Permanent 12-Game Schedule Defeated

[Mvemjsunpx]

http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i ... 1694952504


The vote went 8-5. The MVFC & Pioneer (who have the same commissioner) voted no, while the Southland & OVC presumably voted yes since they sponsored it. The other conferences' votes are not mentioned.

[JohnStOnge]

I just don't get it. I mean, if you're in the MVFC and you don't want to schedule 12 games nobody says you HAVE to. Why not allow teams and/or conferences that WANT to to schedule 12 games?

[Mvemjsunpx]

I just don't get it. I mean, if you're in the MVFC and you don't want to schedule 12 games nobody says you HAVE to. Why not allow teams and/or conferences that WANT to to schedule 12 games?

Because they probably see it as the other teams getting an unfair advantage because they could pull in more revenue. If you don't benefit from scheduling a 12th. game, but another school does, why would you vote to give them that leg up when you don't get anything out of it?

[JohnStOnge]

I just don't get it. I mean, if you're in the MVFC and you don't want to schedule 12 games nobody says you HAVE to. Why not allow teams and/or conferences that WANT to to schedule 12 games?

Because they probably see it as the other teams getting an unfair advantage because they could pull in more revenue. If you don't benefit from scheduling a 12th. game, but another school does, why would you vote to give them that leg up when you don't get anything out of it?

If you see scheduling a 12th game as being an advantage why would you be against it to begin with?

The thing about the season being "long enough" with a 24 team playoff is a crock. Very few teams each year go deep enough into the playoffs to make that a potential issue and I am pretty confident that when teams do go deep into the playoffs they don't exactly mind.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Because they probably see it as the other teams getting an unfair advantage because they could pull in more revenue. If you don't benefit from scheduling a 12th. game, but another school does, why would you vote to give them that leg up when you don't get anything out of it?

If you see scheduling a 12th game as being an advantage why would you be against it to begin with?

If you see it as an advantage for another school, but not necessarily your own. NEC teams play only 6 conference games, for example, so it's a lot harder for them to fill their schedule. A 12th. game wouldn't benefit them near as much as a Southland team that plays 9 conference games.

The thing about the season being "long enough" with a 24 team playoff is a crock. Very few teams each year go deep enough into the playoffs to make that a potential issue and I am pretty confident that when teams do go deep into the playoffs they don't exactly mind.

Yeah, that likely is a crock for most teams. In FCS, the issue is probably more about being able to fit things into the schedule than whether teams are playing too many games. The regular season is 3 weeks shorter than FBS, after all.

[bluehenbillk]

Another reason why I'm not excited by FCS football anymore...

[BDKJMU]

The 12 game seasons are about 1/3rd (08', 14', 19' come to mind) where you have 13' Saturdays from the Sat of Labor Day weekend until the Saturday before Thanksgiving. The 11 game seasons are the rest where you have only 12 Saturdays available in that timeframe.

To make every season 12 games optional they would have had to do one of 3 things on those 11 game seasons:
-Go 12 straight weeks with no bye week for the teams that scheduled 12..Wasn't considered.
Or
-Start the playoffs a week later. Wasn't considered.
Or
-Start the season a week earlier in August, a week before the I-A schools (same weekend as currently are doing the kickoff game), which means every school scheduling 12 would have to be allowed start summer camp a week earlier at the beginning of Aug. (as currently the 2 doing the kickoff game are). This is what they were considering.

The result would have been:
-The increased financial cost of starting a week earlier (dorms & dining facilities open, salaries, etc) would have offset some of the additional revenue from a 12th game, with some schools getting no additional revenue at all.
-Coaches and players would have had a week less off in an already shortened summer.
-Weather: Adding a week of summer camp practice at the beginning of Aug, and a game every season in late Aug. In much of the country where heat is already an issue for the 1st several weeks, this would suck.
-Concern by some about increased wear and tear with as many schollies as I-A (Div III typically plays 10 game regular season & Div II 10-11 game).

I can see why they voted it down...I'm surprised it was even 8-5..

[BDKJMU]

I would support paring the playoffs back to 4 rounds, back to 16 teams, starting the playoffs a week later every season, not until the 1st weekend in Dec, & making every season a 12 game regular season. That would literally match the I-A 12 game regular season.

