FCS playoffs - impending vote to move to 24 teams

[Pwns]

I must've missed something. Does the playoff expansion mean they give out more than 1 championship trophy?

Wait until there are 32 teams and your star RB gets injured playing Jacksonville in a first round game when your team is 11-0 and heading toward the NC.

If that's the way you feel about it, why not just go back to 12 teams? How about taking away the autobids of the Big South, Patriot, MEAC, and NEC? After all, how many teams in every playoff have a realistic chance of winning the NC? I'd say typically 4 or 5.

[89Hen]

Wait until there are 32 teams and your star RB gets injured playing Jacksonville in a first round game when your team is 11-0 and heading toward the NC.

If that's the way you feel about it, why not just go back to 12 teams? How about taking away the autobids of the Big South, Patriot, MEAC, and NEC? After all, how many teams in every playoff have a realistic chance of winning the NC? I'd say typically 4 or 5.

16 was the right number. Everyone played the same number of games and there was usually one team that felt they got screwed. That's the correct balance IMO.

[kalm]

24 is a more balanced number than 20 plus, as someone already
mentioned, it increases the chances of watching
my eagles play another game. This would only be made better if scholarship funding levels equalized.

[polsongrizz]

And the downward fall will now escalate. It will be 64 teams in 5 years. Time to start handing out trophies to every team that takes the field and stop keeping score.

I guess we might as well move up like all of the rest of the useless F**ks....

[polsongrizz]

If that's the way you feel about it, why not just go back to 12 teams? How about taking away the autobids of the Big South, Patriot, MEAC, and NEC? After all, how many teams in every playoff have a realistic chance of winning the NC? I'd say typically 4 or 5.

16 was the right number. Everyone played the same number of games and there was usually one team that felt they got screwed. That's the correct balance IMO.

Exactly

[SUUTbird]

If that's the way you feel about it, why not just go back to 12 teams? How about taking away the autobids of the Big South, Patriot, MEAC, and NEC? After all, how many teams in every playoff have a realistic chance of winning the NC? I'd say typically 4 or 5.

Even if only 4 or 5 have a realistic chance of winning it doesnt mean that we should just say "screw you" to other teams that played there way into a position to have a chance. Its one of the reasons I became a big FCS fan in the first place, less/practically no elitism "were a better conference so a better team" bull.

Every team who gets that far deserves a shot, even with 24 I think one or two will feel screwed so that doesnt change, really dont see the issue with a 24 team tournament, all it means to me is more football and also there very well could be a few upsets every year to make things interesting.

[BDKJMU]

I do think 16 was ideal, but that being said, according to NCAA rules, there has to be 1 AT Large for every AQ, so there was no way it could be held at 16 once the NEC and Big South met the criteria and applied for AQs.

Right now with the PFL being given the 11th autobid (I don't think they should get one) the NCAA HAS to expand the field to 22 teams, since again there has to be one at large for every auto. Since it has to be at least 22, 24 makes more sense. If either the Ivy or SWAC decide to jump on board, then that would be a 12 AQ, which would still leave us at 24. I don't see it going past 24. You're going to need more than 12 AQ conferences for that to happen, and I just don't see I-AA ever exceeding 12, at least not for a LONG time.

I still think the committee will try to stick to the 7 Div I win rule. This past season by my count there were 24 seven or more Div I win teams. The 4 that that didn't get in:
7-4 Ill State
7-4 Jax State
8-3 Georgetown
8-3 Bethune Cookman

If there was 24 last season and the NCAA stuck to their 7 Div I win rule, then those would have been the last 4 teams in (If Jax State was eligible-not sure if they were on probation) If Jax State was ineligible then the committee would have been forced to take either 7-4, 6 Div I win UD or 8-3, 6 Div I win Portland State.

[89Hen]

I do think 16 was ideal, but that being said, according to NCAA rules, there has to be 1 AT Large for every AQ, so there was no way it could be held at 16 once the NEC and Big South met the criteria and applied for AQs.

For accuracy, the NCAA did not have to grant either an AQ.

[89Hen]

the 7 Div I win rule

Not a rule.

[AZGrizFan]

I don't understand the issue.

Would you be oppposed to letting all 114 teams in?

