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

- Opening round - Thanksgiving weekend - eight of the 20 qualifiers.
- Twelve teams will gain byes into the second round, to be played the weekend of Dec. 3.
- The quarterfinals follow the weekend of Dec. 10 and the semifinals are set for the weekend of Dec. 17.
- The finalists will then have a three-week break before meeting in Frisco, Texas, in the national title game Friday, Jan. 7. It's the first of a three-year commitment to Pizza Hut Park.

- The Big South and NEC champs bring the number of automatic qualifiers to 10
- The number of at-large qualifiers also has increased by two to 10.
- The NCAA allows for one-quarter of the field to be seeded, so there will be five seeds (up one from previous years), although behind the scenes the field basically will be ordered 1-20 to determine which teams will play in the first round and which will have byes.

- The first round won't have meetings between conference rivals, but it can happen beginning in the Round of 16.

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/tsnf ... id=4308710" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So the major differences:

5 seeds (but pretty much everyone ranked behind the scenes)
10 AQs
10 At-larges
NC game in January

That three week break is going to be absolutely unbearable here listening to all the shit-talk back and forth....especially if Montana is in the NC going for another loss to the CAA

bandl wrote:That three week break is going to be absolutely unbearable here listening to all the shit-talk back and forth....especially if Montana is in the NC going for another loss to the CAA

I'll go ahead and start it now:

a) With our new coach, we might actually WIN if we get back to the chipper
b) With the game in Frisco, the designiated CAA team might actually have the playing field leveled against them by not being able to roll out of bed, drive 30 minutes and be at the game
c) The # of at large bids might be up, but the CAA is short two teams, so getting half the slots might be difficult this year, unlike years past
d) Also sodomy

Like the expansion, don't like the three week break

AZGrizFan wrote:

bandl wrote:That three week break is going to be absolutely unbearable here listening to all the shit-talk back and forth....especially if Montana is in the NC going for another loss to the CAA

I'll go ahead and start it now:

a) With our new coach, we might actually WIN if we get back to the chipper
b) With the game in Frisco, the designiated CAA team might actually have the playing field leveled against them by not being able to roll out of bed, drive 30 minutes and be at the game
c) The # of at large bids might be up, but the CAA is short two teams, so getting half the slots might be difficult this year, unlike years past
d) Also sodomy

I agree with point D).

Hate expansion and hate the 3 week layoff.

What's the over/under on the playoffs going to 24 teams? My guess is 2013.

Saint3333 wrote:Hate expansion and hate the 3 week layoff.

What's the over/under on the playoffs going to 24 teams? My guess is 2013.

I say 22 by 2012 with the PFL getting an AQ and the additional at-large to go along with it.

But to get to 24 will take some real doings.

Does the Great West get to 6 teams (doubtful)? Does the CAA split up to form a new conference (doubtful)? The SWAC and Ivy isn't joining the party anytime soon. Add in the dominoes soon to fall from Big Ten expansion and I'm not sure where we get to 12 FCS conferencees with AQ's to get to 24.

Saint3333 wrote:Hate expansion and hate the 3 week layoff.

What's the over/under on the playoffs going to 24 teams? My guess is 2013.

Hmm - if the GWFC can add a member, and don't lose the Dakotas, then they might. Let the PFL have an autobid to stop the whining. Two auto-bids, two corresponding at-larges.

Pretty good.

Hopefully the NEC/Big South teams matchup with the Southland in round 1 and win so we can get some fresh blood in Wa-Griz this year (lots of assumptions there obviously)

AZGrizFan wrote:

bandl wrote:That three week break is going to be absolutely unbearable here listening to all the ****-talk back and forth....especially if Montana is in the NC going for another loss to the CAA

I'll go ahead and start it now:

a) With our new coach, we might actually WIN if we get back to the chipper
b) With the game in Frisco, the designiated CAA team might actually have the playing field leveled against them by not being able to roll out of bed, drive 30 minutes and be at the game
c) The # of at large bids might be up, but the CAA is short two teams, so getting half the slots might be difficult this year, unlike years past
d) Also sodomy

Point c - rolling out of bed and driving 30 minutes is probably less of a deal with the three week break assuming the schools are willing to put the teams up in Texas for more than a night or two.

Silenoz wrote:Hopefully the NEC/Big South teams matchup with the Southland in round 1 and win so we can get some fresh blood in Wa-Griz this year (lots of assumptions there obviously)

There are so many possible matchups this year, especially considering Stony Brook is the defending Big South champ. If SBU wins the Big South AQ, its very likely we could see the NEC champ traveling to SBU in the opening round. If not, then the Big South AQ will probably get the SLC at large, or the OVC or MEAC AQ.

