The FCS Wedge 2021

[MSUBobcat]

Agree on all that and wanted everyone to know that we in the BSC dislike this unbalanced schedule as much as anyone out there does. It is tolerated, but widely disliked and the base membership would like very much to get back to the 9 team schedule I would bet. It does not really matter if the unbalanced perception out there is that it helps the BSC, it is possible, but it really sucks even if that were the case.

Yeah, I think one would be hard pressed to find a person who is a fan of a 13-team FCS conference. If there were divisions and a championship game to ensure an undefeated team doesn't shirk playing all or most of the other top teams in the conference, that would help. Going to 12 next year will help. No one seems to be saying having 12 teams is giving the CAA any advantage. Getting down to 10 would even be acceptable - each team would play everyone except 1 team and there would be enough round robin among the teams to get a general idea of the pecking order (unless like this year Team A beat Team B who beat Team C who beat..... Team A ). 13 though... you're only playing 2/3 of the teams. Way too much subjectivity.

[Preferred Walk-On]

Excellent work on the Round 2 review. About to check out the preview.

Sac State was the sole conference champ, having the only undefeated conference record. MSU would have shared, but.... the Brawl. EWU and UM both finished tied for 3rd, so Sac not having the highest seed would have taken some mental gymnastics. That's not to say they deserved the highest seed of the Big Sky teams, but as everyone has mentioned, the unbalanced schedule dictated it. They beat Montana (when they were beaten up and not playing very well) who beat MSU, who beat EWU, who beat Montana. With the circular results of those 3 teams, having beaten the only one they played and finishing undefeated, it would be very difficult to seed UM #4 and Sac #6 (or #8).

Yep, sorry about that mis-step (i.e., sole conference champ), but the song remains the same. Sac State missed arguably the three of the four best teams in the Big Sky, so it really made it difficult to place the teams. Perhaps only two should have been seeded. Perhaps all four should have been seeded. Who knows? As an outside observer, I don't think Sac State should have been the #4 seed. I am not saying they shouldn't have been seeded, just maybe not #4. The consensus in the bracket challenge supports this, as Sac State was the only team predicted to be beaten by an unseeded team in the 2nd round by the ~55 challenge players with a margin of 86% to 14% (that's pretty big). I am curious about what other Big Sky fans think about the order that the Big Sky seeds should have been. It was a tough situation, but perhaps the committee needed to acknowledge the unbalanced schedule and use it to justify the Big Sky seeds.

[acbearkat]

Yeah, I think one would be hard pressed to find a person who is a fan of a 13-team FCS conference. If there were divisions and a championship game to ensure an undefeated team doesn't shirk playing all or most of the other top teams in the conference, that would help. Going to 12 next year will help. No one seems to be saying having 12 teams is giving the CAA any advantage. Getting down to 10 would even be acceptable - each team would play everyone except 1 team and there would be enough round robin among the teams to get a general idea of the pecking order (unless like this year Team A beat Team B who beat Team C who beat..... Team A ). 13 though... you're only playing 2/3 of the teams. Way too much subjectivity.

The SEC is going to 16 no later than 2025.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MTfan4life]

The consensus in the bracket challenge supports this, as Sac State was the only team predicted to be beaten by an unseeded team in the 2nd round by the ~55 challenge players with a margin of 86% to 14% (that's pretty big).

I would argue that margin was solely because they were playing South Dakota State. SDSU was a hail mary and a stupid decision to go for two away from being the #2 seed. That was a brutal pairing for the 4 seed to play in round two. As I said on the show, I really think SDSU should have been paired with the 8 seed.

[MTfan4life]

Yeah, I think one would be hard pressed to find a person who is a fan of a 13-team FCS conference. If there were divisions and a championship game to ensure an undefeated team doesn't shirk playing all or most of the other top teams in the conference, that would help. Going to 12 next year will help. No one seems to be saying having 12 teams is giving the CAA any advantage. Getting down to 10 would even be acceptable - each team would play everyone except 1 team and there would be enough round robin among the teams to get a general idea of the pecking order (unless like this year Team A beat Team B who beat Team C who beat..... Team A ). 13 though... you're only playing 2/3 of the teams. Way too much subjectivity.

Ten would be most ideal, imo. Toss NAU and Cal Poly aside and we'd be set. Also, I believe the WAC has 8 at this point, right? Just send them over there! Problem solved. Two conferences at 10.

[Chalupa Batman]

I would argue that margin was solely because they were playing South Dakota State. SDSU was a hail mary and a stupid decision to go for two away from being the #2 seed. That was a brutal pairing for the 4 seed to play in round two. As I said on the show, I really think SDSU should have been paired with the 8 seed.

I'm still pretty shocked, and relieved, that SDSU didn't get funneled to Fargo.

[Preferred Walk-On]

I would argue that margin was solely because they were playing South Dakota State. SDSU was a hail mary and a stupid decision to go for two away from being the #2 seed. That was a brutal pairing for the 4 seed to play in round two. As I said on the show, I really think SDSU should have been paired with the 8 seed.

Or be the #8 seed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Preferred Walk-On]

I'm still pretty shocked, and relieved, that SDSU didn't get funneled to Fargo.

Send Matt Larsen a thank you. I also think the committee has this inkling to avoid a potential national championship game rematch in the actual national championship game. I think that’s why they are in Sam’s half (and as a consequence would avoid NDSU until potentially the natty). All bets would have been off if Sam were not the #1 and NDSU were not the #2 seed (at least for funneling through NDSU), but I think one would be hard pressed to say either Sam or NDSU did not deserve their seeds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Preferred Walk-On]

I would argue that margin was solely because they were playing South Dakota State. SDSU was a hail mary and a stupid decision to go for two away from being the #2 seed. That was a brutal pairing for the 4 seed to play in round two. As I said on the show, I really think SDSU should have been paired with the 8 seed.

I do agree that the first round games funneling into Montana State and Sac State could have been reversed, but Missouri State finished higher than SDSU, so technically Sac State DID get the better (potential) matchup. This is the logic one would have to use, if they are going to argue Sac State was the best Big Sky team and deserved a #4 seed, so I guess the committee was consistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MSUBobcat]

The SEC is going to 16 no later than 2025.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But they'll have 2 divisions and a championship game to decide which (or both, as is the case this year) of the division winners will get selected for the CFP. It won't be "which of these 4 SEC teams, who each only played 1 of the other 3, should get a top 8 seed".