Playoffs: Where we stand (10/31)

[danefan]

The point about DII wins has been articulated a dozen different ways to Eagles fans over the past two weeks, but they have become tone deaf and drunk with their own koolaid.

And it has been articulated back each time that 7 DI wins is part of the selection criteria but not neccessarily a black and white issue when comparing two teams once it's established that both have met it. I'm not denying the criteria exists, my quibble is with the rule itself and the assumption made over and over again that a greater amount of DI wins automatically = an at large, no need to look further. If that were the case, the Patriot and NEC would be getting more teams in on a consistent basis than the BSC.

Some east coasters who's teams benefit from the ability of scheduling non-schollie D1's happen to agree with that this needs to be changed. If the committee does not evaluate and compare all wins and losses when deciding between two teams they are not doing their job. Another example would be Montana State getting an at-large in 2006 with a loss to a very good DII Chadron State, but a win agianst FBS Colorado. I'm quite sure they got the bid ahead of several FCS teams with 8 DI wins that year but without as good a resume.

Don't worry Native, a 7-4 Weber team would get the nod instead of an 8-3 EWU because they have the same amount of DI wins and beat EWU head to head. And UNI would not get the nod based on their extra DI win against St. Francis but because of a slightly better resume.

Kool-aid from the Church of Reason and Cult of Fairness in Selecting the Best 8 Teams.

Look at recent history.

2008 Results:

Maine
Aug 30 - L at Iowa, 3-46
Sep 6 - W at Monmouth, 21-17
Sep 13 - W vs. Stony Brook, 28-13
Sep 20 - L at Richmond, 17-44
Sep 27 - L vs. James Madison, 10-24
Oct 4 - Open
Oct 11 - W at Delaware, 27-10
Oct 18 - W vs. Hofstra, 41-40 2OT
Oct 25 - W vs. Northeastern, 20-0
Nov 1 - W vs. Iona, 55-7
Nov 8 - W at Massachusetts, 21-20
Nov 15 - W at Rhode Island, 37-7
Nov 22 - L vs. New Hampshire, 24-28

8 Division I wins, including a win over Iona.
4 Division I loses.

W&M
Aug 30 - Open
Sep 6 - L at NC State, 24-34
Sep 13 - W vs. Va Military, 52-17
Sep 20 - W vs. Norfolk State, 42-12
Sep 27 - Open
Oct 4 - L vs. Villanova, 28-38
Oct 11 - W at New Hampshire, 38-34
Oct 18 - W at Delaware, 27-3
Oct 25 - W vs. Rhode Island, 34-24
Nov 1 - W at Towson, 34-14
Nov 8 - W vs. Northeastern, 38-17
Nov 15 - L at James Madison, 24-48
Nov 22 - L vs. Richmond, 20-23 OT

7 Division I wins
4 Division I loses.

Maine got in over W&M. The reason cited: An additional Division I win.

[ToTheLeft]

[sarcasm on] So then it would stand to reason that an LU team with 8 DI wins and no bad losses would get in over either Big Sky team with 7, right? [sarcasm off]

[danefan]

[sarcasm on] So then it would stand to reason that an LU team with 8 DI wins and no bad losses would get in over either Big Sky team with 7, right? [sarcasm off]

Sorry, to make it more clear, I'm discussing the comparison between an 8-3 UNI and a 7-4 EWU.

[ToTheLeft]

Would you be surprised if the Committee put LU in with 8 wins, tho? Honestly? I mean, I'm not saying it will happen, or that it would be right, but would it be a shock?

[danefan]

Would you be surprised if the Committee put LU in with 8 wins, tho? Honestly? I mean, I'm not saying it will happen, or that it would be right, but would it be a shock?

Wouldn't be a shock. LU will be on the board. As will a 10-1 CCSU and a 9-2 FAMU, and 9-2 Colgate and 9-2 Holy Cross.

Doesn't mean they'll make, but they'll all be in consideration and thus, I won't be shocked.

They haven't really shocked me yet with anything. I didn't agree with last year's results. I thought W&M should have gotten in.

[ToTheLeft]

Exactly. There will be a set of teams clearly on the bubble, and LU after winning out would be one of them, and it wouldn't shock me to see us get in even if EWU wins out.. However, if you look at things objectively, EWU probably deserves it a little more.

[POTTNUZ]

GOTTA GET FAMU IN. THEY ONLY LOST TO MIAMI AND #10SCSU!!!!!! IF THEY WIN OUT THEY GOTTA BE CONSIDERED!!!!

[danefan]

GOTTA GET FAMU IN. THEY ONLY LOST TO MIAMI AND #10SCSU!!!!!! IF THEY WIN OUT THEY GOTTA BE CONSIDERED!!!!

Welcome Pottnuz!

FAMU's problem isn't who they lost to, its who they have beaten - no one.

[ToTheLeft]

And the no one FAMU has beaten is even worse than the no one Liberty has beaten.

[dbackjon]

GOTTA GET FAMU IN. THEY ONLY LOST TO MIAMI AND #10SCSU!!!!!! IF THEY WIN OUT THEY GOTTA BE CONSIDERED!!!!

Keep winning and you will be.

[kalm]

[sarcasm on] So then it would stand to reason that an LU team with 8 DI wins and no bad losses would get in over either Big Sky team with 7, right? [sarcasm off]

Sorry, to make it more clear, I'm discussing the comparison between an 8-3 UNI and a 7-4 EWU.

My bad, I thought we were talking about a "7-3" EWU team which as I've admitted would get passed over for an 8-3 UNI which won the head to head. Just not neccessarily for the one reason you gave although I will admit that W&M got screwed last year. For that matter a 7-4 Weber State would also get chosen over EWU.

My point is still that if the committee does its job, a win over St. Francis should have no more bearing than a win over Western Oregon. If it does, then the committee is simply being lazy and it's a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.

The same can be said for comparing non-power conference teams with 8 or 9 "DI" win records for at-larges with 7+ win power conference teams.

[POTTNUZ]

GOTTA GET FAMU IN. THEY ONLY LOST TO MIAMI AND #10SCSU!!!!!! IF THEY WIN OUT THEY GOTTA BE CONSIDERED!!!!

Welcome Pottnuz!

FAMU's problem isn't who they lost to, its who they have beaten - no one.

YEAH I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEATEN ANY ONE OF IMPORTANCE AND THE MEAC ISN'T A POWERHOUSE. I THINK IF WE DID GET IN WE'D LOSE IN THE FIRST ROUND CAUSE OUR DEF IS AWFUL. THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IN OUR FAVOR IS QB CURTIS PULLEY(HE PLAYS LIKE A MAN AMONG BOYS)!!!!

[danefan]

Welcome Pottnuz!

FAMU's problem isn't who they lost to, its who they have beaten - no one.

YEAH I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEATEN ANY ONE OF IMPORTANCE AND THE MEAC ISN'T A POWERHOUSE. I THINK IF WE DID GET IN WE'D LOSE IN THE FIRST ROUND CAUSE OUR DEF IS AWFUL. THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IN OUR FAVOR IS QB CURTIS PULLEY(HE PLAYS LIKE A MAN AMONG BOYS)!!!!

Pulley is a solid QB that's for sure. And Vann is a darn good return guy.
Fun team to watch when they are clicking.

[JayJ79]

My bad, I thought we were talking about a "7-3" EWU team which as I've admitted would get passed over for an 8-3 UNI which won the head to head. Just not neccessarily for the one reason you gave although I will admit that W&M got screwed last year. For that matter a 7-4 Weber State would also get chosen over EWU.

My point is still that if the committee does its job, a win over St. Francis should have no more bearing than a win over Western Oregon. If it does, then the committee is simply being lazy and it's a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.

Fact of the matter is that the NCAA championship handbook states that:

4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all
Division I opponents

Teams were aware of that when they made their schedules.
If it is really an issue, then they should lobby to get the wording changed to "fully-funded Division I opponents", (or sponsoring X amount of scholarships).
But until that time, a team knows that by scheduling a non-Div. I team, they are taking a chance of possibly reducing their at-large resume.

[BlackFalkin]

although I have lots of college football knowledge, I dont know much about FCS playoffs... (ironic right.. ) anyway... I have some questions.

#1 how many auto bids does each conf get specifically? or does it differ every year? if so what is it based on?
#2 why is the fcs expanding to 20 teams ( i think its great btw)
#3 How are teams 'awarded' home games in the playoffs?
#4 Why does the CAA get sooo many teams in every year? & why does everyone else simply except it?


thanks, I really appreciate it

1. there are currently 8 autobids ("AQ"). (Patriot, CAA, Big Sky, MEAC, OVC, SLC, SoCon, MVFC). They are supposed to be determined on a yearly basis, but until a few years ago there were only the above 8 teams that had requested an AQ and thus it was a "rubber stamp" exercise. The NEC bucked the trend and became the 9th. They were denied and prompted all the expansion talk and final approval.

2. The playoffs are expanding to 20 teams to accomodate AQ's for the NEC and Big South. The NEC is currently eligible and the Big South will be eligible next year. Essentially the argument was that in every other sport besides FCS football, all eligible conferences get an AQ. That wasn't happening in FCS football and the NCAA decided it should. It has to be 20, instead of 18, because according to the NCAA bylaws at least half of the field must be reserved for at-large bids. So, 10 AQ's must have 10 at-larges and thus 20. It was a huge hurdle for the NEC because it involved adding an additional week of games to the playoffs which costs the NCAA money.

3. Teams are awarded home games in 2 ways. The four seeds are automatically awarded homes games and are paired with teams closest in geography to them. The remaining 8 teams are paired up based on geography and each team submits a "bid" teh NCAA, essentially guaranteeing attendance figures and paying the NCAA a minimum $$$$. The highest bid between the two teams wins.

4. The CAA gets so many teams in because of the way the 8 remaining at-larges are determined. The Selection Committee is tasked by the NCAA to award the remaining 8 at-large bids to the 8 strongest teams. The last couple of years, the 8 strongest teams have included 3 or 4 CAA teams. When it comes to at-larges, conference affiliation is not considered. Just strength of the team's resume. The comittee has issued guidelines for at-large selection which include positives such as wins over FBS teams and negatives such as less than 7 Division I wins.

great detail... thanks

[kalm]

My bad, I thought we were talking about a "7-3" EWU team which as I've admitted would get passed over for an 8-3 UNI which won the head to head. Just not neccessarily for the one reason you gave although I will admit that W&M got screwed last year. For that matter a 7-4 Weber State would also get chosen over EWU.

My point is still that if the committee does its job, a win over St. Francis should have no more bearing than a win over Western Oregon. If it does, then the committee is simply being lazy and it's a flaw in the system that needs to be addressed.

Fact of the matter is that the NCAA championship handbook states that:

4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all
Division I opponents

Teams were aware of that when they made their schedules.
If it is really an issue, then they should lobby to get the wording changed to "fully-funded Division I opponents", (or sponsoring X amount of scholarships).
But until that time, a team knows that by scheduling a non-Div. I team, they are taking a chance of possibly reducing their at-large resume.

Thanks Jay, I knew about the 7 DI wins soft rule but was unaware of that one. So Danefan you're right, that would definitely favor UNI ahead of EWU.

The rule definitely needs to be changed for the reasons I've mentioned. And I'd like to think that western conferences have lobbied for it. I'm quite positive that AD's out west schedule DII's out of neccessity.