The CSN Way: Tough Playoff Spot? [Archive]

blur2005

July 29th, 2007, 12:08 AM

Football is not hockey. Football is not basketball. Football is not women's lacrosse. It's different; the regular season needs to count. When you already have 7-4 teams making the playoffs, you can't water it down more than that. The regular season becomes completely meaningless if every slightly above average team makes the playoffs
Completely in agreement. The only reason to expand the playoffs is if there is a need for more auto-bids (if the Great West ever comes up with one or the CAA has a shakeup with an America East-style conference developing) or if the formerly known as I-AAA schools become legitimate I-AA (FCS). Only with more competitive teams and conferences can the playoffs be expanded and still hold on to its full validity.

TheValleyRaider

July 29th, 2007, 12:14 AM

But are we really necessarily talking about a 24 team field? Does it really need to be 24 if only the NEC and Big South (for example) apply for autobids? If that is the case, 20 births (2 additional at-larges) would suffice with a bye or two. For those 2 at-larges, does it really water down the field to see the addition of 1) a team AGS would otherwise overwhelmingly consider "Woofed" (and there seems to be one every year) and 2) another 7-4 team or team with a strong record from a conference that doesn't traditionally get more than 1 or 2 births? Do we really suffer if those additional at-larges are another power conference team and then maybe a 2nd Patriot/MEAC/OVC side, or even a 3rd Southland team? I'm not convinced we do.

SuperJon

July 29th, 2007, 12:41 AM

Something has to be done by 2010 when the Big South becomes eligible.

TheCatamount

July 29th, 2007, 01:01 AM

I say keep it at 16

SO ILLmatic

July 29th, 2007, 01:25 AM

Is it really going to be watered down if 8 more teams are added to the playoffs?

If it went to 24 then the top 8 teams would most likely be seeded and receive first round byes. The other 16 teams, made up of "water-downed" teams,post season regulars,etc..., would play one another to see who would move on to play the top 8 teams.

With all the conferences that have the capability of getting an auto-bid in the near future, it would provide more opportunities for teams that typically fill the space where the new conferences are resides. Especially when you have power conferences like the Gateway & CAA that have numerous deserving teams and should get multiple bids. Also you have to look at FCS schools that are playing 2 FBS a year. Maybe 2 of their losses are from these schools. so should they be denied the playoffs if they go 7 & 4?

I think expansion for the playoffs is inevitable in FCS, I just hope they dont double the number of entrants to 32.

TexasTerror

July 29th, 2007, 04:13 AM

Are there enough teams out there to reach 24? Would be great if someone looked at last year and showed us a list of the AQs plus all playoff eligible teams. How many non-scholarship or partial scholarships would've gotten in...?

Seems with more FBS games on FCS schedules, it may be tough to fill it some years...especially with all those sub-Div I games as well...

Burton says 32 teams had seven total wins, but were all of those reaching the Div I min?

DTSpider

July 29th, 2007, 05:39 AM

It'll be very tough to add teams. Byes are such a huge advantage in football. I believe that there very well may be 20 or 24 teams that could be considered playoff material, however how do you choose which 4, or 8, teams get the bye? Especially if you move to 8 teams. Do you still try to keep regional matchups? For now I think we should just leave it at 16. Maybe look at how the AQ's are distributed.

skinny_uncle

July 29th, 2007, 07:43 AM

Some people have trouble accepting change. How long do we maintain the status quo on AQs? Do we continue to deny leagues that have met the qualifications? It will become harder to justify it every year. Going to a 24 team field with 8 seeded teams getting a first round bye makes sense to me. When a new league reaches a point that they deserve an AQ, there will be room for it without changing the field size again for many years to come. The percentage numbers in the article are temporary. There are more schools in the wings waiting to move up to DI.

Hansel

July 29th, 2007, 08:26 AM

Something has to be done by 2010 when the Big South becomes eligible.
dump the AQ's altogether xnodx

Ronbo

July 29th, 2007, 08:48 AM

There is a huge difference between Football and Basketball, Hockey, and Baseball. Those sports can be played on consecutive days, they can play up to 3-4 games in a week. Football is played once a week tops. The season is long enough now. I would support a 20 team tourney tops after the Big South and Great West qualify for auto bids.

Saint3333

July 29th, 2007, 10:32 AM

dump the AQ's altogether xnodx

Not a bad idea that way the MEAC schools will actually play someone OOC.

The goal of the playoffs is to decide a national champion, no one outside the top 16 teams would compete for it IMO.

Any more than 16 will water down the achievement of making the playoffs, just like the 32 bowls have in the FBS (the difference is these games make money).

james_lawfirm

July 29th, 2007, 02:40 PM

dump the AQ's altogether xnodx

That'll never happen.

