Why FCS Playoff Expansion is Right

[gophoenix]

http://www.southernpigskin.com/page.cfm?story=11708&cat=exclusives

Here's an article on Southern Pigskin. It is about FBS football. About midway down, he starts talking about the mid-majors in I-A football and why it doesn't work for them under the current system and basically sells the idea of why a playoff helps them more than anything.

I know the NEC and Big South getting autos is very unpopular amongst some. But the reasons listed in this article for why a playoff is not only right, but an playoff with automatic bids is crucial for recruiting are laid out here.

Personally, I think he's right..... So, let discussion #3 begin???

[jmu_duke07]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the article but I think the best argument for a playoff system was last years FCS Championship Tourney. The top 2teams lost in the first round of the playoffs (i think). Just Imagine what would have happened if 1-A had a playoff... I think Georgia would have won it.

[89Hen]

About midway down, he starts talking about the mid-majors in I-A football and why it doesn't work for them under the current system and basically sells the idea of why a playoff helps them more than anything.

I know the NEC and Big South getting autos is very unpopular amongst some. But the reasons listed in this article for why a playoff is not only right, but an playoff with automatic bids is crucial for recruiting are laid out here.
Having autos may help one or two teams, but not the entire lot. Look at all the teams currently in the autobid conferences who haven't made a playoff field in years, or never. Giving an auto to the NEC doesn't make up for Albany's stadium when a recruit comes to visit, or to the Big South with Liberty's and VMI's religious and military hurdles. Teams have been able to recruit without autos and other can't with them.

[UAalum72]

But there's no way having an autobid hurts recruiting, and I can't see any way Not having one helps.

[89Hen]

But there's no way having an autobid hurts recruiting, and I can't see any way Not having one helps.
I don't think anyone would disagree, but that wasn't the point being made.

[OL FU]

I didn't read the article, but I do believe that the NCAA has done a major dis-service to the non-schollies. If they are determined to require them to be in Division I football, the opportunity to participate in the playoffs should be made available.

[matboz]

I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the article but I think the best argument for a playoff system was last years FCS Championship Tourney. The top 2teams lost in the first round of the playoffs (i think). Just Imagine what would have happened if 1-A had a playoff... I think Georgia would have won it.

#'s 2 (McNeese) and 3(Montana) lost in the first round, # 1 (UNI) in the quarterfinals and #4 (SIU) in the semifinals ... so not exactly ... but none of the seeds even made the championship game ... without a playoff clearly would've been very different

[OhioHen]

Do the math; 34 bowl games means 78 teams make bowl games.

While mostof the article makes great sense, this sentence removes some credibility from the author. xtwocentsx

[walliver]

I don't mind the NCAA offering automatic bids to conferences which are eligible (minimum of 6 teams - I would prefer a minimum of 7 or 8 - with established teams - I don't want 8 D-2 teams moving up together and demanding and automatic bid). I'm not very keen, however, on expanding the at-large bids. Even under the current rules, the OVC got two teams, one at-large (when was the last time the OVC won a play-off game). For the SoCon, all eligible teams got in (two), while Elon and GSU stayed home. I personally feel that three teams from a conference is enough. Some may argue for four. But, five or six is too much. If we had had more at-large spots, Elon and Georgia Southern (either of which would have easily won the OVC) would still stay home, while the CAA would have had 7? teams in the play-offs.

I know that the NCAA rules dictate that half of the field needs to be at-large, but, this rule should be easy to change. I believe the NCAA should leave the at-large teams at 8, and expand the playoffs as needed for new conferences.

[putter]

The premise of the article is what we have stated for a long time, play it out on the field. Letting the NEC and Big South have AQ should only make the conferences better because those schools will see how they stack up against the bigger/more funded schools and they can accept the status quo or bring their programs up to the level needed to compete.

I have only seen Albany in person (2x) and they have a quality program that should only improve with more $$ invested in them.

For me a big factor is the NCAA. They need to get behind the FCS and promote the division and playoff system. The BCS has nothing to do with the NCAA so you would think that they would want their National Championship to be the best it can be.

[89Hen]

I believe the NCAA should leave the at-large teams at 8, and expand the playoffs as needed for new conferences.
I don't like the idea of the autos outweighing the at-larges. There are already several teams that don't probably deserve to be in the national championship tournament. I'm not sure how this whole concept of if you win your conference you get a bid in a national tournament came about anyway. The fact that you can conceivably win a conference, have a losing record, and make the playoffs seems silly. Even a winning record may not cut it.

Just for fun, imagine if the Big South had that auto this coming year and Liberty won the conference with a 4-2 record and went 3-3 OOC including 2 DII wins. That would put them at 7-5 and 5-5 vs DI. That's really not very far fetched and would you really be OK with them being in the playoffs?

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

I don't mind the NCAA offering automatic bids to conferences which are eligible (minimum of 6 teams - I would prefer a minimum of 7 or 8 - with established teams - I don't want 8 D-2 teams moving up together and demanding and automatic bid). I'm not very keen, however, on expanding the at-large bids. Even under the current rules, the OVC got two teams, one at-large (when was the last time the OVC won a play-off game). For the SoCon, all eligible teams got in (two), while Elon and GSU stayed home. I personally feel that three teams from a conference is enough. Some may argue for four. But, five or six is too much. If we had had more at-large spots, Elon and Georgia Southern (either of which would have easily won the OVC) would still stay home, while the CAA would have had 7? teams in the play-offs.

I know that the NCAA rules dictate that half of the field needs to be at-large, but, this rule should be easy to change. I believe the NCAA should leave the at-large teams at 8, and expand the playoffs as needed for new conferences.

Good point, as nobody but us CAA fans probably enjoyed having five teams in the field. However, when a bigger conference does as well as the CAA did OOC, then it is only right to reward the best teams with playoff spots.

One team will always be screwed. IMO it was Georgia Southern.

I will also say that an at-large should be reserved for teams whose conference record is above .500 = that would have kept UNH at home (4-4). No matter your conference, if you cannot win more than half those games, do you deserve a playoff spot? Tough argument even if those 4 losses were to top 25 teams.

I don't like expansion overall, but I do think good things will come out of it in the end. I can't really argue against more football. xthumbsupx

[stevdock]

Good point, as nobody but us CAA fans probably enjoyed having five teams in the field. However, when a bigger conference does as well as the CAA did OOC, then it is only right to reward the best teams with playoff spots.

One team will always be screwed. IMO it was Georgia Southern.

I will also say that an at-large should be reserved for teams whose conference record is above .500 = that would have kept UNH at home (4-4). No matter your conference, if you cannot win more than half those games, do you deserve a playoff spot? Tough argument even if those 4 losses were to top 25 teams.

I don't like expansion overall, but I do think good things will come out of it in the end. I can't really argue against more football. xthumbsupx

So by what you are saying, say Cal-Poly loses to UC Davis and UND/USD (whoever they play) next year but wins the rest of their games (including beating Montana & Wisconsin) then they should be ineligible for the playoffs because they would be 1-2 in the conference?

[gophoenix]

I'm not sure how this whole concept of if you win your conference you get a bid in a national tournament came about anyway.

Then tell me. Why should any team have a chance at the national title if they couldn't even win the automatic qualifier for their conference???? That's where AQs come from, it is a leftover from the days when NCAA sports had 0 at large bids.

IMHO, having no at-large teams makes more sense that denying any conference from having one.

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

So by what you are saying, say Cal-Poly loses to UC Davis and UND/USD (whoever they play) next year but wins the rest of their games (including beating Montana & Wisconsin) then they should be ineligible for the playoffs because they would be 1-2 in the conference?

In theory, yes. xrotatehx In practice, this rule should apply to only those conferences with auto bids so as to mitigate the "too many teams from one conference" issue.

