Subjectivity and Inconsistencies!

[matfu]

there is way too much subjectivity and inconsistency that has come into this playoff stuff this year.

-for instance, the head of the selection committee said on the AGS show sunday afternoon that "you would really have to justify giving three teams from the same conference a first round game"; my interpretation of that is that ga southern was on the road because app state and furman already had home games; when did this new unwritten rule come into being?

-if it is true that richmond got the home game with furman to make it fairer etc....this must be new since james madison won three road games leading up to 'nooga last year (never been done before-congrats to them)

-and the youngstown state fiasco this year (i mean would you rather be furman on the road who can decide everything on the field, or ys who never got to prove anything)?

-the only thing SAFE is the top 4 seeds (the ga so loss costs us two home games) which is fine, but there needs to be more objectivity (and this needs to be published so we all know the criteria etc) and less subjectivity in who gets home games for the unseeded portion of the field

[rokamortis]

there is way too much subjectivity and inconsistency that has come into this playoff stuff this year.

-for instance, the head of the selection committee said on the AGS show sunday afternoon that "you would really have to justify giving three teams from the same conference a first round game"; my interpretation of that is that ga southern was on the road because app state and furman already had home games; when did this new unwritten rule come into being?

-if it is true that richmond got the home game with furman to make it fairer etc....this must be new since james madison won three road games leading up to 'nooga last year (never been done before-congrats to them)

-and the youngstown state fiasco this year (i mean would you rather be furman on the road who can decide everything on the field, or ys who never got to prove anything)?

-the only thing SAFE is the top 4 seeds (the ga so loss costs us two home games) which is fine, but there needs to be more objectivity (and this needs to be published so we all know the criteria etc) and less subjectivity in who gets home games for the unseeded portion of the field

I agree that there should be openness - but I also agree that 3 teams froma single conference shouldn't host if possible. About Furman going on the road to Richmond - seems the game should be at Furman unless Richmond had a bigger bid, and if that is the case then no one to blame besides the administration.

As far as Youngstown not making it - I think Lafayette deserved to go in over YSU since LC had better wins. This was a crazy year with probably 20+ schools that should have been in - that's why I think they should expand the playoffs. It would be better to have too many teams than not enough.

[SoCon48]

I agree that there should be openness - but I also agree that 3 teams froma single conference shouldn't host if possible. About Furman going on the road to Richmond - seems the game should be at Furman unless Richmond had a bigger bid, and if that is the case then no one to blame besides the administration.

As far as Youngstown not making it - I think Lafayette deserved to go in over YSU since LC had better wins. This was a crazy year with probably 20+ schools that should have been in - that's why I think they should expand the playoffs. It would be better to have too many teams than not enough.
Then we'd have to either add another game to the play-offs or create unfairness with byes. 5 games would be about half a season. So a traveling team would be playing a half a season for free if they survived (like JMU did). I would say the NCAA is not THAT stupid, but we all know better.

[AppGuy04]

I agree that there should be openness - but I also agree that 3 teams froma single conference shouldn't host if possible. About Furman going on the road to Richmond - seems the game should be at Furman unless Richmond had a bigger bid, and if that is the case then no one to blame besides the administration.

As far as Youngstown not making it - I think Lafayette deserved to go in over YSU since LC had better wins. This was a crazy year with probably 20+ schools that should have been in - that's why I think they should expand the playoffs. It would be better to have too many teams than not enough.

u would prefer to have watered down first and second round games??? :confused:

[rokamortis]

u would prefer to have watered down first and second round games??? :confused:

You are going to have 'watered down' games no matter what unless you do the BCS style. I'd rather give as many teams a shot as possible. You never know - if YSU or SC State or any other bubble team would have made it then who knows what would have happened.

As far as a team potentially having 5 away games - that's the price you pay unfortunately. Come up with a top bid or be one of the top teams and the argument is moot. They get paid for travel and might see some of the profits as well. no one said you were supposed to make money in the playoffs.

To the argument of adding another week - we could start a week early like D2 does.

[SwoopEWU]

You are going to have 'watered down' games no matter what unless you do the BCS style. I'd rather give as many teams a shot as possible. You never know - if YSU or SC State or any other bubble team would have made it then who knows what would have happened.

As far as a team potentially having 5 away games - that's the price you pay unfortunately. Come up with a top bid or be one of the top teams and the argument is moot. They get paid for travel and might see some of the profits as well. no one said you were supposed to make money in the playoffs.

To the argument of adding another week - we could start a week early like D2 does.

You say that bubble teams like YSU and SC State would have made it however making the field larger does not eliminate bubble teams only creates different ones. There will ALWAYS be good "bubble" teams left on the outside looking in every year thats just the nature of a selected playoff system, making the field larger does not change this. I think right now the size of the tournament is not the issue, would like to see how home and aways are determined tweeked a little however though. :cool:

[Cap'n Cat]

there is way too much subjectivity and inconsistency that has come into this playoff stuff this year.

-for instance, the head of the selection committee said on the AGS show sunday afternoon that "you would really have to justify giving three teams from the same conference a first round game"; my interpretation of that is that ga southern was on the road because app state and furman already had home games; when did this new unwritten rule come into being?

-if it is true that richmond got the home game with furman to make it fairer etc....this must be new since james madison won three road games leading up to 'nooga last year (never been done before-congrats to them)

-and the youngstown state fiasco this year (i mean would you rather be furman on the road who can decide everything on the field, or ys who never got to prove anything)?

-the only thing SAFE is the top 4 seeds (the ga so loss costs us two home games) which is fine, but there needs to be more objectivity (and this needs to be published so we all know the criteria etc) and less subjectivity in who gets home games for the unseeded portion of the field


Regarding Youngstown and the playoffs, I get down on them fiercely, but I know that, had not a couple of rogue posters started problems here with some patently off-the-wall *****, things would be cool.

I do not agree with anyone who suggests YSU shoulda been in before Lafayette. Bottom line is that YSU lost key games down the stretch. The selection committee, though we may not always agree with them, sees that, and acts accordingly. Youngstown State needs to win the important games down the stretch (home and away) to put themselves in a position to be selected.


:rolleyes:

[penguinonastick]

You say that bubble teams like YSU and SC State would have made it however making the field larger does not eliminate bubble teams only creates different ones. There will ALWAYS be good "bubble" teams left on the outside looking in every year thats just the nature of a selected playoff system, making the field larger does not change this. I think right now the size of the tournament is not the issue, would like to see how home and aways are determined tweeked a little however though. :cool:


D-II and D-III get it done so why can't 1-AA? The 8 conference winners can have the bye week and the other 16 at-large teams could play the first round. Conference champs can then host after the first round. Seems easy to me - then teams that can possibly have a shot will. Obviously 8 at-large is not enough for the amount of teams that are stepping up their programs to compete. Good post matfu!!! :hurray: :hurray:

[Hansel]

Solution, drop the autobids, Colgate out, YSU in.

[Maverick]

All of these arguments are made every year, the names change based on whose "bubble" burst this time and who had to travel. Even with all the changes suggested there will be "bubble" teams and teams will have to travel when they don't feel they deserve it. Wonder who will be the red-headed stepchildren next year? When you have a limited number of slots but there are more who meet the minimum qualifications the end result will not change. Just keep all your posts so that next year the names can be changed an used again.

[*****]

Right now there are roughly one in five unrestricted equivalency teams in I-AA making the playoffs. Now you want to expand the playoffs to 24 teams so roughly one in three get in? That's what I'd call watered down.