But I don't ever see the playoff field every decreasing (had to look the Div II/III stuff up):
-I-AA started playoffs in 78' with a 4 team field, and now is at a 24 team field.
-Div II started playoffs in 73' with an 8 team field, and now is at a 28 team field, with the most playing an 11 game regular season, but some only 10.
-Div III started playoffs in 73' with a 4 team field, and is now at a 32 team field, with most playing a 10 game regular season.

[89Hen]

But I don't ever see the playoff field every decreasing

Yup, tube is out of the toothpaste. 16 was and is the right number for I-AA.

[JohnStOnge]

I like the 24 because I believe that every FCS conference should get an automatic bid so as to make sure that every team that is in a conference controls its own destiny. I don't think 16 is enough if that's going to be done.

I also see zero real problem with just starting the playoffs a week later so as to allow for 12 games. They have a three week layoff between the semifinals and the championship game. They could find a way to do it.

Finally, I think the wear and tear thing is a crock. Sure, if you have one more game there's more risk of injury. The same thing could be said for having 11 games vs. 10 games, 10 games vs. 9 games, 9 games vs. 8 games, etc.

Different level but there's an interesting analysis of injuries over a NFL season at http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-a ... -over-time. Yes, if you play more games you are more likely to get hurt somewhere along the way. But the risk of being injured while playing game 1 isn't notably different than the risk of getting injured while playing game 17.

I just don't see going from 11 to 12 dramatically changing things where all of a sudden the season is just TOO long for college football players to take.

[89Hen]

I like the 24 because I believe that every FCS conference should get an automatic bid so as to make sure that every team that is in a conference controls its own destiny. I don't think 16 is enough if that's going to be done.

There are only 8 eligible scholarship conferences that want to participate.

Big Sky
CAA
MVFC
NEC
OVC
Patriot
Southern
Southland

Choose to not participate: Ivy, MEAC, SWAC
Choose to not offer schollies: Pioneer
Too few teams: Big South (just merge with the NEC already)

[SuperHornet]

I'm with 89...except for the merger idea. That would force a N-S oriented Sun Belt situation on our hands....

[JohnStOnge]

I can see a minimum number of teams requirement but the required number should be pretty low. If they want to say a league has to offer some minimum number of scholarships per program to be FCS then they should say that. But if that's not a requirement for being FCS it shouldn't keep a league's champion out of the playoffs. Set the requirements for being FCS, set the requirements for minimum number of teams. Then if a league meets the requirements for FCS and they want to participate their champion should be in the playoffs.

Right now there are 10 conferences that meet the requirements for FCS and want to participate. I guess it's subjective but I'd like to see more than 6 at large bids. But maybe they could go with 20 rather than 24.

[kalm]

32 teams.

I like football. Especially playoff football.

[BDKJMU]

32 teams.

I like football. Especially playoff football.

With that attitude why not just make it 64, or 96? You know, everyone gets a trophy..

[kalm]

32 teams.

I like football. Especially playoff football.

With that attitude why not just make it 64, or 96? You know, everyone gets a trophy..

Not enough time. But eliminate 1st round byes and it's doable. I like FCS football. I really like EWU football. If it gets us one more game as a bubble team that's great. If it gets us a home playoff game as a bubble team...also great. I like football.

But hey, why not just make it a 4 team playoff?

[BDKJMU]

I like the 24 because I believe that every FCS conference should get an automatic bid so as to make sure that every team that is in a conference controls its own destiny. I don't think 16 is enough if that's going to be done.

There are only 8 eligible scholarship conferences that want to participate.

Big Sky
CAA
MVFC
NEC
OVC
Patriot
Southern
Southland

Choose to not participate: Ivy, MEAC, SWAC
Choose to not offer schollies: Pioneer
Too few teams: Big South (just merge with the NEC already)

There are 9 eligible FULL scholarship conferences that want to participate.
Big Sky
CAA
MVFC
NEC
OVC
Patriot
Southern
Southland
*Big Sky

6 is the minimum # of teams that a conference is required to have to receive an AQ. The Big South currently has 6 and as of now will not drop below 6 and have 7 in 2019, as far as I can tell. I just took a look at their history (wiki so a couple of the years may be off) and damn that has been a conference in flux.
2002: (4) CSU, Elon, Liberty, G-Webb
2003: (5) Elon left for So-Con; added CCU & VMI.
2007: (6) Added Presby.
2013 1st AQ season
2014: (6) VMI went back to So-Con, added Monmouth.
2015: (7) Added Kennesaw St
2017: (6) CCU gone
2018 (6) Liberty gone, Campbell joining.
2019 (7) Div II powerhouse North Alabama joining.