Tealblood

July 29th, 2007, 02:59 PM

Isn't one of the authors of the article or own "Ralph" if so is he "back around" or did the other guy write the article and Ralph name just still included.

MplsBison

July 29th, 2007, 03:25 PM

When you already have 7-4 teams making the playoffs, you can't water it down more than that.

Actually, it would be impossible.

The NCAA mandates that a school must have 7 wins against DI teams to qualify for the playoffs.

The regular season becomes completely meaningless if every slightly above average team makes the playoffs

Nearly half of the 120 FBS teams make the post season.

Is the FBS regular season meaningless?

aggie6thman

July 29th, 2007, 03:34 PM

I think that it needs to be expanded. It is inevitable as more schools begin to move up to FCS. I agree that the auto bids should be taken away and the top teams in the country should get in.

Grizaholic17

July 29th, 2007, 03:56 PM

You should earn your stripes during the regular season to be in the playoffs. Don't extend the season any longer for no reason other than more playoff teams to get beat.

Lionsrking

July 29th, 2007, 04:39 PM

You should earn your stripes during the regular season to be in the playoffs. Don't extend the season any longer for no reason other than more playoff teams to get beat.

What constitutes "earning your stripes?"

ucdtim17

July 29th, 2007, 05:52 PM

Nearly half of the 120 FBS teams make the post season.

Is the FBS regular season meaningless?

No, all the weedeater bowls are. If you don't win all or close to all your games, you're stuck going to the Roady's Truck Stops Humanitarian Bowl in Boise

youwouldno

July 29th, 2007, 05:57 PM

Playoff expansion is good for teams that can't win a title but would like "playoffs" on their resume. FCS is about the championship, and expanding the field is pointless because it won't add potential champions.

JohnStOnge

July 29th, 2007, 07:07 PM

dump the AQ's altogether xnodx

I disagree with that approach because I like the idea of having as many teams as possible control their own destiny without having to rely on some opinion as to whether they belong or not.

I never knew about the rule that at least half of the field has to be at large. If I were going to favor staying at 16 teams, I'd favor getting rid of that rule and increasing the number of automatic qualifiers. They should establish objective criteria for what it takes for a conference to automatically qualify then let any champ from a conference that meets those crtieria in.

That way, every team that's in a qualifying conference knows exactly what it has to do to get into the playoffs and if it does it what other people think about it doesn't matter.

bluehenbillk

July 29th, 2007, 08:31 PM

Lionsrking

July 29th, 2007, 08:46 PM

7-4 = Play No More!!!

Don't shorten the regular seaon to allow crappy or mediocre teams into the tourney. How about conferences losing an autobid if they lose in the first round 5 years in a row, hmmm MEAC>>>>

A 7-4 season isn't mediocre or crappy, especially if you play multiple FBS schools and play in a tough league.

bluehenbillk

July 30th, 2007, 11:31 AM

A 7-4 season isn't mediocre or crappy, especially if you play multiple FBS schools and play in a tough league.

I'll give you if you're 7-4 with a 1-A loss, but if you go 7-4 against 1-AA (FCS) competition, you don't deserve to be playing in the postseason.

McTailGator

July 30th, 2007, 11:42 AM

I MUCH rather keeping it difficult to obtain. Keep16 team post season as it is.

Makes it worth something, AND if we limit teams, one day the NCAA might find enough sponsors to allow the teams playing some sort of guarantee the deeper they get into the playoffs.

More teams, make it just like the 30 Plus Post Season exhibition Bowl games now. Useless.

I would however like it if they pushed the playoffs back a week or even two. Playing the Championship game between Christmas and New Years would increase attendance IMO. No one is going to take off and spend money going to a game their team isn't involved in. I might make a vacation out of it however, if I know I'm not busy doing anything else however.

ALso, moving the game back a week or so shows the SWAC that we want them to participate, and or willing to meet them halfway.

We could accomidate the SWAC in other ways too, by allowing them to start a week earlier than the rest of the NCAA to get some of those classics out of the way.

Also, it would allow FCS schools who want a 12th game (like McNeese), to be able to schedule it to help their bottom lines.

lizrdgizrd

July 30th, 2007, 11:52 AM

dump the AQ's altogether xnodx

I'm in favor of getting rid of the AQs too. Why let a 6-5 team who managed to win a conference in the playoffs and leave out better 7-4 teams who have played tougher competition? Generally speaking, if you win your conference and have a record of 8-3 or better, you're likely to be selected anyway (notable exception is the PFL).

McTailGator

July 30th, 2007, 11:54 AM

dump the AQ's altogether xnodx

NO, we can not dump the AQ's.

You have got to give your team something to look forward to if they win their conference other than some old plauqe.

Using that lodgic, the NCAA might also lock out the Conference champs from the Gateway, BigSky, SLC, Southern, and so on from the NCAA Basketball tourney. Do we want that? Don't think so.