[Cap'n Cat]

Right now there are roughly one in five unrestricted equivalency teams in I-AA making the playoffs. Now you want to expand the playoffs to 24 teams so roughly one in three get in? That's what I'd call watered down.


Agreed, Ralphadeus.

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

[Cap'n Cat]

All of these arguments are made every year, the names change based on whose "bubble" burst this time and who had to travel. Even with all the changes suggested there will be "bubble" teams and teams will have to travel when they don't feel they deserve it. Wonder who will be the red-headed stepchildren next year? When you have a limited number of slots but there are more who meet the minimum qualifications the end result will not change. Just keep all your posts so that next year the names can be changed an used again.


Mavvy,


:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:
:bow: :bow: :bow: :bow:

There are no whiners in football. If your sorry-ass team didn't win the crucial games to get them in, they're *****ed.

Try again next year.

:cool:

[Maverick]

I am extremely glad to see that you didn't reply with the fabled one finger salute that I am sure that some feel I deserve. Since they are going I-A next year, they won't have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that they believe the playoffs to be.

[Cap'n Cat]

I am extremely glad to see that you didn't reply with the fabled one finger salute that I am sure that some feel I deserve. Since they are going I-A next year, they won't have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that they believe the playoffs to be.



Poor Youngstown.

:bawling: :bawling: :bawling: waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa waa

[blukeys]

D-II and D-III get it done so why can't 1-AA? The 8 conference winners can have the bye week and the other 16 at-large teams could play the first round. Conference champs can then host after the first round. Seems easy to me - then teams that can possibly have a shot will. Obviously 8 at-large is not enough for the amount of teams that are stepping up their programs to compete. Good post matfu!!! :hurray: :hurray:


It is amazing. No YSU poster has made this argument in the 90's when YSU was getting in and others were not. I-AA has not grown appreciably since the mid 90's when you exclude the non - scolly d-3 wannabe's (Dayton, Butler et al). Now when YSU is out they think that more teams need to get into the playoffs. What utter Hypocrisy!!!!!
Where were you in the 90's? I-AA has lost Marshall, Nevada, Boise State in the 90's and now you want more playoff slots? !!!

Wake up you weren't picked!!! Others have absorbed this reality without half the whining of the YSU crowd. What a bunch of poor whiny sports!!!

[89Hen]

All of these arguments are made every year, the names change based on whose "bubble" burst this time and who had to travel. Even with all the changes suggested there will be "bubble" teams and teams will have to travel when they don't feel they deserve it.
:nod: Make it 64 and the 65th team will feel cheated. No expansion needed.

[rokamortis]

My reason for wanting an expanded playoff isn't for Coastal's sake - honestly. I just feel the more teams that participate the better the playoffs are. No matter how many teams participate someone will get left out obviously - but I'd rather reward as many players as possible with opportunities to compete for a shot at the title. And in I-AA that's what matters, right? The more we keep it at 16 the more we look like the BCS. the 'lower; divisions do it, so why can't we? Hell, half of the I-A schools geta shot at the post-season and get better ratings doing so. You spread the wealth and you will watch I-AA prosper.

[Cap'n Cat]

My reason for wanting an expanded playoff isn't for Coastal's sake - honestly. I just feel the more teams that participate the better the playoffs are. No matter how many teams participate someone will get left out obviously - but I'd rather reward as many players as possible with opportunities to compete for a shot at the title. And in I-AA that's what matters, right? The more we keep it at 16 the more we look like the BCS. the 'lower; divisions do it, so why can't we? Hell, half of the I-A schools geta shot at the post-season and get better ratings doing so. You spread the wealth and you will watch I-AA prosper.


....and sacrifice integrity.

No, thanky.

:rolleyes:

[rokamortis]

....and sacrifice intergrity.

No, thanky.

:rolleyes:

Please explain how integrity is sacrificed.

[Cap'n Cat]

Please explain how integrity is sacrificed.


Watered down.

[rokamortis]

Watered down.

That isn't an explanation but rather a re-statement.

We might as well go to 8 teams because it is not as watered down as 16. then we should go to 4 because that is obviously better yet. And you know what - we should just have 2 teams as that would provide the least 'watered down' playoff picture.

[skinny_uncle]

That isn't an explanation but rather a re-statement.

We might as well go to 8 teams because it is not as watered down as 16. then we should go to 4 because that is obviously better yet. And you know what - we should just have 2 teams as that would provide the least 'watered down' playoff picture.
Making an argument for the BCS?

No matter what the number, someone will feel slighted. If they included every team in IAA, the next step would be to complain about who had to travel, how far, etc. It is in a fan's nature to complain when they feel their team got shortchanged. If new teams keep coming into IAA, there might be a good argument for expansion of the playoffs in the future. I'm not sure we are there yet.

[SoCon48]

My reason for wanting an expanded playoff isn't for Coastal's sake - honestly. I just feel the more teams that participate the better the playoffs are. No matter how many teams participate someone will get left out obviously - but I'd rather reward as many players as possible with opportunities to compete for a shot at the title. And in I-AA that's what matters, right? The more we keep it at 16 the more we look like the BCS. the 'lower; divisions do it, so why can't we? Hell, half of the I-A schools geta shot at the post-season and get better ratings doing so. You spread the wealth and you will watch I-AA prosper.

Let's see. 1st round. #1 seed at 10-1 plays a #32 6-5 at home.

Wealth? What wealth? Road teams which would be the lower seeds get zip for playing.

[rokamortis]

Making an argument for the BCS?

No matter what the number, someone will feel slighted. If they included every team in IAA, the next step would be to complain about who had to travel, how far, etc. It is in a fan's nature to complain when they feel their team got shortchanged. If new teams keep coming into IAA, there might be a good argument for expansion of the playoffs in the future. I'm not sure we are there yet.

It is only my opinion of course - but I'd like to see a better argument than 'expanding would make the playoffs too watered down' as that does make an argument for the BCS.

I could give crap if a team feels slighted - I think we should reward the players for all of their hardwork.

[rokamortis]

Let's see. 1st round. #1 seed at 10-1 plays a #32 6-5 at home.

Wealth? What wealth? Road teams which would be the lower seeds get zip for playing.

it was a figure of speech, not a literal statement. I used a play on words implying that the playoffs are the wealth of I-AA.

And even if we went to 32 teams - i doubt there would be many 6-5 teams, if any.

And upsets happen - 'Any Given Saturday'

[SoCon48]

You are going to have 'watered down' games no matter what unless you do the BCS style. I'd rather give as many teams a shot as possible. You never know - if YSU or SC State or any other bubble team would have made it then who knows what would have happened.

As far as a team potentially having 5 away games - that's the price you pay unfortunately. Come up with a top bid or be one of the top teams and the argument is moot. They get paid for travel and might see some of the profits as well. no one said you were supposed to make money in the playoffs.

To the argument of adding another week - we could start a week early like D2 does.

No they won't see any profits. You aren't paid for travel, just re-imbursed for expenses, which covers a skeleton crew. Hell, players who have practiced all year don't even get to go sit in the stands.

You're right, no one, especially the NCAA said you were supposed to make money in the play-offs. But in hoops you certainly do and the NCAA makes a killing in both.

[matfu]

my biggest point was that with regard to hosting games etc, the rulles appear to have changed since last year. i would like more objective open criteria, not this, "well why are we going to richmond" etc. my uinderstanding is the committee wanted to make it fair by giving richmond a home game since they were on the road 1st round. why can't they just tell you "richmond's bid was higher". i don't think it was.

