Gateway Conference Calls for Expansion of FCS Playoff Field

[SuperHornet]

I like GreenDay17's proposal except for one thing: I've never been a fan of seeding PART of a tournament field, and then just throwing everyone else wherever. To me, you seed EVERYBODY, and then if there are to be byes, you specify that the top whatever seeds get that bye. That way, you've established from the get-go who goes where. Sure, there's always the NFL "reseeding" BS to consider, but I've never liked that. It essentially penalizes a low-ranked team for an upset, which is bogus to me. So, if you want to have a field of 24, you CAN specify that the top 8 get byes, but then you'd have the following first round matchups: 9-24, 10-23, 11-22, 12-21, 13-20, 14-19, 15-18, 16-17. And then the winners get slotted just as they would in a normal bracket: 16-17 winner vs. #1, 15-18 winner vs #2, etc.

I gotta disagree with guinzone about the dating, however. Sure, we're taking a Trump/USFL type risk by going head to head with the FCS, but it's an opportunity to show that a REAL championship is worth something. I think that there would be SOME coverage of it, just based on the "controversy" of trying to upstage the big boys. We hardly get any pub as it is. This "blasphemy" could be just the thing to get our badly deserved pub going.

[GreenDay17]

First Round—November 24 at on-campus sites (BYE for 8 seeded teams)
Second Round—December 1 at on-campus sites
Quarterfinals—December 8 at on-campus sites
Semifinals—December 14 at on-campus sites
Championship Game—January 6 at site in city of 2007 AFCA Convention

You won't find any team that would be a fan of waiting 3 weeks to play for a National Championship and you will not see the I-AA get any coverage whatsoever 2 days before the BIG BCS Title Game. The time the game is played now is met with literally no competition from the other sports.

IMO, by playing the game when we (FCS) currently do we inadvertently send a message that our championship game is a precursor - and thus a lesser game - to any of the FBS bowl games. The time between the semifinal games and the championship game would allow more fans to plan/attend at a lesser cost than currently have the ability. Our teams and coaches would be able to enjoy X-mas and then return to their schools to prepare for the NC game. There is a dead day or two between the last warm-up bowl and the FBS BCS championship game and that is the day that I propose we should have our championship played.

[lizrdgizrd]

You're going to have to face the facts that the FCS will NOT be playing the title game during Bowl Week. An alternative is to start the season a week earlier if you're set on a 5 week playoff.

[lizrdgizrd]

You won't find any team that would be a fan of waiting 3 weeks to play for a National Championship and you will not see the I-AA get any coverage whatsoever 2 days before the BIG BCS Title Game. The time the game is played now is met with literally no competition from the other sports.

IMO, by playing the game when we (FCS) currently do we inadvertently send a message that our championship game is a precursor - and thus a lesser game - to any of the FBS bowl games. The time between the semifinal games and the championship game would allow more fans to plan/attend at a lesser cost than currently have the ability. Our teams and coaches would be able to enjoy X-mas and then return to their schools to prepare for the NC game. There is a dead day or two between the last warm-up bowl and the FBS BCS championship game and that is the day that I propose we should have our championship played.

The message we send by playing our game when we do is that we don't have the big time $$$ that would force the networks to show us over a bowl game.

Coaches are not going to want to wait for 3 weeks before playing the title game.

[lizrdgizrd]

I like GreenDay17's proposal except for one thing: I've never been a fan of seeding PART of a tournament field, and then just throwing everyone else wherever. To me, you seed EVERYBODY, and then if there are to be byes, you specify that the top whatever seeds get that bye. That way, you've established from the get-go who goes where. Sure, there's always the NFL "reseeding" BS to consider, but I've never liked that. It essentially penalizes a low-ranked team for an upset, which is bogus to me. So, if you want to have a field of 24, you CAN specify that the top 8 get byes, but then you'd have the following first round matchups: 9-24, 10-23, 11-22, 12-21, 13-20, 14-19, 15-18, 16-17. And then the winners get slotted just as they would in a normal bracket: 16-17 winner vs. #1, 15-18 winner vs #2, etc.

I gotta disagree with guinzone about the dating, however. Sure, we're taking a Trump/USFL type risk by going head to head with the FCS, but it's an opportunity to show that a REAL championship is worth something. I think that there would be SOME coverage of it, just based on the "controversy" of trying to upstage the big boys. We hardly get any pub as it is. This "blasphemy" could be just the thing to get our badly deserved pub going.