However, someone mentioned a conference losing an AQ if they don't have a team that can win one playoff game over a 5 year period. Hmmm, that sounds interesting. I'd like to explore that.

DetroitFlyer

July 30th, 2007, 12:04 PM

Suffice it to say that I disagree 100% with the article as written. Classic "old guard" argument. FCS as a whole would be better served if all conferences that qualify for an automatic bid receive one. Playoff buzz in towns like Albany, Dayton, San Diego, only makes FCS more interesting to a wider and potentially national audience. How many fans in Dayton, OH, Des Moine, IA, or Loretto, PA have any idea who won last year's FCS Championship? More importantly, why the heck would they even care? A handful at best might have a clue. If teams from the NEC or PFL were in the playoffs each season, a few more would know and care. Limiting the field to the Old Guard 16 as I like to call it, is a great way to further isolate FCS outside of a handful of FCS power conferences and schools. Zero downside with expansion people. Guess what, a Champion still gets crowned on the field. Keep excluding teams and conferences, and confusing bowl games like the Gridiron Classic will keep popping up and contributing to the FCS reputation of being small time football.

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 12:09 PM

Football is not hockey. Football is not basketball. Football is not women's lacrosse. It's different
xnodx something I've been preaching for years tim. I don't care what any other sport does... it aint football.

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 12:10 PM

Is it really going to be watered down if 8 more teams are added to the playoffs?
In a word... YES. 7-4 teams would make it every year, not just as rare exceptions.

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 12:12 PM

A 7-4 season isn't mediocre...
It sure is in my book. xtwocentsx

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 12:16 PM

Limiting the field to the Old Guard 16 as I like to call it...
Yeah, we know what you like to call it. xrolleyesx You've never once over months and months, posts and posts ever come up with an answer to why if it's so 'Old Guard' how have MANY teams been able to participate in the playoffs without being in an autobid conference. xcoffeex xreadx

Hansel

July 30th, 2007, 12:21 PM

NO, we can not dump the AQ's.

You have got to give your team something to look forward to if they win their conference other than some old plauqe.

Using that lodgic, the NCAA might also lock out the Conference champs from the Gateway, BigSky, SLC, Southern, and so on from the NCAA Basketball tourney. Do we want that? Don't think so.

However, someone mentioned a conference losing an AQ if they don't have a team that can win one playoff game over a 5 year period. Hmmm, that sounds interesting. I'd like to explore that.

if you win your conference but lay an egg in non-conf you don't deserve a playoff bid- the whole season should count, if you win your conf and do well in non-conf you have nothing to worry about

PS the NCAA tourney still has room for 30+ at large teams, if they were that many slots open for the FCS playoffs I wouldn't be against the AQ

JMU2K_DukeDawg

July 30th, 2007, 02:02 PM

The basic crux of the matter is that it is unfair to exclude qualifying conferences from autobids, but equally unfair, if not more so, to create "bye" weeks for the best teams in FCS. They already have a huge homefield advantage through the current seeding system.

Simply put, until the Ivies, the SWAC, etc. all compete, add in those schools waiting for the end of their transitions, finally it will be time to talk about possible expansion. D-I FCS is not big enough for more than 16 now. "Bye" weeks simply should not be an option IMO, so 32 is the next field, and that involves lengthening the post season or shortening the regular season. Neither are good options IMO.

Come back in another 10 years and we'll see how the landscape has changed then... Old Guard... funny. 1. Make a good schedule 2. Win that schedule 3. complete steps 1 & 2 and you might find your team with the opportunity for a championship. This is true throughout all conferences. It is not the "Old Guard" schools' fault for success and resources spent on football.

My final suggestion - make the number of scholarships uniform across ALL FCS. Maybe your "new guard" will improve a little quicker that way. xwhistlex

I just get tired of people comparing apples to oranges and calling it all the same division. xcoffeex

OL FU

July 30th, 2007, 02:36 PM

If the playoffs expand won't the NC have to be on Christmas dayxrotatehx

DetroitFlyer

July 30th, 2007, 03:03 PM

Come on now, the NCAA has determined the rules for fielding an FCS football team. Not the individual schools, not the individual conferences, the NCAA! It is absolutely unreal that on one hand the NCAA can say that you meet all of the obligations of being an FCS team, but on the other hand exclude a team or conference because in a subjective manner the old guard does not think you measure up. Frankly, it is laughable! I might also add that no where in the NCAA rule book does it say that a conference must "earn" a specific number of SUBJECTIVE at large bids before an autobid is awarded.... The entire process is currently designed to protect the FCS establishment while making it VERY difficult for anyone else to participate. Here is the bottom line. If your conference meets all of the rules for being an FCS conference as determined by the NCAA, and your conference meets all of the rules for an automatic bid for your champion to the NCAA playoffs, the NCAA should award the autobid. Why is this so complicated? If the NCAA disagrees with this premise, CHANGE THE RULES! Frankly, I am amazed that the NEC has not sued the NCAA.... Yet. FCS does not contain "Apples and Oranges". FCS contains only programs that meet the NCAA's requirements for being an FCS team. Unfortunately, the NCAA chooses to impose a subjective aura over FCS relative to playoff access that effectively circumvents the requirements they have established for FCS teams. Unreal! Apples and Oranges, please...!

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 03:09 PM

You've never once over months and months, posts and posts ever come up with an answer to why if it's so 'Old Guard' how have MANY teams been able to participate in the playoffs without being in an autobid conference. xcoffeex xreadx
I'll keep bumping this for you Flyer if you want.

UAalum72

July 30th, 2007, 03:12 PM

1. Make a good schedule 2. Win that schedule 3. complete steps 1 & 2 and you might find your team with the opportunity for a championship. This is true throughout all conferences. It is not the "Old Guard" schools' fault for success and resources spent on football.
When was the last time the OVC and the MEAC accomplished step 2? (I give no credit for step 1 without step 2) How much longer does that allow them to keep their autobid?

And needing to be awarded an at-large bid is not an equal opportunity to an auto-bid.

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 03:16 PM

When was the last time the OVC and the MEAC accomplished step 2? (I give no credit for step 1 without step 2) How much longer does that allow them to keep their autobid?
As long as half the field is reserved for autos and nobody deemed more worthy applies for one.

HensRock

July 30th, 2007, 03:19 PM

The NCAA mandates that a school must have 7 wins against DI teams to qualify for the playoffs.

FALSE

HensRock

July 30th, 2007, 03:24 PM

Nearly half of the 120 FBS teams make the post season.

Actually it's more than half. Considering that in a 12-games season even a 6-6 record will get an FBS team a bowl invitation. I think there are about 31 Bowls last time I bothered to look. That's 62 teams out of 119.

Is the FBS regular season meaningless?

Arguably, yes.
Say you follow a FBS powerhouse like Miami, Florida, Texas, USC, Michigan, etc. On the 5th game of the season, your team picks up their 2nd loss. Essentially: SEASON OVER. Many time even a first loss is curtains.

lizrdgizrd

July 30th, 2007, 03:35 PM

APP91

July 30th, 2007, 03:55 PM

I'll give you if you're 7-4 with a 1-A loss, but if you go 7-4 against 1-AA (FCS) competition, you don't deserve to be playing in the postseason.

I disagree with this sentiment as this is what causes all the scheduling issues. As it is now, all AD's do is to schedule themselves into the playoffs. This would promote more of the top level FCS teams scheduling each other for marquee games. Otherwise everyone loads up on the sisters of the poor and the regular season OOC games are horrible.

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 04:13 PM

As it is now, all AD's do is to schedule themselves into the playoffs. This would promote more of the top level FCS teams scheduling each other for marquee games. Otherwise everyone loads up on the sisters of the poor and the regular season OOC games are horrible.
Agreed only to a point. There are a lot of patsy games, but there are good OOC games this year between teams hoping to make the playoffs:

Portland State vs. McNeese
NAU vs. AppSt
Coastal vs. GSU
Coastal vs. Furman
Coastal vs. JMU
Hofstra vs. Furman
UMass vs. Colgate
UNI vs. SDSU
YSU vs. SDSU
WIU vs. SDSU
WUI vs. NDSU
IllSt vs. NDSU
IllSt vs. EIU
SIU vs. Hampton
NDSU vs. SHSU
NDSU vs. SFA
UCD vs. Portland State
UCD vs EWU
Cal Poly vs. Texas State
Lehigh vs. Villanova
Holy Cross vs. UMass
GSU vs. SDSU

I know UD has a home and home with Furman coming up and a three game set with South Dakota State. The reality of it is, making the playoffs and not losing money are the two biggest concerns for an AD. For most teams that means a I-A game, a lower division home game and maybe one game against a ranked I-AA opponent. Some teams HAVE to schedule multiple ranked I-AA opponents if they want to make the playoffs because they may not face any in conference (see Coastal). A team in the Gateway and CAA may face 3-4-5 ranked opponents in conference. Why would you want to face two more before the playoffs start? xtwocentsx

Lionsrking

July 30th, 2007, 04:23 PM

I'll give you if you're 7-4 with a 1-A loss, but if you go 7-4 against 1-AA (FCS) competition, you don't deserve to be playing in the postseason.

I disagree. 7-4 against 1-AA competition does merit post-season consideration in my opinion and I don't believe expanding the playoffs waters anything down. If anything, it makes it more interesting and makes the ENTIRE season mean more for more teams.

