NEC likely to get automatic FCS bid for 2010 season

[Monmouth Fan]

NEC likely to get automatic FCS bid for 2010 season/Posted 4/18/2008 12:39 PM EDT on Asbury Park Press

Under a proposal to be voted on by the NCAA Board of Directors next Thursday the Northeast Conference, which includes Monmouth University, will send its football champion to the 2010 Football Championship Subdivsion (formerly NCAA 1-AA) playoffs via an automatic bid.

And a "'conditional access'' bridge program to the playoffs will be granted for 2008-2009, all part of the package NEC Commissioner Brenda Weare said she expects will be approved by the 15-member panel at a meeting in Indianapolis, Ind.

"Basically the proposal is that we would expand the FCS bracket from 16 teams to 20 teams in 2010 which would allow for additional automatic bids,'' Weare said.

Currently the FCS post season is limited to 16 teams, eight of which receive automataic bids by winning their conference championships, and eight at large bids.

Weare said the NEC will be granted one of two automatic bids in the expanded bracket which will also allow for two additional large berths.

The NEC has never received an at large berth though Monmouth was said to have been considered when it went 10-1 over its first 11 games in 2006.

Weare said under the ""conditonal access plan'' for the next two years the NEC champion would receive an automatic bid into the 16-team field if:

1) it wins more than eight games vs. FCS opponents,
2) defeats at least two teams from FCS conferences already with an automatic bid,
3) and at the end of the regular season is ranked No. 16 or higher nationally.

Monmouth would have qualified in 2004 and 2006 - with the exception of the No. 16 ranking.

No NEC team has ever been ranked No 16 or higher nationally.

The Gridiron Classic matching NEC and Pioneer League champions will remain for at least this season and next. The NEC champion hosts this year's game.

[dgreco]

excellent news to hear.

[Dane96]

Wow....that is big news and, I think, would be a direct impetus to the schools to vote for the 45 scholarships.

I think a 45 scholarship NEC Champion could be a tough first round match-up...even if it were after the play-in game.

[Appstate29]

I may be in the minority, but I like having less teams in the playoff, not more. 16 is a great number IMO.

[Saint3333]

I may be in the minority, but I like having less teams in the playoff, not more. 16 is a great number IMO.

There is a good percentage of FCS fans that feel the same way including this one. 16 teams is enough to crown a champion.

[Appstate29]

There is a good percentage of FCS fans that feel the same way including this one. 16 teams is enough to crown a champion.

We are sort of biased though :D

I'd like to think even if ASU was a bottom-dweller in the SoCon or in a mid-major conference, I'd think the same way, its up to these institutions to up the ante in football, not for the NCAA to "dumb down" the playoff system to be more "inclusive".

[TheValleyRaider]

Presumably this "conditional access" bid would be taking away an at-large?

[ButlerGSU]

I may be in the minority, but I like having less teams in the playoff, not more. 16 is a great number IMO.

I'm with you, I believe it should stay the same size.

[McTailGator]

I may be in the minority, but I like having less teams in the playoff, not more. 16 is a great number IMO.

You are NOT in the minority of the people who will be voting on it.

I'm all for the NEC getting an Auto bid with the restrictions listed in the first post of this thread (but I would require those two wins vs Auto Bid Conference schools to be vs teams that finish with winning records vs Division I teams.) If they can do all that they deserve to be in the top 16.

BUT, there should not (AND WILL NOT) be any more than a 16 team playoff. And no more than a 4 week playoff system. Unless there is a BYE week between the Semi's and the Finals, which I am all for.

The majority of the AD's from the auto bid conferences have said time after time, they want an option for a 12th regular season game so they can try to play for some BCS type guarantees.

EXPANDING THE PLAYOFFS BEYOND 5 WEEKS OF PLAYING IS JUST PLAIN DUMB. ESPECIALLY WITH LIMITED SCHOLARSHIPS AND LIMITED ROSTERS IN FCS.

[Dane96]

Ummmm...dude...are you smoking something? The majority already spoken when they FIRST adopted the proposals. This is not the final stages of "monetary" approval.

You may not like it...but it is happening.

And, I might add, if the NEC adopts the 45 rule and all the schools participate (a likely assumption IF INDEED it passes), the NEC would be no different than the Patriot League. Yes, three or so schools have around 63 grants...but the rest of the PL, if I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), are well below that.

[FargoBison]

NDSU's AD has been a solid backer of playoff expansion and it sounds like the Gateway is on board as well. I love it, I think if you give a conference like the NEC a shot at the playoffs it will improve the caliber of its teams.

With the Gateway being an all out war it isn't a bad thing that there would be a few more at large bids out there floating around.

[McTailGator]

Ummmm...dude...are you smoking something? The majority already spoken when they FIRST adopted the proposals. This is not the final stages of "monetary" approval.

You may not like it...but it is happening.

And, I might add, if the NEC adopts the 45 rule and all the schools participate (a likely assumption IF INDEED it passes), the NEC would be no different than the Patriot League. Yes, three or so schools have around 63 grants...but the rest of the PL, if I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), are well below that.



I'm telling you...

THEY WILL NOT EXPAND THE PLAYOFFS BEYOND 16 GAMES.


I WELCOME MORE AUTO BIDS, BUT NOT MORE GAMES. UNLESS THEY CAN FIND A WAY TO LET THE PLAYOFF TEAMS MAKE ABOUT 150,000 A GAME.

[TexasTerror]

I think the NEC needs a conditional auto-bid if the playoffs are expanded. Make them have to do the following...

1) it wins more than eight games vs. FCS opponents,
2) defeats at least two teams from FCS conferences already with an automatic bid,
3) and at the end of the regular season is ranked No. 16 or higher nationally.

It would be like having a non-BCS conference team make the BCS. I'm not for expanding, but if expansion does happen -- atleast have standards.

[Appstate29]

This is unreasonably dumb to add an extra week to the playoffs. Football is not basketball and the tournament is set at a dumb time anyway (with exams ). If anything keep it at 16 teams and play three games and wait 2 weeks for the Championship and play it during bowl season.

[McTailGator]

2) defeats at least two teams from FCS conferences already with an automatic bid,

I would agree to include them, IF THERE ARE NO MORE THAN 16 TEAMS AND THE PLAYOFFS DO NOT EXCEED 4 PLAYING WEEKS.

ALSO, those 2 wins from the FCS AB conferences should have posted at least a .500 winning percentage by years end vs Division I opponents. They should not be allowed to pad their schedules by choosing the historically bottom feeders of each conference.

That will encourage them to play some schools that are serious contenders.

[McTailGator]

This is unreasonably dumb to add an extra week to the playoffs. Football is not basketball and the tournament is set at a dumb time anyway (with exams ). If anything keep it at 16 teams and play three games and wait 2 weeks for the Championship and play it during bowl season.



NOT to mention, another week of not making any money because the NCAA rapes us at the box office. We can't stay in business if we can't pay for the electricity to power the lights in our freaking stadium.


And they want to do this with a limited playoff rouster?

Hell if I were a player, I'd tell them to kiss my xazzx . It's just plain dumb.


We are willing to give them a seat at the ADULT table if they can show they are worthy. What more do they freaking want?

[GOKATS]

I may be in the minority, but I like having less teams in the playoff, not more. 16 is a great number IMO.

I'm with you.

[Appstate29]

this might be the final straw in seeing a bunch of teams move up, 5 weeks of post season football play with the NCAA taking in the majority of the Gate, a good bit of it during exam time...If I were an AD in a school in the FCS, I would look mighty hard at moving up. And thats a shame. Nothing like the playoffs.

[McTailGator]

this might be the final straw in seeing a bunch of teams move up, 5 weeks of post season football play with the NCAA taking in the majority of the Gate, a good bit of it during exam time...If I were an AD in a school in the FCS, I would look mighty hard at moving up. And thats a shame. Nothing like the playoffs.



I guarantee you, McNeese would have to consider getting the hell out of there.

I'd bet, you guy's, Geo South, Delaware, Montana, Montana State, Youngstown, U-Mass, UNI, West Ill, S. Ill, and several others would follow or be right there with each other in a heartbeat. and without those teams, who the hell would really want to stay in FCS anyway?

More playoff teams, would be like playing in the New Orleans Bowl, or that other bowl in the Silicon Valley that no one remembers the name of.


Keep it hard to acheive, keep the quality of the participants up.

[mvemjsunpx]

I'm telling you...

THEY WILL NOT EXPAND THE PLAYOFFS BEYOND 16 GAMES.


I WELCOME MORE AUTO BIDS, BUT NOT MORE GAMES. UNLESS THEY CAN FIND A WAY TO LET THE PLAYOFF TEAMS MAKE ABOUT 150,000 A GAME.


I think you're confusing "they" with "you".

It sounds like playoff expansion for 2010 is a virtual certainty at this point.

[mvemjsunpx]

this might be the final straw in seeing a bunch of teams move up, 5 weeks of post season football play with the NCAA taking in the majority of the Gate, a good bit of it during exam time...If I were an AD in a school in the FCS, I would look mighty hard at moving up. And thats a shame. Nothing like the playoffs.


You're crazy if you think the playoff field size is a meaningful factor in determining whether teams move up to FBS. Teams move up for financial reasons & the vague hope of better national exposure, not the playoffs not going their way.

You're using the same kind of desperate argument the BCS apologists use when they argue against an FBS playoff: "Oh, boo hoo! Our students won't be able to get their exams done. Boo hoo! They'll be too tired after a long season. Boo hoo!"; as if the players were weak high school freshmen. There's no evidence that going far into the playoffs leads to lower GPAs. Also, from what I've seen, football players want to play more games, not fewer.

[MplsBison]

There's no doubt that the playoffs will be expanding first to 20 teams and then to 24 teams.


The question that will have to answered in the future is whether they will change the rule saying half the teams in the playoff field must be auto bids.

[UAalum72]

The rule is no more than half the field may be auto bids; half the field is reserved for auto bids if there are enough leagues to fill them. For example lacrosse has only seven qualifying leagues for the 16-team field.

[DetroitFlyer]

I guarantee you, McNeese would have to consider getting the hell out of there.

I'd bet, you guy's, Geo South, Delaware, Montana, Montana State, Youngstown, U-Mass, UNI, West Ill, S. Ill, and several others would follow or be right there with each other in a heartbeat. and without those teams, who the hell would really want to stay in FCS anyway?

More playoff teams, would be like playing in the New Orleans Bowl, or that other bowl in the Silicon Valley that no one remembers the name of.


Keep it hard to acheive, keep the quality of the participants up.

PLEASE, I beg all of you FBS wannabees, convince your schools to move up. By the way, do not let the FCS door hit you on the way out. This simply cannot happen soon enough. Please, I beg you, make it happen. If it will help, I even volunteer to come to a few games so you can hit the 15K mark. Bye, bye FBS wannabees. Man, would that be a glorious day for FCS! You have my complete support, not 100% but 1000%. See ya!!!!!xnodx

[downbythebeach]

yeah really, please move up to FBS
I'm sure Ohio State, Florida, and USC are just waiting for you to do so

[Franks Tanks]

I guarantee you, McNeese would have to consider getting the hell out of there.

I'd bet, you guy's, Geo South, Delaware, Montana, Montana State, Youngstown, U-Mass, UNI, West Ill, S. Ill, and several others would follow or be right there with each other in a heartbeat. and without those teams, who the hell would really want to stay in FCS anyway?

More playoff teams, would be like playing in the New Orleans Bowl, or that other bowl in the Silicon Valley that no one remembers the name of.


Keep it hard to acheive, keep the quality of the participants up.

You do realize that if you did move to FBS you would be stuck playing in exactly the bowl games you downgrade in the post above.

[Ruler]

This is absolutly hysterical. The majority of FCS programs lose/cost an institution $. A handful like Delaware, Montana, and GA. Southern probably make $ but I don't know for certain. So, for those of you worried about giving up a 12th game and possibly losing revenue......LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Classic!

Get over yourselves you are not Ohio State or Florida...just laughable. How much $ is Northeastern, Rhode Island, Hofstra, Maine, New Hampshire losing by not playing a 12th game. (This is no way a smack on any of those football programs)

[danefan]

We've known the inevitable result for months now.

I don't like the two year conditional thing. It actually gives voters a reason to NOT vote an NEC team in the top 16 even if they are worthy.

But expansion in 2010 is inevitable and its not solely because of the NEC.

And nobody is going to FBS because the playoffs get expanded to 20. Get over yourselves if you think that one more game in the playoffs for less then a majority of the teams will matter. And if you institution feels that way then fine. Move along. I hear Temple is looking for games.

[Dane96]

I guarantee you, McNeese would have to consider getting the hell out of there.

I'd bet, you guy's, Geo South, Delaware, Montana, Montana State, Youngstown, U-Mass, UNI, West Ill, S. Ill, and several others would follow or be right there with each other in a heartbeat. and without those teams, who the hell would really want to stay in FCS anyway?

More playoff teams, would be like playing in the New Orleans Bowl, or that other bowl in the Silicon Valley that no one remembers the name of.


Keep it hard to acheive, keep the quality of the participants up.

You are completely delusional.

[89Hen]

NEC likely to get automatic FCS bid for 2010 season/Posted 4/18/2008 12:39 PM EDT on Asbury Park Press

Under a proposal to be voted on by the NCAA Board of Directors next Thursday the Northeast Conference, which includes Monmouth University, will send its football champion to the 2010 Football Championship Subdivsion (formerly NCAA 1-AA) playoffs via an automatic bid.
The NCAA has shot down MANY proposals over the year. It may happen, but this is far from done or a "certainty" as some people have posted here and maybe wishful thinking from a paper who I can't image has many sources in I-AA football. xtwocentsx

[danefan]

The NCAA has shot down MANY proposals over the year. It may happen, but this is far from done or a "certainty" as some people have posted here and maybe wishful thinking from a paper who I can't image has many sources in I-AA football. xtwocentsx
You are right about that. Not done until thursday after the vote. Then its done.

Then I can't wait to read the threads. Haha.

I'd like to hear the details of the conditional Auto-bid. What rankings are they going to use for the last criteria? Sportsnetwork, Coaches Poll?

I don't like that part of it. Our polls are not great soely because of the lack of national coverage. Its impossible to judge the entirety of FCS and because of that it is pretty to rank from beyond the Top 10 with an certainty.

[aust42]

You are right about that. Not done until thursday after the vote. Then its done.

Then I can't wait to read the threads. Haha.

I agree with 89Hen. It may happen, but it's just a proposal at this point. Proposals often get shot down like discs at a skeet shoot. They would have to eliminate the bye week and/or start the season a week early to accomodate expanded playoffs. Plus their are advocates for a 12th game which would be impossible under expanded playoffs. It's in the hands of the powers that be. I can't wait to read the threads Thurs either.

