Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So, does anyone know if how many teams will be seeded? Or will the NCAA secretly seed teams 1-12 and 13-20 then seed the top eight teams to face the first round winners and pair everyone up geographically? I've heard contradicting reports on seeding and nothing on how the teams will be paired up.

There has not been any official announcemnet yet. I'm not even sure its actually been decided yet.

The only thing in writing that I have seen was the Sporting News's 2009 preseason FCS preview which stated that starting in 2010 when expansion occured, the NCAA would seed the Top 8 teams.

That makes sense. They don't need to seed the top 12. They really only need to deteremine the bottom 8, but not necessarily seed them.

Seed the top 8.
Decide which teams are the bottom 8.
The last 4 standing get a bye along with the top 8.

The only reason they even need to seed the Top 8 is to figure out regionalization as best as possible in the 2nd round. If you seed 8, you've decided the home games and you can thus set up the 1st round and byes in the bracket as appropriate.

No official announcement yet though.

Hopefully that means having teams determined the bye teams and non-bye teams before regionalization kicks in. Sounds a bit crazy but if the rules aren't defined, would the NCAA be above switching a 1st round team and an unseeded bye team just because it's a better regional fit?

T-Dog wrote:Hopefully that means having teams determined the 9-12 and 13-20 teams before regionalization kicks in. Sounds a bit crazy but would the NCAA be above switching a 1st round team and an unseeded bye team just because it's a better regional fit?

I hope so as well, but its no guarantee.

I think its pretty safe that we'll see the following match up year in and year out in the opening round:

NEC AQ vs. PL AQ --> winner against the highest seeded CAA team
Big South AQ vs. MEAC AQ --> winner against the highest seeded SoCon or CAA South team
OVC AQ vs. SLC AQ --> winner against Montana
9th at large vs. 10th at large --> wherever they fit.

There will definitely be some movement depending on where the AQ's above rank, but for the most part they'll be in the 15+ range and probably fit in the opening round.

danefan wrote:NEC AQ vs. PL AQ --> winner against the highest seeded CAA team
Big South AQ vs. MEAC AQ --> winner against the highest seeded SoCon or CAA South team
OVC AQ vs. SLC AQ --> winner against Montana
9th at large vs. 10th at large --> wherever they fit.

A CAA team north of the Mason-Dixon line will slaughter a small northeast team.
The MEAC or Big South will be held down.
The SLC has to go to Montana.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The 5-8 seeds will get some interesting match ups though.

I'm wondering if they will stick to the policy of not pairing same-conference teams in the round-of-16. With the added expense of the play-in round, I would think they might consider doing away with that policy to save on travel.

T-Dog wrote:

danefan wrote:NEC AQ vs. PL AQ --> winner against the highest seeded CAA team
Big South AQ vs. MEAC AQ --> winner against the highest seeded SoCon or CAA South team
OVC AQ vs. SLC AQ --> winner against Montana
9th at large vs. 10th at large --> wherever they fit.

A CAA team north of the Mason-Dixon line will slaughter a small northeast team.
The MEAC or Big South will be held down.
The SLC has to go to Montana.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The 5-8 seeds will get some interesting match ups though.

There actually has been a rare occasion this didn't happen...2005 for example. Montana lost to Cal Poly and CP ended up playing in San Marcos. That had to be a total anomoly.

T-Dog wrote:

danefan wrote:NEC AQ vs. PL AQ --> winner against the highest seeded CAA team
Big South AQ vs. MEAC AQ --> winner against the highest seeded SoCon or CAA South team
OVC AQ vs. SLC AQ --> winner against Montana
9th at large vs. 10th at large --> wherever they fit.

A CAA team north of the Mason-Dixon line will slaughter a small northeast team.
The MEAC or Big South will be held down.
The SLC has to go to Montana.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The 5-8 seeds will get some interesting match ups though.

Exactly - this is what I said when the expanded. Its not really going to change anything for the teams that are in the hunt for the NC game except that they'll have a bye week. That's why expansion isn't that big a deal.

Tribe4SF wrote:I'm wondering if they will stick to the policy of not pairing same-conference teams in the round-of-16. With the added expense of the play-in round, I would think they might consider doing away with that policy to save on travel.

I think they may, but for now its still in place. When the expanded they purposefully called the thanksgiving weekend games the "Opening Round" and the second weekend the "First Round".

I think they did this so they didn't have to change the rule book, which specifically references the "First Round" in regionalization and conference matchup rules.

I'd prefer to see four regions with 5 teams each with a play-in game to determine the 4 seed in each region. You might see some cross-country travel if Montana gets shifted east or Appy is sent west, but to me, that would be easier to picture due to our familiarity with the hoops tournament.

