AFCA Calls for the GPI

[OL FU]

I found this on Ralph's blog. Interesting topic for conversation. Agree or disagree?

Bluehenbillk, where are you?

http://www.wiuathletics.com/release.sphp?id=2305

AFCA Calls for the GPI
Thursday, January 26 2006 @ 06:07 PM CST
Contributed by: ralph
Views: 16
Western Illinois head football coach Don Patterson, President of the I-AA Football Board of Directors, presented the following report at the American Football Coaches Association Kickoff Luncheon earlier this month in Dallas, Texas.

The Board of Directors for Division I-AA football met on Sunday, January 8, 2006. We continue to strive for active Board participation from all I-AA conferences, because then and only then will we speak with the true voice of I-AA football.

Most of our discussion related to the integrity of our playoff system. We feel strongly that seeding the top eight teams will reward the most deserving teams with a first round home game and allow for the fairest possible match-ups and home sites in later playoff rounds. The Gridiron Power Index remains as the most accurate predictor of playoff success, and we encourage the selection committee to utilize this valuable tool in finalizing the playoff field.

[Hansel]

GPI BABY!!!

[blukeys]

Seeding 8 teams is certainly a reasonable proposal. But don't think that either of these proposals will end the controversies around selections and/or seeding. Now teams from 7 thru 15 will all believe they should be in the top 8.

[Superneck]

A good read of where I-AA wants to go. 24 teams in post season eh? Should be interesting.

http://www.wiuathletics.com/release.sphp?id=2305

[Tod]

Seeding 8 teams is certainly a reasonable proposal. But don't think that either of these proposals will end the controversies around selections and/or seeding. Now teams from 7 thru 15 will all believe they should be in the top 8.

No joke, not messing with you, but why teams 7-15? Did you mean 9-16? By the last part of your last sentence, I would assume you meant 9-16. Keep in mind, it's beer night. :D :D :D :D

Today ends with a y.

[Hansel]

"Our ultimate goal is to expand our playoff structure to include 24 teams. Securing a playoff spot in I-AA football remains as the most difficult postseason playoff assignment in all of college football. We recognize that an expanded playoff field provides that many more student- athletes with a rich and rewarding experience that will last a lifetime. We also recognize that we must work diligently to eliminate any inconsistencies in game administration and allow nothing to detract from the dignity of the NCAA Championship. "

[Tod]

"Our ultimate goal is to expand our playoff structure to include 24 teams. Securing a playoff spot in I-AA football remains as the most difficult postseason playoff assignment in all of college football. We recognize that an expanded playoff field provides that many more student- athletes with a rich and rewarding experience that will last a lifetime. We also recognize that we must work diligently to eliminate any inconsistencies in game administration and allow nothing to detract from the dignity of the NCAA Championship. "

I like the thought, but right now I think this is the equivelent of letting in about 1/3 of the teams that even qualify. You could give some of the other conferences an auto-bid, but without the Ivy League and the SWAC, not to mention the mid-majors that just don't play the core of I-AA football, you are letting in too many teams.

Get the Ivies and the SWAC to participate, and let the Great West (especially), the NEC, Big South, etc. have an auto bid, and maybe, just maybe... I hate to say it, I just think at this point in I-AA it makes the playoffs too easy. It cheapens the playoffs.

[ASU Kep]

I like the thought, but right now I think this is the equivelent of letting in about 1/3 of the teams that even qualify. You could give some of the other conferences an auto-bid, but without the Ivy League and the SWAC, not to mention the mid-majors that just don't play the core of I-AA football, you are letting in too many teams.

Get the Ivies and the SWAC to participate, and let the Great West (especially), the NEC, Big South, etc. have an auto bid, and maybe, just maybe... I hate to say it, I just think at this point in I-AA it makes the playoffs too easy. It cheapens the playoffs.

Adding 8 more teams will certainly not make it any easier to WIN the I-AA National Championship. The best 16 teams as usual get in and have to earn it on the field. IMHO, making it a field of 24 would be a great idea, as there are usually several teams left out that could make waves and advance at least a round or two. Besides, a 24 field would allow for some pretty incredible Cinderella stories (because, as we all know, YSU would of went 5/5 this year). :cool: :p

[bluehenbillk]

If I said I was TOTALLY against this idea, it would be a monumental understatement. I've said for YEARS that the mission of the GPI is a load of crap & it was to model itself after the worst creation in the history of sports, the BCS. The difference is that it doesn't get teams into bowl games or the #1 & #2 teams (which everyone knows only works about 1 out of 5 years), instead of the 1-AA playoff system.

What's next? Do we invite 24 or more teams & then use the GPI as a toal BCS model & scrap the playoff system & just play the top 2 GPI teams off like the BCS?

I have serious questions as to if any of this will ever happen, but I feel like a Czech in the summer of 1938 this morning. Call me chicken little, but I've said for years the GPI was a load of crap & its creators had bigger plans for it & today I'm proven right.

I'll send WIU an e-mail.

P.S. Tell the Youngstown guys how accurate the GPI is.

[Cocky]

Why not seed all 16? That would be the most fair method and would create the most posting on AGS.

[GannonFan]

I like the idea of eventually going to the 24 team format, and giving an auto-bid to any conference that qualifies - I know this will let in the mid majors, but I don't see the harm in 2 bids from there in a 24 team format. Heck, once the Great West becomes fully IAA (instead of transitional - on a side note, the NCAA should really reevaluate this 5 year transition rule as it's much too long - 3 would be more than adequate) they should have an auto bid no question, but I think if you were able to expand the playoffs to 20 that would be enough - however, a 20 team tournament doesn't work as well as a 24 so I see no real harm in putting in 2 mids that have no chance of winning - it keeps them happy and, like I said, you didn't really need the playoffs that big anyway except for structure.

I echoed BHBK's point on gohens so I won't go into detail here. Even in the statement about the GPI the original idea of the GPI, showing who should in the playoffs and ideally, who should be the 16th team versus the 17th team, has started to fade in importance to other considerations. Now this statement is saying the GPI is the best indicator of playoff success (Ralph, is this true? Has there been a review of where the GPI has teams prior to the playoffs and how they playoffs ultimately play out? How often does the better GPI team win over a lesser GPI team in the playoffs? How often does the regular season GPI #1 win the playoffs?) Before this statement I never heard the GPI being used as a playoff success indicator. With these statements, would we now use the GPI for seeding as well? I agree with BHBK, where do we stop on this path of emulating the BCS as we appear to be on the road already? Should I start getting ready for bowl games somewhere in the future?

[GannonFan]

Why not seed all 16? That would be the most fair method and would create the most posting on AGS.

Remember, seeding is not the panacea a lot of people think it is - back when the playoffs were seeded 1 through 16 there were plenty of disagreements over where teams should be and there were a lot of questions whether the seedings reflected where teams ranked or if other considerations were in place. I don't mind seeding all 16, but it won't be much better than where we are now and would be far from being considered fair - most fair? Maybe, but that's only compared to a lot of other questionable ways to make pairings.

[OL FU]

I don't think I would agree with using the GPI as the only measurement to get in the playoffs. But it does seem to be a useful tool to use as a measurement especially when considering the last few at large bids. This year is a case in point (and I am not trying to tee off any Lafayette fans). If the GPI would have been used there would not have been a significant question as to whether it would have been YSU or Lafayette. I am not a big fan of power rankings based on statistics either (and have debated many on here as to their validity). But at the same time, I realize there is not a good measurement of teams that do not play each other without the use of such measurements. How do we know how EWU stackes up against Furman or Delaware or Colgate. We have the playoffs to conclude the argument, but objectivity on who gets in might be better than subjectivity.

I made the argument above, and now will have to decide if I really agree with it :)

[Hansel]

I don't think I would agree with using the GPI as the only measurement to get in the playoffs. But it does seem to be a useful tool to use as a measurement especially when considering the last few at large bids. This year is a case in point (and I am not trying to tee off any Lafayette fans). If the GPI would have been used there would not have been a significant question as to whether it would have been YSU or Lafayette. I am not a big fan of power rankings based on statistics either (and have debated many on here as to their validity). But at the same time, I realize there is not a good measurement of teams that do not play each other without the use of such measurements. How do we know how EWU stackes up against Furman or Delaware or Colgate. We have the playoffs to conclude the argument, but objectivity on who gets in might be better than subjectivity.

I made the argument above, and now will have to decide if I really agree with it :)
The teams that have been "screwed" (Wofford, Lehigh, Poly and YSU) over the last four years would have all been in using the GPI.

[GannonFan]

The teams that have been "screwed" (Wofford, Lehigh, Poly and YSU) over the last four years would have all been in using the GPI.

Hey, most of them would've been in if any of us were on the selection committee. Maybe we just don't have the right people making the decisions?

[OL FU]

I understand the desire to play a 24 team playoff. But really when is it too many games? ASU and UNI almost played as many games as regular season NFL. The playoffs are exciting times and we love it, if we didn't we would not be on AGS, but isn't 15 and even some years possibly a 16 game season enough. And don't say one more game isn't that big of difference, because the answer to that is the one game after that isn't that big of difference either.

[OL FU]

The teams that have been "screwed" (Wofford, Lehigh, Poly and YSU) over the last four years would have all been in using the GPI.