[89Hen]

We've known the inevitable result for months now.
How's that?

[danefan]

How's that?

If it were just the NEC pushing I'd say it was less likely to happen. But it's not just the NEC. The Big South is also directly effected by this. Hence the push to 2010.

IMO, ("foregone conclusion" might have been a strong choice of words) there is no way the NCAA keeps two conferences from AQ status in 2010. This is their attempt to be proactive and they'll have two years to figure out the exact logistics.

[89Hen]

If it were just the NEC pushing I'd say it was less likely to happen. But it's not just the NEC. The Big South is also directly effected by this. Hence the push to 2010.

IMO, ("foregone conclusion" might have been a strong choice of words) there is no way the NCAA keeps two conferences from AQ status in 2010. This is their attempt to be proactive and they'll have two years to figure out the exact logistics.
What kind of weight does the Big South carry? In 2010 they still will only have six eligible teams, correct? I think they need to sit tight to see what happens with all the other conferences that could come into play (GWFC, a possible CAA break, etc...).

[kirkblitz]

What kind of weight does the Big South carry? In 2010 they still will only have six eligible teams, correct? I think they need to sit tight to see what happens with all the other conferences that could come into play (GWFC, a possible CAA break, etc...).

7 i think
coastal
charleston southern
vmi
liberty
stony brook
presbterian
gardner webb

[89Hen]

7 i think
coastal
charleston southern
vmi
liberty
stony brook
presbterian
gardner webb
Will they be done their probation period?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I agree with 89Hen. It may happen, but it's just a proposal at this point. Proposals often get shot down like discs at a skeet shoot. They would have to eliminate the bye week and/or start the season a week early to accomodate expanded playoffs. Plus their are advocates for a 12th game which would be impossible under expanded playoffs. It's in the hands of the powers that be. I can't wait to read the threads Thurs either.

Personally, I think the howls against a 20 game playoff are just that, howls. Philosophically, pretty much all the powers-that-be that I have heard from are OK with a five week playoff system - either because they are getting a seat at the table (BSOU, NEC, possibly GWFC... possibly America East FC) or getting more potential playoff bids (Gateway, SoCon, CAA, Big Sky, etc.). The OVC and Southland may moan about losing a 12th (read: guarantee) game, but I don't think there is a broad enough based support for killing the principle of adding more teams to the playoffs.

The arguments against the NEC participating in the playoffs are getting thinner and thinner as they all add scholarships, upgrade schedules and win out-of-conference games.

I will bring up again the following: the football teams are very, very unlikely IMO to vote for restricted access in football when they are at the same time fighting to keep their seats at the table in the NCAA Men's basketball championship.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Will they be done their probation period?

Presby will be eligible for the playoffs in 2011, I believe. And the conference with all its members would have all competed against each other for three years, whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) the current eligibility requirements is that they play five years together before getting an autobid. I think that would have to be waived.

[89Hen]

Presby will be eligible for the playoffs in 2011, I believe. And the conference with all its members would have all competed against each other for three years, whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) the current eligibility requirements is that they play five years together before getting an autobid. I think that would have to be waived.
That's what I thought. No way the NCAA should waive any period for the Big South. Others had to follow the rules (which I think are too stringent). So this means 2010 would only be for the NEC. Again, I think this is premature. I'd love to see the NEC submit and either the OVC or MEAC lose their bid for a year. xnodx

[danefan]

What kind of weight does the Big South carry? In 2010 they still will only have six eligible teams, correct? I think they need to sit tight to see what happens with all the other conferences that could come into play (GWFC, a possible CAA break, etc...).

They carry the same weight as any other FCS conference. In 2010, they meet the criteria established by the NCAA. Further they have had a team receive an at-large. Why should they have to wait and be put in limbo?

Why can't the NCAA be proactive?

[UAalum72]

Two years, and there's no waiver of the time, but Presby doesn't count until the provisional period is over

31.3.4.2 Requirements—National Collegiate Championship. [#]

To be eligible for automatic qualification in National Collegiate Championship, a member conference must meet the following general requirements:

(Adopted: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)

(a) Have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport in any division (note: a provisional member in the process of becoming an NCAA member can not be used to meet the requisite number);
(b) The six active members must have conducted conference competition together for the preceding two years in the applicable sport;
(c) There shall be no waivers of the two-year waiting period; and
(d) Any new member added to a conference that is eligible for an automatic bid shall be immediately eligible to represent the conference as the automatic qualifier.
31.3.4.3 Notification—Automatic Qualification in Jeopardy.



31.3.4.4 Additional Requirements, Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball.

31.3.4.4.1 Multi-Sport Conference. To be considered eligible for automatic qualification in a particular sport, a multisport member conference must include six core institutions that satisfy continuity-of-membership.

For the purposes of this legislation, core refers to an institution that has been an active member of Division I the eight preceding years. Further, the continuity-of-membership requirement shall be met only if a minimum of six core institutions have conducted conference competition together in Division I the preceding two years in the applicable sport. There shall be no exceptions to the two-year waiting period.

[kirkblitz]

stony brook is a full member this year arnt they?
2008-2009-2010

The Big South will be eligible to qualify for an automatic bid to the FCS playoffs beginning in 2010.
http://goseawolves.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/032007aab.html

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Thanks for clarifying. So Stony Brook will be a BSOU member for three years in 2010, making it six core members playing together for that time. (which excludes Presby). So they will be ready to go in 2010, with Presby eligible to play in the postseason in 2011.

[danefan]

What kind of weight does the Big South carry? In 2010 they still will only have six eligible teams, correct? I think they need to sit tight to see what happens with all the other conferences that could come into play (GWFC, a possible CAA break, etc...).

The Big South holds the same weight (under the current qualification rules) as any other FCS conference. In 2010 they are eligible for an AQ and they, like any other eligible conference who requests one, should be granted one.

Deciding on expansion to 20 now is the NCAA being proactive (for once). It will give them 20 years to work out the logistics (scheduling, TV contracts, etc.).

[89Hen]

Great. So 100 teams will play without a bye so Stony Brook, Albany, and two 8-4 teams from the Gateway or CAA can get a playoff berth. xcoffeex

BTW, reading the article again it's nice to know that the source for this being "expected" to pass is the NEC commish. Sounds like she's setting herself up for disappointment. xsmiley_wix

[89Hen]

It will give them 20 years to work out the logistics (scheduling, TV contracts, etc.).
A lot of teams already have dates for 2010 with I-A opponents. xnodx

[USDFAN_55]

Haven't we seen these arguements a 1000 times before? It's even the same people arguing. Of course I'm all for play-off expansion, and the NEC getting an autobid. And of cource fans from the CAA, Gateway, and etc. are against it. It's a good thing fans really have no say in this matterxnodx

[MplsBison]

Great. So 100 teams will play without a bye so Stony Brook, Albany, and two 8-4 teams from the Gateway or CAA can get a playoff berth.

You can look forward to a bye every time there is an extra Saturday in the regular season time frame, like this year.

[89Hen]

And of cource fans from the CAA, Gateway, and etc. are against it.
xconfusedx Why of course? The CAA, Gateway and etc. can expect to benefit just as much from added spots. Who do you think the two at-larges are going to go to?

[89Hen]

You can look forward to a bye every time there is an extra Saturday in the regular season time frame, like this year.
Only those that play 11 games.

[MplsBison]

And what makes you think the NCAA will allow FCS teams to schedule 12 games when there will be only 12 Saturdays in the regular season?


The only reason they let us schedule 12 this season is because there are 13 Saturdays.

One of those will get eaten up by the 5 week playoffs.

[downbythebeach]

xconfusedx Why of course? The CAA, Gateway and etc. can expect to benefit just as much from added spots. Who do you think the two at-larges are going to go to?

And thats why the commishs from these leagues will vote yesxthumbsupx

[danefan]

A lot of teams already have dates for 2010 with I-A opponents. xnodx

Which is exactly why the two-year transition period is necessary. Gives teams plenty of time to rearrange their schedules.

Sure, teams will have to do some juggling and some may even lose some of their traditional OOC games. But that is life. Things change. FCS football cannot exist in its current state for the rest of eternity. The NCAA landscape changes all the time. It's part of the beauty of it.

[USDFAN_55]

xconfusedx Why of course? The CAA, Gateway and etc. can expect to benefit just as much from added spots. Who do you think the two at-larges are going to go to?

Those leagues already have a bunch of teams make the play-offs each year, so they feel no real need to add more. Correct? That is why they don't need/want play-off expansion. Meanwhile, there are teams that are excluded from the post season that want to be a part of it. I see the CAA's of the FCS as the big brothers trying to exclude their little brothers (NEC, Big South) from hanging with them. Eventually though the little brother grows up and the bigger brother has to finally accepts him. The NEC is obviously growing-up, so it is time to accept them.

Change is good. Why is this change feared/loathed so much? A good book for you guys to read is "Who Moved My Cheese?" http://www.whomovedmycheese.com/ Learn to embrace and accept change.xnodx

[89Hen]

And what makes you think the NCAA will allow FCS teams to schedule 12 games when there will be only 12 Saturdays in the regular season?
IF that were to happen, even more of a reason to NOT expand. Penalize 100 teams so 4 more can be in the playoffs. xcoffeex

[89Hen]

Those leagues already have a bunch of teams make the play-offs each year, so they feel no real need to add more. Correct? That is why they don't need/want play-off expansion. Meanwhile, there are teams that are excluded from the post season that want to be a part of it.
xconfusedx Who doesn't want more? Ask Villanova if they would have liked to have been in the playoffs last year, or Youngstown, or Georgia Southern.... The CAA, Gateway, SoCon have the same amount to gain by expanding to 20. I guess they wouldn't be guaranteed one of those spots, but it certainly makes room for one more of their teams.

[Dane96]

I hate that AVATAR :)

[MplsBison]

IF that were to happen, even more of a reason to NOT expand. Penalize 100 teams so 4 more can be in the playoffs. xcoffeex

Why have a 16 team playoff?


You're penalizing 100 teams an extra week of regular season by having a 4 week playoff.

[89Hen]

Why have a 16 team playoff?


You're penalizing 100 teams an extra week of regular season by having a 4 week playoff.
xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xnutsx

[Go...gate]

NEC likely to get automatic FCS bid for 2010 season/Posted 4/18/2008 12:39 PM EDT on Asbury Park Press

Under a proposal to be voted on by the NCAA Board of Directors next Thursday the Northeast Conference, which includes Monmouth University, will send its football champion to the 2010 Football Championship Subdivsion (formerly NCAA 1-AA) playoffs via an automatic bid.

And a "'conditional access'' bridge program to the playoffs will be granted for 2008-2009, all part of the package NEC Commissioner Brenda Weare said she expects will be approved by the 15-member panel at a meeting in Indianapolis, Ind.

"Basically the proposal is that we would expand the FCS bracket from 16 teams to 20 teams in 2010 which would allow for additional automatic bids,'' Weare said.

Currently the FCS post season is limited to 16 teams, eight of which receive automataic bids by winning their conference championships, and eight at large bids.

Weare said the NEC will be granted one of two automatic bids in the expanded bracket which will also allow for two additional large berths.

The NEC has never received an at large berth though Monmouth was said to have been considered when it went 10-1 over its first 11 games in 2006.

Weare said under the ""conditonal access plan'' for the next two years the NEC champion would receive an automatic bid into the 16-team field if:

1) it wins more than eight games vs. FCS opponents,
2) defeats at least two teams from FCS conferences already with an automatic bid,
3) and at the end of the regular season is ranked No. 16 or higher nationally.

Monmouth would have qualified in 2004 and 2006 - with the exception of the No. 16 ranking.

No NEC team has ever been ranked No 16 or higher nationally.

The Gridiron Classic matching NEC and Pioneer League champions will remain for at least this season and next. The NEC champion hosts this year's game.

Great news!

[BearsCountry]

I can see some anger towards the NEC but why the Big South? Big South is doing things the righ way and should be rewarding when their conference becomes eliglbe.

[Dane96]

Wait...how is the NEC not doing things right-- Right in whose way. There is no NCAA requirement on minimum scholarships. The NEC is progressively moving towards the "others" in funding.

Remember, two years ago...there were ZERO NEC scholarships.

What are we doing WRONG...except for adding rides and competing with, and beating, automatic bid conferences.

Weak argument.

[Hate the CAA]

I think the field should remain at 16.

HOWEVER, the NEC should have a play-in-game to be included into the field against the 16th seed much like the NCAA tourney.

The NEC has made great strides and those strides deserved to be recognized. With the recent success they deserve a play-in game against the likes of the winner of the MEAC or Patriot.

Food for thought. But a 20 team field is silly. That is a lot of games.

[BearsCountry]

Wait...how is the NEC not doing things right-- Right in whose way. There is no NCAA requirement on minimum scholarships. The NEC is progressively moving towards the "others" in funding.

Remember, two years ago...there were ZERO NEC scholarships.

What are we doing WRONG...except for adding rides and competing with, and beating, automatic bid conferences.

Weak argument.

I like how you guys are going to scholarships, its not from my personal dislikes but the perception of the league in the past from people who dont want expansion of the current system.

[Dane96]

I hear you, but perception is not a qualatative or quantitive argument. I am not against my other AGS brothers, however, to argue that the NEC is any different right now than the MEAC, OVC, and arguably a large portion of the PL is just silly.

Week in and week out, the top teams (Albany, CCSU, Monmouth, and now IMHO, Duquense and eventually Bryant once they are eligible and up to speed) will be able to compete with the top teams of those leagues...of course who are "allowed" to go to the playoff via automatic bid.

[DetroitFlyer]

I think the field should remain at 16.

HOWEVER, the NEC should have a play-in-game to be included into the field against the 16th seed much like the NCAA tourney.

The NEC has made great strides and those strides deserved to be recognized. With the recent success they deserve a play-in game against the likes of the winner of the MEAC or Patriot.

Food for thought. But a 20 team field is silly. That is a lot of games.

What "great strides" has the NEC made? I mean come on, by most measures, the PFL as a conference was ranked above the NEC.... I think the NEC deserves an autobid, but I have yet to see the "great strides" that gets thrown around from time to time. Heck, I guess the PFL has made great strides as well.... Of course our conference will not request an autobid, so I suppose that is one significant "stride" the NEC has made over the PFL....

I hope that some day, not only the NEC, but all eligible FCS conferences are offered an autobid. Maybe the bid is not accepted, but it should be offered. The Ivies and SWAC may say no, but I think if the PFL were offered a bid, the answer might be yes!

