FCS Playoff expansion set for 2010

[CCU97]

First let me say I really don't have a stance either way....but the NCAA has decided that 20 teams will be in the playoffs beginning in 2010. Are there 4 new autobids? I know the Big South received one. Do you think this is a good thing or bad thing?

[appstate38]

Will the top two seeds get a bye???

[DTSpider]

16 teams seems to work pretty well now. The reality is that I'm not sure a team with a legitimate claim with a right to content for the national title has ever been excluded. You've got to play a touch schedule and win to make the playoffs. There may be plenty of good teams each year that don't make it, but I have a hard time believing that there are more than 16 great teams out there each year.

[downbythebeach]

I say we set up a tourney between the CAA and Southern conference

[CCU97]

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/breaking_news/story/429281.html

Under the expansion the first round will include four games with 12 teams earning byes. See Saturday's edition of The Sun News for more details.

[Green26]

This decision is stupid. The season is already too long. I assume this will make the playoffs a week longer. Having 12 teams with a bye weekend is ridiculous. Team and fan momentum will be lost. Will the championship game now on top of Christmas Day? I assume they're not going to start the season a week earlier? Starting in 2010. Why not '09?

[TheValleyRaider]

First let me say I really don't have a stance either way....but the NCAA has decided that 20 teams will be in the playoffs beginning in 2010. Are there 4 new autobids? I know the Big South received one. Do you think this is a good thing or bad thing?

2 new autobids (Big South and NEC) and 2 new at-large spots

Tournament must remain at least 50% at-larges

I'm looking forward to the Big South and NEC joining up xthumbsupx

[MplsBison]

This decision is stupid. The season is already too long. I assume this will make the playoffs a week longer. Having 12 teams with a bye weekend is ridiculous. Team and fan momentum will be lost. Will the championship game now on top of Christmas Day? I assume they're not going to start the season a week earlier? Starting in 2010. Why not '09?

I believe the regular season will now only be 11 weeks long with a 5 week playoff.

[WrenFGun]

It'll be interesting to see if there is some stipulation about the type of bid that gets a bye. I wonder if there will be a certain # of AQ that warrant a bye, or if they're more likely to go with the best twelve for the bye. Obviously, the big conference winners will all have byes, but is an at-large more likely to get a bye than the NEC, Big South or OVC champ?

[Seawolf97]

I think it will improve the level of play in both the NEC and the Big South. Coaches will know if they want advance deeper into the playoffs and face the elite teams their recruiting and scheduling will need to improve. The conferences should become more competitive especially the NEC when they go to a 40 scholarship level.

[Tribe4SF]

I like the decision. This is a move towards seeding all the participants, which I also like.

[putter]

I like the decision. This is a move towards seeding all the participants, which I also like.

You beat me too it. If you are having 2 first round games then you have to seed all the teams to determine who will play the first two games.

[Retro]

I think it will improve the level of play in both the NEC and the Big South. Coaches will know if they want advance deeper into the playoffs and face the elite teams their recruiting and scheduling will need to improve. The conferences should become more competitive especially the NEC when they go to a 40 scholarship level.

You could've improved your level of play before this by simply playing better OOC games and winning them, then you would have gotten in the playoffs without this stupid decisions.. Once the NEC and Big South get their lunch handed to them every year, they'll realize why they didn't make the field of 16 by an at large.xcoffeex

[Green26]

This wouldn't mean that all teams would have to be seeded. You would just need to pick the bottom 8, and presumably still the top 4.

It wouldn't be possible to have an 11 weekend season in years like 2008, as there are 12 games.

Having an 11 weekend season would make it more difficult to schedule, as there would be fewer weekends to fit games in. This would potentially impact scheduling I-A games too.

Non playoff conferences may have some concerns about a mandated 11 weekend schedule.

[mvemjsunpx]

This wouldn't mean that all teams would have to be seeded. You would just need to pick the bottom 8, and presumably still the top 4.

It wouldn't be possible to have an 11 weekend season in years like 2008, as there are 12 games.

Having an 11 weekend season would make it more difficult to schedule, as there would be fewer weekends to fit games in. This would potentially impact scheduling I-A games too.

Non playoff conferences may have some concerns about a mandated 11 weekend schedule.


I'm not sure why. Half of the non-playoff schools will be from the Ivy & the SWAC by this point. They don't participate in the playoffs, so they can schedule against each other whenever they want. The Ivies also play just 10 games (SWAC & non-scholarship schools sometimes do as well).

[UAalum72]

Once the NEC and Big South get their lunch handed to them every year, they'll realize why they didn't make the field of 16 by an at large.xcoffeex
The OVC has been getting its lunch handed to it for over ten years (twice the last two years) and they haven't been trying to give the autobid back, they've been sponsoring legislation to make sure they weren't challenged to lose it. Fortunately they failed.

[813Jag]

I'm not sure why. Half of the non-playoff schools will be from the Ivy & the SWAC by this point. They don't participate in the playoffs, so they can schedule against each other whenever they want. The Ivies also play just 10 games (SWAC & non-scholarship schools sometimes do as well).
SWAC school rarely play 10 games, PV did last year because of a cancellation at the last minute. Southern played 9 in 2005 because of cancellations. Other than that it's 11 games for everyone. This looks good for a strong non division winner in the SWAC. (Could be PV in the future if they upgrade their schedule.)

[Green26]

My point was that schools like the Ivies are probably not going to want to end their seasons two weekends before Thanksgiving--if that were mandated.

I suppose the answer may be that the 11 weekend schedule will be only for playoff conferences. Thus, non-playoff conferences can still play games on the first weekend of the playoffs. Some conferences already schedule games during the playoffs, now that I think about it.

[I-AA Fan]

If they are going to do this, then do it right:

1. Use the extra 4 teams and give the top-4 clubs the 4 regions a bye, they are also your seeds. Give them a reason to play.

2. Seed the remaining 16 teams top-to-bottom.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

The FCS playoffs have been expanded twice in the past, and it is past time to do it again.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

To play devil's advocate, if you place the final eight teams into first round matches, four of them will have home games. By giving the top four teams byes, then the bottom four teams will be sent to team's #5-8 for first round games. In the first scenario, there will be four home games at schools that don't normally have home games in the playoffs. There could even be home games at the NEC and Big South schools.

Putting the final eight teams into the first round will probably generate more excitement at those schools and might do more to build FCS Football. Initially, will the big crowds show up at Montana, Delaware, App State, GA Southern, and other attendance leaders for a #5 vs. #20 match-up?

[Keeper]

With a 20 team field there is only ONE mathematical way to pull this off.

8 teams in the first round and 12 teams first round bye.
No other combinations exist except with byes in later rounds.

This can only mean an extra week of playoffs during 11-game cap
schedules having one bye-week opportunity, and probably no more
12-game schedules where possible on the horizon.

If the 20 team playoff was this season, the NC game would be on
Dec 26th or 27th. Would your AD's go for that?

With a projected 10 AQ's in hand, at least 2 at-large will have first-round
bye, probably four. That would mean 2 current AQ league champs
would be playing in the first round, probably Patriot and MEAC.