I don't see the Big South merging with the NEC due to geography and scholly differences (NEC was at 45 last year)..

[BDKJMU]

But I don't ever see the playoff field every decreasing

Yup, tube is out of the toothpaste. 16 was and is the right number for I-AA.

For shits and giggles, I looked at the 2016 field, and did a if it had been a 16 team field with 10 AQ instead of a 24 team field, with 4 seeds like they used to do, this is what you would likely have had:

-EWU (Big Sky AQ)
-JSU (OVC AQ)
-JMU (CAA AQ)
-SHSU (Southland AQ)
-Citadel (So-Con AQ)
-SDSU (MVC AQ)
-CSU (Big South AQ)
-Lehigh (Patriot AQ)
-StFU (NEC AQ)
-San Diego (Pioneer AQ)

6 At larges would have likely been:
-NDSU (9-2/7-1) (MVFC At Large)
-ND (9-2/8-0) (Big Sky At Large)
-YSU (8-3/6-2) (MVFC At Large
-VU (8-3/6-2) (CAA At Large)
-Wofford (8-3/6-2) (So-Con At Large)
-UTC (8-3/6-2) (So-Con At Large) (last in) (or could flip them with UCA).

Teams in the 24 team field that would have been left out (only 3 of whom made the round of 16 and only 1 of whom made the quarterfinals):
-UCA (9-2/8-1) (1st out) (could flip them with UTC)
-UR (8-3/5-3)
-UNH (7-4/6-2)
-Weber (7-4/6-2)
-Cal Poly (7-4/5-3)
-Samford (7-4/6-2)
-NC A&T (9-2/7-1)
-ILSU (6-5/4-4)

Think the field would have been this (where with the old 16 team field, after the 1st 4 seeds and no in conference 1st round rematches, all the NCAA was concerned with was geography (1st round wouldn't have been any rematches)):

1st round/Round of 16:
ND at #1 NDSU (77 miles)
VU @ SDSU (flying) (3 Dakota schools as driving distance each other)

S Diego @ #2 EWU (flying)
Wofford @ SHSU (flying)

UTC (or UCA) @ #3 JSU (115 miles)
CSU @ Citadel (16 miles) (all 4 schools under NCAA 400 miles driving distance each other).

Lehigh @ #4 JMU (272 miles)
StFU @ YSU (127 miles) (all 4 schools under NCAA 400 miles driving distance each other).

Quarterfinals:
SDSU @ #1 NDSU
WC/SHSU winner @ #2 EWU
Citadel @ #3 JSU
YSU @ #4 JMU

Semis:
#4 JMU @ #1 NDSU
#3 JSU (probably) @ #2 EWU

NC:
#2 EWU/#4 JMU

[89Hen]

6 is the minimum # of teams that a conference is required to have to receive an AQ. The Big South currently has 6 and as of now will not drop below 6 and have 7 in 2019, as far as I can tell. I just took a look at their history (wiki so a couple of the years may be off) and damn that has been a conference in flux.

2017: (6) CCU gone
2018 (6) Liberty gone, Campbell joining.
2019 (7) Div II powerhouse North Alabama joining.

I thought Liberty is officially out already leaving them with 5. They certainly should be prevented from being counted as a member if they've already announced they are moving up.

[BDKJMU]

6 is the minimum # of teams that a conference is required to have to receive an AQ. The Big South currently has 6 and as of now will not drop below 6 and have 7 in 2019, as far as I can tell. I just took a look at their history (wiki so a couple of the years may be off) and damn that has been a conference in flux.

2017: (6) CCU gone
2018 (6) Liberty gone, Campbell joining.
2019 (7) Div II powerhouse North Alabama joining.

I thought Liberty is officially out already leaving them with 5. They certainly should be prevented from being counted as a member if they've already announced they are moving up.