[SoCon48]

it was a figure of speech, not a literal statement. I used a play on words implying that the playoffs are the wealth of I-AA.

And even if we went to 32 teams - i doubt there would be many 6-5 teams, if any.

And upsets happen - 'Any Given Saturday'

If any? Right now, in the Coaches Poll rankings, #21 is 5-4, #26 is 6-4, #27 is 6-4, #29 is 6-5, #31 is 5-5 and in the other poll, #30 WKU is 5-5 as well, and #33 in case someone above is slighted is 5-5.
It would be at least this bad every year.

[89Hen]

I think we should reward the players for all of their hardwork.
Which players? The ones on 7-4 teams? :cool:

[*****]

... the 'lower; divisions do it, so why can't we?...The "lower divisions" let in fewer teams than I-AA does by ratio for the playoffs. What are you saying?

In other words, I-AA lets in more playoff teams now. Why let in even more?

[rokamortis]

If any? Right now, in the Coaches Poll rankings, #21 is 5-4, #26 is 6-4, #27 is 6-4, #29 is 6-5, #31 is 5-5 and in the other poll, #30 WKU is 5-5 as well, and #33 in case someone above is slighted is 5-5.
It would be at least this bad every year.

We all know that the polls are not what selects the field. But to use another example - in the GPI there are 4 5-loss teams. My point for saying 'if any' is that they would likely select teams with weaker schedules or non-schollie teams for those few slots each year.

[rokamortis]

Which players? The ones on 7-4 teams? :cool:

As many players as possible :nod:

[89Hen]

Please explain how integrity is sacrificed.
THE biggest complaint about playoffs by I-A fans is that they render a lot of the regular season meaningless. We all know that to not be true, but the more teams you add, the closer that statement is to reality. We're not talking about the 10-1 or even 9-2 teams that get dissed by a 16 team field. You'd end up with Illinois State at 7-4, UMass at 7-4, Montana State at 7-4... these are good teams, but for crying out loud they lost FOUR games during the regular season. They are NOT worthy of the playoffs IMO.

[89Hen]

As many players as possible :nod:
Well ****, just forget the regular season and make it one big single elimination tourney starting the first week of September so nobody gets their feelings hurt. :rolleyes:

[rokamortis]

Well ****, just forget the regular season and make it one big single elimination tourney starting the first week of September so nobody gets their feelings hurt. :rolleyes:

Again - it isn't about people getting their feelings hurt - it is about allowing more players to compete for the national championship.

[*****]

Again - it isn't about people getting their feelings hurt - it is about allowing more players to compete for the national championship.I-AA ALREADY LETS THE MOST PLAY FOR A TITLE.

Tell me why more should be allowed?

[89Hen]

Again - it isn't about people getting their feelings hurt - it is about allowing more players to compete for the national championship.
UGH! Round and round we go. They DO have the potential to compete for the NC. They do it from the first week in September until the week before Thanksgiving.

EDIT: Obviously the mid-majors don't if they don't play a good enough schedule, but these players know going in when they start their football careers there, the best they can hope for is a mid-major title.

[rokamortis]

I-AA ALREADY LETS THE MOST PLAY FOR A TITLE.

Tell me why more should be allowed?

To reward the players - now tell me why we don't need any more.

[89Hen]

To reward the players - now tell me why we don't need any more.
Which players? We don't need any more.

[rokamortis]

I-A allows half of their teams to participate in the post-season and get better ratings so they must be doing something right.

[*****]

To reward the players - now tell me why we don't need any more.You were the one to say why can't it be like "lower divisions" so maybe I-AA should reduce their field of 16?

[rokamortis]

Which players?

Again - as many as possible.

[89Hen]

I-A allows half of their teams to participate in the post-season and get better ratings so they must be doing something right.
I-A allows 2 to participate in the National Championship.

[*****]

I-A allows half of their teams to participate in the post-season and get better ratings so they must be doing something right.Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

So what you mean is WHY CAN'T WE BE LIKE I-A! No thanks... watered down.

[89Hen]

Again - as many as possible.
Then AGAIN, why not do away with the regular season and make the whole thing playoffs? This isn't a rhetorical question. Please feel free to answer it.

[rokamortis]

You were the one to say why can't it be like "lower divisions" so maybe I-AA should reduce their field of 16?

I made that argument too - we could be more BCS like if you wish.

The lower divisions do allow more teams. DII has 24 and DIII has 32, right? If we open up I-AA to allow all of the teasm that want to participate in we would be closer to those numbers.

[*****]

I think 16 is the limit until we have a couple more conferences in I-AA, 16-20 more participants.

[rokamortis]

Then AGAIN, why not do away with the regular season and make the whole thing playoffs? This isn't a rhetorical question. Please feel free to answer it.

The playoffs are an enhancement to the regular season, that's why. if that's the case let's just all pick straws at the start of the season and be done with it.

[rokamortis]

I think 16 is the limit until we have a couple more conferences in I-AA, 16-20 more participants.

So nobody else can have an opinion?

[*****]

I made that argument too - we could be more BCS like if you wish.

The lower divisions do allow more teams. DII has 24 and DIII has 32, right? If we open up I-AA to allow all of the teasm that want to participate in we would be closer to those numbers.I-AA allows one in five, D-II/III allow only about one in eight.

[*****]

So nobody else can have an opinion?I think... you think... those are called opinions. Just look at the facts because a blind call to let in one of every three I-AA teams seems watered down to me. How about you? Do you want one of every three teams in the playoffs?

[rokamortis]

I-AA allows one in five, D-II/III allow only about one in eight.

That;s not true ralph.

The DII numbers are closer to 1 in 6 and the DIII numbers are closer to 1 in 7. The I-AA numbers less the SWAC and IVY are about 1 in 6.

[89Hen]

The lower divisions do allow more teams. DII has 24 and DIII has 32, right? If we open up I-AA to allow all of the teasm that want to participate in we would be closer to those numbers.
102 I-AA schools want in our playoffs (and that includes all mid-majors)
148 DII schools want in their playoffs
332 DII schools want in their playoffs

Do the math. We are in line.

[rokamortis]

102 I-AA schools want in our playoffs (and that includes all mid-majors)
148 DII schools want in their playoffs
332 DII schools want in their playoffs

Do the math. We are in line.

Actually i did - see above ;)

But ratios or not - they allow more teams to compete and provide a road map on how to accomplish it. Just because our ratio is inline doesn't mean we can't be a little more progressive :)

[*****]

... The I-AA numbers less the SWAC and IVY are about 1 in 6.
Right now there are roughly one in five unrestricted equivalency teams in I-AA making the playoffs. Now you want to expand the playoffs to 24 teams so roughly one in three get in? That's what I'd call watered down.Add it up roka...

[89Hen]

Actually i did - see above ;)

But ratios or not - they allow more teams to compete and provide a road map on how to accomplish it. Just because our ratio is inline doesn't mean we can't be a little more progressive :)
Well you did the math wrong as DIII is 1 in 10 and NO, they DO NOT allow more teams to compete compared to the number of teams vying for the spots. I can just as easily say they have MORE teams that do NOT compete in the playoffs compared to I-AA, how's that?

But again, for the umpteenth time, EVERY team in I-AA has the chance to compete for the national championship starting week one. What they do from there out is up to them. In I-A it is possible to go 10-1 or even 11-0 and not make the NC game. That doesn't happen in I-AA except for the mid-majors which are I-AA by name only and I really couldn't care less if they never made the playoffs with a mid-major schedule.