You may like it or not, but I hope the expansion injects some enthusiasm into the playoffs, especially for the schools that now have a legit shot at an AQ as we know the other at-larges will go to power conferences. IMO the round of 16 will still be the same old crap...Big Sky vs. Southland, CAA vs. MEAC or PL ---> I truely hope they "rank" teams 1-20 as the opportunity to play new teams is what keeps the playoffs (for me) exciting.

Personally i like this just because it will allow more teams a chance to get into the playoffs and may put an end to the bickering that seems to take place between what teams should have made it and allow conferences like the GWC to be able to have a team or to represent them in the playoffs. Also i think the Great West deserves an AQ and i think we are looking at another team joining within 3-5 years with it being either SanDiego, Utah Valley or possibly a D2 team moving up (Central Washington?) since the D2 ban is lifted in 2011 i believe? Either way the Great West hopefully will get a sixth team and then have an AQ for the playoffs. Really do wish that Northern Colorado had stayed in the GWC, that way we wouldnt have this issue!

SUUTbird wrote:Personally i like this just because it will allow more teams a chance to get into the playoffs and may put an end to the bickering that seems to take place between what teams should have made it and allow conferences like the GWC to be able to have a team or to represent them in the playoffs. Also i think the Great West deserves an AQ and i think we are looking at another team joining within 3-5 years with it being either SanDiego, Utah Valley or possibly a D2 team moving up (Central Washington?) since the D2 ban is lifted in 2011 i believe? Either way the Great West hopefully will get a sixth team and then have an AQ for the playoffs. Really do wish that Northern Colorado had stayed in the GWC, that way we wouldnt have this issue!

Snap out it. Stop living in a fairy tale world where the Great West matters. They have *5* teams man! Here's the best option for the Great West. Ready? CPUSLO, SUU, & UCD should bolt on the Dakotas and join the Big Di€k Conf.

*COASTAL*
EWU
PSU
CPU
NAU
UCD
CSUS

*MOUNTAIN*
UM
MSU
WSU
NCU
SUU
ISU

*Mandatory stadium upgrade needed by SUU.

We all cant have a red carpet Falkin , and even though we are only 5 teams are all 5 pretty darn good teams so i can live with that

BlackFalkin wrote:

SUUTbird wrote:Personally i like this just because it will allow more teams a chance to get into the playoffs and may put an end to the bickering that seems to take place between what teams should have made it and allow conferences like the GWC to be able to have a team or to represent them in the playoffs. Also i think the Great West deserves an AQ and i think we are looking at another team joining within 3-5 years with it being either SanDiego, Utah Valley or possibly a D2 team moving up (Central Washington?) since the D2 ban is lifted in 2011 i believe? Either way the Great West hopefully will get a sixth team and then have an AQ for the playoffs. Really do wish that Northern Colorado had stayed in the GWC, that way we wouldnt have this issue!

Snap out it. Stop living in a fairy tale world where the Great West matters. They have *5* teams man! Here's the best option for the Great West. Ready? CPUSLO, SUU, & UCD should bolt on the Dakotas and join the Big Di€k Conf.

*COASTAL*
EWU
PSU
CPU
NAU
UCD
CSUS

*MOUNTAIN*
UM
MSU
WSU
NCU
SUU
ISU

*Mandatory stadium upgrade needed by SUU.

I like the look of that conference. SSU, CPSLO, and UC-Davis are practically defacto members anyway, since they play the majority of their non-conference schedule against BSC teams. I think the BSC would love to have Davis and Poly, only problem is that they also have this lame stipulation that conference members must compete in all sports, and the Cali schools probably would not want this due to traval costs. Add SUU maybe as a 10th member, and the Cali schools as football-only members - 12 teams is a nice round number.

Besides playing a potential spoiler to some BSC teams, the GWC as a whole is not really relevant in the play-off picture with only 5 teams, IMO.

Also, I wouldn't bank on CWU making the move to Division I. Even if they did, I wouldn't think they would join the GWC.

danefan wrote:But to get to 24 will take some real doings.

Does the Great West get to 6 teams (doubtful)? Does the CAA split up to form a new conference (doubtful)? The SWAC and Ivy isn't joining the party anytime soon. Add in the dominoes soon to fall from Big Ten expansion and I'm not sure where we get to 12 FCS conferencees with AQ's to get to 24.

There doesn't have to be 12 conferences with AQs. They could just add some extra at-large spots.
The NCAA bylaws dictate that there have to be at least as many at-larges as AQs, but there is nothing that says there can't be more at-large slots. For instance, the NCAA basketball tourney, with 31 AQs and 34 (now 37) at-larges.

danefan wrote:- The NCAA allows for one-quarter of the field to be seeded, so there will be five seeds (up one from previous years), although behind the scenes the field basically will be ordered 1-20 to determine which teams will play in the first round and which will have byes.

What do you mean by "allows"? I'd never heard of that rule before, and there are NCAA tournaments where all teams are seeded (I believe there were years when all 16 I-AA playoff teams were seeded, before they moved to minimizing travel).