Only from a time standpoint.

[89Hen]

Would you be oppposed to letting all 114 teams in?

Only from a time standpoint.

There are 12 wasted weeks starting in late August that can be used.

[SuperHornet]

If there was 24 last season and the NCAA stuck to their 7 Div I win rule, then those would have been the last 4 teams in (If Jax State was eligible-not sure if they were on probation) If Jax State was ineligible then the committee would have been forced to take either 7-4, 6 Div I win UD or 8-3, 6 Div I win Portland State.

Which, by normal committee ECB ops, would mean Delaware.

Not saying that last year that would have been the wrong move, mind you. But PSU kinda-sorta IS on the rise and that should be looked at. I'm just not convinced that the committee would.

[AZGrizFan]

Only from a time standpoint.

There are 12 wasted weeks starting in late August that can be used.

True. Then every game really WOULD count.

[UAalum72]

I do think 16 was ideal, but that being said, according to NCAA rules, there has to be 1 AT Large for every AQ, so there was no way it could be held at 16 once the NEC and Big South met the criteria and applied for AQs.

For accuracy, the NCAA did not have to grant either an AQ.

Also for accuracy, the NEC had met all requirements and asked for an AQ for a few years before being granted one.

I think once the full-scholly Big South reached the required six teams, the NCAA ran out of excuses, and the NEC made it an even number of conferences.

[89Hen]

If there was 24 last season and the NCAA stuck to their 7 Div I win rule, then those would have been the last 4 teams in (If Jax State was eligible-not sure if they were on probation) If Jax State was ineligible then the committee would have been forced to take either 7-4, 6 Div I win UD or 8-3, 6 Div I win Portland State.

Which, by normal committee ECB ops, would mean Delaware.

Not saying that last year that would have been the wrong move, mind you. But PSU kinda-sorta IS on the rise and that should be looked at. I'm just not convinced that the committee would.

First off, PSU was a 5 DI win team. They went 7-4 with wins over Southern Oregon and Williamette. Secondly, what does "on the rise" have to do with gettting a bid?

[89Hen]

For accuracy, the NCAA did not have to grant either an AQ.

Also for accuracy, the NEC had met all requirements and asked for an AQ for a few years before being granted one.

I think once the full-scholly Big South reached the required six teams, the NCAA ran out of excuses, and the NEC made it an even number of conferences.

Correct, but they could have, if they wanted, used their rule book and awarded the autos to the 8 most qualified conferences each year.

[89Hen]

There are 12 wasted weeks starting in late August that can be used.

True. Then every game really WOULD count.

And if Montana was on the road in week one, they'd have a very short season.

[AZGrizFan]

True. Then every game really WOULD count.

And if Montana was on the road in week one, they'd have a very short season.

Nah. Only during the playoffs. We all know the first 11 games would be regionalized.

[Pwns]

If that's the way you feel about it, why not just go back to 12 teams? How about taking away the autobids of the Big South, Patriot, MEAC, and NEC? After all, how many teams in every playoff have a realistic chance of winning the NC? I'd say typically 4 or 5.

16 was the right number. Everyone played the same number of games and there was usually one team that felt they got screwed. That's the correct balance IMO.

But if your team is solid enough to get a first-round bye or a seed, you are still four games away from the national championship as you were in the 16-team field. Makes no difference to me if my team's star player is injured playing Jacksonville or Norfolk State.

[89Hen]

16 was the right number. Everyone played the same number of games and there was usually one team that felt they got screwed. That's the correct balance IMO.

But if your team is solid enough to get a first-round bye or a seed, you are still four games away from the national championship as you were in the 16-team field. Makes no difference to me if my team's star player is injured playing Jacksonville or Norfolk State.

With 32 teams there will be no byes.

[BDKJMU]

the 7 Div I win rule

Not a rule.

Well, in 33 years of I-AA playoffs, no 6 Div I win team has ever gotten an at large, and I remember seeing 7 Div I wins specifically mentioned in the selection criteria when talking about At Large teams. If the committee wasn't going to take in a 20 team field over the last 2 seasons:
-a 7-4, 6 Div I win Montana
-a 6 Div I win JMU that knocked off the ACC champ 10-2 VT and the then #1 W&M
-a 7-4, 6 Div I win UD that was 5-3 in the CAA and beat 2 playoff teams
-a 8-3, 6 Div I win PSU that was 6-2 in the Big Sky and whose only other loss was to TCU.