IMO, this scenario adequately addresses the issues of accessibility
for the new additions, as well as the questionable merit of AQ's for past
underachieving conferences, WITHOUT imposing arbitrary extra
conditions for qualification. The new kids on the block will enjoy the
access and participation, and the old guard is rewarded with the byes,
extra playoff spots, and next-round games versus worthy opponents.
Everybody wins!

It will be very much like the NFL model, with the more deserving
division champs getting the first round byes. I think after this has
played out after one time, the balance and fairness will be obvious
to all.

[AppMan]

With a 20 team field there is only ONE mathematical way to pull this off.

8 teams in the first round and 12 teams first round bye.
No other combinations exist except with byes in later rounds.

This can only mean an extra week of playoffs during 11-game cap
schedules having one bye-week opportunity, and probably no more
12-game schedules where possible on the horizon.

If the 20 team playoff was this season, the NC game would be on
Dec 26th or 27th. Would your AD's go for that?

With a projected 10 AQ's in hand, at least 2 at-large will have first-round
bye, probably four. That would mean 2 current AQ league champs
would be playing in the first round, probably Patriot and MEAC.

IMO, this scenario adequately addresses the issues of accessibility
for the new additions, as well as the questionable merit of AQ's for past
underachieving conferences, WITHOUT imposing arbitrary extra
conditions for qualification. The new kids on the block will enjoy the
access and participation, and the old guard is rewarded with the byes,
extra playoff spots, and next-round games versus worthy opponents.
Everybody wins!

It will be very much like the NFL model, with the more deserving
division champs getting the first round byes. I think after this has
played out after one time, the balance and fairness will be obvious
to all.


Teams winning the national championship will now be required to play a NFL regular season. The morons who came up with this expansion idea have decided to eliminate regular season bye weeks in order to accomodate TV and the host city. All in the name of soothing ego's and making everyone feel special. No team outside the top ten has ever won a national championship. I seriously doubt this expansion will provide any more success in that situation.

The Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet confirmed recommendations for the 2008-10 budget cycle at its meeting February 6-7, including a request that previously requested funds for expanding the football championship be placed in reserve with the idea of increasing the number of teams in the field to 20 for the 2010 championship.

During its September 2007 meeting, the cabinet approved a request of $251,200 to establish an opening round for the FCS championship beginning in 2008. However, cabinet members charged the Division I Football Committee with addressing logistical issues related to the bracket expansion (the first in 21 years) and developing policies to determine which teams participate in the opening round.

In doing so, the football committee found several obstacles that preclude expanding the bracket by the 2008 season.

For example, moving the championship game to a later date would affect the championship host, broadcast partner ESPN and the participating teams in ways that could disrupt the growth that the championship has experienced in recent years. The 2007 title game between Appalachian State and Delaware drew an NCAA neutral-field record crowd of 23,010 in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Starting the championship a week earlier requires conferences and institutions to eliminate regular-season bye weeks to clear what is now the final week of the regular season. Adjusting the start date of competition doesn’t seem viable, either. If the entire season began a week earlier, it would have a significant financial impact on all 119 FCS programs, since most already have their schedules in place for the 2008 season.

The football committee believes the best way to solve the issue is to eliminate the regular-season bye weeks; however, conferences and institutions won't be able to make that adjustment until 2010.

Expanding to 20 teams will also ease access problems. Every conference champion would receive automatic qualification into the field and the other half of the bracket (50 percent) would be reserved for at-large berths.

[aceinthehole]

With a 20 team field there is only ONE mathematical way to pull this off.

8 teams in the first round and 12 teams first round bye.
No other combinations exist except with byes in later rounds.

This can only mean an extra week of playoffs during 11-game cap
schedules having one bye-week opportunity, and probably no more
12-game schedules where possible on the horizon.

If the 20 team playoff was this season, the NC game would be on
Dec 26th or 27th. Would your AD's go for that?

With a projected 10 AQ's in hand, at least 2 at-large will have first-round
bye, probably four. That would mean 2 current AQ league champs
would be playing in the first round, probably Patriot and MEAC.

IMO, this scenario adequately addresses the issues of accessibility
for the new additions, as well as the questionable merit of AQ's for past
underachieving conferences, WITHOUT imposing arbitrary extra
conditions for qualification. The new kids on the block will enjoy the
access and participation, and the old guard is rewarded with the byes,
extra playoff spots, and next-round games versus worthy opponents.
Everybody wins!
It will be very much like the NFL model, with the more deserving
division champs getting the first round byes. I think after this has
played out after one time, the balance and fairness will be obvious
to all.


xnodx EXACTLY. Great post!

That's why this was a political soulution. There probably isn't an AD or Coach that is too upset with the new format. The only one still complaining and whining are here posting ignorance. xnonono2x

But oh well, its finally done xthumbsupx

[MountainMan]

All this is going to do is make the schools from the lower level conferences feel good that now they will be in the playoffs. They'll all fight it out along with a few of the weakest teams from the top conferences in week 1 while the big boys get a week off. Then most of the winning teams will travel in week 2 and get spanked when the playoffs really begin. Its a nice little pat on the back for these schools so they can say we went to the playoffs. Now I'm sure from time to time a team will win a couple of games, but the final result will be the same.

It is unfortunate that every team in FCS has to suffer through 11 straight weeks to make a couple of conferences feel good. It also really puts what would have been the bottom 4 teams from the 16 team field at a big disadvantage. Instead of playing 11 games having an open week and then starting a 4 game playoff they get 12 in a row and if they win they are looking at 16 straight weeks to win the National Championship. NFL teams don't even play 16 in a row!

[OL FU]

I think it will improve the level of play in both the NEC and the Big South. Coaches will know if they want advance deeper into the playoffs and face the elite teams their recruiting and scheduling will need to improve. The conferences should become more competitive especially the NEC when they go to a 40 scholarship level.

I loved the sixteen teams but FCS has grown and the playoffs have not. In my opinion, the 8 autobid conferences had a recruting advantage (probably a small one but one none the less) over the non auto bid conferences. I am not sure the NCAA had any choice from a fairness perspective.

[UMass922]

No team outside the top ten has ever won a national championship.

UMass won the NC as the #11 seed in 1998. And WKU won in '02 without being in the top ten as well, I believe.

[eaglesrthe1]

Teams winning the national championship will now be required to play a NFL regular season. The morons who came up with this expansion idea have decided to eliminate regular season bye weeks in order to accomodate TV and the host city. All in the name of soothing ego's and making everyone feel special. No team outside the top ten has ever won a national championship. I seriously doubt this expansion will provide any more success in that situation.

The Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet confirmed recommendations for the 2008-10 budget cycle at its meeting February 6-7, including a request that previously requested funds for expanding the football championship be placed in reserve with the idea of increasing the number of teams in the field to 20 for the 2010 championship.

During its September 2007 meeting, the cabinet approved a request of $251,200 to establish an opening round for the FCS championship beginning in 2008. However, cabinet members charged the Division I Football Committee with addressing logistical issues related to the bracket expansion (the first in 21 years) and developing policies to determine which teams participate in the opening round.

In doing so, the football committee found several obstacles that preclude expanding the bracket by the 2008 season.

