Playoff Format

[URMite]

Although they are only going to seed 5 teams, what are the chances they will rank all of them privately? If so...here is my take on the 4 pods (to the semis) that would be created.

17 would play at 16 - winner at 1 - winner at winner of 9 at 8
20 would play at 13 - winner at 4 - winner at winner of 12 at 5
18 would play at 15 - winner at 2 - winner at winner of 10 at 7
19 would play at 14 - winner at 3 - winner at winner of 11 at 6

Which would actually group teams as 1-4 home against team that played extra game
5-8 home in 2nd round
9-12 away in 2nd round
13-16 home in extra game (1st round)
17-20 away in extra game (1st round)

Does that seem logical?

[biggie]

Logical sure, but they won't rank more than 5, the bigger pay day for them is with the bigger crowd showing up instead of the higher ranked team playing at home.

[UNH Fanboi]

Why are they ranking 5 teams? That makes no sense.

Also, aren't they implicitly ranking the bottom 8 and top 12 teams? Or is any non-ranked team as likely as another to play in the 8-team round?

[CSN-info]

CSN 2010 FCS Yearbook: Getting A Grasp On The Playoffs
By David Coulson

The expansion of the NCAA Division I National Football Championship to 20 teams is the most major change to the FCS tournament format since the playoffs expanded from 12 to 16 teams in 1988.

To help fans better understand the new playoff system, here is a breakdown of how things will work in the new 20-team format:

Read More (http://www.collegesportingnews.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=143&d=1283348235)

[UAalum72]

Although they are only going to seed 5 teams, what are the chances they will rank all of them privately? If so...here is my take on the 4 pods (to the semis) that would be created.

17 would play at 16 - winner at 1 - winner at winner of 9 at 8
20 would play at 13 - winner at 4 - winner at winner of 12 at 5
18 would play at 15 - winner at 2 - winner at winner of 10 at 7
19 would play at 14 - winner at 3 - winner at winner of 11 at 6

Which would actually group teams as 1-4 home against team that played extra game
5-8 home in 2nd round
9-12 away in 2nd round
13-16 home in extra game (1st round)
17-20 away in extra game (1st round)

Does that seem logical?

I suspect (if it isn't explicit policy) that reduced travel costs will override a strict ranking for most first round matchups.

[Bogus Megapardus]

I suspect (if it isn't explicit policy) that reduced travel costs will override a strict ranking for most first round matchups.


I suspect (if it isn't explicit policy) that reduced travel costs will override a strict ranking for most first round matchups.

I agree with UAalum72. I recall (without reading further) that the format requires a certain percentage of teams to be ceded. The rest will be fit in according to somewhat less tangible criteria, I suspect.

I'm going out on a limb here to predict that those intangibles will allow the lowly and humble Patriot League will get one in the opening round and one in round of sixteen. I hope. Don't quote me. Especially if you're from the CAA.

[T-Dog]

8. The committee will meet on the last weekend of
the regular season and will announce its selections to
the 2010 playoff field on Sunday, Nov. 21. The
committee will seed eight teams and determine
which 12 teams will receive byes for the first
weekend of the playoffs, which will be played on
Nov. 27. The other eight teams will play first-round
games, with the four winners advancing to the
round of 16 on Dec. 4.

That's different than the five we've been hearing about.

[T-Dog]

And it's wrong. Here's the blank NCAA bracket with only five seeded teams. I believe the rules state that 25% of the bracket must be seeded.

http://www.ncaa.com/graphics/2010DIFBBracket.pdf

[jlcharles]

CSN 2010 FCS Yearbook: Getting A Grasp On The Playoffs
By David Coulson

The expansion of the NCAA Division I National Football Championship to 20 teams is the most major change to the FCS tournament format since the playoffs expanded from 12 to 16 teams in 1988.

To help fans better understand the new playoff system, here is a breakdown of how things will work in the new 20-team format:

Read More (http://www.collegesportingnews.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=143&d=1283348235)

So we get rid of this clown on TSN and he pops up on CSN now? God, Coulson is terrible. And unfortunately, it looks like Bruce Dowd is gone. Well, now I have zero reason to visit CSN again.

