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

D-II uniquely re-seeds the remaining teams heading into the National Semifinals. Would that be a good idea for D-I? We currently have two 12-1 teams facing off, while two 11-win teams are in the other semifinal. We COULD have (going strictly by record):

3 Montana State (11-2, 7-1 Big Sky) at 2 James Madison (12-1, 7-1 CAA)

4 South Dakota State (11-3, 5-3 MVFC) at 1 North Dakota State (12-1, 7-1 MVFC)

OR we could opt for (avoiding the intra-conference matchup):

3 South Dakota State (11-3, 5-3 MVFC) at 2 James Madison (12-1, 7-1 CAA)

4 Montana State (11-2, 7-1 Big Sky) at 1 North Dakota State (12-1, 7-1 MVFC)

Would either of those scenarios work for you? Or just leave well enough alone with the status quo?

We left DII for a reason

I would much rather they just seed the entire tournament from the get-go, but I know they won't.

I don't hate this idea, but do they have to follow previous seeding? Like can they even put SDSU over MSU, since MSU was the original #8?

If yes, then I do hate the idea.

SuperHornet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 10:48 am D-II uniquely re-seeds the remaining teams heading into the National Semifinals. Would that be a good idea for D-I? We currently have two 12-1 teams facing off, while two 11-win teams are in the other semifinal. We COULD have (going strictly by record):

3 Montana State (11-2, 7-1 Big Sky) at 2 James Madison (12-1, 7-1 CAA)

4 South Dakota State (11-3, 5-3 MVFC) at 1 North Dakota State (12-1, 7-1 MVFC)

OR we could opt for (avoiding the intra-conference matchup):

3 South Dakota State (11-3, 5-3 MVFC) at 2 James Madison (12-1, 7-1 CAA)

4 Montana State (11-2, 7-1 Big Sky) at 1 North Dakota State (12-1, 7-1 MVFC)

Would either of those scenarios work for you? Or just leave well enough alone with the status quo?

Could get messy quickly. Is it simply a matter of records 11-1 vs. 10-2, or do we start adjusting for how well they're doing in the playoffs? Could give style points for someone who is crushing their opponents, or say give So Dakota State 'bonus points' for winning two on the road. It looks like just another thing for folks to bitch about.

As UofMman stated, seed EVERYONE from the beginning then let it run. Folks will complain about the initial seeding. After that the subjective element is removed. All I can say for certain is EVERY bobcat fan in the country is grateful they're playing in Bozeman tomorrow rather than Fargo.

Grizzlies1982 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:14 pm

SuperHornet wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 10:48 am D-II uniquely re-seeds the remaining teams heading into the National Semifinals. Would that be a good idea for D-I? We currently have two 12-1 teams facing off, while two 11-win teams are in the other semifinal. We COULD have (going strictly by record):

3 Montana State (11-2, 7-1 Big Sky) at 2 James Madison (12-1, 7-1 CAA)

4 South Dakota State (11-3, 5-3 MVFC) at 1 North Dakota State (12-1, 7-1 MVFC)

OR we could opt for (avoiding the intra-conference matchup):

3 South Dakota State (11-3, 5-3 MVFC) at 2 James Madison (12-1, 7-1 CAA)

4 Montana State (11-2, 7-1 Big Sky) at 1 North Dakota State (12-1, 7-1 MVFC)

Would either of those scenarios work for you? Or just leave well enough alone with the status quo?

Could get messy quickly. Is it simply a matter of records 11-1 vs. 10-2, or do we start adjusting for how well they're doing in the playoffs? Could give style points for someone who is crushing their opponents, or say give So Dakota State 'bonus points' for winning two on the road. It looks like just another thing for folks to bitch about.

As UofMman stated, seed EVERYONE from the beginning then let it run. Folks will complain about the initial seeding. After that the subjective element is removed. All I can say for certain is EVERY bobcat fan in the country is grateful they're playing in Bozeman tomorrow rather than Fargo.

Yup, very glad

I'm not thrilled with Gil's comment, as D-III is still playing it straight, as is NAIA. It's only D-II that's doing this. Therefore, Gil's comment seems to be a non-sequitur.

1982, on the other hand, offers constructive criticism: the politics of handling the re-seed. Also kosher here is uofmman. I, too would love to see the entire bracket seeded. For my part, which would likely gain no traction here, I would like to see it geographically divided again (if in name only). It would be a relatively simple thing to shift the 5 and 6 seeds (for example) around so as to avoid intra-conference matchups in the first round. But even if it's just a 1-24 seeding, the result would be much better than what we currently have, IMO.

Thank you for the discussion....