What the FBS could learn.

Randall Flagg · Post by **Randall Flagg** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:00 pm

I like being an outsider. You don't have a team so you don't have a side, there aren't any attachments. It's liberating. It is painfully obvious what the FBS is missing that FCS, D2, and D3 have. The spirit of athletics, at least for the team sports, is to see who is the best. That only happens with a playoff system. But it also creates new rivalries. It promotes the game. Folks on the west coast feel passionately about the supposed East Coast Bias. And with that come an understanding of teams and conferences they wouldn't normally care to know. East Coast wants to have a rebuttle, they need to know the West Coast, Mid West, etc. It's exciting as hell to watch playoff football. But even more important, it's about the games, not the money. Everything has a price, but these stupid bowl games cheapen the system and the FBS. It's no big deal to win a bowl game anymore. I hate that.

As an outsider I will say something's need to change for the FCS though:
1) if your gonna take the top 20 teams, then take the top 20 teams. I noticed in the final polls some teams squeaked in that were ranked below other teams. No automatic bids. Just win and get in.
2). This MEAC conference is god awful, if you stick with automatic bids, they shouldn't have one. Waste of time.
3) The National Championship should be on a Friday Night. Thought ESPN didn't give the FCS it's due. Plus there is nothing on Friday nights.

Post by **SDHornet** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:06 pm

1) Ironically the FBS system already only takes the “top” teams to determine their “champion”. Funny how that works eh?
2) All conferences whose members pony up the full amount of FCS schollies should be included in the playoff. This kind of relates to #1 above but it also rewards the “good” teams with a should be win in the early rounds. This fits in line with my thinking that even a conference like the Sun Belt or laughable WAC should also get a seat at the table in an FBS playoff.
3) So long as the FCS championship isn’t scheduled head to head with a major bowl it probably doesn’t matter when it is scheduled as its viewership probably wouldn’t be much greater than where it is.

nwFL Griz · Post by **nwFL Griz** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:33 am

I agree with Hornet. Flagg's #1 is an absolute no go, and is a huge problem with FBS as it is now.

Hornet's #2 is exactly right. The FBS starts the season where well over half of the subdivision is eliminated from title contention based solely on conference affiliation.

Post by **kalm** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:26 am

On point #1, agree with the above posts and I will add that due to scheulde strength, scholarship funding, and a lack of voting knowledge that there are teams from weaker conferences with glossy records that get ranked above a 2,3, and even 4 loss team from the Big Sky, MVFC, SoCon, and CAA. The committee with the occasional exception, does a good job of getting it right.

What makes the playoffs intiguing is that not only do you get the Marquee match ups like GSU @ NDSU, but teams that squeak in can make nice runs like Nova last year, and you also get underdogs from weaker conferences proving themselves worthy like Lehigh from this year.

If FBS had this system, I think there would be a few surprises along these lines as well. I'm too lazy to look it up but somebody posted a sample 20 team FBS bracket from 2011 and the match ups in every round were off the charts good.

Yes on the friday night thing.

Randall Flagg · Post by **Randall Flagg** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:31 am

Are problem isn't knowing who are the top ten teams in the nation, or even the top fifteen. Our problem is finding as fair way to gage who plays for the National Championship. Those top ten teams were legit. And we do have teams that don't deserve to be in big bowl get in. Look at the 2011 Fiesta Bowl where Uconn got smoked. They shouldn't have been there. The FBS, you gotta win to be at the top, but teams like Boise, TCU, they don't get their title shot because of the flaw in the system; which I think we all agree upon. I use Rutgers in 05-06 when they had Brian Lenord and Ray Rice. That team could have easily gone a big run. But because there wasn't a playoff system, and they were Rutgers. They never got the chance. They played in a big bowl (I can't remember which one. That within itself should say something) but they didn't get a chance to play for it all. To say at the end of the year that we don't know who the best 8-10 teams are is ridiculous. It's pretty clear who did well and is deserving of a shot. What we don't know, is of those teams who is the best. Some of those Boise teams would have been scary.

As far as number two goes. If a conference sucks year in and year out and does nothing in the playoffs. Like the MEAC, then why have them in. It takes away from some other school who might have gone on a run. Make the conferences play better or have better showing or their out. If you want to air on the side of caution that a similiar fate to a Boise/TCU (not getting oppurtunities because of the conference their) would befall them; then play better out of conference games. Or do what Boise, Utah, TCU, and many other schools and switch conferences.

