My New Bracket Projection

[CatBlitz22]

One thing however that does seem to be overlooked is if Montana wins, if the Griz are able to pull off the win (they are underdogs in this one i think...cant believe im saying this but i think they are this year) It would leave the Big Sky looking like this:

-Montana: 8-3 (6-2 in Big Sky Play)
-Montana State: 8-3 (6-2 in Big Sky Play)
-Eastern Washington: 9-2 (7-1 in Big Sky Play)

Now if this happens you will have 2 Big Sky schools at 8-3 with EWU taking the title with the overall better conference record. Personally i think if Montana finishes 8-3 that all three of the schools will get in with Montana and Montana State getting @ large bids with EWU getting the seed. Both the Cats and the Griz have better resumes then ODU or Liberty in my opinion. Not taking away from those teams, its just my opinion however.

Though in the eyes of the playoff committee, those teams would be:
EWU 8-2
UM 7-3
MSU 7-3
since non-DI wins do not count

don't know how that would stack up against other at-large hopefuls (Montana would be in, I'm sure. dunno about MSU though)

*NM. Misread your post.

[native]

No matter how folks want to spin it, UD and JU are both looking better for an at large this season than in any other previous season. Liberty.... Lost to Robert Morris, lost to Costal Carolina, (I think, too lazy to look it up).... Better resume than two 10-1 teams, wishful thinking my friends.

While it is true that both Dayton and Jacksonville have finished their seasons with 9 DI wins each, neither team has a quality top 25 win and both teams' strengths of schedule are in the bottom half of FCS football.

No matter how Pioneer League homers want to spin it, the League is the weakest in Division I. Therefore any Pioneer team which aspires to the playoffs must eschew DII and NAIA matchups and use its few out-of-conference scheduling opportunities to schedule top 20 FCS teams. To its credit, the Jacksonville program has attempted to do so this year and has the best chance at making the playoffs. The early season win against a worthy Old Dominion is creditable, and at least its 14-45 drubbing at Appalachian State was against a perrennial national championship contender.

In the case of Dayton, the early season victory over Robert Morris is notable, but does not rise up to the standard required for playoff worthy teams. The loss to a mediocre Duquesne team hailing from one of the weaker conferences in the FCS is not impressive.

[Screamin_Eagle174]

If Montana does get in, they will travel to EWU or MSU in wk2. Most likely a rematch on the red carpet is in order, with MSU being on the opposite bracket.

How about a "Brawl" National Championship Although, I don't think the Griz have a deep running playoff team this year Would be sweet though.

A team cannot play a conference rival in their first matchup of the playoffs, so that scenario is out. If EWU rematches with either Montana school, it would have to be in the quarterfinals.

[native]

You really think the Big South will get an at-large? Let's say Stony Brook got the AQ...compare ODU (who won't get in) to Liberty...a team from the same state. A 7-4 Liberty would have losses to James Madison, Robert Morris, Coastal Carolina, and Stony Brook. An 8-3 Old Dominion would have losses to William & Mary, Jacksonville, and Cal Poly. No team has any good wins (Ball State is really not that great). Let's say Liberty wins the Big South, would a 6-5 Stony Brook team really get in over an 8-3 ODU? Coastal Carolina would be their best win.

I just don't see the Big South getting two teams in. Sorry.

Good analysis. Concur.

[ArmyOfDarkness]

If Montana does get in, they will travel to EWU or MSU in wk2. Most likely a rematch on the red carpet is in order, with MSU being on the opposite bracket.

How about a "Brawl" National Championship Although, I don't think the Griz have a deep running playoff team this year Would be sweet though.

A team cannot play a conference rival in their first matchup of the playoffs, so that scenario is out. If EWU rematches with either Montana school, it would have to be in the quarterfinals.

With the extended bracket I thought the first week was considered the "prove it" teams week? Does the rule now extend into the 2nd week?

[AZGrizFan]

A team cannot play a conference rival in their first matchup of the playoffs, so that scenario is out. If EWU rematches with either Montana school, it would have to be in the quarterfinals.

With the extended bracket I thought the first week was considered the "prove it" teams week? Does the rule now extend into the 2nd week?

If so, it's going to make schedulinig even more convoluted than it already was.

[native]

A team cannot play a conference rival in their first matchup of the playoffs, so that scenario is out. If EWU rematches with either Montana school, it would have to be in the quarterfinals.

With the extended bracket I thought the first week was considered the "prove it" teams week? Does the rule now extend into the 2nd week?

Maybe week 1 is a "prove it" week, but the rule remains that the first playoff game cannot be against a same-conference opponent.

[ArmyOfDarkness]

With the extended bracket I thought the first week was considered the "prove it" teams week? Does the rule now extend into the 2nd week?

Maybe week 1 is a "prove it" week, but the rule remains that the first playoff game cannot be against a same-conference opponent.

That's what I was getting at. Even though it would be EWU's first game of the playoffs, it is likely they will be playing UM (if we get in) or MSU (more likely UM IMHO).

**EDIT** Given a scenario where UM wins in wk1

[ToTheLeft]

You really think the Big South will get an at-large? Let's say Stony Brook got the AQ...compare ODU (who won't get in) to Liberty...a team from the same state. A 7-4 Liberty would have losses to James Madison, Robert Morris, Coastal Carolina, and Stony Brook. An 8-3 Old Dominion would have losses to William & Mary, Jacksonville, and Cal Poly. No team has any good wins (Ball State is really not that great). Let's say Liberty wins the Big South, would a 6-5 Stony Brook team really get in over an 8-3 ODU? Coastal Carolina would be their best win.

I just don't see the Big South getting two teams in. Sorry.

Good analysis. Concur.

My point was never that the Big South was good enough for anything. It's not. Just that, if there is enough attrition, that LU would be one of the best teams left if the committee sticks to 7 DI wins as a requirement.

[native]

Good analysis. Concur.

My point was never that the Big South was good enough for anything. It's not. Just that, if there is enough attrition, that LU would be one of the best teams left if the committee sticks to 7 DI wins as a requirement.

Got it. No offense intended. Your point is well taken.

[DukeJack]

With the extended bracket I thought the first week was considered the "prove it" teams week? Does the rule now extend into the 2nd week?

Maybe week 1 is a "prove it" week, but the rule remains that the first playoff game cannot be against a same-conference opponent.

Right, two teams from the same conference cannot meet up in the first game of the playoffs for each. So in this scenario, Montana plays in "prove it" week and moves on against seeded EWU. That would be the second game for Montana and the first for EWU, so it'd be definitely allowed here.

[native]

Maybe week 1 is a "prove it" week, but the rule remains that the first playoff game cannot be against a same-conference opponent.

Right, two teams from the same conference cannot meet up in the first game of the playoffs for each. So in this scenario, Montana plays in "prove it" week and moves on against seeded EWU. That would be the second game for Montana and the first for EWU, so it'd be definitely allowed here.

Nope. The first playoff game for EWU cannot be against a conference opponent. The rule applies to the team, not the bracket.

[JayJ79]

Right, two teams from the same conference cannot meet up in the first game of the playoffs for each. So in this scenario, Montana plays in "prove it" week and moves on against seeded EWU. That would be the second game for Montana and the first for EWU, so it'd be definitely allowed here.

Nope. The first playoff game for EWU cannot be against a conference opponent. The rule applies to the team, not the bracket.

From the handbook:

7. Teams from the same conference will not be paired for first-round games or for secondround games when both teams are playing their first games of the championship

It is even bolded like that in the handbook. Thus, with that wording, it is my understanding that DukeJack's scenario could take place.

[native]

Nope. The first playoff game for EWU cannot be against a conference opponent. The rule applies to the team, not the bracket.

From the handbook:

7. Teams from the same conference will not be paired for first-round games or for secondround games when both teams are playing their first games of the championship

It is even bolded like that in the handbook. Thus, with that wording, it is my understanding that DukeJack's scenario could take place.

Where are we going wrong here? If EWU gets a bye in the first round, then they will not be playing their first game, therefore per the instruction, "both teams" will not be playing their first game.