[danefan]

What "great strides" has the NEC made? I mean come on, by most measures, the PFL as a conference was ranked above the NEC.... I think the NEC deserves an autobid, but I have yet to see the "great strides" that gets thrown around from time to time. Heck, I guess the PFL has made great strides as well.... Of course our conference will not request an autobid, so I suppose that is one significant "stride" the NEC has made over the PFL....

I hope that some day, not only the NEC, but all eligible FCS conferences are offered an autobid. Maybe the bid is not accepted, but it should be offered. The Ivies and SWAC may say no, but I think if the PFL were offered a bid, the answer might be yes!

Detroit,
Don't take the "NEC has made great strides" to mean great strides past the PFL. Just great strides from where the NEC was 3 or 4 years ago. That pretty clear. The PFL has made great strides as well. xthumbsupx

[Dane96]

The argument is old...but A) your league doesn't want access to the playoffs per your own commish's words; and B) you are only now starting to play FCS teams on a regular basis up and down the teams in the league.

That...is the strides we are making. Those are the strides the PFL seems to making (at least a FULL FCS schedule).

It makes no difference-- Your commish wants no part of the playoffs...and apparently neither do you Presidents; They keep her employed even after hearing her statements. Since she is an agent of the teams...guess what, she is speaking on your behalf.

If the PFL made more public strides of wanting entry, it would be a different story.

[BearsCountry]

I hear you, but perception is not a qualatative or quantitive argument. I am not against my other AGS brothers, however, to argue that the NEC is any different right now than the MEAC, OVC, and arguably a large portion of the PL is just silly.

Week in and week out, the top teams (Albany, CCSU, Monmouth, and now IMHO, Duquense and eventually Bryant once they are eligible and up to speed) will be able to compete with the top teams of those leagues...of course who are "allowed" to go to the playoff via automatic bid.

I agree.

[Hate the CAA]

What "great strides" has the NEC made? I mean come on, by most measures, the PFL as a conference was ranked above the NEC.... I think the NEC deserves an autobid, but I have yet to see the "great strides" that gets thrown around from time to time. Heck, I guess the PFL has made great strides as well.... Of course our conference will not request an autobid, so I suppose that is one significant "stride" the NEC has made over the PFL....

I hope that some day, not only the NEC, but all eligible FCS conferences are offered an autobid. Maybe the bid is not accepted, but it should be offered. The Ivies and SWAC may say no, but I think if the PFL were offered a bid, the answer might be yes!

Well, some notable wins are as follows:

Central Ct beats Georgia Southern & Colgate
Albany beats Lehigh & Delaware
Monmouth beats Fordham & Colgate

Sounds like great strides if you ask me...

[hebmskebm]

I wonder how this news will effect the NEC's OOC scheduling in the future. Would schools from current playoff confereces be more willing or less willing to play the NEC? Would the bottom rung of the NEC finally break out of their isolationist shell and at least try to schedule some games against ful scholly FCS teams?

[aust42]

Personally, I think the howls against a 20 game playoff are just that, howls. Philosophically, pretty much all the powers-that-be that I have heard from are OK with a five week playoff system - either because they are getting a seat at the table (BSOU, NEC, possibly GWFC... possibly America East FC) or getting more potential playoff bids (Gateway, SoCon, CAA, Big Sky, etc.). The OVC and Southland may moan about losing a 12th (read: guarantee) game, but I don't think there is a broad enough based support for killing the principle of adding more teams to the playoffs.

The arguments against the NEC participating in the playoffs are getting thinner and thinner as they all add scholarships, upgrade schedules and win out-of-conference games.

I will bring up again the following: the football teams are very, very unlikely IMO to vote for restricted access in football when they are at the same time fighting to keep their seats at the table in the NCAA Men's basketball championship.

I don't accept the basketball ball tourney analogy. That's apples and oranges. The time factor is the issue in football, you can play basketball every single night, it's easy to schedule a huge tourney in b-ball. IMO their are too many negatives adding an extra playoff week to accomodate teams that right now probably don't deserve to make the playoffs. When the NEC and Big South can compete with the so called FCS 'big boys' then they will deserve a chance. To their credit they are certainly making great strides to compete. As you said, adding schollies, upgrading schedules and winning OOC games (Albany over Delaware xmadx ) will give them that opportunity.

[Dane96]

Well, some notable wins are as follows:

Central Ct beats Georgia Southern & Colgate
Albany beats Lehigh & Delaware
Monmouth beats Fordham & Colgate

Sounds like great strides if you ask me...

Albany has also beaten Towson and Fordham (twice) and kept it tight vs. Hofstra, Colgate (easily could have gone either way), and to some extent Montana (where they went from all starters out by the third our first meeting...to starters playing all the way through this year).

[danefan]

Albany has also beaten Towson and Fordham (twice) and kept it tight vs. Hofstra, Colgate (easily could have gone either way), and to some extent Montana (where they went from all starters out by the third our first meeting...to starters playing all the way through this year).

And yes, I'll get it out of the way, got beat by Dayton in the Gridiron Classic.xlolx

[MplsBison]

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xnutsx

In other words, your argument was defeated so soundly that the only response you could muster was emoticons.



Indeed, there is no possible argument against a 5 week playoff if a 4 week playoff is acceptable.

[Go...gate]

I think the field should remain at 16.

HOWEVER, the NEC should have a play-in-game to be included into the field against the 16th seed much like the NCAA tourney.

The NEC has made great strides and those strides deserved to be recognized. With the recent success they deserve a play-in game against the likes of the winner of the MEAC or Patriot.

Food for thought. But a 20 team field is silly. That is a lot of games.


Why us?

[USDFAN_55]

... IMO their are too many negatives adding an extra playoff week to accomodate teams that right now probably don't deserve to make the playoffs. When the NEC and Big South can compete with the so called FCS 'big boys' then they will deserve a chance.

Why don't you apply that same logic to the OVC, MEAC, and to some extent the PL as of lately? What if they made it so the 6th, 7th and 8th autobid went to teams from the NEC, OVC, MEAC, PL, and Big South. 3 out of the 5 champs are AQ, which would leave the weaker of the confrence champs out of the play-offs.

[kirkblitz]

whatever as long as coastal gets an invite every year i dont care.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

..IMO their are too many negatives adding an extra playoff week IN BASKETBALL to accomodate teams that right now probably don't deserve to make THE NCAA TOURNAMENT...


...3 out of the 5 champs are AQ, which would leave the weaker of the conference champs out of the NCAA TOURNAMENT.

See why you can't take the NCAA Basketball tournament out of the equation? Not so much because the tournaments and sports are different, but the slippery slope that starts to form once you start trying to exclude schools from one tournament. As football fans we don't always see it, but you can bet your mortgage that the commissioners and ADs do.

[USDFAN_55]

See why you can't take the NCAA Basketball tournament out of the equation? Not so much because the tournaments and sports are different, but the slippery slope that starts to form once you start trying to exclude schools from one tournament. As football fans we don't always see it, but you can bet your mortgage that the commissioners and ADs do.

I agree with you 100%. I think all leagues that meet the criteria for an autobid should get one. The criteria as I see it should be is at least 7 FCS/FBS wins, at least 7 teams in the league, and at least 10 FCS/FBS teams on the schedule.

[Syntax Error]

... to argue that the NEC is any different right now than the MEAC, OVC, and arguably a large portion of the PL is just silly...Exactly what percentage of teams in the MEAC and OVC are restricted in the amount of scholarships offered to student-athletes, and what percentage of the teams in the NEC are restricted? The answer is one big difference. Another one, exactly how many teams have made the FCS playoffs as at-large selections from the NEC and how many have from the MEAC and OVC?

[USDFAN_55]

Exactly what percentage of teams in the MEAC and OVC are restricted in the amount of scholarships offered to student-athletes, and what percentage of the teams in the NEC are restricted? The answer is one big difference. Another one, exactly how many teams have made the FCS playoffs as at-large selections from the NEC and how many have from the MEAC and OVC?

It's kind of hard to get an at-large when you don't have an autobidxsmiley_wix

[Dane96]

Welcome back Syntax-- It has been way too quiet in your absence.

No one is restricted in the MEAC and the OVC. However my commentary is based on ATHLETIC competitiveness on the field. There is, even among the most ardent posters against playoff expansion, not much of difference between the limited scholly NEC and the MEAC/OVC/PL contingent.

And your at-large agument is weak.

I welcome your reasoned response.

[Dane96]

It's kind of hard to get an at-large when you don't have an autobidxsmiley_wix

Yes and no. The MEAC (and I believe the OVC), along with the Big South (and Great West?) have gotten at-large bids.

Not the point, however-- Head to head...I would pit the top of the NEC with the Top of the OVC/PL/MEAC any day of the week.

If those leagues deserve a bid...so does the NEC.

[McTailGator]

You're crazy if you think the playoff field size is a meaningful factor in determining whether teams move up to FBS. Teams move up for financial reasons & the vague hope of better national exposure, not the playoffs not going their way.

You're using the same kind of desperate argument the BCS apologists use when they argue against an FBS playoff: "Oh, boo hoo! Our students won't be able to get their exams done. Boo hoo! They'll be too tired after a long season. Boo hoo!"; as if the players were weak high school freshmen. There's no evidence that going far into the playoffs leads to lower GPAs. Also, from what I've seen, football players want to play more games, not fewer.



You are right...


AND those of us who are in the playoffs year in and year out will NOT support ANOTHER game where we will not make any money.

YOU read it here first.

FCS will have a 12th regular season game before the playoffs are expanded beyond 16 teams.


ALL YOU LIMITED SCHOLARSHIP / PROGRAMS ARE DREAMING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WILL JUST END UP PROVING THAT YOU CAN NOT COMPETE WITH THE REAL FOOTBALL PROGRAMS OF DIVISION I.

BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, A 1st ROUND BLOW-OUT YEAR AFTER YEAR WILL ONLY MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE YOU BELONG IN THE D-III PLAYOFFS.

NO MORE FREE PLAYOFF GAMES! 4 WEEKS ARE ENOUGH.

[Dane96]

Could you possibly be more unreasonable?

SO, are you stating this as a FACT McGator...as you have been told this is the direction. I presume this is your wish, rather than fact.

And to say we can't compete-- Ummm...facts show otherwise.

Finally, I wonder, do you still use candlelight to read at night...and a stove to boil bathing water? Times have changed my friend.

[USDFAN_55]

ALL YOU LIMITED SCHOLARSHIP / PROGRAMS ARE DREAMING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WILL JUST END UP PROVING THAT YOU CAN NOT COMPETE WITH THE REAL FOOTBALL PROGRAMS OF DIVISION I.



xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx
Aren't all FCS teams fakers? The real D-I is FBSxnodx

[Poly Pigskin]

It's kind of hard to get an at-large when you don't have an autobidxsmiley_wix

But far from impossible...

[aust42]

I can't wait till Thursday. :D

[Syntax Error]

Ummmm...dude...are you smoking something?..
You are completely delusional.
Weak argument.
The argument is old....
And your at-large agument is weak...
Could you possibly be more unreasonable?...No thanks.

[Dane96]

FOLKS....HEEEEEEEEE'S BAAAAAACK. SYNTAX ERROR is playing and in mid-season from. Apparently, I am hurting his feelings by calling another delusional, unreasonable, etc. He fails to include my other arguments.

We missed ya buddy!

So, where did you vacation recently?

[McTailGator]

SO, are you stating this as a FACT McGator...as you have been told this is the direction. I presume this is your wish, rather than fact.



The FACT will show up Thursday when the measure will be split into two votes...


The 3 Conditions listed in the article will be used to allow for "A CHANCE" for inclusion by a couple of conferences that do not currently have Auto Bids will get a vote Thursday and pass.

The 2nd part for expansion will be tabled...



I (and several others) also knew about 2 weeks BEFORE the playoff pairing last year that McNeese would be the Number 2 seed. The selection committee does NOT wait until the end of the last week to do all the parings. 80% of those things are already decided well in advance with agreed alternatives in case some teams lose.

Some of us do know some of the folks in places that count...

[McTailGator]

FOLKS....HEEEEEEEEE'S BAAAAAACK. SYNTAX ERROR is playing and in mid-season from. Apparently, I am hurting his feelings by calling another delusional, unreasonable, etc. He fails to include my other arguments.

We missed ya buddy!

So, where did you vacation recently?



You don't have an ARGUMENT....



Your on the outside looking in, and the adults will decide your fate little leftist boy...


Enjoy the rejection....

[McTailGator]

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx
Aren't all FCS teams fakers? The real D-I is FBSxnodx



You non-scholarships are the ones faken it...


Pony up, pay the costs and come try to play with the big boys...



Until then, mind your place and get in the back of the bus.:p

[McTailGator]

[QUOTE=Dane96;927707]will be able to compete with the top teams of those leagues[\QUOTE]


PROVE IT...

SCHEDULE 2 OF THE PERENNIAL TOP 16 TEAMS FOR THE NEXT 4 OR 5 YEARS AND IF YOU WIN ANY, THAN YOU CAN ASK FOR A SEAT AT THE ADULTS TABLE...

UNTIL THEN.

CONSIDER D-III

[Dane96]

You don't have an ARGUMENT....



Your on the outside looking in, and the adults will decide your fate little leftist boy...


Enjoy the rejection....

Leftist-- now that is cute. Man you are funny. Ummm...my poltics don't belong here...and, it is worth noting...I am not a leftist.

[Dane96]

[QUOTE=Dane96;927707]will be able to compete with the top teams of those leagues[\QUOTE]


PROVE IT...

SCHEDULE 2 OF THE PERENNIAL TOP 16 TEAMS FOR THE NEXT 4 OR 5 YEARS AND IF YOU WIN ANY, THAN YOU CAN ASK FOR A SEAT AT THE ADULTS TABLE...

UNTIL THEN.

CONSIDER D-III

Well, gee...guess those games we have been playing against the big boys don't count.

Y'all get 'dem things called news artucles down dere?

[USDFAN_55]

You non-scholarships are the ones faken it...


Pony up, pay the costs and come try to play with the big boys...



Until then, mind your place and get in the back of the bus.:p

Why don't you pony up and pay the costs to be a true D-I program (FBS)? I'm sure FBS fans think it's rediculous that teams such as yours call yourselves deserving D-I teams, just like teams such as yours think it's rediculous that non-schollarship teams consider themselves FCS.

[McTailGator]

Why don't you pony up and pay the costs to be a true D-I program (FBS)? I'm sure FBS fans think it's rediculous that teams such as yours call yourselves deserving D-I teams, just like teams such as yours think it's rediculous that non-schollarship teams consider themselves FCS.