Then it is clear they were sticking to the 7 Div I win threshold in a 20 team field. It remains to be seen whether they would in a 24 team field.

[GannonFan]

Not a rule.

Well, in 33 years of I-AA playoffs, no 6 Div I win team has ever gotten an at large, and I remember seeing 7 Div I wins specifically mentioned in the selection criteria when talking about At Large teams. If the committee wasn't going to take in a 20 team field over the last 2 seasons:
-a 7-4, 6 Div I win Montana
-a 6 Div I win JMU that knocked off the ACC champ 10-2 VT and the then #1 W&M
-a 7-4, 6 Div I win UD that was 5-3 in the CAA and beat 2 playoff teams
-a 8-3, 6 Div I win PSU that was 6-2 in the Big Sky and whose only other loss was to TCU.

Then it is clear they were sticking to the 7 Div I win threshold in a 20 team field. It remains to be seen whether they would in a 24 team field.

But he's still correct, it's not a rule.

[89Hen]

Well, in 33 years of I-AA playoffs...

there has never been a 24 team field. Not a rule.

[BDKJMU]

Well, in 33 years of I-AA playoffs, no 6 Div I win team has ever gotten an at large, and I remember seeing 7 Div I wins specifically mentioned in the selection criteria when talking about At Large teams. If the committee wasn't going to take in a 20 team field over the last 2 seasons:
-a 7-4, 6 Div I win Montana
-a 6 Div I win JMU that knocked off the ACC champ 10-2 VT and the then #1 W&M
-a 7-4, 6 Div I win UD that was 5-3 in the CAA and beat 2 playoff teams
-a 8-3, 6 Div I win PSU that was 6-2 in the Big Sky and whose only other loss was to TCU.

Then it is clear they were sticking to the 7 Div I win threshold in a 20 team field. It remains to be seen whether they would in a 24 team field.

But he's still correct, it's not a rule.

Ok, maybe I should have said 7 Div I win "threshhold".

[Aho Old Guy]

Selection Criteria
[Reference: Bylaws 31.01.2, 31.01.3 and 31.3 in the NCAA Manual.]

At-large teams shall be selected by the Division I football committee, assisted by four regional advisory committees that serve in an advisory capacity only. The following principles shall apply when selecting at-large teams:

1. The committee shall select the best teams available on a national at-large basis to complete the bracket. Per NCAA Bylaw 31, the basic criteria used in the selection of at-large participants are (1) won-lost record, (2) strength-of-schedule, and (3) eligibility and availability of student-athletes for the NCAA championship;

2. There is no limit to the number of teams the committee may select from one conference;

3. The won-lost record of a team will be scrutinized to determine a team’s strength of schedule; however, less than seven Division I wins may place a team in jeopardy of not being selected;

4. The committee may give more consideration to those teams that have played all Division I opponents;

5. If the team of a committee member is under consideration, the member may not vote for the team being considered and will not be in the room when a vote is taken;

6. For those conferences that qualify for automatic qualification but do not receive it, a guaranteed at-large position shall be awarded in any year in which its conference champion team meets all of the following conditions:

a. Team wins a minimum of eight Division I games during the season;
b. Team wins a minimum of two non-conference games against Division I teams representing a conference that has earned an automatic qualification in that year; and
c. Team finishes the season ranked 20 or higher in an average of the last regular-season media, coaches and/or computer polls (which will be determined by the committee on an annual basis).

For 2011, the media poll will be the Sports Network Poll, the coaches poll will be the FCS Coaches poll and the computer poll will be a variation of the Gridiron Power Index – using only the following computer rankings: The Massey Ratings, Wolfe Rankings, Ashburn Rankings, Self Rankings and the Laz Index.

That ain't my bold. That's NCAA bold, right there, boys . . .

20 teams really never made sense -- beyond 24 makes no sense.

And just because 8 teams get first-weekend byes does not mean they will be seeded. What I think it actually calls into question is the need for a fifth seed.