Is 6 DI Wins enough???

[jstclmet]

With the new expanded playoff format, can a team from the CAA, SOCON, MVFC, BSC get into the tourney with only 6 D1 W's over a first place PFL team or a 2nd place PL, NEC, BSouth/MEAC/SWAC team with 7 or 8 D1 W's???

If I missed anyone attribute it to fast typing, not any kind of dis.

[89Hen]

At 20... NO.

[Uncle Buck]

I have to agree, at 20 teams, i think 6 isn't going to cut it .

[danefan]

Not at 20. There have always been 2 bubble teams with 7 wins (e.g. UNI this year, W&M last year).

Those teams and the occasional 2nd from the lower conferences will get the additional 2 at-larges in the 20 team spread.

[jstclmet]

Not at 20. There have always been 2 bubble teams with 7 wins (e.g. UNI this year, W&M last year).

Those teams and the occasional 2nd from the lower conferences will get the additional 2 at-larges in the 20 team spread.

Using your argument, UNI gets one of the two remaining spots. Who beats out JMU or UD for the last spot??? PFL team (Butler, Dayton, Drake)?? 2nd place PL (Colgate), NEC(Albany), MEAC(FAMU),OVC, Southland (Tx.St), SWAC (Grambling)??

[Grizzaholic]

6, or even 5 will be plenty enough if your conference is the CAA. We all know how tough the CAA is and therefore, if you had to play the slate of tough games that the CAA teams have to do year in year out 6 or even 5 wins should, and will, be enough.

[89Hen]

6, or even 5 will be plenty enough if your conference is the CAA. We all know how tough the CAA is and therefore, if you had to play the slate of tough games that the CAA teams have to do year in year out 6 or even 5 wins should, and will, be enough.
Hmmm, the worst records I can recall ever making the playoffs were both 7-5 and both were from the Big Sky. xchinscratchx

[Bogus Megapardus]

6, or even 5 will be plenty enough if your conference is the CAA. We all know how tough the CAA is and therefore, if you had to play the slate of tough games that the CAA teams have to do year in year out 6 or even 5 wins should, and will, be enough.

Agreed. With a 20-game playoff, all 5-win CAA teams should be in. Why should any other conference have more than one team if FCS seems to be letting practically anyone these days have an AQ that they don't even deserve?

[theasushow]

Agreed. With a 20-game playoff, all 5-win CAA teams should be in. Why should any other conference have more than one team if FCS seems to be letting practically anyone these days have an AQ that they don't even deserve?

call me crazy but a 5 or 6 win team (regardless of conference) would potentially put a team at 5-6 or 6-6 or 5-7 on a season. yes i realize that there will likely be a non d1 win included there, but in my opinion, a team that has as many losses as wins should NOT be included in any postseason play.

[JohnStOnge]

I think it should be but it probably won't be. Like say somebody plays their three nonconference games against USC, Florida, and Ohio State and loses by 1, 2, and 3 points. Then they play 8 conference games and go 6-2 with the two losses by 1 point each to teams that both finish in the top 10. Yes. they should be considered for the playoffs.

That's kind of an extreme example, but I have long believed that the number of wins, pre se, should have no impact. The overall performance in the context of the difficulty of schedule should be the standard. And it is quite possible for a 6-5 record with 5 close losses against very tough opponents to be more impressive than a, say, 9-2 record against an easier slate.

BTW, Idaho made the I-AA playoffs with 6 wins in 1995. 6-4.

[Saint3333]

A 6 win team doesn't deserve a playoff birth. The 7 D1 win criteria should remain.

[slostang]

I think that they should take the top 20 teams period. I believe that who you play and how you played them should matter.

Look at Portland State in 2006. They finished 7-4 and tied for second place in the Big Sky conference and they were left out of the playoffs. Three of Portland States losses were to #21 BCS Cal, #4 FCS Montana (6 pt loss), #25 BCS Oregon. There 4th loss was to Montana State. Portland State beat FBS New Mexico in 2006. They were 6-2 against FCS teams and had a 7th win against an FBS team. The 2 FCS losses were to playoff teams and they had 7 road games and only 4 home games in 2006. In my opinion they got the shaft when they were left out of the playoffs.

[Grizzaholic]

I think that they should take the top 20 teams period. I believe that who you play and how you played them should matter.