For example, moving the championship game to a later date would affect the championship host, broadcast partner ESPN and the participating teams in ways that could disrupt the growth that the championship has experienced in recent years. The 2007 title game between Appalachian State and Delaware drew an NCAA neutral-field record crowd of 23,010 in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Starting the championship a week earlier requires conferences and institutions to eliminate regular-season bye weeks to clear what is now the final week of the regular season. Adjusting the start date of competition doesn’t seem viable, either. If the entire season began a week earlier, it would have a significant financial impact on all 119 FCS programs, since most already have their schedules in place for the 2008 season.

The football committee believes the best way to solve the issue is to eliminate the regular-season bye weeks; however, conferences and institutions won't be able to make that adjustment until 2010.

Expanding to 20 teams will also ease access problems. Every conference champion would receive automatic qualification into the field and the other half of the bracket (50 percent) would be reserved for at-large berths.

The season may very well be lengthened, but in all probability the NC winner won't have to play any extra games, they will have a bye in the first round. GSU has always attempted to have a bye week right before the playoffs anyway, and this would have a similar effect if they were in the top twelve. The risk I believe is a small price to pay.

I've always been against expansion, but if it means a return to full seeding, then I think that it's a good compromise.

[Saint3333]

I loved the sixteen teams but FCS has grown and the playoffs have not.

Does anyone have the number of FCS teams from 1980, 1990, 2000, 2008. I'd like to see if teams are entering 1-AA/FCS at a significantly higher rate than those leaving for 1-A/FBS.

I assume that by 2014 the field will be at 24.xcoffeex

[danefan]

The season may very well be lengthened, but in all probability the NC winner won't have to play any extra games, they will have a bye in the first round.


No no no. Not the truth. Let everyone keep bitching about how the national championship team will have to walk up hill both ways in the snow and barefoot now that the playoffs have expanded. xlolx xlolx

The likely national champion will have to play the same # of games and more then likely will be guaranteed an off-week.

The only teams that will have to play an additional game are those that end up in the bottom eight that will play in the first round. There's an easy way around that: don't be in the bottom eight.

[Syntax Error]

No no no. Not the truth. Let everyone keep bitching...xbabycryx
whine
whine
whine

xrolleyesx xsmhx xcoffeex

[downbythebeach]

I actually against this measure because I hate football.

and now there's another week of it:(

Saturdays are made for yard sales Dammit!!!

[danefan]

xbabycryx
whine
whine
whine

xrolleyesx xsmhx xcoffeex

You realize you make no sense right?

You have just reached the highest level awarded on here, reserved only for the finest of individuals. In fact, you'll be joining the one and only other person to reach this level - Boogs.

Welcome to my ignore list. Seriously, you've actually made my experience worse here since you've come back and started laying down your one-line rhetoric.

I know you are one of the founding members of this place but at this point you are adding absolutely nothing to this board in my opinion. You are, as everyone else is, free to post whatever you like here, but I for one will no longer be reading your crap.

I hope one day you can grow up and get back to posting and discussing football. Your knowledge is useful and you have contributed much in the past, but you've become bitter and obnoxious .

xpeacex

[Syntax Error]

xblahblahx xboringx xblahblahxwhatever, just go smack some more members.

[OL FU]

Does anyone have the number of FCS teams from 1980, 1990, 2000, 2008. I'd like to see if teams are entering 1-AA/FCS at a significantly higher rate than those leaving for 1-A/FBS.

I assume that by 2014 the field will be at 24.xcoffeex


The FCS playoffs expanded from 12 to 16 teams in 1987 and has remained at that level ever since. During that time, 28 additional teams have swelled the FCS ranks.

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/news/newstest.aspx?id=4146516

I wish I knew the teams and conferences because that would make a difference. I know the Ivies did not participate and some of the other NE schools didn't such as Holy Cross ( I am not sure if it was due to conference affiliation.) The SWAC used to participate. ( And I know the SWAC still does participate even though it doesn't)

[kardplayer]

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/news/newstest.aspx?id=4146516

I wish I knew the teams and conferences because that would make a difference. I know the Ivies did not participate and some of the other NE schools didn't such as Holy Cross ( I am not sure if it was due to conference affiliation.) The SWAC used to participate. ( And I know the SWAC still does participate even though it doesn't)

The Patriot League did not participate until the late '90's.

[jcf5445]

Here is what I have as far as 1-AA members on a yearly basis. It's not 100% accurate, because it's hard to say whether or not a team may have been in transition, so I included transition teams in this list. This list is pretty much comprised of teams that played at least half their games against D1 opponents. The only teams I will omit from this list are the Ivies, because they've never been eligible since dropping to 1-AA in 1982. If anyone wants to take this list and go through and determine which members were eligible or not, then he/she is free to do so, but it's not going to be easy. For instance, when Florida A&M won the 1978 championship, they actually played a full SIAC schedule. As a matter of fact, I have no idea how they qualified for the playoffs, because they did not play half their games against D1 opponents. Even the NCAA record book has them listed as a D2 team in 1978. That's just one example of the discrepancies that existed in the early days of 1-AA.

Year,1-AA Members (minus Ivies),Playoff Participants
1978,36,4
1979,36,4
1980,46,4
1981,49,8
1982,86,12
1983,78,12
1984,82,12
1985,82,12
1986,78,16
1987,80,16
1988,79,16
1989,80,16
1990,78,16
1991,83,16
1992,82,16
1993,108,16
1994,109,16
1995,110,16
1996,108,16
1997,112,16
1998,113,16
1999,113,16
2000,113,16
2001,115,16
2002,115,16
2003,113,16
2004,113,16
2005,112,16
2006,114,16
2007,114,16
2008,117,16

[Saint3333]

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/news/newstest.aspx?id=4146516

I wish I knew the teams and conferences because that would make a difference. I know the Ivies did not participate and some of the other NE schools didn't such as Holy Cross ( I am not sure if it was due to conference affiliation.) The SWAC used to participate. ( And I know the SWAC still does participate even though it doesn't)

I can name 13 that have left since 1987, so we have a net 15 teams gained in twenty years.

I think 1-AA had ~100 member in 1987, ~25 which didn't participate so 16 of 75 teams made the playoffs or 21%. Now the FCS has ~115 members, ~20 which don't participate, so 20 of 95 team make the playoffs or 21%.

I'm not a fan of expansion, but I'm a numbers guy and this aspect makes sense. I'm still not sold on the logistics and the true purpose of the playoffs, which is to crown a champion.

[OL FU]

Here is what I have as far as 1-AA members on a yearly basis. It's not 100% accurate, because it's hard to say whether or not a team may have been in transition, so I included transition teams in this list. This list is pretty much comprised of teams that played at least half their games against D1 opponents. The only teams I will omit from this list are the Ivies, because they've never been eligible since dropping to 1-AA in 1982. If anyone wants to take this list and go through and determine which members were eligible or not, then he/she is free to do so, but it's not going to be easy. For instance, when Florida A&M won the 1978 championship, they actually played a full SIAC schedule. As a matter of fact, I have no idea how they qualified for the playoffs, because they did not play half their games against D1 opponents. Even the NCAA record book has them listed as a D2 team in 1978. That's just one example of the discrepancies that existed in the early days of 1-AA.

