Autobid

[Hansel]

Your opinions please

[89Hen]

In favor of keeping. I'd raise the minimum number of teams to 8 though.

[TexasTerror]

Require more teams for auto-bid? As in conference membership? A10, Big Sky (with NoCo), Gateway, MEAC, OVC, Pioneer and SWAC would be only qualifers. Noticable omissions would include SLC and SoCon.

Or do you mean more auto-bids? This TT is confused...

[89Hen]

Require more teams for auto-bid? As in conference membership? A10, Big Sky (with NoCo), Gateway, MEAC, OVC, Pioneer and SWAC would be only qualifers. Noticable omissions would include SLC and SoCon.

Or do you mean more auto-bids? This TT is confused...
More teams in a conference to get an auto. Six is absoultely stupid. You could win the conference at 4-1, go 0-6 OOC and be in the playoffs at 4-7. Sure it's a little far fetched, but sub .500 teams have made the New Oreleans Bowl thanks to a similar situation.

[TexasTerror]

More teams in a conference to get an auto. Six is absoultely stupid. You could win the conference at 4-1, go 0-6 OOC and be in the playoffs at 4-7. Sure it's a little far fetched, but sub .500 teams have made the New Oreleans Bowl thanks to a similar situation.

Would doing this mean we see some conferences merge? See the article about the A10 coach (JMU) saying it was too large? I'm sure you did. Or would we see some ridiculous schools jump from Div II to I-AA because conferences accept teams they may not have otherwise, just for the sake of football?

[colgate13]

8 might be tough... I'm trying to think of how the heck you do this.

[bandl]

More teams in a conference to get an auto. Six is absoultely stupid. You could win the conference at 4-1, go 0-6 OOC and be in the playoffs at 4-7. Sure it's a little far fetched, but sub .500 teams have made the New Oreleans Bowl thanks to a similar situation.

If we stay at 6 team minimum...how about a minimum-win amount to gain the auto-bid? A team that wins their conference must also have at least 7 wins perhaps. Shouldn't be too hard, right?? And if it is, then you just don't deserve to move on!!!

[Hansel]

how about require 7 wins over equivalencie IAA to for the autobid "winners"

[bandl]

how about require 7 wins over equivalencie IAA to for the autobid "winners"

sorry, I had that implied in my head but didn't let anyone else in!

at least 7 I-AA wins...just to make sure that the hypothetical '4-7' conference winner doesn't get the auto-bid.

I'd even allow a I-A win to qualify as a 'I-AA' win tally. But that's for another discussion...

[89Hen]

Would doing this mean we see some conferences merge? See the article about the A10 coach (JMU) saying it was too large? I'm sure you did. Or would we see some ridiculous schools jump from Div II to I-AA because conferences accept teams they may not have otherwise, just for the sake of football?
I don't think so at all. The only current autobid conference that would lose their bid by going to 8 is the Patriot (as long as you somehow grandfathered the Southland). Next year the conference numbers will be:

CAA - 12
Big Sky - 10 with the addition of UNC
MEAC - 10 with the addition of NCCU
OVC - 9
Gateway - 8
SoCon - 8
Southland - 8 with the addition of UCA (they will not be playoff eligible but should count IMO toward the 8)
Patriot - 7

Big South - 5
Great West - 5

So by moving to 8 now, you wouldn't be taking one away from the BS or GW. If you wait until they get 6 and then take it away, that would be bad (as it would be to take away the PL, but they can find another member somewhere :p ).

BTW, if you keep it a 6, shouldn't the CAA get two autos? :p :p

[Hansel]

How many teams that were independents or were not from autobid conferences at the time have made the playoffs?

[89Hen]

How many teams that were independents or were not from autobid conferences at the time have made the playoffs?
GSU, YSU, Hofstra, FAU off the top of my head.

[dbackjon]

GSU, YSU, Hofstra, FAU off the top of my head.

Add Cal Poly this year to that list.

[Hansel]

GSU, YSU, Hofstra, FAU off the top of my head.
Don't know about Hofstra, but GSU- Multiple NC's, YSU, Multiple NC's, FAU semifinalist

I am guessing Les Miserables have a pretty good playoff winning percentage

[dbackjon]

I think it needs to be bumped to 7 or 8 teams to get auto-bid. 6 is just too low.


And THE BIG SKY will have 9 starting next year.

[89Hen]

Western Kentucky too during their break from the OVC.

and Lehigh 1980 (but I don't know if there were even "autos" then)

Cripes, there are a lot of them.

[Hansel]

bump for votes :)

[blukeys]

How many teams that were independents or were not from autobid conferences at the time have made the playoffs?


I haven't done the analysis and quite frankly I am too lazy to do it. But I believe that GSU and YSU have won more NC's as independents than as members of a conference. Obviously either Colgate 13 or 89 Hen will correct me if I am grossly wrong. Youngstown's lame excuse for dumping Delaware in 2001 and 2002 (After sgining a contact) was that they were joining the really tough "Gateway Conference"

I think GSU won 2 NC's while in the Southern and YSU won one NC in the Gateway. I might be wrong on both.

[blukeys]

I've checked the poll and the plurality want the system to stay as it is.

Is this totally crazy?

You people actually believe we should enshrine the MEAC and OVC in perpetuity with auto - bids? Please answer me on this. Both these conferences have not won a playoff game in the 21st century. Will someone explain to me how the MEAC and OVC are more worthy of an auto bid than the GWFC who actually had a team (CALPOLY) win a playoff game in the last 6 years!!!

Why aren't we seeing the elephant in the living room?

Certain conferences do not deserve an auto bid!!! :cool: When did the MEAC and OVC get a guaranteed lifetime contract? Playoff performance should be evaluated every year and non performers need to be thrown out.

[89Hen]

When did the MEAC and OVC get a guaranteed lifetime contract? Playoff performance should be evaluated every year and non performers need to be thrown out.
They really don't have a guarantee, but there hasn't been any other conference worthy of an auto. At least one of the other conferences has fomally applied to the NCAA ear to have one of the eight autos.

The NCAA News -- February 17, 2003

Division I-AA Football Committee settles automatic-qualifier concern
The Division I-AA Football Committee has received confirmation from the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet that its method of identifying automatic-qualifying conferences meets the cabinet's guiding principles.

The committee, which met January 21-23 in Huntington Beach, California, reviewed applications from nine conferences seeking automatic qualification for their champions into the 16-team playoff bracket. The cabinet's guiding principles state that sports with sponsorship levels in the 10-59 percent range, which includes Division I-AA football, shall reserve at least 50 percent of the playoff berths for at-large selections and no more than 50 percent for automatic qualifiers.

