Autos

[89Hen]

Just for fun let's say the NEC and Ivy decided to apply for an autobid to the playoffs this year (I know it won't/can't happen but let's pretend). The field is already set with 16 so there will be 8 autobids given by the NCAA. Which 8 conferences would you select to recieve autos? (I would have included the SWAC but you can only have 10 choices on polls.)

You can and must pick exactly 8....

[catbob]

No Great West?

[swaghook]

I'm assuming it is because we are short a member to qualify.

[catbob]

Ha my bad. D:

[89Hen]

I'm assuming it is because we are short a member to qualify.
Correct, I am only talking about this year. In the future this same question might include Ivy, NEC, GWFC, Big South, PFL, etc...

[HensRock]

I assume we can pick less than 8 if we want. I only chose 5.

[89Hen]

I assume we can pick less than 8 if we want. I only chose 5.
Well, you can, but you should not have. By rule, the NCAA MUST give 8 if at least 8 apply. The rule is at least half must be reserved for auto, but also at least half must be given autos if at least that number apply. So you should have chosen 8. :nono: :p

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the two voters who picked the NEC were the same two voters who did not include the A-10. xlolx

[89Hen]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that the two voters who picked the NEC were the same two voters who did not include the A-10. xlolx
I think you'd win that bet. :nod:

[HensRock]

Well, you can, but you should not have. By rule, the NCAA MUST give 8 if at least 8 apply. The rule is at least half must be reserved for auto, but also at least half must be given autos if at least that number apply. So you should have chosen 8. :nono: :p


The rule is: In any NCAA championship tournament, at least half the field must be reserved for at-large entries. There may be a special rule for I-AA Football which says that 8 conferences receive automatic bids, but that is for I-AA Football only, and could be changed by the selection committee. I don't see any reason why I-AA Football couldn't go down to 5 or 6 automatic bids. This will make more at-large bids available and make most people happy.

[OL FU]

I don't think it is surprising where the non-power conference votes are falling but for the A-10 not to get a vote from every one (or even the Southland) kinda makes you question the objectivity:rotateh:

[89Hen]

The rule is: In any NCAA championship tournament, at least half the field must be reserved for at-large entries. There may be a special rule for I-AA Football which says that 8 conferences receive automatic bids, but that is for I-AA Football only, and could be changed by the selection committee. I don't see any reason why I-AA Football couldn't go down to 5 or 6 automatic bids. This will make more at-large bids available and make most people happy.
Not correct. It is an NCAA rule for any sport with automatics except men's basketball...

31.3.4.5 Limitations on Automatic-Qualifying Positions.
31.3.4.5.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball.
In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.4-(a), excluding the sport of football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, a sports committee must award, when a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide a play-in criteria. The remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams.

[blur2005]

Out of this group, I'd only want to give 7. If the Great West could qualify, I'd give them the eighth autobid with the A-10, Big Sky, Gateway, OVC, Patriot, Southern, and Southland.

[TexasTerror]

MEAC is getting no love...

Who are people voting for above the MEAC? Ivy?

[Stang Fever]

I sure enough didnt vote for the NEC it was toss up for me when it came to the MEAC vs IVY i gave it to the IVY LEAGUE

[TexasTerror]

I sure enough didnt vote for the NEC it was toss up for me when it came to the MEAC vs IVY i gave it to the IVY LEAGUE

What factors were involved in that decision? Prestige? MEAC playoff results of late? What?

I'm trying to figure out why folks put IVY over MEAC and NEC, since that seems to be the way it fell...

[Lehigh Football Nation]

More surprising is that the OVC is getting so many votes...

[Stang Fever]

It would prob. be because of the history of the MEAC...and my belief that the top IVY teams would beat the Top MEAC teams

[Stang Fever]

But dont think i believe they are blow out games...just they could edge them out

[TexasTerror]

More surprising is that the OVC is getting so many votes...

When was the last time the OVC won a playoff game? 1996 when Troy was a member? Were they a member? Wasn't Troy in the SLC by 1999?

[89Hen]

When was the last time the OVC won a playoff game? 1996 when Troy was a member?
1996 First Round Murray State 34 - Western Illinois 6

Since then,
1997 WKU 42 - EKU 14
1998 AppSt. 45 - Tennessee St. 31
1999 NC A&T 24 - Tennessee St. 10
2000 Montana 45 - Eastern Illinois 13
2001 UNI 49 - Eastern Illinois 43
2002 WKU 59 - Murray St. 20
2003 WKU 45 - Jacksonville St. 7
2004 Furman 49 - Jacksonville St. 7
2005 Southern Illinois 21 - Eastern Illinois 6

FWIW, FAMU advanced to the semifinals in 1999 as the MEAC champ. I too question why the OVC is getting more love than the MEAC. I left out the NEC and OVC.

[GAD]

In 1999 NC A&T was the MEAC champ FAMU got the last at-large bid.

[*****]

1996 First Round Murray State 34 - Western Illinois 6
Since then,
1997 WKU 42 - EKU 14
1998 AppSt. 45 - Tennessee St. 31
1999 NC A&T 24 - Tennessee St. 10
2000 Montana 45 - Eastern Illinois 13
2001 UNI 49 - Eastern Illinois 43
2002 WKU 59 - Murray St. 20
2003 WKU 45 - Jacksonville St. 7
2004 Furman 49 - Jacksonville St. 7
2005 Southern Illinois 21 - Eastern Illinois 6
...You left out:
2002 Western Ill. 48, Eastern Ill. 9

[DUPFLFan]

:nono: Didn't you leave a conference out?

[blukeys]

I don't think it is surprising where the non-power conference votes are falling but for the A-10 not to get a vote from every one (or even the Southland) kinda makes you question the objectivity:rotateh:

I think you might find your answer in the Mid Major threads where A-10 posters especially those from Delaware challenged the idea that the mid major conferences are the newest minority deserving of special treatement.

That's Ok we have broad shoulders and tend to say what we think regardless of consequences. The vote only demonstrates the pettiness of those with whom we have had honest disagreements on ideas and principles.

[Golden Eagle]

1996 First Round Murray State 34 - Western Illinois 6

Since then,
1997 WKU 42 - EKU 14
1998 AppSt. 45 - Tennessee St. 31
1999 NC A&T 24 - Tennessee St. 10
2000 Montana 45 - Eastern Illinois 13
2001 UNI 49 - Eastern Illinois 43
2002 WKU 59 - Murray St. 20
2003 WKU 45 - Jacksonville St. 7
2004 Furman 49 - Jacksonville St. 7
2005 Southern Illinois 21 - Eastern Illinois 6

FWIW, FAMU advanced to the semifinals in 1999 as the MEAC champ. I too question why the OVC is getting more love than the MEAC. I left out the NEC and OVC.