Year,1-AA Members (minus Ivies),Playoff Participants
1978,36,4
1979,36,4
1980,46,4
1981,49,8
1982,86,12
1983,78,12
1984,82,12
1985,82,12
1986,78,16
1987,80,16
1988,79,16
1989,80,16
1990,78,16
1991,83,16
1992,82,16
1993,108,16
1994,109,16
1995,110,16
1996,108,16
1997,112,16
1998,113,16
1999,113,16
2000,113,16
2001,115,16
2002,115,16
2003,113,16
2004,113,16
2005,112,16
2006,114,16
2007,114,16
2008,117,16


One quick way to look at this is to remove the Patriot League (as stated above ) from the time when the 16 team playoff was started and that would give us a number in the low 70s not including the PL and the IVY in 1988 ( I like that yearxnodx )

Looking now, take the SWAC out and some of the teams that don't play 7 DI games and you are probably in the mid to high 90s now. So about 20% of the teams participated in the 80s and maybe about 16% participate now. Adding four more teams gets the number back to 20% and that doesn't include the SWAC in the denominator and the SWAC is technically eligible for playoffs.

[OL FU]

I can name 13 that have left since 1987, so we have a net 15 teams gained in twenty years.

I think 1-AA had ~100 member in 1987, ~25 which didn't participate so 16 of 75 teams made the playoffs or 21%. Now the FCS has ~115 members, ~20 which don't participate, so 20 of 95 team make the playoffs or 21%.

I'm not a fan of expansion, but I'm a numbers guy and this aspect makes sense. I'm still not sold on the logistics and the true purpose of the playoffs, which is to crown a champion.

I got the impression that the 28 was a net increase number, not just addition.

[UAalum72]

In 1980 there were about 137 teams in I-A, including 22 from the Ivy, Southern, and Southland conferences, plus a number of I-A independents like Colgate, Holy Cross, Richmond, W&M, and others.

I've got an East Coast Athletic Conference 1982 media guide that says the stricter attendance standards for I-A meant that 95 schools would participate "both in I-A and I-AA" whatever that means (maybe some others were I-AA only?). The number of ECAC I-A schools dropped from 22 to six as a result.

In 1990 there were 107 I-A and 122 I-AA institutions.

In 2000 there were 120 I-A and about 121 I-AA (some in transition). Up to 19 I-AAs were independent then compared to a handful now.

[OL FU]

In 1980 there were about 137 teams in I-A, including 22 from the Ivy, Southern, and Southland conferences, plus a number of I-A independents like Colgate, Holy Cross, Richmond, W&M, and others.

I've got an East Coast Athletic Conference 1982 media guide that says the stricter attendance standards for I-A meant that 95 schools would participate "both in I-A and I-AA" whatever that means (maybe some others were I-AA only?). The number of ECAC I-A schools dropped from 22 to six as a result.

In 1990 there were 107 I-A and 122 I-AA institutions.

In 2000 there were 120 I-A and about 121 I-AA (some in transition). Up to 19 I-AAs were independent then compared to a handful now.

Not disputing but what is the source of the 1990 number? It sounds high.

[CSUBUCDAD]

Every conference that meets the requirements should be eligible for an autobid.

[Syntax Error]

Every conference that meets the requirements should be eligible for an autobid.All they have to do is ask now.

[Syntax Error]

Here is what I have...http://collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=82977
HISTORY OF NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS SELECTION

1978-1980 (4 teams): No Automatic Qualifiers
1981-1982 (8 teams): AQs: Big Sky, MEAC, OVC, Yankee, SWAC, Independent; 2 at-large
1983 (12 teams): AQs: Southern, Southland, Big Sky, OVC, Yankee, 2 Independents; 5 at-large
1984 (12 teams): AQs: Southern, Southland, Big Sky, OVC, Yankee, SWAC, 2 Independents; 4 at-large
1985 (12 teams): AQs: Big Sky, OVC, Southern, Southland, SWAC, Yankee, 2 Independents; 4 at-large
1986 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, MEAC, Gateway, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee, 2 Independents; 7 at-large
1987-1988 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, Gateway, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee, 2 Independents; 8 at-large
1989-1991 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, Gateway, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee, 1 Independent; 9 at-large
1992-1995 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, Gateway, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee; 10 at-large
1996 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, Gateway, MEAC, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee; 9 at-large
1997-2007 (16 teams): AQs: A-10, Big Sky, Gateway, MEAC, OVC, Patriot, Southern, Southland; 8 at-large

Brackets: http://collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=82976

Classification History: http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=53435

[Dane96]

You realize you make no sense right?

You have just reached the highest level awarded on here, reserved only for the finest of individuals. In fact, you'll be joining the one and only other person to reach this level - Boogs.

Welcome to my ignore list. Seriously, you've actually made my experience worse here since you've come back and started laying down your one-line rhetoric.

I know you are one of the founding members of this place but at this point you are adding absolutely nothing to this board in my opinion. You are, as everyone else is, free to post whatever you like here, but I for one will no longer be reading your crap.

I hope one day you can grow up and get back to posting and discussing football. Your knowledge is useful and you have contributed much in the past, but you've become bitter and obnoxious .

xpeacex


Well thought out, and well stated! My brother from another mother has this one pegged!

xoutofrepx

[Syntax Error]

... My brother from another mother...The Albany Smack Brothers. What a love story! Never had it, never will!! 21-42 to a team with ZERO scholarships that isn't whining about an AQ http://www.collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=89340 xlolx

[Dane96]

Sytnax Error's defininition of smack:anything that does not mesh, or debunks/demystifies, his point.

[Syntax Error]

Sytnax Error's defininition of smack: anything that ... debunks/demystifies, his point.[/B]Let us all know when that happens because it hasn't yet. xnodx I already posted your repetitive smack and it is really boring. Please try to bring something besides WHINING and SMACK to the Discussion Board.

[UAalum72]

Not disputing but what is the source of the 1990 number? It sounds high.
My mistake, must have copied the wrong line.

On http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/history/90/rothman.txt I count 87 I-AA for 1990. 107 for I-A is correct

[jcf5445]

http://collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=82977
HISTORY OF NCAA DIVISION I FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS SELECTION

1978-1980 (4 teams): No Automatic Qualifiers
1981-1982 (8 teams): AQs: Big Sky, MEAC, OVC, Yankee, SWAC, Independent; 2 at-large
1983 (12 teams): AQs: Southern, Southland, Big Sky, OVC, Yankee, 2 Independents; 5 at-large
1984 (12 teams): AQs: Southern, Southland, Big Sky, OVC, Yankee, SWAC, 2 Independents; 4 at-large
1985 (12 teams): AQs: Big Sky, OVC, Southern, Southland, SWAC, Yankee, 2 Independents; 4 at-large
1986 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, MEAC, Gateway, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee, 2 Independents; 7 at-large
1987-1988 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, Gateway, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee, 2 Independents; 8 at-large
1989-1991 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, Gateway, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee, 1 Independent; 9 at-large
1992-1995 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, Gateway, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee; 10 at-large
1996 (16 teams): AQs: Big Sky, Gateway, MEAC, OVC, Southern, Southland, Yankee; 9 at-large
1997-2007 (16 teams): AQs: A-10, Big Sky, Gateway, MEAC, OVC, Patriot, Southern, Southland; 8 at-large

Brackets: http://collegesportingnews.com/article.asp?articleid=82976

Classification History: http://www.i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=53435

I'm familiar with that classification history page. That info comes directly from the NCAA record book, which is available online. Follow that link you provided and scroll down to Florida A&M. It has them as being 1-AA since 1979, yet they won the 1978 1-AA championship. Like I said, that's just one example. Also, they have Davidson as being 1-AA since 1993, yet they continued playing a d3 schedule up until 2000.

