PDA

View Full Version : Will the 12th game be voted on again?



GSU Eagle
December 20th, 2006, 06:38 PM
Will the possibility of a 12th game be voted on before the 2007 season?

PantherRob82
December 20th, 2006, 06:47 PM
my understanding is yes.

bobbythekidd
December 20th, 2006, 08:02 PM
I heard yes. The problem is that I don't remember who told me or where i read it, so I don't know if that is reliable or not. Something tells me it was a buddy of mine named Brooks. If he told me then it is true.

*****
December 20th, 2006, 08:09 PM
bobby, you heard it on WAVES from OVC commish Steinbrecher. It will be voted on in the first week of January at the NCAA convention. 1 school 1 vote. Pass or fail.

th0m
December 20th, 2006, 08:11 PM
Any early speculation as to what the outcome will be? Wasn't this voted on before?

bobbythekidd
December 20th, 2006, 08:20 PM
bobby, you heard it on WAVES from OVC commish Steinbrecher. It will be voted on in the first week of January at the NCAA convention. 1 school 1 vote. Pass or fail.
DING! Now I remember.

DFW HOYA
December 20th, 2006, 08:24 PM
How many teams would add a 12th game?

*****
December 20th, 2006, 09:28 PM
Any early speculation as to what the outcome will be? Wasn't this voted on before?It was voted on before and received the needed amount of counters to put it to the full membership. Speculation: it will pass easily. It is not mandatory. Why would one school want to prevent another from playing a 12th game? Some need as much revenue as they can get.

Mr. Tiger
December 20th, 2006, 09:44 PM
If the 12th game is added, would it push back the start of the playoffs one week or would the season start earlier?

DFW HOYA
December 20th, 2006, 10:05 PM
If the 12th game is added, would it push back the start of the playoffs one week or would the season start earlier?

I'd guess the bye week would go away for most, or they'd move a game into August.

The again, the Ivies don't start earlier than the third week of September regardless.

th0m
December 20th, 2006, 10:16 PM
It was voted on before and received the needed amount of counters to put it to the full membership. Speculation: it will pass easily. It is not mandatory. Why would one school want to prevent another from playing a 12th game? Some need as much revenue as they can get.

Thanks for the info Ralph. I think JMU has a couple of games lined up in the future for a 12th game, to insure at least 6 home games. (in '08: @Duke, vs. ASU, @VMI, vs. Liberty).

*****
December 20th, 2006, 11:04 PM
If the 12th game is added, would it push back the start of the playoffs one week or would the season start earlier?Whomever wants to schedule a 12th game would give up their bye week. No change to the start or end of the season.

FlyYtown
December 20th, 2006, 11:08 PM
Whomever wants to schedule a 12th game would give up their bye week. No change to the start or end of the season.

You sure about that??? Seems rather harsh on kids to possibly play 16 weeks in a row without a break.. I think the NCAA will pop the start date up 1 week, which isn't all that bad.

TexasTerror
December 20th, 2006, 11:10 PM
Ralph, it happens at the 2007 NCAA convention in Orlando, FL, right?

https://www.planningpoint.net/Administration/Reporting/NCAA/2007/ExternalSOE/index.cfm

appfan2008
December 20th, 2006, 11:38 PM
I am a fan of the 11 game schedule for all teams

Jafus (Thinker)
December 21st, 2006, 02:39 AM
Seems rather harsh on kids to possibly play 16 weeks in a row without a break...

I agree. It will be interesting to follow playoffs teams and their run through the tournament (those that play an 11 game schedule versus those that play a 12 game schedule).

Hammersmith
December 21st, 2006, 03:42 AM
The override vote will occur during the Division I business session, which will be conducted after the Legislative Forum on Saturday, January 6, 2007.

henfan
December 21st, 2006, 09:31 AM
You sure about that??? Seems rather harsh on kids to possibly play 16 weeks in a row without a break.. I think the NCAA will pop the start date up 1 week, which isn't all that bad.

Ralph's correct.

The start date of the season can't be moved up one week without NCAA approval from all of D-I. I just don't see that happening anytime soon, especially as long as the FBS schools maintain a bowl system. Bye weeks aren't as critical to FBS schools, as it would be for FCS schools preparing for playoff runs.

Say so long to bye weeks if this measure passes.

SoCon48
December 21st, 2006, 11:38 AM
I think 12 games is stupid as long as teams have the possibility of 4 more in the play-offs.
If the schedules go to 12 plus the play-offs, the NCAA needs to bump up the scholarship limits. Because of increased injuries and healing time, a lot more depth will be needed than the walk-ons to fill the gaps.

