PDA

View Full Version : 12 Game season



saint0917
April 12th, 2005, 01:28 PM
Teams to add 12th game in 2006.

12 Game Season (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2035538)

saint0917
April 12th, 2005, 02:33 PM
"... The plan was given tentative approval by the council during its meeting Monday, but still must be approved by the NCAA Board of Directors when it meets April 28. ..."

Thanks for adding that in their for me Ralph, I was just leaving work and didn't have time. I think it will pass the only conference that doesn't want it is the ACC.

89Hen
April 12th, 2005, 02:48 PM
If this does happen, look for a TON of 1-A vs 1-AA games to be announced.

colgate13
April 12th, 2005, 02:51 PM
Now, if we could just work on those Ivy types and their 10 game schedule???

Gil Dobie
April 12th, 2005, 02:51 PM
If this does happen, look for a TON of 1-A vs 1-AA games to be announced.

That would be a very interesting scenario.

Anovafan
April 12th, 2005, 03:04 PM
I love the 12 game schedule. I know coaches hate the idea of putting their kids out there for one more game to risk injuries before the playoffs, but I think it can really help a team get on a roll and can help them get into the playoffs. Nova got into the playoffs in '02 with a 9-3 record and made it to the semis, at 8-3 they might not have gone. I say if you are a good team, why shy away from proving it on the field? I also like the fact that you can feel a lot more comfortable scheduling a I-A team with a 12 game schedule. As a fan, I would love for everyone to be playing that last week of August.

DTSpider
April 12th, 2005, 05:46 PM
I agree with having the 12-game lets you schedule a 1A much easier. Also like the 1A schools will look for another home date to make money, so a better opportunity for 1AA programs. For the programs that can't make a lot of money playing at home, this is very good news. For Richmond it'll help having that extra game to try and schedule another regional school. Right now Clawson has said the OOC is a 1A, VMI and a Patriot League team. With that 4th game, teams like Liberty, Hampton or a SoCon school are options. Best news of all is starting one week earlier means less of a break for us fans!

bisonguy
April 12th, 2005, 05:52 PM
Sounds good to me, especially since NDSU doesn't have a chance at playing more than twelve games until 2008 :( .

ISUMatt
April 12th, 2005, 06:17 PM
Would that mean 8-4 teams possibly could be in the playoffs then?!?!

polsongrizz
April 12th, 2005, 10:41 PM
Would that mean 8-4 teams possibly could be in the playoffs then?!?!
Hell I hope not, but it seems with that many games that would be a distinct possibility.

ISUMatt
April 12th, 2005, 10:44 PM
makes me think alot of the teams will schedule an extra 1-A game for revenue

Coastal89
April 12th, 2005, 11:16 PM
A lot will schedule a D-II for an extra win.

bonarae
April 13th, 2005, 02:03 AM
Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Will the Ivy Presidents speak up to this? WE WOULD BE WAY BEHIND THEM IF THIS BECOMES TRUE!!!!!!!!!! :(

Tribe4SF
April 13th, 2005, 06:01 AM
Questionable whether W&M would add a 12th game. Laycock chose not to do it in the past. Fans would love to see a regular series with Hampton University. A moneymaker for both schools with no travel costs. I know HU would like to see it.

We would also love to have that 6th home game. Because we play a I-A every year, we always have 5 home games. Lots of I-AAs in the region who would come to Williamsburg. Scheduling would need to be done to guarantee 6 home games.

89Hen
April 13th, 2005, 07:39 AM
A lot will schedule a D-II for an extra win.

I don't agree. I think you'll see more 1-A games than D2 games (man I don't like the nomenclature change). D2's wins don't count in the eyes of the committee anyway.

arkstfan
April 13th, 2005, 08:46 AM
I don't agree. I think you'll see more 1-A games than D2 games (man I don't like the nomenclature change). D2's wins don't count in the eyes of the committee anyway.

I think you are right. If the rules change for I-A's counting games against I-AA there will be more opportunities for I-AA's to grab a game for a decent check.

Tribe4SF
April 13th, 2005, 09:27 AM
Better programs will take the opportunity to add a I-A game. Many will want another home game and be willing to schedule a mid-major or D2. Scheduling D2s puts you at risk with the committee. Some may think that 12 games will cut that risk, but if they go to 8 seeds, strength of schedule will be even more important.

bluehenbillk
April 13th, 2005, 09:35 AM
I can see Delaware maybe trying to play 8 home games in some years with the 12 game season, definitely no less than 7.

89Hen
April 13th, 2005, 09:54 AM
Better programs will take the opportunity to add a I-A game. Many will want another home game and be willing to schedule a mid-major or D2.

IMO it's actually quite the opposite Tribe. Better programs have more to gain from another home game because of higher attendance. Teams that draw less than 5000 don't have much to gain and will gladly take a 1-A payday. However I wouldn't be surprised to see UD add a 1-A if they can get somebody close by because they already have seven home games lined up.

89Hen
April 13th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Oh ****, was that an April Fool's joke? If it was I have big time egg on my face. :eek:

89Hen
April 13th, 2005, 11:33 AM
:doh: I never followed the link.

WYOBISONMAN
April 13th, 2005, 11:47 AM
I hope it happens. More opportunity for a DI-A payday and more DI-AA exposure......I vote yes.

colgate13
April 13th, 2005, 12:14 PM
:doh: I never followed the link.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You fell for that???? :eek:

You didn't actually believe Colgate's schedule too, did you? ;)

89Hen
April 13th, 2005, 12:57 PM
Yeah, I feel rather foolish, but I guess that's the whole point. I don't think I saw the AF with Colgate's schedule. What did it look like?

colgate13
April 13th, 2005, 01:06 PM
Yeah, I feel rather foolish, but I guess that's the whole point. I don't think I saw the AF with Colgate's schedule. What did it look like?
It had multiple I-A OOC games and a "revised" PL schedule that included Richmond and W&M and dropped G'Town and HC!

89Hen
April 13th, 2005, 01:10 PM
See, now that wouldn't have gotten me, but I don't put ANYTHING past the NCAA when it comes to football and especially 1-AA, er.. I-AA football. :)

Tribe4SF
April 13th, 2005, 05:59 PM
IMO it's actually quite the opposite Tribe. Better programs have more to gain from another home game because of higher attendance. Teams that draw less than 5000 don't have much to gain and will gladly take a 1-A payday. However I wouldn't be surprised to see UD add a 1-A if they can get somebody close by because they already have seven home games lined up.

Your argument implodes. You say better programs have more to gain from an additional home game, but then you say Delaware won't surprise you if they add a I-A. If the criteria for a "better program" is attendance only, Delaware is a good example. If it's based on having good teams year in and year out, Delaware is still a good example that would benefit from a I-A for strength of schedule, exposure and player opportunity to compete at highest level.

When I said better programs, I wasn't thinking of attendance. Strength of schedule should be important to any program that's serious about post season play. The GPI has been remarkably accurate in predicting playoff teams. With the move to 8 seeded teams, it will be even more important. Looking at next year, I'll take a close loss to Marshall (and who knows) over a win against West Chester or Lock Haven that does nothing for me.

ChickenMan
April 13th, 2005, 06:12 PM
I'll take a close loss to Marshall (and who knows) over a win against West Chester or Lock Haven that does nothing for me.

I can't agree with you on that one. I'm no fan of DII (West Chester) games... but the 1AA reality is that if Marshall or any other 1A... is your 4th loss of the year... you won't get an "at large" berth to the playoffs no matter how competitve that loss was.

Tribe4SF
April 13th, 2005, 07:34 PM
I can't agree with you on that one. I'm no fan of DII (West Chester) games... but the 1AA reality is that if Marshall or any other 1A... is your 4th loss of the year... you won't get an "at large" berth to the playoffs no matter how competitve that loss was.

That goes without saying. My point is that with 8 seeds, Delaware would likely have been on the road last year for the first round.

Tribe4SF
April 14th, 2005, 05:24 AM
I like that change. Another recognition of playing a strong schedule.

89Hen
April 14th, 2005, 08:38 AM
Your argument implodes. You say better programs have more to gain from an additional home game, but then you say Delaware won't surprise you if they add a I-A... When I said better programs, I wasn't thinking of attendance.... I'll take a close loss to Marshall (and who knows) over a win against West Chester or Lock Haven that does nothing for me.

Not really, UD is an exception, that's why I said 'however'. Delaware already has 7 home games. I don't know if any other program has 7 home games. If Delaware had the customary 6 home, 5 away, then I'd say that UD would be looking for another home game.

Better programs = better attendance in general. List the consistently top programs in I-AA and check that against attendance figures. Sure there will be an exception or two, but Montana, Delaware, GSU, UNI, MSU, Lehigh.... these are the most consistent winners and they also happen to be near the tops in attendance.

As for a close loss to Marshall vs a win against WCUPA, it depends. Suppose you are 7-3 in the other 10 games, which would you rather have knowing that 7-4 keeps you out of the playoffs 100% of the time?

89Hen
April 14th, 2005, 08:42 AM
That goes without saying. My point is that with 8 seeds, Delaware would likely have been on the road last year for the first round.

No chance. The Committee decides the seeds. There is no formula. Ask Lehigh how that #9 seed was in 1999 when they went 10-1. The Committee was still pissed at Lehigh for not submitting a bid the year before and PUT them at #9 just so they'd be on the road. The Committee would have made Delaware an 8 seed just so they'd host. That's not arrogance on my part as a Hen fan, it's knowing what the Committee would and wouldn't do to get as many fans in the seats for the playoffs.

89Hen
April 14th, 2005, 08:44 AM
I think that is changing this coming year, the four loss barrier, to seven D-I wins. So if you go 7-4 with seven D-I wins you still are considered.

Only time will tell Ralph. As of today no 7-4 team has made the field without an auto bid. If there are enough 8-3 teams, there still won't be one. If that rule were in place last year I still don't think anyone less than 8-3 would have made it. The next team in line was CalPoly.

Lehigh Football Nation
April 14th, 2005, 09:46 AM
No chance. The Committee decides the seeds. There is no formula. Ask Lehigh how that #9 seed was in 1999 when they went 10-1. The Committee was still pissed at Lehigh for not submitting a bid the year before and PUT them at #9 just so they'd be on the road. The Committee would have made Delaware an 8 seed just so they'd host. That's not arrogance on my part as a Hen fan, it's knowing what the Committee would and wouldn't do to get as many fans in the seats for the playoffs.

I'm not sure of the history of this. 1998 was the first time Lehigh made the I-AA playoffs since 1980, and it was only the second year of the Patriot League's autobid. I think there wasn't a realistic expectation that year of Lehigh (or any PL school) hosting that year. A-10 schools, however, routinely hosted games. In 1998 Lehigh travelled to Richmond to play the first-round game, which (if memory serves) was poor attendace because: 1) it was Thanksgiving break, and 2) Virginia/Virginia Tech was being played the same weekend.

I think the 1999 and 2000 snubs were more about Lehigh and the Patriot League not getting respect as a team and a conference. In '99 Lehigh got sent to Hofstra after Lehigh and Colgate were co-champs, with Colgate getting the autobid. There was no way Lehigh would be hosting as an at-large team that year, since the PL was considered at the time a weak conference.

It was really after 2000, when Lehigh went to Macomb, Ill and pounded Western Illinois in the 1st round, that Lehigh and the PL teams got to be taken seriously. So I don't think that this is a fair comparison. I think it was a case of the committee "misunderestimating" the PL, not a vendetta against Lehigh.

I think now with the GPI and so many other computer and human polls it's much much harder to keep some teams out than it used to be. There will always be some political factors (a lack of a Great West conference rep and autobid really hurt Cal Poly last year) but I think it's becoming harder to keep teams out and less political in general.

Tribe4SF
April 14th, 2005, 11:51 AM
No chance. The Committee decides the seeds. There is no formula. Ask Lehigh how that #9 seed was in 1999 when they went 10-1. The Committee was still pissed at Lehigh for not submitting a bid the year before and PUT them at #9 just so they'd be on the road. The Committee would have made Delaware an 8 seed just so they'd host. That's not arrogance on my part as a Hen fan, it's knowing what the Committee would and wouldn't do to get as many fans in the seats for the playoffs.

My understanding is that the 8 seeds will be based on relative strength of the teams and that geographics and attendance will be out as criteria. That was the recommendation of the committee. In that case, the GPI is the best indicator historically of who gets in, and will likely be so for the 8 seeds. If the committe goes to an objective view of strength, but does not stick to it, there will be hell to pay. Delaware's days of buying home games may be over.

89Hen
April 14th, 2005, 01:49 PM
Delaware's days of buying home games may be over.

When are you going to give that crap up? Buying home games would be somebody who averages 5,000 all year and then bids to give the NCAA the equivalent of 20,000. If you want to be accurate, you should say Blue Hen fans in effect bought the team their home games by buying 20k+ tickets every week. :rolleyes:

Tribe4SF
April 14th, 2005, 02:17 PM
When are you going to give that crap up? Buying home games would be somebody who averages 5,000 all year and then bids to give the NCAA the equivalent of 20,000. If you want to be accurate, you should say Blue Hen fans in effect bought the team their home games by buying 20k+ tickets every week. :rolleyes:

You're quibbling over semantics. If a team's power rating doesn't justify a home game and they get one because of attendance, to me that's buying a home game. That's the way the system has worked. Whether the fans "bought" a home game or not, it was still bought. You said it yourself, so I don't see why you think it's crap.

I don't mean any of this as a slam on Delaware. Just that I think the system is changing and old criteria may not apply in the future. If it goes to 8 seeds, strength of schedule becomes even more important (my original point). Delaware got a home game last year because there were only 4 seeds and the old criteria applied. If there had been 8 seeds and new criteria, JMU and UNH would likely have been at home, and Delaware on the road.

I'll change my statement to this - Delaware may not be able to count on their superior home attendance guaranteeing home playoff games in the future. Better? :rolleyes:

89Hen
April 14th, 2005, 02:33 PM
No need to get snide. There is a HUGE difference between

"superior home attendance guaranteeing home playoff games"

and

"Delaware's days of buying home games"

and it's not semantics. Your first statement implies that Delaware is doing something underhanded to get home games. The NCAA made the rules, not Delaware. Fans didn't come to the regular season home games to guarantee a home playoff game. Buying a home game is:

1. The University offering the NCAA more than they'll get for attendance (other schools have done this!).

2. A school overstating their attendance in the regular season to get a playoff home game (I wouldn't doubt that another school has done this, see EMU in I-A).

3. Some donor or alum offering to buy a bunch of tix to inflate attendance (I have no idea if that's ever been done).

4. Bribing the Committee members for votes (seriously doubt that's ever been done).

arkstfan
April 14th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Unless the process has changed, my understanding was the bid process went like this.

School submits to the NCAA a bid guaranteeing X attendance at Y price per ticket for a total amount of Z.

If gate receipts fall below Z, the school pays the NCAA the difference between the actual gate receipts and the bid.

If gate receipts equal Z. The NCAA gets its money, we're done.

If gate receipts exceed Z. The NCAA gets Z plus a percentage of the gate receipts in excess of Z.

A schools reported attendance during the season would have no bearing on the bid. The bid would simply be an amount the school thinks it can bring and can afford to cover if it is short.

89Hen
April 14th, 2005, 03:07 PM
A schools reported attendance during the season would have no bearing on the bid. The bid would simply be an amount the school thinks it can bring and can afford to cover if it is short.

Point is that Delaware by having larger attendance can bid enough without 'buying' a game with a number that they have no chance of getting in the stadium. 'Buying' a game would be done by a school that draws 5000 and then bidding to draw 10000 for a playoff game.

Tribe4SF
April 14th, 2005, 06:20 PM
No need to get snide. There is a HUGE difference between

"superior home attendance guaranteeing home playoff games"

and

"Delaware's days of buying home games"

and it's not semantics. Your first statement implies that Delaware is doing something underhanded to get home games. The NCAA made the rules, not Delaware. Fans didn't come to the regular season home games to guarantee a home playoff game. Buying a home game is:

1. The University offering the NCAA more than they'll get for attendance (other schools have done this!).

2. A school overstating their attendance in the regular season to get a playoff home game (I wouldn't doubt that another school has done this, see EMU in I-A).

3. Some donor or alum offering to buy a bunch of tix to inflate attendance (I have no idea if that's ever been done).

4. Bribing the Committee members for votes (seriously doubt that's ever been done).

Not being snide. You were the one who posted "rolling eyes:sarcasm" smilie in your post. Your defensiveness is unnecessary. I already told you I meant no offense to Delaware in any way. If you read an implication into what I wrote, I can't help that.

Before I post any other comments about "buying" playoff games, I'll be sure to check with you for the official definitions that may apply. Until then, try to relax.

Pen Guin
April 14th, 2005, 07:30 PM
Yes it does Matt. Unfortunately the NCAA was not specific in this application ... and it was intentional. The intent of the change was "originally" to allow an additional game for a conference championship ... which was actually permitted several years ago. Now, the NCAA selection comittee has to consider all games played ... it is only fair.

ngineer
April 14th, 2005, 08:20 PM
This would allow Lehigh to reunite with Army, Navy and Delware on a more regular basis (although Army has ducked us over the last few years-nothin' to gain for them, and too much to lose.) It's been difficult getting more frequent games with the Blue Hens, although we're visiting this year. It's such a good rivalry that shouldn't be disrupted too much.

GannonFan
April 14th, 2005, 08:33 PM
Technically speaking, I think people would have a hard time coming up with a clear example of when Delaware got a home playoff game based upon their attendance alone, the "UD bought a game" idea. Last year, Delaware was ranked #10 going into the playoffs - who knows if the comittee would have viewed UD as the #8 seed and therefore worthy of a home game? Since they didn't seed them, we'll never know. And in all the prior years when UD had home playoff games, they had a superior record to go along with it and were therefore a high seed. This is just another example of saying something long enough that eventually people believe it.

Tribe4SF
April 14th, 2005, 09:35 PM
C'mon, GF! How was Delaware at home and JMU on the road? You're guy 89 had it right. 20,000+ in the stands equaled a winning bid. And screw the polls, look at the GPI.

HensRock
April 14th, 2005, 11:36 PM
Have to agree with Tribe4SF on this one GF. You can look to 2003 for another example, although not quite as obvious. Wofford finished the regular season ranked #2 and UD #3, yet when the brackets were announced, UD was the #2 seed and WC #3. The two ended up playing in the semis - in Newark.

Tribe4SF
April 15th, 2005, 06:04 AM
Once upon a time it was. Thanks for posting the GPIs. I think alot of people are unaware of the strong correlation between the GPI and the committee's seeds and field picks.

89Hen
April 15th, 2005, 07:52 AM
Your defensiveness is unnecessary. I already told you I meant no offense to Delaware in any way. If you read an implication into what I wrote, I can't help that.

Before I post any other comments about "buying" playoff games, I'll be sure to check with you for the official definitions that may apply. Until then, try to relax.

Tribe, there's no two ways about it for me. Somebody saying 'the days of Delaware buying a home game may be over' is a comment aimed at UD. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but I don't see how anybody reading that would have seen it otherwise. People have complained over the years about being 'screwed' out of home games (see UMass last year and Lehigh around 1999/2000) and they like to point fingers at teams that are awarded home games based upon the NCAA guidelines. When I see another fan talk about UD 'buying' games, you don't expect me to be defensive? If somebody said so and so 'bought' a cop or 'bought' a judge, or 'bought' an election, you don't think that has an EXTREMELY negative connotation?