I found several discrepancies in the NCAA record book when I was trying to research subdivision membership. Another example is the MAC. The record book has 7 members of the MAC dropping to 1-AA in 1982, and 3 members remaining 1-A. Well, that's a contradiction, because the MAC schedule did not allow those 3 schools to play at least half their games against 1-A opponents. It also has Cincinnati dropping to 1-AA in 1982, yet their schedule was a full 1-A schedule. I don't think it's a coincidence that Cincinnati follows Central Michigan (one of the MAC schools that supposedly did not drop in '82) in the alphabetical listing. That, to me, indicates a typographical error. Therefore, how can one have faith in that record book? Of course, it's not that big of a deal, because all MAC members moved back up to 1-A the following year, and the MAC champion did not participate in the 1-AA playoffs in 1982.

I know that's a lot of rambling, but my point is that the info from the NCAA record book as far as classification history goes is not 100% accurate.

[UAalum72]

21-42 to a team with ZERO scholarships that isn't whining about an AQ
Be sure to tell everyone that Flyers and Toreros aren't whining about the AQ

[Syntax Error]

I'm familiar with that classification history page. That info comes directly from the NCAA record book... but my point is that the info from the NCAA record book as far as classification history goes is not 100% accurate.(Source: NCAA) We have to let the NCAA know of errors so they can fix them. Thanks for your work, keep it up! xpeacex

[Dane96]

Let us all know when that happens because it hasn't yet. xnodx I already posted your repetitive smack and it is really boring. Please try to bring something besides WHINING and SMACK to the Discussion Board.

Seems like you are the only one who thinks so. See below then....Have a nice day...my friend.

[Dane96]

(Source: NCAA) We have to let the NCAA know of errors so they can fix them. Thanks for your work, keep it up! xpeacex

WE HAVE TO LET THEM KNOW?

WHO THE F ARE YOU? You being paid by the NCAA?

Come on...get off that horse.

[bluehenbillk]

I say we set up a tourney between the CAA and Southern conference


I did some quick homework & over the past decade 2 leagues: the CAA/A-10 & the Southern have accounted for more than half of the 1-AA playoff wins:

Southern 40
CAA 39
Gateway 28
Big Sky 17
Southland 11
Patriot 7
MEAC 4
Independents 3
OVC 1

You have 3 real power conferences & then a 2nd tier (Montana alone is most of the Big Sky). Now you add in the NEC & Big South, there's 10 spots left. I hope to see SOS recognized & not have to worry in November about an 8-3 Robert Morris or Charleston Southern teams being considered for at-large berths.

[Dane96]

I think that is a given. Isn't it right now? I have been told by many...whether they are right or accurate from the committee talks I do not know, had Albany had beaten Colgate (13-11 loss in the final seconds), a 9-2 Dane squad was very close to being in.

Why? SOS. The two losses would have come to Hofstra and at Montana.

[danefan]

Now you add in the NEC & Big South, there's 10 spots left. I hope to see SOS recognized & not have to worry in November about an 8-3 Robert Morris or Charleston Southern teams being considered for at-large berths.

The NEC has a long way to go before it becomes a two-bid league because a loss in-league will kill you thanks to Sacred Heart and others who schedule so crappy.

[Syntax Error]

WE HAVE TO LET THEM KNOW?
WHO THE F ARE YOU? You being paid by the NCAA?
Come on...get off that horse.SMACK ------------------>

Goodbye

[Dane96]

The NEC has a long way to go before it becomes a two-bid league because a loss in-league will kill you thanks to Sacred Heart and others who schedule so crappy.

Exactly-- we need to set minimum standards, IMHO, in the NEC for scheduling. Much like they do in hoops.

[Syntax Error]

I think that is a given. Isn't it right now? I have been told by many...whether they are right or accurate from the committee talks I do not know, had Albany had beaten Colgate (13-11 loss in the final seconds), a 9-2 Dane squad was very close to being in.
Why? SOS. The two losses would have come to Hofstra and at Montana.Albany finished the regular season at #36 GPI, Colgate #38. 'Nuff said.

L Sat 9/1/2007 Albany at Colgate Colgate 13-11
W Sat 9/8/2007 Albany at Fordham Albany 23-20
L Sat 9/15/2007 Hofstra at Albany Hofstra 28-13
L Sat 9/22/2007 Albany at Montana Montana 35-14
W Sat 10/6/2007 Stony Brook at Albany Albany 24-23
W Sat 10/13/2007 Sacred Heart at Albany Albany 38-7
W Sat 10/20/2007 Albany at St Francis-PA Albany 58-21
W Sat 10/27/2007 Albany at Wagner Albany 24-10
W Sat 11/3/2007 Robert Morris at Albany Albany 45-17
W Sat 11/10/2007 Albany at Monmouth Albany 21-3
W Sat 11/17/2007 Albany at Cent Conn St Albany 49-14

Nice string to finish the season for sure, but it was against the second to last ranked conference.

[Dane96]

Ummmm...again...this was from committee members. "NUFF SAID", is how you put it?

[Syntax Error]

Ummmm...again...this was from committee members. "NUFF SAID", is how you put it?Which committee members, I never heard that stated. Enlighten us please. The committee was surely looking for a reason but AFAIK they never had one. A Week 1 loss to a lesser team is what you're talking about. The Danes did triumph against Fordham the next week for their only OOC win. Based on the new rules, it would not gain you an auto at-large (since beating a lesser team would not jump Albany into the top 16 IMO).

[Dane96]

Like I said...some people get info from places you do not. I also reiterated that I cannot confirm it because it came from a trusted third-party "close" to the situation. That being said, scholarships, NEC auto, GIC classic stuff, and others, has ALWAYS proven to be dead on from my sources.

So, I am going to go with-- IT WAS DEAD ON ACCURATE.

Good day and goodnight, SE. Ignore list. Second person.

[Syntax Error]

Like I said...some people get info from places you do not. I also reiterated that I cannot confirm it...Uh-huh. Like I thought. xsmhx

[Dane96]

Uh-huh...can you confirm we weren't?

[Syntax Error]

Uh-huh...can you confirm we weren't?
...I never heard that stated. Enlighten us please. The committee was surely looking for a reason but AFAIK they never had one. A Week 1 loss to a lesser team is what you're talking about. The Danes did triumph against Fordham the next week for their only OOC win. Based on the new rules, it would not gain you an auto at-large (since beating a lesser team would not jump Albany into the top 16 IMO).That's all I have, no proclamations that Albany was in with a Colgate win. By today's rules that would give the Great Danes the two D-I AQ conference wins, the requisite eight D-I wins, but probably not the top 16 ranking to get an auto playoff at-large IMO. xcoffeex

[eaglesrthe1]

No no no. Not the truth. Let everyone keep bitching about how the national championship team will have to walk up hill both ways in the snow and barefoot now that the playoffs have expanded. xlolx xlolx

The likely national champion will have to play the same # of games and more then likely will be guaranteed an off-week.