And that is why I made the argument. I am slowly convincing myself. It think it is a little different when the teams are ranked close, but YSU and LU were a long way apart. That one seemed pretty clear.

[kardplayer]

I wouldn't get upset as to the "extra" game here. The odds of a team actually playing a fifth game is pretty slim, as long as it stays at 24 teams and not 32.

If you look back at playoff history, assume that the teams that hosted first round games would have "byes" in the first week. Pre-regionalization/seeding 4 this was certainly true, less so after regionalization.

Pre-regionalization, I don't believe anyone won 3 straight road games to make the final.

Post-regionalization, I know James Madison did it, but its certainly possible that if byes were at stake, they may have gotten one.

Round 1 (teams 9-24) - 8 teams done after 1 game
Round 2 (teams 1-8, plus Round 1 winners) - 8 teams playing first game, 8 teams playing second game

The last few years, home teams in the first round games have been 5-3 or 6-2. Assuming 6-2 for the home teams in Round 2:
Round 3 (Qtrs) - 6 teams playing second game (4 of them at home), 2 playing third game

In the Quarterfinals, we've had road teams go anywhere from 2-2 to 0-4 the last few years, although since 1992, only 2 times has any team won the first round and quarters on the road (Fla A&M in 1999 and JMU is 2004):
Round 4 semifinals - 3-4 teams playing third game, 0-1 playing fourth game

If you assume that each team in the semi's has a 50/50 chance of advancing (and since the last time both home teams advanced was 1999, we can assume that), there is that slim possibility that a team will have to play a fifth game, but that might happen to 1 team every 5-6 years or so, at best.

Frankly, that doesn't seem like much to worry about to me.

[OL FU]

I wouldn't get upset as to the "extra" game here. The odds of a team actually playing a fifth game is pretty slim, as long as it stays at 24 teams and not 32.

If you look back at playoff history, assume that the teams that hosted first round games would have "byes" in the first week. Pre-regionalization/seeding 4 this was certainly true, less so after regionalization.

Pre-regionalization, I don't believe anyone won 3 straight road games to make the final.

Post-regionalization, I know James Madison did it, but its certainly possible that if byes were at stake, they may have gotten one.

Round 1 (teams 9-24) - 8 teams done after 1 game
Round 2 (teams 1-8, plus Round 1 winners) - 8 teams playing first game, 8 teams playing second game

The last few years, home teams in the first round games have been 5-3 or 6-2. Assuming 6-2 for the home teams in Round 2:
Round 3 (Qtrs) - 6 teams playing second game (4 of them at home), 2 playing third game

In the Quarterfinals, we've had road teams go anywhere from 2-2 to 0-4 the last few years, although since 1992, only 2 times has any team won the first round and quarters on the road (Fla A&M in 1999 and JMU is 2004):
Round 4 semifinals - 3-4 teams playing third game, 0-1 playing fourth game

If you assume that each team in the semi's has a 50/50 chance of advancing (and since the last time both home teams advanced was 1999, we can assume that), there is that slim possibility that a team will have to play a fifth game, but that might happen to 1 team every 5-6 years or so, at best.

Frankly, that doesn't seem like much to worry about to me.

Ok, I'll buy that but I think playoffs are like taxes. It is easier for the gov to increase than decrease. How long do you think it would only be 24?

[blueballs]

After what has happened to GSU the last two years in the brackets I can't think of any GSU fan who would oppose that proposal.

[AppGuy04]

After what has happened to GSU the last two years in the brackets I can't think of any GSU fan who would oppose that proposal.

still gotta win em

[GannonFan]

Ok, I'll buy that but I think playoffs are like taxes. It is easier for the gov to increase than decrease. How long do you think it would only be 24?

I think it'd be 24 for quite some time. Realistically, even if you gave a bid to all three mid major conferences (may have to revisit that but for argument's sake let's go with that) that's 19 teams versus the 16 we have now. Say that the Great West gets a bid (which they should) and the Big South finds another team to qualify for a bid. That's 21 teams in the playoffs then. Right now, with 16 teams, usually there is only 1, maybe 2 teams who have a legitimate gripe about not making the playoffs. Say that both of those teams make it and you still have only filled 23 of the 24 spots (and keep in mind we're still including 3 mid major spots as autos). Even with the additional Great West teams becoming eligible (for at larges after the auto bid) that's still not all that crowded. Like I said, and argument could be made that just going to 20 teams would suffice - I don't think going to 24 would lead to any increases beyond that - I think filling 24 would be tough enough - heck, it be more than enough even if the SWAC and Ivy came on board.

[OL FU]

I think it'd be 24 for quite some time. Realistically, even if you gave a bid to all three mid major conferences (may have to revisit that but for argument's sake let's go with that) that's 19 teams versus the 16 we have now. Say that the Great West gets a bid (which they should) and the Big South finds another team to qualify for a bid. That's 21 teams in the playoffs then. Right now, with 16 teams, usually there is only 1, maybe 2 teams who have a legitimate gripe about not making the playoffs. Say that both of those teams make it and you still have only filled 23 of the 24 spots (and keep in mind we're still including 3 mid major spots as autos). Even with the additional Great West teams becoming eligible (for at larges after the auto bid) that's still not all that crowded. Like I said, and argument could be made that just going to 20 teams would suffice - I don't think going to 24 would lead to any increases beyond that - I think filling 24 would be tough enough - heck, it be more than enough even if the SWAC and Ivy came on board.

It seems that this expansion would forever kill eny chances of Ivy or SWAC participation. I see all the arguments and I think the top 25% of Non-midmajor I-AA is very competitive. (and some mid majors stepping up). So I under stand the reason people want it. I understand that increase participation is good. I can just see at some point other schools saying wait a minute. We are have a five week football playoff. :eek: So football starts the first of September and ends on Christmas :eek: Maybe we ought to rethink our participation.

I am probably over reacting.

[AppGuy04]

It seems that this expansion would forever kill eny chances of Ivy or SWAC participation. I see all the arguments and I think the top 25% of Non-midmajor I-AA is very competitive. (and some mid majors stepping up). So I under stand the reason people want it. I understand that increase participation is good. I can just see at some point other schools saying wait a minute. We are have a five week football playoff. :eek: So football starts the first of September and ends on Christmas :eek: Maybe we ought to rethink our participation.

I am probably over reacting.

unless you reduce the regular season, its not worth it, and if you do that, then the SWAC is absolutely out

[blukeys]

No joke, not messing with you, but why teams 7-15? Did you mean 9-16? By the last part of your last sentence, I would assume you meant 9-16. Keep in mind, it's beer night. :D :D :D :D

Today ends with a y.


No I really meant to say that at least 4 or 5 teams would argue that they should have been seeded in the top 8. But you are probably right that all 8 teams not seeded would make a case that they should have been team number 8.

[AppGuy04]

No I really meant to say that at least 4 or 5 teams would argue that they should have been seeded in the top 8. But you are probably right that all 8 teams not seeded would make a case that they should have been team number 8.

but teams in the middle of the pack don't have that much seperation, so its not really that big a deal in my eyes, hell, you could draw one out of a hat and it wouldn't matter

[OL FU]

If I said I was TOTALLY against this idea, it would be a monumental understatement. I've said for YEARS that the mission of the GPI is a load of crap & it was to model itself after the worst creation in the history of sports, the BCS. The difference is that it doesn't get teams into bowl games or the #1 & #2 teams (which everyone knows only works about 1 out of 5 years), instead of the 1-AA playoff system.

What's next? Do we invite 24 or more teams & then use the GPI as a toal BCS model & scrap the playoff system & just play the top 2 GPI teams off like the BCS?

I have serious questions as to if any of this will ever happen, but I feel like a Czech in the summer of 1938 this morning. Call me chicken little, but I've said for years the GPI was a load of crap & its creators had bigger plans for it & today I'm proven right.


I'll send WIU an e-mail.

P.S. Tell the Youngstown guys how accurate the GPI is.

Bill, haven't seen you around in a while. Happy to "read" you again:) . What do you think the guidelines or the measurements should be? (not smack, I am curious). There has to be something. The committee should not and I guess would not change the obvious ones. (1) auto-bids, (2) minimum D-I wins. After that they use something, polls, power rankings, their gut. Why not the GPI?

[OL FU]

but teams in the middle of the pack don't have that much seperation, so its not really that big a deal in my eyes, hell, you could draw one out of a hat and it wouldn't matter

Well there may not be much seperation but it absolutely matters. Homefield advantage in the playoffs is not to be taken lightly.

[TheValleyRaider]

Bill, haven't seen you around in a while. Happy to "read" you again:) . What do you think the guidelines or the measurements should be? (not smack, I am curious). There has to be something. The committee should not and I guess would not change the obvious ones. (1) auto-bids, (2) minimum D-I wins. After that they use something, polls, power rankings, their gut. Why not the GPI?

Doesn't the committee have their own super-secret poll that they use?

[TypicalTribe]

A few questions:

1. If I-AA goes to 12 games, how would it be possible to expand the playoffs to 24 teams?
2. If the playoffs go to 24 teams, what scenario will be used to determine the 8 byes, because it will be an enormous advantage.
3. Does going to 24 water down the playoffs too much?

