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

If this has already been posted, the suck it. I'm not looking through pages and pages trying to find this thread(if it already exists).

The Football Championship Subdivision is on the verge of expanding its playoff system from 20 to 24 teams by 2013. The proposal would give an automatic bid to all FCS leagues that want one, seeds the top eight teams and gives them first-round byes and home games in the following round.

”The concern has been we’ve haven’t had a full tournament with automatic qualifiers for all the existing conferences. That’s a big part of making sure everybody has an opportunity for their champion to participate,” said Appalachian State athletic director Charlie Cobb, the new chairman of the Division I Football Championship Committee. ”The sentiment is that by seeding the top eight, it keep more to a truer sense of what a national tournament is about, and I think that’s the beauty of what we have.”

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic ... tournament" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Talk about watered down...

Next stop - participation trophies......

I like the fact that EVERY FCS conference that wants a playoff bid will now get one, whether people believe they deserve it or not, Every FCS team has the right to fight for an FCS title no matter what conference they come from.

It's what separates the FCS from the crock fest known as the BCS

Similar sentiment has been expressed but I like having the champion of every FCS conference get an automatic bid. That way every team that's in a conference in FCS controls its own destiny and is not at the mercy of a playoff committee when it comes to whether or not they get into the tournament. Yes, they may still have to rely on the committee. But only if they don't do what they know they have to do to ensure their participation.

To me, a criterion of a good playoff system is taking human belief out of the selection process as much as possible and having as many teams as possible completely control their own destinty. And, for Pete's sake, I don't get the "watered down" concern. If the broth is thin it's going to be thick anyway by the time the second round is over. It's not like they're letting more than half the teams into the post season like another level of football does.

ASUG8 wrote:Next stop - participation trophies......

For Pete's sake! Nobody's going to get in just because they participated. For the leagues that are perceived as weak they're going to have to win a conference championship.

You do realize, don't you, that Stony Brook gave Sam Houston State at least as competetive a game as the Big Sky champ did last year. I'm guessing no one would have predicted that. I sure wouldn't have.

Actually, I would have and did predict that Sam Houston State would get reamed when it ran into a good team from a power conference. But the point is that Sam Houston State's toughest game on the road to the championship game was against Stony Brook.

Ibanez wrote:If this has already been posted, the suck it. I'm not looking through pages and pages trying to find this thread(if it already exists).

Old news. It was page one on here for most of May. Sitting right on page 3 now. You didn't come onto the FCS page most of May?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30265&hilit=Playoff+expansion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wildcat Ryan wrote:I like the fact that EVERY FCS conference that wants a playoff bid will now get one, whether people believe they deserve it or not, Every FCS team has the right to fight for an FCS title no matter what conference they come from.

It's what separates the FCS from the crock fest known as the BCS

That's opinion.

BDKJMU wrote:

Ibanez wrote:If this has already been posted, the suck it. I'm not looking through pages and pages trying to find this thread(if it already exists).

Old news. It was page one on here for most of May. Sitting right on page 3 now. You didn't come onto the FCS page most of May?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30265&hilit=Playoff+expansion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't remember every thread I see. I'm not like you, I have things to do.

JohnStOnge wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Next stop - participation trophies......

For Pete's sake! Nobody's going to get in just because they participated. For the leagues that are perceived as weak they're going to have to win a conference championship.

You do realize, don't you, that Stony Brook gave Sam Houston State at least as competetive a game as the Big Sky champ did last year. I'm guessing no one would have predicted that. I sure wouldn't have.

Actually, I would have and did predict that Sam Houston State would get reamed when it ran into a good team from a power conference. But the point is that Sam Houston State's toughest game on the road to the championship game was against Stony Brook.

Upsets happen, John - close games happen when you don't expect them. You of all people are extrapolating on a single data point.

89Hen wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:I like the fact that EVERY FCS conference that wants a playoff bid will now get one, whether people believe they deserve it or not, Every FCS team has the right to fight for an FCS title no matter what conference they come from.

It's what separates the FCS from the crock fest known as the BCS

That's opinion.

True, it is my opinion, if a team is playing under the FCS banner, they have every right to play for the FCS title.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

89Hen wrote: That's opinion.

True, it is my opinion, if a team is playing under the FCS banner, they have every right to play for the FCS title.

They have that right now. MANY teams have made the playoffs without the benefit of an automatic bid. The problem is people want to give some teams a bid when they have done nothing to earn it.

Yes, some of the new auto-bids don't really stand much of a chance in the tournament. Much like the Big Sky or Summit League AQs each year in the NCAA basketball tournament.