BrevardMountaineer03
December 21st, 2006, 11:42 AM
Say so long to bye weeks if this measure passes.

Only if teams play a 12th game. I don't see App giving up time to rest for the playoffs just to play a 12th game. I think your schools that are more likely to make the playoffs will stay at 11 games to rest up. App had a week of before playing Coastal in the 1st round. I'm not saying that was a big advantage, but your stars can't get hurt if they aren't playing a game...

Pard4Life
December 21st, 2006, 01:08 PM
This sounds like European Union membership/expansion voting... keep proposing the issue for a vote until "they get it right".

ChickenMan
December 21st, 2006, 01:41 PM
Say so long to bye weeks if this measure passes.

if it passes it won't be mandatory that FCS schools schedule a 12th game every year... but it would allow those schools the option to schedule an extra game... if and when they desire.

as GSU fans know... having an option is always better than having no options... :D

ChickenMan
December 21st, 2006, 01:42 PM
but your stars can't get hurt if they aren't playing a game...


tell that to the guys who get hurt every week in practice...

*****
December 21st, 2006, 01:45 PM
Seems rather harsh on kids to possibly play 16 weeks in a row without a break...Didn't hurt Delaware in 2003. Besides, the NCAA did an exhaustive study on the risks to SAs and concluded it was minimal.

BrevardMountaineer03
December 21st, 2006, 01:48 PM
tell that to the guys who get hurt every week in practice...
When I posted that I thought about practice, but I would suspect that people are injured less in practice then in games. Yes, there are some injuries in practice, but the likelyhood of this is less then in a game. Just my opinion.

YoUDeeMan
December 21st, 2006, 01:55 PM
Didn't hurt Delaware in 2003. Besides, the NCAA did an exhaustive study on the risks to SAs and concluded it was minimal.

Ralph's correct (:eek:). UD's "open/bye" week that year was their first week. The 16 games in a row was mentioned many times in local papers in relation to the lame excuses used for not having I-A playoffs. Oddly enough, we had a few injuries during the season (key people out for several games), but everyone was healthy for the last few games and the playoff run.

SoCon48
December 21st, 2006, 02:07 PM
Didn't hurt Delaware in 2003. Besides, the NCAA did an exhaustive study on the risks to SAs and concluded it was minimal.

Anyone who has coached many years would say that study was baloney. And what is "minimal? and how much are we willing to sacrifice?"

Jerry Moore said going into the NC game that the long stretch was taking it's toll.
I coached a decade or two, and I know for certain the number of games in a stretch has an effect on the frequency of injuries and the recovery time.
Of course if you have enough cupcakes thrown in the schedule or enough week conf teams, the whole argument is moot.

SoCon48
December 21st, 2006, 02:12 PM
When I posted that I thought about practice, but I would suspect that people are injured less in practice then in games. Yes, there are some injuries in practice, but the likelyhood of this is less then in a game. Just my opinion.

That's for sure. From experience, 3 days of practice is equal to about 1 game as far as serious injuries are concerned.

*****
December 21st, 2006, 02:15 PM
... I know for certain the number of games in a stretch has an effect on the frequency of injuries and the recovery time...It is one more game. The NCAA doesn't pussyfoot with their studies on the effects on SAs and the results are available online.

SoCon48
December 21st, 2006, 02:37 PM
You have far more confidence in the NCAA than I do, then.

Guess we could go ahead and play as many as the NFL teams.

*****
December 21st, 2006, 03:02 PM
... Guess we could go ahead and play as many as the NFL teams.You do know how many games an NFL team could play right (say three exhibitions, 16 regular season, playoffs...)? College teams will never play that many but the FCS will be able to play a single additional game than they do now if the vote passes.

bluehenbillk
December 21st, 2006, 03:42 PM
Don't get me wrong, the more the football the better as far as I'm concerned, I want to see 12 games. That being said, I don't think this passes. How long has this been talked about? I know I've seen it on record, you can count on the 12 A-10/CAA schools voting 9-3 against going to 12 games.

Mr. Tiger
December 21st, 2006, 03:48 PM
12 games without a bye week will be rough on any team. Teams need bye weeks to heal up from injuries.

GtFllsGriz
December 21st, 2006, 04:37 PM
11 Games + 1 easy Div II (paid practice) = playing time for those needing experience + much needed revenue. You play, they will come. Everyone is happy!

bcrawf
December 21st, 2006, 05:16 PM
1 easy Div II (paid practice) = playing time for those needing experience + much needed revenue.