Look at Portland State in 2006. They finished 7-4 and tied for second place in the Big Sky conference and they were left out of the playoffs. Three of Portland States losses were to #21 BCS Cal, #4 FCS Montana (6 pt loss), #25 BCS Oregon. There 4th loss was to Montana State. Portland State beat FBS New Mexico in 2006. They were 6-2 against FCS teams and had a 7th win against an FBS team. The 2 FCS losses were to playoff teams and they had 7 road games and only 4 home games in 2006. In my opinion they got the shaft when they were left out of the playoffs.


Sour Grapes. SCHEDULED THEMSELVES OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS.

[Redbird Ray]

Sour Grapes. SCHEDULED THEMSELVES OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS.

Depending on the loss margin in the Cal and Oregon games, I would agree with Slostang. If they were close (less than 10pts perhaps), then teams that schedule up should be rewarded for their ability to play with higher competition. A single digit loss to a BCS top 25 team is more significant than a win over Prarie View or some other FCS bottom feeder and should be rewarded as such (if that team is still in the top 25) at the end of the season.

If they were blowout losses, then I would agree that PSU scheduled themselves out of the playoffs in that season. I'm wondering how PSU got three FBS games in one season?

[danefan]

Using your argument, UNI gets one of the two remaining spots. Who beats out JMU or UD for the last spot??? PFL team (Butler, Dayton, Drake)?? 2nd place PL (Colgate), NEC(Albany), MEAC(FAMU),OVC, Southland (Tx.St), SWAC (Grambling)??


Last year, I think Liberty would have been the 10th at-large, IMO. Remember they didn't win the Big South. Most years the 2 teams will be from major conferences I think.

[slostang]

Sour Grapes. SCHEDULED THEMSELVES OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS.

How is it sour grapes, I am a Cal Poly fan. I thought it back in 2006 and I still believe it today. They should have been rewarded for their schedule, not punished. They had 7 DI wins, a win over a FBS team and only lost to the 4th ranked FCS team by 6 points. They were more deserving than a lot of the teams in the playoffs that year.

[jstclmet]

Last year, I think Liberty would have been the 10th at-large, IMO. Remember they didn't win the Big South. Most years the 2 teams will be from major conferences I think.

Didn't JMU beat Liberty Head to head??

[JMU Newbill]

Didn't JMU beat Liberty Head to head??


at Liberty, in a monsoon.... but hey, that's about the only highlight for JMU from last year.

[danefan]

Didn't JMU beat Liberty Head to head??

Yup and the Committee would have still taken Liberty's 8 DI wins over JMU's 6.

[jstclmet]

Yup and the Committee would have still taken Liberty's 8 DI wins over JMU's 6.

Given the current landscape you're probably right. That's why I voted "No" to the poll question. But looking at the argument LU vs JMU, there's something wrong with that conclusion. Frankly, I believe both teams would have been a quick out, but JMU's SOS clearly outweighed LU, JMU took MD to OT, and they won the head to head matchup with LU.

I may be wrong, but I truly believe, this same scenario will manifest itself come the end of the regular season, only with different teams. A CAA/SOCON/MVFC/BSC 3rd, 4th, or 5th seed vs a NEC, PL, B.South, etc. 2 seed, or PFL Champ.

[JohnStOnge]

How is it sour grapes, I am a Cal Poly fan. I thought it back in 2006 and I still believe it today. They should have been rewarded for their schedule, not punished. They had 7 DI wins, a win over a FBS team and only lost to the 4th ranked FCS team by 6 points. They were more deserving than a lot of the teams in the playoffs that year.

Besides, "Sour Grapes" means acting like you don't want something when you really do. Bitching about something you wanted but didn't get is NOT sour grapes.

The whole point is that the fox couldn't get the grapes so he said, "They were sour anyway."

[CopperCat]

How is it sour grapes, I am a Cal Poly fan. I thought it back in 2006 and I still believe it today. They should have been rewarded for their schedule, not punished. They had 7 DI wins, a win over a FBS team and only lost to the 4th ranked FCS team by 6 points. They were more deserving than a lot of the teams in the playoffs that year.

You're basically saying that PSU should have been in over MSU. I get that. Here are a few things about that year that some may be forgetting.

MSU beat Colorado that year, which is a premier BCS team. Yes, they may have had a down year, but when an FCS team beats a Big 12 team that is a big deal, and I would argue it was a bigger deal than PSU beating UNM.

MSU beat PSU head to head. That speaks for itself. Now if you throw in the fact that MSU lost to a DII team, that complicates things a bit. I can see the argument for throwing out MSU and putting PSU in, so don't think I'm not acknowledging that.

