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

Div I-AA football (or whatever we shall be called tomorrow) should expand to 32 teams as soon as possible. I see no reason for the 24 team field proposed for 2013.

Every year the selection process seems blatantly unfair to a few of the almost-made-it teams. It will forever be so. 2013 is slated to add 3 more at-large teams. I say adding 11 more teams is better. Move to a full 32 team field. I realize the 33rd & 34th place team will be disappointed. But I doubt they will have 8-3 records. Perhaps going to 32 teams will open the door wide enough that a losing-season team has to be selected. I doubt it. There are enough quality Div I-AA teams to fill a 32 team field.

Bye weeks are unfair in a football playoff. Bye's are traditional, a reward for a job well done. Fine in basketball, where it means an extra day of rest. In football it means an extra week of healing/training. We give it to the best of us. An unfair advantage to the others. Plus NCAA would gain the revenue from 8 more games without adding a week to the playoff schedule.

Every year we have less than 32 teams, we will have unfilled slots. Every year we will have teams wanting to fill those slots.

Nah. Reduce it to 16. Clear out the riffraff.

93henfan wrote:Nah. Reduce it to 16. Clear out the riffraff.

It could be done at 32....more regionalization in the 1st couple of rounds.

D3 does it.

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:

93henfan wrote:Nah. Reduce it to 16. Clear out the riffraff.

It could be done at 32....more regionalization in the 1st couple of rounds.

D3 does it.

D3 also has about 239 teams in the division, compared to about 121 for FCS

JayJ79 wrote:

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:

It could be done at 32....more regionalization in the 1st couple of rounds.

D3 does it.

D3 also has about 239 teams in the division, compared to about 121 for FCS

Ya, good point. I didn't realize there was that many D3 teams.

And how many of these 20-32 teams will even move on two plus rounds? Without looking back at the history of the playoffs how many none seeded or teams ranked outside the top 10 in the polls have won a championship? Don't get me wrong I love the playoffs and like seeing a competitive field of teams but I think 32 would water it down a little too much.

Inevitable, I've said it all along. 16 was the correct number.

89Hen wrote:Inevitable, I've said it all along. 16 was the correct number.

And the NCAA basketball tournament should only have spots for teams that have a legitimate shot at a championship. So no Big Sky, or MVC, or CAA teams

JayJ79 wrote:

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:

It could be done at 32....more regionalization in the 1st couple of rounds.

D3 does it.

D3 also has about 239 teams in the division, compared to about 121 for FCS

Hey anything beats D1 football where championships are chosen off the field.

89Hen wrote:Inevitable, I've said it all along. 16 was the correct number.

Agreed, 16 is the correct number.

FBS should be 8, FCS 16, and 32 at D2 and D3.

BlueHen86 wrote:

89Hen wrote:Inevitable, I've said it all along. 16 was the correct number.

Agreed, 16 is the correct number.

If only conferences that has members that fund the full 63 schollies get bids, then yes 16 is plenty.

89Hen wrote:Inevitable, I've said it all along. 16 was the correct number.

When will you learn, the correct number is actually 16.93

I could see 32...IF we force the playoff holdout conferences to play ball. I can't see getting 32 even semi-quality teams otherwise. Well, maybe THIS year we could fill it out with 7-4 teams. But in any other year we'd probably have to dip to 6-5 without the holdouts, and that will make for some REALLY crummy first-round games.

I wish to sign up for your newsletter ...

And a share of your medical marijuana.

24 - NO MO

24-26 is enough.

Add the Ivys and the SWAC and be done.

danefan wrote:24-26 is enough.

Add the Ivys and the SWAC and be done.

The SWAC has been done for a decade.

Isn't the purpose of the playoffs to decide the national champion? I'm fairly sure that with 24 teams we can be confident the best team makes the playoffs.

catbooster wrote:Isn't the purpose of the playoffs to decide the national champion? I'm fairly sure that with 24 teams we can be confident the best team makes the playoffs.

Exactly. 24 is great, 32 is too much. There aren't any more conferences that don't have auto bids that want them (& there's room for one more even without expanding the field).

Maybe if 30 or 40 teams move up from DII, but going past 24 isn't necessary before that.

catbooster wrote:Isn't the purpose of the playoffs to decide the national champion? I'm fairly sure that with 24 teams we can be confident the best team makes the playoffs.

Will you say that in a year in which MSU is #25 or #26?

Sure

We've been on the bubble before and missed. Life goes on, and we didn't really have much chance of winning the championship when that happened.

Should have be 32 a long time ago. The more the merrier in my opinion (though anything more than 32 isn't practical).

JayJ79 wrote:

89Hen wrote:Inevitable, I've said it all along. 16 was the correct number.

And the NCAA basketball tournament should only have spots for teams that have a legitimate shot at a championship. So no Big Sky, or MVC, or CAA teams

Apples and oranges.

slulionsfan wrote:The more the merrier in my opinion (though anything more than 32 isn't practical).

I've always laughed at the I-A folks who claimed that a playoff would water down the regular season, but going to 32 would water down the regular season. Make a list of the teams that would be in a 32 team field this year and step back and take a look at it.

89Hen wrote:

slulionsfan wrote:The more the merrier in my opinion (though anything more than 32 isn't practical).

I've always laughed at the I-A folks who claimed that a playoff would water down the regular season, but going to 32 would water down the regular season. Make a list of the teams that would be in a 32 team field this year and step back and take a look at it.

Is "stepping back" necessary or can I just lean back a little?