Careful, Careful...:cool:

Lionsrking
December 21st, 2006, 05:57 PM
12 games without a bye week will be rough on any team. Teams need bye weeks to heal up from injuries.


We played 11 straight weeks this year without an open date (including three I-A teams) and it definitely took a toll by about week eight or nine. Our injury situation wasn't that bad (despite losing two defensive starters for the year) but it was obvious our energy level waned as we passed the mid point. Obviously playing 12 weeks in a row would be worse. I have mixed feelings because I like to watch football and the potential extra revenue is enticing but it won't be easy on the players and coaches I can tell you that.

MplsBison
December 21st, 2006, 07:52 PM
I am a fan of the 11 game schedule for all teams

The 12th game would not be mandatory.

Heck, 11 games aren't mandatory.


Just as long as you have 7 DI wins, you can be considered for the playoffs.



Absolutely no reason to hold down teams that want to schedule a game for all 12 weeks of the regular season.

None at all.

MR. CHICKEN
December 21st, 2006, 10:01 PM
12 GAME SEASON........DAT ONE X-TRA GAME...ALLOWS DAT MUCH MORE TIME FO' PLAYERS TA HEAL........AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.....DUH LENGTH O' DUH 2003 SEASON...ACTUALLY ALLOWED INJURED HENS........TA RETURN BY..DUH PLAYOFF RUN.......:nod:...BAWK!

DELAWARE DIDN'T START TIL 9/6/03....SO OURAH BYE WEEK WAS DUH LAST SATURDAY IN AUGUST...WUDDAH BEEN TOTALLY POSSIBLE TA HAVE HAD ONE....SOMEWHERE IN DUH SEASON......AN' GET YER 12 IN....PRIOR..TA DUH DANCE.............:nod:.......BRAWK!

kardplayer
December 21st, 2006, 10:49 PM
The 12th game would not be mandatory.

Heck, 11 games aren't mandatory.


Just as long as you have 7 DI wins, you can be considered for the playoffs.



Absolutely no reason to hold down teams that want to schedule a game for all 12 weeks of the regular season.

None at all.

There is absolutely one huge reason: Its ridiculous that teams competing for at large berths to the playoffs might have played a different number of games than each other.

In an 11 game season, 7-4 generally knocks teams out of the playoffs (this year excluded, as there weren't enough 3 loss teams).

In the future, based on the discussion above, a team that adds a 12th game against a DII school and wins it might be 8-4. While another team that didn't add a game might be 7-4. Would the 8-4 get in just because they have an extra win (even though its not a DI win)?

The at large argument today often centers around strength of schedule - where it should be. In the future, you will inevitably center around number of games too. That is not a good thing.

*****
December 21st, 2006, 11:45 PM
There is absolutely one huge reason: Its ridiculous that teams competing for at large berths to the playoffs might have played a different number of games than each other.

In an 11 game season, 7-4 generally knocks teams out of the playoffs (this year excluded, as there weren't enough 3 loss teams).

In the future, based on the discussion above, a team that adds a 12th game against a DII school and wins it might be 8-4. While another team that didn't add a game might be 7-4. Would the 8-4 get in just because they have an extra win (even though its not a DI win)?

The at large argument today often centers around strength of schedule - where it should be. In the future, you will inevitably center around number of games too. That is not a good thing.Ya do know that EIU played 12 games in 2006, finished 8-4, made the playoffs, and we talked on WAVES about that with the sekection committee chairman? He acknowledged the upcoming challenge.

kardplayer
December 21st, 2006, 11:47 PM
Ya do know that EIU played 12 games in 2006, finished 8-4, made the playoffs, and we talked on WAVES about that with the sekection committee chairman? He acknowledged the upcoming challenge.

See - I'm right :)

Jafus (Thinker)
December 22nd, 2006, 12:48 AM
It will be interesting and intriguing to follow.

appman87
December 22nd, 2006, 02:49 AM
[QUOTE=GtFllsGriz]11 Games + 1 easy Div II (paid practice)
Except if you are Montana State

SoCon48
December 22nd, 2006, 02:54 AM
We played 11 straight weeks this year without an open date (including three I-A teams) and it definitely took a toll by about week eight or nine. Our injury situation wasn't that bad (despite losing two defensive starters for the year) but it was obvious our energy level waned as we passed the mid point. Obviously playing 12 weeks in a row would be worse. I have mixed feelings because I like to watch football and the potential extra revenue is enticing but it won't be easy on the players and coaches I can tell you that.

Well stated.

16 games, practices, weight room, travel, etc..close to NFL type schedule and they don't have to attend class, write term papers and cram for exams.

SoCon48
December 22nd, 2006, 02:58 AM
You do know how many games an NFL team could play right (say three exhibitions, 16 regular season, playoffs...)? College teams will never play that many but the FCS will be able to play a single additional game than they do now if the vote passes.

Certainly do.
It would really show just how much the NCAA really cares about academics and the athletes' welfare.
It's all about money. Period.

henfan
December 22nd, 2006, 09:06 AM
Personally, I agree with only playing 11 regular season games for the FCS for competitive reasons. I don't put much stock in an NCAA study, whose results just may have been bought by money-grubbing BCS schools to justify an extended regular season. (Then again, FBS teams don't stand the chance to ever playing as many total games as their FCS counterparts.) Bye weeks are used for more than physical recovery. Sometimes NCAA members lose sight of the 'student' part of the student-athlete equation. Must be the money goggles.

Additionally, wait and see what having a glut of FCS teams searching for that extra game will do to guarantee dollar numbers being offered by FCS schools. If the market is flooded, those guarantee amounts are likely to come down. Not a smart move at a time when FCS schools are finally starting to land deals unthinkable prior to the adoption of the 12 game FBS schedule & repeal of the '1 in 4' rule.

If a 12 game season is adopted by the FCS, there will be too much temptation for a majority of schools to not follow along (Ivy League being the possible lone exception.) The financial incentives and the fear of losing an at-large bid to a team whose played more games will drive schools to schedule 12.

It's also going to put a complete end to the notion of expanding the playoff field beyond 4 weeks.

lizrdgizrd
December 22nd, 2006, 10:30 AM
Personally, I agree with only playing 11 regular season games for the FCS for competitive reasons. I don't put much stock in an NCAA study, whose results just may have been bought by money-grubbing BCS schools to justify an extended regular season. (Then again, FBS teams don't stand the chance to ever playing as many total games as their FCS counterparts.) Bye weeks are used for more than physical recovery. Sometimes NCAA members lose sight of the 'student' part of the student-athlete equation. Must be the money goggles.

Additionally, wait and see what having a glut of FCS teams searching for that extra game will do to guarantee dollar numbers being offered by FCS schools. If the market is flooded, those guarantee amounts are likely to come down. Not a smart move at a time when FCS schools are finally starting to land deals unthinkable prior to the adoption of the 12 game FBS schedule & repeal of the '1 in 4' rule.

If a 12 game season is adopted by the FCS, there will be too much temptation for a majority of schools to not follow along (Ivy League being the possible lone exception.) The financial incentives and the fear of losing an at-large bid to a team whose played more games will drive schools to schedule 12.

It's also going to put a complete end to the notion of expanding the playoff field beyond 4 weeks.
Why would you expand the playoffs to more than 4 weeks? You want to include those 3 or 4 bubble teams that get left out and let in another 12 teams that would never make the playoffs? Sounds like a chance to get more players hurt as much as a 12 game season.

UAalum72
December 22nd, 2006, 10:44 AM
Why would you expand the playoffs to more than 4 weeks? You want to include those 3 or 4 bubble teams that get left out and let in another 12 teams that would never make the playoffs? Sounds like a chance to get more players hurt as much as a 12 game season.
Total of 24 teams, 4-5 bubble teams plus NEC and PFL champs, maybe a SWAC. Room for possible future eligible leagues. The price you pay to reduce the number of San Diego-like threads next year.

lizrdgizrd
December 22nd, 2006, 10:45 AM
Total of 24 teams, 4-5 bubble teams plus NEC and PFL champs, maybe a SWAC. Room for possible future eligible leagues. The price you pay to reduce the number of San Diego-like threads next year.
So who gets the 8 byes?

UAalum72
December 22nd, 2006, 11:21 AM
So who gets the 8 byes?
Seed all 24 teams if you like, or the champs of the top 8 conferences can get a bye.

TexasTerror
December 22nd, 2006, 12:44 PM
The overrides on the table..

The postgraduate proposal isn’t the only override vote on the table this year. The NCAA Football Championship Subdivision members of the Board in April defeated a measure to add a 12th regular-season game in football, which prompted an override request. The Football Bowl Subdivision adopted the 12th game last year.

The FCS members of the Board defeated the 12th-game proposal despite what was considered to be wide support at the committee and Management Council levels.