The guiding principles also give sports committees the opportunity, but do not require them, to recommend to the cabinet the addition of play-in games when the number of conferences eligible for automatic qualification exceeds 50 percent of the playoff spots.

It would be difficult to include a play-in game to the Division I-AA playoffs and still have the championship game contested before Christmas. Therefore, the committee was seeking the cabinet's confirmation that a play-in game is not required, and that the eight automatic-qualifying conferences can be chosen out of the nine that have applied based on merit.

NCAA News 2003 (http://www.ncaa.org/news/2003/20030217/div1/4004n18.html)

[rokamortis]

If the goal is to have a field that is as competitive as possible then we should kill the auto bids. We already know, thanks to 89Hen's poll ;), that the majority don't want the field expanded and the biggest reason is that it would reward teams that didn't earn it and/or 'waters' down the field. By eliminating the autos you will have the 16 teams that most deserve / earned it and will result in better matchups. The conferences that currently get and deserve autos will be rewarded more. An interesting thing that could happen is that eliminating the autos could result in a team that won their conference not getting a bid, while a lower team in the conference goes to the playoffs.

[SoCon48]

If the goal is to have a field that is as competitive as possible then we should kill the auto bids. We already know, thanks to 89Hen's poll ;), that the majority don't want the field expanded and the biggest reason is that it would reward teams that didn't earn it and/or 'waters' down the field. By eliminating the autos you will have the 16 teams that most deserve / earned it and will result in better matchups. The conferences that currently get and deserve autos will be rewarded more. An interesting thing that could happen is that eliminating the autos could result in a team that won their conference not getting a bid, while a lower team in the conference goes to the playoffs.


Conferences are already reviewed periodically to see if they have continued to deserve an auto-bid. With few exceptions, the champions of auto-bid conferences would have earned a spot on their own anyway. It's simply a just reward for competing in a tough conference and coming out on top.

Yearly reviews aren't really necessary for some of the confernces. I mean like what are the chances the A-10 is going to melt down enough in one year not to deserve at least one team in???

[rokamortis]

Conferences are reviewed periodically to see if they have continued to deserve an auto-bid. With few exceptions, the champions of auto-bid conferences would have earned a spot on their own anyway. It's simply a just reward for competing in a tough conference and coming out on top.

Actually - conferences aren't reviewed now - the 8 that are eligible get the auto bids. Like I said - if a team deserves it by playing in a tough conference then they'll get a bid regardless. My point is that some teams backed their way into the playoffs just due to the way the conferences work and how other teams won / lost, so they didn't really earn the playoffs as they wouldn't otherwise be in the playoffs without the auto.

[SoCon48]

Actually - conferences aren't reviewed now - the 8 that are eligible get the auto bids. Like I said - if a team deserves it by playing in a tough conference then they'll get a bid regardless. My point is that some teams backed their way into the playoffs just due to the way the conferences work and how other teams won / lost, so they didn't really earn the playoffs as they wouldn't otherwise be in the playoffs without the auto.

You'd be naive to think for a minute that with or without a formal review, conferences are looked at to see if they still deserve an automatic bid due to:
1. Other conferences have surpassed them in quality either by adding new strong members or by overall improvement in the members' performance.
2. Loss of a member, movement from one conf to another.


If the A-10 and the SoCon get to a point where their champ is not worthy of the play-off spot, chances are the whole division has melted down anyway.

[SoCon48]

. My point is that some teams backed their way into the playoffs just due to the way the conferences work and how other teams won / lost, so they didn't really earn the playoffs as they wouldn't otherwise be in the playoffs without the auto.

Name them. Not disputing your claim, just curious to see which teams that got an auto you think shouldn't have.

I'd wager the at larges were more debateable overall than the autos. Thus, there sure would be a mell of a hess if all were "at large." Certainly would take the committee more than a Saturday night to decide on 16 rather than 8..

[Hansel]

Name them. Not disputing your claim, just curious to see which teams that got an auto you think shouldn't have.

I'd wager the at larges were more debateable overall than the autos. Thus, there sure would be a mell of a hess if all were "at large." Certainly would take the committee more than a Saturday night to decide on 16 rather than 8..
Montana State went 7-5 in 02 and 03 and made the playoffs
EWU 7-4 this year, Colgate would probably be sitting at home at 8-3 this year

etc

etc

etc

[Hansel]

Name them. Not disputing your claim, just curious to see which teams that got an auto you think shouldn't have.

I'd wager the at larges were more debateable overall than the autos. Thus, there sure would be a mell of a hess if all were "at large." Certainly would take the committee more than a Saturday night to decide on 16 rather than 8..
Also if the NCAA can do 65 BB teams in one day (30+ at large) I think the IAA committee can do 16 at-large

[rokamortis]

Montana State went 7-5 in 02 and 03 and made the playoffs
EWU 7-4 this year, Colgate would probably be sitting at home at 8-3 this year

etc

etc

etc

:nod:

This year I would say EIU, Colgate, EWU, and possibly even Hampton even though I supported them, they did let me down.

[SoCon48]

Also if the NCAA can do 65 BB teams in one day (30+ at large) I think the IAA committee can do 16 at-large


Seems to be less bitching about the 30 BB at large than the 8 football at large for some reason.

[rokamortis]

You'd be naive to think for a minute that with or without a formal review, conferences are looked at to see if they still deserve an automatic bid due to:
1. Other conferences have surpassed them in quality either by adding new strong members or by overall improvement in the members' performance.
2. Loss of a member, movement from one conf to another.


If the A-10 and the SoCon get to a point where their champ is not worthy of the play-off spot, chances are the whole division has melted down anyway.

You are the naive one I believe.
Have you EVER seen anything that states they review to ensure that the conferences that get the autos deserve them? Why should they do a review? 8 autos and 8 conferences that qualify.

[Hansel]

:nod:

This year I would say EIU, Colgate, EWU, and possibly even Hampton even though I supported them, they did let me down.
EIU and Hampton would be in regardless heck Hampton got a seed and an OVC team got the #1 seed a couple of years ago before getting housed in the first round.

All 8 current autobid conferences would still likely get at least one team, however teams which win the conference and do poorly OOC and finish with a lackluster overall record will not be guaranteed a spot

[rokamortis]

EIU and Hampton would be in regardless heck Hampton got a seed and an OVC team got the #1 seed a couple of years ago before getting housed in the first round.

All 8 current autobid conferences would still likely get at least one team, however teams which win the conference and do poorly OOC and finish with a lackluster overall record will not be guaranteed a spot

I agree about Hampton - not so much about EIU. A 9-2 team in a weak conference with no real quality wins I think YSU may have made it in ahead of them.