FCS IS A TRUE D-I PROGRAM...


You non-schollys are just D-III football teams with a few more sports that play the big boys.


Your program is no more than a CLUB SPORT.

[McTailGator]

[QUOTE=McTailGator;927907]

Well, gee...guess those games we have been playing against the big boys don't count.

Y'all get 'dem things called news artucles down dere?



Name the games and tell us how they turned out for you...


And don't make me laugh...



Montana put their 3rd stringers in befor halftime last year...


Come down south and lets us school you on Football in the South.

[Dane96]

You could be the most ridiculous poster in this thread. Hard to accomplish considering some of the company here. Your last post shows you know ZERO about the NEC.

Montana...now that statement is a hoot.

BTW, we are not non-scholly.

[Syntax Error]

...in mid-season from...xlolx xrolleyesx Same old laughables. Carry on. xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Oops....I meant form. I made a mistake typing. Ummm...question: Do you have a cogent, fact-based thought for this thread?

[DFW HOYA]

You non-schollys are just D-III football teams with a few more sports that play the big boys.Your program is no more than a CLUB SPORT.

Do club sports play in a place like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:YaleBowl-Field1a.JPG#file

[dgreco]

not even worth fighting. People want to be ignorant for some reason.

[Dane96]

Not fighting at all-- I am indifferent to SE...and now McGator.

[dgreco]

Not fighting at all-- I am indifferent to SE...and now McGator.

I do not mean in that sense, but people are fighting about stupid points. How about discuss how this could work or couldn't work. Everyone sounds like a liberal wacky democrat on this board. The other person sucks I am better, why? change subject -- no facts proven.


I tend to agree that the playoffs shouldn't be expanded, but since when is exclusion a good thing.... What is the best for the NCAA more teams from more places. If it is only CAA/SoCon teams in the finals why would fans from the southland, or ovc, or any other conference watch.

[401ks]

Why expand the playoffs?

Simple business...

16 of the same-ol'-same-ol' teams in the playoffs and only fans of those programs give a rat's hairy behind about the FCS playoffs.

Otherwise known as "low demand".

Include 20 or 24 teams (especially from additional conferences) and suddenly there is a substantially larger audience that cares.

Larger audience = higher demand = higher TV ratings = more $$$

The NCAA learned this lesson a long time ago when they expanded the NCAA basketball tournament to 64 (actually 65) teams. More people cared. More people watched. The money poured into the NCAA coffers.

And as an added bonus, people love to cheer for the "Cinderella". America LOVES an underdog. Was Davidson going to win the NCAA this year? Pretty fat chance, but goodness knows that I watched their games and was rooting for them!

Will a #16 seed ever win the NCAA basketball tournament? Heck no. Will a non-scholarship FCS team ever win the FCS Division I championship? Heck no. Will a non-BSC team ever beat a BCS team in a major bowl game? Heck no. (Oops. That one happened.) Will a DI-AA school ever beat a top-ranked DI-A powerhouse like Michigan? Heck no. (Oops. That one happened too.) Anyway...

Americans love to see them have the opportunity to try. xthumbsupx

God Bless America!

xpeacex

[mvemjsunpx]

Originally Posted by mvemjsunpx
You're crazy if you think the playoff field size is a meaningful factor in determining whether teams move up to FBS. Teams move up for financial reasons & the vague hope of better national exposure, not the playoffs not going their way.

You're using the same kind of desperate argument the BCS apologists use when they argue against an FBS playoff: "Oh, boo hoo! Our students won't be able to get their exams done. Boo hoo! They'll be too tired after a long season. Boo hoo!"; as if the players were weak high school freshmen. There's no evidence that going far into the playoffs leads to lower GPAs. Also, from what I've seen, football players want to play more games, not fewer.You are right...


AND those of us who are in the playoffs year in and year out will NOT support ANOTHER game where we will not make any money.

YOU read it here first.

FCS will have a 12th regular season game before the playoffs are expanded beyond 16 teams.


ALL YOU LIMITED SCHOLARSHIP / PROGRAMS ARE DREAMING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WILL JUST END UP PROVING THAT YOU CAN NOT COMPETE WITH THE REAL FOOTBALL PROGRAMS OF DIVISION I.

BE CAREFULL WHAT YOU ASK FOR, A 1st ROUND BLOW-OUT YEAR AFTER YEAR WILL ONLY MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE YOU BELONG IN THE D-III PLAYOFFS.

NO MORE FREE PLAYOFF GAMES! 4 WEEKS ARE ENOUGH.


Since you're obviously so blinded with rage that you're unable to think with any degree of complexity, I'll just tell you that not everyone who supports expansion is an NS mid-major, "desperate to get a piece of the action" fan.


AND those of us who are in the playoffs year in and year out will NOT support ANOTHER game where we will not make any money.

I couldn't find this more hilarious since I'm a fan of Montana; a team that has made the playoffs far more times & won far more postseason games than yours. I fully support expansion for 2 reasons: it makes the postseason more interesting—we'll get more teams that aren't always there, and I don't like the current format of having a "second-class football" that acts as dead weight in the division because they don't, and effectively aren't allowed to, participate in a meaningful postseason right now. In my opinion, every conference that meets the requirements should be forced to receive an auto-bid unless they can show a strong economic reason not to participate (i.e. the SWAC). FCS currently has the lowest percentage of teams in the postseason (13%) of any NCAA football division, so it's not like the product is in danger of becoming diluted.


I don't see how expansion really hurts the big schools. The fans of those schools should actually support it for the following reasons:



a) There will be 2 more at-larges. Those will likely go to power conference teams.

b) If the potential NEC/Big South/Pioneer auto-bids are really as weak as the anti-expansionists claim, then they'll act as easy opening-round fodder for a power team.

c) Fans won't have to go on AGS (or elsewhere) & fall victim to a constant bitch-fest about whether this NEC team or that Pioneer team should have been selected for the playoffs. If your team can't make a 20/24-team field with small conference auto-bids, you've really got nothing to whine about.

[Keeper]

Quick question =
Have any teams won a playoff berth via AQ with only 6 total wins?

The reason I ask is that, while proposed conditions may accompany
a new AQ slot for the NEC, what about conditions for traditional
AQ's?

On one hand a few power conference teams may benefit from the
extra at-large, but on the other hand, could a conference champ
qualify with a 6-5 or 6-6 record?

Is this dichotemy the primary reason for an equivalent number of
AQ's and at-larges?

Also, on the chance an AQ team doesn't meet qualifying conditions,
would the playoff slot revert to an at-large entry or nobody,
resulting in another first-round bye?

[danefan]

Your point raises an issue that I find interesting. So this new policy of conditional auto-bid only applies the NEC right?

the policy may bring a weird result which would be schools getting AQ from other conferences without having met the criteria themselves.

The PL wouldn't have qualified last year would they? Did they have two wins against teams from other auto-bid leagues? Were they ranked in the top 16?
Edit: I looked it up. Fordham only had one win versus another auto-bid conference and was not ranked in the top 16.

I know that the new policy would only apply to the NEC, but should it?

I am on the train and can't look it up, but did Delaware State meet the criteria last year?
Edit: Delaware State would not have qualified either as they had zero wins against other auto-bid conferences.

That is sort of why I don't like this conditional bid. The other reasons: FCS polls are inherently flawed already, but now voters have a concrete reason to not vote an NEC member in the top 16 - it could take away an at-large for their school - especially true in the coaches poll, which already suck.s

[DetroitFlyer]

2006. If I remember correctly, Lafayette or Lehigh, ( I do not remember for sure ), the PL Champion, qualified for the playoffs with a stellar 6-5 record. OK, I actually looked it up.... It was Lafayette and they lost to UMass in the first round 35-14....

Yet, it is "unreasonable" for a Dayton at 10-1 come playoff selection time in 2007 to receive an at large bid.... Or for that matter, a San Diego in 2006 who was 10-0 at playoff selection time and ranked as high as 13 is some polls....

Yep, this current system is really just perfect and does not need to be changed at all....xlolx

[89Hen]

Indeed, there is no possible argument against a 5 week playoff if a 4 week playoff is acceptable.
And if 5, why not 6, and if 6... shoot, just scrap the regular season and have a 128 team field starting from September 1. xblahblahx

[89Hen]

Why don't you apply that same logic to the OVC, MEAC, and to some extent the PL as of lately?
I do. I'd love to see the NEC get a bid over the OVC or MEAC if their ranking were higher. I've said it in the past, the easy way to fix this is not give out the autobids to the conference until October. That way we can see who the best 8 are after most of the OOC games are played. Giving them out before the season starts is ridiculous.

[89Hen]

It's kind of hard to get an at-large when you don't have an autobid
xoopsx xnonox xoopsx

[AZGrizFan]

2006. If I remember correctly, Lafayette or Lehigh, ( I do not remember for sure ), the PL Champion, qualified for the playoffs with a stellar 6-5 record. OK, I actually looked it up.... It was Lafayette and they lost to UMass in the first round 35-14....

Yet, it is "unreasonable" for a Dayton at 10-1 come playoff selection time in 2007 to receive an at large bid.... Or for that matter, a San Diego in 2006 who was 10-0 at playoff selection time and ranked as high as 13 is some polls....

Yep, this current system is really just perfect and does not need to be changed at all....xlolx

It's not so much about the record, DF, as about WHO you've played. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? We have literally beaten that to DEATH here, yet you seem unable (or unwilling) to listen.

The Kansas City Royals could probably make the playoffs in MLB every year if they were allowed to play nothing but AAA farm teams instead of MLB level talent. It doesn't make them playoff CALIBER, but it would sure make their record look good. Until the PFL begins REGULARLY (read: EVERY OOC game) scheduling tougher OOC games, there just isn't a solid argument for inclusion into a limited playoff field.

[UAalum72]

Eastern Illinois received an at-large in 2007 even though their only OOC win was over 0-11 Indiana State and their only win over a team with a winning record was over 6-5 conference-mate Jacksonville St. And since their record was 8-4, they did not win 'more than eight games vs. FCS opponents'

[89Hen]

16 of the same-ol'-same-ol' teams in the playoffs and only fans of those programs give a rat's hairy behind about the FCS playoffs.
xnonono2x xnonox xnonono2x xnonox Simply not true. I love how NOBODY from the NEC, PFL, etc... with answer the question of how Coastal and Cal Poly are suddenly the same-ol' teams. Or how MANY other teams over the years have gotten in the playoffs without being in autobid conferences. xcoffeex

[AZGrizFan]

xnonono2x xnonox xnonono2x xnonox Simply not true. I love how NOBODY from the NEC, PFL, etc... with answer the question of how Coastal and Cal Poly are suddenly the same-ol' teams. Or how MANY other teams over the years have gotten in the playoffs without being in autobid conferences. xcoffeex

Wasn't there a team called Delaware State in the playoffs this year? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[89Hen]

Quick question =
Have any teams won a playoff berth via AQ with only 6 total wins?

The reason I ask is that, while proposed conditions may accompany
a new AQ slot for the NEC, what about conditions for traditional
AQ's?

On one hand a few power conference teams may benefit from the
extra at-large, but on the other hand, could a conference champ
qualify with a 6-5 or 6-6 record?
In addition to DF pointing out Lafayette, Montana State was 7-5 in 2002 (and 2003). In 2002 they played two DII games (and lost one of them) so they were actually 6-4 vs DI.

[89Hen]

2006. If I remember correctly, Lafayette or Lehigh, ( I do not remember for sure ), the PL Champion, qualified for the playoffs with a stellar 6-5 record. OK, I actually looked it up.... It was Lafayette and they lost to UMass in the first round 35-14....

Yet, it is "unreasonable" for a Dayton at 10-1 come playoff selection time in 2007 to receive an at large bid.... Or for that matter, a San Diego in 2006 who was 10-0 at playoff selection time and ranked as high as 13 is some polls....

Yep, this current system is really just perfect and does not need to be changed at all....xlolx
The rules are there for eight autos and only eight conferences applied for them, so all eight would get them. Had Lafayette not received the auto, they would not have been an at-large team.

[89Hen]

Wasn't there a team called Delaware State in the playoffs this year? xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx
This same ol' 16 is comical. Since 2000 46 different teams have been in the playoffs. I'm not sure you'd find another sport where 36% of the available slots have been filled by unique teams.

Eastern Washington
Montana
Montata Sate
Northern Arizona
Portland State
Cal Poly
Coastal Carolina
McNeese State
Nicholls State
Northwestern State
Sam Houston State
Texas State
Delaware
Hofstra
James Madison
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Northeastern
Richmond
Villanova
William & Mary
Northern Iowa
Southern Illinois
Western Illinois
Youngstown State
Eastern Illinois
Eastern Kentucky
Jacksonville State
Murray State
Appalachian State
Furman
Georgia Southern
Wofford
Bethune-Cookman
Delaware State
Florida A&M
Hampton
North Carolina A&T
Colgate
Fordham
Lafayette
Lehigh

Western Kentucky *
Troy State *
Florida Atlantic *

[DetroitFlyer]

It's not so much about the record, DF, as about WHO you've played. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? We have literally beaten that to DEATH here, yet you seem unable (or unwilling) to listen.

The Kansas City Royals could probably make the playoffs in MLB every year if they were allowed to play nothing but AAA farm teams instead of MLB level talent. It doesn't make them playoff CALIBER, but it would sure make their record look good. Until the PFL begins REGULARLY (read: EVERY OOC game) scheduling tougher OOC games, there just isn't a solid argument for inclusion into a limited playoff field.

OK, I have not looked it up, but you seem to know so much.... Who did Lafayette play in 2006 that warranted a playoff bid with a 6-5 record? Convince me....

[McTailGator]

PLEASE, I beg all of you FBS wannabees, convince your schools to move up. By the way, do not let the FCS door hit you on the way out. This simply cannot happen soon enough. Please, I beg you, make it happen. If it will help, I even volunteer to come to a few games so you can hit the 15K mark. Bye, bye FBS wannabees. Man, would that be a glorious day for FCS! You have my complete support, not 100% but 1000%. See ya!!!!!xnodx



We are NOT FBS wanna Be's...

We like OUR playoffs, just the way they are...

We just want you little Non-Scholarship programs to either drop the sport of football or drop to D-III where you freaking belong to begin with...

[danefan]

We are NOT FBS wanna Be's...

We like OUR playoffs, just the way they are...

We just want you little Non-Scholarship programs to either drop the sport of football or drop to D-III where you freaking belong to begin with...


So what you are saying is that there is ABSOLUTELY now way for another FCS conference to grow and join "your" group?

[Dane96]

What he is implying, without words, is that he and his one streetlight town like the way the world looked in Pleasantville.