[rokamortis]

Well you did the math wrong as DIII is 1 in 10 and NO, they DO NOT allow more teams to compete compared to the number of teams vying for the spots. I can just as easily say they have MORE teams that do NOT compete in the playoffs compared to I-AA, how's that?

But again, for the umpteenth time, EVERY team in I-AA has the chance to compete for the national championship starting week one. What they do from there out is up to them. In I-A it is possible to go 10-1 or even 11-0 and not make the NC game. That doesn't happen in I-AA except for the mid-majors which are I-AA by name only and I really coulnd't care less if they never made the playoffs with a mid-major schedule.

The NCAA website says 232 DIII schools so that's what I used.

I see your point that the DIII has more schools left out - but mine is that they successfully have 32 teams. I-AA is of a 'higher caliber' as many would like to think so that could easily overcome the discrepencies. I keep hearing parity this and parity that - if I-AA truly had parity more teams would be in the playoffs as more teams would be playoff caliber.

[89Hen]

The NCAA website says 232 DIII schools so that's what i used.
I counted from a DIII website, but maybe all don't compete, but that's not the point anyway.

[rokamortis]

I counted from a DIII website, but maybe all don't compete, but that's not the point anyway.

I do feel strongly that the playoffs should expand to reward the players. The wonderful things about playoffs is that it starts the season fresh. If your point that the playoffs start at the first game is true then there isn't any point in playing in the post season - just pick the NC at the end of the regular season.

Again, I do feel strongly, but I like to bring it up to rile up you old schoolers :D

[*****]

I do feel strongly that the playoffs should expand to reward the players... I like to bring it up to rile up you old schoolers :DAnd I like to remind you that some have perspective and that including too many in the playoffs makes it watered down, like I-A where nearly any team with a winning record gets rewarded. That's not fair to the regular season winning teams.

[89Hen]

I do feel strongly that the playoffs should expand to reward the players. The wonderful things about playoffs is that it starts the season fresh. If your point that the playoffs start at the first game is true then there isn't any point in playing in the post season - just pick the NC at the end of the regular season.
I'm really still not sure what you mean by any of this. What players are we to reward? The ones that went 7-4 and by doing so played themselves out of a playoff spot? The ones that went to play football at San Diego knowing that a mid-major (including ones that have gone undefeated before) has never made the playoffs?

The regular season is a tournament in itself. One for conferences to determine a champion that they will send to the playoffs. One for teams that don't have an automatic bid to make a case to the NCAA Committee that they belong in the playoffs. One for teams that play a really tough I-AA schedule, don't win their conference, but still manage to get to 8 or 9 wins. When you start to let in teams that didn't win their conference and didn't play a good schedule and didn't win most of their games, you're not rewarding players as much as you're belittling what the above mentioned teams have done. If everyone made the playoffs, it wouldn't be special.

[rokamortis]

And I like to remind you that some have perspective and that including too many in the playoffs makes it watered down, like I-A where nearly any team with a winning record gets rewarded. That's not fair to the regular season winning teams.

True - there has to be a balance, no argument there.

The thing about playoffs is that anything can happen - and that is the magic. It is fair to the regular season winners as that chapter is closed and a new one opens up. How many people thought JMU was going to win it all last year? or that Lafayette would give ASU a good run for their money this year? The regular season is forgotten when the playoffs start.

[rokamortis]

I'm really still not sure what you mean by any of this. What players are we to reward? The ones that went 7-4 and by doing so played themselves out of a playoff spot? The ones that went to play football at San Diego knowing that a mid-major (including ones that have gone undefeated before) has never made the playoffs?

The regular season is a tournament in itself. One for conferences to determine a champion that they will send to the playoffs. One for teams that don't have an automatic bid to make a case to the NCAA Committee that they belong in the playoffs. One for teams that play a really tough I-AA schedule, don't win their conference, but still manage to get to 8 or 9 wins. When you start to let in teams that didn't win their conference and didn't play a good schedule and didn't win most of their games, you're not rewarding players as much as you're belittling what the above mentioned teams have done. If everyone made the playoffs, it wouldn't be special.

And i don't think everyone should make the playoffs. I also don't think teams with losing records should make the playoffs. But expanding by 8 or even 16 teams isn't creating a massive free-for-all that will cause the fragile I-AA world we know to crumble.

I'm thinking more about teams like SC State - they have been 9-2 in 2 years, don't you think they should have a shot against play-off caliber teams? Or San Diego ... some of these teams might surprise us.

[*****]

True - there has to be a balance, no argument there.

The thing about playoffs is that anything can happen - and that is the magic. It is fair to the regular season winners as that chapter is closed and a new one opens up. How many people thought JMU was going to win it all last year? or that Lafayette would give ASU a good run for their money this year? The regular season is forgotten when the playoffs start.JMU and Lafayette were conf champs.

[89Hen]

I'm thinking more about teams like SC State - they have been 9-2 in 2 years, don't you think they should have a shot against play-off caliber teams? Or San Diego ... some of these teams might surprise us.
No and no. Next.

[rokamortis]

JMU and Lafayette were conf champs.

Yeah - but did you think they would perform as well as they did? These were not examples of cinderellas making it - but what teams are expected to accomplish. Like this year - how many conference champs were bounced in the first round? 5? Anything can happen.

[rokamortis]

No and no. Next.

Well we disagree, but what else is new?

[89Hen]

Like this year - how many conference champs were bounced in the first round? 5? Anything can happen.
And you think more would have been bounced by the likes of SCState and San Diego? :confused:

[rokamortis]

And you think more would have been bounced by the likes of SCState and San Diego? :confused:

Not really - but it could happen. I'd rather give it a shot than just dismiss it completely without trying.

[*****]

Yeah - but did you think they would perform as well as they did? These were not examples of cinderellas making it - but what teams are expected to accomplish. Like this year - how many conference champs were bounced in the first round? 5? Anything can happen.But they earned their shot at the playoffs by sharing the conf champ in an unrestricted equivalency league, playing a quality schedule and winning the vast majority of their games.

[*****]

... Like this year - how many conference champs were bounced in the first round? 5?...Five autobids were bounced. Seven conf champs (or shared) won.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
NORTHERN IOWA
Cal Poly
TEXAS STATE
Richmond
Southern Illinois
APPALACHIAN STATE

[rokamortis]

But they earned their shot at the playoffs by sharing the conf champ in an unrestricted equivalency league, playing a quality schedule and winning the vast majority of their games.

You are a purist ralph - I like that. But winning an autobid doesn't prove you played a quality schedule and deserve to be in the playoffs. I can think of at least 3 autobid teams this year that really didn't 'deserve' to be in the playoffs. They earned their right by getting the autobid but if the playoffs at-large berths were relaxed a little I bet you would get more quality football than not.

[rokamortis]

Five autobids were bounced. I think seven conf champs (or shared) won.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
NORTHERN IOWA
Cal Poly
TEXAS STATE
Richmond
Southern Illinois
APPALACHIAN STATE

Well - I meant autobid - not conference champs as that can get tricky. For playoff talk I incorrectly use the term conference champ for the team that earned the auto bid and I'll correct that.

[*****]

... I can think of at least 3 autobid teams this year that really didn't 'deserve' to be in the playoffs...Which three?

[Kill'em]

there is way too much subjectivity and inconsistency that has come into this playoff stuff this year.

-for instance, the head of the selection committee said on the AGS show sunday afternoon that "you would really have to justify giving three teams from the same conference a first round game"; my interpretation of that is that ga southern was on the road because app state and furman already had home games; when did this new unwritten rule come into being?