The Kicker · Post by **The Kicker** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:00 am

1. LSU* 13-0
vs
16. (Louisiana Tech* 8-4 vs West Virginia* 9-3)

8. Kansas State 10-2
vs
9 South Carolina 10-2

5. Stanford 11-1
vs
12. Virginia Tech 11-2

13. (Clemson* 10-3 vs Houston 12-1)
vs
4. Oregon* 11-2

3. Alabama 11-1
vs
14 (Northern Illinois* 10-3 vs TCU* 10-2)

6. Arkansas 10-2
vs
11. Michigan 10-2

7. Wisconsin 11-2
vs.
10. Boise State 11-1

15. (Arkansas State* 10-2 vs Southern Miss* 11-2)
vs
2. Oklahoma St* 11-1

* Conference Champion
I think they do need a playoff big time. Those Boise State teams in the past could have won it all along with other teams that should have had a shot.

The Kicker · Post by **The Kicker** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:14 am

Also wanted to add if FBS had a playoff I think more teams would play better teams out of conference. No one wants to take that chance of getting a loss and being out of the championship 2-3 games into the season. I would say about 90% of the top 50 teams don't play anyone good on their non conference schedule. Look at basketball you see ACC vs Big Ten where top teams duel and every team has a few hard non conference games. The system is set up where you want to play a hard schedule to make your record stand out when the playoff field is picked. Football is on the other end where if your in a good conference you want to play "cupcakes" to make sure your win total is high so you get a better bowl game.

nwFL Griz · Post by **nwFL Griz** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:29 am

Randall Flagg wrote:Are problem isn't knowing who are the top ten teams in the nation, or even the top fifteen. Our problem is finding as fair way to gage who plays for the National Championship. Those top ten teams were legit. And we do have teams that don't deserve to be in big bowl get in. Look at the 2011 Fiesta Bowl where Uconn got smoked. They shouldn't have been there. The FBS, you gotta win to be at the top, but teams like Boise, TCU, they don't get their title shot because of the flaw in the system; which I think we all agree upon. I use Rutgers in 05-06 when they had Brian Lenord and Ray Rice. That team could have easily gone a big run. But because there wasn't a playoff system, and they were Rutgers. They never got the chance. They played in a big bowl (I can't remember which one. That within itself should say something) but they didn't get a chance to play for it all. To say at the end of the year that we don't know who the best 8-10 teams are is ridiculous. It's pretty clear who did well and is deserving of a shot. What we don't know, is of those teams who is the best. Some of those Boise teams would have been scary.

As far as number two goes. If a conference sucks year in and year out and does nothing in the playoffs. Like the MEAC, then why have them in. It takes away from some other school who might have gone on a run. Make the conferences play better or have better showing or their out. If you want to air on the side of caution that a similiar fate to a Boise/TCU (not getting oppurtunities because of the conference their) would befall them; then play better out of conference games. Or do what Boise, Utah, TCU, and many other schools and switch conferences.

Rutgers was in a big bowl? Really? Did I sleep through that season or something? I don't know about you, but I don't consider the Texas Bowl a big bowl. Yes Rutgers was 10-2 (11-2 if you count the bowl win), but they lost to a 5-loss Cincinnati team, and then to WVU two weeks later. They finished third in the Big East.

So you are going to exclude a conference because they lose in the playoffs? Even though they routinely get matched up with one of the top teams from the SoCon or the CAA? Ridiculous. As long as the conference meets minimum requirements to be in the playoffs (scholarships or equivalents, etc), they should have an autobid.

Libertine · Post by **Libertine** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:36 pm

nwFL Griz wrote:The FBS starts the season where well over half of the subdivision is eliminated from title contention based solely on conference affiliation.

I don't see that FCS is really all that different in this regard. Being a good team in the "wrong" conference is an uphill battle no matter at which level you play.

nwFL Griz · Post by **nwFL Griz** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:55 pm

Libertine wrote:
nwFL Griz wrote:The FBS starts the season where well over half of the subdivision is eliminated from title contention based solely on conference affiliation.
I don't see that FCS is really all that different in this regard. Being a good team in the "wrong" conference is an uphill battle no matter at which level you play.

The difference is, in the FCS, you win your conference and you are in...meaning you have a chance to win the title. The only teams that does not apply to are those in the Pioneer league. That is a different discussion.

Post by **DSUrocks07** » Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:22 pm

So I heard you don't care for the MEAC much Flagg?

Post by **grizzaholic** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 2:31 am

DSUrocks07 wrote:So I heard you don't care for the MEAC much Flagg?

I heard.

[youtube][/youtube]

Randall Flagg · Post by **Randall Flagg** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:17 am

I can only comment on the teams that are currently in the MEAC now. I really don't know the conference well. However, the last time an MEAC team won a playoff game was 1999. Had you bought a dog the very same day they won a playoff game; most likely it would be dead. There's something wrong there.

Either make the standards different or force schools in weaker conferences to play harder teams. Doesn't seem wise or fair to have conference that loses every year. Either fix the conference or force them to prove themselves.