Looking closer at #3, let's assume that the Ivy and SWAC still hold out of the playoffs, that the Northeast and Pioneer get auto-bids and that the selection criteria remains at 7 DI wins, we would have most likely had the following 8 additional teams make the playoffs in 05:

YSU
Hofstra
UMass
Montana State
Illinois State
San Diego
Stony Brook
SC State

Interesting additions that would have provided some entertaining 1st round matchups with the road teams from this year's games, such as:

San Diego at Cal Poly
Hofstra at Nicholls St
UMass at Colgate
Youngstown St. at Lafayette
Montana St at Southern Illinois
SC State at Georgia Southern
Illinois St at Eastern Washington
Stony Brook at Richmond

Not bad

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Why not just have some leagues (Ivy, Patriot, SWAC, MEAC, mid-majors) at a 10 game season, and all others as an 11 game season? The Ivy/Patriot conference winners play a "playoff game" to see who goes to the "Sweet 16".
I picture the Patriot, Ivy, SWAC, MEAC, NEC, Pioneer, and the two-highest at-large teams from these conferences playing the 1st round.

The "10 gamers" would play 10 + 1 playoff game, and every other playoff team would play 11. Seems fair to me.

[OL FU]

SC State at Georgia Southern

No No, due to 6 national championships GSU has earned the right to a permanent "bye".

Another question, does 24 teams mean the championship is played on Christmas day?

If we are expanding to provide an auto to the PFL And NEC, then let's don't expand.

If we expands give a bid to every qualifying conference the provides the schollies or equivalents and then fill in the rest using a combination of GPI rankings plus what ever. I agree with previous post stating that the NCAA should look at the transition period. Unless there is a reason outside of football, the Great West should be in the playoffs.

I am not opposed to playoffs expanding I am just afraid of the reaction from some schools and the logistics. I may be wrong but I don't think a Christmas championship game is a good idea.

[OL FU]

Why not just have some leagues (Ivy, Patriot, SWAC, MEAC, mid-majors) at a 10 game season, and all others as an 11 game season? The Ivy/Patriot conference winners play a "playoff game" to see who goes to the "Sweet 16".
I picture the Patriot, Ivy, SWAC, MEAC, NEC, Pioneer, and the two-highest at-large teams from these conferences playing the 1st round.

The "10 gamers" would play 10 + 1 playoff game, and every other playoff team would play 11. Seems fair to me.

It would be interesting to hear what some of the other fans of those conferences think about that.

I like getting them in, but you can eliminate swac and Ivy, and then my question is the same, why the PFL and NEC? Now you are down to 4 teams. and two of those are already included in the sweet 16

[OL FU]

I will keep arguing different sides until someone stops me :)

The problem I have with 24 teams is that every year there seems to be 17 that can make a good argument to get in the playoffs. I don't think we should expand to 24 because of that 1.

Now, when the GWFC has more eligible teams, that number may go to 2 or 3 and then you have something to talk about. and since that is right around the corner that might be a reason to do so.

If the IVY and SWAC participated now, there would be a need to look at expansion.

[Mr. Tiger]

The GPI favors the power conferences and the power conferences are already getting enough teams in the playoffs. 6-5 Portland State is ranked 19th in the final GPI. That's ahead of Lafayette, Hampton, South Carolina State, Coastal Carolina, Colgate, and San Diego. I know Portland State had a tough sked this year so I am not disputing the ranking, but I thought the idea behind a 24-team playoff was to open up the playoffs for every Division I-AA conference that wanted to participate? Using the GPI would mean Portland State would have a better shot than non-power conference teams.

[OL FU]

The GPI favors the power conferences and the power conferences are already getting enough teams in the playoffs. 6-5 Portland State is ranked 19th in the final GPI. That's ahead of Lafayette, Hampton, South Carolina State, Coastal Carolina, Colgate, and San Diego. I know Portland State had a tough sked this year so I am not disputing the ranking, but I thought the idea behind a 24-team playoff was to open up the playoffs for every Division I-AA conference that wanted to participate? Using the GPI would mean Portland State would have a better shot than non-power conference teams.

Not if you maintain a minimum win requirement. Portland State would only have qualified with the auto-bid (That is how EWU got in).

Power conferences already have a better shot at getting in. 10-1 CCU didn't make it. 9-2 SC ST didn't make it. Because the committee made the same calculation in their head that the GPI does on paper.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

It would be interesting to hear what some of the other fans of those conferences think about that.

I like getting them in, but you can eliminate swac and Ivy, and then my question is the same, why the PFL and NEC? Now you are down to 4 teams. and two of those are already included in the sweet 16

I think the Ivy and Patriot would go for a 10 game schedule, since the lower-echelon teams would be able to cut costs by keeping a 10 game schedule, while the top performers would get what they want in a playoff place.

The SWAC, on the other hand, would probably not like it since there may be fewer "classic" games. My thought is, the idea of having an "HBCU Heritage Bowl Game" in a huge (Orange Bowl?) venue might make some people change their minds. Also, in the MEAC and SWAC you also have lower-echelon teams that may benefit from 10 games vs. 11 as well. You'd have to abandon the "9 game rule", too - not popular. Like everything for the SWAC, the fans would love it, but the powers-that-be might not.

[Dane96]

No No, due to 6 national championships GSU has earned the right to a permanent "bye".

Another question, does 24 teams mean the championship is played on Christmas day?

If we are expanding to provide an auto to the PFL And NEC, then let's don't expand.

If we expands give a bid to every qualifying conference the provides the schollies or equivalents and then fill in the rest using a combination of GPI rankings plus what ever. I agree with previous post stating that the NCAA should look at the transition period. Unless there is a reason outside of football, the Great West should be in the playoffs.

I am not opposed to playoffs expanding I am just afraid of the reaction from some schools and the logistics. I may be wrong but I don't think a Christmas championship game is a good idea.

Why is expanding to allow the NEC in a terrible idea? In case you haven't noticed, 30 schollys will be doled out in the NEC per team now. You could bet your hide inclusion into the playoffs would get NEC schools up to the 45-50 range....similar to the Patriots.

[OL FU]

Why is expanding to allow the NEC in a terrible idea? In case you haven't noticed, 30 schollys will be doled out in the NEC per team now. You could bet your hide inclusion into the playoffs would get NEC schools up to the 45-50 range....similar to the Patriots.

When the conference gets there I would be all for it.

And why? I was born below the Mason Dixon line :bang: . Ask the Cap'n. He'll 'splain. :nod:

[colgate13]

Why not just have some leagues (Ivy, Patriot, SWAC, MEAC, mid-majors) at a 10 game season, and all others as an 11 game season? The Ivy/Patriot conference winners play a "playoff game" to see who goes to the "Sweet 16".
I picture the Patriot, Ivy, SWAC, MEAC, NEC, Pioneer, and the two-highest at-large teams from these conferences playing the 1st round.


I think the Ivy and Patriot would go for a 10 game schedule, since the lower-echelon teams would be able to cut costs by keeping a 10 game schedule, while the top performers would get what they want in a playoff place.

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO PUT A HURDLE BETWEEN THE PL AND THE PLAYOFFS? :confused: That's crazy talk, plain and simple. Why should the PL take a step backwards by having to prove themselves worthy by beating the Ivy champ?

And I most certainly DON'T think the Patriot would go for a 10 game schedule. Again, why should we take steps backward that go in the opposite direction of the rest of I-AA?

I think you're tryng too hard to associate the Ivy and PL here; I like our 3 OOC games with them a year, but that's it. I care more about I-AA in general and the PL's performance on the national level.

LFN, you've got me scratching my head on this one. :confused:

[Dane96]

When the conference gets there I would be all for it.

And why? I was born below the Mason Dixon line :bang: . Ask the Cap'n. He'll 'splain. :nod:

Yeah, yeah, I know, the "War versus Northern Agression" is still on-going.

[OL FU]

Yeah, yeah, I know, the "War versus Northern Agression" is still on-going.

No No No, I surrendered a long time ago. In fact, I fought for the other side. You will have to try again. :nod:

[Lehigh Football Nation]

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU EVER WANT TO PUT A HURDLE BETWEEN THE PL AND THE PLAYOFFS? :confused: That's crazy talk, plain and simple. Why should the PL take a step backwards by having to prove themselves worthy by beating the Ivy champ?

And I most certainly DON'T think the Patriot would go for a 10 game schedule. Again, why should we take steps backward that go in the opposite direction of the rest of I-AA?

I think you're tryng too hard to associate the Ivy and PL here; I like our 3 OOC games with them a year, but that's it. I care more about I-AA in general and the PL's performance on the national level.

LFN, you've got me scratching my head on this one. :confused:


First. You wouldn't be putting a hurdle against the Patriot and the playoffs. The postseason bowl game WOULD be the playoffs. You can't think of playing the extra game as "needing to prove yourself against the Ivy champ", it's "a playoff game where the Ivy Champ and the Patriot Champ play each other". The PL would get the autobid, and also have a great chance at an at-large bid into the "field of 24" every year.