MSU also lost to UM by only 6 points that year, AT Wa-Griz no less. PSU had UM at home. Whether or not the committee took that into account I don't know, but given the very close race between MSU and PSU for that last spot, I have to think it played some kind of role.

MSU also had 7 DI wins that year, and would have had 8 total wins had it not been for one Danny Woodhead (that name still makes me cringe). My point is that there are indeed other teams out there that have resumes that are worth looking at. PSU vs. MSU in 2006 was a tough one, and I think that if the committee would have chosen PSU, it probably would have been an equally valid choice (even if I would have been upset with it). I'm just glad MSU actually put up a decent crowd and an even better football game for the first round that year.

I would say that if a team does indeed only get 6 DI wins with the new expanded playoff format, they would be "in" in some cases. Again, it is all situationally dependent.

[slostang]

I was not saying that PSU should have been in ahead of MSU. It is hard to argue head to head. I am just saying that they were punished for having a tough schedule instead of being rewarded. I think the Big Sky should of had three teams in that year.

[Keeper]

I'm thinking that a NEC or Big South champion with only 6 D1 wins
and in the playoffs would not sit well with most FCS fans and participants.

Maybe should be conditional entry, similar to last season. Were that so,
then a setxscanx maximum number of playoff spots from one conference would be
just as fair.

[CopperCat]

I was not saying that PSU should have been in ahead of MSU. It is hard to argue head to head. I am just saying that they were punished for having a tough schedule instead of being rewarded. I think the Big Sky should of had three teams in that year.

I guess I was trying to read between the lines a bit, but regardless of that I see your point.

[Big Al]

Agreed. With a 20-game playoff, all 5-win CAA teams should be in. Why should any other conference have more than one team if FCS seems to be letting practically anyone these days have an AQ that they don't even deserve?

Frankly, I don't see why you're limiting it to the 5 win teams. The CAA is so amazingly dominant that the other conferences should relinquish their auto-bids so the entire CAA can play in the playoffs. Clearly, this is the only fair way to reward the excellence that is the CAA.

[danefan]

I'm thinking that a NEC or Big South champion with only 6 D1 wins
and in the playoffs would not sit well with most FCS fans and participants.

Maybe should be conditional entry, similar to last season. Were that so,
then a setxscanx maximum number of playoff spots from one conference would be
just as fair.

Maybe that condition should be set for all conferences then.

[Bogus Megapardus]

Frankly, I don't see why you're limiting it to the 5 win teams. The CAA is so amazingly dominant that the other conferences should relinquish their auto-bids so the entire CAA can play in the playoffs. Clearly, this is the only fair way to reward the excellence that is the CAA.

I'm pleased to see somebody agrees. While membership alone in the CAA, in fairness, ought to guarantee a spot regardless of record, there's that pesky thing about needing to win at least some games to qualify.

[Big Al]

In the CAA, like the Special Olympics, everyone is a winner.

[Bogus Megapardus]

In the CAA, like the Special Olympics, everyone is a winner.

xlolxxrotatehxxnodx

How dare you.

[SpeedkingATL]

Seven Division One wins until we have 32 teams. At 64 teams 5 wins, then do away with the regular season all together and just have a playoff.xbangx

I hope this stops at 20 teams as there are not 20 really good teams in FCS most years.xcoolx

[Big Al]

Frankly, I don't understand the need for all the at-large bids. Win your conference. That should count for something.

[jstclmet]

Frankly, I don't understand the need for all the at-large bids. Win your conference. That should count for something.

Elon did not win their conference but gave UR a really good game.

UR did not win their conference, but took ASU to the final seconds before falling.

UNH & W&M did not win their conference, but kicked the crap out of teams that did.

Nothing wrong with the At Large bids, but like another poster stated there may not be 20 good teams. Teams #17 - #20 will carry the "Cinderella" hope with them into TG weekend, but will most likely lose every year like the 16 seed loses to a #1 seed in basketball. I'm sure the Butler's of the world would like that opportunity though.

[Big Al]

Elon did not win their conference but gave UR a really good game.

UR did not win their conference, but took ASU to the final seconds before falling.

UNH & W&M did not win their conference, but kicked the crap out of teams that did.