I've read this board; when the selection are made; there are countless numbers of people complaining about that on here. You can't tell me this isn't a pressing issue. Just because those emotions have cooled doesn't mean the same problem won't resurface again and again. So fix it. And, unfortunetly, the MEAC is part of that problem.

Here's the fair question, would the FCS playoffs be better if the best 20 teams got in or not? Because under this current model, it is not the 20 best teams. For my money, if we ever do get a playoff system, I don't want to see the MAC conference champ get in and be destrpyed when some more deserving teams should get in.

It's just an opinion. I'll now wait for Grizzaholic to put his foot in his mouth and then remind everyone what a swell guy he is.

89Hen · Post by **89Hen** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:32 am

Randall Flagg wrote:Here's the fair question, would the FCS playoffs be better if the best 20 teams got in or not? Because under this current model, it is not the 20 best teams. For my money, if we ever do get a playoff system, I don't want to see the MAC conference champ get in and be destrpyed when some more deserving teams should get in.

Final regular season poll...
1. Sam Houston State Bearkats (125)
2. Northern Iowa Panthers (2)
3. Georgia Southern Eagles (6)
4. North Dakota State Bison (3)
5. Montana Grizzlies
6. Lehigh Mountain Hawks (4)
7. Montana State Bobcats
8. Towson Tigers
9. Appalachian State Mountaineers
10. Old Dominion Monarchs
11. New Hampshire Wildcats
12. Wofford Terriers
13. Maine Black Bears
14. Delaware Blue Hens
15. Central Arkansas Bears
16. Harvard Crimson
17. James Madison Dukes
18. Illinois State Redbirds
19. Norfolk State Spartans

NSU was the #18 team (Harvard not post-season eligible).

Randall Flagg · Post by **Randall Flagg** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:03 am

89Hen wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:Here's the fair question, would the FCS playoffs be better if the best 20 teams got in or not? Because under this current model, it is not the 20 best teams. For my money, if we ever do get a playoff system, I don't want to see the MAC conference champ get in and be destrpyed when some more deserving teams should get in.
Final regular season poll...
1. Sam Houston State Bearkats (125)
2. Northern Iowa Panthers (2)
3. Georgia Southern Eagles (6)
4. North Dakota State Bison (3)
5. Montana Grizzlies
6. Lehigh Mountain Hawks (4)
7. Montana State Bobcats
8. Towson Tigers
9. Appalachian State Mountaineers
10. Old Dominion Monarchs
11. New Hampshire Wildcats
12. Wofford Terriers
13. Maine Black Bears
14. Delaware Blue Hens
15. Central Arkansas Bears
16. Harvard Crimson
17. James Madison Dukes
18. Illinois State Redbirds
19. Norfolk State Spartans

NSU was the #18 team (Harvard not post-season eligible).

Fair enough in this instance, although losing in the first round by 17 points doesn't lend my leverage to them being deserving of a #19 seeding. But we all have our bad games. But I asked the question, were 20 best teams represented? And hould they have been? By my count looks like UD and ISU were in the top 20 and didn't make it. Now we can make the arguement about six FCS wins or they had their chances. certainly they fit. But then don't have them ranked as high. Or, look and say does a team in the CAA or MVS tend to fair better than that of an MEAC and make an educated call.

Post by **SDHornet** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:41 am

Randall Flagg wrote: Fair enough in this instance, although losing in the first round by 17 points doesn't lend my leverage to them being deserving of a #19 seeding. But we all have our bad games. But I asked the question, were 20 best teams represented? And hould they have been? By my count looks like UD and ISU were in the top 20 and didn't make it. Now we can make the arguement about six FCS wins or they had their chances. certainly they fit. But then don't have them ranked as high. Or, look and say does a team in the CAA or MVS tend to fair better than that of an MEAC and make an educated call.

That’s the beauty of a playoff system; polls don’t really mean a whole lot as a champion is determined on the field.

Post by **SDHornet** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:44 am

Randall Flagg wrote:I can only comment on the teams that are currently in the MEAC now. I really don't know the conference well. However, the last time an MEAC team won a playoff game was 1999. Had you bought a dog the very same day they won a playoff game; most likely it would be dead. There's something wrong there.

Either make the standards different or force schools in weaker conferences to play harder teams. Doesn't seem wise or fair to have conference that loses every year. Either fix the conference or force them to prove themselves.