The only teams that will have to play an additional game are those that end up in the bottom eight that will play in the first round. There's an easy way around that: don't be in the bottom eight.

You know, I get sarcasm, and it's ok.



xbabycryx
whine
whine
whine

xrolleyesx xsmhx xcoffeex

But then you bait....


whatever, just go smack some more members.

And then you chastise? Grow up, who's mother do you think you are anyway? If you're going to moderate, then do it. But don't talk down to people when one of the worst offenders is yourself.

[Syntax Error]

... Grow up, who's mother do you think you are anyway? If you're going to moderate, then do it. But don't talk down to people when one of the worst offenders is yourself.You know, you miss the point and then you personally smack. Who do I think I am? I am a member here and I am not the only one sick and tired of that behavior. If you think I am acting like a mother then maybe she should have done a better job herself. Try reading 99% of the albany brother's posts and you will find they personally smack all over the Discussion Board. Sorry that myself and others point that out and you think it is talking down. Who do you think YOU are? Go to your team's board for non-stop personal smack all over the place. Leave this discussion board for reasoned discussion. That is the point. xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Who else is sick of "that behavior?"

Who points it out?

These are reasoned questions that I think we would like to hear answers for.

I personally would love the opportunity to apologize to those who Danefan and I have offended. Please, let us know who they are.

Thank you!

[Syntax Error]

... I personally would love the opportunity to apologize to those who Danefan and I have offended...Sorry, I've said all that needs to be said on this. From another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane96
Ummmm...dude...are you smoking something?..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane96
You are completely delusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane96
Weak argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane96
The argument is old....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane96
And your at-large agument is weak...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane96
Could you possibly be more unreasonable?...http://www.anygivensaturday.com/forum/showpost.php?p=927892&postcount=90

Done with you.
FCS Discussion
This board is for general Football Championship Subdivision talk about the current FCS and topics, newspaper articles/scuttlebutt/speculation, and published "official" news. No smack. Low noise, reasoned opinions, and linked notices for the entire FCS community. See the terms of service for rules.

[Dane96]

By no definition is any of the above smack.

Definitions of smack, according to the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia:

Smack- Trash-talk is a form of boast or insult commonly heard in competitive situations (such as sports events). It is often used to intimidate the opposition, but can also be used in a humorous spirit. Trash-talk is often characterized by hyperbolic, figurative language, e.g., "Your team can't run! You run like honey on ice!" Puns and other wordplay are commonly used. However, citing information about a rival's weaknesses would not be characterized as trash-talk, but could be described as a "discussion topic" (which might foster a trash-talk situation).

According to the urban dictionary:

A variety of threatening language, often used as an implied precursor to physical violence.


I SEE NONE OF THAT IN ANY OF THE ABOVE...but maybe for the second and third. And that is a MAJOR STRETCH.

Moving on.

[Syntax Error]

xboringx

[Dane96]

I mean, it is like clock-work.

Accusations, followed by fact presented, followed by dismissal as "boring."

I honestly have missed you.

[Syntax Error]

... followed by fact...Guess I missed the "fact" you presented but you go ahead and think what you want and keep up the personal smacking all over AGS. Good luck with Albany getting into the playoffs, they'll deserve it when they earn it. They might make it anyway. xcoffeex

[Dane96]

Who actually do you root for? What is your affiliation?

[stevdock]

Why are so many people against this??

[Syntax Error]

Why are so many people against this??After reading stuff about it for years, here are some of the reasons:
- some fans of leagues that did not have an AQ said they had no access to the playoffs when at-large access was available, and they are rather obnoxious about it
- some fans said that those leagues were trying to get an AQ free lunch without earning it
- some fans said those leagues didn't spend enough on their programs and didn't deserve
- some fans said those leagues had never had a team selected to the playoffs on merit (CCU was the first and only one now)
- some fans don't like the new NCAA policy of everybody gets an AQ that wants one, regardless of financial committment to the sport or competitiveness

Those are a few that have been expressed here, I'm sure there are others. xcoffeex

[Dane96]

After reading stuff about it for years, here are some of the reasons:
- some fans of leagues that did not have an AQ said they had no access to the playoffs when at-large access was available, and they are rather obnoxious about it

SMACK
xnonono2x

[Syntax Error]

SMACKxlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx You should know! xnodx xnodx

[Dane96]

Yes, I understand the definition of smack. You, on the other hand, have some alternative definition unknown to the masses.

[ursus arctos horribilis]

Wow, the "no" vote took an ass kickin' on this one.

[TheValleyRaider]

Wow, the "no" vote took an ass kickin' on this one.

There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come xnodx

[stevdock]

I just don't understand why there are so many no's in the first place. More teams involved will eventually mean better playoff games. No not right away, but eventually the potential for some of the lower ranked conferences to take out a big team will be there just like in the NCAA basketball tourneyment. Without those smaller conferences, that tourney would not be what it is today. Do the smaller conferences normally get killed by the bigger schools? Yes. But we do have those few teams that can hang with and actually win a few games, which helps those teams recruit much better than before. If these smaller conferences in FCS can start to enjoy a little of that success, that will only improve the quality of football that is already enjoyed by a majority of the teams here.

[Syntax Error]

I just don't understand why there are so many no's in the first place...After what I posted in reply to your question?

[Green26]

While I did not bother to vote, I don't like the new format because of the lengthening of the playoffs and bye week, the apparent shortening of the regular season and the loss of bye weekends earlier in the season.

I'm concerned that the bye week will cause a loss of momentum for teams and fans. To me, it doesn't seem right that the Saturday before Thanksgiving will be a bye week for the top 12 teams. It also doesn't seem right that a big rivalry weekend will disappear.

I also think the apparent compression of the regular season into one fewer weekend, will cause some scheduling issues--as it will mathmatically harder to fit OOC games, including I-A games, into fewer Saturdays.

I wonder if the new format will result in more cost/losses for the playoffs, in that it may increase the number of games played at venues that don't traditionally draw big crowds. I assume the ncaa committee (or whatever it was) already considered that potential issue.

Having more teams or conferences participating is fine.

It would be interesting to see a clear articulation of the ncaa committee's reasons for the change in format. Obviously, the requisite number of voters thought it was a good idea.

[danefan]

It would be interesting to see a clear articulation of the ncaa committee's reasons for the change in format. Obviously, the requisite number of voters thought it was a good idea.

I doubt we'll ever see any statement of the NCAA's reasoning except what they've already stated, which was something along the line of providing equal access to all qualifying conferences.

[89Hen]

I just don't understand why there are so many no's in the first place. More teams involved will eventually mean better playoff games.
Not necessarily. The OVC hasn't won a playoff game since 1996 and the MEAC since 1999. I'm not sure either is better off today than they were back then. Last year the MEAC champ was beaten 44-7 and the OVC champ 31-14. Not picking on those two, but you can't say that adding more teams will do anything to make the games or even the conferences better. xtwocentsx

[stevdock]

Not necessarily. The OVC hasn't won a playoff game since 1996 and the MEAC since 1999. I'm not sure either is better off today than they were back then. Last year the MEAC champ was beaten 44-7 and the OVC champ 31-14. Not picking on those two, but you can't say that adding more teams will do anything to make the games or even the conferences better. xtwocentsx

You're right. It is hard to say if they are any better today then when won those playoff games. And to be honest I wouldn't have any clue. I guess it is up to each individual school to say are we just happy to win the conference and make the playoffs or are we continually trying to get better to maybe get a couple wins in the playoffs and keep building towards that chance of a championship. It has happened in basketball, so I would hope that if given the chance that it could happen here too.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

I doubt we'll ever see any statement of the NCAA's reasoning except what they've already stated, which was something along the line of providing equal access to all qualifying conferences.