-if it is true that richmond got the home game with furman to make it fairer etc....this must be new since james madison won three road games leading up to 'nooga last year (never been done before-congrats to them)

-and the youngstown state fiasco this year (i mean would you rather be furman on the road who can decide everything on the field, or ys who never got to prove anything)?

-the only thing SAFE is the top 4 seeds (the ga so loss costs us two home games) which is fine, but there needs to be more objectivity (and this needs to be published so we all know the criteria etc) and less subjectivity in who gets home games for the unseeded portion of the field
Changing the subject a bit... My feeling on the home game issue is simple, but the NCAA won't go for it is to do away with the bidding process, seed all 16 teams and match up #1 vs #16, #2 vs #15, #3 vs #14, etc. and give the higher seed the home game. This is something similar to what was done a few years ago.

[rokamortis]

Which three?

Let's see ...

Colgate
EWU
EIU

[rokamortis]

Changing the subject a bit... My feeling on the home game issue is simple, but the NCAA won't go for it is to do away with the bidding process, seed all 16 teams and match up #1 vs #16, #2 vs #15, #3 vs #14, etc. and give the higher seed the home game. This is something similar to what was done a few years ago.

I still like the regional approach to a certain degree, if they can make it work. I think they should seed 1-8 and then try to regionally assign the matchups as best as possible.

[*****]

Let's see ...
Colgate
EWU
EIUI think EWU was definitely an okay autobid though they backed into the playoffs. They could probably have beaten many of the other teams. Now there were some others I won't mention...

[rokamortis]

I think EWU was definitely an okay autobid though they backed into the playoffs. They could probably have beaten many of the other teams. Now there were some others I won't mention...

By not deserve - I mean backed into for the most part. They weren't the class of their conference but for whatever reason they got the auto. EIU - they were the only team from their conference that really should have gone, but I could see an argument for a 3rd A-10 team over them. Nothing against the schools - it is what it is - but it isn't perfect.

[89Hen]

I'd rather give it a shot than just dismiss it completely without trying.
We still end up back to where you're giving a shot to a team that already played or scheduled themselves out of a bid.

[rokamortis]

We still end up back to where you're giving a shot to a team that already played or scheduled themselves out of a bid.

Your whole argument is based on 16 teams. With only 8 at-large slots for about 90 teams, I agree with you that these teams don't deserve to be in. But if you expanded slightly then some of these teams would deserve to be in. It is all relative. My opinion is that it is too selective right now.

[*****]

... With only 8 at-large slots for about 90 teams, I agree with you that these teams don't deserve to be in. But if you expanded slightly then some of these teams would deserve to be in. It is all relative. My opinion is that it is too selective right now.79 playoff eligible teams total without restricted equivalencies... 8 auto qualifiers... 8 at-large... (unless I counted wrong) ...

[rokamortis]

79 playoff eligible teams total without restricted equivalencies... 8 auto qualifiers... 8 at-large... (unless I counted wrong) ...

What is the rule on the mid-majors ralph - why don't you count them? Just because they are non-scholly doesn't mean they should be taken out of the equation if they have a shot at the playoffs, unless the NCAA has a rule about it. If they are technically eligible you should count them.

[*****]

... Just because they are non-scholly doesn't mean they should be taken out of the equation if they have a shot at the playoffs, unless the NCAA has a rule about it. If they are technically eligible you should count them.Because they have conference mandated restricted equivalencies. After talking with the conf commishs they feel they should not be counted. Many have no wish to be included. That may change soon but as of yet it hasn't. They don't play the I-AA full equiv scheds.

[rokamortis]

Because they have conference mandated restricted equivalencies. After talking with the conf commishs they feel they should not be counted. Many have no wish to be included. That may change soon but as of yet it hasn't. They don't play the I-AA full equiv scheds.

What is the NCAA rules on teams eligible for the I-AA playoffs in regards to equivalencies?

[*****]

What is the NCAA rules on teams eligible for the I-AA playoffs in regards to equivalencies?If you are I-AA you are eligible for the playoffs. No restricted equiv team has ever made the playoffs. Hence not counting them in the ratio.

[rokamortis]

If you are I-AA you are eligible for the playoffs. No restricted equiv team has ever made the playoffs.

Ok - that's why I used the higher number. But just because they haven't doesn't mean they shouldn't or will never make the playoffs. If they are eligible then they should be counted.

[*****]

Ok - that's why I used the higher number. But just because they haven't doesn't mean they shouldn't or will never make the playoffs. If they are eligible then they should be counted.Wrong'em Boyo (Clash song title). They shouldn't and won't (read what I posted). They don't want to, like the Ivy.

[rokamortis]

Wrong'em Boyo (Clash song title). They shouldn't and won't (read what I posted). They don't want to, like the Ivy.

I know you have talked with the conference commish's and all - and I don't know the whole situation but I bet if the offer was given that they may accept it. Have they officially told the NCAA 'no playoffs for us' like the Ivy?

I seem remember reading an article about some of the mid-majors wanting to get into the playoffs and if they couldn't they wanted their own. But it was a tad confusing as it also said they weren't sure if they should compete with the scholarship teams. But with conferences like the NEC adding scholarships it appears to be a push to get into the playoffs.

But - all of this is pretty much a moot argument. It has lasted waayyyy too long, but I appreciate everyone's opinions even if they are contradictory to my own. I'm done with this thread, otherwise I'll never get anything done today :)

[JohnStOnge]

The whole thing from selection to home game assignment should be set up ahead of time so that a system picks the at large team as well as the home games.

First, some objective system of ranking teams that has no human input beyond the design of the system at all should be selected. I think it should be based on picking one that best predicts outcomes, and some think it should be based on picking one that best explains past results. Either way, pick a rating system then take the 8 teams that don't have auto bids that are rated highest in that system regardless of record (no "three loss" thing, etc.) and whether they played D2s, etc.

Ideally, that system would also seed the teams then the high seed would always play at home. However, if practicality demands seeding just four let the remaining games be determined by who submits the highest bids. You could also work out an algorithm for minimizing travel.

The big thing is take human opinion completely out of it except for opinion about what the system's going to be and decisions made about the system are made prior to the season. Then everybody knows what it is and lives with it.

[*****]

The whole thing from selection to home game assignment should be set up ahead of time so that a system picks the at large team as well as the home games...Why not just say GPI, John? Too much reliant on polls??

[SoCon48]

I-A allows half of their teams to participate in the post-season and get better ratings so they must be doing something right.

Get better ratings because they are major colleges with much larger tradition and fan base.

A one game bowl is far different from 4 or 5 play-off games.

[*****]

... A one game bowl is far different from 4 or 5 play-off games.Especially with a commercial every 20 minutes... xlolx xlolx

kinda accentuates the meaninglessness of bowl games...

[SoCon48]

We all know that the polls are not what selects the field. But to use another example - in the GPI there are 4 5-loss teams. My point for saying 'if any' is that they would likely select teams with weaker schedules or non-schollie teams for those few slots each year.


But the polls are indicative of the better teams and are pretty close to the way the seedings work out. Of course a 7-4 with a sorry schedule could be picked over a 6-5 with a very strong schedule. Still weak ass teams.

[*****]

But the polls are indicative of the better teams and are pretty close to the way the seedings work out..."polls are indicative of the better teams and are pretty close to the way the seedings work out" is not correct. Better teams did not get the seeds.