SuperHornet wrote:I'd prefer to see four regions with 5 teams each with a play-in game to determine the 4 seed in each region. You might see some cross-country travel if Montana gets shifted east or Appy is sent west, but to me, that would be easier to picture due to our familiarity with the hoops tournament.

That's probably what will happen, but not necesarily by specific rule. That's pretty much what they tried to do with the 16 team bracket, although it doesn't always work that way.

Tribe4SF wrote:I'm wondering if they will stick to the policy of not pairing same-conference teams in the round-of-16. With the added expense of the play-in round, I would think they might consider doing away with that policy to save on travel.

danefan wrote:I think they may, but for now its still in place. When the expanded they purposefully called the thanksgiving weekend games the "Opening Round" and the second weekend the "First Round".

I think they did this so they didn't have to change the rule book, which specifically references the "First Round" in regionalization and conference matchup rules.

Thats going to cause major confusion then. You will have the press, coaches, players, fans who win their Thanksgiving weekend games saying they won a 1st round game, and now are set to play so and so in the 2nd round (round of 16). If the NCAA sticks to calling 2nd round games 1st round games thats going to be incredibly retarded.

BDKJMU wrote:

Tribe4SF wrote:I'm wondering if they will stick to the policy of not pairing same-conference teams in the round-of-16. With the added expense of the play-in round, I would think they might consider doing away with that policy to save on travel.

The policy is to now not pair up same conference in the 1st round. But since the round of 16 will now be the 2nd round, I'm sure we'll see some in conference matchups. Otherwisr they'd have to come up with a new policy of not playing teams from the same conference in the 1st 2 rounds. That would be far too difficult.

It wouldn't be so difficult, rather, it would cost the NCAA $$$ they don't want to spend on FCS playoffs. Sending east teams west, and vice versa, in the early rounds is not in their playbook. If it were some of the past few years may have seen different results early.

I wasn't aware that they were going with 8 top seeds. I was thinking it would still be only the 4 as in the past. As far as the bottom 8 teams they would naturally have to be paired with the top 4 seeds before the 1st round, as best they can geographically

In other words:
#1 seed would be set to host the winner of a 1st round game.
#2 seed would be set to host the winner of a 1st round game.
#3 seed would be set to host the winner of a 1st round game.
#4 seed would be set to host the winner of a 1st round game.

Not sure why they would need to seed the top 8. If they only seeded the top 4 then the remaining 8 teams that received byes could just be paired up as best as possible geographically as in the past.

But if there are 8 seeds then the remaining 4 seeds (#5-#8)would be paired geographically with the 4 non seed in the top 12. It would be set up so that all 8 seeds made it to the qtrs then you'd have #1 hosting #8, #2 hosting #7, #3 hosting #6, and #4 hosting #5.

Maybe it will work something like that. But with the NCAA, who the f*ck knows.

danefan wrote:

T-Dog wrote:
A CAA team north of the Mason-Dixon line will slaughter a small northeast team.
The MEAC or Big South will be held down.
The SLC has to go to Montana.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The 5-8 seeds will get some interesting match ups though.

Exactly - this is what I said when the expanded. Its not really going to change anything for the teams that are in the hunt for the NC game except that they'll have a bye week. That's why expansion isn't that big a deal.

It's not that big of a deal right now, but now that an extra week of playoffs have been added it makes it that much easier to expand the playoffs further. I think it's only a matter of time before the playoffs expand to 24 and maybe as many as 32 teams.

BlueHen86 wrote:

danefan wrote:
Exactly - this is what I said when the expanded. Its not really going to change anything for the teams that are in the hunt for the NC game except that they'll have a bye week. That's why expansion isn't that big a deal.

It's not that big of a deal right now, but now that an extra week of playoffs have been added it makes it that much easier to expand the playoffs further. I think it's only a matter of time before the playoffs expand to 24 and maybe as many as 32 teams.

I think its a matter of time before it goes to 22 (with the PFL's AQ and corresponding at-large).

Other than that I don't see another league getting/wanting an AQ anytime soon.

Great West? Who's the 6th team? And then they have to wait 2 years anyway.
SWAC - not happening
Ivy - not happening
New Yankee - not happening soon

Are you wrried that they're going to expand just to add at-larges?

danefan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
It's not that big of a deal right now, but now that an extra week of playoffs have been added it makes it that much easier to expand the playoffs further. I think it's only a matter of time before the playoffs expand to 24 and maybe as many as 32 teams.

I think its a matter of time before it goes to 22 (with the PFL's AQ and corresponding at-large).

Other than that I don't see another league getting/wanting an AQ anytime soon.

Great West? Who's the 6th team? And then they have to wait 2 years anyway.
SWAC - not happening
Ivy - not happening
New Yankee - not happening soon

Are you wrried that they're going to expand just to add at-larges?