I don't think you need to. Just look at what the NCAA has done in other sports and you'll see that equal access has been their path of least resistance.

FWIW, in men's ice hockey it only took a few years before the rep from one of the new leagues to get an AQ to win a playoff game. I'm thinking about how Holy Cross beating Minnesota a couple of years ago rocked the hockey world.

Has the NCAA stated what all the logistics are going to be for the schedule in 2010? Why don't we wait until it all shakes out before we jump to assumptions. And BTW, wouldn't the championship game moving to after Christmas be a good thing? I know that I'd be more likely to attend.

[Big Al]

1. I think the "competitiveness" argument for excluding some conferences from getting an autobid is crap. If the conference is recognized by the NCAA then it should get a bid. Period. End of story. Since the FCS likes to say they decide their championship on the field, they should walk the walk.

2. I don't think lengthening the schedule is a good thing. Especially w/o bye weeks for teams during the season. These kids have to put in long, hard hours for their scholarships and the only reason for extending the season is so the colleges can see a bigger payday. There needs to be a limit to how much we expect student-athletes to perform and risk injury for their scholarships.

3. I fully support moving the NC to later in December. If FCS is (theoretically) equal to FBS, they shouldn't have to play second fiddle to the bottom-rung FBS bowls. I'm not saying we should get the same date as the BCS championship but any day between Christmas & New Years would be nice.

[89Hen]

wouldn't the championship game moving to after Christmas be a good thing? I know that I'd be more likely to attend.
Hard to say. More people proabably take off from work that week, but I would be less likely to go because I'm usually visiting family that week. For the game this past year, I only missed one day of work. I flew down Thursday night and was back Saturday night.

[89Hen]

1. I think the "competitiveness" argument for excluding some conferences from getting an autobid is crap. If the conference is recognized by the NCAA then it should get a bid. Period. End of story.
xconfusedx I wouldn't say it's the end of the story for everyone. All it takes for the NCAA to "recognize" a conference is for it to have enough teams. It's not like the NCAA put these teams together.

[Big Al]

Well, I'm just saying that the NCAA should put together open, attainable standards for a conference to get an autobid. If you meet it, you're in -- if not, you're out. I don't understand why the Pioneer doesn't have one -- yes, they're non-scholly and yes, they play weak schedules but rightly or wrongly they were required to play in the FCS so they should get a seat at the championship table.

[Retro]

I've stated this before and here it is again.. If the NCAA would just look at the big picture and lay out ground rules for everyone in the FCS and to be included as part of the FCS, you must want to participate in the playoffs, we'd have less arguments about this..

1. If your a Div I program and you want to be in the FCS, you have to not only be eligible for the playoffs, but be able to accept a birth each year in that your schedule does not conflict with the playoff start date.

2. All FCS members under the guidelines of #1 are eligible for at large berths regardless of conference or scholarships.. AQ's are only given to conferences with 8 Football playing members.. This is a good number because it allows all teams 7 conf games and 4 non-conf games with a chance for most to play up to 4 solid OOC opponents regardless of level. This would also encourage some conferences to expand football playing members or merge with conferences of similar status if regionally possible.

3. In addition to above AQ guidelines, team must have at least 7 wins againest Div I schools. This would allow a 7-4 team to get in as AQ or at large provided they don't have lower level wins.

For those programs/conferences that do not want to participate in the playoffs or choose to not make themselves available for the playoffs, then they would not longer be part of the FCS, but instead of some other label or simply called Div I-non-FCS.. They would still be Div I schools but not officially part of the FCS (FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP SUBDIVISION)..

The whole point is everyone in the FCS should be able to play and win the championship under certain agreed upon standards and that not only eliminates any ambiguity, but helps create a consistent Division, helps promote the teams within the division and eliminates any doubt about who, why or what teams get in the playoffs or not..

[Mr. Tiger]

I believe that all FCS conferences that qualify should have automatic bids to the playoff field. All teams should be seeded based on team and conference ratings and records. The only way to fairly stop expansion is to clearly define scholarship levels for FCS/I-AA programs and move those that don't fit down a classification, but that is impossible because of the Ivy League teams. That is what makes the FCS unique.

[UAalum72]

.. AQ's are only given to conferences with 8 Football playing members..
How CONVEEENIENT that you advocate this now. Would you have said the same from 2001 - 2005 when the Southland only had six or seven members?xrolleyesx

[Green26]

Why does it matter to some of you whether or not a I-AA conference wants to participate in the playoffs? I don't see the reason for a connection between the two. Do you think FCS would be better off with fewer teams?

[Syntax Error]

Why does it matter to some of you whether or not a I-AA conference wants to participate in the playoffs? I don't see the reason for a connection between the two...It may take some time to be accepted that competitivenes is no longer the FCS AQ standard. It's the way things have been done and just now changed.

For example, GPI Since 2002:

2007
Rank, Conference (Average Rating)
9. Big South Conference (54.50)
15. Northeast Conference (68.82)

2006
7. Big South Conference (46.87)
13. Northeast Conference (65.49)

2005
11. Big South Conference (60.27)
14. Northeast Conference (73.75)

2004
11. Big South Conference (59.45)
14. Northeast Conference (70.68)

2003
12. Big South Conference (82.26)
14. Northeast Conference (94.46)

2002
11. Big South Conference (77.94)
14. Northeast Conference (86.13)

Now the Big South won't be eligible until 2010 when they get their AQ but the NEC has been consistently one of the lowest ranked conferences. No way they get an AQ based on the ways things were previously done and they never even got one team in as an at-large selection. So it may take some time to accept that they are now guaranteed a playoff spot.

[Retro]

How CONVEEENIENT that you advocate this now. Would you have said the same from 2001 - 2005 when the Southland only had six or seven members?xrolleyesx

Yes, however if a conference loses a member because they bolt for the FBS, you would allow for maybe a 2-3 year exemption provided a new member or football playing member were to be added within reasonable time.. Why do you think the SLC worked so hard to invite UCA and texas a&m - CC? They wanted to improve the overall quality of the conference after ULM and Troy left and include a quality football program like UCA was and is...
Even so, the SLC would've gotten an at large even if they lost their AQ during those years, because of the OOC schedule played and won againest..

I said 8 for the simple fact that it gives most FCS teams 7 GUARANTEED DIV I FCS games each year, thus the minimum wins to have as well to gain playoff access. Whatever the number, it would be beneficial to all if all conferences were 8 -10 teams strong across the board.

I just don't think it's fair to the conferences that play 7, 8 or more tough conference games every year, that a 5 or 6 team unproven conference gets an AQ just because some committee said so. Especially if the continually schedule and only win againest OOC bottom feeders of the FCS or lower division schools. Like i said before, if they beat some good OOC teams and back that up with 8 win seasons againest DIV I teams, then they deserve an at large and AQ doesn't even matter.