Nothing wrong with the At Large bids, but like another poster stated there may not be 20 good teams. Teams #17 - #20 will carry the "Cinderella" hope with them into TG weekend, but will most likely lose every year like the 16 seed loses to a #1 seed in basketball. I'm sure the Butler's of the world would like that opportunity though.

First, Butler is a #4 seed and champion of the Horizon league, so your analogy doesn't quite hold water. Second, I should clarify -- I don't think we should eliminate the at-large bid but I don't see a compelling reason to hold open half the field for at-large candidates. A third is probably a more reasonable number.

Edit: Of the 4 remaining teams in the bball tourney, only Michigan State didn't win their conference tourny and auto-bid. They did, however, tie for first place in the regular season.

[UAalum72]

First, Butler is a #4 seed and champion of the Horizon league, so your analogy doesn't quite hold water.
I'm sure his analogy refers to Butler football as champion of the Pioneer League.

Anyway if the #20 wins the first round, it'll be by beating #13, so they'd play #4 in the second round, right? #1 would play the winner of the 16-17 game.

[jstclmet]

First, Butler is a #4 seed and champion of the Horizon league, so your analogy doesn't quite hold water. .

Butler of the PFL was 7 - 1 in conference and 11 - 1 overall. They won their conference but was not invited to the 16 team playoff in FCS football. In a 20 team playoff with 10 At Large Births, they have an outside shot at making the field and being the "Cinderella" team in FCS.

[Big Al]

Butler of the PFL was 7 - 1 in conference and 11 - 1 overall. They won their conference but was not invited to the 16 team playoff in FCS football. In a 20 team playoff with 10 At Large Births, they have an outside shot at making the field and being the "Cinderella" team in FCS.

Aha. I thought you were referring to their bball team.

Still, if the PFL does apply for an auto-bid spot in the playoffs as they are rumored to do, it wouldn't change my position or reasoning: the conference champ should get a spot in the tourney, non-conference champs don't get any sympathy from me because they already lost their opportunity to prove ultimate supremacy during the regular season.

Look at the 15/16 teams that squeaked into the bball tourney. They all were conference tourney champs from very weak conferences. All of the marginal at-large spots are in the 10-14 seedings.

[SuperEagle]

Frankly, I don't see why you're limiting it to the 5 win teams. The CAA is so amazingly dominant that the other conferences should relinquish their auto-bids so the entire CAA can play in the playoffs. Clearly, this is the only fair way to reward the excellence that is the CAA.
**
Well, I've heard that if UMASS wins their Spring Game, then John McCutcheon is guaranteeing them a bid to the 2010 playoffs. You know how he LOVES to protect his own come selection time.

[WrenFGun]

What's frustrating about these threads is that they always turn into the same thing: other conferences continue to bicker about the fact that the CAA gets four or five teams in, and then has no productive argument for why this should not have happened (for example, SoCon fans were up in arms two years ago when a 5th CAA team got in [7-4 UNH] over Georgia Tech (6 DI wins).

...It's just frustrating as this continues to happen with no alternative other than, "well, the CAA shouldn't get 5 teams in.." Are you saying it's a crime to have five of the best 16 teams in the country?

[Bogus Megapardus]

What's frustrating about these threads is that they always turn into the same thing: other conferences continue to bicker about the fact that the CAA gets four or five teams in, and then has no productive argument for why this should not have happened (for example, SoCon fans were up in arms two years ago when a 5th CAA team got in [7-4 UNH] over Georgia Tech (6 DI wins).

...It's just frustrating as this continues to happen with no alternative other than, "well, the CAA shouldn't get 5 teams in.." Are you saying it's a crime to have five of the best 16 teams in the country?

No, but the tournament is not meant to be the 16 (or 20) "best teams in the country." If it were, then the committee would just draw a line under the GPI's top 20 and seed them, regardless of conference. But there are all kinds of colleges and universities that kids attend for all sorts of different reasons, which make up conference affiliations based on a host of similarities. Like it or not, the playoffs are supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive.

[Big Al]

...It's just frustrating as this continues to happen with no alternative other than, "well, the CAA shouldn't get 5 teams in.." Are you saying it's a crime to have five of the best 16 teams in the country?

No, I'm saying conference championships should bear more weight in the selection criteria than playing in a "power" conference. Rather than letting in a 4th or 5th CAA team, the selection committee should be giving the Big South or NEC champ a shot at the playoffs.

The goal of the NCAA should be to promote parity among it's member institutions, because it also encourages more interest across a wider spectrum of the population. Unfortunately, I recognize this runs counter to the goal of conferences, which is to promote their member institutions at the expense of other conferences.

[Redbird Ray]

What's frustrating about these threads is that they always turn into the same thing: other conferences continue to bicker about the fact that the CAA gets four or five teams in, and then has no productive argument for why this should not have happened (for example, SoCon fans were up in arms two years ago when a 5th CAA team got in [7-4 UNH] over Georgia Tech (6 DI wins).

...It's just frustrating as this continues to happen with no alternative other than, "well, the CAA shouldn't get 5 teams in.." Are you saying it's a crime to have five of the best 16 teams in the country?

A lot of people just feel (in most years) that the fifth best CAA team is no more deserving than the third best MVFC, SoCon, BigSky team ect. If both teams are 7-4 with 7 D1 wins, SOS needs to be the deciding factor, not geography or conference affiliation.

This is why I would like to see FCS expand to 12 games with a required 2 non-conference games for AQ conference teams against other AQ conference teams. Depending on how teams manipulate the schedule, it should be a decent barometer for conference strength. If nothing else, I think it would create some fun matchups.

The CAA is clearly the best conference in FCS right now, but it's not 3 bids better than the MVFC or Big Sky. The temporarily smaller CAA, along with the 20 bids this year should make for an interesting selection day this season.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

No, but the tournament is not meant to be the 16 (or 20) "best teams in the country." If it were, then the committee would just draw a line under the GPI's top 20 and seed them, regardless of conference. But there are all kinds of colleges and universities that kids attend for all sorts of different reasons, which make up conference affiliations based on a host of similarities. Like it or not, the playoffs are supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive.

No, but the at large bids are supposed to be the "best teams in the country". And aren't they chosen by something akin to a GPI?

And right now every conference that wants an AQ only has to ask and there is room for expansion. There has never been anything in place to give other conferences representation via at-large bids.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

A lot of people just feel (in most years) that the fifth best CAA team is no more deserving than the third best MVFC, SoCon, BigSky team ect. If both teams are 7-4 with 7 D1 wins, SOS needs to be the deciding factor, not geography or conference affiliation.

This is why I would like to see FCS expand to 12 games with a required 2 non-conference games for AQ conference teams against other AQ conference teams. Depending on how teams manipulate the schedule, it should be a decent barometer for conference strength. If nothing else, I think it would create some fun matchups.

The CAA is clearly the best conference in FCS right now, but it's not 3 bids better than the MVFC or Big Sky. The temporarily smaller CAA, along with the 20 bids this year should make for an interesting selection day this season.

Yet, in the two years most people complained about a fifth CAA making the playoffs, the next team in was another CAA team! Polls and rankings have supported the selection of the CAA teams.

You're never going to be able to mandate scheduling requirements because of the cost associated. As interesting as they'd be, the MVFC and the CAA Football Conference aren't going to schedule home and homes, just as an example, because it would be too expensive. And add in teams requiring six and in some cases seven home games to try and make money. At least with the NEC and Big South being AQ leagues, more OOC games will be against AQ league teams. And with the Ivy going further and further into isolationist mode, those OOC games will primarily be an issue for the Patriot.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

No, I'm saying conference championships should bear more weight in the selection criteria than playing in a "power" conference. Rather than letting in a 4th or 5th CAA team, the selection committee should be giving the Big South or NEC champ a shot at the playoffs.

The goal of the NCAA should be to promote parity among it's member institutions, because it also encourages more interest across a wider spectrum of the population. Unfortunately, I recognize this runs counter to the goal of conferences, which is to promote their member institutions at the expense of other conferences.

NEC and Big South get auto bids this year so you're issue is resolved. There are no gratuitous picks in NCAA basketball to give more schools from small conferences an opportunity, all those Cinderellas that everybody loves were chosen by the same selection process that is used in football.

When has the NC$$ ever tried to promote parity among members? Do you think the NC$$ cares if UNI competes on a level playing field with Iowa and Iowa State? If they cared about this stuff then they'd hammer some of the schools who make a joke out of the academic side of the house. And they wouldn't force schools like W&M to change their logo but let Florida State keep theirs along with the demeaning tomahawk chop cheers they use. The BC$ schools make big bucks for the NC$$. Just wait until you see a 96 team Basketball field, it isn't to get more small schools into the field.

[TheValleyRaider]

I'm sure his analogy refers to Butler football as champion of the Pioneer League.