But I still think they deserve the opportunity.

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Old news. It was page one on here for most of May. Sitting right on page 3 now. You didn't come onto the FCS page most of May?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30265&hilit=Playoff+expansion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't remember every thread I see. I'm not like you, I have things to do.

Nah nah nah nah boo boo!

Long overdue ... the more the merrier IMO.

JayJ79 wrote:Yes, some of the new auto-bids don't really stand much of a chance in the tournament. Much like the Big Sky or Summit League AQs each year in the NCAA basketball tournament.

But I still think they deserve the opportunity.

Socialist.

slulionsfan wrote:Long overdue ... the more the merrier IMO.

Agreed. I think every team that plays 11 games in the regular season should be included.

It won't be long before FCS gets to a 32 team field. Expanding from 16 teams to 20 teams was a big jump becasue ti added a week to the playoffs. Expanding to 24, then 32 doesn't add an extra week.

BlueHen86 wrote:It won't be long before FCS gets to a 32 team field. Expanding from 16 teams to 20 teams was a big jump becasue ti added a week to the playoffs. Expanding to 24, then 32 doesn't add an extra week.

Except that there aren't any more conferences that want auto bids, & there's still room to add one without expanding the field since there are only going to be 11 auto bids.

Not that it's required or necessary, but could the NCAA pressure the Ivies into playing ball? Maybe tie it into continued participation in the hoops tournaments, which they DO take part in? For me, the academic argument makes ZERO sense if you allow it in other sports....

Ibanez wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Old news. It was page one on here for most of May. Sitting right on page 3 now. You didn't come onto the FCS page most of May?
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=30265&hilit=Playoff+expansion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't remember every thread I see. I'm not like you, I have things to do.

We both joined in July, you in 07', me in 09'.

About 5 yrs/11.6 k posts compared to about 3 yrs/3.8 k posts

Or an avg of about 6 posts a day to about 3.5. Think you're spending more time on here than me.....

BlueHen86 wrote:It won't be long before FCS gets to a 32 team field. Expanding from 16 teams to 20 teams was a big jump becasue ti added a week to the playoffs. Expanding to 24, then 32 doesn't add an extra week.

does that mean that since the hoops tourney expanded to 65 (and now 68), that it will inevitably expand to 128 (since that doesn't add any additional rounds?)

SuperHornet wrote:Not that it's required or necessary, but could the NCAA pressure the Ivies into playing ball? Maybe tie it into continued participation in the hoops tournaments, which they DO take part in? For me, the academic argument makes ZERO sense if you allow it in other sports....

I suppose the NCAA COULD pressure the Ivies. But I don't really know why they would. Most postseason expansion is driven by schools/conferences pressing to be included. Not by the NCAA pressing to get schools/conferences to take part.

As for the academic argument, it could be stated that football is different because it involves a much bigger roster than any other collegiate sport. Thus more student athletes are affected.

Upsets happen, John - close games happen when you don't expect them. You of all people are extrapolating on a single data point.

Yes that is true. But it's still the case that Stony Brook comes from a conference that many people would say shouldn't get an automatic bid and they put up a very respectable performance.

Anyway, the most important thing to me is having a system that takes human belief out of it to the greatest extent possible. And one thing that contributes to moving in that direction is to make sure that every conference champion gets an automatic bid.

Another thing they'd do if I had my way is get rid of the selection committee concept and replace it with a system that uses a power rating system that everybody agrees on before the season to fill out the out large bids. Human opinion is involved there because people have to have opinions on what constitutes the best power rating system for doing that. But it's involved BEFORE the season starts. It's conceptual. Everybody agrees on what goes into picking the teams that most deserve to get at large bids ahead of time then quantify it. So AFTER the fact there is no bias. The chips fall where they may.

As for the academic argument, it could be stated that football is different because it involves a much bigger roster than any other collegiate sport. Thus more student athletes are affected.

One could state that but then the question would be: "Why does that matter?" Why should we say that we're not worried about the 43 players on Princeton's Lacrosse roster but we ARE worried about the 81 players on Princeton's football roster?

Princeton typically has about 5,000 undergraduate students. So the argument would be that we'd worry about the effect of playoffs on somewhere around 80 of 5,000 undergraduates but wouldn't worry about the effect of playoffs on somewhere around 40 of 5,000 undergraduates.

I dunno. Me...I still haven't seen a good argument as to why the Ivy league should allow all of its other sports to participate in NCAA tournaments but not its football teams.