GreatAppSt

July 30th, 2007, 04:42 PM

16 TEAMS and two weeks before semi and champ game. Let's bite into the bowls$$$$xthumbsupx

walliver

July 30th, 2007, 04:52 PM

A 24 team field is probably inevitable if the NEC and Big South get bids. 32 is just way too many. The top eight teams, who would preferably be conference champions, should get a first round bye. Push the playoffs back a week and play the championship during "bowl season". Ratings probably wouldn't be any worse, and the FCS Championship couldn't be anymore ignored than it currently is. In fact, casual fans might turn on the TV looking for a bowl game and accidentally watch the FCS Championship.

UAalum72

July 30th, 2007, 05:39 PM

As long as half the field is reserved for autos and nobody deemed more worthy applies for one.
But why shouldn't they be required to do the same as non-autobid leagues? How 'worthy' can they be if they don't have good OOC wins and they don't have playoff wins? Maybe the committee that deems them so 'worthy' is WRONG.

JALMOND

July 30th, 2007, 08:55 PM

Scheduling don't mean diddly. Last year Portland State scheduled three FBS teams. All three went to post season bowls and PSU went 1-2 against them. PSU tied for second in their conference and met the necessary 7 win plateau. Also, we finished #10 in the final RPI. We had 2 losses against FCS teams, yet we ended up being passed over. Try as you might, you cannot schedule your way into the playoffs, as you do not know which way the committee will go.

Adding more conference champions into the playoffs will take spots from those teams more deserving to go, unless the playoffs are expanded to accomodate the new AQ's. If PSU could not get in last year when there were 8 AQ's, imagine how difficult it would be to get in with 10-12 AQ's.

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 09:00 PM

But why shouldn't they be required to do the same as non-autobid leagues? How 'worthy' can they be if they don't have good OOC wins and they don't have playoff wins? Maybe the committee that deems them so 'worthy' is WRONG.
I think you're confusing with me calling them worthy or the most worthy of the conferences bidding. The OVC nor MEAC have done anything in the last five years that would indicate they are really auto worthy, but neither has anyone else who has applied for an auto. The rules are there that half the field has to be auto if at least that many apply. AFAIK the NEC is the only other conference to apply and they've only applied once or twice.

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 09:03 PM

We had 2 losses against FCS teams, yet we ended up being passed over. Try as you might, you cannot schedule your way into the playoffs, as you do not know which way the committee will go.
Bologna. EVERYONE here told you that you could kiss the playoffs goodbye last year before the season even started. You schedule that many paydays, the Committee will not take sympathy on you, nor should they IMO. Too many paydays or too many patsies = no playoffs. The formula is nowhere near as hard as you make it sound. Here's what PSU should have for their three OOC games...

#1 - Oregon or Oregon State
#2 - Great West team
#3 - Somebody that will provide you with a sure win

JALMOND

July 30th, 2007, 09:36 PM

Bologna. EVERYONE here told you that you could kiss the playoffs goodbye last year before the season even started. You schedule that many paydays, the Committee will not take sympathy on you, nor should they IMO. Too many paydays or too many patsies = no playoffs. The formula is nowhere near as hard as you make it sound. Here's what PSU should have for their three OOC games...

#1 - Oregon or Oregon State
#2 - Great West team
#3 - Somebody that will provide you with a sure win

Be careful. Are you saying we need to "water down" our schedule in order to have any hope for making the playoffs? Are you dismissing teams from any chance of making the playoffs before the season even begins (especially those that never have been in the playoffs before)? Do we need to conform to a norm established by those that "make" the playoffs every year? Do we need to hold to a "status quo"? Do we really need to schedule like the "traditional" powers do? Are you excluding us from any shot at the postseason if we make a challenging schedule?

I guess there really is no difference between getting a home win against Johnson C Smith and going on the road to beat New Mexico. This year, our three OOC games are at McNeese, home against Davis, and at San Diego State. Are we excluded because we have not scheduled a patsy, like you?

Just keep the same 16 teams in year after year. The rest of us can ooh and aah and think how wonderful it would be some day.

89Hen

July 30th, 2007, 10:42 PM

Be careful. Are you saying we need to "water down" our schedule in order to have any hope for making the playoffs? Are you dismissing teams from any chance of making the playoffs before the season even begins (especially those that never have been in the playoffs before)? Do we need to conform to a norm established by those that "make" the playoffs every year? Do we need to hold to a "status quo"? Do we really need to schedule like the "traditional" powers do? Are you excluding us from any shot at the postseason if we make a challenging schedule?

I guess there really is no difference between getting a home win against Johnson C Smith and going on the road to beat New Mexico. This year, our three OOC games are at McNeese, home against Davis, and at San Diego State. Are we excluded because we have not scheduled a patsy, like you?

Just keep the same 16 teams in year after year. The rest of us can ooh and aah and think how wonderful it would be some day.
xrolleyesx I gave you a formula that WORKS. If you'd rather your athletic department whore your football team out to make money, go for it. If you'd like to see your team have a legit shot at the playoffs, follow my formula.

Your schedule this year is fine as long as you can win 2 of three OOC and go 8-3... you'll be a lock for the playoffs.

As for the comment about the same 16 teams... xlolx you're sounding like Detroit Flyer who ALSO ignores that fact that there have been a plethora of teams in the playoffs. In the last five years I count over 40 different teams...

New Hampshire
Richmond
William & Mary
Delaware
James Madison
Northeastern
Maine
Villanova
Massachusetts
Colgate
Lafayette
Lehigh
Fordham
Youngstown State
Illinois State
Northern Iowa
Southern Illinois
Western Kentucky
Western Illinois
Eastern Washington
Montana
Northern Arizona
Montana State
Cal Poly
Texas State
Northwestern State
Nicholls State
Sam Houston State
McNeese State
Appalachian State
Georgia Southern
Furman
Wofford
Coastal Carolina
Hampton
Bethune-Cookman
N.C. A&T
Eastern Illinois
Jacksonville State
Murray State
Florida Atlantic

Lionsrking

July 30th, 2007, 11:19 PM

It sure is in my book. xtwocentsx

We disagree.

bluehenbillk

July 31st, 2007, 06:47 AM

I disagree. 7-4 against 1-AA competition does merit post-season consideration in my opinion and I don't believe expanding the playoffs waters anything down. If anything, it makes it more interesting and makes the ENTIRE season mean more for more teams.

I don't agree at all. If you're going to be 7-4 and argue for a playoff spot you better have a couple of real quality wins & no bad losses to get a sniff of consideration in my book. Again 7-4 is a 63-64 win percentage, that's nothing outstanding. In 1-A it gets you to a bowl game in Boise.

UMassive

July 31st, 2007, 06:58 AM

xrolleyesx
As for the comment about the same 16 teams... xlolx you're sounding like Detroit Flyer who ALSO ignores that fact that there have been a plethora of teams in the playoffs. In the last five years I count over 40 different teams...

New Hampshire
Richmond
William & Mary
Delaware
James Madison
Northeastern
Maine
Villanova
Massachusetts
Colgate
Lafayette
Lehigh
Fordham
Youngstown State
Illinois State
Northern Iowa
Southern Illinois
Western Kentucky
Western Illinois
Eastern Washington
Montana
Northern Arizona
Montana State
Cal Poly
Texas State
Northwestern State
Nicholls State
Sam Houston State
McNeese State
Appalachian State
Georgia Southern
Furman
Wofford
Coastal Carolina
Hampton
Bethune-Cookman
N.C. A&T
Eastern Illinois
Jacksonville State
Murray State
Florida Atlantic

No question which conference is deepest in competiton after seeing this list. 9 different teams in five years in the CAA. Better come to play every Saturday.

aceinthehole

July 31st, 2007, 08:14 AM

I think you're confusing with me calling them worthy or the most worthy of the conferences bidding. The OVC nor MEAC have done anything in the last five years that would indicate they are really auto worthy, but neither has anyone else who has applied for an auto. The rules are there that half the field has to be auto if at least that many apply. AFAIK the NEC is the only other conference to apply and they've only applied once or twice.

The article was way off base. The fact is some FCS coaches have gone on record against the premise of this article and don't agree that that expansion or additional AQs will "weaken" the playoffs. IMO too many posters on this board have a fear of change and a satisfication with the status quo. Luckily, some others see the opportunities to strenghten FCS football. I won't get into this debate again, becasue my thoughts on the issue are clear.

But friend, (and I do think you have been very understanding of many of the NEC issues), how can you make a comment like "only once or twice" ? Come on, how many other eligible conference have EVER been denied an AQ by the NCAA? That's a cheap shot xsmhx

UAalum72

July 31st, 2007, 08:15 AM

The OVC nor MEAC have done anything in the last five years that would indicate they are really auto worthy, but neither has anyone else who has applied for an auto. The rules are there that half the field has to be auto if at least that many apply. AFAIK the NEC is the only other conference to apply and they've only applied once or twice.
The NEC didn't have six teams until 1998 so they weren't even eligible to apply until 2000, and didn't allow even need-based athletic aid until about 2002. So for now, if there are three 'unworthy' conferences applying for two required autobids, why not just rotate them until somebody wins one? Maybe the committee could be praised for getting ahead of the curve by recognizing the growth of the NEC, instead of being strangled by the dead hand of the past?

henfan

July 31st, 2007, 08:53 AM

Those who have designs for FCS post-season expansion have yet to explain how it can be accomplished given current NCAA time constraints. Unless the FCS as a whole is willing to shorten the regular season to 10 games (and, thus, sacrifice much-needed revenues) or eliminate off weeks during 11 game seasons, it'll be difficult to expand beyond a 16-team/4-round playoff.