You're forgetting the Hilltoppers' brief foray back into the OVC around the turn of the millenium. Of course, maybe you aren't counting them as non-current members.

On November 25, 2000, WKU beat FAMU (MEAC!) 27-0 in the first round of the playoffs.

I think people give the OVC more credit because of history. Since 1947, Roy Kidd, and all that. It's a nice little conference to be a fan of.

[*****]

You're forgetting the Hilltoppers' brief foray back into the OVC around the turn of the millenium. Of course, maybe you aren't counting them as non-current members.

On November 25, 2000, WKU beat FAMU (MEAC!) 27-0 in the first round of the playoffs...
:doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

[HensRock]

Not correct. It is an NCAA rule for any sport with automatics except men's basketball...

31.3.4.5 Limitations on Automatic-Qualifying Positions.
31.3.4.5.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball.
In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.4-(a), excluding the sport of football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, a sports committee must award, when a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide a play-in criteria. The remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams.

That rule does not apply to football. Read it.

[OL FU]

I left out the NEC and OVC.

Me too!

[Pard4Life]

More surprising is that the OVC is getting so many votes...

Seriously, I voted for the NEC and Ivy and left the MEAC and OVC out. A little wishful thinking has propelled me to believe that the NEC is going to be competitive with schollies.

Undoubtedly if the Ivy League decided tomorrow to drop their ludicrous stance that the Ivy would be extended an auto-bid. They are usually one of the top ranked conferences and three teams in the top 25-30. If they played the A10 more regularly there would be no national arguement to their quality. The best of the Ivy and PL often square off and go back and forth with wins... but not many of you respect the PL... but I am shocked to see us making the near unanimous auto-bid status... maybe we are getting some respect!

[colgate13]

I left out the OVC and the NEC.

[Dane96]

For the record....because I dont want to get lumped in with the bitter...I voted for the A-Ten (I wasnt one of the two). I dumped the MEAC (tougher than the other) and the OVC.

This, however, is still not the solution. Look at DIII...if they can do it...so can we.

[OL FU]

For the record....because I dont want to get lumped in with the bitter...I voted for the A-Ten (I wasnt one of the two). I dumped the MEAC (tougher than the other) and the OVC.

This, however, is still not the solution. Look at DIII...if they can do it...so can we.

Not to beat a dead horse (and this has probably been discussed on threads I got tired of reading) but, how many DIII teams are there, how many conferences, how many teams in the playoff and how many auto bids?

Also, don't all DIII teams have the same number of scholarships, so the resource allocation issue is not an issue?

[dbackjon]

How anyone could seriously think the NEC is CURRENTLY better than the OVC or MEAC is beyond me. Both the OVC and MEAC fully fund schollies, and the upper teams in each conference would dominate the NEC.

[dbackjon]

Also - I voted for the current 8. I disagree, and feel that it sends the wrong signal about I-AA football to give the IVY League an auto-bid the first year they want to play with the rest of us, and dump a conference that has fully participated in the playoffs since the inception of I-AA. The Ivy League should have a probationary period of at least two years after applying for an autobid before they get one. They would still be eligible for an at-large bid, but to give them an auto-bid the minute they decide that they can lower themselves to participate in the playoffs cheapens the conferences that have carried I-AA.

[colgate13]

Also, don't all DIII teams have the same number of scholarships, so the resource allocation issue is not an issue?

Yea, ZERO!

In all seriousness though, that doesn't mean all teams have the same resources... :smiley_wi

FYI - D III has 28 teams make the playoffs with the top four teams getting a bye. 24 teams play in the first round (12 games) and then 16 teams play in the second round (8 games) with the top four teams now playing too. The playoffs span 5 weeks.

The big problem in the comparision is D III starts the playoffs the weekend BEFORE thanksgiving.

[OL FU]

Also - I voted for the current 8. I disagree, and feel that it sends the wrong signal about I-AA football to give the IVY League an auto-bid the first year they want to play with the rest of us, and dump a conference that has fully participated in the playoffs since the inception of I-AA. The Ivy League should have a probationary period of at least two years after applying for an autobid before they get one. They would still be eligible for an at-large bid, but to give them an auto-bid the minute they decide that they can lower themselves to participate in the playoffs cheapens the conferences that have carried I-AA.

I don't disagree. But I looked at more from a strength of conference aspect without the rights and wrongs of past participation.

[OL FU]

Yea, ZERO!

In all seriousness though, that doesn't mean all teams have the same resources... :smiley_wi

FYI - D III has 28 teams make the playoffs with the top four teams getting a bye. 24 teams play in the first round (12 games) and then 16 teams play in the second round (8 games) with the top four teams now playing too. The playoffs span 5 weeks.

The big problem in the comparision is D III starts the playoffs the weekend BEFORE thanksgiving.

:o :) Yes, I was too limited in my definition of resources. But the point is the same. They all give the same number of scholarships which for many schools yours ( I know its equivalencies) and mine ($2M plus) included is by far the biggest cost in the program.

There may come a time when the playoffs have to expand, although I am not sure how to do it logistically. But am I far from convinced that it should happen now because of the NEC.

[Dane96]

Huh? Gate13 at least was on the right track. You are way off base on this one OL FU. First off, not all schools are created equal with Grant money at DIII. Second, there is more shady behavior at DIII schools than you can imagine. Let's just say...I know of many recruits who were lost to a more expensive school than it would have been if the kid went to Albany.

Money is given out and it is NOT on an equal basis and it DOES get around grant in aid status.

Furthermore, if the NEC is at 30 rides (split up among let's say 40-45 players...which is what will happen based on the lower cost of the in-staters) what makes it so different than a Georgetown, or the other PL teams that are nowhere near the CURRENT (note current) level of full funding as their A-Ten counterparts (sans Lehigh and the 'Gate)?

Again, this goes to the basic premise we have tried to put out there ad nauseum: NCAA HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY YOU NEED XX dollars in your operating budget and XX scholarships to participate.

It would end the debate rather quickly. Why? Because the NEC schools could go to alumni and say "HEY...if we get to this level...we will most likely get an autobid...help us." They can go to recruits and say "HEY...we have secured XX dollars from alumn, we have a legit shot at applying for and getting the autobid next year...come build a program."

End of story.......and everyone is happy. But the NCAA wont do this. WHY? Because once they tell the NEC what it needs, and the NEC meets those requirements (assuming so), than the NCAA will have to *gulp* expand the playoffs, something it is far from willing to do. It would have less standing with the NEC in arguing because no matter what you say, scheduling is objective (e.g. UA schedules UMass, Hofstra, Delaware, Colgate and for some reason one of those teams has an ok four year run, two so-so...and one terrible). Name recognition in scheduling wont always work. YOU NEED TO TAKE THE SUBJECTIVITY OUT OF THE EQUATION.

