Playoff Field

[89Hen]

What do you think is the optimum number for the I-AA playoff field?

[89Hen]

Bump

[Hansel]

16 if you drop the autobids :nod:

[OL FU]

It is 16 unless the SWAC and Ivy start participating. and since that is not going to happen, 16.

[TexasTerror]

I think 16 is fine for now...

If we see a rapid influx of teams moving up to Div I-AA from Div II or increase from non-scholarships to scholarship leagues, plus SWAC and Ivy, you need 24...

Big South, GWFC, SWAC and Ivy are all gonna be deserving of auto-bids if they meet the requirements and show willingness to participate. That's 12 auto-bids. They will need to be taken care of...

[HensRock]

Fine, then have 12 autos and 4 at-large.

[dbackjon]

I voted 24, but would like to add this caveat - 16 is fine for now, but it one or more additional conferences qualify/want an auto-bid, then the field needs to be increased to 24.

[TexasTerror]

Fine, then have 12 autos and 4 at-large.

No chance in heck that works...I'd rather extend the playoffs a week with 24 teams and bump up with the bowl games...

[blukeys]

I voted 24, but would like to add this caveat - 16 is fine for now, but it one or more additional conferences qualify/want an auto-bid, then the field needs to be increased to 24.

If we have additional conferences that warrant an auto bid why not remove the non-performing conferences from the auto - bid status as opposed to increasing the fiield?

I don't understand the mentality that a conference keeps an auto - bid into perpetuity despite year after year of non-performance.

If I was the I-AA dictator I would remove the auto bid from both the OVC and MEAC and award one to GWFC.

[TexasTerror]

If I was the I-AA dictator I would remove the auto bid from both the OVC and MEAC and award one to GWFC.

GWFC won't be eligible for an auto-bid for sometime. There's rules in place regarding it and they need several teams to kick off the transitional tag and add additional schools...

[dbackjon]

If we have additional conferences that warrant an auto bid why not remove the non-performing conferences from the auto - bid status as opposed to increasing the fiield?

I don't understand the mentality that a conference keeps an auto - bid into perpetuity despite year after year of non-performance.

If I was the I-AA dictator I would remove the auto bid from both the OVC and MEAC and award one to GWFC.

Because I prefer the NCAA basketball approach versus the BCS "Snob" approach. I think that having autobids for all eligible conferences that attempt to play on the I-AA level (not the D-III teams forced to compete at I-AA like the MAAC and Pioneer) is good for the sport as a whole. It gives the OVC/MEAC something to shoot for - and an incentive to upgrade their programs. It was not too long ago that the OVC was very competitive, but losing MTSU and WKU takes a while to recover from. The OVC is getting more competitive. Limiting the auto-bids to just the conferences you feel are "deserving" is not what I-AA football is about. If you want that approach, I am sure I-A is just fine for you.

[89Hen]

Bump for votes.

[Hansel]

Bump for votes.
Is that how you get 10,000 posts :p

[Cincy App]

If we have additional conferences that warrant an auto bid why not remove the non-performing conferences from the auto - bid status as opposed to increasing the fiield?

I don't understand the mentality that a conference keeps an auto - bid into perpetuity despite year after year of non-performance.

If I was the I-AA dictator I would remove the auto bid from both the OVC and MEAC and award one to GWFC.

My thoughts exactly. The playoff field should not expand from 16 teams. Also, the field should not have more than 8 auto bids. 16 teams with 4 weeks of playoff football is enough. It's still not like I-A where an undefeated Auburn team from a powerhouse conference does not get a chance at the national title. No matter how many teams participate in the I-AA playoffs, some team will feel slighted whether it's team #17, #25, #33, or #65!

[89Hen]

Is that how you get 10,000 posts :p
Follow me son and I'll have you to 4k tonight!

[youwouldno]

I want it to stay at 16. But if it has to go up, I say make it 20. The top 4 seeds get a first round bye.

But I really want it to say. 24 is too many.

