Mid-Majors should have autobids to the I-AA tournament

[kardplayer]

Look at the spending/expenses disparity in basketball between some of the biggest colleges and the smallest colleges and then look at the disparity between Mid-Majors and our semifinalists and then explain to me why we would apply a double standard when we're supposed to be "better" than I-A...

Big Basketball Schools
Kansas - 4,335,649
Duke - 7,400,772
UConn - 5,524,998
North Carolina - 4,845,388

Small Basketball Schools
Bucknell - 937,598
Western Kentucky - 1,258,132
Southern Illinois - 1,283,685
Gonzaga - 1,582,307

I-AA Final Four football spending
App State 1,879,063
Northern Iowa 2,231,739
Tx. State 1,923,840
Furman 3,712,150

Mid-Major football spending
Monmouth 842,868
San Diego 757,487
Dayton 940,461
Duquesne 493,358

Obviously, averages would vary greatly depending on the program, but if you look at basketball, the "mid-majors" are spending $3 million+ less than the power conferences and they get to play. The football spending gap between some of the better mid-majors and last year's Final Four compares favorably.

I say its time to move to 20 or 24 and let them in.

[FlyBoy8]

What are playoffs for? I think they're for determining a national champion.

If a team can't compete for a national championship, they shouldn't be in the playoffs.

How many mid-majors have made it to the Final Four?



I don't agree with this "let's make everyone feel good" mentality. That's what people like to say about bowl games, "oh, well it's so nice because more people get to go out on a winning note." So what? They didn't win anything! Same thing goes for the mid-majors - no rewards until they're good enough to deserve them. And they PROVE it.

[jmuroller]

Dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. Did mid-majors get autobids to the NCAA BBall tourney when only 16 went? Think about it before you post something like this again.

[golionsgo]

I don't agree with this "let's make everyone feel good" mentality.


What's wrong with that mentality? I suppose you want only a few people to feel good and the rest of the world to be miserable.

[FlyBoy8]

Miserable? No, of course not. I just don't think mediocrity should be rewarded. The goal should be to be the best. If mid-majors want to be the best, they need to offer more financial aid (which some are doing), schedule up (which some are doing) and then WIN those games. If they don't want to do those things, then they don't want to be the best and they don't need to be in the playoffs.

jmuroller, two things:
1. He said the playoffs should be expanded.
2. There are twice as many D-I basketball teams as there are I-AA football teams, so the 16-team reference doesn't work.

[youwouldno]

I agree, stupid, stupid idea. No mid-major can win the I-AA title. The odds are extremely low that a mid-major would win a single game in the playoffs, except of course if they played another.

[TexasTerror]

The SWAC has a better chance at winning a playoff game compared to the mid-majors. Hey, the SWAC is 0-19 and I'd think that they would do much better than mid-majors...

[foghorn]

The whole problem was created by the NCAA requiring D-I basketball schools to have D-I football programs to maintain D-I basketball status.
By allowing the affected schools to be declared D-IAA without having to abide by the same scholarship parameters is the center of contention for those not wanting 'mid-majors' involved. I feel very strongly that they should NOT be allowed to participate in the playoffs.
It becomes a very expensive investment to offer 63 scholarships plus Title IX equivalencies to compete in a competitive D-IAA football league. This is besides the costs required for a suitable stadium, training facilities and coaching staff.
The obvious answer to me would be for the NCAA to lift the D-I football requirement to field a D-I basketball team. The 'mid-major' football teams could then revert back to D-III status and compete in that division's tournament. Another alternative would be for the 'mid-majors' to compete in their own tournament.
The current DivI-AA teams have millions invested in their respective programs. I just don't think it would be appropriate for 'mid-majors' to get in the tournament without absorbing the same costs. Besides, the results would be one-sided and not competitive. Not to demean the fine football programs of 'mid-majors'; they are just not commensurate with full-schollied Div I-AA's. :)

[eaglesrthe1]

explain to me why we would apply a double standard

Without looking up the actual numbers.