The override votes are scheduled at 2:30 p.m. January 6 during the legislative forum. A five-eighths majority of active members present and voting is required to override any legislation. These will be only the second and third override votes since Division I went to a representative structure in 1997. Delegates at the 2006 Convention in Indianapolis approved override votes on increasing scholarships in three women’s sports. An override vote regarding women’s soccer scholarships was defeated.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4g3NPUESYGYxqb6kW hCjhgihqYeCDFfj_zcVH1v_QD9gtzQ0IhyR0UAE3AuRw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvUUd3QndNQSEvNElVRS82XzBfMTVL?WCM_GLOBAL_CO NTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2006/Association+Updates/Division+I+ponders+transfer+override+-+12-21-06+update

MplsBison
December 22nd, 2006, 01:50 PM
In the future, based on the discussion above, a team that adds a 12th game against a DII school and wins it might be 8-4. While another team that didn't add a game might be 7-4. Would the 8-4 get in just because they have an extra win (even though its not a DI win)?


There is no difference between a 7-4 team with 7 DI wins and an 8-4 team with 7 DI wins in the committee's eyes.

None.


DI wins are the only thing that count.


If your schools wants to gamble that 11 games will be enough to get them into the playoffs, that's always the choice your AD and HC will have to make.


12 games is NOT mandatory and therefore there is no possible argument against it.

I won't budge from that position. Not an inch.

henfan
December 22nd, 2006, 02:47 PM
Why would you expand the playoffs to more than 4 weeks?

Liz', I'm a guy who's come out consistently against expanding the playoffs. I've simply stated that adding a 12th game would not allow the NCAA the flexibility to expand the playoffs by an additional week.


There is no difference between a 7-4 team with 7 DI wins and an 8-4 team with 7 DI wins in the committee's eyes.

None.

But there is a difference between a 7-4 team with 6 DI wins and an 8-4 teams with 7 DI wins.

Whether mandatory or not, those competitive reasons, along with financial carrots, will eventually force the majority of FCS schools to schedule 12 games over the best interests of the student-athletes. It's pretty simple: if 12 games are permitted, nearly all FCS schools will be compelled to schedule 12. Essentially it'll no longer be a matter of choice.

ChickenMan
December 22nd, 2006, 03:00 PM
I really don't have a problem with either an eleven or a twelve game FCS schedule... but why is it that there never seems to be any concern over the current NCAA basketball season which has 30+ games and runs over four months or the baseball season which requires 60 or 70 games each year for the top NCAA programs? Do not those basketball and baseball student athletes have the same academic concerns as their football counterparts?

MplsBison
December 22nd, 2006, 03:02 PM
It's pretty simple: if 12 games are permitted, nearly all FCS schools will be compelled to schedule 12. Essentially it'll no longer be a matter of choice.

This is actually incorrect.

Our AD is already on record saying he's doubtful NDSU would schedule 12 games even if they were permitted.


As I already said, it's a gamble that each AD and HC will have to get together and make.


However, for example, in 2006 NDSU's bye was the 2nd week of the season and the 1st week was a DII team with 20 scholarships maybe. The starters were out in the 3rd qtr.


It was absolutely a waste to have a BYE that week when we only had 5 home games that season.



If we would've had the BYE in the middle of the season, OTOH, it would be nice to keep that week open.



Having the 12th game available gives each school that flexibility.

McTailGator
December 22nd, 2006, 03:22 PM
How many teams would add a 12th game?


ALL the Southland Schools would play a 12th game.

TexasTerror
December 22nd, 2006, 03:30 PM
ALL the Southland Schools would play a 12th game.

Yep...

It'd all but assure that each SLC school plays a second FBS foe...and maybe we'll see SFA regularly play atleast one...

henfan
December 22nd, 2006, 04:13 PM
This is actually incorrect.

Our AD is already on record saying he's doubtful NDSU would schedule 12 games even if they were permitted.

Mpls, we'll see how incorrect I am should the 12 game schedule come to pass. I don't care how much doubt the NDSU AD casts right now. He will eventually be compelled to schedule 12 if nearly every other conference does it.

You don't have to believe me. Just take a look at how many I-AA teams scheduled 12 games in 2002 and 2003 against their better judgement, even though they were required to do so. I've been following D-I for long enough to understand how these type of issues get their legs.

MplsBison
December 22nd, 2006, 04:27 PM
It all depends on where the BYE would be, as I said.

If the BYE is going to end up being at the start of the season, it's wasted. Why not get the 12th game?

If it's going to be in the middle or end of the season, then it's useful.



Why deny that flexibility to schools?

eaglesrthe1
December 22nd, 2006, 09:25 PM
Just about every school will look at game #12. Unless the school draws a low enough attendance that an extra game would cost them, they will schedule twelve. Every program is under financial constrants, and is constantly looking at ways to control costs, or increase revenue. If it passes the first thing that will be said is " how much can we get from an extra game".

Not to mention a chance to get an extra home game with a div II school, but what about an extra payday with a BCS school? 2 BCS games might become the norm for many.

DFW HOYA
December 22nd, 2006, 09:55 PM
Just about every school will look at game #12. Unless the school draws a low enough attendance that an extra game would cost them, they will schedule twelve. Every program is under financial constrants, and is constantly looking at ways to control costs, or increase revenue. If it passes the first thing that will be said is " how much can we get from an extra game".

Not to mention a chance to get an extra home game with a div II school, but what about an extra payday with a BCS school? 2 BCS games might become the norm for many.

A lot of I-AA schools don't get any real scheduling opportunities from the BCS and can't sell many tickets playing games below the Division I level. Depending on when the bye week is, that can prove vital to a team entering the stretch run of the season.

It would be great if some Big East school took it upon themselves to offer Georgetown a nice guarantee in exchange for a 50-7 whomping, but that's not realistic. Heck, even the CAA schools aren't calling.

TexasTerror
December 22nd, 2006, 10:08 PM
A lot of I-AA schools don't get any real scheduling opportunities from the BCS and can't sell many tickets playing games below the Division I level. Depending on when the bye week is, that can prove vital to a team entering the stretch run of the season.

A lot of FCS schools don't get any real opportunities? Every school in the SLC had atleast two (exception of TxSt with one) games against FBS schools with two schools having three games aginst FBS schools...

It's different by region/conference of the FCS world...

DFW HOYA
December 22nd, 2006, 10:46 PM
A lot of FCS schools don't get any real opportunities? Every school in the SLC had atleast two (exception of TxSt with one) games against FBS schools with two schools having three games aginst FBS schools...It's different by region/conference of the FCS world...

OK, a clarification, Northeastern schools.

Since 2000, here are the number of I-A opponents by conference for 37 Northeastern schools (Virginia's schools in the A-10 are considered out of region for this analysis):

A-10: 25 games in six years
Patriot: 5 games
Ivy: 0 games
Northeast: 0 games
MAAC: 0 games

TexasTerror
December 22nd, 2006, 10:47 PM
Northeast: 0 games
MAAC: 0 games

Those schools don't count...

They aren't "counters" so they would not count towards bowl eligibility. Any FBS school that scheduled them would be pretty stupid...

And since 2000 is not a good count. Limited amount of FBS vs FCS until the 12 game was added and FCS games counted towards bowl eligibility. We'd of never seen Texas host an FCS foe if that was not the case...

henfan
December 26th, 2006, 10:01 PM
Why not get the 12th game?...Why deny that flexibility to schools?

Because 12 games with the playoffs is just too darned many. Why stop at 12? Why not 20?

In this case, flexibility is just another word silent mandate. As pointed out, only the IL and a few others will be able to resist the temptation of additional revenue... at the student-athletes' expense.

Since the possibility exists already to play as many as 16 games, the FCS doesn't need that sort of flexibility, IMO. The consensus vote in Jan. will determine what will actually happen.

MplsBison
December 27th, 2006, 12:26 PM
Because 12 games with the playoffs is just too darned many. Why stop at 12? Why not 20?

There are 12 weeks in the regular season. Have been for a while.

This rule simply gives teams the ability to schedule a game on every week if they see fit to do so.


In this case, flexibility is just another word silent mandate.

I'll never buy that argument. It's the weakest I've ever heard.

Some teams don't even schedule 11 games as it is.


The only mandate is that you have 7 DI wins to be in the playoffs. That's it.



As pointed out, only the IL and a few others will be able to resist the temptation of additional revenue... at the student-athletes' expense.

That should be the school's decision. Why do you get to deny them a chance at extra revenue if that's what they seek?

You don get to, is the answer.



Stop thinking that just because you're Delaware or Montana that you get to dictate what happens in FCS.

henfan
December 28th, 2006, 09:38 AM
I'll never buy that argument. It's the weakest I've ever heard.

Some teams don't even schedule 11 games as it is...

That should be the school's decision. Why do you get to deny them a chance at extra revenue if that's what they seek?...

Stop thinking that just because you're Delaware or Montana that you get to dictate what happens in FCS.

Dude, we're all fans. We don't get the opportunity to dictate anything, merely express our opinions on message boards. We don't get to establish rules or deny anybody anything; the NCAA is charged with that responsibility.

FWIW, my beliefs on this subject are entirely independent of UD's and the CAA's. I could care less what they think or do.

Delaware & A-10 (CAA) teams have scheduled and will continue to schedule 12 games during those years in which the NCAA allows an extra game (2002, 2003, 2008, etc.) despite the fact that both UD and the A-10 have consistently voted against allowing 12 games every season. Why do you think they voted against 12 games but schedule(d) 12 anyway? They are compelled to do so because every other playoff league is doing it! So much for flexibility.

As I said, if 12 is the norm, nearly every team except the IL teams will schedule 12. If the ceiling is raised to 17, they'll schedule 17, etc. Flexibility has to end somewhere. It's a case of putting finance and the playoff ambition over the best interests of the student-athletes. Sorry, but as much as I'd like to see 12 months of football, I can't get with that. If the FCS didn't have a 4 week post-season, I'd have no problem with one extra regular-season game. I'd be all for reducing the playoff field to 8 teams and adding an extra week to the regular season. :smiley_wi

MplsBison
December 28th, 2006, 12:03 PM
There is no slippery slope!

There are 12 weeks in the regular season and that is that. We're not expanding the regular season.


This merely gives each team the oppertunity to play a game each week of the regular season IF THEY WANT.

There is no mandate.


You baseless argument that teams would simply because other teams do it is absolutely wrong.

*****
December 28th, 2006, 01:18 PM
... You baseless argument that teams would simply because other teams do it is absolutely wrong.A wrong opinion? :nono:

henfan
December 28th, 2006, 02:11 PM
You baseless argument that teams would simply because other teams do it is absolutely wrong.

Hardly baseless when I-AA schedules in 2002 and 2003 proved the point. Nearly every team that could schedule 12 did during those years. As further proof, many FCS teams have either already lined up or are in the processing of scheduling 12 games for 2008, the next season that the NCAA will allow 12 games (presuming that the 12 game option doesn't pass this winter.) I-A teams didn't receive an official mandate that they had to play 12 games but, once 12 was allowed, every team did.

Of course there won't be an official mandate for the FCS. It would never pass. But if the NCAA allows 12, every playoff eligible team (except the Ivy) will be compelled to schedule 12. You don't have to believe me. Just wait and see.

PantherRob82
December 28th, 2006, 02:40 PM
A wrong opinion? :nono:

I wonder about that on AGS many times a day.

MplsBison
December 28th, 2006, 02:43 PM
if the NCAA allows 12, every playoff eligible team (except the Ivy) will be compelled to schedule 12. You don't have to believe me. Just wait and see.


The NDSU AD has already said he won't schedule 12 games. So you're already wrong.

PantherRob82
December 28th, 2006, 02:47 PM
The NDSU AD has already said he won't schedule 12 games. So you're already wrong.

Agree to disagree already. You guys have argued that same point multiple times in slightly different ways. :cool:

MplsBison
December 28th, 2006, 05:05 PM
The season will not increase in number of weeks.


This is about each school's right to schedule a game on every week of that season, if they want to.



There is no possible argument against that.

PantherRob82
December 28th, 2006, 06:20 PM
your turn, henfan. xcoffeex

RockJMUStar
December 29th, 2006, 12:35 PM
If the season can't start earlier then I don't like it. Still, I agree that each school deserves the right to choose whether they want 11 or 12 games and no bye.

MplsBison
December 29th, 2006, 01:50 PM
Yes, allowing schools to do what's best for them is always the choice to be made.

PantherRob82
December 29th, 2006, 02:12 PM
Yes, allowing schools to do what's best for them is always the choice to be made.

Someone should've told Lincoln that before the Civil War. (State's Rights)

MplsBison
December 29th, 2006, 03:01 PM
You're comparing the right to schedule a game on each week of the regular season to slavery?

Excellent analysis.

DFW HOYA
December 29th, 2006, 03:43 PM
If the season can't start earlier then I don't like it. Still, I agree that each school deserves the right to choose whether they want 11 or 12 games and no bye.

Or in some cases, 10.

eaglesrthe1
January 3rd, 2007, 02:11 AM
The NDSU AD has already said he won't schedule 12 games. So you're already wrong.

It's like a nuclear arms race, once your opponent has it, then you have to have it too.

Your AD is stating that he is placing a higher priority on maintaining an 11 game schedule than making the playoffs.

Because when it all gets boiled down, that's what the two choices are. So I'm not going to argue what your ADs priorities are. But, if NDSU is serious about making the playoffs, they will schedule twelve. Perhaps not right away, but it would come in short order.

If he won't do it, then his replacement will.

It is the nature of the beast that if there is an advantage to scheduling twelve games, then scheduling anything less is a disadvantage. One that is readily apparent to even the most casual of fans, or more importantly, boosters with money.

9-3 > 8-3, 8-4 > 7-4, it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

eaglesrthe1
January 3rd, 2007, 02:20 AM
Just about every school will look at game #12. Unless the school draws a low enough attendance that an extra game would cost them, they will schedule twelve. Every program is under financial constrants, and is constantly looking at ways to control costs, or increase revenue. If it passes the first thing that will be said is " how much can we get from an extra game".

Not to mention a chance to get an extra home game with a div II school, but what about an extra payday with a BCS school? 2 BCS games might become the norm for many.



A lot of I-AA schools don't get any real scheduling opportunities from the BCS and can't sell many tickets playing games below the Division I level. Depending on when the bye week is, that can prove vital to a team entering the stretch run of the season.

It would be great if some Big East school took it upon themselves to offer Georgetown a nice guarantee in exchange for a 50-7 whomping, but that's not realistic. Heck, even the CAA schools aren't calling.


Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

henfan
January 5th, 2007, 02:12 PM
NDSU's Gene Taylor poses to himself the same hypothetical that we mentioned earlier in this thread. I think he'll find that, all things being equal, an 8-3 team will get more credit than an 8-4 team when it comes time to select at large bids. Against his better judgement, he'll be forced to schedule 12 if the legislation passes.

Frankly, I'm with him; I hope it doesn't pass. It's a bad move on so many levels.



from
Bison, Bobcats on hold

Jeff Kolpack
Fargo Forum
5 January 2007

...NDSU athletic director Gene Taylor is against adding a 12th game for student welfare issues and playoff discrepancies.

A team that goes deep in the playoffs will end up playing 16 games,
which Taylor says is too many. Moreover, a 12th game may force some
Championship Subdivision teams to play as many as three games against their higher-level brothers. Getting beat up by Big Ten or Big 12 teams could be dangerous to your health.

And if a team doesnít choose to play a 12th game (it wonít be
mandatory), Taylor asks: how do you differentiate an 8-3 and an 8-4 team that has a tougher schedule?..

More at: http://www.in-forum.com/Sports/articles/151895

89Hen
January 5th, 2007, 02:21 PM
Eleven is enough. :twocents:

MplsBison
January 5th, 2007, 04:53 PM
Well, I guess since Delaware has spoken, that's now the law of the land.


You wish.



Adding the 12th game helps NDSU get into the Gateway and helps us keep out home game against Montana State for 2007. So I believe Taylor will vote for it.


Then, just as he said, he won't schedule the 12th game.


But, of course, he isn't naive enough to think he has a right to restrict other schools from scheduling 12 if they feel they need to.

X-Factor
January 5th, 2007, 05:01 PM
It's like a nuclear arms race, once your opponent has it, then you have to have it too.

Your AD is stating that he is placing a higher priority on maintaining an 11 game schedule than making the playoffs.

Because when it all gets boiled down, that's what the two choices are. So I'm not going to argue what your ADs priorities are. But, if NDSU is serious about making the playoffs, they will schedule twelve. Perhaps not right away, but it would come in short order.

If he won't do it, then his replacement will.

It is the nature of the beast that if there is an advantage to scheduling twelve games, then scheduling anything less is a disadvantage. One that is readily apparent to even the most casual of fans, or more importantly, boosters with money.

9-3 > 8-3, 8-4 > 7-4, it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Dont listen to MplsBison, he has no clue what he's talking about. Yes, our AD is against adding the 12th game because of student-athlete welfare, but he has not said a 12th game wouldn't be on NDSU's schedule if the proposal passed.

http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=151895&section=Columnists&columnist=Jeff%20Kolpack

"If it is approved, donít expect Taylor to start throwing a temper tantrum. Itís one of those ironies: Taylor is philosophically against the extra game butif it does go through, the extra weekend will allow Montana State to play at Texas A&M and North Dakota State.

Plus, NDSU is probably in a better position than most Championship Subdivision teams because it can offer a guarantee. And if the Bison get in the Gateway Football Conference, they would only have to schedule four nonconference games instead of eight in the current setup of the Great West Football Conference."