[SoCon48]

"polls are indicative of the better teams and are pretty close to the way the seedings work out" is not correct. Better teams did not get the seeds.
Change that to got in the play-offs.
Anyway the point is, to get to 32 teams, the committee would have to either pick more 7-4's with weak schedules or 6-5's. Neither one deserves to be in.

[JohnStOnge]

Why not just say GPI, John? Too much reliant on polls??

The GPI would be Ok. Just as long as the decision to do it that way is made before the season even starts.

Optimally, I would like to see them do some research and base their selection of a system on how well it does at either predicting outcomes or explaining past results. But I think the GPI would do pretty well. Note that the higher rated team in the GPI won all but one of the first round games this year. And the only one that "missed" was #5 Cal Poly beating #4 Montana...two teams as close as they could get to each other in the GPI. I don't think any of the polls, Sagarin, or Massey did as well. Of course that's just one trial with one set of games.

It's be interesting to have somebody look at how well the current GPI explains past results compared to some of the other systems. Of course you couldn't do point spreads but you could do it just in terms of the percent of games won by teams rated higher in the current GPI.

[HensRock]

You cannot have it both ways. Every player on every team begins the season with a chance for a national title. Even after 1, 2, or even 3 losses, they are not necessarily out of the race. In I-A that is not true. 1 loss in I-A and essentially your chance at a national title just went down the toilet.

Expanding the playoffs will not remove the bubble, it will only make the bubble bigger and it will reduce the significance of the regular season. You cannot "reward more players" without reducing that reward for the rest of the field. In essence, you have cheapened the reward so that more can enjoy it. Being selected to the playoffs is special. If the field was expanded it would not be as special. It would not be as meaningful to the teams that have really earned the right to be there.

This is exactly like kids' sports programs these days. I swear, every team my kids participate in - (soccer, basketball, football, & lacrosse) there's a damn trophy or medal or plaque for them at the end of the season - no matter how good or bad the team was! PLUS They get into tournaments in the middle of the season and every team gets some kind of plaque or trophy no matter where they finish. My kids' rooms are full of MEANINGLESS trophies, medals, and plaques!

I remember when trophies used to mean something. That was special.

Keep the field at 16. Keep it special.

[TypicalTribe]

Just in case anyone's curious, the GPI Top 10 for this week would be the following, if it was still being computed during the playoffs:

1. UNH
2. Appy St.
3. Texas St.
4. Cal Poly
5. UNI
6. SIU
6. Furman
8. Richmond
9. Montana
10. YSU

[89Hen]

First, some objective system of ranking teams that has no human input beyond the design of the system at all should be selected.
:eek: xidiotx :nonono2:

[rokamortis]

Keep the field at 16. Keep it special.

I said I was done - but just a quick reply.

If that is your argument then make it 8 teams and it will be even more special, or 4 teams ... and so on

My point isn't that making the playoffs is special - but earning the NC is the biggest reward you can get. The idea is to give as many kids a shot at winning it as possible. The kids still have to earn it. Aren't we the Division I group that proves it on the field?

[AppGuy04]

If your team wasn't left out in the cold, you wouldn't care waa waa

[rokamortis]

If your team wasn't left out in the cold, you wouldn't care waa waa

That's not true. I have said many times this isn't about CCU. I fully admit that Coastal had their shot this year and dropped the ball - so that is not my motivation.

[AppGuy04]

That's not true. I have said many times this isn't about CCU. I fully admit that Coastal had their shot this year and dropped the ball - so that is not my motivation.

I wasn't referring to you particularly, more like some YSU fans that have been posting this same topic for 2 weeks now

[TypicalTribe]

If the playoffs had been 24 teams this year and the committee had held to the 7 DI wins criteria, the additional 8 teams would have most likely been the following:

YSU
ISU
MSU
UMass
Hofstra
SCSU
Lehigh
CCU

[TypicalTribe]

I said I was done - but just a quick reply.

If that is your argument then make it 8 teams and it will be even more special, or 4 teams ... and so on

My point isn't that making the playoffs is special - but earning the NC is the biggest reward you can get. The idea is to give as many kids a shot at winning it as possible. The kids still have to earn it. Aren't we the Division I group that proves it on the field?

Just because more teams make the playoffs wouldn't necessarily mean they have a chance to win it. Also, would it be good for I-AA to have a 6-5 team get in, then get hot and win the title? I don't think so.

The I-AA playoffs reward consistent excellence over the course of the season. Letting more teams in just cheapens that.

By the way, if the DII and DIII tournaments are so much more equitable, then how come the same teams seem to play in the semifinals every year?

[AppGuy04]

If the playoffs had been 24 teams this year and the committee had held to the 7 DI wins criteria, the additional 8 teams would have most likely been the following:

YSU
ISU
MSU
UMass
Hofstra
SCSU
Lehigh
CCU


and 3 of those beat absolutely nobody.....

[89Hen]

Your whole argument is based on 16 teams. With only 8 at-large slots for about 90 teams, I agree with you that these teams don't deserve to be in. But if you expanded slightly then some of these teams would deserve to be in. It is all relative. My opinion is that it is too selective right now.
BTW, I don't know if you have come up with a proposal for how many you'd like to see or the format. Also, a lot of your arguement was that if DII and DIII can do, why can't we. Who's to say their system is better? Matter of fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people that would agree that a tourney with 1/3rd of the field receiving byes in the first round is better. Imagine the outcry if Montana, SIU, Furman... had to play a first round game while Hampton, Colgate and EIU sat at home until the round of 16. How would you even determine which 8 got byes? It sounds like under your method eventually the winners of the Great West, Big South as well as the MAAC, NEC and Pioneer would all recieve automatics. That's 13 autos but only 8 byes.

You need to build a better case here Roka.

[89Hen]

but earning the NC is the biggest reward
:deadhorse

Reward, reward, reward... you keep coming back to that, but have yet to explain why a player on a 7-4 team or one that plays NO playoff quality teams deserves a "reward" from the NCAA. Rewards are usually reserved for teams and players that actually achieve something.

[89Hen]

some objective system of ranking teams that has no human input beyond the design of the system at all should be selected.... The big thing is take human opinion completely out of it except for opinion about what the system's going to be and decisions made about the system are made prior to the season. Then everybody knows what it is and lives with it.
You mean something like Massey?
Updated Massey:
1 Appalachian St 9-3
2 Texas St 10-2
3 Furman 10-2
4 N Iowa 9-3
5 Cal Poly SLO 9-3
6 S Illinois 9-3
7 Montana 8-4
8 Montana St 7-4
9 Youngstown St 8-3
10 Ga Southern 8-4
11 New Hampshire 11-1
12 Nicholls St 6-4
13 Portland St 6-5
14 Illinois St 7-4
15 N Dakota St 7-4
16 E Washington 7-5
17 W Carolina 5-4
18 Richmond 9-3
19 UC Davis 6-5
20 W Kentucky 6-5
21 McNeese St 5-4
22 Weber St 6-5
23 Chattanooga 6-5
24 Northwestern LA 5-5
25 E Illinois 9-3

[blukeys]

I said I was done - but just a quick reply.

If that is your argument then make it 8 teams and it will be even more special, or 4 teams ... and so on

My point isn't that making the playoffs is special - but earning the NC is the biggest reward you can get. The idea is to give as many kids a shot at winning it as possible. The kids still have to earn it. Aren't we the Division I group that proves it on the field?


The purpose of a Playoff system is not to "reward" players. Considering the sacrifices all players make including those on losing teams, one can make the argument that all players deserve some "reward". The "reward" argument is a slippery slope that eventually gets one to a NHL type of playoff system.