1) 300ish div I basketball teams / 64 playoff spots vs 100 or so playoff participating div IAA football schools/ 16 playoff spots shows that the proportion is already generous enough.

2) The mid majors are already eligible, they just don't get an auto-bid. I would think that the Pioneer champ would go if they scheduled a couple-three playoff teams and won while going undefeated in conference.

[nlwwln]

Dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. Did mid-majors get autobids to the NCAA BBall tourney when only 16 went? Think about it before you post something like this again.

What is so dumb about the idea of letting mid majors compete in the 1AA playoffs? They are still 1AA right? Nobodys saying that the mid major conferences deserve an automatic bid but if a mid major school goes undefeated and has 2 or 3 respectable wins from teams in the PL or A10 I think they certainly deserve their fair chance at a shot in the playoffs but the bottom line is they have to earn. Why should a school who goes undefeated be excluded from the playoffs just because they are labeled as mid major, these kids work just as hard as anyone in the country.

[Pard4Life]

Mid-major autobids? Um, .. :nonono2:

Surprised to see Gonzaga's basketball spending is so low. They are no longer considered mid-major btw.. although they are in a mid-major conference. The WCC is very tough though.

[DFW HOYA]

The whole problem was created by the NCAA requiring D-I basketball schools to have D-I football programs to maintain D-I basketball status.

This is inaccurate. The legislation had nothing to do with I-AA football as a prerequisite to maintaining D-I basketball status. The legislation was that if you are a Division I school with football, you could not play football outside Division I. A school didn't have to play FB and it would still be a D-I school. either. Santa Clara dropped football in 1992 rather than upgrade, the only school of the 27 to do so. One of them, UAB, actually jumped to I-A.


By allowing the affected schools to be declared D-IAA without having to abide by the same scholarship parameters is the center of contention for those not wanting 'mid-majors' involved. I feel very strongly that they should NOT be allowed to participate in the playoffs.

There has never been a scholarship "parameter" in I-AA. Schoalrships have varied widely over the years and no minimum has ever been enforced.


The obvious answer to me would be for the NCAA to lift the D-I football requirement to field a D-I basketball team. The 'mid-major' football teams could then revert back to D-III status and compete in that division's tournament. Another alternative would be for the 'mid-majors' to compete in their own tournament.

These schools would not go back, and the lower division teams would oppose it. Mid-majors (of which there are only 14 now with the NEC adding 30 scholarships) are not allowed to play in their own tournament because they lack the number of schools to do so.


The current DivI-AA teams have millions invested in their respective programs. I just don't think it would be appropriate for 'mid-majors' to get in the tournament without absorbing the same costs.

Most I-AA schools do not invest the same in basketball as other Division I schools and get a seat at the NCA tournament. By that logic, are conference champs from the Gateway, Southland, OVC, Big Sky, etc. "appropriate" for the Big Dance?

Solution: 20 teams, all recognized conference champions plus at-large teams. (FWIW, the MAAC is too small at five to qualify under theis definition.) Start one week earlier with an eight team play-in to get to 16, and away you go.

[McTailGator]

Look at the spending/expenses disparity in basketball between some of the biggest colleges and the smallest colleges and then look at the disparity between Mid-Majors and our semifinalists and then explain to me why we would apply a double standard when we're supposed to be "better" than I-A...

Big Basketball Schools
Kansas - 4,335,649
Duke - 7,400,772
UConn - 5,524,998
North Carolina - 4,845,388

Small Basketball Schools
Bucknell - 937,598
Western Kentucky - 1,258,132
Southern Illinois - 1,283,685
Gonzaga - 1,582,307

I-AA Final Four football spending
App State 1,879,063
Northern Iowa 2,231,739
Tx. State 1,923,840
Furman 3,712,150

Mid-Major football spending
Monmouth 842,868
San Diego 757,487
Dayton 940,461
Duquesne 493,358

Obviously, averages would vary greatly depending on the program, but if you look at basketball, the "mid-majors" are spending $3 million+ less than the power conferences and they get to play. The football spending gap between some of the better mid-majors and last year's Final Four compares favorably.