[89Hen]

That rule does not apply to football. Read it.
I read it several times in the past and the conclusion is that they are talking about I-A football in that sentence....

31.3.4.5 Limitations on Automatic-Qualifying Positions.
31.3.4.5.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball.
In team sports, per Bylaw 31.3.4.4-(a), excluding the sport of football and any team sport in which automatic qualification is not offered, a sports committee must award, when a sufficient number of applications for automatic qualification exist, at least 50 percent of the championship field to conferences that meet automatic-qualification criteria and provide a play-in criteria. The remaining 50 percent of the championship field shall be reserved for at-large teams.

There are no rules about the number of autos and at-larges in the I-AA Handbook. Everything there refers you back to this bylaw from the general NCAA guideline which means this does in fact apply to I-AA football. If football were excluded as a whole, then the header would read:

31.3.4.5.1 Team Sports Other Than Men’s Basketball and Football.

At least that's how I read it.

[89Hen]

Also - I voted for the current 8. I disagree, and feel that it sends the wrong signal about I-AA football to give the IVY League an auto-bid the first year they want to play with the rest of us, and dump a conference that has fully participated in the playoffs since the inception of I-AA. The Ivy League should have a probationary period of at least two years after applying for an autobid before they get one.
That would have to be a completely new rule as nothing like that exists now. With the current rules in place if you voted for the current 8 but felt the Ivy were more deserving than one of them, you'd be sending the wrong signal about NCAA rules. The bids are to go to the best 8 available, not to the 8 oldest.

[HensRock]

Didn't I-AA have 7 auto bids at one time? Before the Patriot earned one?

I read it to mean excluding football and excluding any sport which does not offer automatic qualifiers. In other words, excluding both.

[89Hen]

YOU NEED TO TAKE THE SUBJECTIVITY OUT OF THE EQUATION.
I don't agree with that. PIG's don't work in the context of football because it adds an entire week to the post-season. If you had a list of requirements (6 teams, round robin, no more than one DII game per team, at least 9 games against I-AA playoff conferences, etc...) one year you could have 8 the next 10 the next 9.... UNLESS you want to go to 24 teams, I don't see anyway of making the playoffs work as a fluctuating number every year. So until you can convince a lot of people that the playoffs should be expanded to 24, you're not going to win that arguement.

[89Hen]

Didn't I-AA have 7 auto bids at one time? Before the Patriot earned one?
That can be true if the PL didn't apply for one. The rule is that they have to grant half as autos if at least 8 apply. If the PL didn't apply and there were only 7 bids, then they only give 7 bids. If 8, 9, 12... apply they have to give exactly 8.

[dbackjon]

That would have to be a completely new rule as nothing like that exists now. With the current rules in place if you voted for the current 8 but felt the Ivy were more deserving than one of them, you'd be sending the wrong signal about NCAA rules. The bids are to go to the best 8 available, not to the 8 oldest.

Shouldn't be a problem - there are probationary period rules scattered throughout the NCAA rule books.

[OL FU]

Huh? Gate13 at least was on the right track. You are way off base on this one OL FU. First off, not all schools are created equal with Grant money at DIII. Second, there is more shady behavior at DIII schools than you can imagine. Let's just say...I know of many recruits who were lost to a more expensive school than it would have been if the kid went to Albany.

Money is given out and it is NOT on an equal basis and it DOES get around grant in aid status.

Furthermore, if the NEC is at 30 rides (split up among let's say 40-45 players...which is what will happen based on the lower cost of the in-staters) what makes it so different than a Georgetown, or the other PL teams that are nowhere near the CURRENT (note current) level of full funding as their A-Ten counterparts (sans Lehigh and the 'Gate)?

Again, this goes to the basic premise we have tried to put out there ad nauseum: NCAA HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY YOU NEED XX dollars in your operating budget and XX scholarships to participate.

It would end the debate rather quickly. Why? Because the NEC schools could go to alumni and say "HEY...if we get to this level...we will most likely get an autobid...help us." They can go to recruits and say "HEY...we have secured XX dollars from alumn, we have a legit shot at applying for and getting the autobid next year...come build a program."

End of story.......and everyone is happy. But the NCAA wont do this. WHY? Because once they tell the NEC what it needs, and the NEC meets those requirements (assuming so), than the NCAA will have to *gulp* expand the playoffs, something it is far from willing to do. It would have less standing with the NEC in arguing because no matter what you say, scheduling is objective (e.g. UA schedules UMass, Hofstra, Delaware, Colgate and for some reason one of those teams has an ok four year run, two so-so...and one terrible). Name recognition in scheduling wont always work. YOU NEED TO TAKE THE SUBJECTIVITY OUT OF THE EQUATION.

I am way off on more things than you can imagine:)

So "equivalencies" are part of the equation at the D-III level. Did not know that. Probably should have.
How long has the NEC been at 30 equivalencies? Sounds like a workable number? Aren't some of the GWFC teams at that level? I guess it goes back to the same argument which is, do the top teams in the NEC play at the level of the top teams in the autobid conferences. I am sure they do against some of the bottom feeders. Beating Gate last year was a good start. I guess CCSU will just have to kick Georgia Southern's butt this year:D

[89Hen]

Shouldn't be a problem - there are probationary period rules scattered throughout the NCAA rule books.
You still have to change the rule. I think that conferences should be required to have 8 teams for an autobid. That should be easy enough to change, but that doesn't mean it should change.

You were being asked to pick the 8 for this year. As of this year, there is no rule on probationary period for a I-AA conference to submit for an automatic. If you believe that the Ivy were a better pick, you should chose them irregardless of their lack of playoff participation.

[HensRock]

That can be true if the PL didn't apply for one. The rule is that they have to grant half as autos if at least 8 apply. If the PL didn't apply and there were only 7 bids, then they only give 7 bids. If 8, 9, 12... apply they have to give exactly 8.


My recollection was that they applied and were denied for years. Maybe some PL folks can help us out here.

I also beleive that the I-AA Committee could impose additional criteria on Automatic qualifiers. For instance, what if they made the minimum conference size 8 teams instead of 6 just for I-AA Football automatic qualification. That would eliminate the Patriot and Southland right there. (I'm not recommending this - just using an example of more stringent qualifications).

I think a neat one would be that the conference must have at least one playoff victory in the last 3 seasons. That would eliminate the OVC and MEAC for next season (and put the heat on the Patriot). This way the conferences would have to earn their bids, and if they don't, it opens up another at-large, so it's not a total loss. The more I think about this idea - the more I really like it.

