Does Alabama A&M at 9-2 get in??

[bluehenbillk]

If the MEAC can get multiple teams in why couldn't a 2nd place SWAC team?? They have 2 very winnable games left, Alcorn St & Prairie View...

Thoughts?

[HensRock]

I would think the committee would bend over backwards to welcome a SWAC team into the playoffs. At 9-2, they would certainly be deserving.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

IMO, yes, assuming Jackson State doesn't stumble twice.

[bluehenbillk]

IMO, yes, assuming Jackson State doesn't stumble twice.

JSU plays the same 2 teams as Alabama A&M and beat them head-to-head so they really only need to win one to clinch their division.

[henfan]

Alabama A&M or JSU would be convenient matchups for our friends in Lake Charles in Round 1.

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

I don't think so. Unless GPI really gets blown to hell this year by the SC.

[GannonFan]

I don't think so. Unless GPI really gets blown to hell this year by the SC.

GPI doesn't matter. xthumbsupx

[bluehenbillk]

Almost fell out of my chair when that 3-letter thing was brought up as credible.

[Syntax Error]

GPI doesn't matter.Yes it does and committee members have said so.

Though it and the polls are not officially recognized.

[GannonFan]

Yes it does and committee members have said so.

And they also ignore it. Tell me how last year went. Or the year before that when YSU got woofed. They can talk all they want, but their actions show something different. The GPI hasn't been any more accurate at projecting the playoff field than posters on this board have been - maybe the committee needs to pick a username and start posting here! xnodx xnodx

[Syntax Error]

And they also ignore it. Tell me how last year went. Or the year before that when YSU got woofed. They can talk all they want, but their actions show something different. The GPI hasn't been any more accurate at projecting the playoff field than posters on this board have been - maybe the committee needs to pick a username and start posting here! xnodx xnodxThey don't ignore it. They use it as another tool. It is not the primary one, that is the regional committee's job. If you'd listen to what they say you would know that. Whether you think it is accurate or not has nothing to do with it.

[GannonFan]

They don't ignore it. They use it as another tool. It is not the primary one, that is the regional committee's job. If you'd listen to what they say you would know that. Whether you think it is accurate or not has nothing to do with it.

And the NCAA men's b-ball selection committee says they use the RPI but we've seen how hollow that idea is. Committee's can say they use anything, but the reality of who they select versus these various machinations is also quite telling in regards to the importance of these "tools". xthumbsupx

[bluehenbillk]

It's amazing that when you present an argument against the GPI & it's PR campaign that your posts just get deleted. I didn't say the "name" on the last one. You can't stuff the GPI down our throats. Roy Kramer did that with the FBS & look what good that did.

[813Jag]

I think it's good that AAMU is even in this discussion, but I don't think their non conference slate holds up. Tennesse State has been somewhat of a disappointment to me this season and their other game was a DII game. I think this is what people are pointing to when they talk about the end of the nine game mandate. Next year they'll have a stronger schedule and a better chance to make a good showing.

[kardplayer]

I'd rather see a 2nd place SWAC school in the playoffs than a 6th CAA team.

[813Jag]

I'd rather see a 2nd place SWAC school in the playoffs than a 6th CAA team.
Technically they would be the 3rd place team. If they win out and Southern win out they would finish at 9-2 overall, but they have the tie-breaker. But that's neither here nor there.xlolx

[bluehenbillk]

I'd rather see a 2nd place SWAC school in the playoffs than a 6th CAA team.


Well you don't have to worry about 6. I don't think 5 is realistic either unless ALL the cards fall into place, meaning it's either take 5 or dip into the 7-4 pool.

[WMTribe90]

Just because the selections don't mirror the GPI 100% doesn't mean the comittee doesn't look at it when making selection decisions. My feel is the committee will bend the rules to create greater parity, but taking a second OVC or the seond place SWAC team is a more obviousc violation of the published selection criteria (i.e., selectig the 8 best at-large teams REGARDLESS OF CONFERENCE). The GPI is far from perfect, but its hard to ignore the HUGE difference in ranking between CAA hopefuls and teams like JSU, EIU and Alabama A&M.

I'll concede a EWU if they beat NAU and both NSU/DSU if NSU beats DSU (DSU as an at-large).

[UMass922]

A 9-2 AAMU would be in the discussion, I'm sure, but they'd need some other at-large contenders to stumble down the stretch. It would be great to see them get in, though.

[bluehenbillk]

Just because the selections don't mirror the GPI 100% doesn't mean the comittee doesn't look at it when making selection decisions. My feel is the committee will bend the rules to create greater parity, but taking a second OVC or the seond place SWAC team is a more obviousc violation of the published selection criteria (i.e., selectig the 8 best at-large teams REGARDLESS OF CONFERENCE). The GPI is far from perfect, but its hard to ignore the HUGE difference in ranking between CAA hopefuls and teams like JSU, EIU and Alabama A&M.

I'll concede a EWU if they beat NAU and both NSU/DSU if NSU beats DSU (DSU as an at-large).

Cmon Tribe, put down the kool-aid, that three-letter system is solely for entertainment purposes. This isn't the FBS & the monster they created.

[URMite]

It's amazing that when you present an argument against the GPI & it's PR campaign that your posts just get deleted. I didn't say the "name" on the last one. You can't stuff the GPI down our throats. Roy Kramer did that with the FBS & look what good that did.

I like having the GPI around, its a quick place to see all the rankings human & computer at the same place. But I take it for what it is. So for the combined ranking, I look for exceptions to my own opinions and take another look at those teams to see what is causing the difference or whether I have missed anything.

I always like summaries...

[appfan2008]

I dont think they would get in and if they were offered a spot would they really want it?

there whole season is geared toward playing in the swac title game and if that doesnt work why would they want to do anything else?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The big problem is that there are pitifully few teams out West that can qualify as at-larges. My formula has EWU losing to NAU and Cal Poly losing to NDSU, two very possible outcomes. If that happens, the only at-large team possibility west of the Mississippi would be SIU!

I think AAMU has a great chance in their regional committee if they win their last two, Jackson State doesn't lose twice, and Cal Poly and EWU both lose. They'd be the #3 team in the SW/W.

[89Hen]

xconfusedx I have no idea what you guys are thinking. There is NO WAY the committee will take a SECOND place team without the FIRST place team. If the SWAC will not send it's #1, there is NO WAY they get their #2 in. END OF STORY. xcoffeex

[UMass922]

xconfusedx I have no idea what you guys are thinking. There is NO WAY the committee will take a SECOND place team without the FIRST place team. If the SWAC will not send it's #1, there is NO WAY they get their #2 in. END OF STORY. xcoffeex

I wonder what would happen if a second-place SWAC team got selected and actually went on to win the national championship. Would there be questions about the legitimacy of that championship (especially from the SWAC title game participants), since the SWAC champion (and the SWAC runner-up, for that matter) didn't get a chance? My guess is that the SWAC would probably love it, but it's a very strange scenario to ponder . . .

[bluehenbillk]

xconfusedx I have no idea what you guys are thinking. There is NO WAY the committee will take a SECOND place team without the FIRST place team. If the SWAC will not send it's #1, there is NO WAY they get their #2 in. END OF STORY. xcoffeex

89 I normally agree with you, but that argument makes no sense.

[GannonFan]

xconfusedx I have no idea what you guys are thinking. There is NO WAY the committee will take a SECOND place team without the FIRST place team. If the SWAC will not send it's #1, there is NO WAY they get their #2 in. END OF STORY. xcoffeex

Didn't that happen occassionally in the past? It at least happened in 1997 when Southern won the SWAC but Jackson St still made the playoffs.

[89Hen]

I wonder what would happen if a second-place SWAC team got selected and actually went on to win the national championship.
xconfusedx They'd have to actually win A playoff game for that to happen. 0-19 is a tough trend to reverse.

[UMass922]

xconfusedx They'd have to actually win A playoff game for that to happen. 0-19 is a tough trend to reverse.

Well aware of that. Just positing a hypothetical . . .

[jstate83]

xconfusedx I have no idea what you guys are thinking. There is NO WAY the committee will take a SECOND place team without the FIRST place team. If the SWAC will not send it's #1, there is NO WAY they get their #2 in. END OF STORY. xcoffeex


89 I normally agree with you, but that argument makes no sense.

Especially since JSU has went as the 2nd place team a couple times from our conference.

[DetroitFlyer]

Taking the second place team in the SWAC over a potentially 10-1, ( 8-1 FCS ), Dayton Flyers makes no sense to me at all. At 10-1, Dayton would at least be a Co-Champion of the PFL.

[jstate83]

Well aware of that. Just positing a hypothetical . . .

He loves posting that. xlolx

[89Hen]

89 I normally agree with you, but that argument makes no sense.
Does to me. If the conference can't send the #1 team, why would the committee accept the #2 team.

GF, 1997 was a long time ago. Back in the day of Northridge State, Evansville, ETSU, no Albany, no Great West, no Big South....

Is interesting to see the SN poll from 1997. Look how many are still/back in the poll today (or at least receiving votes)...

1. VILLANOVA (88) 11-0 2,383
2. W ILLINOIS (2) 10-1 2,252
3. DELAWARE 10-1 2,166
4. E WASHINGTON (4) 10-1 2,036
5. W KENTUCKY 9-1 2,030
6. MCNEESE ST 10-1 1,916
7. HAMPTON (1) 10-1 1,717
8. GEORGIA STHRN (1) 9-2 1,700
9. YOUNGSTOWN ST 9-2 1,685
10. FLORIDA A&M 9-2 1,475
11. MONTANA 8-3 1,466
12. SOUTHERN 9-1 1,328
13. JACKSON ST 9-2 1,185
14. HOFSTRA 9-2 1,130
15. E KENTUCKY 8-3 1,093
16. CAL POLY-SLO 10-1 939
17. NW LOUISIANA 8-3 898
18. S F AUSTIN 8-3 706
19. S CAROLINA ST 9-2 699
20. LIBERTY 9-2 568
21. E ILLINOIS 8-3 405
22. APPALACHIAN ST 7-4 382
23. DAYTON 9-1 278
24. NORTHEASTERN 8-3 153
25. COLGATE 7-4 143

O T H E R S R E C E I V I N G V O T E S

East Tennessee State; Northern Iowa; Furman; Bucknell; Murray State;
Harvard; Dartmouth; New Hampshire; William & Mary; Northern Arizona;
Chattanooga; CS-Northridge; Montana State; North Carolina A&T;
Georgetown; Arkansas-Pine Bluff; Howard; Connecticut; Weber State.

[GannonFan]

Does to me. If the conference can't send the #1 team, why would the committee accept the #2 team.

GF, 1997 was a long time ago. Back in the day of Northridge State, Evansville, ETSU, no Albany, no Great West, no Big South....
.

Just pointing out, though, that it did happen before so it could certainly happen again. I don't know of anything written saying that the committee will not consider a second place team when the first place team declines.

[jstate83]

Can someone tell me the year that a 1st or 2nd place SWAC TEAM DECLINED a PLAYOFF bid?xconfusedx

[WMTribe90]

JSU came to Williamsburg in 1996 as the second place SWAC team.


Cmon Tribe, put down the kool-aid, that three-letter system is solely for entertainment purposes. This isn't the FBS & the monster they created.

C'mon youself Bill. Your disdain for the GPI is well documented on this board. Your view is the minority here though. Your correct, this isn't the BCS/FBS, the computers aren't picking the field, humans make the call in FCS, but that doesn't mean a computer ranking can't be considered by the humans making the calls. The GPI isn't perfect, no tool for comparing teams across the nation is perfect. Most, including the selection committee, find it to be a useful means for comparing teams that have not met on the field and have few to no common opponents. I'm surprised you use the evil computer to post on this board xlolx

[GannonFan]

Can someone tell me the year that a 1st or 2nd place SWAC TEAM DECLINED a PLAYOFF bid?xconfusedx


JSU came to Williamsburg in 1996 as the second place SWAC team.



Jackson St was the SWAC champ in 1996 - in 1997 Southern won the SWAC and while they may not have specifically declined a playoff bid, they all but did so by scheduling themselves out of the playoffs with the Bayou Classic.

[jstate83]

Jackson St was the SWAC champ in 1996 - in 1997 Southern won the SWAC and while they may not have specifically declined a playoff bid, they all but did so by scheduling themselves out of the playoffs with the Bayou Classic.

Still ain't true.

The agreement was that nay SWAC team other than Southern, Grambling, or Alabama State that received a playoff bid had to go to the playoff's by word of the conference.
The NCAA never considered these 3 SWAC teams playoff choices.

SU, Gram and Alabama STwas never included in the playoff mix because of their games after Thanksgiving.

It's also the reason JSU never played in a Heritage Bowl when we was the SWAC Champs back in the day's of that game.

[Syntax Error]

Can someone tell me the year that a 1st or 2nd place SWAC TEAM DECLINED a PLAYOFF bid?xconfusedxI don't think a team has ever DECLINED a playoff bid, if they can't accept it then they aren't asked.

[GannonFan]

Still ain't true.

The agreement was that nay SWAC team other than Southern, Grambling, or Alabama State that received a playoff bid had to go to the playoff's by word of the conference.

SU, Gram and Alabama was never included in the playoff mix because of their games after Thanksgiving.

It's also the reason JSU never played in a Heritage Bowl when we was the SWAC Champs in the early '90's.

Like I said, they, Southern, didn't per se decline an invitation to the playoffs, but it was one time when the 1st place team in the SWAC was unable to play in the playoffs despite, in all likliehood, having the opportunity to do so.

[89Hen]

JSU came to Williamsburg in 1996 as the second place SWAC team.
Not sure that is correct. SWAC Champs since the advent of I-AA thought the start of the SWAC CG:
(playoff participants bolded)
1978 Grambling
1979 Grambling, Alcorn State
1980 Grambling, Jackson State
1981 Jackson State
1982 Jackson State
1983 Grambling
1984 Alcorn State
1985 Jackson State, Grambling
1986 Jackson State
1987 Jackson State
1988 Jackson State
1989 Jackson State
1990 Jackson State
1991 Alabama State
1992 Alcorn State
1993 Southern
1994 Alcorn State, Grambling
1995 Jackson State
1996 Jackson State
1997 Southern
1998 Southern

* Went to playoffs without winning SWAC: 1978 Jackson State, 1984 Mississippi Valley, 1997 Jackson State

I think I'm missing one appearance.

[Syntax Error]

Geez, I posted a SWAC history before but I can't find it. There were a couple times when the second SWAC team made the playoffs when the top team couldn't.

[UMass922]

Does to me. If the conference can't send the #1 team, why would the committee accept the #2 team.

You really think so? Let's say that North Dakota State, who isn't eligible for the playoffs, went 11-0 to finish first in the Great West. And let's say that Cal Poly, who is eligible for the playoffs, went 10-1, losing only to NDSU, to finish second in the Great West. Are you seriously telling me that the 10-1 Cal Poly team is not getting an at-large playoff bid?

[GannonFan]

Geez, I posted a SWAC history before but I can't find it. There were a couple times when the second SWAC team made the playoffs when the top team couldn't.

With 89's list there, it would appear that it only happened once (1997) - every other time the SWAC champ played, more than 1 SWAC team played, or they didn't have a representative.

[Syntax Error]

It was something like a co-champ who didn't have the tie-breaker over the other but went to the playoffs... something like that... I forget, but there was more than one.

[89Hen]

Just pointing out, though, that it did happen before so it could certainly happen again. I don't know of anything written saying that the committee will not consider a second place team when the first place team declines.
BTW, I listed all the things that have changed since JSU was invited as the #2 team, except the most important.... the SWAC Championship Game started. xnodx

[89Hen]

You really think so? Let's say that North Dakota State, who isn't eligible for the playoffs, went 11-0 to finish first in the Great West. And let's say that Cal Poly, who is eligible for the playoffs, went 10-1, losing only to NDSU, to finish second in the Great West. Are you seriously telling me that the 10-1 Cal Poly team is not getting an at-large playoff bid?
Totally different circumstance IMO. One is ineligible thanks to the NCAA rules. The other is ineligible because of conference desires.

[89Hen]

With 89's list there, it would appear that it only happened once (1997) - every other time the SWAC champ played, more than 1 SWAC team played, or they didn't have a representative.
I edited since. There were three instances (I'm still missing one appearance).

[UMass922]

Totally different circumstance IMO. One is ineligible thanks to the NCAA rules. The other is ineligible because of conference desires.

What difference does it make? If AAMU doesn't make the playoffs, it should be because they don't have one of the eight best at-large resumes--not because the team ahead of them is ineligible. A team should be judged on its own merit, not on the circumstances of its conference (whatever those may be).

[UMass922]

And to try another hypothetical: let's say that AAMU played and beat McNeese State and Appalachian State out of conference, and ran the table in the SWAC except for a slip-up against Jackson State, who went undefeated to finish first. Does the 10-1 second-place team that beat McNeese and ASU not get an at-large?

[UMass922]

Totally different circumstance IMO. One is ineligible thanks to the NCAA rules. The other is ineligible because of conference desires.

Also, to be clear, it's "NCAA rules" that make the SWAC division winners ineligible as well. The NCAA forbids FCS teams to participate in two postseason events, so the SWAC Championship Game participants would be ineligible even if the game didn't present a scheduling conflict with the playoffs.

[89Hen]

Also, to be clear, it's "NCAA rules" that make the SWAC division winners ineligible as well. The NCAA forbids FCS teams to participate in two postseason events, so the SWAC Championship Game participants would be ineligible even if the game didn't present a scheduling conflict with the playoffs.
xnonox The CAA has 12 teams, but we don't have a CG. It is the SWAC's CHOICE to have one. xnodx

[89Hen]

And to try another hypothetical: let's say that AAMU played and beat McNeese State and Appalachian State out of conference, and ran the table in the SWAC except for a slip-up against Jackson State, who went undefeated to finish first. Does the 10-1 second-place team that beat McNeese and ASU not get an at-large?
Isn't a hypothetical supposed to at least have a chance of being true? xconfusedx xsmhx xrolleyesx

[Retro]

OK, If JSU or AA&M finish up strong and other things fall in their favor, can they accept a playoff invitation instead of participating the SWAC title game? Do they have that option or is it something written where they have to play in the swac title game..
We all know that Grambling and Southern can't go because their bayou classic conflicts with the first round, but since the SWAC title game is considered another post-season event, do the other swac teams have to option of picking one over the other?

[GannonFan]

OK, If JSU or AA&M finish up strong and other things fall in their favor, can they accept a playoff invitation instead of participating the SWAC title game? Do they have that option or is it something written where they have to play in the swac title game..
We all know that Grambling and Southern can't go because their bayou classic conflicts with the first round, but since the SWAC title game is considered another post-season event, do the other swac teams have to option of picking one over the other?

Jackson St would get the SWAC title game - Alabama A&M needs to win out and have JSU lose out to pass them.

[UMass922]

Isn't a hypothetical supposed to at least have a chance of being true? xconfusedx xsmhx xrolleyesx

By definition, no, it doesn't. Now answer the question.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

OK, If JSU or AA&M finish up strong and other things fall in their favor, can they accept a playoff invitation instead of participating the SWAC title game? Do they have that option or is it something written where they have to play in the swac title game..
We all know that Grambling and Southern can't go because their bayou classic conflicts with the first round, but since the SWAC title game is considered another post-season event, do the other swac teams have to option of picking one over the other?

It's never happened, and it's my understanding that the SWAC teams are required by the conference to play in the SCG.

[UMass922]

xnonox The CAA has 12 teams, but we don't have a CG. It is the SWAC's CHOICE to have one. xnodx

Exactly. The reason the CAA is never going to institute a championship game is because it would render the participants INELIGIBLE FOR THE PLAYOFFS BY NCAA RULES.

All that aside, I still don't see why the SWAC's choice should matter. I still ask you: why should anything other than a team's resume matter when it comes to judging it for an at-large playoff bid?

[89Hen]

By definition, no, it doesn't. Now answer the question.
Why? It's a pointless hypothetical. To have to go to such an extreme does not prove anything IMO.

[89Hen]

Exactly. The reason the CAA is never going to institute a championship game is because it would render the participants INELIGIBLE FOR THE PLAYOFFS BY NCAA RULES.

All that aside, I still don't see why the SWAC's choice should matter. I still ask you: why should anything other than a team's resume matter when it comes to judging it for an at-large playoff bid?
Principal. If a team chooses to not play a schedule that would provide it with a resume of a top 8 at-large team, they do not get a bid. If a conference chooses to not send their #1 team from each division to the playoffs, they do not get a bid.

It opens up a whole can of worms for the championship. Like somebody said before, heaven forbid that team advance past the first round. xpeacex

[UMass922]

Why? It's a pointless hypothetical. To have to go to such an extreme does not prove anything IMO.

Yes it does. It proves that such an AAMU team should not be selected for the playoffs, according to your criteria. If the SWAC's choice to hold a championship game is truly all that matters to you, then you would have no problem answering the hypothetical question by saying, No, that AAMU still shouldn't get it.

[Syntax Error]

GPI #37 Alabama A&M

The committee has chosen worse GPI ranked teams as at-larges before. Example, #41 Lafayette in 2005.

[89Hen]

Yes it does. It proves that such an AAMU team should not be selected for the playoffs, according to your criteria. If the SWAC's choice to hold a championship game is truly all that matters to you, then you would have no problem answering the hypothetical question by saying, No, that AAMU still shouldn't get it.
No, AAMU still shouldn't get it.

[UMass922]

Principal. If a team chooses to not play a schedule that would provide it with a resume of a top 8 at-large team, they do not get a bid. If a conference chooses to not send their #1 team from each division to the playoffs, they do not get a bid.

And I've given you the hypothetical that the team in question does have a top-eight at-large resume--but you won't address it. I'm just curious how you'd handle that situation.

[UMass922]

No, AAMU still shouldn't get it.

Thank you for answering the question.

I still don't see what the pragmatic difference would be between the hypothetical AAMU team I've posited and the hypothetical Cal Poly team I posited earlier. The reasons why the conference champion can't participate are different--but you still have the possible scenario where the second-place team could win the national championship without the first-place team getting a chance. Whether it's by choice or not, the scenario we're left with is pragmatically the same.

[89Hen]

Thank you for answering the question.
You are welcome. Honestly, I don't believe a confernce sould be able to send their #2 team without sending #1. xpeacex

[bluehenbillk]

GPI #37 Alabama A&M

The committee has chosen worse GPI ranked teams as at-larges before. Example, #41 Lafayette in 2005.

Yep, there was another great selection by that flawed system.

[UMass922]

You are welcome. Honestly, I don't believe a confernce sould be able to send their #2 team without sending #1. xpeacex

Does this mean you're not sending the hypothetical Cal Poly team, then?

[89Hen]

I still don't see what the pragmatic difference would be between the hypothetical AAMU team I've posited and the hypothetical Cal Poly team I posited earlier. The reasons why the conference champion can't participate are different--but you still have the possible scenario where the second-place team could win the national championship without the first-place team getting a chance. Whether it's by choice or not--the scenario we're left with is pragmatically the same.
Has to do with having your cake and eating it too. The SWAC can choose to participate. NDSU cannot.

[UMass922]

Has to do with having your cake and eating it too. The SWAC can choose to participate. NDSU cannot.

Fair enough. Guess we're at the point of "agreeing to disagree."

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Yep, there was another great selection by that flawed system.

You mean the one that was leading the future National Champs at halftime with their backup quarterback heading the team? Boy, what a rotten pick! xrolleyesx

[Syntax Error]

Yep, there was another great selection by that flawed system.Most members here have said #12 Youngstown State should have been chosen (as the GPI indicated). What was flawed?

[mikebigg]

You are welcome. Honestly, I don't believe a confernce sould be able to send their #2 team without sending #1. xpeacex

So are you saying this is your personal feelings or if there are specific rules against them participating?

[89Hen]

Fair enough. Guess we're at the point of "agreeing to disagree."
xnodx Because I am sending a hypothetical Cal Poly.

[89Hen]

So are you saying this is your personal feelings or if there are specific rules against them participating?

"Honestly, I don't believe a confernce should be able to send their #2 team without sending #1."

My personal feeling.

[URMite]

Yep, there was another great selection by that flawed system.

At the risk of being accused of piling on, which flawed system, GPI, Committee, or both?

[813Jag]

It'll be interesting to see what happens. But there hasn't been much talk from SWAC folks about this.

[Syntax Error]

At the risk of being accused of piling on, which flawed system, GPI, Committee, or both?Most posters here said committee.

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

At the risk of being accused of piling on, which flawed system, GPI, Committee, or both?

Don't worry, I think most of us were asking ourselves the same thing reading that post. xnodx

[bluehenbillk]

At the risk of being accused of piling on, which flawed system, GPI, Committee, or both?


The only system that is flawed is the GPI.

[UMass922]

The one thing that I will concede is awkward about the AAMU playoff case is that it effectively made the Jackson State game a "must lose" game for them. Not that in a million years I would accuse or suspect them (or any SWAC team that finds itself in such a situation) of even thinking about throwing that game--but it is a weird scenario that the SWAC playoff-eligibility situation creates.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The one thing that I will concede is awkward about the AAMU playoff case is that it effectively made the Jackson State game a "must lose" game for them. Not that in a million years I would accuse or suspect them (or any SWAC team that finds itself in such a situation) of even thinking about throwing that game--but it is a weird scenario that the SWAC playoff-eligibility situation creates.

AAMU picked a weird way to "throw" the game then, forcing Jackson State to get a game-tying touchdown with 3 seconds to play, then scoring a FG in overtime to force the Tigers to score a TD to beat them...

Not accusing you, just that it was very clear that AAMU was trying to win that game.

[UMass922]

AAMU picked a weird way to "throw" the game then, forcing Jackson State to get a game-tying touchdown with 3 seconds to play, then scoring a FG in overtime to force the Tigers to score a TD to beat them...

Not accusing you, just that it was very clear that AAMU was trying to win that game.

I have no doubt they were trying to win the game. I'm sure that, like all SWAC teams, AAMU's goal is to make it to, and win, the SWAC Championship Game, with a playoff bid being more of a long-shot consolation prize. It's just weird that the SWAC presents a situation where a loss could actually be advantageous to a team's playoff chances.

[813Jag]

I have no doubt they were trying to win the game. I'm sure that, like all SWAC teams, AAMU's goal is to make it to, and win, the SWAC Championship Game, with a playoff bid being more of a long-shot consolation prize. It's just weird that the SWAC presents a situation where a loss could actually be advantageous to a team's playoff chances.
I don't view it that way. There hasn't been any talk of AAMU to the playoffs before, this started this week. I was totally surprised when I read they were even being considered for an at-large. Maybe I'll be the SWAC version of DetroitFlyer. xlolx




















AAMU for an at-large, baby!!!!!!!! xlolx

[UMass922]

I don't view it that way. There hasn't been any talk of AAMU to the playoffs before, this started this week. I was totally surprised when I read they were even being considered for an at-large.

Well, that's basically my point. I assume that every SWAC team is focused on the SWAC championship, so that even thinking of throwing a game just for a chance at a long-shot playoff bid would never be an issue. Though I'm sure that if offered an at-large bid, AAMU would accept.

[813Jag]

Well, that's basically my point. I assume that every SWAC team is focused on the SWAC championship, so that even thinking of throwing a game just for a chance at a long-shot playoff bid would never be an issue. Though I'm sure that if offered an at-large bid, AAMU would accept.
I have no doubt if it happened they would take it. I feel like this can help the SWAC take strides to get back on track. The conference has improved since the past two seasons. I hope the seven game schedule can help as well.

[89Hen]

I hope the seven game schedule can help as well.
xnodx No doubt that will help with your standing with the rest of I-AA. xthumbsupx

[HensRock]

The big problem is that there are pitifully few teams out West that can qualify as at-larges. My formula has EWU losing to NAU and Cal Poly losing to NDSU, two very possible outcomes. If that happens, the only at-large team possibility west of the Mississippi would be SIU!

I think AAMU has a great chance in their regional committee if they win their last two, Jackson State doesn't lose twice, and Cal Poly and EWU both lose. They'd be the #3 team in the SW/W.

LFN,
Have you published your bracket anywhere?

[Syntax Error]

xnodx No doubt that will help with your standing with the rest of I-AA. xthumbsupxWhat is "I-AA" anyway???? We are all in the FCS (ask the NCAA). :p

[Mr. Tiger]

I think it is possible. It could happen if the committee takes 4 at-large CAA teams and 2 from the Southern Conference. That is likely. Southern Illinois will also get one. That leaves Alabama A&M, Norfolk State, Eastern Washington, Eastern Illinois or Jacksonville State fighting it out for the last spot. I think Eastern Washington might lose to Northern Arizona. Norfolk might lose to Delaware State. Alabama A&M at 9-2 should beat out the rest because according to EVERY power poll this season (not always), the SWAC is stronger than the OVC and the MEAC. So Alabama A&M needs help, but it is possible. I just can't wait for next season when the 7-game mandate ends.

[McNeese_beat]

I think it is possible. It could happen if the committee takes 4 at-large CAA teams and 2 from the Southern Conference. That is likely. Southern Illinois will also get one. That leaves Alabama A&M, Norfolk State, Eastern Washington, Eastern Illinois or Jacksonville State fighting it out for the last spot. I think Eastern Washington might lose to Northern Arizona. Norfolk might lose to Delaware State. Alabama A&M at 9-2 should beat out the rest because according to EVERY power poll this season (not always), the SWAC is stronger than the OVC and the MEAC. So Alabama A&M needs help, but it is possible. I just can't wait for next season when the 7-game mandate ends.
If Cal Poly beats NDSU this weekend they'll be in at 8-3 (assuming a win over Iona).

I think it's possible, not probable. I think it would be good if they do get in...

[Mr. Tiger]

If Cal Poly beats NDSU this weekend they'll be in at 8-3 (assuming a win over Iona).

I think it's possible, not probable. I think it would be good if they do get in...

If Cal Poly won, they would deserve a spot.

[Peems]

Cal Poly won't win. NDSU is a complete team, Cal Poly is not there yet. So A&M should still have a chance.

[Retro]

Cal Poly won't win. NDSU is a complete team, Cal Poly is not there yet. So A&M should still have a chance.


Not on defense they aren't!xnonox

[ngineer]

I think A&M gets a good shot at 9-2. They've had a solid season and all things being equal with other 'runner ups' having a new player in the playoffs is good.

[McNeese_beat]

Cal Poly won't win. NDSU is a complete team, Cal Poly is not there yet. So A&M should still have a chance.

Poly has a fighting chance, I think. They are at home and I think I read somewhere on this board that they'll probably pack their little stadium. They spread the field and have a QB who can throw it and run it, like Rhett Bomar did against them. I think that style gave NDSU fits.