I say its time to move to 20 or 24 and let them in.

NOT...

Might I recomend starting your own playoff system...

Playoffs should be the BEST of the BEST...

Anything less would be bowl games.

[blukeys]

I know this is January and there isn't much to talk about till signing day next week but this has been covered before on a dozen other threads. How much more are we gonna. :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse

[nlwwln]

no i dont think that mid majors deserve an auto bid simply because the lapse of talent is just to large between fully funded programs compared to the mid majors. although some mid majors do put up some good teams every now and then. it would be interesting to see if a mid major program would earn an invite if they were to go undefeated and had beaten a few PL or A10 schools, in this case I definatly think a mid major would be worthy of an invite.

[kardplayer]

I know this is January and there isn't much to talk about till signing day next week but this has been covered before on a dozen other threads. How much more are we gonna. :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse :deadhorse


You're right, its been discussed before, and I did bring it up because its January. Also, the readers of this board change over time, so there are plenty of folks here who haven't discussed this before.

I also thought that possibly when presented with actual facts the folks on this board would actually use a little reason and think about it instead of pulling out the old "they can't win" baloney.

I don't disagree that the NCAA created the problem by forcing these teams to play I-AA is they wanted football. Nonetheless, the problem exists and I don't believe it is being dealt with fairly.

What happens in I-AA is no more fair to our mid-majors than what happens in I-A to their mid-majors. Starting the season with absolutely no chance to win a national championship just doesn't seem fair to me. While it is surely likely they would lose almost every single game they played, there would, on occasion, be teams that made runs to the round of 8 (assuming an expanded field, this would be two wins) or deeper.

Looking at the FACTS, my point is that while we can talk all we want about the fact that our football schools spend more than the mid-majors, but the same disparity holds true in basketball (and its bigger there).

To JMURoller's point - please check your FACTS before you make an argument because you are wrong. Very wrong. With the internet, it took me less than 2 minutes to find the proof that you are wrong - something you could easily have done if you wanted to participate rationally in the conversation.

When the field in the NCAA tourny was smaller, our schools got in, and there were no at larges. Looking at 1974 for one example, two of the best teams in the country were NC State and Maryland. Maryland finished as the #4 team in the AP poll and wasn't able to play in the tournament because they lost a 103-100 OT game in the final of the ACC tournament to eventual national champ NC State. Some of the top 10 teams didn't get to play (Michigan, Kansas, Indiana, LB State). But Furman, Creighton, and Idaho State did (see below). The field was expanded the next year.

I'm not saying we should force teams to win the conference championships to participate in the tournament, I'm saying add 4 teams, make two of them mid-major champions and 2 more at larges. This would serve the dual purpose of being inclusive (not everyone feel happy, just being fair to all) and getting the next two teams into the tournament so we don't have to hear the 8-3 Wofford/Lehigh/Cal Poly/YSU fans complain about getting "snubbed" (the last four teams that just missed off the bubble). With the two additional at larges, the bubble teams would probably be 7-4 and really have no argument...

1974 Basketball tournament
First Round East
Providence 84, Penn 69
Pittsburgh 54, St. Joseph's 42
Furman 75, South Carolina 67 West
New Mexico 73, Idaho State 65
Dayton 88, UCLA 80

Mideast
Notre Dame 108, Austin Peay 66
Marquette 85, Ohio University 59

Midwest
Oral Roberts 86, Syracuse 82 (ot)
Creighton 77, Texas 61




1974 Final Rankings
Before TournsHead CoachFinal Record
1North Carolina St.26–1Norm Sloan30–1
2UCLA24–2John Wooden26–4
3Marquette22–4Al McGuire26–5
4Maryland23–5Lefty Driesellsame
5Notre Dame24–2Digger Phelps26–3
6Michigan21–4Johnny Orr22–5
7Kansas21–5Ted Owens23–7
8Providence26–3Dave Gavitt28–4
9Indiana20–5Bobby Knight23–5
10Long Beach St.24–2Lute Olsonsame
11Purdue18–8Fred Schaus22–8
12N. Carolina22–5Dean Smith22–6
13Vanderbilt23–3Roy Skinner23–5
14Alabama22–4C.M. Newtonsame
15Utah19–7Bill Foster22–8
16Pittsburgh23–3Buzz Ridl25–4
17USC22–4Bob Boyd24–5
18Oral Roberts21–5Ken Trickey23–6
19S. Carolina22–4Frank McGuire22–5
20Dayton19–7Don Donaher20–9
Note: North Carolina State won the NCAAs, Indiana won the CCA and Purdue won the NIT.

[kardplayer]

For reference, expanding to 20 this year could have made the following first round (using a blend of GPI and what I think the committee might have done):

YSU
Lafayette
Colgate
Nicholls State
Massachusetts (over Ill. State because there were 3 other Gateway teams already with YSU and Montana State due to my east coast bias :) )
Richmond
San Diego
Stony Brook

Round one
San Diego at Nicholls State
YSU at Colgate
Lafayette at Richmond
Stony Brook at UMass

[Tribe4SF]

no i dont think that mid majors deserve an auto bid simply because the lapse of talent is just to large between fully funded programs compared to the mid majors. although some mid majors do put up some good teams every now and then. it would be interesting to see if a mid major program would earn an invite if they were to go undefeated and had beaten a few PL or A10 schools, in this case I definatly think a mid major would be worthy of an invite.

If they did that, they probably would get in. Assuming, of course, that the wins were over good A-10 or PL teams.

The playoffs don't need an affirmative action program. The playing field is already level (well..slightly crowned, actually). Play, and beat, good teams, and you'll get in (unless you're YSU).

[Tribe4SF]

For reference, expanding to 20 this year could have made the following first round (using a blend of GPI and what I think the committee might have done):

YSU
Lafayette
Colgate
Nicholls State
Massachusetts (over Ill. State because there were 3 other Gateway teams already with YSU and Montana State due to my east coast bias :) )
Richmond
San Diego
Stony Brook

Round one
San Diego at Nicholls State
YSU at Colgate
Lafayette at Richmond
Stony Brook at UMass

It would more likely have been....

Stony Brook at Richmond
UMass at Lafayette

[FlyBoy8]

09/17/05

Hofstra 55
Stony Brook 0


Stony Brook also lost to Georgetown, Monmouth, Sacred Heart and Marist, and you want to give them a playoff berth?

:eek: : smh :


What happens in I-AA is no more fair to our mid-majors than what happens in I-A to their mid-majors.
Wrong!

I-A teams: 120?
I-AA teams: 120?

BCS berths (at-large bids): 8 (2)
I-AA berths (at-large bids): 16 (8)

BCS playoff teams: 2
I-AA playoff teams: 16

All I-A teams give the same number of scholarships.
Some I-AA teams give no football-specific financial aid at all.


I respectfully, yet emphatically disagree with your statement.



Starting the season with absolutely no chance to win a national championship just doesn't seem fair to me. While it is surely likely they would lose almost every single game they played...
What doesn't seem fair to me is passing over a more deserving team for someone that has no chance of winning.



I'm saying add 4 teams, make two of them mid-major champions and 2 more at larges. This would serve the dual purpose of being inclusive (not everyone feel happy, just being fair to all) and getting the next two teams into the tournament so we don't have to hear the 8-3 Wofford/Lehigh/Cal Poly/YSU fans complain about getting "snubbed" (the last four teams that just missed off the bubble). With the two additional at larges, the bubble teams would probably be 7-4 and really have no argument...
You're kidding. I can list a number of teams off the top of my head that would be pissed if they were passed over for Stony Brook this year - S.C. State, UMass, JMU, Hofstra, WKU... If you expanded the field to 36, you'd still have people with good reason to be upset at not making it. That won't ever go away. I'd say that increasing the field would actually make that worse.