They're playing a full I-AA schedule and full Big South schedule this season, and are classified as a I-AA.I was just assuming they count as a playoff ineligible conference member. Even if they aren't counted as a Big South member by the NCAA this season I don't think the Big South is losing the AQ for a season, esp with 2 more teams joining in the next 2 years.

[SuperHornet]

But hey, why not just make it a 4 team playoff?

That's not a playoff. It HAS TO be at least 16 to make it a true playoff. Actually, 16 is probably sufficient unless one unifies all of D-I into the structure and eliminates bowls. Then 64 would be great. But restricted to FCS, 32 is too watered-down for my taste, and 64 would be worse. (Do we even HAVE 64 teams in FCS?)

[kalm]

But hey, why not just make it a 4 team playoff?

That's not a playoff. It HAS TO be at least 16 to make it a true playoff. Actually, 16 is probably sufficient unless one unifies all of D-I into the structure and eliminates bowls. Then 64 would be great. But restricted to FCS, 32 is too watered-down for my taste, and 64 would be worse. (Do we even HAVE 64 teams in FCS?)

Why 16? How about 8? Or two? Baseball has one game playoffs. I guess you don't enjoy football as much as me.

[89Hen]

That's not a playoff. It HAS TO be at least 16 to make it a true playoff. Actually, 16 is probably sufficient unless one unifies all of D-I into the structure and eliminates bowls. Then 64 would be great. But restricted to FCS, 32 is too watered-down for my taste, and 64 would be worse. (Do we even HAVE 64 teams in FCS?)

Why 16? How about 8? Or two? Baseball has one game playoffs. I guess you don't enjoy football as much as me.

I don't agree that it's not a playoff with fewer teams. Four teams is the minimum for a "tournament" IMO. I also think there is a correct number. You've said time and time again simply that more is better. I disagree. When we have to start considering 6-5 teams for a playoffs, that means you have too many. Even 7-4 is shaky for a lot of teams considering 2 of the 7 could be against completely inferior teams OOC, that you may be in a big conference where you miss the top 1,2,3 teams, etc...

FBS with four teams is too few. 24 is too many. 16 was perfect.

[kalm]

Why 16? How about 8? Or two? Baseball has one game playoffs. I guess you don't enjoy football as much as me.

I don't agree that it's not a playoff with fewer teams. Four teams is the minimum for a "tournament" IMO. I also think there is a correct number. You've said time and time again simply that more is better. I disagree. When we have to start considering 6-5 teams for a playoffs, that means you have too many. Even 7-4 is shaky for a lot of teams considering 2 of the 7 could be against completely inferior teams OOC, that you may be in a big conference where you miss the top 1,2,3 teams, etc...

FBS with four teams is too few. 24 is too many. 16 was perfect.

Better chance my team gets in at 6-5, 7-4.
Better chance for a home playoff game.
More teams expands the interest in the subdivision.
Teams stay relevant further into the season.
Expanded pool incentivizes improvement for more programs.
Local media provides more coverage later in the season.
More extensive media coverage helps the FCS brand.
Upsets and cinderellas.
More inter-conference matchups.
More football.
I like football.

[89Hen]

I don't agree that it's not a playoff with fewer teams. Four teams is the minimum for a "tournament" IMO. I also think there is a correct number. You've said time and time again simply that more is better. I disagree. When we have to start considering 6-5 teams for a playoffs, that means you have too many. Even 7-4 is shaky for a lot of teams considering 2 of the 7 could be against completely inferior teams OOC, that you may be in a big conference where you miss the top 1,2,3 teams, etc...

FBS with four teams is too few. 24 is too many. 16 was perfect.

Better chance my team gets in at 6-5, 7-4.
Better chance for a home playoff game.
More teams expands the interest in the subdivision.
Teams stay relevant further into the season.
Expanded pool incentivizes improvement for more programs.
Local media provides more coverage later in the season.
More extensive media coverage helps the FCS brand.
Upsets and cinderellas.
More inter-conference matchups.
More football.
I like football.

I like football too. But I don't find myself clamoring for the highly anticipated match-up of Central Connecticut State vs Mercer in the playoffs.

Your logic leads to including every team in the subdivision and maybe having a 3 game regular season followed by a 96 team bracket. Go fish somewhere else.