Any plan to offer first round byes will undoubtedly be met with resistance. Post-season byes, especially in FB, provide tremendous competitive advantages to the teams awarded them. Would enough FCS schools be willing to go that route?

The least likely of all scenarios involves the NCAA, the BCS, ESPN & the major networks allowing the FCS playoffs to enchroach upon existing bowl season media agreements. Anyone who thinks that could happen is hopelessly naive.

Truthfully, I don't have an answer. I think we have a decent system now but, I'd agree, changes will have to occur simply because of the number of teams coming into the FCS. So what's the solution?

Though it is far from perfect and less desirable than the current system, the NCAA should consider eliminating all conference auto-bids. A transparent (i.e.- published!) formula would be employed to select 16 teams. Win/loss record, number of wins vs. D-I competition and strength of schedule would be factored in. To encourage teams to schedule competitive out-of-conference games and to promote to movement of teams into stronger conferences, there would be no limit to the number of teams selected from any one conference. Again, though not perfect, at least this method would attempt to award teams for on-the-field performance, as opposed to handing out bouquets simply because X team won a comparatively weak conference title.

lizrdgizrd

July 31st, 2007, 09:43 AM

If you're stuck on having AQs then I have no problem with the committee deciding to take away an AQ from a conference that hasn't performed well in the playoffs and give a new bunch a chance.

89Hen

July 31st, 2007, 10:59 AM

But friend, (and I do think you have been very understanding of many of the NEC issues), how can you make a comment like "only once or twice" ? Come on, how many other eligible conference have EVER been denied an AQ by the NCAA? That's a cheap shot xsmhx
Perhaps you misunderstood my point, which was not a cheap shot at the NEC, it was just to show that the auto bids have only been an issue once or twice in the history of I-AA. Some would like people to believe that this is and has been a big problem. It's just not true. The NEC has been making strides to improve their scheduling and I've never said they may not displace the MEAC or OVC at some point if things continue. However, AFAIK the NEC has not been ranked higher than any of the 8 conference who did receive autobids when the NEC has applied for one. That was the point.

89Hen

July 31st, 2007, 11:01 AM

So for now, if there are three 'unworthy' conferences applying for two required autobids, why not just rotate them until somebody wins one? Maybe the committee could be praised for getting ahead of the curve by recognizing the growth of the NEC, instead of being strangled by the dead hand of the past?
Get yourselves ranked higher and you have a case. As the lowest ranked of the three, you don't really have much ground on which to stand IMO.

BTW, I hope you know I am pulling for the NEC to continue to improve. xthumbsupx

bluehenbillk

July 31st, 2007, 11:12 AM

Unless the FCS as a whole is willing to shorten the regular season to 10 games (and, thus, sacrifice much-needed revenues) or eliminate off weeks during 11 game seasons, it'll be difficult to expand beyond a 16-team/4-round playoff.

I've never been a fan of the bye week anyway so playing 11 in a row is no sweat off my brow.

HensRock

July 31st, 2007, 11:35 AM

The least likely of all scenarios involves the NCAA, the BCS, ESPN & the major networks allowing the FCS playoffs to enchroach upon existing bowl season media agreements. Anyone who thinks that could happen is hopelessly naive.

Call me naive, but doesn't FBS add a few bowl games every year, year after year? So what's wrong with adding an FCS Championship game? It's got to be better than the Whothehellcares.com bowl.

The bottom line is, if the networks can make money at it, it'll work. I would think the average FB fan would much rather watch the FCS championship game than some bottom-of-the-barrel bowl game - ESPECIALLY IF IT WERE PROPERLY PROMOTED.

henfan

July 31st, 2007, 11:48 AM

Call me naive, but doesn't FBS add a few bowl games every year, year after year? So what's wrong with adding an FCS Championship game? It's got to be better than the Whothehellcares.com bowl.

I don't disagree that FCS playoff & championship games are typically more entertaining/competitive/relevant than the lower tier bowls, but that isn't the point, unfortunately.

The BCS has an apparent lock on the TV deals that all but dictate when the NCAA can hold the FCS championship. The BCS will not allow our games to run into their Bowl season, unless we aspire to not having our championship game televised nationally. From everything I've ever read about playoff expansion, the idea of competiting with bowls is a non-starter, plain and simple.

So where do we go from there?

jbuggASU

July 31st, 2007, 11:59 AM

An 11 game season and 4 game playoff schedule is plenty. You play too many and the level of game play suffers..

bluehenbillk

July 31st, 2007, 12:07 PM

I believe the FCS - 1-AA Championship Game doesn't get any better TV ratings than the FBS Bowl Games guys.