[Dane96]

Flyboy, you should probably learn the rules of each level, as far as giving scholarships, before you tell someone they are wrong.

THE IA level mandates: NO PARTIAL SCHOLARSHIPS and 85 SCHOLARSHIPS MUST BE GIVEN.

The IAA level mandates: A maximum of 63 scholarships CAN be given. There is no minimum standard.

And, for all those chirping that NCAA hoops have the same scholarships hence mid and low majors can be considered for the tourney, well, that is a stupid argument. UVM, who beat Syracuse and nearly took down Michigan State in the tourney, had anywhere from 8-11 scholarship players up until last year. NCAA allows, I believe, 14 scholarships in hoops. I know for a fact, Princeton's top mid90's team had a stud player who WAS NOT on scholarship. Even the former PL teams were eligible when they did not give out money.

So, that argument is moot.

[Mr. Tiger]

As someone said there has never been a scholarship "parameter" in I-AA. Scholarships have varied widely over the years and no minimum has ever been enforced. That's the problem. Division I-AA allows schools to join and then lock them out of the playoff system. That is UNfair and should be challenged. Either set parameters, allow every Division I-AA school a shot at the playoffs, or break the non-scholarship and low scholarship schools into yet another division. I am in favor of setting parameters and if you don't meet them you are headed to Division II.

[BigApp]

Dumbest thing I have seen in a long time. Did mid-majors get autobids to the NCAA BBall tourney when only 16 went? Think about it before you post something like this again.

Everyone, let's allow MrRoller the chance to do a little research (and it doesn't take a whole lot) and maybe edit his statement before answering...
:read: :read: :read: :doh: :o :o

[OL FU]

I think since the PL auto-bid lost to a mid-major this year, the PL should give their auto bid to the PFL :rolleyes: :smiley_wi

[UAalum72]

I think since the PL auto-bid lost to a mid-major this year, the PL should give their auto bid to the PFL :rolleyes: :smiley_wi
That ain't no joke, it's the way it's supposed to work (more or less). Except an NEC bid would probably come at the expense of the MEAC, not the PL.

[FlyBoy8]

Flyboy, you should probably learn the rules of each level, as far as giving scholarships, before you tell someone they are wrong.

THE IA level mandates: NO PARTIAL SCHOLARSHIPS and 85 SCHOLARSHIPS MUST BE GIVEN.

The IAA level mandates: A maximum of 63 scholarships CAN be given. There is no minimum standard.

Uh, yeah, that's what I said. I-A programs offer the same number of scholarships. Not all I-AA programs do. Apparently your reading level is also mid-major, not just your football program. :rolleyes: I said nothing about rules.

[Dane96]

Good pt...yep...I was drunk and read it way to fast :bang:

[FlyBoy8]

Drunk already? Wow.



I'm impressed.

[Dane96]

That's what happens when you land on an ice patch, flat on your tailbone, after your binding breaks on the snowboard your riding...oh so much pleasure. I think I would have rather gotten led over the middle by some pansy armed QB, opposed to landing like I did.

On a brighter note, I did receive a perfect 10 from the Russian judges, though I suspect it was because of the Franklin I slipped them.

[DFW HOYA]

I am in favor of setting parameters and if you don't meet them you are headed to Division II.

What would those parameters be? And how does a school like Cornell, with 23,000 students and no scholarships, fit in a Division II?

[OL FU]

Furman 75, South Carolina 67 West

Aah, memories. Not sure of the relevance, but it was not unusual for FU to be rated in the top twenty during the 70's.

Some one who is familiar with the NEC and PFL should keep track of their games next year against the playo-off conferences. It would be interesting to see how they do.