Plus, Poly is playing for a playoff spot so motivation would be a little stronger than playing for just a No. 1 spot in the polls.

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

Ugh - neither should really get in with their resumes. All things considered, THE BEST 8 at-large teams should get bids. I don't think 8-3 Cal Poly nor a 9-2 Alabama A&M will be in this group of 8 best teams not AQs.

If this regional crap takes over, they need to reword the selection committee criteria. Notice both schools had D2 schools on their schedule. So both records are really 8-2 for Alabama A&M and 7-3 for Cal Poly. Other teams with full Div-I schedules should be rewarded.

[HensRock]

Regionalization is does not come into play regarding team selection. Only pairing after selection. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

[GannonFan]

Ugh - neither should really get in with their resumes. All things considered, THE BEST 8 at-large teams should get bids. I don't think 8-3 Cal Poly nor a 9-2 Alabama A&M will be in this group of 8 best teams not AQs.

If this regional crap takes over, they need to reword the selection committee criteria. Notice both schools had D2 schools on their schedule. So both records are really 8-2 for Alabama A&M and 7-3 for Cal Poly. Other teams with full Div-I schedules should be rewarded.

So you're saying an 8-3 Cal Poly team that, if they were 8-3, means they would've been the only team to beat North Dakota St this year (a team some are saying they're going to vote #1 if they go undefeated if a team other than UNI wins the playoffs) wouldn't be worthy? While I like the CAA a whole lot, there's no getting around the fact that unbalanced scheduling has really helped inflate things this year for some teams. If UNH doesn't make the playoffs, teams like JMU, UMass, Hofstra, and the loser of the UD/Richmond game may not have beaten any playoff teams since most of those teams didn't play each other. If Cal Poly gets the win versus NDSU, you can almost guarantee that they'll get into the playoffs based on that one win, which is almost one more than some other 8-3 teams will have.

[89Hen]

Ugh - neither should really get in with their resumes. All things considered, THE BEST 8 at-large teams should get bids. I don't think 8-3 Cal Poly nor a 9-2 Alabama A&M will be in this group of 8 best teams not AQs.
FWIW, an 8-3 CP would have a win over #2 North Dakota State, be 3-0 vs the Big Sky (although the bottom 3) and would have won 8 of their last 9 games. Depending on who else is available, they may have the resume. xpeacex

[89Hen]

So you're saying an 8-3 Cal Poly team that, if they were 8-3, means they would've been the only team to beat North Dakota St this year...
Damn GF, back to our old ways... posting the same thing at the same time. :p

[GannonFan]

Damn GF, back to our old ways... posting the same thing at the same time. :p

Well, if one of us would be wrong one of these times we wouldn't have this issue! xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Lehigh Football Nation]

FWIW, an 8-3 CP would have a win over #2 North Dakota State, be 3-0 vs the Big Sky (although the bottom 3) and would have won 8 of their last 9 games. Depending on who else is available, they may have the resume. xpeacex

Given the dearth of teams out West, I think you have to give it to them with a November win against a team that is No. 1 in the Coaches' poll. And don't underestimate that they would have be red-hot going into the playoffs (that 8 of 9 games thing). IMO, that's better than Wofford's resume, for example (losing two of their last five if they beat Chatty, only "quality win" was against App State in September).

[URMite]

So you're saying an 8-3 Cal Poly team that, if they were 8-3, means they would've been the only team to beat North Dakota St this year (a team some are saying they're going to vote #1 if they go undefeated if a team other than UNI wins the playoffs) wouldn't be worthy? While I like the CAA a whole lot, there's no getting around the fact that unbalanced scheduling has really helped inflate things this year for some teams. If UNH doesn't make the playoffs, teams like JMU, UMass, Hofstra, and the loser of the UD/Richmond game may not have beaten any playoff teams since most of those teams didn't play each other. If Cal Poly gets the win versus NDSU, you can almost guarantee that they'll get into the playoffs based on that one win, which is almost one more than some other 8-3 teams will have.

Actually each of those would only have played 1 of the others, not 0, but 2 would have lost.

[89Hen]

Given the dearth of teams out West, I think you have to give it to them with a November win against a team that is No. 1 in the Coaches' poll. And don't underestimate that they would have be red-hot going into the playoffs (that 8 of 9 games thing). IMO, that's better than Wofford's resume, for example (losing two of their last five if they beat Chatty, only "quality win" was against App State in September).
xnodx HOWEVER, I'd be shocked if CP actually pulls the upset against NDSU. We're assuming they'd be a good team if they beat the Bison, but the truth is, they have not shown they are a good team so far. Their wins have been against VERY weak competition and they lost to the only two teams that would be considered good wins (Idaho and SDSU). My guess is this is a moot point.

[GannonFan]

And remember, Western teams shouldn't and aren't going to be knocked as much as Eastern teams for playing a non-DI school. While I kid our friends out West, there is no denying the fact that scheduling is more difficult out West, considering the number of teams and the distances involved, not to mention the reluctance of most teams from the East to travelling out there. Playing one DII team, as Cal Poly did, isn't that big of a sin, especially considering that they play in a 5 team conference and OOC games are aplenty. And they did play an FBS team so it's not like their schedule was all patsies. They'll get in at 8-3.

[GannonFan]

xnodx HOWEVER, I'd be shocked if CP actually pulls the upset against NDSU. We're assuming they'd be a good team if they beat the Bison, but the truth is, they have not shown they are a good team so far. Their wins have been against VERY weak competition and they lost to the only two teams that would be considered good wins (Idaho and SDSU). My guess is this is a moot point.

Agreed - I felt Cal Poly was essentially eliminated with the 3rd loss and with NDSU on the schedule. I don't think NDSU is quite the juggernaut they are made out to be, but they are clearly a top 5 team in the nation and I don't think Cal Poly is as good as past years. I think it's a moot point too. xthumbsupx

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

yeah, at 8-3 Cal Poly is in w/ the win over NDSU. I still can't see Alabama A&M in though. Grambling took it too them 31-6. Maybe that was earlier in the season, but a big loss is still a big loss.

Scheduling in the West may be harder, but should teams with better schedules be punished for it if the records are otherwise the same? Doesn't make sense to me other than the argument of "We must have enough western teams in the playoff field" and that line is just total crap.

[JMU2K_DukeDawg]

I also have issues with a conference (SWAC) that takes it's conference championship more seriously than the Div-I playoffs. It's like an insult that the playoff field is a consolation prize. Sorry, I simply don't like it. But with the state of politics in the athletics, nothing would surprise me.

[813Jag]

yeah, at 8-3 Cal Poly is in w/ the win over NDSU. I still can't see Alabama A&M in though. Grambling took it too them 31-6. Maybe that was earlier in the season, but a big loss is still a big loss.

Scheduling in the West may be harder, but should teams with better schedules be punished for it if the records are otherwise the same? Doesn't make sense to me other than the argument of "We must have enough western teams in the playoff field" and that line is just total crap.
I think the 9 game schedule hurts AAMU. With only 2 OOC games that DII game is really damaging. TSU having a average season hurts as well.
Old-Guard thinking xnonono2x























xsmiley_wix xlolx

[89Hen]

While I kid our friends out West, there is no denying the fact that scheduling is more difficult out West, considering the number of teams and the distances involved, not to mention the reluctance of most teams from the East to travelling out there.
xnodx

[GannonFan]

yeah, at 8-3 Cal Poly is in w/ the win over NDSU. I still can't see Alabama A&M in though. Grambling took it too them 31-6. Maybe that was earlier in the season, but a big loss is still a big loss.

Scheduling in the West may be harder, but should teams with better schedules be punished for it if the records are otherwise the same? Doesn't make sense to me other than the argument of "We must have enough western teams in the playoff field" and that line is just total crap.

You also have to keep in mind that just because a school is a DI school doesn't mean that it's automatically a good game. UD played Monmouth this year and while they were DI, this wasn't a good Monmouth team. JMU and W&M played VMI, and VMI is almost perpetually one of the lesser FCS teams out there. UNH played Iona - sorry to Gael fans, but Iona's just not that good. The East has plenty of bottom feeders at the DI level that you can play and it looks like better competition, but I don't think, year in year out, that those schools are really any better competition-wise than the good DII schools, especially the DII powers in the Midwest (although Fort Lewis can never be considered a "power" in any sense of the word).

[Cap'n Cat]

xconfusedx I have no idea what you guys are thinking. There is NO WAY the committee will take a SECOND place team without the FIRST place team. If the SWAC will not send it's #1, there is NO WAY they get their #2 in. END OF STORY. xcoffeex


Agreed, vehemently. Nor would we want them - it compromises the validity and purpose of a "tournament".

[Mr. Tiger]

Agreed, vehemently. Nor would we want them - it compromises the validity and purpose of a "tournament".

So I guess the tournament has been compromised before because it HAS happened before with Jackson State. And Alabama A&M has no control over Grambling's decision to play in the Bayou Classic nor do they control the SWAC's decision to play a championship game.

[89Hen]

So I guess the tournament has been compromised before because it HAS happened before with Jackson State. And Alabama A&M has no control over Grambling's decision to play in the Bayou Classic nor do they control the SWAC's decision to play a championship game.
Had there been message boards in 1996, I would have complained back then too. xnodx

[jstate83]

And just like in 1996, this message board will have no effect on who is picked.xthumbsupx

[lizrdgizrd]

And just like in 1996, this message board will have no effect on who is picked.xthumbsupx
You never know. One of us could be on the committee....xeyebrowx

[GannonFan]

You never know. One of us could be on the committee....xeyebrowx

ssshhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!! xcoolx

[89Hen]

And just like in 1996, this message board will have no effect on who is picked.xthumbsupx
xconfusedx Has anyone implied anything to the contrary? xconfusedx

[jstate83]

You never know. One of us could be on the committee....xeyebrowx

My answer is still the same.
Make sure you cut out any other 2nd place teams from all the other conferences also.

Save the 'They send their 1st place team" stuff.
Besides................like I said in the past about feeling's for SWAC teams.

Why ya'll so worried about teams ya'll really don't want included anyway? xpeacex

[jstate83]

xconfusedx Has anyone implied anything to the contrary? xconfusedx

I'm stopping Mod55 before anything even get's started.
Don't want this thread to close with my name being attached to "cut it out". xpeacex