The end of November is always an exciting time in FCS football.  For 16 teams it means the beginning of a shot at the national championship.  Starting in 2010 that number will jump to 20 with the addition of automatic bids for the Big South and NEC, and 2 more at-large bids.

When the playoffs started in 1978 there was only 4 teams involved.  In 1981 the format changed to 8 teams.  One year later the playoffs were expanded to 12 teams, with 4 teams getting a first round bye.  The first 16 team playoff bracket was formed in 1986.

With the first change in over 20 years only a season away, another change is already brewing.

A little more than a month ago the rumors began spreading that the Pioneer Football League, a non-scholarship football only conference, was applying for an automatic bid.  The league is in its 17th year of operation and it currently ranges from coast to coast.  The ten team conference is composed of Butler, Campbell, Davidson, Dayton, Drake, Jacksonville, Marist, Morehead State, San Diego, and Valparaiso.  Although the Pioneer League has not officially announced it’s intentions, the rumor was confirmed by Morehead State Athletic Director Brian Hutchinson.  ( http://www.wkyt.com/wymtsports/headlines/61520037.html )

This announcement has stirred up a lot of arguments in the FCS community.  Here are the two sides to that argument:

“The Pioneer League meets all requirements”- This is the positive side of the discussion, and it’s true.  The Pioneer meets all of the requirements set forth by the NCAA for teams who want to apply for an automatic bid.  They are one of three conferences who are eligible to apply for an autobid, but most likely the only one that will apply.

I agree with this side of the argument.  There is no reason to keep a league from applying for an automatic bid if they meet all of the requirements put forth by the NCAA.  If the NCAA plans to exclude them, they would have to change the language in the by-laws.  If they Pioneer League is denied, they will be the only qualified applicant who has been denied.  The SWAC and Ivy show no interest in participating at this juncture.

“The Pioneer League is not competitive”- The other side of the argument is that the teams in the Pioneer League do not schedule properly and are not competitive when playing against teams from the other auto bid conferences.  Statistically, since 2002 the Pioneer League is 7-25 against teams from auto bid conferences.  They were outscored in these games by a total of 1132-486.  In the 7 games that they won, their opponents combined for a record of 18-54, although one of those wins was against a 2007 Fordham team that won the Patriot League and lost in the first round to Massachusetts.  There are two teams, Butler and Campbell, that did not play teams from automatic bid conferences during this period.  The other issue that makes the Pioneer League appear to be weak is the losses to sub D-I opponents.  The 10 teams in the league have combined for 53 losses to sub D-I opponents since 2002.

It’s hard to disagree with this side.  If the Pioneer League intends to participate in the playoffs, some changes need to be made in order for them to be competitive. The changes need to start with the schedules.  The teams in the Pioneer League need to schedule less sub D-I teams and more teams from auto-bid conferences.  Hopefully with some changes the Pioneer League will find itself competitive and their playoff match-ups won’t end up like a 1 seed playing a 16 seed in March Madness.

The 2009 season is off to a great start. The debate over who is the best team in the country is heating up more and more each week. Between the 3 major polls (AGS, Coaches, and TSN) there are 6 different teams with first place votes.

While Richmond is the consensus pick between the 3 polls, one has to wonder if this is based on this year’s performance, or if voters picked Richmond in the preseason and left them there.

I would like to see all polls wait until after week 5 of the season to start their voting. I think you would find the number one votes more equally spread out across teams like Villanova, Montana, Richmond, William and Mary, Northern Iowa and New Hampshire.

While I don’t think any one of those teams is a clear cut number one, I’d like to see what the polls would look like based solely on a teams resume.

I think we’d see South Dakota State and Massachusetts higher, and Appalachian State and Elon lower. We also might find Cal Poly, Furman, and Delaware out of the polls, with Florida A&M, Stephen F Austin, and Youngstown State in.

It’s clear that the majority of the voters in these polls do not compare resumes on a week to week basis. Most of them are sliding teams up and down with wins and losses. Teams who start off low or out of the polls can beat a top team and still end up in the middle, even though they may in fact be a top ten team.

Look at these examples:

Coaches Poll:

Cal Poly at 17. They started at 14 and have only dropped 3 spots. The Mustangs are clearly not the same team they were last year and have a 1-2 record. While the two losses were to FBS teams, they were to perennial cellar dwellers in non-BCS conferences. Coming into the season I expected Cal Poly to win both of them.

Montana State at 25. The Bobcats have hardly earned a ranking. After taking a beating from Michigan State, MSU beat lowly D-II school, Dixie State and then beat a weak Northern Colorado team, who on top of trying to build their program was fighting the injury bug.

Others recieving votes?

 Butler. The Bulldogs are 4-0. Deserving of votes, right? Not so fast. 3 of the 4 wins were against sub D-I opponents. 3! Their other win was an overtime victory over Morehead State, a team that gave St. Francis (PA) their first win in over a year when the Red Flash dominated them 31-0. Clearly the person who voted for them: A) Doesn’t pay attention or B) is a homer.

The coaches poll is flawed because most coaches are focused on their team and their opponents. They don’t watch the rest of the top 30 teams in the country. Most of the time the voting isn’t handled by the coaches anyway.

TSN Poll:

Weber State at #11. While the Wildcats shouldn’t be ruled out of the 2009 Big Sky race, they are entirely too high in the poll.  Last weekends last second victory over Portland state moved them to 2-2. Their other win came against 0-4 Idaho State. Yes the 2 losses came to FBS teams, but they could have won both of those games. In my opinion good teams find ways to win close games. 5 spots too high.

Cal Poly at #19. See coaches poll.

Others receiving votes?

The TSN has quite a few:

Winston-Salem State16 votes. Record? 0-4….seriously….

Jacksonville 8 votes. The Dolphins are 1-2 with no D-I wins. One of their losses was at home to Old Dominion, a first year team.

Butler 4 votes. See Coaches Poll.

Dayton 3 votes. 2-1 with a loss to a sub D-I school. The wins weren’t even impressive. Close games against weak schools.

Georgia Southern 1 vote. 1 vote too many. The Eagles are DOWN this year. They have a young team and have nothing to garner even one vote.

North Dakota State 1 vote. Only win is against Wagner. 1-3 heading into week 5.

San Diego 1 vote. Non scholarship team with a 2-1 record. Loss?  Northern Colorado. UNC is not a powerhouse, yet the USD lost by 19. Wins over a sub D-I school and weak non-scholarship Marist do not garner votes.

It’s clear to me that the TSN poll has too many Pioneer reps, or one very irresponsible Pioneer voter. The votes for an 0-4 WSSU just baffles me. The TSN poll could be a good poll if they cut the fat in their membership.

AGS poll:

Outside of Weber State and Cal Poly being too high, I dont have too many complaints. Every poll can be debated, but the AGS poll seems the most balanced at this point in time.

Others receiving votes?

Nothing too weird. Maybe there were some, but the AGS poll doesn’t list the teams with less than 5 votes.

The best thing about the polls is that they aren’t that important. We’re lucky enough to have a playoff system in place, and starting next year an extra 4 teams will get to join in. If you take care of business in your conference, you’re in, whether you’re ranked or not.