[Hansel]

I agree about Hampton - not so much about EIU. A 9-2 team in a weak conference with no real quality wins I think YSU may have made it in ahead of them.
2 losses, one to BYU, one to Illinois St, they did beat Jax St and EKU

Compare that to 9-2 Lehigh (no IA, multiple mid-majors) last year, I am guessing they were in

[SoCon48]

You are the naive one I believe.
Have you EVER seen anything that states they review to ensure that the conferences that get the autos deserve them? Why should they do a review? 8 autos and 8 conferences that qualify.

Have you EVER seen anything that states that the 8 present auto bid conferences will all always get the auto-bids?

You think the SoCon should be reviewed every single year even though their membership has been responsible over their history for 9 National Championships and 10 runners up in championship games out of 26 possible years?
The Southern has the best overall play-off win % of all the conferences.

The federal beauracracy would just love your way of thinking.

[rokamortis]

Have you EVER seen anything that states that the 8 present auto bid conferences will all always get the auto-bids?

You think the SoCon should be reviewed every single year even though their membership has been responsible over their history for 9 National Championships and 10 runners up in championship games out of 26 possible years?
The Southern has the best overall play-off win % of all the conferences.

The federal beauracracy would just love your way of thinking.

No - I have never seen where they will always but that wasn't the original subject. What I have seen is that there are 8 autos and 8 conferences that qualify and without a new conference or changing the way things are done then those conferences will get the bids. Like I said - no reason to worry about it now. I didn't say anything about the SoCon. my point is that the conferences will earn their bid regardless, the weaker conferences might be in jeopardy.

[SoCon48]

:nod:

This year I would say EIU, Colgate, EWU, and possibly even Hampton even though I supported them, they did let me down.

Since we now know the outcome of the first round, I'd have to agree with you.
EWU showing vs Northern Iowa (3 pt margin) does give them a convincing case in retrospect though.
Hampton with its record is that kind of team that would have been chosen in an at large selection, anyway. Thus their mention is rather moot.

[rokamortis]

Since we now know the outcome of the first round, I'd have to agree with you.
EWU showing vs Northern Iowa (3 pt margin) does give them a convincing case in retrospect though.
Hampton with its record is that kind of team that would have been chosen in an at large selection, anyway. Thus their mention is rather moot.

Come on - many people had doubts even before then. Colgate and EWU weren't even in the running for the autos - it took a strange turn of events for them to make it - and they would likely have not gotten an at large if they didn't get the auto.

[ngineer]

Western Kentucky too during their break from the OVC.

and Lehigh 1980 (but I don't know if there were even "autos" then)

Cripes, there are a lot of them.

and 1979--were in the finals that year losing to EKU. LU was independent until the PL (nee, Colonial League) was formed in 1986.

[SoCon48]

Come on - many people had doubts even before then. Colgate and EWU weren't even in the running for the autos - it took a strange turn of events for them to make it.

"Come on"??? Oh, I just love it when people talk down to me as if their OPINION is gospel and is some kind of consensus.

Doubts? "Many" people..yes. "Many" people have doubts about some of the at large picks, too. "Many" people think Youngstown State should have been in. "Many" people laugh at the possibility of their inclusion.

[rokamortis]

"Come on"??? Oh, I just love it when people talk down to me as if their OPINION is gospel and is some kind of consensus.


me so sowwy you take offense of language on a message board waa waa

[SoCon48]

No - I have never seen where they will always but that wasn't the original subject. What I have seen is that there are 8 autos and 8 conferences that qualify and without a new conference or changing the way things are done then those conferences will get the bids. Like I said - no reason to worry about it now. I didn't say anything about the SoCon. my point is that the conferences will earn their bid regardless, the weaker conferences might be in jeopardy.

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Just IMOP, opening up all 16 to at large would be just as flawed and subjective as having a few conference champions get automatic inclusion.

As to the SoCon, I simply used them as an example that may tend to show that their best each year ought to be given a pass into the 16. Totally agree that there are some borderline conferences who need to be looked at from time to time and should the SoCon over a period of years have a major decline..do the same..

[rokamortis]

If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Just IMOP, opening up all 16 to at large would be just as flawed and subjective as having a few conference champions get automatic inclusion.

As to the SoCon, I simply used them as an example that may tend to show that their best each year ought to be given a pass into the 16. Totally agree that there are some borderline conferences who need to be looked at from time to time and should the SoCon over a period of years have a major decline..do the same..

Well - I think it is broken.

My argument is that I would rather have a larger field for more teams, but since so many feel against it because it waters down the field and want to stay at 16 teams, we should truly make it the 16 'best' teams. this year is a good example of some teams getting in that shouldn't have. IMO - no autos would make it the best / strongest playoffs possible. The teams that deserve it will get in - period.

[SoCon48]

Well - I think it is broken.

My argument is that I would rather have a larger field for more teams, but since so many feel against it because it waters down the field and want to stay at 16 teams, we should truly make it the 16 'best' teams. this year is a good example of some teams getting in that shouldn't have. IMO - no autos would make it the best / strongest playoffs possible. The teams that deserve it will get in - period.

Did all 8 at large teams deserve to be in this year?

[rokamortis]

Did all 8 at large teams deserve to be in this year?

I think so. I can't think of one that didn't.

[89Hen]

Actually - conferences aren't reviewed now - the 8 that are eligible get the auto bids.
Not true.

[rokamortis]

Not true.

Please explain.

[89Hen]

Please explain.
You may have skipped my earlier post...

The NCAA News -- February 17, 2003

Division I-AA Football Committee settles automatic-qualifier concern
The Division I-AA Football Committee has received confirmation from the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet that its method of identifying automatic-qualifying conferences meets the cabinet's guiding principles.

The committee, which met January 21-23 in Huntington Beach, California, reviewed applications from nine conferences seeking automatic qualification for their champions into the 16-team playoff bracket. The cabinet's guiding principles state that sports with sponsorship levels in the 10-59 percent range, which includes Division I-AA football, shall reserve at least 50 percent of the playoff berths for at-large selections and no more than 50 percent for automatic qualifiers.

The guiding principles also give sports committees the opportunity, but do not require them, to recommend to the cabinet the addition of play-in games when the number of conferences eligible for automatic qualification exceeds 50 percent of the playoff spots.

It would be difficult to include a play-in game to the Division I-AA playoffs and still have the championship game contested before Christmas. Therefore, the committee was seeking the cabinet's confirmation that a play-in game is not required, and that the eight automatic-qualifying conferences can be chosen out of the nine that have applied based on merit.

This was 2003, but it was the same 8 recieving autos then. I don't know who the 9th was, but it had to have been the Pioneer, MAAC or NEC. IF the Big South and/or Great West get to the minumum number for consideration for an auto, you can bet the farm they will apply every year until they get one. In that case, if the Committee determines that either are more qualified based on merit, they will get an auto and somebody else will be left out.

[rokamortis]

You may have skipped my earlier post...

The NCAA News -- February 17, 2003

Division I-AA Football Committee settles automatic-qualifier concern
The Division I-AA Football Committee has received confirmation from the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet that its method of identifying automatic-qualifying conferences meets the cabinet's guiding principles.

The committee, which met January 21-23 in Huntington Beach, California, reviewed applications from nine conferences seeking automatic qualification for their champions into the 16-team playoff bracket. The cabinet's guiding principles state that sports with sponsorship levels in the 10-59 percent range, which includes Division I-AA football, shall reserve at least 50 percent of the playoff berths for at-large selections and no more than 50 percent for automatic qualifiers.

The guiding principles also give sports committees the opportunity, but do not require them, to recommend to the cabinet the addition of play-in games when the number of conferences eligible for automatic qualification exceeds 50 percent of the playoff spots.

It would be difficult to include a play-in game to the Division I-AA playoffs and still have the championship game contested before Christmas. Therefore, the committee was seeking the cabinet's confirmation that a play-in game is not required, and that the eight automatic-qualifying conferences can be chosen out of the nine that have applied based on merit.

This was 2003, but it was the same 8 recieving autos then. I don't know who the 9th was, but it had to have been the Pioneer, MAAC or NEC. IF the Big South and/or Great West get to the minumum number for consideration for an auto, you can bet the farm they will apply every year until they get one. In that case, if the Committee determines that either are more qualified based on merit, they will get an auto and somebody else will be left out.

Well I stand corrected. :beerchug:

Do you know if this happens every year?

[89Hen]

Do you know if this happens every year?
It does, but as we all know, it's really a formality at this point. However, in the weeks before the playoffs, there is usually a press release that lets everybody who was waiting on pins and needles who the automatics would be this year. :rolleyes: I wish I could find one... maybe I'll look tomorrow.

[rokamortis]

It does, but as we all know, it's really a formality at this point. However, in the weeks before the playoffs, there is usually a press release that let's everybody who was waiting on pins and needles on who the automatics would be this year. :rolleyes: I wish I could find one... maybe I'll look tomorrow.

Would be interesting if a mid-major would actually get one.

[ucdtim17]

They should lower it to 5 teams so the GWFC can get a bid. Between UCD, CP, NDSU, and SDSU, when all eligible, there will be at least one playoff-worthy team amongst the group. On the other hand, auto-bids are stupid just like in I-A, when you get a 7-4 Pitt in the BCS while 10-1 Cal is stuck in the Holiday Bowl :bang:

[SoCon48]

me so sowwy you take offense of language on a message board waa waa

If you knew what the hell you were talking about more of the time while you were talking down to someone, no offense would be taken. :bow: :rolleyes:

[SoCon48]

Well I stand corrected. :beerchug:




It's about time (after 6 pages of the thread) and a big thanks to 89Hen for setting the record straight.

[rokamortis]

If you knew what the hell you were talking about more of the time while you were talking down to someone, no offense would be taken. :bow: :rolleyes:

How many times have I 'talked down' to you or someone else? How many times have you done the same? I really don't see how my statement could be taken for 'talking down' to you anyway - it was language used to indicate disagreement.

[rokamortis]

It's about time (after 6 pages of the thread) and a big thanks to 89Hen for setting the record straight.

But in reality - how seriously do you think they 'review' the conferences. If the mid-majors didn't deserve a bid in 2003 what makes the difference now? Even from the article they didn't say which 9 conferences applied - it could have been the Big South or Great West hoping to sneak in. There are no realistic conferences to award the 8 autos to besides the ones getting them now - unless something changes like a new conference becomes eligible or the mid-majors start to offer true scolarships and up their schedules. Ralph says the mid-majors don't want to participate in the playoffs anyway per the conference commish's - so the whole argument is rather moot. They may 'review' the conferences to maintain the charade but in all reality they don't really do anything as there is no need.

[89Hen]

They should lower it to 5 teams so the GWFC can get a bid. Between UCD, CP, NDSU, and SDSU, when all eligible, there will be at least one playoff-worthy team amongst the group.
:eek: :nono: If they are worthy, they will get one of the at-large just like CalPoly did this year. There is NO way I'd support lowering the number as I think 6 is too low already. Being the champ of 4 other teams is NOT a big enough accomplishment on it's own (especially when one of them is SUU). Every conference has it's dog(s), but discounting SUU leaves only 3 other teams to have to deal with and perhaps they all beat each other leaving the chance that a team could win the auto with two good conference wins.

[UAalum72]

The Pioneer League said it won't apply, but the NEC has. The Big South and MAAC can't apply per the rules (not enough teams) and the Great West is still in its waiting period. WHEN those conditions change, or if the SWAC or Ivy League decides to participate, the review will have to get a lot more serious.

I would think, though, that the review would take place before the season started, not in mid-season.

The six-team per conference minimum is an NCAA rule for all sports

[89Hen]

Ralph says the mid-majors don't want to participate in the playoffs anyway per the conference commish's - so the whole argument is rather moot.
Unless something has changed in the last two years, the fact that the NCAA says there were 9 applicants in 2003 kinda refutes that notion. I'm not saying Ralph is mistaken, but there is evidence that at least one of the MM's did want a bid as recently as two years ago. Also, keep in mind that this may be the mindset of the MM's as a whole, but there are exceptions to that like Albany, Stony Brook and Duquesne. I think if you asked them directly, I'd bet they would say they absolutely want in, hence the upgraded schedules (especially Albany). Duquesne played Fordham, Penn, Columbia and G'town this year. Albany had Hofstra, UMass, Maine and Fordham. Stony had Hofstra, Bucknell and G'town. IF any of them can go 10-1 I'd have to believe they'd get strong consideration from the Committee.

[89Hen]

The six-team per conference minimum is an NCAA rule for all sports
Football can certainly be different though. Many of the NCAA rules have asterisks for football.

[HensRock]

But in reality - how seriously do you think they 'review' the conferences. If the mid-majors didn't deserve a bid in 2003 what makes the difference now? Even from the article they didn't say which 9 conferences applied - it could have been the Big South or Great West hoping to sneak in. There are no realistic conferences to award the 8 autos to besides the ones getting them now - unless something changes like a new conference becomes eligible or the mid-majors start to offer true scolarships and up their schedules. Ralph says the mid-majors don't want to participate in the playoffs anyway per the conference commish's - so the whole argument is rather moot. They may 'review' the conferences to maintain the charade but in all reality they don't really do anything as there is no need.

GIVE IT UP!
You were caught spewing your opinion of how things worked as fact and it turns out you were wrong. Every conference must apply for an autobid every year and every year it is reviewed. Until a truly worthy conference makes a play to unseat a current sutobid, it probably is just a formality. But it is a formality that they go through every year. I remember seeing press releases as 89 has stated that do indeed verify who the autobid conferences are every season. If you think the committee does a poor job of selecting teams now, just wait if you give them 16 teams to pick instead of 8. If we don't have automatic qualifiers, then why have conferences?

I don't beleive the current system is perfect, but i DO beleive it is best.

[SoCon48]

How many times have I 'talked down' to you or someone else? How many times have you done the same? I really don't see how my statement could be taken for 'talking down' to you anyway - it was language used to indicate disagreement.

"Oh come on" is definitely talking down to someone.
By the same token, I feel I owe you an unsolicited apology for using the term "naive" in one of my previous posts.

[SoCon48]

But in reality - how seriously do you think they 'review' the conferences. If the mid-majors didn't deserve a bid in 2003 what makes the difference now? Even from the article they didn't say which 9 conferences applied - it could have been the Big South or Great West hoping to sneak in. There are no realistic conferences to award the 8 autos to besides the ones getting them now - unless something changes like a new conference becomes eligible or the mid-majors start to offer true scolarships and up their schedules. Ralph says the mid-majors don't want to participate in the playoffs anyway per the conference commish's - so the whole argument is rather moot. They may 'review' the conferences to maintain the charade but in all reality they don't really do anything as there is no need.

Let me know if you come up with a specific objective way of knowing how seriously they review the conferences' auto bid designations.
It would be nice, too, to know what inside information you have to support your opinion that the purpose of their review is to maintain a charade.

[SoCon48]

GIVE IT UP!
You were caught spewing your opinion of how things worked as fact and it turns out you were wrong. Every conference must apply for an autobid every year and every year it is reviewed. Until a truly worthy conference makes a play to unseat a current sutobid, it probably is just a formality. But it is a formality that they go through every year. I remember seeing press releases as 89 has stated that do indeed verify who the autobid conferences are every season. If you think the committee does a poor job of selecting teams now, just wait if you give them 16 teams to pick instead of 8. If we don't have automatic qualifiers, then why have conferences?

I don't beleive the current system is perfect, but i DO beleive it is best.

Amen to all points.

[Hansel]

Basketball requires 7 teams for the autobid

[Hansel]

Football can certainly be different though. Many of the NCAA rules have asterisks for football.
The same could be said for any of the current teams from autobid leagues. The autobid in Football whether BCS or IAA is a welfare system for teams to get spots they are "entitled" to even in years when they don't deserve it. The worst thing is that only people on the PC which select IAA playoff teams come from the autobid conferences, who do you think they are looking out for?

[Hansel]

:eek: :nono: If they are worthy, they will get one of the at-large just like CalPoly did this year. There is NO way I'd support lowering the number as I think 6 is too low already. Being the champ of 4 other teams is NOT a big enough accomplishment on it's own (especially when one of them is SUU). Every conference has it's dog(s), but discounting SUU leaves only 3 other teams to have to deal with and perhaps they all beat each other leaving the chance that a team could win the auto with two good conference wins.
The same could be said for any of the current teams from autobid leagues. The autobid in Football whether BCS or IAA is a welfare system for teams to get spots they are "entitled to" even in years when they don't deserve it. The worst thing is that all the people on the PC which select IAA playoff teams come from the autobid conferences, who do you think they are looking out for?

[rokamortis]

GIVE IT UP!
You were caught spewing your opinion of how things worked as fact and it turns out you were wrong. Every conference must apply for an autobid every year and every year it is reviewed. Until a truly worthy conference makes a play to unseat a current sutobid, it probably is just a formality. But it is a formality that they go through every year. I remember seeing press releases as 89 has stated that do indeed verify who the autobid conferences are every season. If you think the committee does a poor job of selecting teams now, just wait if you give them 16 teams to pick instead of 8. If we don't have automatic qualifiers, then why have conferences?

I don't beleive the current system is perfect, but i DO beleive it is best.

You are correct - I did give my opinion of how things work as I understood them and was proven wrong, and I acknowledged the fact. Other than that - how does your post disagree with mine? Seems like you pretty much hit the same points except you feel the conferences should retain an autobid.

I never said the committee did a poor job selecting teams - just that not all of the autos were as worthy as some of the teams that were left out, IMHO.

I'd rather see the playoffs expand and the conferences retain their bids, but since so many don't want to 'water' down the playoffs with weak teams then we should ensure all of the strongest teams get in rather than ones that may have won their conference but are overall weaker than others.

As to your question about why having conferences that do not get autobids:
Ease of Scheduling
All sports members of the conference
Like institutions that want to ensure they play every year
Do not want to be an independant

The reward to winning the conference is winning the conference trophy and bragging rights. As many have stated, the playoffs are a reward for proving it on the field since game one, and winning the conference does not indicate that.

[rokamortis]

"Oh come on" is definitely talking down to someone.
By the same token, I feel I owe you an unsolicited apology for using the term "naive" in one of my previous posts.

I don't take offense to your messages so an apology in not needed, although I will typically respond in a like manner as I was addressed. It is nice to see you acknowledge your hypocritical statement though.

[rokamortis]

Unless something has changed in the last two years, the fact that the NCAA says there were 9 applicants in 2003 kinda refutes that notion.

You may or may not be right - we don't know which 9 conferences applied in 2003 or which ones have applied since then. I was just passing on what was said by Ralph per his contacts.

[SoCon48]

It is nice to see you acknowledge your hypocritical statement though.
I should have known you'd twist the statement around..as usual.

[rokamortis]

Bulls***! I should have known you'd twist the statement around..as usual.

1) How did i twist it?

2) How is this not talking down to me :nono: :)

[kardplayer]

Speaking for the plurality...

In my opinion, autobids are good because you have to be able to begin your season knowing a way to ensure you are in the playoffs. I can't think off the top of my head of any sporting league or competition that doesn't do this.

Autobids are good because, try as we might, there really isn't a completely fair way to objectively measure Strength of Schedule within a given year.

Autobids are good because they give teams in the "weaker" conferences something to play for and to celebrate on the field (when they win their conference on the field that is).

Autobids are good because although they might lead (perhaps often) to stinkers, upsets and near-upsets are what makes the first round of tournaments exciting. Without autobids, W&M wouldn't have had to survive Hampton last year in a great game because the MEAC without an autobid would probably not get a bid at all in many years.