If the playoffs go to 24 teams, I suppose there is a lot of possibilities and mid-major participation would be one of them. Heck, let's go to 32 teams and make it easy, that way we would not be arguing over who received the byes. :rolleyes:

[OL FU]

When the field in the NCAA tourny was smaller, our schools got in, and there were no at larges. Looking at 1974 for one example, two of the best teams in the country were NC State and Maryland. Maryland finished as the #4 team in the AP poll and wasn't able to play in the tournament because they lost a 103-100 OT game in the final of the ACC tournament to eventual national champ NC State. Some of the top 10 teams didn't get to play (Michigan, Kansas, Indiana, LB State). But Furman, Creighton, and Idaho State did (see below). The field was expanded the next year.

The basketball field was not expanded to accomodate Furman and Creighton, it was expanded to accomodate Maryland and Indiana.

I understand the argument, but I don't understand the connection or comparison of the Football play off and the basket ball tourney. Heck basketball could expand to 124 teams and take the same amount of time as our football tournament.

[kardplayer]

The basketball field was not expanded to accomodate Furman and Creighton, it was expanded to accomodate Maryland and Indiana.

I understand the argument, but I don't understand the connection or comparison of the Football play off and the basket ball tourney. Heck basketball could expand to 124 teams and take the same amount of time as our football tournament.

That was my point actually. Every conference champ got to participate and they expanded to allow at larges in. Our division does it backwards in that respect - we keep out some conferences, and they MIGHT get a shot if we expand.

[blukeys]

Some one who is familiar with the NEC and PFL should keep track of their games next year against the playo-off conferences. It would be interesting to see how they do.




The problem in measuring this is that the mid majors are dividing. Some NEC schools are beginning to offer scholarships (or equivalencies if you prever) They are Albany, Stony Brook, Monmouth and CCSU, All from the NEC. The other NEC schools and all of the Pioneer schools are still no scolly along the the D-3 lines. I have heard on this board that by next year Albany should be at around the 30 equivalency level. While I don't think this will get them at playoff level, a Team with 30 equivalencies can beat a full scolly program on a very good day. (Just as I-AA's can beat I-A's)

To accurately measure this one should actually separate out the schools who are upgrading their programs from those staying at the no scolly level.

[Dane96]

The problem in measuring this is that the mid majors are dividing. Some NEC schools are beginning to offer scholarships (or equivalencies if you prever) They are Albany, Stony Brook, Monmouth and CCSU, All from the NEC. The other NEC schools and all of the Pioneer schools are still no scolly along the the D-3 lines. I have heard on this board that by next year Albany should be at around the 30 equivalency level. While I don't think this will get them at playoff level, a Team with 30 equivalencies can beat a full scolly program on a very good day. (Just as I-AA's can beat I-A's)

To accurately measure this one should actually separate out the schools who are upgrading their programs from those staying at the no scolly level.

The statement is partly correct. ALL NEC SCHOOLS ARE OFFERING UP TO 30 FULL SCHOLARSHIPS (not equivalencies). I would suspect all four you mentioned will be at the 30 level almost immediately, however in two years, all NEC schools will most likely be at that level.

[blukeys]

The statement is partly correct. ALL NEC SCHOOLS ARE OFFERING UP TO 30 FULL SCHOLARSHIPS (not equivalencies). I would suspect all four you mentioned will be at the 30 level almost immediately, however in two years, all NEC schools will most likely be at that level.


Thanks for the Update Dane. I do think this puts the NEC big 4 in a category different than the rest of the Mid Majors.

[kardplayer]

Anyone know why this was moved to "Other Sports"?

[nlwwln]

probably because there was so much reference to basketball

[OL FU]

That was my point actually. Every conference champ got to participate and they expanded to allow at larges in. Our division does it backwards in that respect - we keep out some conferences, and they MIGHT get a shot if we expand.