I feel conference membership is and should be at a premium. The Great West needs to beef themselves up a little if possible, maybe add San Diego and a couple more schools from the Northwest - say, Idaho! xsmiley_wix

But seriously, the Great West has a couple of great teams, and I would think it would have been in the West's best interest if the Big Sky Conference added Cal Poly, UC-Davis and Southern Utah, making them a 12-team conference like the CAA. Their conference would be instantly strengthened and could compete for extra bids much like the CAA, SoCon and Gateway do now.

Didn't happen though, so new additions to the FCS landscape will have to fill out the conferences.

Just floating ideas out there in the offseason, dream scenarios never work out in the end.

[89Hen]

Then tell me. Why should any team have a chance at the national title if they couldn't even win the automatic qualifier for their conference????
They could be 10-1 and lost in triple OT to a team in their conference that is also 10-1. Then you have 7-5 Liberty who didn't beat a single ranked team and was 5-5 vs DI. Why should any team have a chance at the national title if they didn't win a single game against a ranked opponent????

The problem is the conferences are even close to equitible. If all the conferences were close in ranking, that would be one thing, but they aren't.

Conference Rank
Rank, Conference (Average Rating)
1. Colonial Athletic Association (21.71)
2. Southern Conference (23.92)
3. Great West Football Conference (28.88)
4. Gateway Football Conference (28.95)
5. Big Sky Conference (41.39)
6. Southland Conference (42.07)
7. Patriot League (47.02)
8. Ivy League (48.94)
9. Big South Conference (54.50)
10. Southwestern Athletic Conference (55.44)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (55.77)
12. Ohio Valley Conference (57.10)
13. Pioneer Football League (63.71)
14. Independents (65.75)
15. Northeast Conference (68.82)
16. Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (79.13)

Fewer autos. Not more.

[89Hen]

BTW, interesting to note playoff performances...

Conference Rank
Rank, Conference (Average Rating)
1. Colonial Athletic Association (21.71)
2. Southern Conference (23.92)
3. Great West Football Conference (28.88)
4. Gateway Football Conference (28.95)
5. Big Sky Conference (41.39)
6. Southland Conference (42.07)
7. Patriot League (47.02)
8. Ivy League (48.94)
9. Big South Conference (54.50) 0 for 1
10. Southwestern Athletic Conference (55.44) 0 for 19 all time
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (55.77) 0 for 9 since 2000
12. Ohio Valley Conference (57.10) 0 for last 13
13. Pioneer Football League (63.71)
14. Independents (65.75)
15. Northeast Conference (68.82)
16. Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (79.13)

[stevdock]

In theory, yes. xrotatehx In practice, this rule should apply to only those conferences with auto bids so as to mitigate the "too many teams from one conference" issue.

I feel conference membership is and should be at a premium.

That works for me. I agree that UNH theortically had their chance in the conference and didn't get it done. I am still shocked that Villanova with a 5-3 conference record was out while UNH with a 4-4 record got in. Villanova's in-conference schedule might have been easier, but that was still a shocker to me.

[gophoenix]

They could be 10-1 and lost in triple OT to a team in their conference that is also 10-1. Then you have 7-5 Liberty who didn't beat a single ranked team and was 5-5 vs DI. Why should any team have a chance at the national title if they didn't win a single game against a ranked opponent????

The problem is the conferences are even close to equitible. If all the conferences were close in ranking, that would be one thing, but they aren't.

Conference Rank
Rank, Conference (Average Rating)
1. Colonial Athletic Association (21.71)
2. Southern Conference (23.92)
3. Great West Football Conference (28.88)
4. Gateway Football Conference (28.95)
5. Big Sky Conference (41.39)
6. Southland Conference (42.07)
7. Patriot League (47.02)
8. Ivy League (48.94)
9. Big South Conference (54.50)
10. Southwestern Athletic Conference (55.44)
11. Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference (55.77)
12. Ohio Valley Conference (57.10)
13. Pioneer Football League (63.71)
14. Independents (65.75)
15. Northeast Conference (68.82)
16. Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference (79.13)

Fewer autos. Not more.

Ok, to address the autos thing. 15th rated NEC champion Albany was rated higher than 2 playoff teams, one was an at large.

To address the first comment. I don't care if someone lost the championship in 3OT and is 10-1. Fact is, they couldn't get the job done in their conference so why should they get a shot at the national championship????

And by your logic, why not get rid of autos in every other sport? That way none of us would ever have a shot at the basketball tournaments ever again. Few conferences would for baseball. So..... its the same logic even though not apples to apples in sports.

[89Hen]

I don't care if someone lost the championship in 3OT and is 10-1. Fact is, they couldn't get the job done in their conference so why should they get a shot at the national championship????
Because they earned it by beating 10 other teams most of whom are probably higher rated than any of the teams somebody from a weak conference even played. Like I said before. If the conferences were close to all being equal, then I can see having the field be almost entirely autos. The whole season then is like playoffs. But you know that isn't the case. Can you honestly tell me that you think the Big South champ or NEC champ would win the CAA, Gateway or SoCon?

[89Hen]

In recent years when the NEC champ played OOC vs. CAA or Big Sky:

2002 Albany (Montana 45 - Albany 7)
2005 Central Conn. State (URI 56 - CCSU 10)
2007 Albany (Hofstra 28 - Albany 13, Montana 35 - Albany 14)

My point isn't to bash the NEC or Big South, but to say their champ is worthy simply because they won their conference doesn't work for me. xtwocentsx

[Cap'n Cat]

In recent years when the NEC champ played OOC vs. CAA or Big Sky:

2002 Albany (Montana 45 - Albany 7)
2005 Central Conn. State (URI 56 - CCSU 10)
2007 Albany (Hofstra 28 - Albany 13, Montana 35 - Albany 14)

My point isn't to bash the NEC or Big South, but to say their champ is worthy simply because they won their conference doesn't work for me. xtwocentsx


Agreed.

[gophoenix]

In recent years when the NEC champ played OOC vs. CAA or Big Sky:

2002 Albany (Montana 45 - Albany 7)
2005 Central Conn. State (URI 56 - CCSU 10)
2007 Albany (Hofstra 28 - Albany 13, Montana 35 - Albany 14)

My point isn't to bash the NEC or Big South, but to say their champ is worthy simply because they won their conference doesn't work for me. xtwocentsx

UNH lost to JMU 42-21 and Northeastern 31-13, and UMass 27-7 and they still made it and as an at large. So apparently margin of victory or loss mean nothing really.

Also, 2002, 2005 aren't fair comparisons as they go back to really limited or no scholarship schools, unlike today.

It seems to me that some mid-major fans want their cake and eat it too. They want an exclusive playoff when they are the big fish in the pond (I-AA) and they want an all-inclusive playoffs when they are the little fish and need autos to get in tournaments (basically, every other sport).

[danefan]

Can you honestly tell me that you think the Big South champ or NEC champ would win the CAA, Gateway or SoCon?
Can you honestly tell me that the OVC, PL, or MEAC champ would win the CAA, Gateway or Socon?

Are you also of the opinion that they should not have AQ's?

[SoCon48]

Devils advocate. At what point do we stop this expansion trend? 24? 30? 32? 64? There will always be clamoring by the have not's to make the first round or have play-in rounds be more accessible.
In fact, I recall some fans calling for 64 on this very board a couple years back.
If the student athlete's academic concerns were truly the #1 priority, it would have been limited to a field of 8 years ago. In fact, wasn't the first year or so limited to 8? Sure there were less teams in the division..but still.

[OhioHen]

In fact, wasn't the first year or so limited to 8? Sure there were less teams in the division..but still.

The first tournament featured just 4 teams. 8 came after more schools chose to move up from D-II and leagues went playoff eligible rather than bowl eligible.

[89Hen]

UNH lost to JMU 42-21 and Northeastern 31-13, and UMass 27-7 and they still made it and as an at large. So apparently margin of victory or loss mean nothing really.
Your contention was that conference winners should get bids because they "took care of business" in their conference. I showed you that the conference winners aren't necessarily one of the best 16 teams.

UNH was obviously the last team in and many people didn't agree with their inclusion. However, they also had wins over Delaware and Marshall. Also, whether it's fair or not, they also had three consecutive years of first round wins in the playoffs and I'm sure entered into their inclusion in some capacity. It's really not fair to use history since some teams don't have any, but that's what happens.

[89Hen]

Can you honestly tell me that the OVC, PL, or MEAC champ would win the CAA, Gateway or Socon?

Are you also of the opinion that they should not have AQ's?
Pretty much. The whole notion about applying for autos is a joke. 8 autos are given as long as at least 8 apply, but only 8 apply so all are given one. The OVC and MEAC have exhausted their right to an auto IMO.

[89Hen]

Devils advocate. At what point do we stop this expansion trend? 24? 30? 32? 64?
My guess is we'll be at 20 for only 2 years, then 24 for several. Not sure if it will get to 32, but that seems to be the natural progression.

[gophoenix]

My guess is we'll be at 20 for only 2 years, then 24 for several. Not sure if it will get to 32, but that seems to be the natural progression.

It's just funny.... I feel like I am reading a BCS board now. There's always reason for inclusion of the big boys and always reasons to keep the "little guys" out.

[89Hen]

It's just funny.... I feel like I am reading a BCS board now. There's always reason for inclusion of the big boys and always reasons to keep the "little guys" out.
xconfusedx xconfusedx

[UAalum72]

The whole notion about applying for autos is a joke. 8 autos are given as long as at least 8 apply, but only 8 apply so all are given one.
No, we know that nine have applied, and they didn't all get one.

[gophoenix]

xconfusedx xconfusedx

Let me ask this then. If FBS made a playoff, should the Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, CUSA or, heck, even the Big East get an automatic bid? Or should the playoffs be filled only with the "top" teams from the top conferences. After all, schedule will always be better in top conferences. Top conferences can choose what schools they want. And the bottom conferences would be stuck with no reward, no position of getting better because face it, your SoS will never be what it needs to be despite your wins as long as you're stuck in your crappy conference.

This isn't pro-football where you can buy yourself a new team yearly. or drastically improve your team year in and out by spending more money. Or where the league controls your schedule. This is college where you are locked into so many different parameters. After all, to be in a conference means you are locked into who you play for many of your games and well, even if you're good, you would still be on the outside looking in.

And if there is no post season reward, those "big conferences" well always have that recruiting edge on you. Which means they will always have that winning edge on you. Meaning they will always have that exposure edge. Meaning they will always have the money edge. And then the next season happens and the cycle starts over again.

So at the end of the day, FCS's top conferences become the FCS versions of the Pac-10, ACC, big 12, big 10 and sec.

[stevdock]

In recent years when the NEC champ played OOC vs. CAA or Big Sky:

2002 Albany (Montana 45 - Albany 7)
2005 Central Conn. State (URI 56 - CCSU 10)
2007 Albany (Hofstra 28 - Albany 13, Montana 35 - Albany 14)

My point isn't to bash the NEC or Big South, but to say their champ is worthy simply because they won their conference doesn't work for me. xtwocentsx

Are you ok with the smaller schools, which most of us are, making the college basketball tourney?? If you are ok with that, why not let the smaller schools into our tourney? Obviously in the basketball tourney their winning percentage isn't any better than what you posted, but they are still invited.

[downbythebeach]

Are you ok with the smaller schools, which most of us are, making the college basketball tourney?? If you are ok with that, why not let the smaller schools into our tourney? Obviously in the basketball tourney their winning percentage isn't any better than what you posted, but they are still invited.

The answer you are going to get on this board is that basketball and football are different

Nobody is really sure why they are different,...... but they just are
xcoolx

Makes sense to mexoopsx xrotatehx

[89Hen]

No, we know that nine have applied, and they didn't all get one.
Once, what, four years ago?

[89Hen]

Are you ok with the smaller schools, which most of us are, making the college basketball tourney?? If you are ok with that, why not let the smaller schools into our tourney? Obviously in the basketball tourney their winning percentage isn't any better than what you posted, but they are still invited.
I don't care about the basketball tourney other than an excuse to gamble and go to a bar in the middle of the day. Once we start playing 30 game regular seasons and two games a weekend in the tourney, then you can have as many as you like in our tourney.

[89Hen]

Let me ask this then. If FBS made a playoff, should the Sun Belt, MAC, MWC, CUSA or, heck, even the Big East get an automatic bid? Or should the playoffs be filled only with the "top" teams from the top conferences. After all, schedule will always be better in top conferences. Top conferences can choose what schools they want. And the bottom conferences would be stuck with no reward, no position of getting better because face it, your SoS will never be what it needs to be despite your wins as long as you're stuck in your crappy conference.
The excuse of those who refuse to schedule teams necessary to make the playoffs. xsmhx Coastal Carolina made the playoffs playing in the Big South. CalPoly made the playoffs playing in a non-auto conference. Albany and CCSU have had good enough schedules to make had they won the games. Dayton, San Diego, even Robert Morris have won enough games, but didn't have the schedule. You really think any of these teams have a hard time finding enough good games OOC? Please. xcoffeex

[danefan]

Once, what, four years ago?

The NEC has applied every year for the past 5 years I believe.

[89Hen]

The answer you are going to get on this board is that basketball and football are different

Nobody is really sure why they are different,...... but they just are
xcoolx

Makes sense to mexoopsx xrotatehx
Uh, yeah.

30-35 game schedules with 15+ OOC games a year
vs
11 game schedules with 3 OOC for most

Can go from 64 to 16 teams in four days with multiple games at each site
vs
Two rounds taking two weeks with one game per site

300+ teams
vs
100 teams

Yeah, no real differences... just made up ones. xcoffeex

[89Hen]

The NEC has applied every year for the past 5 years I believe.
Not AFAIK. One time, three or four years ago.

[gophoenix]

Uh, yeah.

30-35 game schedules with 15+ OOC games a year
vs
11 game schedules with 3 OOC for most

Can go from 64 to 16 teams in four days with multiple games at each site
vs
Two rounds taking two weeks with one game per site

300+ teams
vs
100 teams

Yeah, no real differences... just made up ones. xcoffeex

So for basketball, 21% of the division makes the NCAA Tournament. Another 32 make the NIT. So, 29% make playoffs as a reward. From all conferences. So 3 months to play 40 games at 2-3 hours apiece at 2-3 games per week normally. Then a 3 week tournament of 2 games per week.

Women's basketball is basically the same.

Baseball, double elimination. 64 teams make it. That is 29% of the teams. 6 months for 60-70 3-6 hours games at 3-5 per week. Then a 1 month tournament of 3-5 games per week

53% of FBS football makes a bowl. 3.5 months to play 11-12 games that last 3-5 hours apiece. Then a 2 month bowl period where a team plays once.

FCS football sees 12% make the playoffs soon to be 15% when it comes to 20 teams. 3.5 months to play 11-12 games that last 3-5 hours apiece. Then a 1 month or so period to play up to (now) 5 games for the playoffs.

All the "differences" are only excuses for making our playoffs exclusive.

And you're wrong 89Hen. As soon as SoS becomes key to make the playoffs, you'll see teams from non-elite conferences struggle to find teams to schedule. After all, why would SoCon and other schools schedule them when they would only drag the SoS down? This is the same type of stuff you see in FBS.