[aceinthehole]

I won't get bogged down in this thread, but this is going to happen.

Don't you think the NEC commissioner has a very good feel for the process? This is something that has been in the works for years and is taking almost 6 years to implement since the NEC first mentioned the AQ.

Some people have valid points, but the commissioners and ADs do support this, regardless of what some here post. This is about ACCESS and it will happen! :)

[MplsBison]

If the NEC is going to get more scholarships and the Big South is going to get enough scholarship teams to qualify for an AQ, then they both should be granted one.


End of story.

[89Hen]

Don't you think the NEC commissioner has a very good feel for the process?
I see it more as a candidate repeating... "WHEN I am elected." Like I've said, this may pass, but it's no slam dunk, nor would it's passing make me change my position that this is not a good idea at this time.

I am opposed to expansion (in case you weren't paying attention xsmiley_wix ), but IF it's going to happen, 20 is a STUPID number. If you're going to add teams, go ahead and go to 24 and stop jerking us around. THAT would be something that is inevitible if we go to 20. Go to the Ivy and SWAC and convince them to join in on the fun too and do this thing right. xpeacex

[89Hen]

We just want you little Non-Scholarship programs to either drop the sport of football or drop to D-III where you freaking belong to begin with...
Disclaimer: McTailGator does not speak for me. xpeacex

[Cobblestone]

I still think we should move to the NEC. We have ZERO playoff appearences since the A-10/CAA came to be.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I still think we should move to the NEC. We have ZERO playoff appearences since the A-10/CAA came to be.

xeyebrowx You wonder if this is part of this equation... seriously... with the CAA bursting at the seams with members and the NEC getting an autobid in 2010. Functionally, they are aligned with more regional schools, would save on travel costs, and as an Northern associate who's not guaranteed to play Delaware every year, what's really holding them to the CAA anyway?

[danefan]

I still think we should move to the NEC. We have ZERO playoff appearences since the A-10/CAA came to be.

Geographic rivalry with Bryant too!
Plus if and when the vote to increase to 45 rides passes, it would be a much easier transition. Although I cannot really even imagine what kind of recruiting class you could get the first year of transition. You'd basically have no scholarships to give out.xeekx

[Go...gate]

Quick question =
Have any teams won a playoff berth via AQ with only 6 total wins?

The reason I ask is that, while proposed conditions may accompany
a new AQ slot for the NEC, what about conditions for traditional
AQ's?

On one hand a few power conference teams may benefit from the
extra at-large, but on the other hand, could a conference champ
qualify with a 6-5 or 6-6 record?

Is this dichotemy the primary reason for an equivalent number of
AQ's and at-larges?

Also, on the chance an AQ team doesn't meet qualifying conditions,
would the playoff slot revert to an at-large entry or nobody,
resulting in another first-round bye?


Boston University, 1982; Lafayette, 2006.

[DetroitFlyer]

Geographic rivalry with Bryant too!
Plus if and when the vote to increase to 45 rides passes, it would be a much easier transition. Although I cannot really even imagine what kind of recruiting class you could get the first year of transition. You'd basically have no scholarships to give out.xeekx

That first or second class might look like a PFL recruiting class.... I have heard that some PFL teams are not too bad.... I think RI to the NEC would be a good fit.

[401ks]

xnonono2x xnonox xnonono2x xnonox Simply not true. I love how NOBODY from the NEC, PFL, etc... with answer the question of how Coastal and Cal Poly are suddenly the same-ol' teams. Or how MANY other teams over the years have gotten in the playoffs without being in autobid conferences. xcoffeex

Oh, PUH-LEEEEZE! xrolleyesx

AS IF I was actually saying that there were only 16 teams that EVER make the playoffs! xnonono2x xnonox xnonono2x xnonox

Did you just stop reading there?

This all just seems like the same BCS vs. non-BCS horse manure being rehashed by the "we-may-not-be-FBS-but-at-least-we're-better-than-THEM" crowd that can't get over the fact that their teams can't even be called non-BCS.

Please google: "superiority complex" xreadx

[89Hen]

This all just seems like the same BCS vs. non-BCS horse manure being rehashed by the "we-may-not-be-FBS-but-at-least-we're-better-than-THEM" crowd that can't get over the fact that their teams can't even be called non-BCS.

Please google: "superiority complex" xreadx
xnonono2x How many non-BCS teams have played for the national championship since it started?... NONE. How many non-auto teams have played for the national championship since it started? I can rattle off several without looking....

Coastal Carolina
Cal Poly
Florida Atlantic
Youngstown State
Georgia Southern
Hofstra

But all we hear is how you can't make the playoffs without an auto, yet when confronted with the simple fact that others have done it (and done it recently).... crickets. Government handouts are not for the playoffs.

[401ks]

xnonono2x How many non-BCS teams have played for the national championship since it started?... NONE. How many non-auto teams have played for the national championship since it started? I can rattle off several without looking....

Coastal Carolina
Cal Poly
Florida Atlantic
Youngstown State
Georgia Southern
Hofstra

But all we hear is how you can't make the playoffs without an auto, yet when confronted with the simple fact that others have done it (and done it recently).... crickets. Government handouts are not for the playoffs.

Okay, you answered my question.

Yes, you did just stop reading there, missing the entire point of my post.

xbangx

xrolleyesx

[TheValleyRaider]

Go to the Ivy and SWAC and convince them to join in on the fun too and do this thing right. xpeacex

Speaking of impossible dreams... xlolx

[dgreco]

Geographic rivalry with Bryant too!
Plus if and when the vote to increase to 45 rides passes, it would be a much easier transition. Although I cannot really even imagine what kind of recruiting class you could get the first year of transition. You'd basically have no scholarships to give out.xeekx

I say we wrap it up and move with it. I would love to see two RI schools in the same conference and having to play each other. Plus URI would be more respectable and get the respect if they had a good season. The average fan hardly knows the difference between the NEC and the CAA. To them a conference championship and shot at the playoffs is much better than going 2-9 in the CAA with schools they know nothing much about.

[aceinthehole]

I see it more as a candidate repeating... "WHEN I am elected." Like I've said, this may pass, but it's no slam dunk, nor would it's passing make me change my position that this is not a good idea at this time.

I am opposed to expansion (in case you weren't paying attention xsmiley_wix ), but IF it's going to happen, 20 is a STUPID number. If you're going to add teams, go ahead and go to 24 and stop jerking us around. THAT would be something that is inevitible if we go to 20. Go to the Ivy and SWAC and convince them to join in on the fun too and do this thing right. xpeacex

89 - You view is clear to me. We've discussed it here at lenghth and you have some valid points. Expansion is not appealing to many purists. I understand that.

However, you (and other posters) have yet to cite any commissioners or AD who have recently said the do not support expansion. There is a laundry list of NCAA and FCS officials who have stated that expansion and EQUAL AQ ACCESS is what they are trying to achive.

The former NEC commish who started the AQ process is now the commis of the SoCon. He is suporting this cause. Brenda Weare (NEC Commish) is not lobbying for a job, she is getting the pulse of the NCAA and the AQ conferences (The "old Guard" :) ) and is not going out on a limb without being informed.

My very close sources from CCSU have said to me that the NEC office has the support of the membership and is "close" to making this happen. Again, this is political issue, not a competative one for the NCAA. The reason they are going to just 20 teams (2 AQs) is becasue they know the NEC and Big South want access. I agree they should go to 24 and get the Ivy and SWAC on board too, but those conferences aren't intersted.

Again, the NCAA is addressing a PROBLEM from its membership. Yes, we will no longer have a 16-team playoff, but almost ever AD and conference commissioner is not looking at the issue they way many posters here do. They are looking at the consequences of not respopnding to the NEc and BIg South requests. As LFN may have alluded to, this could set a bad precedent and hurt all FCS teams in reagrds to basketball $$$. No one is going to hurt the golden goose.

[89Hen]

Okay, you answered my question.

Yes, you did just stop reading there, missing the entire point of my post.

xbangx

xrolleyesx
Just went back and reread it to make sure I didn't miss something. I didn't. You did say America loves a Cinderella, but you also made a wild claim about the same ol' teams. The fact that you came back with:


This all just seems like the same BCS vs. non-BCS horse manure being rehashed by the "we-may-not-be-FBS-but-at-least-we're-better-than-THEM" crowd that can't get over the fact that their teams can't even be called non-BCS.

Please google: "superiority complex"
tells me that I did NOT miss your point. xcoffeex

[UAalum72]

xnonono2x How many non-BCS teams have played for the national championship since it started?... NONE. How many non-auto teams have played for the national championship since it started? I can rattle off several without looking....

Coastal Carolina
Cal Poly
Florida Atlantic
Youngstown State
Georgia Southern
Hofstra

But all we hear is how you can't make the playoffs without an auto, yet when confronted with the simple fact that others have done it (and done it recently).... crickets.
Not CAN'T, but much more difficult. You'll note those teams were independents (or only had four league games) but when you play seven games that some people automatically discount as "D-III" or "club sports" without even having seen them, even though by the rules they're FCS games, there aren't enough games left to get enough so-called 'quality wins'.

Crickets squashed.

[89Hen]

Speaking of impossible dreams... xlolx
Probably a tougher one on the SWAC front. Their obstacle is about money... not much the NCAA or anyone else can do about that.

The Ivy however is about principle and we all can remind them how hypocritical they are being considering they let their other sports participate in post-season.... basketball, hockey, etc... remember that they used to not allow spring practice for football, but now they do.

Most of the Ivy wants to play in the playoffs, it's the big three that do not. Student groups at the big three have already made their feelings known and the universities will eventually cave and I'd be willing to wager that within five years the Ivy will ask to be a part of the playoffs. As you know the PL had the same stance not that long ago and I don't think the schools have shown any ill effects of participating in the playoffs. xtwocentsx

[89Hen]

there aren't enough games left to get enough so-called 'quality wins'.
Albany has, they just haven't enough games in those seasons. You probably had a tough enough schedule last year to make the playoffs at 9-2, but at 8-3 you were an outside shot at best.

No offense to the Big South, but Coastal's conference games in 2006 weren't exactly the part that got them in. They also played GSU, Furman, Wofford, Elon and SCSt.

I'm not saying it's easy, but you know what... it is SUPPOSED to be hard to make the playoffs. xpeacex

[DetroitFlyer]

Probably a tougher one on the SWAC front. Their obstacle is about money... not much the NCAA or anyone else can do about that.

The Ivy however is about principle and we all can remind them how hypocritical they are being considering they let their other sports participate in post-season.... basketball, hockey, etc... remember that they used to not allow spring practice for football, but now they do.

Most of the Ivy wants to play in the playoffs, it's the big three that do not. Student groups at the big three have already made their feelings known and the universities will eventually cave and I'd be willing to wager that within five years the Ivy will ask to be a part of the playoffs. As you know the PL had the same stance not that long ago and I don't think the schools have shown any ill effects of participating in the playoffs. xtwocentsx


Oh, I get it now.... The PFL should refuse to participate in the playoffs on principle.... Then the FBS wannabee crowd will be begging us to join their party. It is so simple, I will fire off the memo to the league this afternoon!xcoolx

We got part of it right, San Diego did thump Ivy League co-champ Yale in 2006, they simply did not refuse to participate in the playoffs on principle in 2006.... If only Jim Harbaugh had gotten the memo....xnodx

[89Hen]

However, you (and other posters) have yet to cite any commissioners or AD who have recently said the do not support expansion...

They are looking at the consequences of not respopnding to the NEc and BIg South requests.
You are correct, and I guess I can only speak from my opinion on the subject. I took more exception to the notion that this was a done deal because it was recommended to the NCAA. Many things have been recommended by NCAA appointed panels that haven't passed.

BTW, what are the consequences? xeyebrowx

[401ks]

Just went back and reread it to make sure I didn't miss something. I didn't. You did say America loves a Cinderella, but you also made a wild claim about the same ol' teams. The fact that you came back with:

tells me that I did NOT miss your point. xcoffeex

Wow.

I thought that that I had stopped dealing with people into heavy mind-altering drugs back in the '70s!

xdizzyx

I can't keep up with you, man. Circuitous logic was easy to deal with when my kids were 3 or 4 years old, but I've lost the knack now that they've grown.

(24-hour cable news has A LOT to answer for. What have they done to civil, intelligent, and logical debate in this country?)

xpeacex

[89Hen]

Oh, I get it now.... The PFL should refuse to participate in the playoffs on principle.... Then the FBS wannabee crowd will be begging us to join their party. It is so simple, I will fire off the memo to the league this afternoon!xcoolx

We got part of it right, San Diego did thump Ivy League co-champ Yale in 2006, they simply did not refuse to participate in the playoffs on principle in 2006.... If only Jim Harbaugh had gotten the memo....xnodx
Or PFL fans could just try being less abrasive and maybe people would like the PFL better. I don't think I said not to include the PFL. If the field remains at 16, only 8 autos and NO PFL, NO Ivy, NO SWAC.... If the field goes to 24, there would be room for 12 autos. The PFL probably would get one then.

BTW, no I-A wannabes here. I've been I-AA since 1981 and have never once thought of I-A for my team or any other I-AA.

[89Hen]

What have they done to civil, intelligent, and logical debate in this country
Can't imagine...

Wow.

I thought that that I had stopped dealing with people into heavy mind-altering drugs back in the '70s!

I can't keep up with you, man. Circuitous logic was easy to deal with when my kids were 3 or 4 years old, but I've lost the knack now that they've grown.

16 of the same-ol'-same-ol' teams in the playoffs and only fans of those programs give a rat's hairy behind about the FCS playoffs.

This all just seems like the same BCS vs. non-BCS horse manure being rehashed by the "we-may-not-be-FBS-but-at-least-we're-better-than-THEM" crowd that can't get over the fact that their teams can't even be called non-BCS.

Please google: "superiority complex"
Sorry 401, I've been posting on these boards since the 90's and it's always one group of posters each year that gets up in arms because they didn't get an invite to the playoffs after completing a 10 win season in which they didn't beat anybody in the top 50. Lately it's been the PFL looking for the handout when many other teams have earned their way into the playoffs by scheduling and beating top ranked teams.

It has nothing to do with excluding the PFL or NEC or Big South... it has to do with excluding teams that simply don't have the resume to participate. Point to the OVC and MEAC all you (a general you, not specific you) want and I'll be in your corner. There ARE teams that get in the playoffs that don't really deserve to be there and that's my whole point. Expand so you can add even more???? No thanks. xsmhx

[401ks]

...I will repeat my post without the "distracting" parts. xrolleyesx


Why expand the playoffs?

Simple business...