The purpose of a playoff system is to determine the National Champion. Teams should be selected on the basis that they are the ones most likely to win a National Championship and not because the players are or are not worthy of "rewards". Whether or not a selection system is perfect in picking teams will always be a matter of debate.

[89Hen]

The "reward" argument is a slippery slope that eventually gets one to a NHL type of playoff system.
Agreed, but just for clarification, the NHL numbers aren't as God awful as they used to be. With 30 teams now in the league they have the same number as the NBA. :)

[rokamortis]

:deadhorse

Reward, reward, reward... you keep coming back to that, but have yet to explain why a player on a 7-4 team or one that plays NO playoff quality teams deserves a "reward" from the NCAA. Rewards are usually reserved for teams and players that actually achieve something.

Ne need to get out of shape buddy, we are all friends here :hyped:

I think that as many teams as possible should get a shot at the playoffs - what is the perfect number? I don't know. If there wasn't as much 'parity' around then it wouldn't be as big a deal would it? I would say a 30% of the eligible teams isn't a bad number, better than 20% or 50%.

The reward is a shot at the playoffs and the NC. The teams have to earn their shot for sure, but who is to say 16 is a better number than 24 or even 32?

So you say no 7-4 teams should make it? If going strictly off of W/L records then many teams should have been in because they had better records than other teams? EX) If ASU would have gotten beat late in the stretch then they likely would have gotten in anyway, even at 7-4. A team like SC State that has an 18-4 record over the past 2 years should get a shot. Cal Poly was a bubble team and almost didn't make it either with an 8-3 record, but they demonstrated they belonged in the field. I also think a team like Lehigh would be rewarded but they made one too many mistakes within our current system, but for the most part demonstrated they deserved a shot.

What is the perfect solution? I don't know. Just because the system is the way it is now doesn't mean it is correct. It admit, also doesn't mean it is wrong, but I am of the opinion that the current playoff restrictions should be relaxed a bit. You don't, I get it.

[rokamortis]

The purpose of a Playoff system is not to "reward" players. Considering the sacrifices all players make including those on losing teams, one can make the argument that all players deserve some "reward". The "reward" argument is a slippery slope that eventually gets one to a NHL type of playoff system.

The purpose of a playoff system is to determine the National Champion. Teams should be selected on the basis that they are the ones most likely to win a National Championship and not because the players are or are not worthy of "rewards". Whether or not a selection system is perfect in picking teams will always be a matter of debate.

That's a good point. I agree that the reward argument is a little ambiguous as it could be taken to an extreme. But if that is the case about not rewarding teams and picking the most likely teams that will win a NC then we need to get rid of the auto bids altogether.

[JohnStOnge]

You mean something like Massey?
Updated Massey:
1 Appalachian St 9-3
2 Texas St 10-2
3 Furman 10-2
4 N Iowa 9-3
5 Cal Poly SLO 9-3
6 S Illinois 9-3
7 Montana 8-4
8 Montana St 7-4
9 Youngstown St 8-3
10 Ga Southern 8-4
11 New Hampshire 11-1
12 Nicholls St 6-4
13 Portland St 6-5
14 Illinois St 7-4
15 N Dakota St 7-4
16 E Washington 7-5
17 W Carolina 5-4
18 Richmond 9-3
19 UC Davis 6-5
20 W Kentucky 6-5
21 McNeese St 5-4
22 Weber St 6-5
23 Chattanooga 6-5
24 Northwestern LA 5-5
25 E Illinois 9-3

Sure, if that's what's chosen and everybody agrees to it ahead of time. I don't know what you're trying to get across with the ones in bold, but the point is that all of these things can be tested. Just depends on what you want to test. I personally think the best test is seeing which system anticipates winners ahead of time. If you did it that way the GPI did better on the first round playoff games than Massey's system did. Of course that doesn't mean it'd do better over a large number of games.

But the GPI's been done for a while now so there should be no problem, if someone wanted to make an effort and could get ahold of the GPIs every week, for someone to see how it's performed.

It's pretty simple. Pick a system that's right the most often about who it picks as "better" (or at least right about as often as any other). Then go with it. At least that way everybody knows it's not somebody's bias in favor of any particular team, etc. when the time comes. Then if you're not satisfied with the results pick another system next time. But do it before the games start.

[JohnStOnge]

What I'm talking about is basically deciding ahead of time on what makes for comparing teams' performances and deciding in each case which is better. The human element comes in in deciding what makes for a better performance. Then you have a system to quantify that.

So when that system says team A has had a more impressive performance than team B there's no real basis for arguing about it because you've already agreed on the criteria on which that determination was based.

If people don't like any existing power rating systems, the GPI, or whatever...come up with something else.

But don't leave it such that a committee gets together and makes subjective decisions about it...so that it's a decision made after the fact and personal biases about particular teams, conferences, regions, or whatever can creep in.

[89Hen]

I think that as many teams as possible should get a shot at the playoffs...

The reward is a shot at the playoffs and the NC. The teams have to earn their shot for sure, but who is to say 16 is a better number than 24 or even 32?...

I am of the opinion that the current playoff restrictions should be relaxed a bit. You don't, I get it.
I'm not bent out of shape at all, we're just having a friendly discussion Roka. :)

But I don't think you do get it. The current number stands at 16. The NCAA says it's a better number than 24 or 32 for I-AA and I happen to agree with them. If you want a change to that, the onus is on you to show why 24 or 32 would be better. I will post a poll on this board and we can see what the sentiment is for number of teams in the field.

EVERY team that plays a I-AA scholarship schedule HAS a shot at the playoffs. Why is it important to limit it to teams that play a scholarship schedule? Because THAT is the reward for a school that has made the investment to I-AA football. Non-schollie teams are I-AA by name only and because the NCAA mandates that if they want to keep the rest of their sports DI, they have to be DI for football. If you want to change something, there's something you should be looking at. If you lifted that restriction, you'd see most of the Pioneer, MAAC, NEC move their teams to DII or III. There are teams, like Albany, that would like to be in I-AA and participate in the I-AA playoffs. So they have gone out and scheduled games against scholarship I-AA's. If Albany went 10-1 with a schedule that included Maine, Hofstra, UMass and Fordham, you can bet they'd make the field.

[89Hen]

I don't know what you're trying to get across with the ones in bold
Are you serious? Even after a first round ass-whipping, UNH is still behind 10 other teams including YSU who beat NO playoff bound all year? Portland State, a team that lost FIVE games is still in front of EWU who they lost to 42-24? C'mon JSO, you can't keep up this charade.

[89Hen]

At least that way everybody knows it's not somebody's bias in favor of any particular team, etc. when the time comes. Then if you're not satisfied with the results pick another system next time. But do it before the games start.
So just sacrifice a year as a guinea pig? :eek: :nonono2: No thanks.

[DB_Atlantic10]

I am extremely glad to see that you didn't reply with the fabled one finger salute that I am sure that some feel I deserve. Since they are going I-A next year, they won't have to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that they believe the playoffs to be.


Isnt' there a rule that if a team is planning to move up to I-A, they can't compete in the Play-offs for at least the last two season's before moving up.... If YSU is moving up, then they are not allowed to be in the play-offs, therefore the committee was right in their Lafayette decision....

Ralph, can you speak to this?

[blukeys]

That's a good point. I agree that the reward argument is a little ambiguous as it could be taken to an extreme. But if that is the case about not rewarding teams and picking the most likely teams that will win a NC then we need to get rid of the auto bids altogether.