I wouldn't say that I'm worried, but I would not be suprised to see them expand just to add at larges.

Personally im just hoping that this will open up the At Large Bids more instead of just one team getting in (like Cal Poly) id really enjoy seeing 2 to even 3 teams get in , will this be a decent possibility with the field expanding by 4?

If I were the NCAA, I'd name 4 seeds, the Top 12 overall, and set the 4 'play-in' games for the opening round.

And set the bracket of 16 upon completion of the opening round.

Aho Old Guy wrote:

If I were the NCAA, I'd name 4 seeds, the Top 12 overall, and set the 4 'play-in' games for the opening round.

And set the bracket of 16 upon completion of the opening round.

Welcome.

That makes sense and that might be what they do. That may require additional work by the NCAA during the Thanksgiving weekend though, so I'm not sure they'll be willing to do that.

danefan wrote:

Aho Old Guy wrote:

If I were the NCAA, I'd name 4 seeds, the Top 12 overall, and set the 4 'play-in' games for the opening round.

And set the bracket of 16 upon completion of the opening round.

Welcome.

That makes sense and that might be what they do. That may require additional work by the NCAA during the Thanksgiving weekend though, so I'm not sure they'll be willing to do that.

I think they could get 99% of the 1st round work done.

The Play-In may well be too difficult to 'regionalize' and in itself may be a '16' bracket buster. With a general idea of the 16, the opening round can be played without having to sweat out an awkward upset or two that could bust the regional concept of the first round.

If a western (and/or vice-versa) team has major travel for the play-in, it could result in major suckage if they again had to travel across the country in a pre-determined '16' game (and it would be even more ridiculous if we had two teams traveling well outside their region for the first round game if the potential for playing a regional opponent in their 'neighborhood' existed after the play-in).

The Big Hump I could see in the '16' round would be the potential of playing a conference opponent since everyone knows the CAA will now qualify 7 teams.

I don't know about everyone but I want to see Cal Poly and Liberty in the playoffs in SLO. SO i can drive an hour and half north to watch. It would just be geographically conveniant.

LUaddict wrote:I don't know about everyone but I want to see Cal Poly and Liberty in the playoffs in SLO. SO i can drive an hour and half north to watch. It would just be geographically conveniant.

Welcome!!

Aho Old Guy wrote:

danefan wrote:
Welcome.

That makes sense and that might be what they do. That may require additional work by the NCAA during the Thanksgiving weekend though, so I'm not sure they'll be willing to do that.

I think they could get 99% of the 1st round work done.

The Play-In may well be too difficult to 'regionalize' and in itself may be a '16' bracket buster. With a general idea of the 16, the opening round can be played without having to sweat out an awkward upset or two that could bust the regional concept of the first round.

If a western (and/or vice-versa) team has major travel for the play-in, it could result in major suckage if they again had to travel across the country in a pre-determined '16' game (and it would be even more ridiculous if we had two teams traveling well outside their region for the first round game if the potential for playing a regional opponent in their 'neighborhood' existed after the play-in).

The Big Hump I could see in the '16' round would be the potential of playing a conference opponent since everyone knows the CAA will now qualify 7 teams.

DII and DIII have 24 & 32 team playoffs and have their entire bracket set before the 1st games. I haven't heard of any NCAA post season tourneys that set their brackets after the 1st round.

If you have 4 games/8 teams in the 1st round, and they try to pair it up as best they can geographically, odds are of the 4 teams travelling, 2-3 will be by bus, and 1-2 will be by plane. And of those 1-2 by plane, if the one or both lose, you won't have any that have to get on a plane a 2nd week in a row through the opening 2 weekends. Or if the one or both win you'll have 1-2 teams that have to get on a plane 2 weeks in a row. I don't see the NCAA breaking precedent by not setting the bracket of 16 till after the 1st round just so probably an avg of one team a year doesn't have to get on a plane 2 weeks in a row through the 1st 2 rounds. Its not like teams haven't had to get on a plane 2 weeks in a row before in the round of 16 and the qtr finals, or the qtr finals and the semis. For example, Montana did that in 08' with @ JMU then the NC game. UNH did that this past yr in the 1st round and the qtrs. Probably an avg of 1 team a yr has to do that.

And as far as the CAA, the most likely scenario is 4 teams. Slim chance at 5, which would be 1/2 the conference, the same as 6 of 12 in the past. People tend to forget that prior to 04' the CAA had never gotten more than 3. In 05' the CAA only got 2 in. YES, only 2 of 12. In 06' it was 3.

5 of 12 in a 16 team field only happened twice. Once the CAA goes back to 12 teams in 2012 in a 20 team field it will range between 3-6 teams in, 4-5 most years.