[89Hen]

I want it to stay at 16. But if it has to go up, I say make it 20. The top 4 seeds get a first round bye.
That doesn't work. You'd have 16 down to 8 plus the 4 byes for the next round equals 12.

[youwouldno]

There can't be six games?

[89Hen]

There can't be six games?
Sure, but then you'd be left with three semifinalists.

[youwouldno]

lol sorry, I'm being silly. But I do oppose expansion. 16 teams is a pretty good number; in basketball there are 3 times as many teams (versus I-AA)-- they have 64 of course. Football involves fewer regular season contests and should not have an excessively long postseason. Upsets might be fun but they could limit the closeness of the later rounds.

[Ivytalk]

I like 16. If you go to 24, the math doesn't work so cleanly, and we'd need more first-round byes.

[89Hen]

Rokamortis, I think the people here have spoken.

[rokamortis]

Rokamortis, I think the people here have spoken.

Yes they have - doesn't mean they are right :p

[89Hen]

BTW, who in the world voted for 32?!

This year that would mean most likely including:

YSU 8-3
Illinois State 7-4
Coastal 9-2
SCSt 9-2
Lehigh 8-3
UMass 7-4
Hofstra 7-4
James Madison 7-4
Montana State 7-4
San Diego 11-1

help me out here, I'm out... 6-5 teams? 7-4 MEAC teams? 9-1 Dayton? :rolleyes:

[89Hen]

Yes they have - doesn't mean they are right :p
OK Jimmy. :D

http://www.jimmyv.org/content/contentimages/events/jim'sacceptance.jpg

[bandl]

BTW, who in the world voted for 32?!

This year that would mean most likely including:

YSU 8-3
Illinois State 7-4
Coastal 9-2
SCSt 9-2
Lehigh 8-3
UMass 7-4
Hofstra 7-4
James Madison 7-4
Montana State 7-4
San Diego 11-1

help me out here, I'm out... 6-5 teams? 7-4 MEAC teams? 9-1 Dayton? :rolleyes:

Don't forget UD and Towson!

Aaaaaahhhhh....SMACK! :asswhip: xlolx

[henfan]

NCAA Division I Bylaws (Section 31.3.4.5.1) require that at least 50% of a playoff field be reserved for at-large teams. Unless I-AA plans on applying for a special waiver, the number of at large bids will not change.

Want our playoffs to go to 24 teams? Well, then at least 12 (and probably more, given the number of available auto bids) teams will have to be at large selections. Doesn't sound too appealing to me.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2004-05/2004-05_d1_manual.pdf

[dbackjon]

NCAA Division I Bylaws (Section 31.3.4.5.1) require that at least 50% of a playoff field be reserved for at-large teams. Unless I-AA plans on applying for a special waiver, the number of at large bids will not change.

Want our playoffs to go to 24 teams? Well, then at least 12 (and probably more, given the number of available auto bids) teams will have to be at large selections. Doesn't sound too appealing to me.

http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/division_i_manual/2004-05/2004-05_d1_manual.pdf

So are the Big South/GWFC if they get 6 members screwed?

[UAalum72]

So are the Big South/GWFC if they get 6 members screwed?
Unless the committee decides that another league loses its auto-bid - which is supposed to be reviewed every year.

[Hansel]

Unless the committee decides that another league loses its auto-bid - which is supposed to be reviewed every year.
which is unlikely to happen...

[WMTribe90]

Here was my suggestion from another thread to settle the autobid vs at-large debate.


We start next year the same as this year with 8 autobid conferences. Each autobid has 3 years starting next year to win a playoff game. If a conference's autobid team loses three consective years than that conference loses its autobid and the folowing year there would only be 7 autobids and 9 at-large. A conference could regain its autobid by winning a first round game with an at-large selection. There would be no set number of autobids, it would be completely based on first round playoff wins. There could be as few as 6 autobids or there could be 9 in any given year. Just another way to ensure the most deserving teams are making the playoffs.