[UAalum72]

Well, the NEC will have eight teams again this year, and it probably plays FEWER sub-D-I games than almost any other conference except the Patriot.

You don't have to worry about a league with only '5' teams because it won't get an AQ according to the rules.

You're prepared to take the AQ from the Patriot League? not only does it have only seven teams, half of their OOC games are against the Ivy (not an AQ conference). The Gateway would also be thankful they just picked up the Dakota States for next year.

And I wouldn't give as much credit for playing an FBS school unless the game's fairly close; losing by 50 or 60 shows you can accept a paycheck but it does nothing about proving your own talent level.

[Big Al]

I appreciate the comment about non-participating schools really belonging in another classification. Maybe it should be divided D-I FCS, D-I FBS & D-1 NP (non-participating). D-I NP would be for any school that doesn't want to be FCS or FBS and would also be a temporary classification for schools transitioning up to D-I or between FCS/FBS.

FWIW, I really, really hate the "no wins against a quality opponent" argument. That was used against Utah when they busted the BCS back in 2004. So instead of playing a game against top-rainked Auburn, USC or Oklahoma they got the "privilige" of blowing out Pitt. The only way to decide if a team is worthy or not is to play the game. That should be what matters.

[OLPOP]

UA72-- No Patriot League team has played a sub-D1 team in several years, I believe.

[UAalum72]

UA72-- No Patriot League team has played a sub-D1 team in several years, I believe.
That's what I said. The NEC has played fewer than twenty sub-D-I teams over the last seven years (including extras last year when St. Pete folded late) and the Patriot fewer (or none) because they schedule mostly Ivies for OOC.

[Black and Gold Express]

What happens when the Great West becomes eligible? Aren't they only a few years away from that? At that point you have to add them to the AQ list, they're better than either the Big South or NEC.

So either they'll have to expand again to meet the requirements that auto bids = at-large bids, or someone gets their AQ dropped. We don't ned another expansion, so I'm going to guess that it's the NEC or Big South that does.

[89Hen]

What happens when the Great West becomes eligible? Aren't they only a few years away from that?
They are short on number of teams.

[UAalum72]

So either they'll have to expand again to meet the requirements that auto bids = at-large bids, or someone gets their AQ dropped. We don't ned another expansion, so I'm going to guess that it's the NEC or Big South that does.
Unless you can give a reason that the OVC should still have a bid (no playoff wins by current teams since 1996) there's no reason for the newbies to lose one. And I wouldn't bet against expansion instead of taking a bid away - has any conference in any sport had an AQ forcibly taken away except for rules violations?

[89Hen]

Unless you can give a reason that the OVC should still have a bid (no playoff wins by current teams since 1996) there's no reason for the newbies to lose one. And I wouldn't bet against expansion instead of taking a bid away - has any conference in any sport had an AQ forcibly taken away except for rules violations?
No conference "have" autos. Remember that every year the conferences have to apply for them. If 11 conferences apply for 10 bids, somebody won't receive one.

[Black and Gold Express]

And that will come down as much to history as much as on-field exploits. Yes the OVC and MEAC have barely been competitve in the playoffs for quite some time, but they'll have a leg up on the NEC and Big South in that argument because of tradition.

To that end, the Big South is already ahead of the NEC, having gotten Coastal in the playoffs in 2006. It' not a big step, but it's a step. Face fact, the NEC is still looked at by the majority as mid-major I-AA football, and you're going to need time to prove on the field that is not so. Unless you pull off some very unexpected playoff wins, or at least be competitve against established playoff conferences in the postseason, it could well be that your rug is yanked out as quickly as it was put out for you.

But as 89hen said, there is time. Once the Great West gets it's act together and gets the minimum teams needed for an autobid though, your clock will be ticking I do think. Because the last thing these already-watered down playoffs will need are more undeserving teams getting at-larges because they added an 11th auto-bid.

[UAalum72]

Right. I'd still like to know what the OVC does to get at-large bids as well as their autobid besides losing a lot of games to FBS teams.

In any other sport they just add play-in games. In FCS, once you've got 20 teams, going to 24 doesn't add any more weeks.

[UAalum72]

And that will come down as much to history as much as on-field exploits. Yes the OVC and MEAC have barely been competitve in the playoffs for quite some time, but they'll have a leg up on the NEC and Big South in that argument because of tradition.
Their only 'tradition' is losing. The NEC and Big South weren't even eligible for AQ the last time they won (or shortly after).

Is 0-0 in the playoffs better or worse than 0-16?

"Tradition" = Old Guard

FCS is supposed to be about 'deciding it on the field'. Looks to me like it's been decided for the OVC and MEAC.

[CCU97]

The Big South is 0-1 in the playoffs...Coastal made it just a few years ago and lost to App St. in the first round.

[89Hen]

In FCS, once you've got 20 teams, going to 24 doesn't add any more weeks.
I give it 2012 at the latest. 20 teams won't last long.

[89Hen]

I'd still like to know what the OVC does to get at-large bids
So would I. xnodx

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

What if the Ivy and SWAC did an about face and wanted an AQ? And if the AE Football League that so many here covet came to fruition? And the Great West becomes an eligible league? And the Pioneer requests an AQ?

xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex

Excuse me while I duck and run! ;) xlolx

[kirkblitz]

just curious on how yall would feel if a team went 5-6 but won their conferences auto bid. Exclude them from the playoffs even though they have the auto bid? Or maybe even 4-7.

[Hoseinexile07]

just curious on how yall would feel if a team went 5-6 but won their conferences auto bid. Exclude them from the playoffs even though they have the auto bid? Or maybe even 4-7.

That's a good question and a valid concern. Unfortunately, I don't think there's going to be a perfect solution to the autobid/playoff problem. I'd think, though, that a team that played as badly as that out of conference would get mauled in the opening round, ending the matter quickly.

[89Hen]

What if the Ivy and SWAC did an about face and wanted an AQ? And if the AE Football League that so many here covet came to fruition? And the Great West becomes an eligible league? And the Pioneer requests an AQ?

xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex

Excuse me while I duck and run! ;) xlolx
24 with 12 autos. Everyone apply and the best 12 get 'em.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

24 with 12 autos. Everyone apply and the best 12 get 'em.

Do you really think that is what the NCAA would do?

[89Hen]

Do you really think that is what the NCAA would do?
Nah, I've stopped pretending to know what the NCAA will do. They prove me wrong too often. :p

[danefan]

Do you really think that is what the NCAA would do?

Its possible. Expanding to 20 was the difficult step as you needed an extra week. Expanding from 20 to 24 is easy logistically speaking. You aren't adding any weeks. You are just adding first round games.

If the Ivy's and SWAC jump in, the Great West gets enough teams, and the CAA splits, the FCS landscape will be much much different then it is right now and its hard to say whether 24 at that point will be a good or bad thing.

By that time the moratorium should be over and who knows what other schools will be moving to FCS.xcoffeex

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

24 with 12 autos. Everyone apply and the best 12 get 'em.

I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that the NCAA wants any part of making that type of decision.

[wapiti]

Maybe this has already been mentioned, but I thought the Great West should have received an auto-bid.

[stevdock]

The Great West hasn't met the minimums yet to be recognized as a conference to get a Auto-bid.