[ChantDad]

The excuse of those who refuse to schedule teams necessary to make the playoffs. xsmhx Coastal Carolina made the playoffs playing in the Big South...You really think any of these teams have a hard time finding enough good games OOC? Please. xcoffeex

Just keeping the record straight: Coastal made the '06 play-offs winning the conference AND beating Wofford, Furman and SC State among others...

[89Hen]

So for basketball, 21% of the division makes the NCAA Tournament. Another 32 make the NIT. So, 29% make playoffs as a reward. From all conferences.

Women's basketball is basically the same.

Baseball, double elimination. 64 teams make it. That is 29%.

53% of FBS football makes a bowl.

FCS football sees 12% make the playoffs soon to be 15% when it comes to 20 teams.

All the "differences" are only excuses for making our playoffs exclusive.

And you're wrong 89Hen. As soon as SoS becomes key to make the playoffs, you'll see teams from non-elite conferences struggle to find teams to schedule. After all, why would SoCon and other schools schedule them when they would only drag the SoS down? This is the same type of stuff you see in FBS.
xcoffeex Baseball? Shoot, they play two games IN ONE DAY all the time. NIT? Bowls? When did those become part of the national championship? A reward???? My theory was right. You're one of those people who want to give participation medals to everyone. There should be a reward, but it comes from PLAYING and BEATING ranked teams during the season. Why should it be on the playoffs dime?

What is this SOS key thing? Being in the SoCon gives you enough games against ranked teams where WINS are the key so they will go out of their way to schedule teams from lower ranked confernces. Most of the Big South hasn't had a problem finding teams to play... Wofford, Elon, Towson, Youngstown, AppSt, WCU, W&M, Richmond, Sam Houston, Colgate, Maine, Hofstra... all this coming year. Let's revisit this at the end of the year and see how the conference did against these teams.

[89Hen]

Just keeping the record straight: Coastal made the '06 play-offs winning the conference AND beating Wofford, Furman and SC State among others...
xnodx xthumbsupx The way it should have been in 2006. If the Big South has a big surge and is suddenly ranked among the top conferences, then they could earn an auto based on that. In 2006 or even today, the Big South title alone isn't enough IMO.

[gophoenix]

xcoffeex A reward???? My theory was right. You're one of those people who want to give participation medals to everyone. There should be a reward, but it comes from PLAYING and BEATING ranked teams during the season. Why should it be on the playoffs dime?

Uhm. No, you do not give a medal to everyone. But you give the ability to prove themselves on the field in the playoffs to everyone that could get it done in their conference.



What is this SOS key thing? Being in the SoCon gives you enough games against ranked teams where WINS are the key so they will go out of their way to schedule teams from lower ranked confernces. Most of the Big South hasn't had a problem finding teams to play... Wofford, Elon, Towson, Youngstown, AppSt, WCU, W&M, Richmond, Sam Houston, Colgate, Maine, Hofstra... all this coming year. Let's revisit this at the end of the year and see how the conference did against these teams.

If you remove or reduce automatic bids, the SoS becomes key, where SoS is not as key presently. That's what I am saying. And as soon as SoS becomes key, then schools like ours will stop scheduling the Big South and those schools because we'll all be trying to boost our SoS.

[89Hen]

Uhm. No, you do not give a medal to everyone. But you give the ability to prove themselves on the field in the playoffs to everyone that could get it done in their conference.
xdeadhorsex Over half the SoCon or Gateway or CAA could "get it done" in the NEC or Big South. EVERY team has the ability to prove themselves by scheduling and beating teams in the regular season. Some choose not to, some fail to do so. Others have succeeded at it as evidenced by the teams from non-auto conference that have made the playoffs in the past.

If you remove or reduce automatic bids, the SoS becomes key, where SoS is not as key presently. That's what I am saying. And as soon as SoS becomes key, then schools like ours will stop scheduling the Big South and those schools because we'll all be trying to boost our SoS.
xconfusedx Only one team per conference gets the auto. That means the other 7-8-11 teams have to rely on at-larges now. The #1 team from the SoCon, Gateway, CAA.... will ALWAYS get a bid whether it were an automatic or not. So there is absolutely NO difference in the way it is today and the way it would be if there were less autos.

[aceinthehole]

Not AFAIK. One time, three or four years ago.

Wrong! NEC officials have been quoted as saying they requested the AQ "multiple times" and that includes as recently as 2007.

[89Hen]

Wrong! NEC officials have been quoted as saying they requested the AQ "multiple times" and that includes as recently as 2007.
That would be news to me.

BTW, here was the 2007 criteria for selection of auto conferences:

Automatic Qualification Criteria/Process
The Division I Football Championship Committee will annually make the determination of which eligible conference will recieve automatic qualification. The following criteria are used when determining which conferences shall receive annual automatic qualification for the NCAA Division I Football Championship:
1. Nonconference records;
2. Strength of nonconference opponents;
3. Recent postseason history; and
4. Competition against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents.
The Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet policy stipulates that for the Division I Football Championship at least 50 percent of the bracket shall be reserved for at-large selections, and no more than 50 percent of the bracket shall be available for automatic qualification of eligible conferences.

[aceinthehole]

89 - its clear you don't like the expansion and that is fine, but let's not bring up competativeness of teams or conferences. Its a moot point to the NCAA.

FACT: In EVERY NCAA sports in which there is a national tourney, ALL eligible conferences are given direct access to the tourney (or a PIG) through an AQ.

FCS football is the ONLY exception. You can cite anything you want, but the NCAA has has even given all eligble conferences in D-II football AQs to national championships, so why is FCS so different? Its not about football being so "different."

Your argument that FCS is unique or that equal access should not apply has finally been overturned after mucxh work by the NEC over the past few years. Again, why do some people always get off topic about SOS or tourney wins? The NCAAs explantion has been CRYSTAL CLEAR. Its about fair and equal access for all conferences. It doesn't matter how long the season is or which conference is "stronger." The AQs exist so conference champs can particpate in the national tourney, period the end. It applies to all sports and all conferences.

[stevdock]

This argument is really going to come down to the OLD GUARD against really most everybody else. Well yes more AQ's could potentially cheapen the playoff experience, everyone should be included at having a shot in the playoffs. For some conferences, if they don't get an AQ, then they have no shot of getting in. With having an AQ, I guarantee that those schools will be less worried about having to win every game (both in conference and out of conference) and start scheduling tougher teams out of conference. This will happen because even if Albany loses 42-0 to Delaware, 10-9 to NDSU, and 20-10 to GSU, they will still have a chance at the playoffs if they win their conference. By giving this AQ, these teams have the chance to increase SOS which will better the team and COULD increase funding and recruiting possibilites in the future.

[OL FU]

This argument is really going to come down to the OLD GUARD against really most everybody else. Well yes more AQ's could potentially cheapen the playoff experience, everyone should be included at having a shot in the playoffs. For some conferences, if they don't get an AQ, then they have no shot of getting in. With having an AQ, I guarantee that those schools will be less worried about having to win every game (both in conference and out of conference) and start scheduling tougher teams out of conference. This will happen because even if Albany loses 42-0 to Delaware, 10-9 to NDSU, and 20-10 to GSU, they will still have a chance at the playoffs if they win their conference. By giving this AQ, these teams have the chance to increase SOS which will better the team and COULD increase funding and recruiting possibilites in the future.

That seems a little backwards, If you don't have an AQ you know you have to schedule up to possibly get a bid. I think Albany is a good example of scheduling up in a conferences without and auto bid. CCU is another good example and got in the playoffs.

[89Hen]

89 - its clear you don't like the expansion and that is fine, but let's not bring up competativeness of teams or conferences. Its a moot point to the NCAA.

FACT: In EVERY NCAA sports in which there is a national tourney, ALL eligible conferences are given direct access to the tourney (or a PIG) through an AQ.

FCS football is the ONLY exception. You can cite anything you want, but the NCAA has has even given all eligble conferences in D-II football AQs to national championships, so why is FCS so different? Its not about football being so "different."

Your argument that FCS is unique or that equal access should not apply has finally been overturned after mucxh work by the NEC over the past few years. Again, why do some people always get off topic about SOS or tourney wins? The NCAAs explantion has been CRYSTAL CLEAR. Its about fair and equal access for all conferences. It doesn't matter how long the season is or which conference is "stronger." The AQs exist so conference champs can particpate in the national tourney, period the end. It applies to all sports and all conferences.
I think this discussion has morphed into something it wasn't when it started. This was the post that got me going down this road...

Then tell me. Why should any team have a chance at the national title if they couldn't even win the automatic qualifier for their conference???? That's where AQs come from, it is a leftover from the days when NCAA sports had 0 at large bids.

IMHO, having no at-large teams makes more sense that denying any conference from having one.
The notion that conference winners were somehow more worthy just because they won a conference.

[89Hen]

For some conferences, if they don't get an AQ, then they have no shot of getting in.
Simply not true. When did Cal Poly and the Great West and Coastal and the Big South become part of the "old guard"? xconfusedx

[aceinthehole]

I think this discussion has morphed into something it wasn't when it started. This was the post that got me going down this road...

The notion that conference winners were somehow more worthy just because they won a conference.


I certainly can agree with you there. Again how many National Chapions in other sports don't win the conference championship each year? I'm guessing more than a few.

I guess my only point is the NEC football champ has as much right to an AQ and deserves to be in the FCS playoffs just as much as the any "low major" men's basketball champ has to be in March Madness. Its not about the odds of winning the National Championship - its all about earning access to the national tourey as your respective conference champ.

[stevdock]

Simply not true. When did Cal Poly and the Great West and Coastal and the Big South become part of the "old guard"? xconfusedx

That's not what I stated at all. I said this argument (meaning expansion) is between the Old Guard (does not want expansion) and most everyone else.

[stevdock]

That seems a little backwards, If you don't have an AQ you know you have to schedule up to possibly get a bid. I think Albany is a good example of scheduling up in a conferences without and auto bid. CCU is another good example and got in the playoffs.

Is that why Texas and Ohio State played back to back years? If they win yes they still have a great shot at the Championship game. If they lose they know that all they have to do is win their conference to get a BCS game.

[gophoenix]

Simply not true. When did Cal Poly and the Great West and Coastal and the Big South become part of the "old guard"? xconfusedx

Then change that to read "next to no shot."

16 playoff sports per year since 1998. Since 1997 we have had 2 (Jackson State, Hofstra in 1997, Hofstra in 1999, Hofstra in 2000, Florida Atlantic in 2003, Coastal in 2006). So in a ten year period, we have seen 6 participants come from the about 40-45 teams that are not represented by an automatic bid. 3% of the playoff field has been filled with teams that then comprised 35% of the I-AA teams.

[OL FU]

Is that why Texas and Ohio State played back to back years? If they win yes they still have a great shot at the Championship game. If they lose they know that all they have to do is win their conference to get a BCS game.

xrotatehx The BCS championship is not comparable to FCS. I think your point was with an AQ people would step up their OOC because losing the OOC didn't matter. But I think that is backwards, because if you have a conference that gets an AQ, that is not likely to get an a-large, then you focus on the conference. Not having the AQ actually forces you to play better ooc competition if you want to get in the playoffs, again see CCU.

The reason my school plays the schedule it plays is the understanding that if we don't win the conference a good record against quality ooc opponents increases the chances of an at large bid.

Maybe I misunderstood your point, cuz I certainly misunderstood the comparison.

[89Hen]

Then change that to read "next to no shot."

16 playoff sports per year since 1998. Since 1997 we have had 2 (Jackson State, Hofstra in 1997, Hofstra in 1999, Hofstra in 2000, Florida Atlantic in 2003, Coastal in 2006). So in a ten year period, we have seen 6 participants come from the about 40-45 teams that are not represented by an automatic bid. 3% of the playoff field has been filled with teams that then comprised 35% of the I-AA teams.
I think your math is off a little. You used 11 years and forgot CalPoly. I also only count 34 teams that don't have autos that want them (Ivy and SWAC obviously don't) and that even includes: UND, USD, Presby, Campbell, etc... that aren't even eligible yet and all the independants. Also, there are only 8 spots per year available to them. It would also make sense that fewer of the 34 have made the playoffs as they are in the lowest ranked conferences in the I-AA.

The shot is absolutely there it's just that some folks would rather the NCAA give them the shot instead of taking it themselves. If you like I can provide plenty of suggestions to any coach or AD who would like the "secret formula" for making the playoffs. :D

[OL FU]

The thread seems to have moved in many directions. I agree with those that say the champion of a conference should be able to participate if that conference wants an AQ. (and I am a member of the OLD guard and a relatively recent convert to that line of thinking) Of Course right now it is easier since some conferences don't qualify due to size and some don't want to participate. If the IVY and SWAC decided to participate and if the GWFC finds enough members then the amount of time the playoffs take becomes an obstacle.


However, I think only allowing conference champions would be a huge mistake due to the nature of football, ie, playing conference opponents once a year, homefield advantages, etc.

[89Hen]

The reason my school plays the schedule it plays is the understanding that if we don't win the conference a good record against quality ooc opponents increases the chances of an at large bid.
xnodx That answers gophoenix's question about the current and future OOC schedules.

[89Hen]

If the IVY and SWAC decided to participate and if the GWFC finds enough members then the amount of time the playoffs take becomes an obstacle.
Not really. Now that we're going to 20, it takes no less time than 32. That's why I said it's only a matter of time for 24 (2 years is my pick).

[OL FU]

Not really. Now that we're going to 20, it takes no less time than 32. That's why I said it's only a matter of time for 24 (2 years is my pick).

That's correct, I was not using a correct multiplier to determine the number of required weeks.

[gophoenix]

xnodx That answers gophoenix's question about the current and future OOC schedules.

Not really. What I keep saying about schedules is when and if you limit or get rid of AQs. If everyone is on equal footing, then SoS is the key.

So right now, OOC schedules are scattered all over the place. In a world with no AQs, that probably would not be the case.

[89Hen]

Not really. What I keep saying about schedules is when and if you limit or get rid of AQs. If everyone is on equal footing, then SoS is the key.

So right now, OOC schedules are scattered all over the place. In a world with no AQs, that probably would not be the case.
I'm not sure I can convince you otherwise, but you really haven't shown why that would be the case.

With only one auto per conference, every team has to schedule as if they are going for an at-large. For some teams in the SoCon, CAA, Gateway, it actually is better for them to schedule teams they think they can beat so they can get to 8-3 or better. Most play one I-A game, so 9 times out of 10 that's a loss. Their conference schedule and reputation are enough to take care of the SOS aspect.

The Big South and NEC will never have trouble finding games against SoCon or CAA opponents. Pioneer can find games against Gateway, SoCon, Big Sky... Can you find me any examples of BigSo, NEC or Pioneer teams that have been turned down for games? I know that San Diego turned down Cal Poly. A team that would have helped their SOS and bid for an at-large if they beat them. That's really where my problem lies with this whole issue. Teams do have it in their power to make schedules that would get them an at-large if they win.

[URMite]

All AQs - Would this lead to an even more heated discussion of the relative strength of each conference?

All at-large - Would this change the purpose of conferences into only scheduling convenience?

Is SOS viewed differently by those who believe their team needs to win 8, 9 and 10 out of 11 games to get serious consideration for an at-large? Perhaps teams in conferences that routinely have multiple playoff participants feel they don't need to add to their SOS but need to add to their win total instead to reach 8. Whereas perhaps some other teams feel they need to schedule as strong of a SOS as possible and still have a realistic chance at 10 wins.