[Dane96]

I am way off on more things than you can imagine:)

So "equivalencies" are part of the equation at the D-III level. Did not know that. Probably should have.
How long has the NEC been at 30 equivalencies? Sounds like a workable number? Aren't some of the GWFC teams at that level? I guess it goes back to the same argument which is, do the top teams in the NEC play at the level of the top teams in the autobid conferences. I am sure they do against some of the bottom feeders. Beating Gate last year was a good start. I guess CCSU will just have to kick Georgia Southern's butt this year:D


AS AM I MY FRIEND, AS AM I (off on many things).

DIII is a sketchy animal...you have need based, merit based, EOP programs etc. Basically...there are serious recruiting wars in NY, or were at least, between DIII privates and publics.

I think you hit the point I have been trying to make, and 'Gate13 makes often: THE GAP IS CLOSING WITH NEC SCHOOLS. The 30 equivlancies has NEVER been met because of status quo. UA led the pack with 12.5 (including 2 on scholarship in other sports). Now, with the 30 Full-ride rule, expect 40 or so kids to be on rides at the top NEC schools in two-three years. For some it will be more kids on rides. This is very similar to the PL and having a discrepency between the 'Gates and the Fordham's of the league (G'Town coming in deadlast).

While I think we are going to be VERY YOUNG AGAIN (26 red-shirt frosh....a lot will see time and two true frosh could see alot of time), I really see the UA and the top teams of the NEC making strides against the mid-top PL teams and the mid level A-Ten teams in the next two years.

[colgate13]

Furthermore, if the NEC is at 30 rides (split up among let's say 40-45 players...which is what will happen based on the lower cost of the in-staters) what makes it so different than a Georgetown, or the other PL teams that are nowhere near the CURRENT (note current) level of full funding as their A-Ten counterparts (sans Lehigh and the 'Gate)?

Just to get some facts straight, Georgetown is the only PL team that is not close to the 63 equivalencies (at least as how I define close). 6 of 7 PL are all at least at 45 equivalencies, with LU/LC/CU at 50-55. That's real close in my book, and significantly more than 30 FWIW.

[colgate13]

That can be true if the PL didn't apply for one. The rule is that they have to grant half as autos if at least 8 apply. If the PL didn't apply and there were only 7 bids, then they only give 7 bids. If 8, 9, 12... apply they have to give exactly 8.

We didn't apply for one. It was banned by the league in an attempt to be like the Ivys. Once we applied for it, we got it.... amidst some snickering and putdowns from the rest of I-AA!

[Dane96]

My recollection was that they applied and were denied for years. Maybe some PL folks can help us out here.

I also beleive that the I-AA Committee could impose additional criteria on Automatic qualifiers. For instance, what if they made the minimum conference size 8 teams instead of 6 just for I-AA Football automatic qualification. That would eliminate the Patriot and Southland right there. (I'm not recommending this - just using an example of more stringent qualifications).

I think a neat one would be that the conference must have at least one playoff victory in the last 3 seasons. That would eliminate the OVC and MEAC for next season (and put the heat on the Patriot). This way the conferences would have to earn their bids, and if they don't, it opens up another at-large, so it's not a total loss. The more I think about this idea - the more I really like it.

You are on to something here. This is something I brought up the other day and follows the Premier League (soccer for all you football fools ;) ) concept: RELEGATION. You dont perform for let's say two or three seasons by not winning a playoff game, you get dropped and another team moves up. The beauty of this is if, in fact, a team from relegated league does well, they most likely would be considered for an at-large bid!

[colgate13]

So "equivalencies" are part of the equation at the D-III level. Did not know that. Probably should have.

No, they don't. There is NO athletic money at D III.... officially. That is what our Albany friend is getting at. Schools get creative, much like the Ivy can, but officially, no athletic scholarships and no grants in aid.

[89Hen]

I think a neat one would be that the conference must have at least one playoff victory in the last 3 seasons. That would eliminate the OVC and MEAC for next season (and put the heat on the Patriot). This way the conferences would have to earn their bids, and if they don't, it opens up another at-large, so it's not a total loss. The more I think about this idea - the more I really like it.
I like the theory, but it wouldn't work in practice. What if the MEAC or OVC didn't get an at-large every odd year and every even year they were given an at-large and had to play at sombody like GSU or whomever the top seed were? Seems a bit harsh, no? Too tough to earn your way back in IMO.

[OL FU]

No, they don't. There is NO athletic money at D III.... officially. That is what our Albany friend is getting at. Schools get creative, much like the Ivy can, but officially, no athletic scholarships and no grants in aid.


They cheat:eek:

[Dane96]

Just to get some facts straight, Georgetown is the only PL team that is not close to the 63 equivalencies (at least as how I define close). 6 of 7 PL are all at least at 45 equivalencies, with LU/LC/CU at 50-55. That's real close in my book, and significantly more than 30 FWIW.

Agree, and disagree at the same time. Lets, just for ease of numbers, take a 1mm scholarship fund at two schools, one PL and one state NEC school, UA as an example. Depending on how you break it up, more money can be dispersed among more kids with the same number of equivliancies, arguably attracting (academics, scenery, etc., aside for this argument) a better quality athlete to the state school because he can get more money and mom and dad wont owe as much, as a kid at a PL private school (hey, this argument is the same for the Private NEC schools as well...in fact it was the argument on WHY Albany was rejected 8 years ago by the PL).

1mm at Albany buys you, at the high end of 20k per student (which means nearly the entire team would be out of state) 50 equivalencies. At a PL school...1mm buys you 25 rides. So, if UA decides to give 30 rides, at 20k MAX per pop, including state kids, you are now talking nearly half-the cost and just as much punch as the PL numbers because those 30 rides will really end up being 45-50 based on the in-state tuition.

Remember...that 30 ride number is not tied to financials. In fact, UA can say they are giving out 30, 20k rides...split up. On the other hand, they can say "hey we cant afford this...we are only giving out 300k in scholarship money....30 in-state rides, which of course can be split among out of staters. This is the exact reason the NCAA banned the splitting of scholarships at the IA level; they didnt want the schools with more resources to be able to finagle the system.

[Dane96]

They cheat:eek:

Cheat is such an ugly word. Search for loopholes...all day and ten times on Saturday!:D

[OL FU]

Cheat is such an ugly word. Search for loopholes...all day and ten times on Saturday!:D

Loopholes are for politicians:rotateh:

[Dane96]

Loopholes are for politicians:rotateh:

Agreed...and some of the best ones are found at our institutions of higher learning, unfortunately!:(

[HensRock]

I like the theory, but it wouldn't work in practice. What if the MEAC or OVC didn't get an at-large every odd year and every even year they were given an at-large and had to play at sombody like GSU or whomever the top seed were? Seems a bit harsh, no? Too tough to earn your way back in IMO.