The reason for not seeding the entire field is that the NCAA has to have $$$ to run the show. Allowing teams to bid on home games means that the NCAA gets more $$ from teams with bigger gates. The NCAA is lucky to break even on the playoffs.

[WYOBISONMAN]

I would support an expansion to either 20 or 24. I think a few more playoff games would be good for FCS as a whole. More opportunity for exposure.

[SuperHornet]

I like GreenDay17's proposal except for one thing: I've never been a fan of seeding PART of a tournament field, and then just throwing everyone else wherever. To me, you seed EVERYBODY, and then if there are to be byes, you specify that the top whatever seeds get that bye. That way, you've established from the get-go who goes where. Sure, there's always the NFL "reseeding" BS to consider, but I've never liked that. It essentially penalizes a low-ranked team for an upset, which is bogus to me. So, if you want to have a field of 24, you CAN specify that the top 8 get byes, but then you'd have the following first round matchups: 9-24, 10-23, 11-22, 12-21, 13-20, 14-19, 15-18, 16-17. And then the winners get slotted just as they would in a normal bracket: 16-17 winner vs. #1, 15-18 winner vs #2, etc.

I gotta disagree with guinzone about the dating, however. Sure, we're taking a Trump/USFL type risk by going head to head with the FCS, but it's an opportunity to show that a REAL championship is worth something. I think that there would be SOME coverage of it, just based on the "controversy" of trying to upstage the big boys. We hardly get any pub as it is. This "blasphemy" could be just the thing to get our badly deserved pub going.

The reason for not seeding the entire field is that the NCAA has to have $$$ to run the show. Allowing teams to bid on home games means that the NCAA gets more $$ from teams with bigger gates. The NCAA is lucky to break even on the playoffs.

The simple answer to that is to get more TV deals, whether it be ESPN2, ESPNU, or CSTV.

[NDSUFREAK]

ahhh, not ESPNU, I don't have that with my ESPN channels

[Grizball]

ahhh, not ESPNU, I don't have that with my ESPN channels

poor bastid!

[SuperHornet]

ahhh, not ESPNU, I don't have that with my ESPN channels

poor bastid!

"Poor Bastid" is right. Up until next week or so, I could empathize with you since I've never had ESPNU as part of a basic cable package. However, my new job that starts on Monday has enabled me to get a dish for the first time. I'll have the luxury of watching ESPNU when I'm not watching Raw on USA or Smackdown on UPN.

[skinny_uncle]

I like GreenDay17's proposal except for one thing: I've never been a fan of seeding PART of a tournament field, and then just throwing everyone else wherever. To me, you seed EVERYBODY, and then if there are to be byes, you specify that the top whatever seeds get that bye. That way, you've established from the get-go who goes where. Sure, there's always the NFL "reseeding" BS to consider, but I've never liked that. It essentially penalizes a low-ranked team for an upset, which is bogus to me. So, if you want to have a field of 24, you CAN specify that the top 8 get byes, but then you'd have the following first round matchups: 9-24, 10-23, 11-22, 12-21, 13-20, 14-19, 15-18, 16-17. And then the winners get slotted just as they would in a normal bracket: 16-17 winner vs. #1, 15-18 winner vs #2, etc.

I gotta disagree with guinzone about the dating, however. Sure, we're taking a Trump/USFL type risk by going head to head with the FCS, but it's an opportunity to show that a REAL championship is worth something. I think that there would be SOME coverage of it, just based on the "controversy" of trying to upstage the big boys. We hardly get any pub as it is. This "blasphemy" could be just the thing to get our badly deserved pub going.

Seeding the whole field would take away the option of reducing travle for the first round teams by matching teams up with others in their own region of the country. I don't see it happening. Those regional matchups not only reduce travel for the teams, but fans as well.

[lizrdgizrd]

The reason for not seeding the entire field is that the NCAA has to have $$$ to run the show. Allowing teams to bid on home games means that the NCAA gets more $$ from teams with bigger gates. The NCAA is lucky to break even on the playoffs.

The simple answer to that is to get more TV deals, whether it be ESPN2, ESPNU, or CSTV.

The simple problem with that is that the TV deals are made with the Bowl games already. Not to mention that advertisers would have to be found by those stations to cover the $$$ they give us for broadcasting the game. If they can't find advertisers we'll either get no coverage or very little $$$.

[SuperHornet]

The simple answer to that is to get more TV deals, whether it be ESPN2, ESPNU, or CSTV.

The simple problem with that is that the TV deals are made with the Bowl games already. Not to mention that advertisers would have to be found by those stations to cover the $$$ they give us for broadcasting the game. If they can't find advertisers we'll either get no coverage or very little $$$.

That's why we should find some way to kick in the door during the REGULAR SEASON. Having regular season games aired would naturally develop some sort of fan base and therefore increase the demand for the playoffs, including the championship. ESPN has recently started airing ALL of the title games; this would merely be an offshoot of that and could very well increase the ratings of said title games.

[lizrdgizrd]

The simple problem with that is that the TV deals are made with the Bowl games already. Not to mention that advertisers would have to be found by those stations to cover the $$$ they give us for broadcasting the game. If they can't find advertisers we'll either get no coverage or very little $$$.

That's why we should find some way to kick in the door during the REGULAR SEASON. Having regular season games aired would naturally develop some sort of fan base and therefore increase the demand for the playoffs, including the championship. ESPN has recently started airing ALL of the title games; this would merely be an offshoot of that and could very well increase the ratings of said title games.

But it's going to take years to increase the ratings to the point where advertisers would consider paying the same as for a mid-level bowl game. Not that I don't think it's possible, but it's unlikely that we'll have the numbers to entice a network to show us during bowl week. The real problem is that the networks don't just bid on one game at a time but a package deal. They pay for the big games and get the others as part of the price to show the big ones. So while we may be able to beat the fix-a-flat bowl ratings-wise, we'd still have the problem of the package deals to compete with.

[catbooster]

It doesn't matter if you stop at 16, 20, 24, etc. the 17th, 21st, or 25th team will always be "snubbed" or "woofed" and an article will be written.

I agree.

I'm curious whether the argument for a larger playoff is because:
a) 16 teams is not adequate to be sure we've really crowned the national champion (maybe the team that got "woofed" would have won it all).
b) we want to be more "inclusive".
c) I wanta watch more football, dammit, and have another week of the fun of playoffs.
d) ?

Personally, I think 16 is adequate to determine the best team, but yeah, I wouldn't mind watching some more games.

[ronbo]

Go to 20 or 24 and the Griz will run their consecutive playoff streak to 114 over the next 100 years. Also in 100 years I predict the Griz will still be leading the FCS in attendance by averaging 92,000 fans per game.

[NDSUFREAK]

poor bastid!

"Poor Bastid" is right. Up until next week or so, I could empathize with you since I've never had ESPNU as part of a basic cable package. However, my new job that starts on Monday has enabled me to get a dish for the first time. I'll have the luxury of watching ESPNU when I'm not watching Raw on USA or Smackdown on UPN.

so i should get it then

[AZGrizFan]

I vote NO. A 7-4 team shouldn't get into the playoffs, 7-4 isn't special, it's mediocre.

See, you can say that because you aren't an MSU fan.

[GreenDay17]

I vote NO. A 7-4 team shouldn't get into the playoffs, 7-4 isn't special, it's mediocre.

Should we then require that all teams be 8-3 or better and not allow any 7-4 teams into the playoffs that happen to win their conference? Why stop at 7-4 when 8-3 is only a 73% win rate? 73% is a mediocre "C" grade.

I believe that something is going to have to change in the future. It is not, imo, about if a 7-4 team is worthy but rather about generating greater excitement ala March Madness. A greater opportunity to market the FCS is needed and could be achieved by tweaking the playoff model. Another change is going to occur when another conference realizes the criteria for an autobid. I believe that as currently formatted, the playoffs require that half the field be composed of at-large teams. If one more conference attains autobid status then the playoffs will be forced to expand. Are we then going to work at keeping any additional conferences from obtaining autobids? Change is inevitable. The current playoff format will not be adequate in the near (relatively speaking) future. We should develop a model that can handle the inevitable changes in the FCS.

[BlazerDawg]

The FCS playoff system is much better than that of D-II. D-II has a 24 team field, but is done on a regional basis. Last season, a top 10 team in the country didn't make the 24 team playoff due to the regional format.

Each reason has six spots. Regional rankings start about 3/4 way through the season. The top six teams in each reasons get a spot, but if a conference champion is in the top 10, it can bump a team that didn't win a conference. That happened last season. The top two in each region get a first round bye; so, it doesn't take longer than a 16 team playoff. I'd love to see D-II go to a national playoff system with conference champs getting auto bids with the rest of the field being picked on a strength of schedule/poll ranking formula.