I believe any conference that is a "qualifying conference" should receive an AQ. But what can be debated is what should be the definition of a "qualifying conference". If it is too easy or too hard to qualify it diminishes the playoffs in different ways.

I don't know much about Div-II but someone mention that all conferences get an AQ. Is that right? Does it work? If so what is different about FCS? How much does the strength of conferences in Div-II vary?

[89Hen]

I don't know much about Div-II but someone mention that all conferences get an AQ. Is that right? Does it work? If so what is different about FCS? How much does the strength of conferences in Div-II vary?
I'd like to know this info too. I've wondered if they have conferences that have long 0-fer stretches like we have.

[danefan]

I'd like to know this info too. I've wondered if they have conferences that have long 0-fer stretches like we have.

I think a portion of the AQ's in DII are regionally decided mid-season depending upon the conference rankings.

[stevdock]

D2 now is a little bit different then when we were D2. I do believe now every conference does have AQ. The conferences are grouped into regions for the playoffs and I believe there are 4 regions now with 8? teams making the playoffs in each region. They have gone through playoff expansion just recently too so that 8 might be off. Strength of conference varied alot in D2. The best conference many years was the NCC which NDSU, SDSU, UND among others were in. One of the other conferences in our region was traditionally much weaker so when their were 3 conferences and they did not get an AQ with 4 teams making the playoffs, our conference quite a few years would get 3 playoff teams with the other stronger conference getting 1 and the weaker conference not getting any.

Now the weaker conferences have gotten AQ's and it has helped them to compete when they get to the playoffs. In fact, I believe a few times that weaker conference has gotten a couple teams in the playoffs now and has won a few games in the playoffs. Neither winning or getting a couple teams in would have ever happened without their conference getting the AQ and expanding the playoffs. But they have proven that they can at least now compete with the stronger teams in the region.

As I said though, this info may be a little off since they have changed the playoffs so much since we moved up, but I believe for the most part this info is correct.

[89Hen]

I think a portion of the AQ's in DII are regionally decided mid-season depending upon the conference rankings.
So not all conferences get one? xeyebrowx

BTW, I'm on record saying our AQ's should have never been decided before the season starts. I mean how the hell do you pick the 8 best conferences before games have been played? xconfusedx

[stevdock]

89Hen if you said Basketball and the FBS are not the same as what we are talking about, why the heck does it matter what D2 does? Most of their playoffs are based on regionalization, which I haven't seen many people agree with outside of the cost issue.

D2 could easily have a losing team make the playoffs while keeping a 9-2 or 8-3 team home, based on how tough the region is that they are playing in.

[89Hen]

89Hen if you said Basketball and the FBS are not the same as what we are talking about, why the heck does it matter what D2 does?
xconfusedx I'm not sure it does but DII has to be more akin to I-AA football than basketball is. I'd just like to know more about their playoffs.

[stevdock]

Take a look at my post on the previous page for what I believe happens in the D2 playoffs.

[FargoBison]

So not all conferences get one? xeyebrowx

BTW, I'm on record saying our AQ's should have never been decided before the season starts. I mean how the hell do you pick the 8 best conferences before games have been played? xconfusedx

In DII certain conferences get autobids right away, due to their power. Lower level conferences can obtain "earned access" if their champion finishes in the top 10 of the regional poll.

[URMite]

I was the first to start asking more about Div-II after reading the bolded quote below. I thought it might shed some light on how to implement the same universal AQ policy in FCS. But the more I hear, the less certain it sounds that Div-II is a good model to follow.

I still think the best discussion is "What should be (not what is) the criteria for a conference to be eligible for an AQ?" Once that is decided, then all eligible conferences should only have to inform the NCAA that they desire to participate.

[QUOTE=aceinthehole;944358]89 - its clear you don't like the expansion and that is fine, but let's not bring up competativeness of teams or conferences. Its a moot point to the NCAA.

FACT: In EVERY NCAA sports in which there is a national tourney, ALL eligible conferences are given direct access to the tourney (or a PIG) through an AQ.

FCS football is the ONLY exception. You can cite anything you want, but the NCAA has has even given all eligble conferences in D-II football AQs to national championships, so why is FCS so different? Its not about football being so "different."
Your argument that FCS is unique or that equal access should not apply has finally been overturned after mucxh work by the NEC over the past few years. Again, why do some people always get off topic about SOS or tourney wins? The NCAAs explantion has been CRYSTAL CLEAR. Its about fair and equal access for all conferences. It doesn't matter how long the season is or which conference is "stronger." The AQs exist so conference champs can particpate in the national tourney, period the end. It applies to all sports and all conferences.[QUOTE]

[89Hen]

Take a look at my post on the previous page for what I believe happens in the D2 playoffs.
xoopsx You posted that right before my post which is at the top of this page for my browser and I didn't go back to see it. Thanks. xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

I think a portion of the AQ's in DII are regionally decided mid-season depending upon the conference rankings.


D2 now is a little bit different then when we were D2. I do believe now every conference does have AQ.


In DII certain conferences get autobids right away, due to their power. Lower level conferences can obtain "earned access" if their champion finishes in the top 10 of the regional poll.
So we're still not sure.

[aceinthehole]

I need to correct and clarify myself here. xreadx

Div. II Football no longer has "AQ" access. This was changed in 2004. The official NCAA championship selction now reads:


Earned Access. No conference will receive automatic qualification for the 2007 NCAA Division II Football Championship. Earned access to the playoffs can be gained by a conference if a conference representative finishes in the top 10 of the final regional rankings.

All teams shall be selected by the Division II Football Committee, assisted by regional advisory committees that serve in an advisory capacity only. Teams will be selected no later than Sunday, November 11. All final regular-season games are encouraged to be started not later than 3 p.m. local time, Saturday, November 10.

All teams will be eligible for the Division II championship in the region in which they are located geographically. There will be six teams selected per region to make up the field of 24 teams. The teams selected within each region will play each other in the first, second and quarterfinal rounds, with the regional winners playing in the semifinals.

The rational of this legislative change was:

The football championship bracket will expand to 24 teams in 2004. Expansion of the bracket will allow for earned access for 13 conferences as long as an institution from the conference finishes in the top 10 of its region in the final regional ranking of the season. Although access must be earned on a yearly basis, conference champions will usually secure access to the Division II Football Championship in most years. Pursuant to Bylaw 31.3.4, automatic qualification is considered only in those sports that have a championship bracket of 48 or more teams. Most team sports have 22 participating conferences. Since football has only 24 playoff spots and 13 official conferences, earned access will be a welcome alternative to the lack of an opportunity for automatic qualification.

Therefore, while not technically an "AQ" ALL conference champs have DIRECT and EQUAL access to the playoffs under a standard criteria. This is accomplished since you no longer have the issue of mandating at least 50% "at-large."

IMO - this is a compromise that would have been acceptable, with the critera a "Top-25 National ranking" in FCS. So would the "power conferences" agree to allowing "EA" bids that may reduce the at-large field? For example, last season under this system, DAYTON, would have earn a spot in the playoffs in place of the last at-large.

[SoCon48]

If no one is concerned about dillution of quality, why not just expand to 64 teams? That's absurd, but when the heck is the NCAA going to stop this gradual expansion?? They sure haven't stopped approving every Tampax Bowl, Viagra Bowl, Cheesecracker Bowl, Bagel Bowl, Donut Bowl, Spark Plug Bowl that comes along in the BCS.

[Syntax Error]

... FACT: In EVERY NCAA sports in which there is a national tourney, ALL eligible conferences are given direct access to the tourney (or a PIG) through an AQ...At least we all know that is not a FACT.
... ALL conference champs have DIRECT and EQUAL access to the playoffs under a standard criteria...Yes, since the beginning of the D-I playoffs all conference champs (in fact every team in D-I playoff ball) have direct and equal access to the tourney under a standard criteria.

