. To schools like ASU that is cutting revenue streams and they won't consider either option. The only way I see to appease everyone is to split the playoffs into two divisions.

Funny how the power conferences use "evidence" to support their position while the lesser conferences "believe" they deserve a chance xeyebrowx xrolleyesx ;)

Look, I'm not advocating handing out participation medals here, I'm talking about giving as many teams within the whole of the subdivision (which includes non-scholly/fully scholly, public/private, the whole gamut) the chance to earn the title on the field. You can't dismiss certain schools simply because they don't fit your model of how someone should fund football. Remember that Colgate went to a National Championship game before App. State ever did. I'm not directing that at you per se, but more generally, as there are certainly people who feel that way. 1 subdivision within D-I is plenty, the last thing we would benefit from is further division.

As for playoff expansion, get used to it, because it's coming. Yes, the beneficiaries are going to include conferences like the NEC and Big South because there's room for them. ESPN will televise the games because that's how the NCAA will let them show regular season FBS games and college basketball. That's really how most non-BCS level games get on TV, because the NCAA includes them in the package for ESPN. It'll be a change, certainly, from the way things are done now, but hardly one we cannot cope with or adjust to xpeacex

[401ks]

ESPN will televise the games because that's how the NCAA will let them show regular season FBS games and college basketball. That's really how most non-BCS level games get on TV, because the NCAA includes them in the package for ESPN. It'll be a change, certainly, from the way things are done now, but hardly one we cannot cope with or adjust to xpeacex

Funny that you should bring up TV contracts.

In a few years, the thought that every single college football game would not be available on television (in HD) will seem quaint and oh so "20th Century".

Content is king. Cable is SCREAMING for content. Satellite programers are screaming for CONTENT.

Look at all the pure, unadulterated garbage that is on the tube now. While content is king, football is the KING of content. Advertisers and cable providers can't get enough of football. Advertisers know that people on the East Coast will sit in front of their wide-screen HD TVs at 2:00 am to watch the 4th quarter of a football game between Hawai'i and Weber State. And folks on the West Coast will crack open a beer and plunk themselves in their favorite chair at 8:00 am to watch Syracuse vs. Rutgers.

It won't be long before Marist vs. Valparaiso or Fordham vs. Bucknell or Elon vs. Wofford will be playing to a nationwide television audience.

The market is screaming for MORE CONTENT. The NCAA is more than willing to give it to them. I guess that some people should be happy that the playoffs aren't being expanded to 32 teams anytime soon. A 16 team playoff does not produce Cinderellas. America LOVES the underdog. The market and the NCAA will be giving America what it wants, and paying/charging a pretty penny to get/provide it.

Prepare yourselves now. It is inevitable.

[Tod]

Funny that you should bring up TV contracts.

In a few years, the thought that every single college football game would not be available on television (in HD) will seem quaint and oh so "20th Century".

Content is king. Cable is SCREAMING for content. Satellite programers are screaming for CONTENT.

Look at all the pure, unadulterated garbage that is on the tube now. While content is king, football is the KING of content. Advertisers and cable providers can't get enough of football. Advertisers know that people on the East Coast will sit in front of their wide-screen HD TVs at 2:00 am to watch the 4th quarter of a football game between Hawai'i and Weber State. And folks on the West Coast will crack open a beer and plunk themselves in their favorite chair at 8:00 am to watch Syracuse vs. Rutgers.

It won't be long before Marist vs. Valparaiso or Fordham vs. Bucknell or Elon vs. Wofford will be playing to a nationwide television audience.

The market is screaming for MORE CONTENT. The NCAA is more than willing to give it to them. I guess that some people should be happy that the playoffs aren't being expanded to 32 teams anytime soon. A 16 team playoff does not produce Cinderellas. America LOVES the underdog. The market and the NCAA will be giving America what it wants, and paying/charging a pretty penny to get/provide it.

Prepare yourselves now. It is inevitable.

I've thought/wondered about this, too, as I'm sure many of us have. I sure hope you're right.

It just seems easy enough that if something is being televised at all, anybody in the country should be able to watch it.

Well, maybe not easy, but the next logical step. xnodx xnodx xnodx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I am completely aware of how the playoffs work. The power conferences believe they should get all the bids and use strength of schedule as evidence to support their position. The smaller (for the lack of a better word) conferences believe they should get a shot at the same prize simply because they belong to the division. This arguement will go on and on until the playoffs are expanded to take in all conference champions. There are two problems with the proposal. #1: That would add 1-2 more games to an already long season. #2: ESPN isn't going to let the FCS playoffs intrude into their big revenue Bowl window. The only other alternative is to move the first game up a week or cut the regular season by a game. To schools like ASU that is cutting revenue streams and they won't consider either option. The only way I see to appease everyone is to split the playoffs into two divisions.


Funny how the power conferences use "evidence" to support their position while the lesser conferences "believe" they deserve a chance xeyebrowx xrolleyesx ;)

Look, I'm not advocating handing out participation medals here, I'm talking about giving as many teams within the whole of the subdivision (which includes non-scholly/fully scholly, public/private, the whole gamut) the chance to earn the title on the field. You can't dismiss certain schools simply because they don't fit your model of how someone should fund football. Remember that Colgate went to a National Championship game before App. State ever did. I'm not directing that at you per se, but more generally, as there are certainly people who feel that way. 1 subdivision within D-I is plenty, the last thing we would benefit from is further division.


And this has NOTHING to do with men's basketball, eh? xrulesx

I find it comical that people still deny that the shadow of men's basketball is looming over this whole discussion. There is NO WAY App State or any school will cut off their nose in football to jeopardize the cash cow of a SoCon autobid in men's basketball.