DetroitFlyer

July 31st, 2007, 12:20 PM

The FCS Championship game should be a bowl game. The average football fan will probably not even care that it is the Harry Baujan Bowl for example. He / she will just know that it is another bowl game to watch while visiting relatives in Alabama over Christmas. Maybe he/she will figure out that it is a championship game and that will just increase the interest a bit. Attaching the "bowl" title to the game pulls it away from Division II and more closely aligns the game with Division I football. I would venture that more casual fans are familar with the Division III championship, ( Amos Alonza Stagg Bowl ), than the FCS championship or the Division II championship.

89Hen

July 31st, 2007, 12:30 PM

Yeah, we know what you like to call it. xrolleyesx You've never once over months and months, posts and posts ever come up with an answer to why if it's so 'Old Guard' how have MANY teams been able to participate in the playoffs without being in an autobid conference. xcoffeex xreadx

I'll keep bumping this for you Flyer if you want.
Bumpty bump bump... Flyer?

henfan

July 31st, 2007, 02:50 PM

The FCS Championship game should be a bowl game. The average football fan will probably not even care that it is the Harry Baujan Bowl for example.

Unfortunately, what we call the FCS championship won't make one iota of difference. As suggested, the FCS TV ratings are already as good/bad as the lesser FBS bowls. How much more viewership could we possibly expect?

Schools don't compete at the FCS level to garner widespread national media attention. That's not even an expectation. If you want that sort of media coverage, it's going to cost your school tens of million$ more than what schools like Dayton and Delaware currently invest in athletics, as well as a major conference affiliation.

AndrewFU21

July 31st, 2007, 06:34 PM

First, I'll say that I don't have a huge problem with the way things are now. Of course, that's easy to say that when that system has worked out pretty well for my school recently.

Anyway, an ideal playoff would do both of these things, IMO.

1) Provide an outlet for all teams to have a chance at the championship. With the current system, this is debatable. When you have a team going undefeated and still being left out, like last year, that raises some questions. You can argue that teams from non-AQ conferences can reasonably qualify for the playoffs, as seen in Cal Poly and Coastal Carolina recently, but there is no doubt that giving AQs to some conferences and not others creates unfair advantages for some.

2) Determine the playoff field in an objective manner. I really, really don't want to see the AQs go away. You guys often complain about the decisions that the committee makes on selection day- well without the AQs, it becomes way more subjective and you are putting a lot more control in the hands of the committee. The AQs take a lot of subjectivity out of determining the field.

The AQ gives teams something to shoot for, that they know will get them into the playoffs. We need more of that, and requiring 7 Division I wins for an at-large bid is a good start. Also, you can say with good reason that any team in an AQ league had their chance at competing for the championship: win the conference title and you're in. So, the question seems to be whether or not FCS should go the way of most other NCAA sports, where every conference has an AQ. If you had a AQ from every conference, then you could say without question that every team had its due opportunity at the championship.

Also, from a fan's standpoint, AQ's make the regular season a lot more enjoyable for me. I ended up following the Patriot league and Southland races way more closely than I would have if the championship didn't decide a playoff bid. Look at the Lehigh/Lafayette games over the past few years. Sure, it has obvious importance to the two schools, but it becomes much more relevant regionally and nationally when there is a conference championship and a playoff birth on the line. Two years ago, Lafayette's win put Colgate into the playoffs and probably burst the bubble of a potential at-large team. These AQ's make the regular season a lot more fun for me, and I end up following more teams and conferences when I know there is a playoff spot on the line.

From a logistics standpoint, I'm not sure how you could work a larger tournament. I wish they would revoke the rule that there must be an equal number of at-large and AQ bids given out, because the goal is to be more inclusive without watering down the field too much. In the perfect world, you would have the SWAC and Ivy competing, and you might could have a workable 24 team tournament. With 14 conferences, you would have 14 AQ's and 10 at-larges, which is only two more than we have now.

Of course, the SWAC and Ivy aren't going to compete any time soon, and right now the number of at-larges must equal the number of AQs. As it stands, adding the NEC and Big South plus two at-larges gives you twenty teams. In that case, it would work in one of two ways: A) the top 12 get a bye and the other 8 play in the first round; B) the top four seeds get a bye for the first and second rounds, all the way to the quarterfinals. Neither is ideal, but I think the former option could work if it had to. To be honest, if this happened in the next 5 or so years, I don't think I would complain. With an extra round, you'd have to rework the calendar a bit, but other than that, it isn't all that different. All the eligible conferences would then have a place in the tournament, and there would be two more at-larges so that YSU 2005 and Wofford 2002 now make the field without letting too many 7-4 type teams in.