[TheValleyRaider]

And it's wrong. Here's the blank NCAA bracket with only five seeded teams. I believe the rules state that 25% of the bracket must be seeded.

http://www.ncaa.com/graphics/2010DIFBBracket.pdf

That rule must be at least 25%, otherwise brackets like basketball and hockey (where everyone is seeded) wouldn't make sense xreadx

Seeding only 5 definitely means there's a lot of regionalization going into this. Less seeds means more flexibility. I have to say, this is the first I've seen of the bracket and seeding numbers. Very interesting... xchinscratchx

[URMite]

I would like to hope, but I'm not holding my breath, that they will attempt to minimize the impact of regionalization. So if because of regionalization the natural #6 plays the natural #20 does that become one of the 4 1st round games or 1 of the 3 unseeded 2nd round games?

Those kinds of issues are why I'd like to see teams moved no more than 3 spots from their natural seed. But we shall see.

[danefan]

There's going to be a lot of matchups that stay the same each year in the opening round I think.

For example, I think its a safe bet that the NEC AQ will play the PL AQ in the opening round with the winner going on to play a seeded team from the CAA.

Same is probably true for the Big South AQ and the MEAC AQ going on to play a seeded team from the Socon.

There will, of course, be years that don't match this (e.g. Stony Brook wins the Big South AQ, or a team one of those conferences that is getting a bye, like SCSU this year maybe). But in general I think the committee will be trying to fit games into those types of recurring matchups.

[URMite]

Actually, I agree. I was thinking that the NEC AQ & PL AQ would play the #1 & #2 CAA teams but your way seems much more likely,wth perhaps the #2 CAA playing the #2 SOCON.

[henfan]

Those kinds of issues are why I'd like to see teams moved no more than 3 spots from their natural seed.

What on earth is a "natural seed"? The very process of seeding teams is an artificial process to start. There's absolutely nothing 'natural' about a committee subjectively assigning competitive values to teams based on their own collective hunch. The strict seeding of all teams in a tournament has never been proven to lend better results than a tournament where only some of the teams are seeded.

When you say you would like to see teams moved no more than 3 spots, it means nothing really. What's so magic about the number 3? Why not 2, 4 or 5? Who's to say that the teams were correctly seeded in the first place? Shouldn't #8 have really been ranked #5?

I maintain that it is not a bad thing to match up opponents within a bus ride of each other if it means that more people- players families & friends and fans- might be able to witness (and pay to see!) that game, rather than flying teams all over the country because a committee seeded them in a certain way.

At the end of the day, the NCAA has the responsibility of offering a tournament that takes into consideration competitive as well as financial elements. IMO, they've done a terrific job of balancing both for the last several years.

[FCS Go!]

Hey henfan,

What's the status re: Delaware hosting playoff games?

[henfan]

Hey henfan,

What's the status re: Delaware hosting playoff games?

No issue there at all as far as the NCAA is concerned. The sports betting proposal in Delaware is dead and will not be revived anytime soon.

[URMite]

What on earth is a "natural seed"? The very process of seeding teams is an artificial process to start. There's absolutely nothing 'natural' about a committee subjectively assigning competitive values to teams based on their own collective hunch. The strict seeding of all teams in a tournament has never been proven to lend better results than a tournament where only some of the teams are seeded.

When you say you would like to see teams moved no more than 3 spots, it means nothing really. What's so magic about the number 3? Why not 2, 4 or 5? Who's to say that the teams were correctly seeded in the first place? Shouldn't #8 have really been ranked #5?

I maintain that it is not a bad thing to match up opponents within a bus ride of each other if it means that more people- players families & friends and fans- might be able to witness (and pay to see!) that game, rather than flying teams all over the country because a committee seeded them in a certain way.

At the end of the day, the NCAA has the responsibility of offering a tournament that takes into consideration competitive as well as financial elements. IMO, they've done a terrific job of balancing both for the last several years.

This may be a bit disorganized here at work but...

By "Natural Seed" I mean that if the playoff committee concludes based on the regular season performance that one team is the 8th best team in the field that they would assign them opponents based on that conclusion. I would prefer that any changes in opponents or location due to regionalization be minimalized.

My statement about a change of 3 or less spots was an attempt to minimize changes in pods (bye&home vs no bye, bye&home vs bye, bye&away vs bye, no bye&home, no bye &away). If regionalization can be maintained by a team being moved to a different schedule in the same pod, then it minimizes the effect of regionalization. Since there are 4 teams in each pod, a team can be moved +/- 3 spots and stay within that same pod.

If your team's regular season performance warranted that your first game was after a bye and at home vs another team with a bye, wouldn't you rather not have your team play at home without a bye just because their opponent didn't warrant a bye and was a few miles closer?