Include 20 or 24 teams (especially from additional conferences) and suddenly there is a substantially larger audience that cares.

Larger audience = higher demand = higher TV ratings = more $$$

The NCAA learned this lesson a long time ago when they expanded the NCAA basketball tournament to 64 (actually 65) teams. More people cared. More people watched. The money poured into the NCAA coffers.

And as an added bonus, people love to cheer for the "Cinderella". America LOVES an underdog. Was Davidson going to win the NCAA this year? Pretty fat chance, but goodness knows that I watched their games and was rooting for them!

Will a #16 seed ever win the NCAA basketball tournament? Heck no. Will a non-scholarship FCS team ever win the FCS Division I championship? Heck no. Will a non-BSC team ever beat a BCS team in a major bowl game? Heck no. (Oops. That one happened.) Will a DI-AA school ever beat a top-ranked DI-A powerhouse like Michigan? Heck no. (Oops. That one happened too.) Anyway...

Americans love to see them have the opportunity to try.

God Bless America!

Okay, 89Hen...

Now that you can read my post without getting distracted by side issues, how about a real, thoughtful response.

I'm cool with the fact that you may not agree. I would just like to engage in a discussion about the REAL point of my post, or the points mentioned in MY post and NOT arguments that you may have had over the past 10 years with other posters.

As an outsider to this whole discussion (My avatar may be "Butler", but my son is still in high school.) I am constantly shocked and amazed by the "we-may-not-be-FBS-but-at-least-we're-better-than-THEM" attitude of some of the posters here on the "ANY GIVEN SATURDAY" board.

The point of my post (that you CONTINUOUSLY ignored xnonox ) was that expanding the playoffs makes sense from a business standpoint. Sony's Betamax failed because Sony limited access to the technology while the VHS backers allowed greater access. PCs had become the dominant home and office computer platform because Apple restricted access to the technology. The NCAA Basketball Tournament is a national EVENT because the NCAA gave access to a greater number of programs.

"Deserve" and "earn" have no place in this particular discussion. I'll leave you to rehash and rehash and rehash and rehash those arguments with the same people with whom you've discussed them for the past 10 years.

If you wish to discuss the TRUE point of my original post without twisting it into some ANCIENT argument about who "deserves" to be in these playoffs (about which most of the country neither knows nor cares), please be my guest. Otherwise...

xdeadhorsex

[MplsBison]

There ARE teams that get in the playoffs that don't really deserve to be there and that's my whole point. Expand so you can add even more???? No thanks.


Ok, ok , we get it!



Will you at least shut up after Thurs. when they vote it through?

[TheValleyRaider]

Probably a tougher one on the SWAC front. Their obstacle is about money... not much the NCAA or anyone else can do about that.

The Ivy however is about principle and we all can remind them how hypocritical they are being considering they let their other sports participate in post-season.... basketball, hockey, etc... remember that they used to not allow spring practice for football, but now they do.

Most of the Ivy wants to play in the playoffs, it's the big three that do not. Student groups at the big three have already made their feelings known and the universities will eventually cave and I'd be willing to wager that within five years the Ivy will ask to be a part of the playoffs. As you know the PL had the same stance not that long ago and I don't think the schools have shown any ill effects of participating in the playoffs. xtwocentsx

If they relent, it will no doubt be slowly. Those at the top levels of the Big 3 are very entrenched in their beliefs (such as they are) and IMHO aren't likely to change in the near future. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there's a massive conference shuffle (possibly right when the moratorium gets lifted), and Ivies (perhaps even outside of H-Y-P) further dig their heels, citing a desire to stay out of what they'll describe as a money-grab or "bowing" to the pressure of athletic departments xtwocentsx

[redflash2]

St. Francis is going to win the NEC anyway!!!!!!!!!!!!xsmiley_wix

[MplsBison]

I'm afraid it's simply going to come down to certain people in the H-Y-P power structure dying for things to change.

[Go...gate]

I'm afraid it's simply going to come down to certain people in the H-Y-P power structure dying for things to change.

You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, attrition makes the biggest impact upon the Ivies. As much as I respect the conference and what it stands for, they are perpetually behind the curve.

[aceinthehole]

You are correct, and I guess I can only speak from my opinion on the subject. I took more exception to the notion that this was a done deal because it was recommended to the NCAA. Many things have been recommended by NCAA appointed panels that haven't passed.

BTW, what are the consequences? xeyebrowx

I understand your hesitation and generally I'm a skeptic also. However, I think there are 2 major reasons why this is "very likely" to happen.

1) This is not immediate, radical, or reactionary change. This topic has been floated, debated, and considered for at least 4 years. This is not a new idea and it has been studied by the powers that be in depth. The NCAA is a deliberate body and they have walked very slowly down this path. A lot of progress has been made and the decision makers have had this on their radar for some time now.

2) The NEC commish doesn't come out and make public statements or "promises" to get egg on her face. Like any politican, she likely has assurances or very good info from direct decision makers that this may happen soon. The proposal is is just that - a proposal - but it does have some serious clout behind it. Other Comishs and ADs have publicly stated the issue is EQUAL ACCESS to AQs (and not any of the issues poster here keep debating). They generally have supported this idea and have been NEGOTIATING a plan to implemnet it. In the end, the NEC and and Big South get AQ spots, and the CAA and Gateway get a shot at a additional at-large. In their world everybody wins.


I'm not promising you this will happen, but as I've always said its "VERY LIKELY" to happen. I don't think its too big of a leap to expect that nearly 6 years after the NEC first requested an AQ, the finally playoffs expand.

[89Hen]

The point of my post (that you CONTINUOUSLY ignored xnonox ) was that expanding the playoffs makes sense from a business standpoint.
I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. There is no point in using the men's bball tourney analogies in ANY way when talking about I-AA playoffs. You'd be better off using the women's or NIT. Nobody cares about the I-AA playoffs except I-AA fans (I say this as a devout I-AA fan). Adding four more teams to a first round that won't be televised does nothing for the tournament and actually will end up costing the NCAA and schools more money.



...I will repeat my post without the "distracting" parts. xrolleyesx
I appreicate that. Except then you went and said it again....


I am constantly shocked and amazed by the "we-may-not-be-FBS-but-at-least-we're-better-than-THEM" attitude of some of the posters here on the "ANY GIVEN SATURDAY" board.
So you first insult the intelligence of the board by making a bogus claim (same ol' teams) and when called on it, you insult their motives. xnonono2x

How's that for a reasoned response.

[89Hen]

Ok, ok , we get it!



Will you at least shut up after Thurs. when they vote it through?
Not until you shut up about artificial turf and how it's better even though the players disagree with you. xcoffeex

[89Hen]

1) This is not immediate, radical, or reactionary change.
I guess that's where I'd disagree. Adding a week, adding byes for part of the field, eliminating a week of the season that will eliminate either a 12th game or bye week, most likely adding more teams that are not ranked in the top 25 and more teams with 8-4 or 7-4 records, etc... that's radical in my book.

Also, while it's not immediate in the sense that it won't be for this playoff season, in a way it is immediate in that I don't see how you go back on this if it passes. So it will immediately impact scheduling for 2010 and perhaps on scheduling philosophy of many teams. xpeacex

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. There is no point in using the men's bball tourney analogies in ANY way when talking about I-AA playoffs. You'd be better off using the women's or NIT. Nobody cares about the I-AA playoffs except I-AA fans (I say this as a devout I-AA fan). Adding four more teams to a first round that won't be televised does nothing for the tournament and actually will end up costing the NCAA and schools more money.

Do you know something I don't? How do you know it's not going to be televised? ESPN already televises one first round game and (I think) all the first-round games had some form of local coverage one way or another in the first round last year.

You're saying that it wouldn't work for Delaware to have another first-round home game attendance-wise and it would cost you money? I find that incredibly hard to believe. And isn't the NCAA supposedly so rich and powerful that schools are holding congressional hearings to fight for access to the BC$? You think four more home games are going to bust their bank?

You're saying that a school like (say) Fordham hosting a first round game wouldn't do anything for the tournament? Nothing, perhaps, except get more campuses excited about playoff football in late November and December. And that's bad how?

I'm not claiming that everyone in the universe is going to clamor for their FCS playoffs if this is done. And if you don't like the B-Ball slippery slope argument, that's your prerogative, though I very much disagree. But come on: arguing that four more home games does nothing for the tournament and is going to cause the NCAA to buy one less ivory backscratcher is just ridiculous. I'd bet a duck dinner that an extra home game for Delaware in the playoffs would be a windfall, not a loss.

[89Hen]

Do you know something I don't? How do you know it's not going to be televised? ESPN already televises one first round game and (I think) all the first-round games had some form of local coverage one way or another in the first round last year.
Local coverage does not equal big dollars or even enough dollars to make up for the expense of first round games. You know first round games are a bust finacially. xconfusedx


You're saying that it wouldn't work for Delaware to have another first-round home game attendance-wise and it would cost you money? I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I'd find that incredibly hard to believe too. But I never said anything about Delaware and unless you are saying Delaware, AppSt, Montana, etc... are going to be hosts of these first round games, again, you know first round games are financial busts.


You're saying that a school like (say) Fordham hosting a first round game wouldn't do anything for the tournament? Nothing, perhaps, except get more campuses excited about playoff football in late November and December. And that's bad how?
It's not bad, but it's also not a factor when looking at it from a business standpoint as I was asked to do. You know first round games are financial busts.


if you don't like the B-Ball slippery slope argument, that's your prerogative, though I very much disagree.
Show me how the bball analogy is legit. It's a different beast all together. You may as well be using the Frozen Four or an Indian Cricket match (at least our scores would improve on AGS Sports Trivia xsmiley_wix ). Their first round games are only enticing to the people involved. In case you didn't notice, selection Sunday for the bball tourney is a major production on CBS and is watched by millions. We're lucky when they put ours on ESPN News for 15 minutes. The bball first round games are on all day and night, again on CBS. We're relegated to a Friday night on ESPN2 for our FINAL game. I guess it is only my opinion, but until you can point out some better similarities, I'll stick with using the NIT or women's bball tourney as a better analogy. xpeacex

[89Hen]

I'll stick with using the NIT or women's bball tourney as a better analogy. xpeacex
BTW, do you think adding say four more teams to the NIT would make that a more attractive tournament? It would expose it to more people. If Kentucky hosted a first round game, it would probably draw well. If Wagner hosted an extra first round game surely it must be good for the tourney. xeyebrowx

[aceinthehole]

I guess that's where I'd disagree. Adding a week, adding byes for part of the field, eliminating a week of the season that will eliminate either a 12th game or bye week, most likely adding more teams that are not ranked in the top 25 and more teams with 8-4 or 7-4 records, etc... that's radical in my book.

Also, while it's not immediate in the sense that it won't be for this playoff season, in a way it is immediate in that I don't see how you go back on this if it passes. So it will immediately impact scheduling for 2010 and perhaps on scheduling philosophy of many teams. xpeacex


First, I agree with you that this is not necessairly a great BUSINESS decision, but this is a POLITICAL decision. The NCAA proposal indicated this expansion will cost more to implement. I don't think it will be offset by revenue.

I 100% disagree with you calling this propsal "radical." This proposal is very similar to the D-II football playoffs. The Ice Hockey championships recently expanded. Expansion of a tourney is not radical at all. Eliminating all AQs is radical and yet that what some posters here have seriously proposed.

Maintaining a 11 game schedule, eliminating a bye week, and changing the start/end of a season is not radical - its a simple modification that the NCAA has made to all its championships over the years. The I-AA playoffs has expanded before. Again, this might not sit well with certain I-AA fans, but its not anything that hasn't been done before.

Yes, this is change. I personally don't think Delaware or Montana administrators are worried about this as much as some fans are. They adapt to change, as I expect most of us will too. They will schedule and manage their programs to maintain the highest standards. xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

They adapt to change, as I expect most of us will too.
That we can agree on... the part about us adapting... NOT the part about the UD administration adapting to change. xsmiley_wix IF this passes, I will figure it out. xthumbsupx

[JohnStOnge]

I like the idea because I favor have as many teams as possible control their own destinies and this is a step in that direction.

[kirkblitz]

2 team playoff ftw.....

right 89hen?

[Keeper]

I for one would like to see a poll question:

Which is more bothersome to you about the FCS playoff field:
A} Need more playoff spots.
B} Need different selection process/criteria.
C} Both
D} Neither

The answer likely depends on your favorite team's membership,
whether in the current AQ haves, or non-AQ wannabes.

Also, the only valid comparisons I can think of are the DII, DIII & NAIA
tournaments. They seem to make it work without a lot of hissin n dissin.
Do they have any special conditions in their selection processes?

If someone wants to start a voting thread, go for it.

[TheValleyRaider]

D-II and D-III are broken up by regions (x spots for each pre-determined region) and I think they're even selected by computer rating

One of the former D-IIs no doubt knows more than I do xpeacex

[aust42]

I can't wait till Thursday. :D

[USDFAN_55]

I can't wait till Thursday. :D

What's going on Thursday? Did I miss something?xrolleyesx

[FargoBison]

D-II and D-III are broken up by regions (x spots for each pre-determined region) and I think they're even selected by computer rating

One of the former D-IIs no doubt knows more than I do xpeacex

Yep, DII is broken down into regions and the top 6 teams from each of the four regions make into the playoffs. Autobids are given to the power conferences and lower conferences have a shot to get an auto if they qualify for earned access(top 10 finish in region). The teams are actually selected by a committee but there is also a computer formula involved as well.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of regionalism. It killed the division of football I liked a lot. A national playoff is by far the best option.

[89Hen]

2 team playoff ftw.....

right 89hen?
xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx

[89Hen]

I like the idea because I favor have as many teams as possible control their own destinies and this is a step in that direction.
Schedule the teams necessary to get a bid and you control your own destiny. Not scheduling the teams and transferring that burden to the NCAA, you don't. xcoffeex

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yep, DII is broken down into regions and the top 6 teams from each of the four regions make into the playoffs. Autobids are given to the power conferences and lower conferences have a shot to get an auto if they qualify for earned access(top 10 finish in region). The teams are actually selected by a committee but there is also a computer formula involved as well.

Honestly, I'm not a fan of regionalism. It killed the division of football I liked a lot. A national playoff is by far the best option.

I'm not a huge fan either - although with gas costs being what they are, regionalism (at least in the first round) seems like it's here to stay. In seeding it's not supposed to be an issue, but for first round matchups last year (think: Del/Del St) it was in effect. Of course, there's always one (EWU/McNeese) where it simply has to be done.