[89Hen]

The biggest problem I see with that 90 is then seeding and draw REALLY becomes an issue. Would it be fair if an OVC or Big South team drew the #1 Gateway or #1 SoCon team every year they made it in while a GWFC or Patriot got a #2 Big Sky or #2/3 A10?

[MR. CHICKEN]

I voted 24, but would like to add this caveat - 16 is fine for now, but it one or more additional conferences qualify/want an auto-bid, then the field needs to be increased to 24.

AH'M WHIFF DUH LUMBERJACK!..........xsmoochx...........BRA-10WK!

[WMTribe90]

The biggest problem I see with that 90 is then seeding and draw REALLY becomes an issue. Would it be fair if an OVC or Big South team drew the #1 Gateway or #1 SoCon team every year they made it in while a GWFC or Patriot got a #2 Big Sky or #2/3 A10?

89,

I considered that, but with the committee favoring regional matchups in the first round I don't think its too unfair.

For example Hampton and the MEAC. Hampton will always face JMU, UR or WM in the first round regardless of where the A10 team is ranked. If the commitee goes back to seeding all 16 teams than you have a legit concern. Plus a conference gets three chances to maintain their autobid. One "upset" in three years is all it takes. Not too much to ask IMO.

[89Hen]

Tough call. I'll have to think more about it and go back through the pairings. One thing to remember though is that even if the Committee went back to seeding 1-16, that doesn't mean you are going to get the 1-16th team in order. The C has always had the authority to put teams where they want them in the 16 seeds (and they have). Moving a team up or down from 7, 8, 9, 10... to get them a home game or take one away. Happened to Lehigh one year. They didn't submit a minimum bid one year and when they did the next year, the Committee punished them by putting them 9 or 10.

[henfan]

If the Great West and Big South can ever aquire enough teams to be eligible to apply for an auto-bid, then all bets are off. The NCAA would have to look at expanding the playoff field. That would be far cleaner and less subjective (but more expensive!) than trying to decide which conference gets an auto-bid from year to year.

[rokamortis]

I don't think this matters much now - but is relevant since we have been talking about numbers and percentages of I-AA teams that make it to the playoffs vs other divisions. It is interesting to see how the committee views the percentage of teams that make it to the playoffs.

"Members noted that expanding the bracket to 24 teams also would address several issues related to the championship. The I-AA championship as it currently stands offers championship access to a lower percentage of teams than in any other Division I sport and any other postseason football championship in any division. Several I-AA conferences have traditionally been excluded from the championship experience through a lack of automatic-qualifier spots."

http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2005/02_28_05/division_i/4205n21.html

[rokamortis]

I'd really like to see how Ralph and 89Hen views this statement since we were the ones going back and forth. I had heard this claim before but couldn't recall from where and you guys had me convinced I was wrong - but if the committee acknowledges it in an official NCAA newsletter it must not be wrong, or is it?

[89Hen]

I guess the first thing I'd say is you can throw other sports out, I don't care if women's rowing has greater access for schools to participate in the national championship. I'd go out on a limb and say that football probably has fewer games in a season then every other DI sport, that doesn't mean we should go to a 15 game regular season.

As for comparing it to DII and DIII... I'd have to guess that they includeded EVERYONE in I-AA in their figure, including the SWAC and IVY who choose not to participate.

[rokamortis]

As for comparing it to DII and DIII... I'd have to guess that they includeded EVERYONE in I-AA in their figure, including the SWAC and IVY who choose not to participate.

You are likely correct - but why would they say this in an NCAA newsletter? Seems to be very interesting language from those that oversee I-AA.

[89Hen]

why would they say this in an NCAA newsletter? Seems to be very interesting language from those that oversee I-AA.
Maybe a Coastal grad wrote the article. :p ;)

[rokamortis]

Maybe a Coastal grad wrote the article. :p ;)

Maybe it is the truth?

[SoCon48]

Maybe a Coastal grad wrote the article. :p ;)

You are on a roll lately, 89. xlolx