[Engineer91]

Why does the Big Sky/Gateway/A-10/Southern Conference want autobids? I would think these conferences would be in favor of zero autobids. They routinely get multiple teams into the playoffs suggesting that they can clearly be considered a top team in the nation. I guess it does allow for the occasional team to "back" into the playoffs by winning the conference.

To me the autobids are most benificial to conferences where the general confernece strength of schedule is suspect. It enables/woudl anable the country to see what a 12-0 Colgate, 11-0 Hampton, or perhaps a 10-1 Dusquesne can do in the playoffs without having to completely analyze and believe the strength of schedule calulations to determine the quality of the team.

I am currently comfortable with the autobids but I wanted to hear some comments on the above. I know the general feel is people woudl rather have the 16 best teams int he playoffs but how does having any autobids approach that goal???

[rokamortis]

Why does the Big Sky/Gateway/A-10/Southern Conference want autobids? I would think these conferences would be in favor of zero autobids. They routinely get multiple teams into the playoffs suggesting that they can clearly be considered a top team in the nation. I guess it does allow for the occasional team to "back" into the playoffs by winning the conference.

To me the autobids are most benificial to conferences where the general confernece strength of schedule is suspect. It enables/woudl anable the country to see what a 12-0 Colgate, 11-0 Hampton, or perhaps a 10-1 Dusquesne can do in the playoffs without having to completely analyze and believe the strength of schedule calulations to determine the quality of the team.

I am currently comfortable with the autobids but I wanted to hear some comments on the above. I know the general feel is people woudl rather have the 16 best teams int he playoffs but how does having any autobids approach that goal???

I don't see why the power conferences mind giving up the bids either. But to answer your question let me give you my opinion first. i want the field to expand and to award autobids, but the majority that replied to 89Hen's survey said they want to keep the field at 16 as anymore would water it down and they would like to see better matchups. So in that case, if we are to stay at 16 I feel we should remove the auto bids as that would be the fairest award for all teams invloved. Every eligible team would have the same requirements at the beginning of the season. This would truly require teams to prove it on the field and we would get a stronger field than if we had autobids. If a conference is weak then this would encourage them to become stronger.

[AppGuy04]

I don't see why the power conferences mind giving up the bids either. But to answer your question let me give you my opinion first. i want the field to expand and to award autobids, but the majority that replied to 89Hen's survey said they want to keep the field at 16 as anymore would water it down and they would like to see better matchups. So in that case, if we are to stay at 16 I feel we should remove the auto bids as that would be the fairest award for all teams invloved. Every eligible team would have the same requirements at the beginning of the season. This would truly require teams to prove it on the field and we would get a stronger field than if we had autobids. If a conference is weak then this would encourage them to become stronger.

Having an autobid is what would make them strive to be bigger and stronger IMO

[89Hen]

The worst thing is that all the people on the PC which select IAA playoff teams come from the autobid conferences, who do you think they are looking out for?
How many schools are there that are 'eligible' to participate in the playoffs but don't have a person on the Committee? Maybe a dozen? You make it sound like the minority controls the interest. There are 68 schools in auto-bid conferences. There are 11 scholarship awarding schools that aren't and 4 of those aren't eligible for the playoffs yet and the numbers go to 69 and 10 next year as UNC joins the BSC. So 6 schools basically aren't represented on the Committee, one of them got a bid this year, and one other shot themselves in the foot by losing their last game of the season. If this is the "worst thing" then we're in pretty good shape. :p

[89Hen]

BTW, I'm really shocked to see my answer to the above poll question has received the lowest amount of votes. I really believe that upping the minimum number of teams to get an auto is a good thing and wouldn't really change the way it's done now. Big South and GWFC fans would obviously have the most objection to it.

[SoCon48]

Having an autobid is what would make them strive to be bigger and stronger IMO

If CCU ever gets in the SoCon, Rok, et. al. will see why the strong conferences DESERVE an automatic bid. Hell, getting into the SoCon or A-10's top three is tougher than going 10-1, 9-2 with many schools' schedules.

[SoCon48]

BTW, I'm really shocked to see my answer to the above poll question has received the lowest amount of votes. I really believe that upping the minimum number of teams to get an auto is a good thing and wouldn't really change the way it's done now. Big South and GWFC fans would obviously have the most objection to it.

BINGO!

[SoCon48]

BTW, I'm really shocked to see my answer to the above poll question has received the lowest amount of votes.

Think it shows that the disgruntled fans of schools that didn't get an autobid outnumber the fans of the 8 that did get them.

Hell, expansion to an at large 64 team selection would have received a few votes even.

[rokamortis]

How many schools are there that are 'eligible' to participate in the playoffs but don't have a person on the Committee? Maybe a dozen? You make it sound like the minority controls the interest. There are 68 schools in auto-bid conferences. There are 11 scholarship awarding schools that aren't and 4 of those aren't eligible for the playoffs yet and the numbers go to 69 and 10 next year as UNC joins the BSC. So 6 schools basically aren't represented on the Committee, one of them got a bid this year, and one other shot themselves in the foot by losing their last game of the season. If this is the "worst thing" then we're in pretty good shape. :p

The NCAA handbook says 49 teams that are eligible but are not a part of the autobid conferences.
At-Large Institutions
CENTRAL REGION
Austin Peay State University
Butler University
University of Dayton
Drake University
Morehead State University
Valparaiso University

EAST REGION
State University of New York at Albany
Brown University
Central Connecticut State University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Duquesne University
Harvard University
Iona College
La Salle University
Marist College
Monmouth University
University of Pennsylvania
Princeton University
Robert Morris University
Sacred Heart University
St. Francis University (Pennsylvania)
St. Peter’s College
Stony Brook University
Wagner College
Yale University

SOUTH REGION
Alabama A&M University
Alabama State University
Alcorn State University
University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff
Charleston Southern University
Coastal Carolina University
Davidson College
Gardner-Webb University
Grambling State University
Jackson State University
Jacksonville University
Liberty University
Mississippi Valley State University
Prairie View A&M University
Savannah State University
Southern University, Baton Rouge
Texas Southern University
Virginia Military Institute

WEST REGION
California Polytechnic State University
University of San Diego
Southeastern Louisiana University
Southern Utah University

[rokamortis]

If CCU ever gets in the SoCon, Rok, et. al. will see why the strong conferences DESERVE an automatic bid. Hell, getting into the SoCon or A-10's top three is tougher than going 10-1, 9-2 with many schools' schedules.

The strong conferences will have earned their bid(s) anyway - so the point is moot - as they could actually be eligible to send more teams than what they could if other weaker conferences get a bid.

Your point plays into mine perfectly - it is harder to go 8-3 in some conferences than others going 9-2, so we should reward the ones that play the tougher schedules.