Yes, but win one - just one - and you guarantee your conference of an sutomatic bid for the next 3 years!

Don't confuse selection with seeding. Just because they are an at-large, does not mean they could not earn a home game, or even 3 home games for that matter. There's no reason why an at-large could not be selected as the #1 seed in the tourney. Point is, have a good season and win in the playoffs. That will earn your conference an auto bid for the next 3 years guaranteed. But even if you fail, another at-large opens up that your conference can get. Not having an automatic qualifier is not the end of the world, and it certainly doesn't lock a conference out of the playoffs or from ever obtaining an automatic bid in the future. This method will adjust to the relative strengths of the conferences as they ebb and flow. It creates more at-large bids so it rewards more teams that do well nationally and less teams that just do well within a weak conference.

[OL FU]

Yes, but win one - just one - and you guarantee your conference of an sutomatic bid for the next 3 years!

Don't confuse selection with seeding. Just because they are an at-large, does not mean they could not earn a home game, or even 3 home games for that matter. There's no reason why an at-large could not be selected as the #1 seed in the tourney. Point is, have a good season and win in the playoffs. That will earn your conference an auto bid for the next 3 years guaranteed. But even if you fail, another at-large opens up that your conference can get. Not having an automatic qualifier is not the end of the world, and it certainly doesn't lock a conference out of the playoffs or from ever obtaining an automatic bid in the future. This method will adjust to the relative strengths of the conferences as they ebb and flow. It creates more at-large bids so it rewards more teams that do well nationally and less teams that just do well within a weak conference.

I like the idea of establishing success measures to award the autobids to the conferences. I would not have a problem with the number of auto bids slipping below 8.

[89Hen]

Not having an automatic qualifier is not the end of the world
It is for a team that got an auto who may not have received an at-large. Recently: Montana State 2002 and 2003, Jacksonville State 2003, Lafayette 2003...

[HensRock]

It is for a team that got an auto who may not have received an at-large. Recently: Montana State 2002 and 2003, Jacksonville State 2003, Lafayette 2003...

I think you mean LC in 2004. Can you tell me what those 4 specific 200x teams also have in common in terms of playoff performance? So, would this be any great loss. Don't you remember the outcry when 6-5 Montana State was going to the dance while other teams that performed demonstrably better on a national level were denied?

Actually, (I think) every example you gave would still have happened under my system, because Montana earned an automatic for the Big Sky in 2001, so MSU still sneaks in in 2002/03, WKU earned a bid for the OVC in 2000 (This is the part I'm fuzzy on - was WKU still in the OVC in 2000?) so JSU sneaks in in 2003 and Colgate earned a bid for the Patriot in 2003 so LC still sneaks in in 2004.

And if JSU didn't make it in 2003, would that be such an injustice? It would have opened up an at-large for a more deserving team - or if JSU really deserved to be there, they could have gotten the at-large.

Wasn't it Lehigh that got Woffied that year?

[colgate13]

Agree, and disagree at the same time. Lets, just for ease of numbers, take a 1mm scholarship fund at two schools, one PL and one state NEC school, UA as an example. Depending on how you break it up, more money can be dispersed among more kids with the same number of equivliancies, arguably attracting (academics, scenery, etc., aside for this argument) a better quality athlete to the state school because he can get more money and mom and dad wont owe as much, as a kid at a PL private school (hey, this argument is the same for the Private NEC schools as well...in fact it was the argument on WHY Albany was rejected 8 years ago by the PL).

This is the entire reason why you use equivalencies and not dollars. PL schools break up their 50-55 equivalencies over 80 kids or so. The actual dollars spent by the school isn't worth talking about. From the PL angle, enough grant in aid and we cost the same as Albany for example and now the choice is between schools and programs, not money. And Albany was rejected from the PL for plenty of reasons. Don't overlook the fact that we're a bunch of smaller private schools. That is the BIGGEST reason why a school like Albany isn't an option to the PL.


1mm at Albany buys you, at the high end of 20k per student (which means nearly the entire team would be out of state) 50 equivalencies. At a PL school...1mm buys you 25 rides. So, if UA decides to give 30 rides, at 20k MAX per pop, including state kids, you are now talking nearly half-the cost and just as much punch as the PL numbers because those 30 rides will really end up being 45-50 based on the in-state tuition.

Again, you're missing the fact that we split up equivalencies as well. We do not have 50 or 55 kids getting grants in aid. It's more like 80. So dollars-wise it's a non-issue. It's all about the equivalencies. We (Colgate) spend the equivalent (since our costs are different) of ~ 25 more full scholarships, spread out over probably 35 or more players, than Albany will (for now). That's a very significant figure IMO, and why until Albany or SB increases their figures, they will still be behind the top of the PL most years.

[89Hen]

Rock, I think we're mixing a couple of different discussions together here. I was just replying to the notion that it wasn't the end of the world to not have an auto. For several teams it would have been the end of the season had there not been an auto. The fact that they would have been saved by the one win/three year expemption doesn't change that. Who's to say that Hampton, EIU or JSU doesn't go 8-3 or 7-4 this year and get the auto?

Again, I like the theory of having to play well to earn your bid, but every year is a new ballgame. If I'm Delaware State, who has been wallowing in mediocrity for years but is improving, and I go 8-3 this year and win the MEAC and don't get a bid because Hampton and NCAT didn't win playoff games in the past... that just doesn't seem right to me. Especially since they've really gone out and scheduled some great OOC competition (UMass, SIU, JMU, Coastal, etc..). I know that not having an auto doesn't preclude them from receiving an at-large, but remember when DelSt did win the MEAC at 9-2 in 1985 and didn't get an at-large. :nod:

I don't think you can go back and say it wouldn't have been an injustice for any team to have not made it because they lost anyway. It certainly would have been an injustice for SIU or McNeese to not go when they were the number one seeds, but they lost, so that arguement holds no weight IMO.

BTW, yes LC from 2004.

[Dane96]

This is the entire reason why you use equivalencies and not dollars. PL schools break up their 50-55 equivalencies over 80 kids or so. The actual dollars spent by the school isn't worth talking about. From the PL angle, enough grant in aid and we cost the same as Albany for example and now the choice is between schools and programs, not money. And Albany was rejected from the PL for plenty of reasons. Don't overlook the fact that we're a bunch of smaller private schools. That is the BIGGEST reason why a school like Albany isn't an option to the PL.