Doesn’t seem “wise” or “fair” that the BCS continues to allow a conference like the Big East and ACC to get a guaranteed BCS Bowl bid every year either since they pretty much lose every year. But hey, those conference champions are deemed the “best” by their peers/bowl committees and it’s only “fair” that they be included. Obviously taking the best “top” programs is the best thing for college football. This line of thinking is precisely why a program from “weaker” conferences will never be allowed back in the conversation if they are ever excluded (Boise State & TCU for example). What is going on in the BCS/FBS is already a perfect example of what happens when a group of people select the “best” programs for the better of college football. This type of system comes at the expense of programs from “weaker” conferences.

I also find it funny you think its “fair” to not even give a chance to programs from “weaker” conferences in a playoff system where everything is settled on the field. This line of thinking makes no sense to me.

I've read this board; when the selection are made; there are countless numbers of people complaining about that on here. You can't tell me this isn't a pressing issue. Just because those emotions have cooled doesn't mean the same problem won't resurface again and again. So fix it. And, unfortunetly, the MEAC is part of that problem.

There will always be griping regardless of what the number of teams allowed into the post season is. Case and point just look at the NCAA hoops tournament selection. 68 teams are allowed in the Dance and people still complain about who is left out. The bottom line is if a team doesn’t want to get left out, under the current FCS system if they take care of business (get a minimum of 7 D-1 wins), more than likely they are getting a ticket to the playoffs. This does not hold true when only the “best” programs are selected (or allowed) to participate in post season play. If you think teams are getting snubbed now, just wait until a selection committee is allowed to select the “best” programs. We already see this at the BCS/FBS level and it’s foolish to think that wouldn’t happen at FCS.

Here's the fair question, would the FCS playoffs be better if the best 20 teams got in or not? Because under this current model, it is not the 20 best teams. For my money, if we ever do get a playoff system, I don't want to see the MAC conference champ get in and be destrpyed when some more deserving teams should get in.

“Best” according to whom? I’m beating a dead horse in hopes that you might pick up where I’m coming from, but just look at how well a system works when only the “best” teams are selected to participate in a post season system. I fail to see how this is some kind of solution to anything other than which is currently going on in FCS.

nwFL Griz · Post by **nwFL Griz** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:08 am

You nailed it again SD. The real question is....do we even have a problem in the FCS?

My answer would be no. I think we have the best system to determine the champion. The only folks who might not agree are the PFL people, but again, that is a different discussion.

89Hen · Post by **89Hen** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:21 am

Randall Flagg wrote:Fair enough in this instance, although losing in the first round by 17 points doesn't lend my leverage to them being deserving of a #19 seeding. But we all have our bad games. But I asked the question, were 20 best teams represented? And hould they have been? By my count looks like UD and ISU were in the top 20 and didn't make it. Now we can make the arguement about six FCS wins or they had their chances. certainly they fit. But then don't have them ranked as high. Or, look and say does a team in the CAA or MVS tend to fair better than that of an MEAC and make an educated call.

You can never satisfy everyone that the best 20 get in. Everyone has a differnt criteria for what they use to determine that. Leaving out a 15 team is not really a crime and I don't lose sleep over it. UD had plenty of chances to make the field but shat the bed in two games they should have won.

Randall Flagg · Post by **Randall Flagg** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:08 pm

It can always be better; always. There's a committee that picks the playoff bound teams, let them do the rankings. If there qualified to say who gets in, they're qualified to rank the teams.

I understand you being protective, and it is a much better system that the Bowls; but flawless it is not.

agree to disagree on this one.

Post by **SDHornet** » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:43 pm

Randall Flagg wrote:It can always be better; always. There's a committee that picks the playoff bound teams, let them do the rankings. If there qualified to say who gets in, they're qualified to rank the teams.

I think you put too much stock in the rankings. Ranking are all that matters when you have a broken and retarded system like the FBS/BCS utilizes. So next season’s FBS/BCS “champions” and teams hoping to get into the “championship” are predetermined by the end of season rankings and preseason rankings…which it total bull shit as it puts too much value in historical relevance. Why this type of thinking/metric should play into an FCS playoff selection committee is utterly ridiculous.

Since FCS settles it on the field, the rankings shouldn’t hold that much weight (although I think it does come into play for the selection committees determination of the at-large berths and seeding). And at that point, the full season’s body of work comes into consideration and again it comes down to getting it done on the field and SOS and whatever other valid metrics can be used to select who deserves a berth.

I understand you being protective, and it is a much better system that the Bowls; but flawless it is not.

agree to disagree on this one.

I agree. Although my team hasn’t made the playoffs, at least I know we won’t get completely ignored to participate for a shot at a championship if we meet the quals. Good luck explaining that to fans of a WAC, MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC, and if there are two undefeated Pac-12, Big-10, SEC, Big-12 programs; add the ACC and Big East to the list of programs with no shot at a "championship" at the end of the regular season.

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

What the FBS could learn.

What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.

Re: What the FBS could learn.