Good we agree. The BBall tourney expanded to accomodate possible winners, that is not what you are suggesting. :)

[DUPFLFan]

San Diego last year and Drake two years ago should have gotten a bid.

Drake has upgraded its schedule to get 1-aa scholarship programs to play. Yes, last year they didn't do too well but they didn't win their league either.

Like the poster said to start this, why not? :bang:

[Bub]

Thanks for the Update Dane. I do think this puts the NEC big 4 in a category different than the rest of the Mid Majors.

I'm not sure about that. For, example, Drake can award Presidential Scholarships based in academics, up to half tuition. A large percentage of the football team receives these. If they qualified, the whole team could receive these. The difference between this approach and what the NEC is doing will not result in a substantially different product on the field. Drake has also refurbished its on campus stadium, to the tune of $15-20 million. It seats 14,500, has field turf, lights, new seating in the horseshoe stadium, new concessions with locker rooms underneath. It is an outstanding facility and makes a statment about Drake's committment to football.

[Bub]

San Diego last year and Drake two years ago should have gotten a bid.

Drake has upgraded its schedule to get 1-aa scholarship programs to play. Yes, last year they didn't do too well but they didn't win their league either.

Like the poster said to start this, why not? :bang:

Good point, and besides in ILS and UNI, Drake played two teams that would have and did put it to most of I-AA. ILS nearly stuck it to I-A ISU and as we know UNI was the NAtional runner-up, whom Drake will open with next year in a night game at Drake Stadium.

[OL FU]

San Diego last year and Drake two years ago should have gotten a bid.

Drake has upgraded its schedule to get 1-aa scholarship programs to play. Yes, last year they didn't do too well but they didn't win their league either.

Like the poster said to start this, why not? :bang:

San Deigo beat Yale and lost to Princeton. Is that what it is based on. IF the Ivy participated in the playoffs, neither team would hvae made it. So why did San Diego deserve a bid?

[colgate13]

San Diego last year and Drake two years ago should have gotten a bid.

Drake has upgraded its schedule to get 1-aa scholarship programs to play. Yes, last year they didn't do too well but they didn't win their league either.

Like the poster said to start this, why not? :bang:

At the expense of???? Tell me who you are taking out of the playoffs to put them in.

My boy 89Hen and I went through this all, probably last year at this time, and came up with the best mid-major argument being Duquense in 2002 as being the best example of a potential mid-major playoff participant. I don't know if it was on the new board or the old one... maybe I can find the thread.

[blukeys]

At the expense of???? Tell me who you are taking out of the playoffs to put them in.

My boy 89Hen and I went through this all, probably last year at this time, and came up with the best mid-major argument being Duquense in 2002 as being the best example of a potential mid-major playoff participant. I don't know if it was on the new board or the old one... maybe I can find the thread.


I remember. That is why I posted earlier that this whole topic is :deadhorse

[colgate13]

I remember. That is why I posted earlier that this whole topic is :deadhorse

I'm glad someone does!!!! :)

I can't find it on this board. I think it is forever lost in the old one.... :(

[blukeys]

Wasn't it a Mid Major Love thread???? or a Title like that?

[DUPFLFan]

Seems that this past year San Diego could have done at least as well in the playoffs as Colgate (8-4 record 55-21 loss to NH) and Richmond (8-4 38-10 loss).

But better would be to expand the playoffs to 32 teams with each 1-aa conference getting an automatic bid (yes, GASP, including the Pioneer League) :bang:

It may be beating a dead horse but not to the people whose school has NO shot to get into its own playoff system... no matter how well it does.

[colgate13]

Seems that this past year San Diego could have done at least as well in the playoffs as Colgate (8-4 record 55-21 loss to NH) and Richmond (8-4 38-10 loss).

What's that assumption based on? The only common opponent is Princeton, who beat San Diego, who Colgate beat. And Richmond? Richmond is a SECOND ROUND loss after winning 38-10 in the first round! LOL! Get your facts straight bud!