[aceinthehole]

At least we all know that is not a FACT.Yes, since the beginning of the D-I playoffs all conference champs (in fact every team in D-I playoff ball) have direct and equal access to the tourney under a standard criteria.

It didn't take you long :p For the record, I clairfied my statement on my own to avoid any confusion. The premise of my original statement was true! My experience on this board has been that some people may have reading comprehension limitations, and therefore I simplified my statement for a greater mass understanding.

On the other hand, your second statement is simply not true. Only the 8 conference champs have had direct access to the playoffs; the at-large teams are selected by unknown and SUBJECTIVE criteria which is not published by the NCAA. There is no formula or transparent criteria for the remainder of the field, although some people seem to assume what the committee is thinking.

-----
"Direct" is defined as "without intervening persons, influences, factors, etc.; immediate."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/direct

Teams that win the AQ do not need to wait for the committe to meet. Their fate (and inclusion in the tourney) is already known. No intervention of any kind is required. This is why an AQ or EA is "direct" access to the playoffs, and at-large eligiblity is not direct access.

I welcome any reasonable and informed debate on this topic xpeacex

[Syntax Error]

... "Direct" is defined as "without intervening persons, influences, factors, etc.; immediate."

Teams that win the AQ do not need to wait for the committe to meet. Their fate (and inclusion in the tourney) is already known. No intervention of any kind is required. This is why an AQ or EA is "direct" access to the playoffs, and at-large eligiblity is not direct access...I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.

There has always been the incorrect idea propagated by some here that some teams in FCS do not have access to the playoffs.

To clarify, all teams continue to have equal access and now all conferences have guaranteed automatic qualification, based on criteria.

Before, all conferences had access to an AQ but the criteria was based on more than eligibility.

[bluehenbillk]

FYI on this whole topic:

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/sports/colleges.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-05-10-0132.html

[WileECoyote06]

There are no automatic qualifiers in division II football, nor are their qualifiers based on conference repuation.

The formula that determines the regional rankings is based on math (SOS), ie:

Decimal representation of (winning percentage vs D2 schools + Opponents winning percentage vs D2 schools + Opponents-Opponents winning percentage vs D2 school).
Generally, if a conference has a good OOC record, then that is the main indicator of conference strength. The top 6 teams in a regional ranking are guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, however if a conference is not represented in the top 6, but a conference member (not necessarily, but usually the champion) is represented in the top 10, then that conference member advances to the playoffs, knocking the 6th seed back.

After those aforementioned indicators, other factors come into play like:

1) Head-to-Head
2) Performance against common opponents
3) Other factors

This 'formula' has caused intense controversy in the last two years and mainly in the southern region (until this year the only region with four conferences).

2006 - Tiffin, a member of the Great Lakes Football Conference finished the season with 10 wins and was excluded due to weak SOS. That conference was not represented in the playoffs. Valdosta State was excluded from the playoffs with a 9 - 2 record after they were bumped from the sixth spot by Albany State, a team they'd beaten in the regular season. Many have claimed that VSU was actually in seventh place and Wingate was bumped from the 6th spot.

2007 - Carson-Newman finished the regular season 10 - 1, with it's only loss to South Atlantic champion Catawba, but was bumped from the sixth spot in a year which saw three teams from the Gulf South finish with one loss. Shaw University crept up from outside the rankings in the final two weeks of the season, and then won the CIAA championship game to enter the top ten, thus bumping CNC from the playoffs.

It's certainly a far from perfect scenario. If D2 awarded AQs instead of EA, the controversy wouldn't die down because teams would already be aware, that if you don't win your conference you aren't guaranteed a spot.

[89Hen]

Therefore, while not technically an "AQ" ALL conference champs have DIRECT and EQUAL access to the playoffs under a standard criteria. This is accomplished since you no longer have the issue of mandating at least 50% "at-large."

IMO - this is a compromise that would have been acceptable, with the critera a "Top-25 National ranking" in FCS. So would the "power conferences" agree to allowing "EA" bids that may reduce the at-large field? For example, last season under this system, DAYTON, would have earn a spot in the playoffs in place of the last at-large.
Could be a good solution IMO. AQ IF...

[89Hen]

FYI on this whole topic:

http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/sports/colleges.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-05-10-0132.html
xeyebrowx Will the NCAA eat the costs of the extra games they added? Doubtful.

[eaglesrthe1]

xeyebrowx Will the NCAA eat the costs of the extra games they added? Doubtful.

They certainly will, if the schools follows the budget guideline for reimbursement. The problem is that the schools treat it as a reward scenario and include more people in the travel party than the NCAA budgets for. Now I'm not criticising that decision, it's just that you can't make that choice and then complain about it in the press. Well, I guess that you can, but you shouldn't. UR wants to splurge and reward, then bitch because they actually have to pay for their splurging. Imagine that.

It also applies if teams overbid what their fan support will pay for in order to host, and then have to make up the shortfall. Once again, you make your bed... what grounds do you have to complain because it's the bed you have to lie in?

[aceinthehole]

I see what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.

There has always been the incorrect idea propagated by some here that some teams in FCS do not have access to the playoffs.

To clarify, all teams continue to have equal access and now all conferences have guaranteed automatic qualification, based on criteria.

Before, all conferences had access to an AQ but the criteria was based on more than eligibility.

I agree with you here! I personally never said some teams were excluded or did not have ANY access to the playoffs. I know that some people here tried to make that point and they were wrong.

The point I have always mainatined is there is a huge difference between AQs and at-large bids. By not having an AQ bid, certain teams did not have DIRECT ACCESS to they playoffs, while certain others did. Of course all teams could have EARNED an at-large, but that is another issue.

By denying an eligible conference DIRECT access through an AQ (or EA system) this was puting unfair RESTRICTION on certain teams.

Now, the good thing about the EA system is that it gives DIRECT ACCESS to any conference champ who meets the stated criteria. All conferences are on a even playing field. xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

They certainly will, if the schools follows the budget guideline for reimbursement. The problem is that the schools treat it as a reward scenario and include more people in the travel party than the NCAA budgets for....

It also applies if teams overbid what their fan support will pay for in order to host, and then have to make up the shortfall. Once again, you make your bed... what grounds do you have to complain because it's the bed you have to lie in?
The losses weren't just from travelling. As you pointed out they can be from overbidding, but that too is partly the NCAA's fault. By granting home games on bids instead of rankings, you are putting the schools in a no-win situation. If you don't bid, you make your program look bad and as if you don't support them. If you do bid, you stand to lose money. What is the solution?

[eaglesrthe1]

The losses weren't just from travelling. As you pointed out they can be from overbidding, but that too is partly the NCAA's fault. By granting home games on bids instead of rankings, you are putting the schools in a no-win situation. If you don't bid, you make your program look bad and as if you don't support them. If you do bid, you stand to lose money. What is the solution?

You can say it's the NCAA's fault, but in reality it's just a choice. The NCAA is looking to control costs to each individual school, by maximizing the profits from a few universities such as ASU and Montana. If they didn't have these surpluses, then the average costs to each school would be higher. They could limit these costs by limiting the exposure (ESPN) but that is a cost/benefit analysis.

They could limit this by having hosting determined by seeds... assuming the minimum bids are met which must be sufficient to cover the expenses. The drawback to this is that the NCAA does not maximize the potential to make money from institutions that may host, such as Montana or App State based on attendance first, rather than on field success first. The results of which is to raise the average costs to all schools which might would leave a school such as UR on the outside anyway.