Again, you're missing the fact that we split up equivalencies as well. We do not have 50 or 55 kids getting grants in aid. It's more like 80. So dollars-wise it's a non-issue. It's all about the equivalencies. We (Colgate) spend the equivalent (since our costs are different) of ~ 25 more full scholarships, spread out over probably 35 or more players, than Albany will (for now). That's a very significant figure IMO, and why until Albany or SB increases their figures, they will still be behind the top of the PL most years.


Ahhh...understood...

[bobcatalum05]

Recent Auto who wouldnt have gotten an at large is Nichols State. They didnt have the 7 wins to make it in.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

And if JSU didn't make it in 2003, would that be such an injustice? It would have opened up an at-large for a more deserving team - or if JSU really deserved to be there, they could have gotten the at-large.

Wasn't it Lehigh that got Woffied that year?

2003 is a bad example. Yes Lehigh got woofed but they were woofed in favor of Bethune-Cookman (out of the MEAC) getting an at-large bid over Lehigh. B-CC had a lower GPI and played a weaker schedule than Lehigh. Lehigh lost to I-A UConn, undefeated Penn, and undefeated Colgate that year.

I think the committee was setting up a "regional" B-CC/FAU game that was supposed to be an attendance winner (which, if I recall, wasn't). B-CC got beat 32-24, and the MEAC Champ, NC A&T, lost 31-10 to Wofford.

I think everyone can agree the problem in 2003 was a poorly selected at-large team, not an autobid?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I don't agree with that. PIG's don't work in the context of football because it adds an entire week to the post-season. If you had a list of requirements (6 teams, round robin, no more than one DII game per team, at least 9 games against I-AA playoff conferences, etc...) one year you could have 8 the next 10 the next 9.... UNLESS you want to go to 24 teams, I don't see anyway of making the playoffs work as a fluctuating number every year. So until you can convince a lot of people that the playoffs should be expanded to 24, you're not going to win that arguement.

My feeling on expanding the playoffs involves some conferences playing 10 games and others playing 11 games, with their winners playing for a "bowl" (such as the Patriot/Ivy, for example) and the winner making the postseason. Some conferences, like the Ivy, want to play fewer games, so I thought it wasn't a bad solution.

The problem with that is - what if f(for example) the Ivy and Patriot League have teams, like in 2003, which could both credibly be seeded teams (Penn and Colgate)?

There are holes with some conferences playing fewer games than others, but I think it could work.

[89Hen]

There are holes with some conferences playing fewer games than others, but I think it could work.
There are also holes within the conferences that would be playing 10. Columbia, Bucknell, etc.. who really aren't vying for a title these days would be robbed of an 11th game.

[Golden Eagle]

(This is the part I'm fuzzy on - was WKU still in the OVC in 2000?)

Yep.

[blukeys]

I like the idea of establishing success measures to award the autobids to the conferences. I would not have a problem with the number of auto bids slipping below 8.

I agree. Autobids should not be treated as if they are set in stone. If a conference has not won a playoff game in 10 years then something is wrong and another option should be explored. This includes awarding their autobid to a more deserving at large.

[colgate13]

I agree. Autobids should not be treated as if they are set in stone. If a conference has not won a playoff game in 10 years then something is wrong and another option should be explored. This includes awarding their autobid to a more deserving at large.
Does this happen in other sports, like basketball for example? I have a problem with this because IMO part of the playoff autobid carrot is that you get to measure your conference against the rest of the country and see how you stack up. It's also a 'national' playoff tournament, not a 'power conference' one. Finally, you take away the chance for cinderella stories.

You might lose for 10 years but all it takes is for that one win and... you need only look at Bucknell upsetting Kansas in 2005. The PL had never won a basketball tournament game in numerous (more than 10 I'm fairly certain) years before then. Take away the PL autobid and that game never happens. How about Holy Cross upsetting Minnesota in hockey this year? Maybe that's a better example. 16 team field, 4 'power' conferences with two others getting autos. The Atlantic Hockey league never won a playoff game and yet - Holy Cross goes in there and has arguably the biggest upset in college hockey tournament history. Take away that auto and give it to another WCHA team and that game never happens.

The last thing I want to see is the same 3-4 conferences playing each other in the playoffs every year. They might win 90% of the time against 'lesser' schools, but it's that 10% that makes so much of playoffs so exciting. :twocents:

[OL FU]

Does this happen in other sports, like basketball for example? I have a problem with this because IMO part of the playoff autobid carrot is that you get to measure your conference against the rest of the country and see how you stack up. It's also a 'national' playoff tournament, not a 'power conference' one. Finally, you take away the chance for cinderella stories.

You might lose for 10 years but all it takes is for that one win and... you need only look at Bucknell upsetting Kansas in 2005. The PL had never won a basketball tournament game in numerous (more than 10 I'm fairly certain) years before then. Take away the PL autobid and that game never happens. How about Holy Cross upsetting Minnesota in hockey this year? Maybe that's a better example. 16 team field, 4 'power' conferences with two others getting autos. The Atlantic Hockey league never won a playoff game and yet - Holy Cross goes in there and has arguably the biggest upset in college hockey tournament history. Take away that auto and give it to another WCHA team and that game never happens.

The last thing I want to see is the same 3-4 conferences playing each other in the playoffs every year. They might win 90% of the time against 'lesser' schools, but it's that 10% that makes so much of playoffs so exciting. :twocents:

I agree but isn't the difficulty here that we have 8 auto bids and 12 (or so conferences). There are possibilities for expanding the playoffs, etc. but if we stay with 16 teams and 8 autos isn't qualifying for the auto an alternative that should be explored?

[colgate13]

if we stay with 16 teams and 8 autos isn't qualifying for the auto an alternative that should be explored?

IF we stay with 16, to what end to we shoot for? I think if you have a conference that meets all of the criteria for an auto and they are left on the outside looking in for years that's bad news for I-AA. Disgruntled programs with no support don't tend to stick around.

Given the regional nature of most contests, the relative shortness of our season and the lack of OOC matchups between numerous conferences, once autobids are taken away, in order to award new ones how do you fairly compare the strength of the GWFC to the MEAC? The Big Sky to the Patriot? The GPI (to reference another thread)? That's BCS type ball folks.

[89Hen]

I agree. Autobids should not be treated as if they are set in stone.
They aren't. Every year the conference must reapply for an auto. You think that because the NEC applied for one and didn't get one that was because they are set in stone?