But better would be to expand the playoffs to 32 teams with each 1-aa conference getting an automatic bid (yes, GASP, including the Pioneer League) :bang:

Good god man! 32 teams? Why expand it that large? That's plain crazy talk IMO.


It may be beating a dead horse but not to the people whose school has NO shot to get into its own playoff system... no matter how well it does.

Wrong. You have a shot. Play a schedule made up of a majority of playoff (or playoff equivalent i.e. Ivy/SWAC) teams, win those games, and get an at-large. Simple, actually.

If San Diego wants the playoffs, its time to join the Great West.

[DUPFLFan]

Richmond is a SECOND ROUND loss after winning 38-10 in the first round! LOL! Get your facts straight bud!

Sorry I misread the bracket.. my apologies



Good god man! 32 teams? Why expand it that large? That's plain crazy talk IMO.

Want to explain why that is crazy? It's one more game for most of the playoff teams.

Wrong. You have a shot. Play a schedule made up of a majority of playoff (or playoff equivalent i.e. Ivy/SWAC) teams, win those games, and get an at-large. Simple, actually.

So you are saying that if Drake plays a schedule of playoff equivalent teams (by the way - that is as tough as the 1-aa schollys trying to schedule 1-a teams) and wins, that a scholarship team can get into the playoffs? What are you smoking - I want some.

Bottom line - both the scheduling (who wants to play) and getting an at large - not going to happen without legislation.

If San Diego wants the playoffs, its time to join the Great West.

You guys who support 1-aa scholarship programs talk about getting the respect of 1-a programs while at the same time smack down 1-aa non-scholarship programs... Incredible...

[faxjusfax]

The statement is partly correct. ALL NEC SCHOOLS ARE OFFERING UP TO 30 FULL SCHOLARSHIPS (not equivalencies). I would suspect all four you mentioned will be at the 30 level almost immediately, however in two years, all NEC schools will most likely be at that level.

Are you sure the rest of the NEC has committed the resources to go to the 30 level? I don't know who voted yea, but with Wagner, St Francis, Robert Morris, and Sacred Heart, I'll believe it only when when I see.

[colgate13]

Want to explain why that is crazy? It's one more game for most of the playoff teams.

It's crazy because that's 32 teams out of a little less than 120 I-AA teams total. Take out the 8 Ivy and the other SWAC members that don't participate, and you're a little above 100 possible members. Approx. 1/3 of the Division in the playoffs is a joke.

It's also crazy because you should take a look at who the extra 16 teams would be. Taking the Ivy out, you have 6-5 4th/5th place conference teams in the playoffs! Using the GPI, a team like 5-6 Idaho State is probably in!


So you are saying that if Drake plays a schedule of playoff equivalent teams (by the way - that is as tough as the 1-aa schollys trying to schedule 1-a teams) and wins, that a scholarship team can get into the playoffs? What are you smoking - I want some.

If San Diego was 11-1 against teams from the GWFC, Big Sky, Ivy, PL, etc., they would be in the playoffs.

Bottom line - both the scheduling (who wants to play) and getting an at large - not going to happen without legislation.


You guys who support 1-aa scholarship programs talk about getting the respect of 1-a programs while at the same time smack down 1-aa non-scholarship programs... Incredible...

It's not about disrepect IMO. It's about a team that from a conference that does not play the same level of football as the majority of I-AA taking a precious spot away from a team that does. Did you catch the YSU fans upset at Lafayette getting an autobid? What if you added to that San Diego going over Richmond? That's kind of what you are talking about.

[OL FU]

It's not about disrepect IMO. It's about a team that from a conference that does not play the same level of football as the majority of I-AA taking a precious spot away from a team that does. Did you catch the YSU fans upset at Lafayette getting an autobid? What if you added to that San Diego going over Richmond? That's kind of what you are talking about.

Very true. I-AA may be looking for some respect from I-A, but we don't expect to be invited to the Rose Bowl.