An increase in the number of seeds in the FCS playoffs?

[bonarae]

As early as this coming season?

https://herosports.com/fcs-playoff-increase-seeds-bzbz/

[ElCid]

As early as this coming season?

https://herosports.com/fcs-playoff-increase-seeds-bzbz/

I'm not sure. Let's look at it from a money aspect, the root of all evil.

Let's say I'm on the selection committee. I am interested in maximizing the money coming in. I have two teams who are fairly close in on field performance this last season. Say they were both 8-3 and runners up in their conference. One team averages 16k per home game. The other a mere 5k. I have a decision to make. Which one gets seeded higher. Higher seeding obviously gives a huge leg up by getting that home game instead of traveling. It moves the odds more favorably to having another game with 16k instead of just 5k. Sure playoff games might have a little more, or probably, a little less attendance, but I'm looking at averages. Who do you think I will pick for that higher seed? Everything else being equal that is.

Some people probably have no issue with this. Why not choose the hugely more popular program with greater support and attendance? But what will happen is these popular, bigger, programs locking in higher seeds will experience more success, on average, and simply perpetuate the status quo. Home field advantage doesn't guarantee wins, but on average it certainly helps.

But even more concerning is that some teams may be seeded higher than actually more deserving teams simply because of "other" factors. Especially when it may be close and not obvious to the casual observer. We've seen it here and there already, especially when it was close. It will happen a lot more, with more teams in the mix.

Is it better than allowing schools with deep pockets to simply buy their way to having home games with unseeded teams? Maybe. Probably. But as with any change in format, you have to be careful to not create an unfair process or situation that locks in certain teams for reasons other than on field performance and results.

There are always arguments now on who gets in and who doesn't. I'm sure they will now be a lot more of who gets seeded higher, in addition to those seeding arguments that happen now.

It would be nice to have a very clear objective methodology, rather than simply a committee making subjective evaluations like it does now in regard to seeding and participation. Maybe we should have clearer, even if not precise, guidelines. Maybe a different composition on the committee as well. Or shorter terms for it's members to ensure fresh blood and different perspectives are present. Or maybe we need to break the playoffs into true regions where all selections and games are locked into those regions and only chosen from specific conferences and seeding happens within it. That would freak some people out. Might be hard for some strung out conferences. But they could all be placed. It would certainly help with travel, at least a little. Just thinking out of the box.

It may be a better situation in seeding the entire field. Time will tell. I personally don't like seeding when it locks in home fields. When it happens for games at a neutral location, like in BB it's ok I guess. But neutral games will never happen in FCS football except for the Championship game. The FBS has avoided this so far with it Bowl game tie in and small number of participants.

At least we have held off more teams in the playoffs. Nearly 25% of participating schools is more than enough. Still too many in my mind.

[Professor Chaos]

I'm not sure. Let's look at it from a money aspect, the root of all evil.

Let's say I'm on the selection committee. I am interested in maximizing the money coming in. I have two teams who are fairly close in on field performance this last season. Say they were both 8-3 and runners up in their conference. One team averages 16k per home game. The other a mere 5k. I have a decision to make. Which one gets seeded higher. Higher seeding obviously gives a huge leg up by getting that home game instead of traveling. It moves the odds more favorably to having another game with 16k instead of just 5k. Sure playoff games might have a little more, or probably, a little less attendance, but I'm looking at averages. Who do you think I will pick for that higher seed? Everything else being equal that is.

Some people probably have no issue with this. Why not choose the hugely more popular program with greater support and attendance? But what will happen is these popular, bigger, programs locking in higher seeds will experience more success, on average, and simply perpetuate the status quo. Home field advantage doesn't guarantee wins, but on average it certainly helps.

But even more concerning is that some teams may be seeded higher than actually more deserving teams simply because of "other" factors. Especially when it may be close and not obvious to the casual observer. We've seen it here and there already, especially when it was close. It will happen a lot more, with more teams in the mix.

Is it better than allowing schools with deep pockets to simply buy their way to having home games with unseeded teams? Maybe. Probably. But as with any change in format, you have to be careful to not create an unfair process or situation that locks in certain teams for reasons other than on field performance and results.

There are always arguments now on who gets in and who doesn't. I'm sure they will now be a lot more of who gets seeded higher, in addition to those seeding arguments that happen now.

It would be nice to have a very clear objective methodology, rather than simply a committee making subjective evaluations like it does now in regard to seeding and participation. Maybe we should have clearer, even if not precise, guidelines. Maybe a different composition on the committee as well. Or shorter terms for it's members to ensure fresh blood and different perspectives are present. Or maybe we need to break the playoffs into true regions where all selections and games are locked into those regions and only chosen from specific conferences and seeding happens within it. That would freak some people out. Might be hard for some strung out conferences. But they could all be placed. It would certainly help with travel, at least a little. Just thinking out of the box.

It may be a better situation in seeding the entire field. Time will tell. I personally don't like seeding when it locks in home fields. When it happens for games at a neutral location, like in BB it's ok I guess. But neutral games will never happen in FCS football except for the Championship game. The FBS has avoided this so far with it Bowl game tie in and small number of participants.

At least we have held off more teams in the playoffs. Nearly 25% of participating schools is more than enough. Still too many in my mind.

The selection committee has no incentive to maximize profit/revenue. This notion that the teams with more money/attendance potential always get the benefit of the doubt is proven wrong as often as it is proven right. I'm all for more seeds since it makes it more of a true tournament. I also don't think it would be better to have a algorithm or computer rating determine the seeds but I do wish there was more transparency in how the selection committee is feeling in the weeks leading up to the playoffs. Ideally it would be nice if they released rankings weekly from midseason on like the CFP committee does. Ask anyone who votes in the AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does) - nothing makes you more aware of your own biases like constructive criticism.

[ST_Lawson]

The selection committee has no incentive to maximize profit/revenue. This notion that the teams with more money/attendance potential always get the benefit of the doubt is proven wrong as often as it is proven right. I'm all for more seeds since it makes it more of a true tournament. I also don't think it would be better to have a algorithm or computer rating determine the seeds but I do wish there was more transparency in how the selection committee is feeling in the weeks leading up to the playoffs. Ideally it would be nice if they released rankings weekly from midseason on like the CFP committee does. Ask anyone who votes in the AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does) - nothing makes you more aware of your own biases like constructive criticism.

I pretty much agree with you. I think more seeds will overall be a better thing, especially for those teams in the "second 8" area. In the past, when you had 8 teams seeded, then the remaining 16 matched up mostly by geography, you could end up with two teams who both just missed being the top 8 ending up playing each other, while two teams who might actually be the 23rd and 24th best teams in the playoffs playing each other.

I'm particularly sensitive to this due to what happened to my own team the last time we were good enough to play in the playoffs. In 2017, we were 8-3 going into the playoffs, ranked 9th in the STATS FCS poll, and because we just missed out on a top 8 seeding, we were sent on the road to play against a very good 9-2 Weber State team (at the time ranked around 11th in the STATS FCS poll). If they had ranked the top 16, we would have been probably 9 or 10, and would have hosted a playoff game against a likely weaker opponent. As it was, we gave Weber a dogfight, losing by 3.

As it stands right now, due to our financial situation, our only shot at hosting a playoff game is to finish in the top 8 because we'll never be able to outbid someone. Ranking 16 teams give more teams a shot at hosting a game based on whether they prove themselves worthy of it on the field during the season, not based on how many zeroes they can add to the number on the check to the NCAA.

[caribbeanhen]

The selection committee has no incentive to maximize profit/revenue. This notion that the teams with more money/attendance potential always get the benefit of the doubt is proven wrong as often as it is proven right. I'm all for more seeds since it makes it more of a true tournament. I also don't think it would be better to have a algorithm or computer rating determine the seeds but I do wish there was more transparency in how the selection committee is feeling in the weeks leading up to the playoffs. Ideally it would be nice if they released rankings weekly from midseason on like the CFP committee does. Ask anyone who votes in the AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does) - nothing makes you more aware of your own biases like constructive criticism.

This is one of the best things going on AGS

[FUBeAR]

AGS Poll (and we use the same criteria to rank teams that the committee does)

Really? How do you know?

The Committee uses every possible piece of information that any individual committee member chooses to use as criteria and each committee member determines how they weight any possible pieces of information that they individually choose to use.

But don't believe FUBeAR. Listen to the Commissioner tell you that. Now, you have to listen closely because he is a good Sr. Level Administrator and is good at answering questions truthfully, but leaving the listener with the impression that he may have said something very specific, when, in fact, he didn't "box himself in" (a phrase he uses later in the podcast) to anything specific at all.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/herosports/final-jermaine

Bottom Line - there is no specific criteria for determining the field, the seeds, and/or the brackets used by the Committee, regardless of what is published on the website. Whatever the committee ultimately determines subjectively will then very easily be justified using post-decision derived/cited data that sounds like it supports whatever they subjectively decided.

#DefundTheCommittee

[caribbeanhen]

Really? How do you know?

The Committee uses every possible piece of information that any individual committee member chooses to use as criteria and each committee member determines how they weight any possible pieces of information that they individually choose to use.

But don't believe FUBeAR. Listen to the Commissioner tell you that. Now, you have to listen closely because he is a good Sr. Level Administrator and is good at answering questions truthfully, but leaving the listener with the impression that he may have said something very specific, when, in fact, he didn't "box himself in" (a phrase he uses later in the podcast) to anything specific at all.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/herosports/final-jermaine

Bottom Line - there is no specific criteria for determining the field, the seeds, and/or the brackets used by the Committee, regardless of what is published on the website. Whatever the committee ultimately determines subjectively will then very easily be justified using post-decision derived/cited data that sounds like it supports whatever they subjectively decided.

#DefundTheCommittee

Jekyll Island Club

[FUBeAR]

Jekyll Island Club

LOL - Wrong forum. Don't take FUBeAR down with you when ursus comes in a-growlin' and a-clawin'

[Professor Chaos]

Really? How do you know?

The Committee uses every possible piece of information that any individual committee member chooses to use as criteria and each committee member determines how they weight any possible pieces of information that they individually choose to use.

But don't believe FUBeAR. Listen to the Commissioner tell you that. Now, you have to listen closely because he is a good Sr. Level Administrator and is good at answering questions truthfully, but leaving the listener with the impression that he may have said something very specific, when, in fact, he didn't "box himself in" (a phrase he uses later in the podcast) to anything specific at all.

https://www.spreaker.com/user/herosports/final-jermaine

Bottom Line - there is no specific criteria for determining the field, the seeds, and/or the brackets used by the Committee, regardless of what is published on the website. Whatever the committee ultimately determines subjectively will then very easily be justified using post-decision derived/cited data that sounds like it supports whatever they subjectively decided.

#DefundTheCommittee

Because our rankings mirror pretty darn closely what the selection committee puts out year after year. If we don't use the same criteria we end up at roughly the same conclusion.

[FUBeAR]

Because our rankings mirror pretty darn closely what the selection committee puts out year after year. If we don't use the same criteria we end up at roughly the same conclusion.

Which is the dog and which is the tail? Maybe the Committee Members all use the AGS poll and weight it the most heavily of the various criteria they choose to use.

We just don’t know and that’s the point. There is zero transparency to the Committee’s actual criteria / process. Saying they use anything they want as criteria and weight it however they want is not transparency. Well, y’know, actually it is. It transparently reveals their deliberations are completely without any defined criteria / process and are completely subjective.

But this is just one broken aspect of the horribly broken FCS playoffs. Fixing how the committee operates would only be touching up the lipstick that is already on that pig.

A demolition of the current structure & a complete reimagining is needed.

FUBeAR is really not interested in something that merely alters the recline positions on the deck chairs.