Massey 2005
1 Southern
2 Gateway
3 Big Sky
4 Southland
5 Great West (not eligible)
6 Atlantic 10
7 Ivy League (did not apply)
8 OH Valley
9 Patriot League
10 Mid-Eastern AC
11 Big South
12 Southwestern AC
13 Pioneer League
14 Northeast

[OL FU]

IF we stay with 16, to what end to we shoot for? I think if you have a conference that meets all of the criteria for an auto and they are left on the outside looking in for years that's bad news for I-AA. Disgruntled programs with no support don't tend to stick around.

Given the regional nature of most contests, the relative shortness of our season and the lack of OOC matchups between numerous conferences, once autobids are taken away, in order to award new ones how do you fairly compare the strength of the GWFC to the MEAC? The Big Sky to the Patriot? The GPI (to reference another thread)? That's BCS type ball folks.


Once again that's fine, If the playoffs expand then we expand the # of autos. If it stays at 16, there either needs to be an objective criteria to choose the conference autos or increase the # of autos. Maybe the autos bids should go to ten. If so, I wonder if the A-10 would consider splitting into two football conferences?

[colgate13]

Once again that's fine, If the playoffs expand then we expand the # of autos. If it stays at 16, there either needs to be an objective criteria to choose the conference autos or increase the # of autos. Maybe the autos bids should go to ten. If so, I wonder if the A-10 would consider splitting into two football conferences?

That can't happen unless the NCAA made an exception. Half the field must come from autobids if teams apply for them.

IMO I think the A-10/CAA should split regardless. If winning conferences and making the playoffs are a goal, doing it in a 7 team league is easier than a 12+ team league - not to mention travel budget issues and being able to play all conference mates each year.:twocents:

[Mr. Tiger]

Why not make the automatic bids up for grabs every year. Use the GPI to select the eight strongest conferences to give out the eight automatic bids. That gives all conferences a chance to land one based on their overall performance.

[GannonFan]

Being in the A10, I certainly don't mind the size of the conference being 12 teams. The A10 will routinely get 2-4 teams in the playoffs, and the ones that get in will be deserving. Being 8-3 in the A10 is normally going to be a solid record to get in the playoffs, and for some teams (like UD) going 8-3 pretty much makes them locks to get in. Frankly, if my team was 7-4 I wouldn't want or desire the playoffs. The size of the league does not hinder an 8-3 record for a good team. As for playing all the conference mates, I like the way the schedule works. You play your local divisional rivals every year, and over 4 years you play the teams in the other division twice (home and away). It's only an 8 game conference schedule so it still gives 3 OOC games. Frankly, if I had to choose the extremes, I'll take a big conference of 12 teams over a tiny conference of 6 teams any day.

[GannonFan]

Why not make the automatic bids up for grabs every year. Use the GPI to select the eight strongest conferences to give out the eight automatic bids. That gives all conferences a chance to land one based on their overall performance.

No more scope creeping of the GPI - it's dubious enough when you start going past the top 25, but to use it to evaluate conferences from top to bottom is way too much of a stretch for that ranking system. Sure it gives you an answer, but there's way too much bad information that goes into that to justify its use in that way - see the other thread for the flaws in using the GPI in that manner.:bang:

[OL FU]

That can't happen unless the NCAA made an exception. Half the field must come from autobids if teams apply for them.

IMO I think the A-10/CAA should split regardless. If winning conferences and making the playoffs are a goal, doing it in a 7 team league is easier than a 12+ team league - not to mention travel budget issues and being able to play all conference mates each year.:twocents:

Yes, the NCAA would have to make an exception but they would have to change the rules for most of what has been discussed anyway (objective criteria for maintaining the auto, expanding the playoffs, etc). I realize that the PFL, NEC will not like this but we are in the fortunate situation of having the correct number of qualifying (based on competitiveness) conferences presently.

However, that will change. If the NEC continues to improve their argument for an auto will grow stronger. There either has to be a method to choose the 8 or they have to add to the autos or add to the playoffs.

And yes the A-10 is too big. I certainly hope with the expansion suggested by our commissioner, the SoCon does not exceed 9 football playing schools.

[OL FU]

No more scope creeping of the GPI - it's dubious enough when you start going past the top 25, but to use it to evaluate conferences from top to bottom is way too much of a stretch for that ranking system. Sure it gives you an answer, but there's way too much bad information that goes into that to justify its use in that way - see the other thread for the flaws in using the GPI in that manner.:bang:


I defend the GPI as a tool, but I agree it should not be the definitive answer.

[89Hen]

Why not make the automatic bids up for grabs every year.
They already are. Every conference that wants an auto must apply for one every year. The Committee announces the eight just prior to the end of the season. AFAIK there has only been one conference who has applied and not been granted one, the NEC. The were the lowest ranked conference of the nine that applied.

[OL FU]

They already are. Every conference that wants an auto must apply for one every year. The Committee announces the eight just prior to the end of the season. AFAIK there has only been one conference who has applied and not been granted one, the NEC. The were the lowest ranked conference of the nine that applied.

Per the GPI:confused: :D

[colgate13]

Frankly, if I had to choose the extremes, I'll take a big conference of 12 teams over a tiny conference of 6 teams any day.

You're coming from Delaware though. I wonder if URI, Northeastern, Hofstra, Towson, etc. feel the same way? FWIW, last year there were plenty of 7-4 compliants from teams like JMU that they were playoff worthy but the A-10 schedule was so tough it made them look bad. Split that conference up and maybe that UMass North Division loss is replaced with a OOC win against (insert team name here) and JMU is in the playoffs. :twocents:

[OL FU]

OK, Which one of you dummies didn't vote for the SoCon:p :D

[89Hen]

Per the GPI:confused: :D
Ha-Ha-Ha. Yup, by everyone involved in the GPI. ASAIK there aren't any human polls for conferences. :eyebrow: Hmmmm, we may need to expand the AGS Poll. :nod:

[89Hen]

FWIW, last year there were plenty of 7-4 compliants from teams like JMU that they were playoff worthy but the A-10 schedule was so tough it made them look bad.
I dunno. I didn't see too many complaints as everyone knows 8-3 is the magic number. If anyone did complain, it was half-hearted and/or from people who really don't know I-AA post-season.

[colgate13]

I dunno. I didn't see too many complaints as everyone knows 8-3 is the magic number. If anyone did complain, it was half-hearted and/or from people who really don't know I-AA post-season.

Let me clarify: Not complaining that 7-4 was worthy of playoffs, but that if they played in another conference they'd be at 8-3 or better and be in.

[89Hen]

If the NEC continues to improve their argument for an auto will grow stronger. There either has to be a method to choose the 8 or they have to add to the autos or add to the playoffs.
That is true, except the NEC is losing Stony Brook, one of the teams that is showing the most promise for improvement and better scheduling. Albany, CCSU and Monmouth will have to carry the load now by themselves.