Second. The Ivies like their 10-game schedule, and for 6-7 of those teams, they will keep just that - but the champion will get an opportunity to play in the playoffs. As for the Patriot side of the coin, if we drop a OOC game against (say) an extra NEC squad, what does it really hurt us? Basically I'm saying: What would you rather have seen last year, Lafayette travelling to Marist to play their first game of the year? Or Lafayette travelling to South Carolina State as the second-best 10-game-playing team in the I-AA playoffs? Most of our schools play 1 or 2 MAAC or NEC teams a year. Why not just make a 10 game schedule?

Third. It's not a step backward for the teams in the playoffs. In order to get to the "sweet 16", you've played 11 games, just like everyone else - and, you're guaranteed to have played a great schedule if you've played the Ivy champ or the next-best 10-game team. I don't think it's that big a deal. If the PL deserves two bids in the playoffs, they would get them every year.

[kardplayer]

First. You wouldn't be putting a hurdle against the Patriot and the playoffs. The postseason bowl game WOULD be the playoffs. You can't think of playing the extra game as "needing to prove yourself against the Ivy champ", it's "a playoff game where the Ivy Champ and the Patriot Champ play each other". The PL would get the autobid, and also have a great chance at an at-large bid into the "field of 24" every year.

Second. The Ivies like their 10-game schedule, and for 6-7 of those teams, they will keep just that - but the champion will get an opportunity to play in the playoffs. As for the Patriot side of the coin, if we drop a OOC game against (say) an extra NEC squad, what does it really hurt us? Basically I'm saying: What would you rather have seen last year, Lafayette travelling to Marist to play their first game of the year? Or Lafayette travelling to South Carolina State as the second-best 10-game-playing team in the I-AA playoffs? Most of our schools play 1 or 2 MAAC or NEC teams a year. Why not just make a 10 game schedule?

Third. It's not a step backward for the teams in the playoffs. In order to get to the "sweet 16", you've played 11 games, just like everyone else - and, you're guaranteed to have played a great schedule if you've played the Ivy champ or the next-best 10-game team. I don't think it's that big a deal. If the PL deserves two bids in the playoffs, they would get them every year.

This is really a terrible idea - sorry LFN...

Keep in mind that the 11th game gives a better chance at that 7th DI victory, so going down a game all but ensures that the PL would never get an autobid again (if Colgate's performance this year didn't accomplish that).

Also, there will be plenty of times where Patriot and Ivy teams qualify to be in the top 8, so in this proposal those teams would lose their bye too...

[kardplayer]

I think a playoff system that is open to all teams in I-AA is better - even the mid-majors.

Granted, they will usually lose those first round games, but they should still have a shot. That's where we'll get our Cinderellas from...

Look at the basketball tourny - the "Power Conference" teams make much bigger investments in their programs than most of our schools, but we still get to go to March Madness. And every now and then, a school like Kansas gets to go home early.

If its fair there, its fair here. With Colgate (a playoff team) losing to a mid-major last year, its certainly possibly the middies would pull off an upset or two.

[OL FU]

I think a playoff system that is open to all teams in I-AA is better - even the mid-majors.

Granted, they will usually lose those first round games, but they should still have a shot. That's where we'll get our Cinderellas from...

Look at the basketball tourny - the "Power Conference" teams make much bigger investments in their programs than most of our schools, but we still get to go to March Madness. And every now and then, a school like Kansas gets to go home early.

If its fair there, its fair here. With Colgate (a playoff team) losing to a mid-major last year, its certainly possibly the middies would pull off an upset or two.

Yep that changes my mind :rolleyes: :) no offense 13 :smiley_wi

I don't have a problem with the mid-majors participating except for the time required for the playoffs. If we could get their participation without sacrificing the other playoff spots and still accomplish it in 4 weeks, fine. BBall is not a good example. 64 teams, two games a week = three weeks. I think the larger discussion on this board is whether mid-majors who are not going to increase their schollies belong in I-AA. As we know they are in I-AA for D-I in other sports. I am not trying to be a prick or exclude anybody, but if you participate like a D-II or III school in football why should you get an invite to the I-AA playoffs. DII and DIII don't go to the BBall tourney.

I know it sounds like it but it is not a criticism of those schools. It would be better for the NCAA to let them participate in a different division if they don't want to add schollies.

[skinny_uncle]

Expansion to 24 teams in the playoffs is just a logical extension of the history of IAA. The first playoffs in 1978 involved just 4 teams. It has expanded several times since. There is nothing magic about the number 16. With new conferences qualifying soon and new teams joining the division, it is a logical move. How long can we stay with just 8 autobids? We will argue about who gets the seeds, but that is nothing new. I remember some disagreement over Hampton last season. I have no clue if the Ivy or SWAC will have any interest in joining the party. I doubt it. I'm not sure it is relevant to the question. My feeling about non-schollie leagues is that they should be a different division with their own playoff. The argument about whether or not this "waters down" the playoffs has probably been put forth with every expansion. You can call it watering down or making it more democratic. It's coming-the only question is when. Expansion of the division calls for it. Let's welcome the new teams and leagues instead of trying to be some exclusive club like the BCS .

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This is really a terrible idea - sorry LFN...

Keep in mind that the 11th game gives a better chance at that 7th DI victory, so going down a game all but ensures that the PL would never get an autobid again (if Colgate's performance this year didn't accomplish that).

Also, there will be plenty of times where Patriot and Ivy teams qualify to be in the top 8, so in this proposal those teams would lose their bye too...

:rolleyes: As if losing that game wouldn't already ensure that that team would be out of the playoffs unless they take their team title! There's no way the PL loses their autobid.

There would be no bye. The 11 game conferences would play their 11th game when the 10 game conferences play their "bowl games". To win the championship, you'd play the same number of games.

This *also* gets around the "we can't expand the playoffs since some teams would now have to play a 17 or 18 game season" argument. Otherwise, in a normal year some teams have a chance to play 16 games for the title and others have to play 17 (which, IMO, is not right for the kids). It's also not right for the calendar - otherwise, you'll compete with bowl games.

Folks are gut-reacting and saying "this is giving teams an unfair advantage, disrespecting HBCU/PL/Ivies", etc. It's not if you separate between 10 game and 11 game season conferences from the start of the season.

[Superneck]

Remember, seeding is not the panacea...

Heh...I wonder if any I-A football players even know what that word means...

[colgate13]

:rolleyes: As if losing that game wouldn't already ensure that that team would be out of the playoffs unless they take their team title! There's no way the PL loses their autobid.

There would be no bye. The 11 game conferences would play their 11th game when the 10 game conferences play their "bowl games". To win the championship, you'd play the same number of games.

This *also* gets around the "we can't expand the playoffs since some teams would now have to play a 17 or 18 game season" argument. Otherwise, in a normal year some teams have a chance to play 16 games for the title and others have to play 17 (which, IMO, is not right for the kids). It's also not right for the calendar - otherwise, you'll compete with bowl games.

Folks are gut-reacting and saying "this is giving teams an unfair advantage, disrespecting HBCU/PL/Ivies", etc. It's not if you separate between 10 game and 11 game season conferences from the start of the season.

You still leave me scratching my head here. So you think it's a good idea that in a 24 team playoff, one of the autobids should go to the winner of a PL/Ivy playoff that is the 11th game? Let me follow that for a few:

-so 6 PL teams now only have 10 game seasons. Why? Why in the world does that make sense? You're handicapping the PL from getting an at-large bid, something that has happened for two years in a row now, because they only have 10 games to put in the playoff portfolio. Money saved is really minimal, if any. A school like Lehigh might actually lose money on the deal. The program costs for our schools is mostly in the equivalencies, not in the act of putting a home game on. Take away Lehigh/Monmouth this year, and do the Mountain Hawks save any money? If they do, it would be minimal.

-then, why would you ever want to marry the PL to the Ivy in this manner? First, what if the PL and Ivy champ are both top teams in the nation, like say Colgate/Penn in 2003? They should square off in a play-in game while everyone else doesn't? Then, why must we tie our fates to them in this manner? Our league schedules are insular enough for the most part; the playoffs help us play schools we normally don't and that's a good thing IMO.

-as for your reasoning about why not a 10 game season, the NEC will not be a doormat for the PL much longer IMO. But more importantly I'm back to the idea that even in at large scenario, that team gives up one game a year. The general movement in I-AA is actually trying to get us to 12 games like I-A; why take a step back? Why when I go to the Ivy board do I read about how they wish for that 11th game? Frankly put, taking a game off our schedules is not going to make us more competitive in I-AA; if anything, it will make us less.

-No matter how you slice it this would be a demotion of the PL autobid. It stinks.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

-so 6 PL teams now only have 10 game seasons. Why? Why in the world does that make sense? You're handicapping the PL from getting an at-large bid, something that has happened for two years in a row now, because they only have 10 games to put in the playoff portfolio.

No, you wouldn't. I guess I'm not clear on this. I was basing my thoughts on a 24-team playoff from a post I made on my blog weeks ago. In that post, I hypothesized that you could have 6 conferences play 10 regular-season games:

SWAC, MEAC, Ivy, Patriot, NEC, Pioneer.

Then, the 1st round of the playoffs is made up of 8 teams from these conferences. 6 autobids and 2 at-larges. Then, you have 3 bowls and a playoff game at neutral sites.