With a 20 team playoff, I've got to believe that they will stick to that plan to some degree. Which begs an interesting question: who gets those valuable first-round byes, and will the first-round games be skewed to regions where there are a lot of teams - such as, the East? xeekx

[89Hen]

Which begs an interesting question: who gets those valuable first-round byes, and will the first-round games be skewed to regions where there are a lot of teams - such as, the East? xeekx
Part of the problem of going to 20 or 24. I'm telling you guys, you think there's a lot of bitching going on now with who is the 17th team... wait to see how bad it is if this passes. There will be bitching about the 21st team, about the 13th team, about the 7-4 teams getting at-larges, about the NEC not getting two bids while the CAA gets five, etc... xrulesx

[danefan]

A couple of things:

1. The poll to be used for the conditional access bid is the coaches poll.xwhistlex

2. Our AD said he thinks its a go in the championship cabinet, but he has some reservations about the football issues committee, which presumably is dealing with the logistical problems.

A question:
If it passes, does the NCAA's use of the Coaches Poll basically invalidate the other two polls (AGS and Sportsnetwork) as not carrying any weight?

[TheValleyRaider]

A question:
If it passes, does the NCAA's use of the Coaches Poll basically invalidate the other two polls (AGS and Sportsnetwork) as not carrying any weight?

Nah, the polls don't really mean as much anyway, and it's only for the judging of 1 team. Besides, presumably this earned access will be gone once expansion happens and the actual autobid is given out. It's a stopgap

The Coaches poll actually makes the most sense for the NCAA to use. The Coaches and ADs who vote are members/representatives of the schools, and so it's as close as they can get to an internal poll, done by their own membership. Not saying it's right, just guessing at the NCAA's rationale xtwocentsx

[89Hen]

The Coaches poll actually makes the most sense for the NCAA to use. The Coaches and ADs who vote are members/representatives of the schools, and so it's as close as they can get to an internal poll, done by their own membership. Not saying it's right, just guessing at the NCAA's rationale xtwocentsx
Agreed. The AGS poll would become a sham if it were ever used for real purposes. Just imagine all the people trying to manipulate it. xeekx

[Dane96]

For the record-- the coaches don't vote most of the time; SID's do.

[danefan]

Agreed. The AGS poll would become a sham if it were ever used for real purposes. Just imagine all the people trying to manipulate it. xeekx

You don't think that will happen with the coaches poll?

Detroit Flyer's conspiracy theory may actually get some legs.

CAA Coach: "hmm. If I vote for an NEC team in the top 16 then they'll be taking a possible at-large from my conference. OK, SID mark Albany as #18."

[aust42]

What's going on Thursday? Did I miss something?xrolleyesx

Thursday is the day the committee shoots down the playoff expansion proposal. Then they'll be way more whining on this thread. xlolx

[danefan]

Thursday is the day the committee shoots down the playoff expansion proposal. Then they'll be way more whining on this thread. xlolx

God, I sure hope not.

We've all laid out our positions for and against expansion ad nauseum. Let's all agree to move on after Thursday.

If it's approved - great. Everyone will have to adjust.
If it's denied - great. NEC, Big South, PFL, and anyone else who is effected will have to continue (or start in the case of the PFL) to schedule and play themselves into at-large consideration.

[aust42]

God, I sure hope not.

We've all laid out our positions for and against expansion ad nauseum. Let's all agree to move on after Thursday.

If it's approved - great. Everyone will have to adjust.
If it's denied - great. NEC, Big South, PFL, and anyone else who is effected will have to continue (or start in the case of the PFL) to schedule and play themselves into at-large consideration.

Agreed. Should be interesting to see what happens Thursday.

[Syntax Error]

... FCS currently has the lowest percentage of teams in the postseason (13%)...The FCS playoffs are the easiest to get into.
"Is it Too Tough to Get Into the D-I Championships?"
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86744

[danefan]

The FCS playoffs are the easiest to get into.

Really? Why is that?

[USDFAN_55]

Really? Why is that?

I guess in a sence it is easier than the FBS becuase only two teams play for the championship in the FBS, while 16 play for it in the FCSxnodx

But more teams participate in postseason play in the FBS.

[danefan]

I guess in a sence it is easier than the FBS becuase only two teams play for the championship in the FBS, while 16 play for it in the FCSxnodx

But more teams participate in postseason play in the FBS.

But speaking in terms of access. The FCS playoffs have the lowest percentage of participation don't they?

That would lead one to believe that getting into the FCS playoffs (not the championship game) is the most difficult?

Just wondering what SE's theory is. And I'm not baiting him, I'm just wondering.

Edit: SE posted his edit and his link after I asked my question.

I see your logic.

[Dane96]

That article was mind-numbing the first time I read it.

[Syntax Error]

Expanding the D-I playoffs even by a single team would make the tournament field the easiest to achieve in the NCAA by 2007 rules. That was nice and large type for those who might find the article mind-numbing.

[Dane96]

Syntax...I proved you wrong on this point before...I choose NOT to again. Remember the post on baseball, hockey, etc. And, arguendo, if semantically you are right, it would be by percentage points in very low numbers...very low.

Moving along, we will know on Thursday what will go on...so this thread is pretty much over.

[Seahawks Fan]

The FCS playoffs are the easiest to get into.


I disagree. The NCAA basketball playoffs are easier. Geeze, we've even made it!

[Syntax Error]

Syntax...I proved you wrong on this point before...I choose NOT to again. Remember the post on baseball, hockey, etc..... Moving along, we will know on Thursday what will go on...so this thread is pretty much over.FACT: "Expanding the D-I playoffs even by a single team would make the tournament field the easiest to achieve in the NCAA by 2007 rules." We're talking about football on the FCS board and I can imagine they were in the FCS yearbook too, not "baseball, hockey, etc....." (you can talk about your other sports on other boards) Sorry to burst your smack bubble... again. Have a nice day. xcoffeex

[danefan]

FACT: "Expanding the D-I playoffs even by a single team would make the tournament field the easiest to achieve in the NCAA by 2007 rules." We're talking about football on the FCS board and I can imagine they were in the FCS yearbook too, not "baseball, hockey, etc....." (you can talk about your other sports on other boards) Sorry to burst your smack bubble... again. Have a nice day. xcoffeex


xpopcornx

[Dane96]

nm

[Dane96]

BOYS GET THE POPCORN READY...OOPS...DANEFAN ALREADY HAS!

89Hen and others, please stay out of this particular part of the thread because I do agree with a lot of your arguments against expansion...but Syntax has brought up a completely different one.

Syntax. You are intelligent. You went to school. You probably took a course or two in logic, whether it be math, philosophy, science, or computer science. I am sure somewhere along the way you learned the viability of arguments. Likewise, I am sure you were taught the value of analogies. That being said, Syntax, you bring up percentages as a reason why the expansion should not occur.

So, it would follow, since this isn't about logistics or strain on the student-athletes, that a comparison COULD be made to the simple point of PERCENTAGE OF TEAMS IN EACH NCAA TOURNEY FIELD THAT MAKES THE PLAYOFFS.

You argue it would be a horrible thing if the expansion would occur because, percentage wise, football has a tougher access route and, therefore, it makes the competition that much better. I argue, as do others, that your logic is faulty for two reasons: 1) other sports are doing it; and 2) it has not harmed those sports. In short, I argue there is no difference between 23% of teams getting in and 21% of teams getting in; in the end, such a small percentage does not make access any easier. Furthermore, limited access has not been proven, scientifically, to make the tournaments any more exciting or tougher. Subjectively, one can argue this is so. Objectively, and empircally, it is not so.

So, clearly, taking out logistics and other arguments, if we are basing it on a mathematical hard-fact, it is LOGICALLY appropriate to compare football to other NCAA sanctioned events.

Furthermore, any comparison to FBS is weak-- THE NCAA DOES NOT HAVE A SAY IN THOSE GAMES; Rather, they simply sanction bowl games.

[Syntax Error]

... you bring up percentages as a reason why the expansion should not occur...No I didn't.

We're talking about what was Originally Posted by mvemjsunpx in this thread:
... FCS currently has the lowest percentage of teams in the postseason (13%)...

You are the one who wants to drag everyone into this "why the expansion should not occur" argument. Face it, it isn't the hardest and if they expand it by one team it will be the easiest NCAA football tourney to get into.

[Dane96]

You are right on one thing: It will be the easiest NCAA football tourney to get into.

Why?

1. There is only ONE FOOTBALL TOURNEY.
2. There is only ONE NCAA SPONSORED FOOTBALL DIVISION WHERE THE NCAA HAS A SAY IN THE POST-SEASON.

Both of those are found in FCS.

Man, you baffle me.

[USDFAN_55]

xpopcornx

Hey let me get some of that xpopcornx This is getting good. I always enjoy a good debate.

[89Hen]

You are right on one thing: It will be the easiest NCAA football tourney to get into.

Why?

1. There is only ONE FOOTBALL TOURNEY.
2. There is only ONE NCAA SPONSORED FOOTBALL DIVISION WHERE THE NCAA HAS A SAY IN THE POST-SEASON.

Both of those are found in FCS.

Man, you baffle me.
xconfusedx DII and DIII are not NCAA football championships?

[Dane96]

They are...but not Division I. I concede that, however I thought it was established we were talking DI sports only.

[89Hen]

They are...but not Division I. I concede that, however I thought it was established we were talking DI sports only.
I can't remember what you two argued about, I'm trying to keep out of it. xsmiley_wix I do think when comparing our tourney to anyone else's, it makes the most sense to use the DII and DIII football tourneys. All others really are pointless because of logistics as you agree.

[Dane96]

We are arguing about pctg. Syntax posted an old article that said the football tourney, if we let one more team in, would have the easiest access.

I argue, pct. wise, that is false. Unless, of course, we are only comparing it to football...which, I contend, is unnecessary for the sake of this argument because the crux of his facts have nothing to do with logistics or physical issues, rather with RAW NUMBERS.

On raw numbers alone, there are other NCAA tourneys with easier access.

That's all.

[Ruler]

Like it or not, easiest tournament or not, who gives a ****? The fact is if it passes Thursday it will be reality so deal with it!

[89Hen]

On raw numbers alone, there are other NCAA tourneys with easier access.
I don't remember the numbers and don't want to rehash all of them, but it would seem at 16 we're pretty close to the percentages of the tourneis that matter (one's which people like to draw analogies)...

Bball = 65 of 341 = 19.1%
DII = 24 of 145 = 16.6%
DIII = 32 of 237 = 13.5%

[Dane96]

I agree Hen. Syntax made it seem like if 1 more school entered...BOOM...we would be the uber easiest playoff to get into.

That is a folly at best. We are talking mere pct. points.

[Bison101]

NDSU plays C. Conn St. this year at the Fargodome. Perhaps we'll meet again in the 2010 playoffs. xpeacex

[Seawolf97]

Like it or not, easiest tournament or not, who gives a ****? The fact is if it passes Thursday it will be reality so deal with it!

There You Goxrulesx

[Seahawks Fan]

Like it or not, easiest tournament or not, who gives a ****? The fact is if it passes Thursday it will be reality so deal with it!


xnodx xnodx

[Dane96]

You're my boy BLUE...I mean Ruler.

[89Hen]

T-minus six hours. :p

[danefan]

T-minus six hours. :p

xlolx xlolx xlolx

We should keep an eye on the # of members online for the announcement.

If we could I'd appreciate an asterick placed next to each member of the "old guard".

Thanksxrotatehx

[Syntax Error]

I agree Hen. Syntax made it seem like if 1 more school entered...BOOM...we would be the uber easiest playoff to get into.

That is a folly at best. We are talking mere pct. points.Folly? That's a fact. I posted the link based on the last NCAA football tourneys. Adding one more team would make the D-I football tourney the easiest to get into, BY PCT. OF TEAMS... not the hardest. So teams whining that it is so hard to get access is rather absurd. How much easier will it be in the future? Time will tell. The NCAA is all about access these days so expect further dilution of the D-I football tournament. xcoffeex

[89Hen]

I agree Hen. Syntax made it seem like if 1 more school entered...BOOM...we would be the uber easiest playoff to get into.

That is a folly at best. We are talking mere pct. points.


Folly? That's a fact. I posted the link based on the last NCAA football tourneys. Adding one more team would make the D-I football tourney the easiest to get into, BY PCT. OF TEAMS... not the hardest. So teams whining that it is so hard to get access is rather absurd. How much easier will it be in the future? Time will tell. The NCAA is all about access these days so expect further dilution of the D-I football tournament. xcoffeex
I guess I should be clear that we are CURRENTLY in line with the other tournies worth mentioning. If 20 passes, you KNOW 24 will be right behind. We will then be OUT of line with the other tournies worth mentioning.

[89Hen]

We should keep an eye on the # of members online for the announcement.
I don't know who will be able to provide the info as soon as it happens. MrC? SE? Who's got the in??

[Syntax Error]

I don't know who will be able to provide the info as soon as it happens. MrC? SE? Who's got the in??Not me, I am currently out of the loop. xnodx

http://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/Q/K/china.jpg

[jcf5445]

How many of you guys were complaining back in 1986 when they expanded the playoffs to 16? At the time, there were 86 1-AA members. That means 18.6% of teams got in that year. The number of 1-AA members never rose above 90 until 1993 when all the Dayton-rule teams were forced up, so at least 17.8% of teams made the playoffs for 7 years. The playoffs were never expanded to accomodate the growth of 1-AA since 1993. There are 39 more members now than when the playoffs were expanded to 16. Therefore, in my opinion, expansion is long past due, and I have absolutely no ties to any FCS team.

[Syntax Error]

How many of you guys were complaining back in 1986 when they expanded the playoffs to 16? At the time, there were 86 1-AA members. That means 18.6% of teams got in that year. The number of 1-AA members never rose above 90 until 1993 when all the Dayton-rule teams were forced up, so at least 17.8% of teams made the playoffs for 7 years. The playoffs were never expanded to accomodate the growth of 1-AA since 1993. There are 39 more members now than when the playoffs were expanded to 16. Therefore, in my opinion, expansion is long past due, and I have absolutely no ties to any FCS team.The SWAC teams opted out since 1993 I think, plus new guidelines were put into place to determine playoff eligibility. AGS didn't start until the late '90s.
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86744

[jcf5445]

The SWAC teams opted out since 1993 I think, plus new guidelines were put into place to determine playoff eligibility. AGS didn't start until the late '90s.
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86744

All SWAC teams are playoff eligible, but the division champions choose to play in the championship game instead (since 1999). However, any other team is eligible for an at large bid, but an 0-19 record in the playoffs has swayed the selection committee since 1997, which was the last time a SWAC team was chosen. Only the Ivy teams declare themselves to be ineligible, and while that would change the actual percentages, it would not change the difference between the percentages because Ivy membership has been constant.

[danefan]

All SWAC teams are playoff eligible, but the division champions choose to play in the championship game instead (since 1999). However, any other team is eligible for an at large bid, but an 0-19 record in the playoffs has swayed the selection committee since 1997, which was the last time a SWAC team was chosen. Only the Ivy teams declare themselves to be ineligible, and while that would change the actual percentages, it would not change the difference between the percentages because Ivy membership has been constant.

Weclome aboard jcf5445.

Good to see someone else understands this the same way some of us around here do.xthumbsupx

[Syntax Error]

All SWAC teams are playoff eligible, but the division champions choose to play in the championship game instead (since 1999)...Not true. As the link I posted stated (did you look at it?), Grambling and Southern/Alabama State have conflicting games so up to five SWAC teams are not in the playoff running.

[jcf5445]

Not true. As the link I posted stated (did you look at it?), Grambling and Southern/Alabama State have conflicting games so up to five SWAC teams are not in the playoff running. Last year it was four.

The link you posted was to a magazine, not an article. I didn't read it because I didn't have a clue which part you pointing me to, and the SWAC issue has little or no affect on the big picture.

Let's go ahead and throw out the entire SWAC. That means that there are 29 new members since 1993 as opposed to 39. Let's also throw out the Ivies since they have never been eligible.

In 1986, that means there were 78 1-AA members and 16 playoff participants. That's 20.5% participation, and a minimum of 19.5% until 1993. Today, excluding the SWAC and Ivies, there are 107 members (with more on the way), meaning the percentage is just under 15%. That means participation has dropped over 5% over the last 20 years. Is anyone suggesting that the percentage go all the back to 20+? Not right now. The issue in question is whether to go to 20 bids, putting participation at 18.7%, which is neither radical nor unreasonable.

[Syntax Error]

The link you posted was to a magazine, not an article. I didn't read it because I didn't have a clue which part you pointing me to, and the SWAC issue has little or no affect on the big picture.
"Is it Too Tough to Get Into the D-I Championships?"
http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=86744Let's go ahead and throw out the entire SWAC. That means that there are 29 new members since 1993 as opposed to 39. Let's also throw out the Ivies since they have never been eligible.

In 1986, that means there were 78 1-AA members and 16 playoff participants. That's 20.5% participation, and a minimum of 19.5% until 1993. Today, excluding the SWAC and Ivies, there are 107 members (with more on the way), meaning the percentage is just under 15%. That means participation has dropped over 5% over the last 20 years. Is anyone suggesting that the percentage go all the back to 20+? Not right now. The issue in question is whether to go to 20 bids, putting participation at 18.7%, which is neither radical nor unreasonable.Sorry, thought you were reading this thread. I posted the link and article about 10 posts back. Check it out and update your numbers. xpeacex

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Let's go ahead and throw out the entire SWAC. That means that there are 29 new members since 1993 as opposed to 39. Let's also throw out the Ivies since they have never been eligible.

Important to mention here that when "officials" quote the amount of teams that can make the FCS playoffs, they INCLUDE the Ivies + GSU/SU/ASU in their percentages. When SE quotes the amount of teams, he EXCLUDES these teams. So SE's numbers are the accurate ones. You're not excluding transitional teams (like NDSU/SDSU/UC-Davis last year, and UND/USD/Bryant this year) that also cannot qualify for the playoffs. I forget how many teams those were, but it makes the percentage higher. If you scrolled to the article it would explain this.

Although it's very difficult for other SWAC teams to make the field, it is theoretically possible (as are PFL teams, etc.) so they have to be included in the calculations even if it is unlikely that they qualify. A SWAC team came awful close to finishing at 9-2 (AAMU) and should have gotten strong consideration had they done it.

Some schools also have set up schedules that mean that even if they go 11-0 they don't have enough D-I wins to qualify, or don't play any "power" teams. They shouldn't be included either in the numbers since they can't meet the criteria in a given year. That brings up the percentages as well.

I haven't crunched the numbers, but my recollection is that when you remove all the ineligibles and unlikelies you get a number (currently) that is around 20% with 20 playoff teams. When you go to 24 teams, it's awfully close to 1 eligible team in 4 making the playoffs - which, as SE has accurately stated, is the easiest D-I sport to qualify for the playoffs.

Now whether that's a good thing or not is up to debate. What's not to debate is the fact that with 24 teams in the playoffs, almost 1 in 4 pre-season eligible teams would make the playoffs.

[danefan]

Important to mention here that when "officials" quote the amount of teams that can make the FCS playoffs, they INCLUDE the Ivies + GSU/SU/ASU in their percentages. When SE quotes the amount of teams, he EXCLUDES these teams. So SE's numbers are the accurate ones. You're not excluding transitional teams (like NDSU/SDSU/UC-Davis last year, and UND/USD/Bryant this year) that also cannot qualify for the playoffs. I forget how many teams those were, but it makes the percentage higher. If you scrolled to the article it would explain this.

Although it's very difficult for other SWAC teams to make the field, it is theoretically possible (as are PFL teams, etc.) so they have to be included in the calculations even if it is unlikely that they qualify. A SWAC team came awful close to finishing at 9-2 (AAMU) and should have gotten strong consideration had they done it.

Some schools also have set up schedules that mean that even if they go 11-0 they don't have enough D-I wins to qualify, or don't play any "power" teams. They shouldn't be included either in the numbers since they can't meet the criteria in a given year. That brings up the percentages as well.

I haven't crunched the numbers, but my recollection is that when you remove all the ineligibles and unlikelies you get a number (currently) that is around 20% with 20 playoff teams. When you go to 24 teams, it's awfully close to 1 eligible team in 4 making the playoffs - which, as SE has accurately stated, is the easiest D-I sport to qualify for the playoffs.

Now whether that's a good thing or not is up to debate. What's not to debate is the fact that with 24 teams in the playoffs, almost 1 in 4 pre-season eligible teams would make the playoffs.

Are there similar criteria in the tournaments to which you are comparing the FCS playoffs to?

If so, are you throwing out the schools who "fail to qualify, or don't play any "power" teams" from those percentage calculations as well?

[Dane96]

This is ridiculous already. People can claim what they want, claim numbers what they want...others can claim opposite.

Only one thing is for certain: today's vote does not include any of us...or our respective whining.

I would like to end on this: Numbers can be fangled any which way you would like however, there are going to be more teams in FCS...and the Division is going to grow--a good thing. Going to 24, which I believe they will, gives room for growth and additions.

[USDFAN_55]

logistically, if D-III can do a 32 team play-off; there should be no reason FCS can't do a 24 team play-off.

[89Hen]

All SWAC teams are playoff eligible, but the division champions choose to play in the championship game instead (since 1999). However, any other team is eligible for an at large bid, but an 0-19 record in the playoffs has swayed the selection committee since 1997, which was the last time a SWAC team was chosen.
xconfusedx Saying the 0-19 is the reason and not the championship game is silly. Why 0-19? 0-12 wasn't enough, or 0-15?... It's the CG that is the sticking point. The SWAC is a one or two bid conference. If you reserve the top 2 teams for the CG.... there's nobody left to invite. If the MEAC or OVC decided to have a CG and reserve their champion for that, they would not receive any bids either. xconfusedx

[jcf5445]

Important to mention here that when "officials" quote the amount of teams that can make the FCS playoffs, they INCLUDE the Ivies + GSU/SU/ASU in their percentages. When SE quotes the amount of teams, he EXCLUDES these teams. So SE's numbers are the accurate ones. You're not excluding transitional teams (like NDSU/SDSU/UC-Davis last year, and UND/USD/Bryant this year) that also cannot qualify for the playoffs. I forget how many teams those were, but it makes the percentage higher. If you scrolled to the article it would explain this.

Although it's very difficult for other SWAC teams to make the field, it is theoretically possible (as are PFL teams, etc.) so they have to be included in the calculations even if it is unlikely that they qualify. A SWAC team came awful close to finishing at 9-2 (AAMU) and should have gotten strong consideration had they done it.

Some schools also have set up schedules that mean that even if they go 11-0 they don't have enough D-I wins to qualify, or don't play any "power" teams. They shouldn't be included either in the numbers since they can't meet the criteria in a given year. That brings up the percentages as well.

I haven't crunched the numbers, but my recollection is that when you remove all the ineligibles and unlikelies you get a number (currently) that is around 20% with 20 playoff teams. When you go to 24 teams, it's awfully close to 1 eligible team in 4 making the playoffs - which, as SE has accurately stated, is the easiest D-I sport to qualify for the playoffs.

Now whether that's a good thing or not is up to debate. What's not to debate is the fact that with 24 teams in the playoffs, almost 1 in 4 pre-season eligible teams would make the playoffs.

My numbers are about as accurate as they get. The percentages vary from year to year, and one or two schools added to or subtracted from the total will only change the percentage by about 2 tenths of a percent. In my second post I excluded the Ivies. I also excluded all SWAC schools, which is overkill and should account for those few schools that don't play full D1 schedules. Also, why exclude the transitional schools? They'll be eligible by 2010 or 2012 at the latest, and nobody will be moving out of FCS before 2012 (unless they drop football), at which time there will surely be new additions. The point is that the subdivision will continue to grow unless the NCAA does something drastic during this moratorium, and it's only fair to allow the playoff field to grow.

But you also somewhat prove my other point. You complain that almost 1 in 4 eligible teams might make the playoffs. Well, almost 1 in 4 teams made the playoffs from 1986 to 1993. Do you wish that the field was still only 12 teams? Or 8? Or 4? In the 1980s the playoffs were expanded as teams were added to the subdivision, and it's about time they're expanded again.

[89Hen]

Only one thing is for certain: today's vote does not include any of us...or our respective whining.
I wouldn't say either side is whining. xeyebrowx

[89Hen]

logistically, if D-III can do a 32 team play-off; there should be no reason FCS can't do a 24 team play-off.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, but don't DII and DIII's only play 10 game regular seasons?

[Dane96]

Whining, arguing, bitching, heck, even talking about it-- won't matter in a little bit.

I hear the vote should be a slam dunk.

[jcf5445]

xconfusedx Saying the 0-19 is the reason and not the championship game is silly. Why 0-19? 0-12 wasn't enough, or 0-15?... It's the CG that is the sticking point. The SWAC is a one or two bid conference. If you reserve the top 2 teams for the CG.... there's nobody left to invite. If the MEAC or OVC decided to have a CG and reserve their champion for that, they would not receive any bids either. xconfusedx

That's true. What I meant was, why would the selection committee choose a 3rd place SWAC team, when the 1st and 2nd place SWAC teams were never able to win a game in the playoffs? Would they choose 1 or both of the division winners today if they were eligible? Yes, but they're going to have to have a very good reason to justify putting a 3rd place team in the playoffs based on the history of that conference in the playoffs, and thus far it has not happened.

[aust42]

logistically, if D-III can do a 32 team play-off; there should be no reason FCS can't do a 24 team play-off.


That's why Division III plays a 10 game regular season schedule. Do you want a 10 game regular season schedule? There are a lot of Division II programs that also play a 10 game regular season schedule due to their 24 team playoff bracket. I would assume b/c they want a bye week. That's my main issue with expanding the playoff bracket. You need to squeeze in the regular season and Champ game from Labor day to the week before Christmas. Expanding the playoffs means losing the bye week or starting early with no students at your 1st game.

[89Hen]

I hear the vote should be a slam dunk.
Quit your whining. xmadx :p

[Lehigh Football Nation]

That's true. What I meant was, why would the selection committee choose a 3rd place SWAC team, when the 1st and 2nd place SWAC teams were never able to win a game in the playoffs? Would they choose 1 or both of the division winners today if they were eligible? Yes, but they're going to have to have a very good reason to justify putting a 3rd place team in the playoffs based on the history of that conference in the playoffs, and thus far it has not happened.

That's about as circular a logistical argument and I can figure.

(Cue DetroitFlyer... :D)

Seriously, what happened last year was that Alabama A&M came awful close to getting in at 9-2. How? Well, there were a dearth of teams with 8 D-I wins for starters (keeping in mind that 7 D-I wins is the minimum), and had AAMU won they would have lost to two SWAC teams (Grambling, who was nationally-ranked at the time, and Jackson State, who won the SWAC championship), while beating Tennessee State of the OVC in out-of-conference. It wasn't the greatest OOC record, but no other 9 win eligible team was available, so they could very easily have slipped in had they beat PVA&M on the last weekend of the year. They ended up losing, making it a moot point, but they had a real shot at it at second place in SWAC East.

[89Hen]

they're going to have to have a very good reason to justify putting a 3rd place team in the playoffs based on the history of that conference in the playoffs, and thus far it has not happened.
Yes, it would have to be the perfect storm plus. It would have to be a team other than one that plays in Thanksgiving weekend classics and would probably have to be 10-1 with no DII's.... that narrows things down to making it almost statistically impossible.

[89Hen]

BTW, now would the perfect time for somebody to post a rickrolled link.


PLAYOFFS EXPANSION PASSES!

[downbythebeach]

I was going to but I decided against it

[Dane96]

Yee haw! I firmly believe the NEC will go to 40 rides now. Maybe even 50 in two more years.

[dgreco]

Maybe I'm completely wrong, but don't DII and DIII's only play 10 game regular seasons?

DII plays 11, DIII plays 10

[dgreco]

BTW, now would the perfect time for somebody to post a rickrolled link.


PLAYOFFS EXPANSION PASSES!

did the NEC condition pass?

[Dane96]

Honestly, I could care less if it did pass. In 2010...we will have a playoff game. Now, the AD's at Bryant, Duquense, Albany, CCSU, and Monmouth can really push for the 40 rides...and maybe 45.

Now...there is a finanical reason to do so.

What happens to the PFL?

[danefan]

BTW, now would the perfect time for somebody to post a rickrolled link.


PLAYOFFS EXPANSION PASSES!


I think you guys missed the rickrolled joke.

xlolx

[89Hen]

Yee haw! I firmly believe the NEC will go to 40 rides now. Maybe even 50 in two more years.


did the NEC condition pass?
Guys, it was a joke. :o I was saying if somebody posted that headline with a link, you could get people.

[Dane96]

Bastards. I have an allergy headache...that is not cool :(

[dgreco]

=( lack of vocabulary and the meaning of rickrolled hurt me on that one...

[danefan]

=( lack of vocabulary and the meaning of rickrolled hurt me on that one...


http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...te= 4/23/2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsJ19sy3JI)

Here you go.

[danefan]

Guys, it was a joke. :o I was saying if somebody posted that headline with a link, you could get people.


Liar

It passed.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...te= 4/23/2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsJ19sy3JI)