[colgate13]

That is true, except the NEC is losing Stony Brook, one of the teams that is showing the most promise for improvement and better scheduling. Albany, CCSU and Monmouth will have to carry the load now by themselves.

Stony Brook's been a great scheduler - but it's been CCSU and Monmouth that have been advancing the NEC IMO.

[aceinthehole]

That is true, except the NEC is losing Stony Brook, one of the teams that is showing the most promise for improvement and better scheduling. Albany, CCSU and Monmouth will have to carry the load now by themselves.

You can say that again! I hope all 4 teams do really well this season, to keep our progress. Having 4 "top teams" and 4 legitimate contenders for our conference championship is good for the league.

Losing SBU for next season will suck for the NEC (although Albany, CCSU, and Monmouth are scheduled to play SBU in 07).

It would be nice if Sacred Heart steps it up some. They were maulled last year at Holy Cross and this season they host Lafayette. The school is big enough and was a "mid-major" national champ some years back, so I guess you can say they have potental. We'll have to wait and see.

Robert Morris is in the football hotbed of Pittsburgh and can draw from Western PA and Ohio, but are they committed to the next level? SFPA and Wagner are just too small (enrollment less than 2,500) so I don't think they realisticaly have a shot (or the funding) for scholarship level football.

[aceinthehole]

Stony Brook's been a great scheduler - but it's been CCSU and Monmouth that have been advancing the NEC IMO.

IMO - Albany, CCSU, Monmouth, and SBU are nearly identical in what they have actually achieved over the past 4 years.

Albany, Monmouth, and CCSU have each won at least a share of the NEC title twice in the past 4 years. SBU has 1 title (2005)

Albany has had the strongest schedule in past years, but has really been overmatched in those games. SBU has taken the title of strongest schedule for 2006, but clearly they too will be overmatched. CCSU and Monmouth have tempered "up games" with other mid-majors, so their results have been better.

All 4 teams have victories of PL clubs. Granted, many of these wins are against the bottom tier teams (Towson, Georgetown, Bucknell, Fordham), with CCSU win over Colgate the single exception.

Facility wise SBU is on par with the A-10 now. CCSU and Monmouth have installed field-turf and have modern, but small facilities. UA has grand plans but their current facility is sub-standard.

Bottom line, I think its hard to really seperate the 4 programs right now, but of course that is subject to change based on this season :)

This year is a big test for the NEC, partly becasue of past results and also becasue of increased expectations. I truly wonder how we will do and what are fair expectations. How will the NEC be judged by its fans and others?

[CrunchGriz]

The poll results so far are fairly interesting, in that they mirror pretty much how I view the I-AA conferences:

The Big 4 are always there at the top (A10, Gateway, Big Sky, and Southern), followed very closely by the Southland (which could easily make them part of the "Big 5"), followed closely by the Patriot and then the OVC.

The poll would seem to indicate that this is now many I-AA fans also think of the relationships of the conferences.

[GannonFan]

You're coming from Delaware though. I wonder if URI, Northeastern, Hofstra, Towson, etc. feel the same way? FWIW, last year there were plenty of 7-4 compliants from teams like JMU that they were playoff worthy but the A-10 schedule was so tough it made them look bad. Split that conference up and maybe that UMass North Division loss is replaced with a OOC win against (insert team name here) and JMU is in the playoffs. :twocents:

I'm not sure how the more northern schools feel about it, but the CAA core schools appear to be fine with it.

As for the 7-4 schools, I still don't buy it - even with a tough conference schedule, if you can't pull out 8 wins then you don't really deserve to be in the field of 16, unless you had a crazy OOC schedule with 3 good IA teams. That's where a JMU with an OOC schedule last year of Coastal Carolina, Lock Haven, and Delaware St had another nail in their playoff coffin. With that kind of an OOC slate, even if they dropped a conference game from the schedule if the league was reduced they would still have to play a decent team to keep the strength of schedule up. Even with the strength of the A-10 top to bottom, it still manages to get 2-4 teams in per year, most years being 3 teams. I'm okay with that.

[GannonFan]

Yes, the NCAA would have to make an exception but they would have to change the rules for most of what has been discussed anyway (objective criteria for maintaining the auto, expanding the playoffs, etc). I realize that the PFL, NEC will not like this but we are in the fortunate situation of having the correct number of qualifying (based on competitiveness) conferences presently.

However, that will change. If the NEC continues to improve their argument for an auto will grow stronger. There either has to be a method to choose the 8 or they have to add to the autos or add to the playoffs.


Forget the NEC, if the Great West can get another team on board to have 6 they'll have to make a change in autobids or size of the playoffs by then - that's a conference that is already good enough on the field and in their aggressive scheduling to merit one.

[aceinthehole]

Forget the NEC, if the Great West can get another team on board to have 6 they'll have to make a change in autobids or size of the playoffs by then - that's a conference that is already good enough on the field and in their aggressive scheduling to merit one.

Certainly the GWFC is just 1 short of asking for a bid, but their situation is tenuious at best, with the possible realignments to the Mid-con, etc. I'm not sure if they get their 6th team or stay around long enough to even ask for the bid

Big South is also just 1 team shy and would likely ask for a bid. But I actually think the Ivy may be the conference that has the clout to get this issue to the forefront. If the Ivy presidents agree to post season play, there is no way the NCAA denies their request for a bid.

(I just hope the NEC uses any of these opportunities to yet again make the case for their inclusion :) )

[OL FU]

Forget the NEC, if the Great West can get another team on board to have 6 they'll have to make a change in autobids or size of the playoffs by then - that's a conference that is already good enough on the field and in their aggressive scheduling to merit one.

I agree with you as far as the next conference that should get the auto if they can qualify. But I think Ace has it, I don't see them getting it any time soon.

[89Hen]

But I actually think the Ivy may be the conference that has the clout to get this issue to the forefront. If the Ivy presidents agree to post season play, there is no way the NCAA denies their request for a bid.

(I just hope the NEC uses any of these opportunities to yet again make the case for their inclusion :) )
:nod: :nod: :nod:

[89Hen]

Forget the NEC, if the Great West can get another team on board to have 6 they'll have to make a change in autobids or size of the playoffs by then - that's a conference that is already good enough on the field and in their aggressive scheduling to merit one.
Mixed feelings. Yes 6 is the minimum and there are some really good teams in the GWFC, but you have to think about that there are conferences with 7, 8, 9+ teams that you'd be looking at to get rid of if you stuck with 8 autos. I'm not saying that I wouldn't give the GWFC one of the eight, but I just think size of the conference is a part of the equation. CalPoly could be 4-1 in conference and 1-5 OOC and make the playoffs at 5-6. Obviously I'm taking it to an extreme. :twocents: