Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1
    AGS FCS Champion
    bonarae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The other side of the globe
    Posts
    9,384

    Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    Good small move by the committee...

    http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.as...ec&tm=&src=FCS
    Reason number one why I am a bandwagon fan: the Ivy League football teams are not playing at their best nationally.
    Reason number two why I am a bandwagon fan: there is no chance that the Ivies will be in the Road to Frisco in our lifetimes.
    Reason number three why I am a bandwagon fan: there are some schools that do participate in that Road that are underrepresented here, and I appreciate their being committed to football...

  2. #2

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    translated .. we heard the UNH criticism loud & clear. The notion that bias and influence plays zero role .. I call BS .. partly. I will say it has improved considerably since the 2011 sham which had EKU buying their way into playoffs and CAA getting 5 teams in field of 20 .. while MVFC got just 2 teams despite being the highest rated FCS conference according to Massey Composite of 35 polls.

    So it has slowly improved, And I liked the step they took 2 years ago announcing their top 10 leading up to games 9 and 10. I'm not completely sure of their rationale for not doing same leading up to game 11. I see more good than harm (i.e. being held too accountable for their week 11 rankings) announcing their top 10 leading up to the 3 final games. I think the idea of being transparent is great. But what makes it great is that the committee can hear the criticisms and arguments before making their actual selections after game 11.

    My additional suggestion is to be more transparent about strength of schedule playing a direct factor into their selections. Very simply .. when you have a 9-2 team that played the 60th ranked SOS being compared to a 7-4 team who played the 6th ranked SOS, combined with quality of wins and losses (appropriate margins against opponents). As for the 7-4 "qualifying" record, while I love the Austin Peay story last year, they had zero quality wins .. yet they were supposedly on the bubble.

    We'll see if there is any tangible benefit to this latest announcement .. explanations and open dialogue can only help the impartiality. I appreciate that it has improved considerably since 2011 .. but stil some work to do and the committee should welcome this kind of scrutiny .. it can only help the game.

  3. #3
    AGS FCS Champion
    Bison Fan in NW MN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fertile,MN
    Posts
    14,552

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbird 4th & short View Post
    translated .. we heard the UNH criticism loud & clear. The notion that bias and influence plays zero role .. I call BS .. partly. I will say it has improved considerably since the 2011 sham which had EKU buying their way into playoffs and CAA getting 5 teams in field of 20 .. while MVFC got just 2 teams despite being the highest rated FCS conference according to Massey Composite of 35 polls.

    So it has slowly improved, And I liked the step they took 2 years ago announcing their top 10 leading up to games 9 and 10. I'm not completely sure of their rationale for not doing same leading up to game 11. I see more good than harm (i.e. being held too accountable for their week 11 rankings) announcing their top 10 leading up to the 3 final games. I think the idea of being transparent is great. But what makes it great is that the committee can hear the criticisms and arguments before making their actual selections after game 11.

    My additional suggestion is to be more transparent about strength of schedule playing a direct factor into their selections. Very simply .. when you have a 9-2 team that played the 60th ranked SOS being compared to a 7-4 team who played the 6th ranked SOS, combined with quality of wins and losses (appropriate margins against opponents). As for the 7-4 "qualifying" record, while I love the Austin Peay story last year, they had zero quality wins .. yet they were supposedly on the bubble.

    We'll see if there is any tangible benefit to this latest announcement .. explanations and open dialogue can only help the impartiality. I appreciate that it has improved considerably since 2011 .. but stil some work to do and the committee should welcome this kind of scrutiny .. it can only help the game.


    IMO, Austin Peay should have never been on any "bubble list".....like you said, zero quality wins.

    2011 was a joke with only 2 Valley teams in....

  4. #4

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    Quote Originally Posted by Bison Fan in NW MN View Post
    IMO, Austin Peay should have never been on any "bubble list".....like you said, zero quality wins.

    2011 was a joke with only 2 Valley teams in....
    2012 saw us get 3 teams, when we arguably deserved 4. But then right back to 2 teams in 2013 .. when we were again the top ranked conference in FCS. It wasn't until 2014 when we totally dominated in way CAA never did, that we started getting treated more fairly. Except then in 2015, another very strong year, so they put all 5 MVFC teams on same half bracket. Something they never came close to doing when CAA dominated playoff selections from 2005-2011 .. their unprecedented decision in 2016 forced the committee to admit it was a mistake.

    These unfair decisions were not that long ago .. and they were made with most of the very same members (ahem, wink, nod, etc) making the above inequities happen. So others will have to forgive my continued skepticism.

  5. #5

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    2011 selections were Towson, James Madison, Maine, New Hampshire, Old Dominion. They went 3-5 with 2 of the wins against very weak teams .. EKU and Norfolk. Massey had EKU 40th and Norfolk 60th

    EKU was at large ... paid big bucks to get that bid. Norfolk was a bad autobid. Maine had only decent win in round of 16 but lost in round of 8. Very bad year for CAA and selection committtee.

  6. #6
    AGS FCS Master PAllen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,570

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbird 4th & short View Post
    translated .. we heard the UNH criticism loud & clear. The notion that bias and influence plays zero role .. I call BS .. partly. I will say it has improved considerably since the 2011 sham which had EKU buying their way into playoffs and CAA getting 5 teams in field of 20 .. while MVFC got just 2 teams despite being the highest rated FCS conference according to Massey Composite of 35 polls.

    So it has slowly improved, And I liked the step they took 2 years ago announcing their top 10 leading up to games 9 and 10. I'm not completely sure of their rationale for not doing same leading up to game 11. I see more good than harm (i.e. being held too accountable for their week 11 rankings) announcing their top 10 leading up to the 3 final games. I think the idea of being transparent is great. But what makes it great is that the committee can hear the criticisms and arguments before making their actual selections after game 11.

    My additional suggestion is to be more transparent about strength of schedule playing a direct factor into their selections. Very simply .. when you have a 9-2 team that played the 60th ranked SOS being compared to a 7-4 team who played the 6th ranked SOS, combined with quality of wins and losses (appropriate margins against opponents). As for the 7-4 "qualifying" record, while I love the Austin Peay story last year, they had zero quality wins .. yet they were supposedly on the bubble.

    We'll see if there is any tangible benefit to this latest announcement .. explanations and open dialogue can only help the impartiality. I appreciate that it has improved considerably since 2011 .. but stil some work to do and the committee should welcome this kind of scrutiny .. it can only help the game.
    I always find it funny when person talks about impartiality then immediately dives into subjective criteria like quality losses and wins

  7. #7
    AGS FCS Champion
    Bison Fan in NW MN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fertile,MN
    Posts
    14,552

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    Quote Originally Posted by PAllen View Post
    I always find it funny when person talks about impartiality then immediately dives into subjective criteria like quality losses and wins

    He has a point. I do not remember the CAA ever having all their teams on the same side of the bracket like the Valley had in '15. Where was the "impartiality" there?

    So, for example, Austin Peay should have gotten "credit" for quality losses like Cincinnati, Miami (OH) and JSU?

    IMO, a quality loss is NDSU going into Montana and losing with 1 second left in '15. That is a "quality loss", not Miami (OH)....but that is me.....

  8. #8

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    Quote Originally Posted by PAllen View Post
    I always find it funny when person talks about impartiality then immediately dives into subjective criteria like quality losses and wins
    Yes, when being impartial, I think it is absolutely necessary to assess both objective and subjective criteria in coming to a sound conclusion objectively. Some wittingly or unwittingly choose to let their subjectivity get in the way .. and they make bad decisions.

    Again, I think the committee has improved but there is room for improvement .. last year was further example so the transparency and dialogue proposed is appreciated.

  9. #9

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    Quote Originally Posted by Bison Fan in NW MN View Post
    He has a point. I do not remember the CAA ever having all their teams on the same side of the bracket like the Valley had in '15. Where was the "impartiality" there?

    So, for example, Austin Peay should have gotten "credit" for quality losses like Cincinnati, Miami (OH) and JSU?

    IMO, a quality loss is NDSU going into Montana and losing with 1 second left in '15. That is a "quality loss", not Miami (OH)....but that is me.....
    I confirmed this a while ago .. when CAA was getting 4 or 5 teams in playoffs from 2005 to 2011 and was admittedly the best/deepest conference up until 2010, they were always spread to either 3 or 4 regions .. no exceptions. In 2014, no one expected #5 ISUr to win on road at #4 EWU and #1 UNH to get to final against #2 NDSU. So they made sure an all MVFC final couldn't happen again in 2015. The MVFC kicked and screamed, and the FCS admitted it was wrong .. convenient how it never happened before 2015, and they've since outlawed it after doing it once.

  10. #10

    Re: Playoff selection process to be explained further to participating members

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbird 4th & short View Post
    I confirmed this a while ago .. when CAA was getting 4 or 5 teams in playoffs from 2005 to 2011 and was admittedly the best/deepest conference up until 2010, they were always spread to either 3 or 4 regions .. no exceptions. In 2014, no one expected #5 ISUr to win on road at #4 EWU and #1 UNH to get to final against #2 NDSU. So they made sure an all MVFC final couldn't happen again in 2015. The MVFC kicked and screamed, and the FCS admitted it was wrong .. convenient how it never happened before 2015, and they've since outlawed it after doing it once ... once.
    MVFC is to FCS selection committee like Danny Vermin (Joe Piscopo) was to Johnny Dangerously (Keaton) ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad9mlvyA84E


    Last edited by Redbird 4th & short; March 30th, 2018 at 08:53 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Insight into the selection Committee Process
    By Mattymc727 in forum FCS Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: November 20th, 2014, 03:22 PM
  2. Here's a real concern with FCS selection process
    By WVAPPmountaineer in forum FCS Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 19th, 2007, 01:50 PM
  3. Playoff Selection Process
    By Hansel in forum FCS Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 14th, 2005, 08:22 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •