Case for no seeds

[89Hen]

I'll tell you what. Both games were phenomenal on TV. Both the Griz and AppSt fans did I-AA proud with those displays. If I didn't know I-AA and just tuned in, I'd be like HOLY S this is some big-time football.

I don't really think we need to take away the seeds, but the next time somebody complains about a Montana, AppSt, YSU, UD... getting home games, they need to just go back and watch the tapes of these semifinal games. :twocents:

[furpal87]

I'd just feel everything would be done more fairly with a 1-16 seeding and let it play out. It probably wouldn't have come out any different than it did, but JMU would have made the quarters playing anyone but the top 4. I wouldn't mind a little rigging to prevent conference match-ups in the First Round.

[Dallas Demon]

I'd just feel everything would be done more fairly with a 1-16 seeding and let it play out. It probably wouldn't have come out any different than it did, but JMU would have made the quarters playing anyone but the top 4. I wouldn't mind a little rigging to prevent conference match-ups in the First Round.

Agreed, although 1-16 seeding without the rigging would be the fairest.

[furpal87]

Just a little further: If you used the rankings (hypothetical, of course), removing non-eligible teams, keeping 8 champs and eight at-large:

1-App vs 16-Laffayette
8-UNH vs 9-SIU
5-JMU vs 12-Coastal
4-YSU vs 13-E. ILL
6-Fur vs 11-Tn-Martin
3-UMass vs 14-Mont State
7-Hampton vs 10-Ill State
2-Montana vs 15- McNeese (The one that agrees)

I don't think some of the trip mileage would have been that different. At least you'd feel home games (if you wanted to do it that way), and match-ups were a little less haphazard. When we did this in the 90's at least you saw some logic!!! xlolx

[TigerFan17]

Gotta agree with 89, they did us proud this weekend. The word of the week is: Legitimate .

[TxSt02]

Gotta agree with 89, they did us proud this weekend. The word of the week is: Legitimate .


agree

[*****]

if you don't have any seeds then why do you need the case?

[ncguitarplyr]

i think there are financial aspects to consider...by only seeding 4 teams they have more room to schedule the tournament games based on location/travel expenses which are a concern

[appfan2008]

seed all 16 no reason not to and it just makes since

[89Hen]

seed all 16 no reason not to and it just makes since
There is a huge reason not to, expense. Henfan has gone into this in depth many times.

[89Hen]

I'd just feel everything would be done more fairly with a 1-16 seeding... I wouldn't mind a little rigging to prevent conference match-ups in the First Round.
A little contradictory IMO. Either you seed 1-16 or you don't.

[89Hen]

if you don't have any seeds then why do you need the case?
We have 4.

[*****]

We have 4.Then we have seeds and it makes sense to have a case.

[GSU Eagle]

I have said it on another thread a couple weeks ago but it is not fair to have #4 playing #5 or #6 in the first round. James Madison should not have played Youngstown in Round 1 this year and Georgia Southern should not have played Texas St. in Round 1 last year.

Just seed the top 8 so at least you don't have 1 of the top 8 playing another top 8 team in Round 1. The NCAA would be left with some manuverability with teams 9-16, and the first round would be fairer.

[*****]

members of the selection committee want to seed eight as well but rules are rules...

[th0m]

While increasing the seeding to 8 instead of 4 will prevent a 4 vs. 5 matchup, it really isn't very different from seeding all 16 teams, at least for the first round. I'd imagine you'd give the 8 seeds home games without regards of the bids put in by the schools (as they should), sending the 8 unseeded teams on the road.

It furthermore takes away from the legitimacy of a seed. When you seed only the top 4 teams, you KNOW that they deserved it. When you seed 8 teams, it's easier to put a Montana, UD or ASU in a seed at say 8-3, over a 9-2 EIU or UNH, because it might be better $$ wise.

[eaglesrthe1]

Of course there should be many factors in deciding home field, but the #1 factor should be team play. All 16 teams should be seeded. Let fan support ($$$) come into play when other things are equal. Home field should 1st be earned by players, not Joe in the stands.

[JohnStOnge]

I think they tried 1 - 16 seeding with 1 vs. 16, 2 vs. 15, and so on at the high seed home field for a few years and it just wasn't viable financially.

[JMU_MRD'03-'07]

I'll tell you what. Both games were phenomenal on TV. Both the Griz and AppSt fans did I-AA proud with those displays. If I didn't know I-AA and just tuned in, I'd be like HOLY S this is some big-time football.

I don't really think we need to take away the seeds, but the next time somebody complains about a Montana, AppSt, YSU, UD... getting home games, they need to just go back and watch the tapes of these semifinal games. :twocents:

I dunno, why should the semi-finals be the case for seeding? I've seen some pretty damn good football played by two non seeded teams before in the past.

[*****]

personally I like seedless rather than seeded in things like grapes, watermelon etc.....

[appstate1998]

I really have no problem with how the seeding is done now, however I'm still trying to figure out how Montana State got a home game with a 7-4 record because and about the lowest rank in the polls of any team in the playoffs, and you can't say it was because of closer location. If they are not going to seed, at least when figuring out home games and opponents they really should factor in the polls somewhat.

[89Hen]

I dunno, why should the semi-finals be the case for seeding? I've seen some pretty damn good football played by two non seeded teams before in the past.
I think you missed the entire point. First, I said "I don't really think we need to take away the seeds" but the whole point was how the games looked on TV. Don't underestimate the importance of appearance. It helps all of I-AA to have a good TV appearance on ESPN. There can be a great game played on the field, but you put the game where there's 4,000 people in the stands and poor field conditions, it just doesn't appeal to John Q. Public. All of us here would still enjoy it, but that's preaching to the choir. Having ESPN games from Montana, AppSt, YSU... were great for I-AA football.

Again, that said "I don't really think we need to take away the seeds". But for those of you who think seeding 1-8 or 1-16 would fix all match-up problems, think again. When they used to do that, the committee still put a lot of teams wherever they wanted. I like regionalization for the most part. There is only one goal for the playoffs, to win the NC. To win the NC, you're going to have to beat anyone and everyone in the field and eventually have to probably beat a top 5 team.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

I-AA / FCS definitely looked impressive on TV this weekend. Especially when compared to the empty stands in the Div II game I watched. It was nice to give an impression to the general public that we are a higher level and better brand of football than the other "lower divisions".

[OL FU]

I'll tell you what. Both games were phenomenal on TV. Both the Griz and AppSt fans did I-AA proud with those displays. If I didn't know I-AA and just tuned in, I'd be like HOLY S this is some big-time football.

I don't really think we need to take away the seeds, but the next time somebody complains about a Montana, AppSt, YSU, UD... getting home games, they need to just go back and watch the tapes of these semifinal games. :twocents:

If my main concern was someone tuning in and saying HOLY S this is some big-time football, I would agree with you. I would also be wearing a Clemson Tiger shirt most autumn saturdays. However, my biggest concern is that the national champion be settled as fairly as possible so I don't agree with you and I don't have to wear orange.

With that said, since we are cost containment football I understand only seeding the top 4 teams.

[89Hen]

However, my biggest concern is that the national champion be settled as fairly as possible so I don't agree with you and I don't have to wear orange.
It does sound a little like you think things aren't fair though. IF UMass were to win the NC, they would have two NC's in which they've only had two home games and four road games. Our NC is crowned on the field, whether it's their field or somebody else's.

Real Clemson fans wear purple. :p
http://www.zyworld.com/seclinks/clemson_home_uniform.jpg

[OL FU]

It does sound a little like you think things aren't fair though. IF UMass were to win the NC, they would have two NC's in which they've only had two home games and four road games. Our NC is crowned on the field, whether it's their field or somebody else's.

Real Clemson fans wear purple. :p
http://www.zyworld.com/seclinks/clemson_home_uniform.jpg


To be fair, there are more people than just the teams and schools and the TV fan who thinks "oh my gawd they play real football down here in the lil leagues".

There are the real fans like me. (And you will notice I did not bitch about getting sent to MSU- I thought FU's playoff credentials were pretty slim)

I am sure that the A-10 gets shafted more than not when it comes to home field. From what I understand, attendance is not good except at a few schools. That being said, if there had been no seeds this year, UMASS might have had six road games and they might have won them. or maybe not. But let's don't fool ourselves, we debate here all the time the home field advantage of a UM or a UD or A GSU or an ASU,etc. That advantage does not always pay off, but it does exist and we all know it. And in many home stadiums it is worth more than the typical 3 points that Sagarin says it is worth. We are never going to have complete fairness. That is one reason I don't think we should seed all 16 teams. Really, when we get to number 15 or 16 how do you decide and who cares? It does however seem to me to be fair to let UNH play at home when they earn a seed regardless of how few fans are going to attend, :p :p :p :p :p :p

Nice picture of a Clemson putty-tat:nod:

[OL FU]

It does sound a little like you think things aren't fair though. IF UMass were to win the NC, they would have two NC's in which they've only had two home games and four road games. Our NC is crowned on the field, whether it's their field or somebody else's.

Real Clemson fans wear purple. :p
http://www.zyworld.com/seclinks/clemson_home_uniform.jpg

But to directly answer the question,

I don't know if things are fair enough now but they are more fair with some seeds than picking all the home fields based on who looks more big time. :p

[eaglesrthe1]

To be fair, there are more people than just the teams and schools and the TV fan who thinks "oh my gawd they play real football down here in the lil leagues".

There are the real fans like me. (And you will notice I did not bitch about getting sent to MSU- I thought FU's playoff credentials were pretty slim)

I am sure that the A-10 gets shafted more than not when it comes to home field. From what I understand, attendance is not good except at a few schools. That being said, if there had been no seeds this year, UMASS might have had six road games and they might have won them. or maybe not. But let's don't fool ourselves, we debate here all the time the home field advantage of a UM or a UD or A GSU or an ASU,etc. That advantage does not always pay off, but it does exist and we all know it. And in many home stadiums it is worth more than the typical 3 points that Sagarin says it is worth. We are never going to have complete fairness. That is one reason I don't think we should seed all 16 teams. Really, when we get to number 15 or 16 how do you decide and who cares? It does however seem to me to be fair to let UNH play at home when they earn a seed regardless of how few fans are going to attend, :p :p :p :p :p :p

Nice picture of a Clemson putty-tat:nod:

You would certainly care if you had to play a second round game in Newark, at the home of an 7-4 #16 UD squad while you went 9-2 and happened to finish the season 5th in the polls. Home field should be determined first and foremost by the teams.

[BrevardMountaineer03]

I agree, seed the all 16, rig just a little to get non conference matchups, but that just means a 16 seed may become a 15 seed to not play a conference foe, that doesn't take away a home game.

[blukeys]

You would certainly care if you had to play a second round game in Newark, at the home of an 7-4 #16 UD squad while you went 9-2 and happened to finish the season 5th in the polls. Home field should be determined first and foremost by the teams.


Care to say when this happenned????? I didn't hear this whining when UNH had to go to Statesboro in 2004. You boys were sure you were in the next round in '04. GSU fans are now blaming their playoff failures on potential seedings? How sad. You seem to forget that GSU gets home games as well based on attendance. UNH was equally deserving of a home game in '04 but the superior GSU attendance tipped the scales down south.

The point of 89 Hens's original post was that good venues are good for PCS in general as it helps create a big time image. How much is the home field worth???? Umass won at Montana. This is arguably the best home field in PCS. JMU won on the road in 2004. I don't care if they seed 1-16 they did this up to 2000. It did not stop the griping. If they did it tomorrow the YSU fans would gripe forever. They gripe now as do GSU fans. What's the difference?????

[furpal87]

I don't know if you remember, but supposedly the reason they switched in 2001 was for the safety of the players because of 9/11. What they discovered was how much seeding only 4 teams got them into a lot of places they wanted that year. I think every year there has been one really top 6 or 7 match-up in the first round. I remember us drawing W. Kentucky in the first round when we were the 3 seed and they were ranked #6. That was also the perfect set of teams for them hosting the first round: Fur, GSU, APP, Mont, N. Iowa, Lehigh, McNeese, and I think N. Ariz. That was the highest attended first round ever. What was supposed to be temporary turned into permanence.

My point is that we have sacrificed probably one very good team a year in the first round for money and TV. You think GSU would have had those UNH and Tx State match-ups if ESPN wasn't showing them? That's the major issue I have. See JMU vs YSU this year.

[OL FU]

You would certainly care if you had to play a second round game in Newark, at the home of an 7-4 #16 UD squad while you went 9-2 and happened to finish the season 5th in the polls. Home field should be determined first and foremost by the teams.

There are always things to care about:D

My point however is that we have to consider two things (1) money- unfortunately there is no way around it, so Montana and others are going to get the home field more often than not, and (2) performance - therefore, to the extent possible, the teams that performed the best during the year should have home games. It seems like an ok compromise to seed the top four and the rest be based on bids, etc.

[89Hen]

My point is that we have sacrificed probably one very good team a year in the first round
There is only one trophy and you have to win four games to get it and it doesn't matter in what order you play ranked opponents.