Taking 2005 as an example:

Heritage Bowl: Hampton vs. Grambling
Walter Camp Bowl: Colgate vs. Brown
Sports Network Bowl: San Diego vs. Stony Brook
I-AA.org Bowl: Lafayette vs. South Carolina St.

To me, these are all great matchups. And what would we as PL schools be sacrificing? That Lafayette/Marist matchup? I'd rather see Lafayette/SC St. than Lafayette/Marist anyday.


Money saved is really minimal, if any. A school like Lehigh might actually lose money on the deal. The program costs for our schools is mostly in the equivalencies, not in the act of putting a home game on. Take away Lehigh/Monmouth this year, and do the Mountain Hawks save any money? If they do, it would be minimal.

A fair point. But then again, what might a neutral bowl game net in endorsements, attendance, etc. get for both the Ivy and Patriot League? Is it more than Lehigh/Monmouth or Lafayette/Marist?


-then, why would you ever want to marry the PL to the Ivy in this manner? First, what if the PL and Ivy champ are both top teams in the nation, like say Colgate/Penn in 2003? They should square off in a play-in game while everyone else doesn't? Then, why must we tie our fates to them in this manner? Our league schedules are insular enough for the most part; the playoffs help us play schools we normally don't and that's a good thing IMO.

Sure, it'd be a crying shame to see undefeated Penn play undefeated Colgate to see who makes the second round of the I-AA playoffs. But it would be great theater. And why not? You can't say that you're just worried that the Ivies would kick our asses? :nono:

As for marrying the Ivies and PL, don't we do that already? I mean, c'mon, we play at least 2 Ivy OOC's every year. We advertise the PL/Ivy Challenge early in the year. On AGS we meticulously track how the PL has done versus the Ivies. Don't then turn around and say that we don't want to marry the Ivies. We're already the common-law wife.

Maybe you want to separate yourself from the Ivies -- a fair sentiment. Then let's replace Dartmouth and Princeton on Colgate's schedule and put in New Hampshire and Marist.


-as for your reasoning about why not a 10 game season, the NEC will not be a doormat for the PL much longer IMO. But more importantly I'm back to the idea that even in at large scenario, that team gives up one game a year. The general movement in I-AA is actually trying to get us to 12 games like I-A; why take a step back? Why when I go to the Ivy board do I read about how they wish for that 11th game? Frankly put, taking a game off our schedules is not going to make us more competitive in I-AA; if anything, it will make us less.

Why is it a step back to sacrifice one bad September game and replace it with a guaranteed great game in November? I'm still not getting this. Lehigh/Monmouth was a surprisingly good game - I was there - but you'd better believe I'd have rather seen Lehigh play Brown for a championship than see Monmouth play Lehigh. How does playing Monmouth make Lehigh competitive, but somehow instead playing Brown or South Carolina State does not?

Equating I-A going to 12 games being the trend that we should strive for is irrelevant. That's I-A. The most games any I-A team can play in any given year is 14. For I-AA, I think we all can agree that 16 games is an awful lot already to crown a champion in college, and 17 is way too many. Otherwise, how do you do that?

[kardplayer]

A fair point. But then again, what might a neutral bowl game net in endorsements, attendance, etc. get for both the Ivy and Patriot League? Is it more than Lehigh/Monmouth or Lafayette/Marist?

Sure, it'd be a crying shame to see undefeated Penn play undefeated Colgate to see who makes the second round of the I-AA playoffs. But it would be great theater. And why not? You can't say that you're just worried that the Ivies would kick our asses? :nono:



From a Lehigh fans perspective, I'm surprised that you're missing the big tradeoff here... not only would we no longer have that early season game (which I would agree is a good thing), but Lehigh/Lafayette would no longer be on the Saturday before Thanksgiving. That to me would be a huge sacrifice.

I also don't think a neutral site bowl game would draw very many people, at least not for the next big chunk of years. Look at the "big" Patriot/Ivy games from this year (top 3 finishers vs. top 3 finishers):

Lehigh at Harvard 10/1/05 - two top 25 teams, with Harvard having not lost since '03 - 9,339

Princeton at Lafayette 9/17/05 - The defending PL champs (hurts just writing that) came in 2-0, including a victory vs. A-10 Richmond and drew a whopping 4,915 for this tilt.

Expanding it out a bit:

Harvard at Holy Cross - two MA schools, so its an easy drive. Harvard's opener and HC had two big wins under its belt (by 35 and 42) so its possible their fans had a little hope still. 8,238

Here's another beauty - Columbia at Fordham (they hype this one a lot as a rivarly, and all the fans live within 10 miles of the stadium) - 6,912

I think its a fantasy to say a bowl matchup - even with playoff implications - would draw "huge" crowds.

Lastly, to the point about great theater, I don't think that's the way the administrations look at this at all.

If there were to be any changes like this, I could see a PL/Ivy bowl game, with neither team going to the tournament. But I think they'd have to build a stadium with a retractable roof somewhere north of DC for that to happen...

[colgate13]

No, you wouldn't. I guess I'm not clear on this. I was basing my thoughts on a 24-team playoff from a post I made on my blog weeks ago. In that post, I hypothesized that you could have 6 conferences play 10 regular-season games:

SWAC, MEAC, Ivy, Patriot, NEC, Pioneer.

Then, the 1st round of the playoffs is made up of 8 teams from these conferences. 6 autobids and 2 at-larges. Then, you have 3 bowls and a playoff game at neutral sites.

This is EXACTLY the problem. You're making the route to the I-AA championship one game longer than the rest of I-AA. Sure, it total number of games it is the same, because the rest of the PL gave up an 11 game season for this. What's wrong with an NEC game? There aren't D-II games on the schedules of A-10, Big Sky, Gateway, SoCon teams? The beauty of our games is that they actually count towards the playoffs. D-II games don't. A lot of programs like that home opener against less than perfect competition to get the kinks out of the system BTW.

The simple problem with this suggestion is that in order for a PL to get to the same place it already gets to, it has to beat the Ivy Champion. Sure, it can be done; but why handicap ourselves to have to do that when the rest of autobid I-AA doesn't AND have the potential to run into a team that could be a Penn of 2003 type?


A fair point. But then again, what might a neutral bowl game net in endorsements, attendance, etc. get for both the Ivy and Patriot League? Is it more than Lehigh/Monmouth or Lafayette/Marist?

Neutral? Yikes... not too much IMO. Frankly, the prospect is scary. How many Brown fans and Colgate fans are traveling to, oh, pick a place: Princeton, to see a mythical 'championship' type game on Thanksgiving day weekend. I don't think its as good as you hope.



Sure, it'd be a crying shame to see undefeated Penn play undefeated Colgate to see who makes the second round of the I-AA playoffs. But it would be great theater. And why not? You can't say that you're just worried that the Ivies would kick our asses? :nono:

I don't buy that 'great theater' argument. The goal of the I-AA season is to win the NC; not provide great theater. My main point is what if in 2003 Colgate and Penn met in the semis. THAT'S better theater IMO.


As for marrying the Ivies and PL, don't we do that already? I mean, c'mon, we play at least 2 Ivy OOC's every year. We advertise the PL/Ivy Challenge early in the year. On AGS we meticulously track how the PL has done versus the Ivies. Don't then turn around and say that we don't want to marry the Ivies. We're already the common-law wife.


There is a world of difference from playing 2-3 OOCs and having to have our champions meet in order to make the round of the playoffs that we already make AND give up potential seeding scenarios like Colgate in 2003.

We compete with the Ivies, no doubt. But in case you missed it, we approved freshman play, went to a 11 game season and play in the playoffs. The Ivy needs to catch up to us here, not the other way around. And if you notice around the league, Colgate is playing one less Ivy a year than in the past. Fordham and Georgetown are often left out of many Ivy schedules. The PL has realized that there are great opportunites in scheduling some A-10 and NEC games. I agree whole-heartedly. Colgate's scheduled a SoCon home and home for '08 and '10. The last thing I want to do is tie ourselves back to the Ivies as we've grown more on our own.


Maybe you want to separate yourself from the Ivies -- a fair sentiment. Then let's replace Dartmouth and Princeton on Colgate's schedule and put in New Hampshire and Marist.

Not the point. And in some ways, it's been done. Columbia was on our schedule for 3 years. We've replaced them with CCSU, Monmouth and Albany. Again, we locked up UMass for 4 years, and then we go with Towson for 2 or 3. Then we've got a home and home with Furman. Any of those games we could have tried to put in X-Ivy instead, but we didn't.


Why is it a step back to sacrifice one bad September game and replace it with a guaranteed great game in November? I'm still not getting this.

Besides the Lehigh/Lafayette angle already mentioned, the largest problem is that you are only doing that for ONE team. 6 other PL teams probably lose a home game and at least 1 PL team is left trying to make the playoffs at large based on a 10 game resume. Yikes.


For I-AA, I think we all can agree that 16 games is an awful lot already to crown a champion in college, and 17 is way too many. Otherwise, how do you do that?

I don't agree. 16 games is fine for 2 I-AA teams to experience. It's not like it is every season that a school is playing 16 games. For most, it is a once and a lifetime experience.