I grasp your interpretation of the wording, and you could be correct. It seems to me, however, that the wording is ambiguous at best. If the committee intended your interpretation they might have made the language more clear in a positive way, such as "...teams from the same conference will be paired together only if one of the teams has already played their first game..."

[native]

Do auto-bids also receive auto-byes in the first round?

[JayJ79]

From the handbook:


It is even bolded like that in the handbook. Thus, with that wording, it is my understanding that DukeJack's scenario could take place.

Where are we going wrong here? If EWU gets a bye in the first round, then they will not be playing their first game, therefore per the instruction, "both teams" will not be playing their first game.

I grasp your interpretation of the wording, and you could be correct. It seems to me, however, that the wording is ambiguous at best. If the committee intended your interpretation they might have made the language more clear in a positive way, such as "...teams from the same conference will be paired together only if one of the teams has already played their first game..."

And if the committee intended your interpretation, they might have said "Teams from the same conference will not be paired for the first or second rounds" or "Teams from the same conference will not be paired until the quarterfinals at the earliest". Since in each game of the first two rounds, at least one team will be playing their first match of the playoffs.

[JayJ79]

Do auto-bids also receive auto-byes in the first round?

No. And I can pretty much guarantee that the auto-bids from some of the.... less proven conferences will be playing in the first round.

[Pwns]

Out of curiosity...if Montana, Richmond, Chatty, and Nova all lose as UNHWC seems to be predicting, who gets the AL spot that Travis gave to the Big South?

[native]

Where are we going wrong here? If EWU gets a bye in the first round, then they will not be playing their first game, therefore per the instruction, "both teams" will not be playing their first game.

I grasp your interpretation of the wording, and you could be correct. It seems to me, however, that the wording is ambiguous at best. If the committee intended your interpretation they might have made the language more clear in a positive way, such as "...teams from the same conference will be paired together only if one of the teams has already played their first game..."

And if the committee intended your interpretation, they might have said "Teams from the same conference will not be paired for the first or second rounds" or "Teams from the same conference will not be paired until the quarterfinals at the earliest". Since in each game of the first two rounds, at least one team will be playing their first match of the playoffs.

I take your point.

In either case, It seems the committee should have been more clear.

[JayJ79]

And if the committee intended your interpretation, they might have said "Teams from the same conference will not be paired for the first or second rounds" or "Teams from the same conference will not be paired until the quarterfinals at the earliest". Since in each game of the first two rounds, at least one team will be playing their first match of the playoffs.

I take your point.

In either case, It seems the committee should have been more clear.

I blame the lawyers.

[bluehenbillk]

This looks more like a UNH dream bracket versus reality. UD & W&M, the 2 best CAA teams meeting in the quarters?

[youngterrier]

youngterrier's predicted playoff teams:
Robert Morris
Lehigh
Appalachian State
Northern Iowa
Montana St.
Eastern Washington
Delaware
W&M
Bethune-Cookman
S. Carolina St.
North Dakota St.
Southeast Missouri
Jacksonville St.
Wofford
Stephen F. Austin
Montana
Stony Brook
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Ga. Southern

[JayJ79]

UD & W&M, the 2 best CAA teams meeting in the quarters?

happens to other conferences all the time. should happen to the CAA now and then too.

[jd of de]

This looks more like a UNH dream bracket versus reality. UD & W&M, the 2 best CAA teams meeting in the quarters?

Plus facing a 9-2 SoCon team Dec 4th. Correcting seeding would not put a 9-2 Wofford playing the #1 seed and a 7-4 Georgia Southern/B-C winner playing the #4 seed. Thats ass backwards Unless you think 9-2 Wofford is a lower seed than a 10-1 B-C

[native]

UD & W&M, the 2 best CAA teams meeting in the quarters?

happens to other conferences all the time. should happen to the CAA now and then too.

As long as the top conferences place more than two teams into the playoffs, there will always be post-season intraconference matchups. BUT I hope the committee does a good job of seeding this year and that the top seeds meet later rather than sooner.