Also, I'm not sure that they will necessarily be ordered 1-20, even "behind the scenes". They might just determine a "bottom 8" that have to play in that first weekend. (or at least I HOPE the byes are determined by merit, and not arbitrarily chosen)

JayJ79 wrote:

danefan wrote:But to get to 24 will take some real doings.

Does the Great West get to 6 teams (doubtful)? Does the CAA split up to form a new conference (doubtful)? The SWAC and Ivy isn't joining the party anytime soon. Add in the dominoes soon to fall from Big Ten expansion and I'm not sure where we get to 12 FCS conferencees with AQ's to get to 24.

There doesn't have to be 12 conferences with AQs. They could just add some extra at-large spots.
The NCAA bylaws dictate that there have to be at least as many at-larges as AQs, but there is nothing that says there can't be more at-large slots. For instance, the NCAA basketball tourney, with 31 AQs and 34 (now 37) at-larges.

I know that, but there is no history in the NCAA football tournament to suggest they would do that. Unlike in basketball, in football there is no case for expansion beyond the case for equal access to conferences (e.g. additional AQs).

JayJ79 wrote:

danefan wrote:- The NCAA allows for one-quarter of the field to be seeded, so there will be five seeds (up one from previous years), although behind the scenes the field basically will be ordered 1-20 to determine which teams will play in the first round and which will have byes.

What do you mean by "allows"? I'd never heard of that rule before, and there are NCAA tournaments where all teams are seeded (I believe there were years when all 16 I-AA playoff teams were seeded, before they moved to minimizing travel).

Also, I'm not sure that they will necessarily be ordered 1-20, even "behind the scenes". They might just determine a "bottom 8" that have to play in that first weekend. (or at least I HOPE the byes are determined by merit, and not arbitrarily chosen)

Those tidbits came out of the article. Not my thoughts. Sorry, my first post didn't make that clear. They do appear in the article to be attributed to John McCutcheon, the Chair of the Selection Committee.

danefan wrote:although behind the scenes the field basically will be ordered 1-20 to determine which teams will play in the first round and which will have byes.

Okay so they'll rank 1-12 and 13-20 unofficially. Then they'll set 1-5 in stone and then pair up 6-20 geographical when possible.

T-Dog wrote:

danefan wrote:although behind the scenes the field basically will be ordered 1-20 to determine which teams will play in the first round and which will have byes.

Okay so they'll rank 1-12 and 13-20 unofficially. Then they'll set 1-5 in stone and then pair up 6-20 geographical when possible.

that's what I'm guessing.

i wonder how the NCAA is gonna set it up to make sure that Montana sure that Montana, App, & Delaware can get a maximum # of home games.

BlackFalkin wrote:Snap out it. Stop living in a fairy tale world where the Great West matters. They have *5* teams man! Here's the best option for the Great West. Ready? CPUSLO, SUU, & UCD should bolt on the Dakotas and join the Big Di€k Conf.

*COASTAL*
EWU
PSU
CPU
NAU
UCD
CSUS

*MOUNTAIN*
UM
MSU
WSU
NCU
SUU
ISU

*Mandatory stadium upgrade needed by SUU.

Why not just have the "coastal" teams form a new conference? Also where would the non-conference opponents come from if it were just formed into one huge conference?

SDHornet wrote:

BlackFalkin wrote:Snap out it. Stop living in a fairy tale world where the Great West matters. They have *5* teams man! Here's the best option for the Great West. Ready? CPUSLO, SUU, & UCD should bolt on the Dakotas and join the Big Di€k Conf.

*COASTAL*
EWU
PSU
CPU
NAU
UCD
CSUS

*MOUNTAIN*
UM
MSU
WSU
NCU
SUU
ISU

*Mandatory stadium upgrade needed by SUU.

Why not just have the "coastal" teams form a new conference? Also where would the non-conference opponents come from if it were just formed into one huge conference?

You wouldn't need anymore than you do right now. You would just have a couple of cross divisional games.

EWURanger wrote:I like the look of that conference. SSU, CPSLO, and UC-Davis are practically defacto members anyway, since they play the majority of their non-conference schedule against BSC teams. I think the BSC would love to have Davis and Poly, only problem is that they also have this lame stipulation that conference members must compete in all sports, and the Cali schools probably would not want this due to traval costs. Add SUU maybe as a 10th member, and the Cali schools as football-only members - 12 teams is a nice round number.

Well a Cali school already does this so it could be done. I think it is more of a problem of CP and "the farm extension" having an inept administration. I don't mind the stipulation to be honest, but if it were dropped I would be fine if Sac State became a "football only" member as well.

Besides playing a potential spoiler to some BSC teams, the GWC as a whole is not really relevant in the play-off picture with only 5 teams, IMO.

Agree.