Anyway if the #20 wins the first round, it'll be by beating #13, so they'd play #4 in the second round, right? #1 would play the winner of the 16-17 game.

Well, unless they plan on seeding the whole field, those matchups will probably be just dependent on regionalization, like they are now xtwocentsx

[Big Al]

NEC and Big South get auto bids this year so you're issue is resolved. There are no gratuitous picks in NCAA basketball to give more schools from small conferences an opportunity, all those Cinderellas that everybody loves were chosen by the same selection process that is used in football.

Right, I understand what you're saying but my point is that the expansion to 20 teams really isn't necessary to include the Big South & NEC champs. Reduce the at-large spots accordingly. Same with the bball tourney -- there is no reason (other than a money grab for the BCS conferences) to expand to 96 teams.


When has the NC$$ ever tried to promote parity among members? Do you think the NC$$ cares if UNI competes on a level playing field with Iowa and Iowa State? If they cared about this stuff then they'd hammer some of the schools who make a joke out of the academic side of the house. And they wouldn't force schools like W&M to change their logo but let Florida State keep theirs along with the demeaning tomahawk chop cheers they use. The BC$ schools make big bucks for the NC$$. Just wait until you see a 96 team Basketball field, it isn't to get more small schools into the field.

You're preaching to the choir, my friend. What the NCAA should be doing is unfortunately very different from what it is doing. Frankly, I think the NCAA needs to grow a pair and clamp down on the big-money schools. I'd think those schools would find it politically untenable to break away from the NCAA.

[WrenFGun]

I have no personal problem with the NEC or Big South champ making the playoffs. I think Stony Brook, Liberty, Albany and CCSU would have provided competitive games in the playoffs next season. From those of us in the CAA that have played Albany, it's clear that's no cakewalk.

My problem is simply with the notion that teams from the CAA get in simply because they are in the CAA. They have the best resume at the time of selection and that's why they get in. Again, when Maine got in, the question was whether or not W&M should have gotten in instead. When UNH got in, the next closest team was 'Nova.

[Big Al]

My problem is simply with the notion that teams from the CAA get in simply because they are in the CAA. They have the best resume at the time of selection and that's why they get in. Again, when Maine got in, the question was whether or not W&M should have gotten in instead. When UNH got in, the next closest team was 'Nova.

Understood. Let's be clear -- I like to jab the CAA about the whole "conference superiority" schtick but don't confuse that with not acknowledging it is a good conference. I do agree that the CAA is the best conference in FCS football at the moment but the degree of superiority is magnified not so much through results but moreso through an echo chamber. There really isn't a lot of OOC overlap during the season to provide a reasonable dataset for comparison. Even if you expand it out over a few years, it gets better but there still isn't a lot of statistical power to work with.

There is an aspect to competition that is mental -- do you believe you can win? If so, your odds of actually doing so improve. Buying into the whole "CAA is the best conference EVAR" meme that runs through this board at times is like losing before the game is even played.

[WrenFGun]

Understood. Let's be clear -- I like to jab the CAA about the whole "conference superiority" schtick but don't confuse that with not acknowledging it is a good conference. I do agree that the CAA is the best conference in FCS football at the moment but the degree of superiority is magnified not so much through results but moreso through an echo chamber. There really isn't a lot of OOC overlap during the season to provide a reasonable dataset for comparison. Even if you expand it out over a few years, it gets better but there still isn't a lot of statistical power to work with.

There is an aspect to competition that is mental -- do you believe you can win? If so, your odds of actually doing so improve. Buying into the whole "CAA is the best conference EVAR" meme that runs through this board at times is like losing before the game is even played.

I'll respectfully disagree, even though you are correct about sample size as most frequently don't get to see those OOC matchups. That said, the CAA routinely dominates top to bottom in OOC, and saw what, four teams with FBS wins last year? (UNH, 'Nova, Richmond, W&M off the top of my head..). All four teams made the quaterfinals last year, as well. I think there's a large enough sample size to suggest a significant difference.

You're correct, though. It's a shame the CAA isn't playing the MVFC/SoCon/Big Sky more than a few times overall in OOC. I really look forward to the Elon/Richmond matchups, for example. I'm also impressed with South Dakota State, Appalachian State, Furman, Elon, etc., who have challenged teams with their schedule with games everywhere. I remember thinking the Furman/UD and Elon/Richmond matchups were perfect.

Personally, I'd love to see UNH/UNI in a home-and-home.