Or get rid of autobids from conferences that are not performing. It seems ridiculous that a conference can go over 5 years without a win and still get an auto bid and then hear from their fans that their conference is warranted a 2nd representative.

[89Hen]

Or get rid of autobids from conferences that are not performing.
Good idea. We can get rid of the OVC, MEAC, Patriot and Big Sky bids next year. :D

[JohnStOnge]

Are you serious? Even after a first round ass-whipping, UNH is still behind 10 other teams including YSU who beat NO playoff bound all year? Portland State, a team that lost FIVE games is still in front of EWU who they lost to 42-24? C'mon JSO, you can't keep up this charade.

UNH was playing a team that went into the playoffs rated 49th. The "ass-whipping" was not at all inconsistent with what one should've expected. Also, Massey's system doesn't take margin of victory into account (I prefer the concept of doing otherwise). To Masseys' system, UNH beat a medicore I-AA team and beating it by 1 or by 100 makes no difference. The higher rated team in the updated Massey rankings won each of the 8 playoff matchups. Of course I don't really give it credit for that because it's after the fact. People who like to look at explaining past performance instead of prediction wouldn't look at it the same way I do.

Actually, right now, Portland State has a slightly higher winning percentage against other I-AAs (6-3 vs. 7-4) than EWU does and the system is looking at that as well as everything else that happened this past weekend. Two of Portland State's losses were to Oregon State and Boise State. Eastern Washington did win the head to head matchup. I'm sure Portland State got a lot more credit in the power rating system for losing to Boise State than EWU got for losing to San Jose State. I'm sure losing to Weber State pulled EWU's rating down too. The weakest team either lost to is Idaho State, but they both lost to the Bengals. So EWU is hurt by having a poorest "who they lost to" opponent. Losing to San Jose State is certainly worse than losing to Boise State and Oregon State too.

That's the thing. A power rating system looks at how "good" the wins were and how "bad" the losses were. It looks at the result of every single game between all teams and considers every piece of information.

It's always possible to find things that seem strange in any rating system. No system is perfect. To me, the test is how they do overall. If you pick prediction, no system's going to be right every time. If you pick retrodiction, no system is going to have the higher rated team as the winner in every matchup that has taken place. So, to me, you pick the system that has the highest percentage of successes in either case.

Aside from all that, Eastern Washington was rated higher than Portland State before the playoffs started. At that time they both had 6-3 records against other I-AAs and the playoff games hadn't taken place to result in adjustments to the ratings.

If you want to put a system in that includes an inherent penalty for higher number of losses even when the losses by a I-AA are to teams like Boise State and Oregon State, you could do that. Just do it ahead of time. I wouldn't agree with it but the main point is to decide on what the criteria are going to be ahead of time then live with the criteria.

Could be that if somebody evaluates the GPI we'd find it had a better performance than any individual rating system.

[*****]

Now now, let's not get all smacky...

I think once a team declares a move to I-A they become ineligible for the I-AA playoffs.

[Cap'n Cat]

Isnt' there a rule that if a team is planning to move up to I-A, they can compete in the Play-offs for at least the last two season's before moving up.... If YSU is moving up, then they are not allowed to be in the play-offs, therefore the committee was right in their Lafayette decision....

Ralph, can you speak to this?


No, but I will. YSU ain't going anywhere. It's all a big joke on here.

:eek:

[*****]

... If you want to put a system in that includes an inherent penalty for higher number of losses...The GPI used to have a penalty for losing as one of the factors.

[89Hen]

That's the thing. A power rating system looks at how "good" the wins were and how "bad" the losses were. It looks at the result of every single game between all teams and considers every piece of information.
Really? I always thought the only factors that went into the formula were the score and if it was a home game. I had no idea that they took into account injuries, turnovers, yardage, weather, field conditions, history, rivalries, postional changes.... :cool:

[89Hen]

I think once a team declares a move to I-A they become ineligible for the I-AA playoffs.
I seem to recall that being the case for FAMU even though they never actually made the move. :nod:

[HensRock]

I think that as many teams as possible should get a shot at the playoffs

How about EVERY team? Is that enough? EVERY team has a shot at the playoffs before the season starts. That would be the fairest system - oh wait - we have that now!

[DB_Atlantic10]

and 3 of those beat absolutely nobody.....

He only did it that way to keep JMU out of the picture....... :)

[JohnStOnge]

Hen 89, the Massey ratings you posted are the "inferior" ones that don't use margin of victory. If you look at the table at the Massey site you'll see the "usual" Massey ratings...the good ones...listed over to the right. In that one New Hampshire is rated #1, Eastern Washington #11, and Portland State #14.

The ones on the left are the ones Massey had to prepare to satisfy the BCS, which insists on ignoring margin of victory even though ratings that consider margin of victory are clearly superior.

I would not want to use the Massey ratings you listed because of that. For both Massey and Sagarin the ratings systems they had to come up with to make the BCS happy consistently achieve lower percent winners picked correctly than their regular systems do.

[89Hen]

Well, that would at least explain that. :D

Still problems IMO...

8. Illinois State
11. Eastern Washington
12. Montana State
14. Portland State
15. UMass

16. Furman

[HensRock]

I don't think there are enough regular season games in football and certainly not enough OOC games to get a sufficient statistical "web" of information regarding relative strength. In other words, we don't have enough data to feed into a computer-based rating system to get a real good picture. I think human intervention is required. IN baseball or basketball where you have a lot more games, then maybe you could make a case. But not football with only 10-12 regular season games per team.

And Rok, my point about rewarding lots of players is that the more you reward, the less significant it is for each player. If everyone gets a reward it means nothing, zero. If only one team gets a reward it means everything, but only one gets it. There is a happy medium and I think 16 is just right.

Like I said, my kids' closets are full of rewards. They pass out trophies like handshakes these days. Does anyone else see a problem with this? When I was a kid, if you got a trophy, that was a HUGE deal. Now it means nothing.

[JohnStOnge]

Really? I always thought the only factors that went into the formula were the score and if it was a home game. I had no idea that they took into account injuries, turnovers, yardage, weather, field conditions, history, rivalries, postional changes.... :cool:

Ok. I'll correct that to say they take into account more information involving scores than any human being can just by thinking about and attempting to compare scores themselves. Massey takes into account all such information. Sagarin takes into account only DI games.

The thing about injuries, turnovers, yardage, weather, etc. just makes the performance of power ratings more impressive. As noted before, the performance of the better systems in anticipating outcomes is equivalent to that of the Vegas line...which does include the effect of consideration of such things.

And, since I remember that you wondered about whether or not they work as well for I-AA games as they do for I-A games, the first full year of results posted at Todd Beck's site suggest that they do indeed.

[HensRock]

the first full year of results posted at Todd Beck's site suggest that they do indeed.

link please?

[89Hen]

As noted before, the performance of the better systems in anticipating outcomes is equivalent to that of the Vegas line...which does include the effect of consideration of such things.
So the better ones are equivalent to a human line but somehow are better to use in your opinion?

[89Hen]

the first full year of results posted at Todd Beck's site suggest that they do indeed.
Now you're really testing my memory. Beck and the ARGH definitely ring a bell, but I seem to recall getting into a lengthy debate about him, or the ARGH or something a couple years back. I can't for the life of me remember the discussion though. :o

[89Hen]

Just doing some initial looking at the ARGH...

Straight up: 440-184 .705
Against the spread: 288-324-12 .471

I don't know if you caught my post on my final results for the year, but I was...

Straight up: 177-58 .753
Against the spread: 135-100 .574

How'd I do?