As for 17 games, sure it's possible but the reality is that in a 24 team tournament, you're going to have byes... most likely 8 of them. For a team to play 17 games, they have to make the NC from lower than 8 in the GPI. Tough task, but if it did come true, again, once in a lifetime experience. Fine with me.

[blukeys]

No, you wouldn't. I guess I'm not clear on this. I was basing my thoughts on a 24-team playoff from a post I made on my blog weeks ago. In that post, I hypothesized that you could have 6 conferences play 10 regular-season games:

SWAC, MEAC, Ivy, Patriot, NEC, Pioneer.

Then, the 1st round of the playoffs is made up of 8 teams from these conferences. 6 autobids and 2 at-larges. Then, you have 3 bowls and a playoff game at neutral sites.

Taking 2005 as an example:

Heritage Bowl: Hampton vs. Grambling
Walter Camp Bowl: Colgate vs. Brown
Sports Network Bowl: San Diego vs. Stony Brook
I-AA.org Bowl: Lafayette vs. South Carolina St.





Doesn't this imply that the Champions of these conferences are inferior to the Champions of the Conferences that don't play in the first (or play in) round?? I realize that this was not your intent. But, the perception will be there because the other conferences will not be playing a playoff game on the weekend that your teams are playing.

The conferences chosen (NEC, Pioneer, SWAC and MEAC) suggests that the PL is roughly equivalent to these conferences who have had little or no recent success in the playoffs. I don't think the PL wants this particular perception reinforced.

[Syntax Error]

Bill, haven't seen you around in a while. Happy to "read" you again:) . What do you think the guidelines or the measurements should be? (not smack, I am curious). There has to be something. The committee should not and I guess would not change the obvious ones. (1) auto-bids, (2) minimum D-I wins. After that they use something, polls, power rankings, their gut. Why not the GPI?Did I read this correctly? The GPI Haters Club must be going crazy!!!!

"As part of the expansion, the Big South and Northeast Conference champions will receive automatic bids to the playoffs beginning in 2010 and can earn access into the field in 2008-09 by attaining certain criteria adopted this week during the Board of Directors meeting.

The Division I playoff committee adopted changes in the selection process that will guarantee entry into the postseason for any conference champion that wins at least eight games against Division I opponents, wins two non-conference games against teams from auto-bid leagues and ranks 16th or higher in an average of the Sports Network top-25 poll, the coaches poll and the Gridiron Power index (GPI)."
http://sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=cfoot2/news/newstest.aspx?id=4146516

xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xwhistlex

[Dane96]

Blah blah blah.

Pat yourself on the shoulder...because not many here will.

[GannonFan]

Funny, I've outperformed the GPI since it's inception and no call to me. xlolx xlolx xlolx Eh, luckily the GPI is just a regurgitation of those polls anyway. I'll make sure to leave my number in case they need to get in touch. xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[Syntax Error]

Blah blah blah.
Pat me on the shoulder...because not many here will.Fixed it for you. xsmhx

[Syntax Error]

... the GPI is just a regurgitation of those polls anyway...Not true. The GPI averages computer rankings and opinion polls.

I bet the NCAA will remove the AGS poll from the GPI for their purposes. xnodx

[TheValleyRaider]

I bet the NCAA will remove the AGS poll from the GPI for their purposes. xnodx

You say that like it's a good thing xconfusedx xeyebrowx

[MplsBison]

The top 8 teams should not automatically get home games.


The teams who are best able to provide large sell out crowds (Delaware, Montana, NDSU, etc.) shoud always get to be considered for hosting since they are much better able to defray the costs of the tournament to the NCAA.

[bluehenbillk]

2 points: 1 - Further sense that the NCAA or ACFA whoever, has no clue what they're doing. The Grabass Pansy Insanity has been well off the mark the past few years & has been one of the most INACCURATE predictors of post-season play.

2- I told anyone who listened years ago that this was the grand master plan of the GPI, not to be a cheap entertainment schtick but to lobby the NCAA to have clout just like 'ole big brother BCS.

Anytime the 3-letter crap is mentioned its a sad day for college football.

[OL FU]

IF I read the use correctly I don't see the big deal.

My understanding is that any conference champion with 8 DI wins including two wins against auto bid conferences where such champion is rated in the top 16 based on an average of two polls and the GPI gets an invite.

If the NCAA was using only the GPI to base the decision like they do the BCS, I would agree that is a problem. If we didn't have a play off I would agree that is a problem. But it is only a method to attempt to objectively invite and reward successful teams. First the team has to win its conference, second it has to have a certain number of wins and then third the GPI is averaged with polls for the third qualifier. I realize that subjective opinion is different but since we have a playoff removing as much subjectivity as possible to determine play off participants is a good thing. I know the argument the GPI is subjective, etc. but the attempt is to reward a conference champion based on meeting certain measurable criteria.

I guess they should just give Gannonfan a callxsmiley_wix

[I-AA Fan]

The key to a play-off is representation …not presentation. What I mean by this that the entire division (I-AA/FCS) needs equal representation in the post season. What if I decide that since the PL and OVC were so weak last year, the team’s/schools representatives cannot cast any administrative votes? Clearly that would be highly unfair and no sane person on the board would agree with such a proposal, as the division would implode. So, my question is why do we not do the same thing in the post season? Certainly you would be highly upset if all DI was lumped together as most every I-AA club would be eliminated early in any post-season play-off …at least in the short term. Then only those current I-AA/FCS schools willing to drastically increase their budgets would survive.

There is a reason that the NCAA divides DI into two levels, and there is a reason the NCAA divides the schools into regions, then conferences. The more you move away from this and into a singular ranking system, the worse it becomes for the division. Conferences and regions need to be equally represented in the post-season. If not, we will have the recruits going to the same colleges each year & the same teams in the post-season each year.

I say give the conference champ their accolades, the regional champion their accolades (which then becomes your final-4), then crown a champion. It is the only fair way to do it.

[Syntax Error]

2 points: 1 - Further sense that the NCAA or ACFA whoever, has no clue what they're doing. The Grabass Pansy Insanity has been well off the mark the past few years & has been one of the most INACCURATE predictors of post-season play.

2- I told anyone who listened years ago that this was the grand master plan of the GPI, not to be a cheap entertainment schtick but to lobby the NCAA to have clout...AFAIK...
1. The GPI has never been a "predictor of post-season play." It has always been an indicator of quality at-large teams. It doesn't predict who will win games.

2. The GPI is not "lobbied" for clout to anyone. It is what it is and is a very accurate process, not one person's opinion.

The billk family fears it because it was created by a UMass faculty member back in 1998. xnodx

[Syntax Error]

You say that like it's a good thing xconfusedx xeyebrowxNot a good thing because the AGS Poll is the best poll available (thanks to great voters and committee members). But the NCAA can't use a "fan" poll for appearances sake IMO.
IF I read the use correctly I don't see the big deal...It's not a big deal. The thing I find objectionable is that they are using anything at all. They should just wait until the bracket is expanded and use the regular at-large system until then.

[Dane96]

AFAIK...
2. The GPI is not "lobbied" for clout to anyone.

I think Dave C, if put on the stand, would have to take the fifth on that one. I believe talks started 1) Unilaterally; and 2) last fall.

[Dane96]

Not a good thing because the AGS Poll is the best poll available (thanks to great voters and committee members). But the NCAA can't use a "fan" poll for appearances sake IMO.It's not a big deal. The thing I find objectionable is that they are using anything at all. They should just wait until the bracket is expanded and use the regular at-large system until then.

Here....you and I are BOTH ON THE SAME PAGE...as are many others.

[Syntax Error]

That...is a flat out lie...and you know it. I think Dave C, if put on the stand, would have to take the fifth on that one. I believe talks started 1) Unilaterally; and 2) last fall.What you believe is wrong. Dave Coulson (if that is who you are talking about) is not involved with the GPI, he works for the Sports Network. Here's a quote applicable to you:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
- Abraham Lincoln

[Dane96]

Syntax-- you should be quiet now. Barristers don't speak unless they have evidence to back up thoughts.

Will i post it here...NO...simply because I know what happened.

Your above comments mean about as much to me as a former poster who sadly no longer posts here but claimed:

-The NEC could not break the GIC contract
-The NEC would not go to scholarships
-The NEC would not gain an automatic bid
-Stony Brook was going to the Big South and Albany was as well
-etc., etc., etc......

....some people on this board do get knowledge from sources that can debunk others.

Let's move on...and leave it at that Sytnax.

[Syntax Error]

Syntax-- you should be quiet now...You should follow the Lincoln quote's advice son, though you are long past removing all doubt IMO. Even with your revisionism! xsmhx At least we are all quite aware that certain Albany fans are good at one thing, trying to order people around. Now if your Danes can just accomplish that with opponents then your team might eventually earn a playoff spot! xnodx

[Dane96]

That is your response?

My g-d you are ridiculous.

[FCS Preview]

The top 8 teams should not automatically get home games.


The teams who are best able to provide large sell out crowds (Delaware, Montana, NDSU, etc.) shoud always get to be considered for hosting since they are much better able to defray the costs of the tournament to the NCAA.

Then why bother seeding? To see a 3 visit a 14 would be a problem to many people. In that case, it helps the NCAA to only seed 4 teams. A team ranked #5 could be sent to a team ranked #12 if they are out bid for the game, and the committee could choose not to seed a poor-attendance team in the Top 4 if they wanted to...(provided they are not an undefeated #1-ranked school). If Hofstra -- which has had poor attendance for the last 15 years or so -- finishes undefeated, they should get home games as long as they survive in the playoffs. Even if that means only 5000 fans in the stands.

[Syntax Error]

That is your response?
My g-d you are ridiculous.
FCS Discussion
This board is for general Football Championship Subdivision talk about the current FCS and topics, newspaper articles/scuttlebutt/speculation, and published "official" news. No smack. Low noise, reasoned opinions, and linked notices for the entire FCS community. See the terms of service for rules.later

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Looking at my original thoughts on 10 game vs. 11 game teams, that becomes moot with the expansion of the playoffs since the particulars involve the removal of the bye week to accommodate the season and the first round of the playoffs.

If you add the SWAC and Ivy champions to the playoffs and make a 24-team playoff... making a "special exception" for the SWAC champ to not play in the 1st round for the Bayou Classic... you'd have had an awesome playoff this year (seeding 8 teams, including NEC and BSC champions).

Likely 1st round (regionalizing as much as possible):
Fordham at Harvard
Yale at Villanova
Delaware State at Delaware
Norfolk State at Eastern Kentucky
Liberty at Wofford
Albany at New Hampshire
Cal Poly at Eastern Washington
Dayton at James Madison

Likely second round:
Fordham/Harvard winner at UMass
Grambling State at Dayton/JMU winner(remember, no SWAC championship game)
Albany/UNH winner at UNI
Liberty/Wofford winner at Montana
Cal Poly/EWU winner at McNeese State
DSU/Delaware winner at Southern Illinois
Yale/Villanova winner at Appalachian State
NSU/EKU winner at Richmond

Dayton and Norfolk State qualify over Elon and Youngstown State since the first two are playoff-eligible and Elon and YSU were not.

[gophoenix]

Looking at my original thoughts on 10 game vs. 11 game teams, that becomes moot with the expansion of the playoffs since the particulars involve the removal of the bye week to accommodate the season and the first round of the playoffs.

If you add the SWAC and Ivy champions to the playoffs and make a 24-team playoff... making a "special exception" for the SWAC champ to not play in the 1st round for the Bayou Classic... you'd have had an awesome playoff this year (seeding 8 teams, including NEC and BSC champions).

Likely 1st round (regionalizing as much as possible):
Fordham at Harvard
Yale at Villanova
Delaware State at Delaware
Norfolk State at Eastern Kentucky
Liberty at Wofford
Albany at New Hampshire
Cal Poly at Eastern Washington
Dayton at James Madison

Likely second round:
Fordham/Harvard winner at UMass
Grambling State at Dayton/JMU winner(remember, no SWAC championship game)
Albany/UNH winner at UNI
Liberty/Wofford winner at Montana
Cal Poly/EWU winner at McNeese State
DSU/Delaware winner at Southern Illinois
Yale/Villanova winner at Appalachian State
NSU/EKU winner at Richmond

Dayton and Norfolk State qualify over Elon and Youngstown State since the first two are playoff-eligible and Elon and YSU were not.

Youngstown and Elon were not considered in a 16 team field, not a 24 team field. And there is still no rule that says a 6 D-I win team won't make the field. So therefore, no one is technically ineligible.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Youngstown and Elon were not considered in a 16 team field, not a 24 team field. And there is still no rule that says a 6 D-I win team won't make the field. So therefore, no one is technically ineligible.

True, but 7 D-I win teams would get considered first, hence why Villanova, Yale, NSU and Dayton would have made it first. Admittedly, this is with the rules that are currently in place.

Switch "Youngstown State" for Dayton and "Elon" for Norfolk State and you'd have the "6-D-I" bracket.

[MplsBison]

Then why bother seeding? To see a 3 visit a 14 would be a problem to many people. In that case, it helps the NCAA to only seed 4 teams. A team ranked #5 could be sent to a team ranked #12 if they are out bid for the game, and the committee could choose not to seed a poor-attendance team in the Top 4 if they wanted to...(provided they are not an undefeated #1-ranked school). If Hofstra -- which has had poor attendance for the last 15 years or so -- finishes undefeated, they should get home games as long as they survive in the playoffs. Even if that means only 5000 fans in the stands.


That's what I meant, continue seeding the top 4.

Then bid out for the rest.



There's no reason that a #12 ranked NDSU shouldn't host a #5 ranked team who averages 6k a game during the regular season, for example.

[Saint3333]

The top 8 teams should not automatically get home games.


The teams who are best able to provide large sell out crowds (Delaware, Montana, NDSU, etc.) shoud always get to be considered for hosting since they are much better able to defray the costs of the tournament to the NCAA.

No way, if a team earns a top 8 spot then they deserve a home game and this is coming from a supporter of a team that could buy their home games. Imagine if ASU and NDSU get paired together, NDSU is ranked 5th and ASU is ranked 12th, should ASU get the home game? I don't think so.

[MplsBison]

They wouldn't as NDSU would be able to outbid App.

[Dane96]

NDSU would be able to outbid APP? Whether that is true or not, that is a little presumptious for a team that has yet to go through the bid process.

[MplsBison]

What can I say?

We have tons of fans and we're from the north.

[Dane96]

How many people can you fit in for a playoff game: 19,000.

How many people can Appy fit for a playoff game: at least 24,500...plus more now with the new stadium set-up. They averaged around 18,500 for the playoffs...but their Top 10 crowds have all come since 2006...with all over 24k.

So...when push comes to shove, more $$ can be made at Kidd Brewer.

[Appstate29]

What can I say?

We have tons of fans and we're from the north.

No, you're from NORTH Dakota, thats different, not exactly the Hamptons. ASU, UD, Montana would outbid NDSU every day of the week.

[MplsBison]

So...when push comes to shove, more $$ can be made at Kidd Brewer.

Correction: more people can buy a seat in KBS.


That does not mean more money can be generated at KBS.

There's a little thing called income per capita.


It takes a nosedive when you enter the deep south.



And then on top of that, the bidding process is whatever each school can guarantee to the NCAA. Not a percentage of the gate revenue.

[AshevilleApp2]

Correction: more people can buy a seat in KBS.


That does not mean more money can be generated at KBS.

There's a little thing called income per capita.


It takes a nosedive when you enter the deep south.



And then on top of that, the bidding process is whatever each school can guarantee to the NCAA. Not a percentage of the gate revenue.

Is North Carolina in the deep south?

[danefan]

Correction: more people can buy a seat in KBS.


That does not mean more money can be generated at KBS.

There's a little thing called income per capita.


It takes a nosedive when you enter the deep south.



And then on top of that, the bidding process is whatever each school can guarantee to the NCAA. Not a percentage of the gate revenue.

Income per capita argument based on North Dakota? Haha.. xlolx xlolx

Haha......xlolx xrotatehx xsmileyclapx

[MplsBison]

Is North Carolina in the deep south?

They had slaves.

[AshevilleApp2]

They had slaves.

Yes they did. And being a person who was born in Minneapolis, lived in Detroit until age 13 and spent the last 34 years living in North Carolina, I can assure you that racism isn't limited to the South.

As far as Per Capita income, the numbers below are Per Capita income from 2005. That extra $842 per person won't go far.

North Carolina $30,553
North Dakota $31,395

[Appstate29]

Correction: more people can buy a seat in KBS.


That does not mean more money can be generated at KBS.

There's a little thing called income per capita.


It takes a nosedive when you enter the deep south.



And then on top of that, the bidding process is whatever each school can guarantee to the NCAA. Not a percentage of the gate revenue.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html

North Dakota has a whopping $800 more per capita in income than North Carolina. Most of this is explained by the law of small numbers when dealing with economic factors. Not to mention cost of living factors in southern states. Like usual, you spew a bunch of **** right out of your mouth without thinking.

[gophoenix]

Hey, most of them would've been in if any of us were on the selection committee. Maybe we just don't have the right people making the decisions?

I think that this certainly may be the case. I think instead of 2 ADs per region being on the committee, each conference that wants to participate in the playoffs has an AD on the committee.

IE:
East: Patriot, CAA, NEC
South: SoCon, Big South, MEAC
Midwest: Gateway, Southland, OVC
West: Big Sky, Great West, SWAC

In this, we still have the committee even across the regions and all conferences are represented.

[Dane96]

Correction: more people can buy a seat in KBS.


That does not mean more money can be generated at KBS.

There's a little thing called income per capita.


It takes a nosedive when you enter the deep south.



And then on top of that, the bidding process is whatever each school can guarantee to the NCAA. Not a percentage of the gate revenue.

Ok, for the slow, ASU CAN GUARANTEE MORE REVENUE OVER THE PLAYOFFS BECAUSE THEY CAN SELL MORE SEATS...HENCE THEY MAKE MORE $$$...plus CONCESSIONS...PLUS PARKING...etc.

Got it?

[MplsBison]

North Carolina $30,553
North Dakota $31,395


NDSU draws people from the entire state of ND. We are one of the state's flagships.


App does not draw people from the entire state of NC. You are not a state flagship. You're just a regional college.