Tribe4SF
April 15th, 2005, 08:43 AM
Tribe, there's no two ways about it for me. Somebody saying 'the days of Delaware buying a home game may be over' is a comment aimed at UD. Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but I don't see how anybody reading that would have seen it otherwise. People have complained over the years about being 'screwed' out of home games (see UMass last year and Lehigh around 1999/2000) and they like to point fingers at teams that are awarded home games based upon the NCAA guidelines. When I see another fan talk about UD 'buying' games, you don't expect me to be defensive? If somebody said so and so 'bought' a cop or 'bought' a judge, or 'bought' an election, you don't think that has an EXTREMELY negative connotation?

We're talking about a game here, not an election. But I get your point. You seem to understand that I have great respect for UD and its fans. It's my favorite rivalry and I understand the pride you guys take in your program. Peace out.

89Hen
April 15th, 2005, 08:58 AM
We're talking about a game here, not an election.

Agreed, this is FAR more important than any stupid election. :D

Tribe4SF
April 15th, 2005, 09:11 AM
Agreed, this is FAR more important than any stupid election. :D

Touche and amen!

bluehenbillk
April 15th, 2005, 10:05 AM
I've said it before & I'll say it again, if anyone reads into the "GPI" for anything other than amusement purposes you're crazy. Just because 1-A does it wrong, doesn't mean that we should follow.

They bear zero to any real decisions.

arkstfan
April 15th, 2005, 11:15 AM
Maybe I've been hanging with the I-A crowd too long but when I see cries of "they're BUYING home games" my reaction is... So?

I mean let's be honest. I-AA has to fight for every scrap of NCAA money because 123 schools (actually less because of playoff non-participants) just isn't a great voting bloc in a budget fight with 300+ schools. With the new management structure heavily favoring I-A, and a number of schools having their conference affiliations with leagues that also include I-A and I-AAA schools where the league can't easily vote to help I-AA at the expense of the I-A and I-AAA members, money is always going to be tight coming out of the NCAA budget.

If it takes a free-for-all of high bids to get the revenue pool up for playoff participants, so be it.

If it takes being able to show few empty seats at playoff games to help draw TV interest, then by all means do it.

bluehenbillk
April 15th, 2005, 11:55 AM
cmon Ralph, you mean to tell me the committee is holding copies of those rankings inside their conference room? No

GSUBass
April 15th, 2005, 12:07 PM
I dunno...I'm still kinda torn w/ the 12 game season. IA teams don't want a "playoff" because it'll mess with finals and academics...yet they are just getting closer and closer to a 16 game season themselves.

I'm always up for more football though, so it can't be that bad of a deal.

Husky Alum
April 15th, 2005, 12:53 PM
Personally I hope the Ivies decide to play 11 games. It would give Harvard a chance to renew the NU series. Harvard would be GUARANTEED an additional home game every other year, as until NU builds its new stadium, there's no reason to play the game at Parsons.

I loved the chance to play in Cambridge every year.

Lehigh Football Nation
April 15th, 2005, 01:54 PM
I agree Husky Alum. I have this dream of Fordham, Hofstra, and Columbia playing every year for the "Bloomberg Trophy" (or something like that) which would be the "King of NYC Metro Area Football". However, the Ivies would have to go to 11 games to do it, since it would use up 2 precious OOC games for them.

Think though of what that could mean for NYC, long-term. If they ever get the West Side stadium built, they could even play one or more of the games there!

bonarae
April 15th, 2005, 07:28 PM
Personally I hope the Ivies decide to play 11 games. It would give Harvard a chance to renew the NU series. Harvard would be GUARANTEED an additional home game every other year, as until NU builds its new stadium, there's no reason to play the game at Parsons.

I loved the chance to play in Cambridge every year.

Or lift the number of games up to 12, for further convenience. It could give the Ivies benefits.

Example schedule (for a future year):
Montana
Holy Cross
Lehigh
Georgia Southern
New Hampshire
and of course, the 7 conference games