[89Hen]

You can say it's the NCAA's fault, but in reality it's just a choice. The NCAA is looking to control costs to each individual school, by maximizing the profits from a few universities such as ASU and Montana. If they didn't have these surpluses, then the average costs to each school would be higher. They could limit these costs by limiting the exposure (ESPN) but that is a cost/benefit analysis.
The NCAA is running a championship tournament. Finding the I-AA champion should be priority number one for the NCAA. You don't think the NCAA makes enough money from other events to help defray the costs of having home games at the higher ranked teams regardless of bid? Keep in mind that my school benefits greatly for the way it's done now, but I'm not sure I agree with it from a philosophical standpoint. If a Wofford or Richmond or Lafayette want to host a game without a seed, they have to pay for it. With more of our games being picked up on TV, it's not such an exposure thing anymore where we needed 15,000 fans at a game instead of 5,000. xtwocentsx

[eaglesrthe1]

The NCAA is running a championship tournament. Finding the I-AA champion should be priority number one for the NCAA. You don't think the NCAA makes enough money from other events to help defray the costs of having home games at the higher ranked teams regardless of bid? Keep in mind that my school benefits greatly for the way it's done now, but I'm not sure I agree with it from a philosophical standpoint. If a Wofford or Richmond or Lafayette want to host a game without a seed, they have to pay for it. With more of our games being picked up on TV, it's not such an exposure thing anymore where we needed 15,000 fans at a game instead of 5,000. xtwocentsx

Hey 89, you and I are 100% on the same page here, GSU has benefited from this also. However I think that the powers that be might have a different take on it. I wish that it all came down to was has your team earned it rather than can you pay for it.

If only.xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

However I think that the powers that be might have a different take on it. I wish that it all came down to was has your team earned it rather than can you pay for it.

If only.xthumbsupx
It strikes me as odd that the NCAA commercials portray them as an organization devoted to the student-athlete and that they perhaps take the moral high ground, but when it comes to money....

[URMite]

They certainly will, if the schools follows the budget guideline for reimbursement. The problem is that the schools treat it as a reward scenario and include more people in the travel party than the NCAA budgets for. Now I'm not criticising that decision, it's just that you can't make that choice and then complain about it in the press. Well, I guess that you can, but you shouldn't. UR wants to splurge and reward, then bitch because they actually have to pay for their splurging. Imagine that.

It also applies if teams overbid what their fan support will pay for in order to host, and then have to make up the shortfall. Once again, you make your bed... what grounds do you have to complain because it's the bed you have to lie in?

I'm not sure I see it as bitching. More as a way to keep alumni from believing that just because you had a good season, you don't need more money. Of course, I guess it depends on who the target audience was for that article. If you are complaining to the NCAA about your decision that is a problem. If you are complaining to your fans who were asking for a home game or perks then I don't see what is wrong with that.

Actually, I see the numbers as more of an incentive to attempt a successful bid. We lost an average of $15k on away games and $20k on a home game with 3200 attendance. To me that means it wouldn't take much increase in attendance for the home game to be the better financial proposition. Not to mention that it is better publicity. To me that increases my surprise that more teams don't make more of an effort at a successful bid. For some reason, I thought successful bids were a bit higher.

You may not get all home games but we have had 1 home game in each of our last 4 appearances ('98, '00, '05, '07).

[eaglesrthe1]

I'm not sure I see it as bitching. More as a way to keep alumni from believing that just because you had a good season, you don't need more money. Of course, I guess it depends on who the target audience was for that article. If you are complaining to the NCAA about your decision that is a problem. If you are complaining to your fans who were asking for a home game or perks then I don't see what is wrong with that.

Actually, I see the numbers as more of an incentive to attempt a successful bid. We lost an average of $15k on away games and $20k on a home game with 3200 attendance. To me that means it wouldn't take much increase in attendance for the home game to be the better financial proposition. Not to mention that it is better publicity. To me that increases my surprise that more teams don't make more of an effort at a successful bid. For some reason, I thought successful bids were a bit higher.

You may not get all home games but we have had 1 home game in each of our last 4 appearances ('98, '00, '05, '07).


You may be right, but IMO the issue with the article seems to be that the University officials are saying that their hands are tied with the financial losses, when that's not the case for the most part. By keeping the travel party to the NCAA guidelines, the school will be reimbursed in full for road games. Now, if you can't draw but 3200 and still want to host, I'm sure that you will see some losses. The alternative is to go on the road for free.

[URMite]

You may be right, but IMO the issue with the article seems to be that the University officials are saying that their hands are tied with the financial losses, when that's not the case for the most part. By keeping the travel party to the NCAA guidelines, the school will be reimbursed in full for road games. Now, if you can't draw but 3200 and still want to host, I'm sure that you will see some losses. The alternative is to go on the road for free.

I still think the most important aspect is determining who the article is speaking to. If it is the NCAA and complaining about the financial aspect, then you are right the method to avoid losses is already in place. If it is directed at the fan base and saying "You want home games? You want us to pay for players' families to attend and pay for a pregame party at away games? Then we need more support." Then maybe they are correct in saying their hands are tied by fan expectations without enough fan support.

Of course, it could be our AD is still disappointed that the FCS financial situation is not the same one he left behind a decade ago (BCS & Bowl games). But I'd like to think he would be over that by now.

It is also possible that I am tuning out the whining as it seems many of our fans are doing. Most of the response I'm hearing from this article is "Football has never been profitable at our school and won't be in the future. But the vast majority of the university community expect its continued existence and success, therefore the administration must accept what that requires."

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

Actually, I see the numbers as more of an incentive to attempt a successful bid. We lost an average of $15k on away games and $20k on a home game with 3200 attendance. To me that means it wouldn't take much increase in attendance for the home game to be the better financial proposition. ]Not to mention that it is better publicity. To me that increases my surprise that more teams don't make more of an effort at a successful bid. For some reason, I thought successful bids were a bit higher.

You may not get all home games but we have had 1 home game in each of our last 4 appearances ('98, '00, '05, '07).

:o which is why the NCAA is not after money at this level. I have heard that JMU outbid UR in 2007, in fact, having the second highest bid after App St. Unfortunately, they pair the teams first. Thus, the Dukes always play on the road, regardless of $$$. xbawlingx

Hopefully, having an official capacity of 24,484 in 2011 will help! xthumbsupx

[putter]

Why don't they at least seed the top 8? Then the top teams don't have to give away the farm to get rewarded for a good season. Wofford was done no favors last year by fighting to be the SoCon champ and then getting rewarded by being sent to Montana. The schools who play well should get the revenue by getting a first round home game and the positive press towards the alumni and areas that they are located in. I agree with Hen, the NCAA gets paid billions just for allowing CBS to televise March Madness and while the BCS is not an NCAA event they do get the cash from the bowls being televised. I have said before, the NCAA needs to step up and go to bat for the FCS and force ESPN to promote the playoffs and promote this "playoff format" that the FBS can't seem to get it's hands around.

[danefan]

Why wouldn't the NCAA promote FCS playoffs more then they do? Especially if its ESPN footing the bill?

Its not like it will detract from BCS bowl games. There isn't a huge overlap and the bowl games that do overlap don't have great vieweship anyway.

Is it just a lack of FCS people in top spots?

[putter]

Why wouldn't the NCAA promote FCS playoffs more then they do? Especially if its ESPN footing the bill?

Its not like it will detract from BCS bowl games. There isn't a huge overlap and the bowl games that do overlap don't have great vieweship anyway.

Is it just a lack of FCS people in top spots?

Honestly, ESPN televised just as many high-school football regular season games as they did he FCS (not counting HBCU). Heck, the world series of poker get 10x the hype that the FCS playoffs get on ESPN. All the FCS gets is that idiot Herbstriet handing a cupcake to Corso and says "Nobody wants to see App State" and we still can't get any love when they slap Michigan