Therefore:

Watauga County per capita income is $17,258.




IE, the state of ND has quite a bit more buying power than the mountain folk of Northwest NC.

[MplsBison]

ASU CAN GUARANTEE MORE REVENUE OVER THE PLAYOFFS BECAUSE THEY CAN SELL MORE SEATS

As I already implied, the number of seats you sell does not limit the amount of revenue you can generate per seat.

[Dane96]

As I already stated, I got that-- and you still make zero sense.

[Appstate29]

NDSU draws people from the entire state of ND. We are one of the state's flagships.


App does not draw people from the entire state of NC. You are not a state flagship. You're just a regional college.


Therefore:

Watauga County per capita income is $17,258.




IE, the state of ND has quite a bit more buying power than the mountain folk of Northwest NC.

ASU draws people from a wider radius than NDSU guaranteed. Who do you think people know more ASU or NDSU?

[MplsBison]

As I already stated, I got that-- and you still make zero sense.


$30/seat times 19000 seats = $570000

$15/seat times 24000 seats = $360000


$360000 < $570000




Bam.

[Appstate29]

except we don't charge 15$ a seat.

[Dane96]

$30/seat times 19000 seats = $570000

$15/seat times 24000 seats = $360000


$360000 < $570000




Bam.

Even if that were true, which it is not (the pricing), you also have 5,000 extra people with the potential to drink, eat, and buy more items at gametime then there are up in the Fargo Dome.

I see logical analysis and economics were not part of your studies?!

[MplsBison]

Even if that were true, which it is not (the pricing), you also have 5,000 extra people with the potential to drink, eat, and buy more items at gametime then there are up in the Fargo Dome.

And, using the exact same argument, the number of concessions sold does not reflect on the potential to generate revenue from concession sales in light of the fact that the price of concessions is variable.



Bluntly put: the larger buying power of the much more cosmopolitan Fargo over rural Boone more than makes up the capacity difference of the stadiums.






But to get back to the topic: if App some how managed to outbid NDSU for host of the 5/12 game, then they would deserve to host that game by all means.

[Dane96]

Dude...shush.

[Appstate29]

And, using the exact same argument, the number of concessions sold does not reflect on the potential to generate revenue from concession sales in light of the fact that the price of concessions is variable.



Bluntly put: the larger buying power of the much more cosmopolitan Fargo over rural Boone more than makes up the capacity difference of the stadiums.

OK well make the playoffs and draw the APPs and we'll see what happens.

[MplsBison]

Dude...shush.

Come on!


Unleash the full fury of your UA education!!!

*ground starts rumbling*

[MplsBison]

OK well make the playoffs and draw the APPs and we'll see what happens.

I can only dream!


My guess is that App would hold the advantage anywhere except Fargo.


No one holds the advantage over us in the Dome.

[Dane96]

Come on!


Unleash the full fury of your UA education!!!

*ground starts rumbling*

LOL...I wouldn't want your head to spin off.xnodx

[MplsBison]

I've had my head spun plenty of times.


I can take it.

[Dane96]

May want to make sure it is back on straight. It seems a bit "off-centered." ;)

[AshevilleApp2]

And, using the exact same argument, the number of concessions sold does not reflect on the potential to generate revenue from concession sales in light of the fact that the price of concessions is variable.



Bluntly put: the larger buying power of the much more cosmopolitan Fargo over rural Boone more than makes up the capacity difference of the stadiums.






But to get back to the topic: if App some how managed to outbid NDSU for host of the 5/12 game, then they would deserve to host that game by all means.

Your statement about buying power would make sense if you strictly compare Watauga County incomes with the Fargo MSA. But the reality is that most people who graduate from App aren't fortunate enough to find work there. Therefore they travel statewide to Boone to see the games. Let's compare some numbers using this hypothesis.

Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill MSA $48,845
Charlotte MSA $46,119
Greensboro/Winston Salem/High Point MSA $40,913

Fargo MSA $38,069

Hickory MSA $37,818
Asheville MSA $36,179

All of the MSA's in North Carolina that I used for the comparison are within 3 hours of Boone. As you can see, the buying power for the App fan base offsets that of Metropolitan Fargo. Additionally, since people have to travel to Boone to see the game, they are more likely to spend considerable amounts of money in the area at hotels, restaurants and gas stations.

[MplsBison]

Of course, the NCAA doesn't get any money from hotels, restaurants and gas stations, so they could care less about that.


And the simple point being this: NDSU has a population of over 170k within 10 miles of the stadium.




You can try to pretend that you draw people from all over NC, but the fact is that in the immediate proximity of the stadium you don't have much.

[andy7171]

Did mpls just use "cosmopolitian" to describe Fargo?

[AshevilleApp2]

Of course, the NCAA doesn't get any money from hotels, restaurants and gas stations, so they could care less about that.


And the simple point being this: NDSU has a population of over 170k within 10 miles of the stadium.




You can try to pretend that you draw people from all over NC, but the fact is that in the immediate proximity of the stadium you don't have much.

Can't refute that logic. xrolleyesx

Hopefully if we make the playoffs next year it will be as a one or two seed and bidding won't matter. But this past season the bidding did matter, and we stayed home due to the fact that Montana and McNeese State graciously eliminated themselves. Congrats on the 3,000 posts. Go to the lounge, there's a thread for you.

[danefan]

Did mpls just use "cosmopolitian" to describe Fargo?


xlolx xnodx
And yesterday he used per capita income to hype North Dakota. xrotatehx

[bench]

Of course, the NCAA doesn't get any money from hotels, restaurants and gas stations, so they could care less about that.


And the simple point being this: NDSU has a population of over 170k within 10 miles of the stadium.




You can try to pretend that you draw people from all over NC, but the fact is that in the immediate proximity of the stadium you don't have much.

If App doesn't draw from across North Carolina, and there's no one in the area surrounding the school, um, the stadium should be, uh, well, focking empty. Must be our massive following out of state and from points abroad; verily, our presence must be felt all over the world

[eaglesrthe1]

Per capita income. You guys are talking about attending a football game, not a trip to Monaco. xcoolx It's not like anyone has to mortgage their house to see the kickoff.xrolleyesx

Besides, ticket prices are set by the NCAA. They will be the same everywhere, AFAIK.

[stevdock]

Where the heck are there 170,000 people within 10 miles of the stadium here in Fargo?? Once again Mpls you need to check your facts.

[Retro]

Can't refute that logic. xrolleyesx

Hopefully if we make the playoffs next year it will be as a one or two seed and bidding won't matter. But this past season the bidding did matter, and we stayed home due to the fact that Montana and McNeese State graciously eliminated themselves. Congrats on the 3,000 posts. Go to the lounge, there's a thread for you.

Believe me, there was nothing gracious about it. :(

[FargoBison]

Where the heck are there 170,000 people within 10 miles of the stadium here in Fargo?? Once again Mpls you need to check your facts.

Fargo Urban Area Population: 166,965

Mpls wasn't too far off on that one.

As for the whole bid thing, let the top eight be seeded and host.

[MplsBison]

As for the whole bid thing, let the top eight be seeded and host.

The NCAA shouldn't be about charity.


If they have an opportunity to defray some of the cost of the tournament by having a 20k average attendance team who is at large host an AQ team that averages 10k, then they should take it and not think twice.

[AppMan]

It would be better for the NCAA to let them participate in a different division if they don't want to add schollies.

I proposed the same thing a few months back and got slammed for it.

[AppMan]

Correction: more people can buy a seat in KBS.


That does not mean more money can be generated at KBS.

There's a little thing called income per capita.


It takes a nosedive when you enter the deep south.

Another misconception from someone who knows NOTHING about the Boone area. This isn't the back woods of West Virginia we're talking about. Median family income in Watauga County is $51,400 annually and there are probably more million dollar homes within 25 miles of the ASU campus than in the entire state of North Dakota. The (2007) population of North Carolina is 9,061,032 and ASU draws most of its fans from a 100 mile radius of campus and a population in excess of 3.5 million. Contrast that with the entire state of North Dakota's 639,715 people. ASU is a unique situation. Although the campus is somewhat remote it is located in one of the largest resort areas in the Southeast. Our folks understand they have to drive and don't see that as an obstacle. For years many of us lobbied for later starting times for those who had several hours to cover. The new administration embraced the idea and set kickoff times back to later in the day. Since then attendance has skyrocketed.

[MplsBison]

Another misconception from someone who knows NOTHING about the area surrounding Boone. This isn't the back country of West Virginia you're talking about, it is a resort area. Probably more million dollar homes within 25 miles of the ASU campus than in the entire state of North Dakota.

They just don't have any income, right? xrolleyesx

[Appstate29]

They just don't have any income, right? xrolleyesx

let me reiterate something I said earlier:


Everyday, the administrators at North Dakota State kick themselves in their own ass for giving you a degree.


please, for the sake of all bison fans, just bow out from this thread, you really don't have a clue, but you just keep on trucking.

[AppMan]

They just don't have any income, right? xrolleyesx

Oh yea they've got income. Mostly in the form of stocks, bonds, and annuities.

[MplsBison]

Well obviously the rest of the people are dirt poor given the county's per capita income of 17k.