[dbackjon]

The NCAA handbook says 49 teams that are eligible but are not a part of the autobid conferences.
At-Large Institutions
CENTRAL REGION
Austin Peay State University
Butler University
University of Dayton
Drake University
Morehead State University
Valparaiso University

EAST REGION
State University of New York at Albany
Brown University
Central Connecticut State University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Duquesne University
Harvard University
Iona College
La Salle University
Marist College
Monmouth University
University of Pennsylvania
Princeton University
Robert Morris University
Sacred Heart University
St. Francis University (Pennsylvania)
St. Peter’s College
Stony Brook University
Wagner College
Yale University

SOUTH REGION
Alabama A&M University
Alabama State University
Alcorn State University
University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff
Charleston Southern University
Coastal Carolina University
Davidson College
Gardner-Webb University
Grambling State University
Jackson State University
Jacksonville University
Liberty University
Mississippi Valley State University
Prairie View A&M University
Savannah State University
Southern University, Baton Rouge
Texas Southern University
Virginia Military Institute

WEST REGION
California Polytechnic State University
University of San Diego
Southeastern Louisiana University
Southern Utah University

The SWAC and Ivy Schools choose not to participate. Repeat, choose. If the Ivy and SWAC wanted auto-bids, they would get them, IMHO.

The Pioneer and MAAC teams aren't trying to play I-AA football - they are playing D-III football at the I-AA classification.

[rokamortis]

The SWAC and Ivy Schools choose not to participate. Repeat, choose. If the Ivy and SWAC wanted auto-bids, they would get them, IMHO.

The Pioneer and MAAC teams aren't trying to play I-AA football - they are playing D-III football at the I-AA classification.

This is what the NCAA manual says.

[89Hen]

The NCAA handbook says 49 teams that are eligible but are not a part of the autobid conferences.

Most by CHOICE....

VOTED to not participate:
Brown University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Harvard University
University of Pennsylvania
Princeton University
Yale University

ELECTS to have Classics and a Championship Game in lieu of playoffs:
Alabama A&M University
Alabama State University
Alcorn State University
University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff
Grambling State University
Jackson State University
Mississippi Valley State University
Prairie View A&M University
Southern University
Texas Southern University

CHOOSE to not give scholarships which basically eliminates them from consideration:
Austin Peay State University
Butler University
University of Dayton
Drake University
Morehead State University
Valparaiso University
State University of New York at Albany
Central Connecticut State University
Duquesne University
Iona College
La Salle University
Marist College
Monmouth University
Robert Morris University
Sacred Heart University
St. Francis University (Pennsylvania)
St. Peter’s College
Stony Brook University
Wagner College
Davidson College
Jacksonville University
University of San Diego

Truly not represented:
Charleston Southern University
Coastal Carolina University
Gardner-Webb University
Liberty University
Virginia Military Institute
Savannah State University
California Polytechnic State University
Southern Utah University

BTW, this list is old as Southeastern Louisiana University is now in the Southland and is represented.

[blukeys]

Why does the Big Sky/Gateway/A-10/Southern Conference want autobids? I would think these conferences would be in favor of zero autobids. They routinely get multiple teams into the playoffs suggesting that they can clearly be considered a top team in the nation.


I think the Big Sky/Gateway/A-10/Southern Conference want autobids because the only way you can be assured of a playoff slot is to win the conference autobid. While it is reasonable to assume that these conferences will receive multiple bids, There is no guarantee to individual teams that they would get the extra bid. Autobids give a team a chance to control it's own destiny. As you know coaches love to preach to their own players the importance of "taking care of business". Autobids give the assurance that if you take care of business you don't have to depend on the decisions of the committee.

[Hansel]

Most by CHOICE....

VOTED to not participate:
Brown University
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Harvard University
University of Pennsylvania
Princeton University
Yale University

ELECTS to have Classics and a Championship Game in lieu of playoffs:
Alabama A&M University
Alabama State University
Alcorn State University
University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff
Grambling State University
Jackson State University
Mississippi Valley State University
Prairie View A&M University
Southern University
Texas Southern University

CHOOSE to not give scholarships which basically eliminates them from consideration:
Austin Peay State University
Butler University
University of Dayton
Drake University
Morehead State University
Valparaiso University
State University of New York at Albany
Central Connecticut State University
Duquesne University
Iona College
La Salle University
Marist College
Monmouth University
Robert Morris University
Sacred Heart University
St. Francis University (Pennsylvania)
St. Peter’s College
Stony Brook University
Wagner College
Davidson College
Jacksonville University
University of San Diego

Truly not represented:
Charleston Southern University
Coastal Carolina University
Gardner-Webb University
Liberty University
Virginia Military Institute
Savannah State University
California Polytechnic State University
Southern Utah University

BTW, this list is old as Southeastern Louisiana University is now in the Southland and is represented.
Some of the NEC teams are funded at levels similar to that of the lower PL teams.

[89Hen]

Some of the NEC teams are funded at levels similar to that of the lower PL teams.
OK, put Albany and Stony Brook on the underrepresented list.

[rokamortis]

CHOOSE to not give scholarships which basically eliminates them from consideration ... BTW, this list is old as Southeastern Louisiana University is now in the Southland and is represented.

Again, this is from an NCAA publication, I'm sure they would appreciate any feedback you would like to give them to update their manual.

What are the rules on non-scholarship schools and the playoffs - aren't they eligible regardless of their amount of scholarships? If that is true, then they should be on the 'not represented' list as well.

A little off-topic but I have been told that the NEC had applied for an autobd this past year and am trying to find out how it was determined that they not receive one.

[Hansel]

Question, can anyone name a team who has "backed in" to the playoffs with an autobid and made any noise in the playoffs?

[89Hen]

What are the rules on non-scholarship schools and the playoffs - aren't they eligible regardless of their amount of scholarships? If that is true, then they should be on the 'not represented' list as well.

A little off-topic but I have been told that the NEC had applied for an autobd this past year and am trying to find out how it was determined that they not receive one.
"basically eliminates" is what I said. Technically they are eligible, but the guidelines for selection of at-large bids is not a secret and the SOS of the MM's "basically eliminates" them from consideration.

Not off topic at all on the final question, but that was the point of the article from 2003 that I posted when the Committee verified that they are to choose the eight auto-bids based on merit.

[89Hen]

Question, can anyone name a team who has "backed in" to the playoffs with an autobid and made any noise in the playoffs?
Lost their last game but still got the auto?

[thirdgendin]

BTW, I'm really shocked to see my answer to the above poll question has received the lowest amount of votes. I really believe that upping the minimum number of teams to get an auto is a good thing and wouldn't really change the way it's done now. Big South and GWFC fans would obviously have the most objection to it.

I would have an objection to this as well. I would hate for the SoCon to have lost its automatic bid because ETSU wimped out and dropped football. Why punish Appalachian, Chattanooga, Citadel, Elon, Furman, Georgia Southern, Western Carolina and Wofford because of ETSU's ineptitude?

[89Hen]

Why punish Appalachian, Chattanooga, Citadel, Elon, Furman, Georgia Southern, Western Carolina and Wofford because of ETSU's ineptitude?
I don't think you punish any of those teams. They're still going to make the playoffs if they win the SoCon whether they have an auto or not. You're punishing the conference for not maintaining a respectible level of teams.

[rokamortis]

Question, can anyone name a team who has "backed in" to the playoffs with an autobid and made any noise in the playoffs?

The definition of 'backed in' being that they would not have made the playoffs without the autobid and a team below them in conference was more qualified based on merit?

[SoCon48]

The definition of 'backed in' being that they would not have made the playoffs without the autobid and a team below them in conference was more qualified based on merit?

Analogous to the fact that Coastal "backed out" of the play-offs by their late season schedule, performance, and loss to Chucktown South? :nod:

Oh, I forgot, it was Laney who kept you out. :rolleyes:

[rokamortis]

Analogous to the fact that Coastal "backed out" of the play-offs by their late season schedule, performance, and loss to Chucktown South? :nod:

Oh, I forgot, it was Laney who kept you out. :rolleyes:

Where do you come up with this crap? Have you heard any CCU poster bitch about not getting into the playoffs? That would be a big NO.

Now be careful - or I might take a cue from you and start whining about how you are posting to me waa waa

[SoCon48]

Where do you come up with this crap? Have you heard any CCU poster bitch about not getting into the playoffs? That would be a big NO.



BIG YES! Whole threads and polls started and perpetuated by CCU posts trying to figure a way to expand future play-offs and eliminate the conference auto-bids. Anyone who can't see that has a reading problem..well beyond dyslexia. Taking off the Coastal helmet avatars by some was good try at disguising, though.
Anyway:
waa waa (took a lesson from YOU)

[Hansel]

Lost their last game but still got the auto?
More like got in with a 7-4 or weak 8-3 record but still won conference

[89Hen]

More like got in with a 7-4 or weak 8-3 record but still won conference
I starting checking earlier as I thought maybe that's where you were going. Believe it or not, the last team I could find in the Gateway, Southland or SoCon that won the conference with two conference losses was Furman in like 1981, but the SoCon didn't send teams to the playoffs then. I started with those conferences because I didn't know about them. I did know that the Yankee/A10 has had two loss winners many times. I think this is due to the number of games as much as any parity. As this pertains to your question though, none of them got past the Quarterfinals...


1986: Delaware, UMass and UConn all 5-2 (8-3) but only UD went and lost in the Q's.

1988: Delaware (7-4) and UMass (8-3) both 6-2, UD got the auto, but both lost first round.

1989: Maine (9-2), Villanova (8-3) and UConn (8-3) all 5-2, Maine was auto, Nova at-large, both lost first round

2001: Hofstra (9-2), Maine (9-2), Villanova (8-3) and W&M (8-3) all 7-2, Hofstra was auto, Maine and W&M at-large, only Maine won one game

2002: Northeastern and Maine both 7-2 (10-2), NU was auto but lost first round, Maine was at-large and won one game

[rokamortis]

BIG YES! Whole threads and polls started and perpetuated by CCU posts trying to figure a way to expand future play-offs and eliminate the conference auto-bids. Anyone who can't see that has a reading problem..well beyond dyslexia. Taking off the Coastal helmet avatars by some was good try at disguising, though.
Anyway:
waa waa (took a lesson from YOU)

This is just your jaded opinion of what I write. xidiotx If you have paid attention to what I have written, you would have seen I have said many times that my reasons for expanding the playoffs or getting rid of the autobids if expansion is not an option has nothing to do with my affiliation with CCU - just the way I feel.

[SoCon48]

This is just your jaded opinion of what I write. xidiotx If you have paid attention to what I have written, you would have seen I have said many times that my reasons for expanding the playoffs or getting rid of the autobids if expansion is not an option has nothing to do with my affiliation with CCU - just the way I feel.

That was very apparent from the beginning...that all your reasoning was based on getting more average teams a chance.

Save your emoticons insinuting someone is nuts for the smack board. I would wager everything I own that I'm at least as stable as YOU are.


THIS IS NOT THE SMACK BOARD!

[rokamortis]

That was very apparent from the beginning...that all your reasoning was based on getting more average teams a chance.


This is your false opinion of what I said - you are wrong. My point is getting more teams a chance - period. If we can't do that then ensure we get the best team available - so how is that trying to get average teams in?

If you think this is smack then report the post.

[SoCon48]

This is your false opinion of what I said - you are wrong. My point is getting more teams a chance - period. If we can't do that then ensure we get the best team available - so how is that trying to get average teams in?

If you think this is smack then report the post.

Not a tattletale like you, dude.
You know d--- well what the smack was. The smack was your little crazy a--- emoticon.
Appropriate for the smack board, but not here.
Grow up.

[SoCon48]

This is just your jaded opinion of what I write. xidiotx If you have paid attention to what I have written, you would have seen I have said many times that my reasons for expanding the playoffs or getting rid of the autobids if expansion is not an option has nothing to do with my affiliation with CCU - just the way I feel.

Just to remove all doubt. The little emoticon you put is what I was referring to.
Take it to the smack board or to e-mail.

[rokamortis]

Just to remove all doubt. The little emoticon you put is what I was referring to.
Take it to the smack board or to e-mail.

I understand. I don't think it was smack - just a funny emoticon to reiterate my point. People use them all over the place here - even on the non-smack board. Ask Ralph - maybe he'll decide that we shouldn't have any emoticons on the non-smack boards.

[SoCon48]

I understand. I don't think it was smack - just a funny emoticon to reiterate my point. People use them all over the place here - even on the non-smack board. Ask Ralph - maybe he'll decide that we shouldn't have any emoticons on the non-smack boards.

Why would Ralph want to get involved in something so petty? Besides, don't you think Ralph is attending one of the play-off games today?

[rokamortis]

Why would Ralph want to get involved in something so petty? Besides, don't you think Ralph is attending one of the play-off games today?

It is a board issue and he is moderator - and I didn't say you had to call him out of the game ;)

[Hansel]

:argue: :argue: :argue: :argue:

[rokamortis]

:argue: :argue: :argue: :argue:

LMAO
:lmao:

You are right :D

[SoCon48]

It is a board issue and he is moderator - and I didn't say you had to call him out of the game ;)

No fesces!