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

Move up proponent, Montana AD, and chairman of the Selection/seeding Committee Jim O'Day strikes me as an arrogant and bitter SOB.

Wouldn't put it past him to screw over his rivals at EWU and MSU by giving them poor seeding, and ensuring that they meet in the Quarterfinals.


Another question - why is someone that is in favor of his school ditching FCS football in charge of the committee in the first place?

Having both 4 and 5 seeds from the same conference matches them up in the quarterfinals if they both win their first game. This matchup would guarantee a team into the semifinals (with a home game if #1 loses). Not exactly "screwing" them.

Can someone explain to me why CAA teams shouldn't get higher seeds over Big Sky teams? If you check the rulebook, past seasons do come into account for playoff selection/seeding

Silenoz wrote:Can someone explain to me why CAA teams shouldn't get higher seeds over Big Sky teams?

Both UD and W&M have TWO FCS losses. W&M also has an FBS loss.

EWU and MSU only have one FCS loss each. Both should have been seeded higher than the two CAA teams.

Jon, this is unfair.

dbackjon wrote:

Silenoz wrote:Can someone explain to me why CAA teams shouldn't get higher seeds over Big Sky teams?

Both UD and W&M have TWO FCS losses. W&M also has an FBS loss.

EWU and MSU only have one FCS loss each. Both should have been seeded higher than the two CAA teams.

Bethune-Cookman only has one FCS loss, too. Prolly should've been the three seed.

Also, how many playoff teams did they each beat?

griz8791 wrote:Jon, this is unfair.

Is it?

William and Mary has 3 losses. Yes, I know they have beaten 3 teams that are playoff participants - but are we supposed to just completely dismiss their overall record due to that fact?

As I have stated previously, I have no problems with MSU getting the higher seed, due to the head to head. But there's no way anyone can justify to me an 8-3 team getting a #2 seed over both Big Sky teams.

Additionally, does anyone really think that a #1 ranked Montana would draw a 5 seed? The answer is no. We play in the same conference against the same competition, so why would it be any different for EWU? Giving them the #5 seed was blatant disrespect, IMO, and given O'day's track record this year it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't have at least some small part in it. The dude is a complete nightmare, IMO, and not who I would want representing the Big Sky on the selection committee.

EWURanger wrote:

griz8791 wrote:Jon, this is unfair.

Is it?

William and Mary has 3 losses. Yes, I know they have beaten 3 teams that are playoff participants - but are we supposed to just completely dismiss their overall record due to that fact?

As I have stated previously, I have no problems with MSU getting the higher seed, due to the head to head. But there's no way anyone can justify to me an 8-3 team getting a #2 seed over both Big Sky teams.

Additionally, does anyone really think that a #1 ranked Montana would draw a 5 seed? The answer is no. We play in the same conference against the same competition, so why would it be any different for EWU? Giving them the #5 seed was blatant disrespect, IMO, and given O'day's track record this year it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he didn't have at least some small part in it. The dude is a complete nightmare, IMO, and not who I would want representing the Big Sky on the selection committee.

It's different because you don't draw 25K per game. Not saying it's right, but that's the reason.

The 1st playoff game has yet to be played and the whining from out west is making my ears bleed. At least wait until you lose before you start screaming "we got screwed". Win four in a row (or 5 if your team plays this weekend) and you are NC. It's that simple.

I spent several minutes looking for info on how many people are on the committee and couldn't find anything. I am assuming "committee" means "several people in addition to Jim O'Day." You get no argument from me that the seeding is questionable, but blaming that on O'Day is too much. Even if you buy the extremely unlikely theory that he was in there pounding the table for EWU and MSU to get screwed, he would have to be assuming the other committee members would keep quiet about it because it would be career-ending if word ever got out.

griz8791 wrote:I spent several minutes looking for info on how many people are on the committee and couldn't find anything. I am assuming "committee" means "several people in addition to Jim O'Day." You get no argument from me that the seeding is questionable, but blaming that on O'Day is too much. Even if you buy the extremely unlikely theory that he was in there pounding the table for EWU and MSU to get screwed, he would have to be assuming the other committee members would keep quiet about it because it would be career-ending if word ever got out.

Dback has become very emotional and slightly unstable on several issues over the past couple of years and he tends to not base things on facts but likes to throw out a "blind item" type of thing lately. He's fabricating things to help himself and stir some shit up so don't buy into any of it.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Dback has become very emotional and slightly unstable on several issues over the past couple of years and he tends to not base things on facts but likes to throw out a "blind item" type of thing lately. He's fabricating things to help himself and stir some shit up so don't buy into any of it.

DAMN IT!!! Why didn't you tell me this sooner, Ursus? I just sent my hate letter off to Jim O'Day this afternoon. Can the post office track it down and recall it, like in Outlook? Jim O'Day is going to hate me, and in turn might screw Delaware next year.

93henfan wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Dback has become very emotional and slightly unstable on several issues over the past couple of years and he tends to not base things on facts but likes to throw out a "blind item" type of thing lately. He's fabricating things to help himself and stir some shit up so don't buy into any of it.

DAMN IT!!! Why didn't you tell me this sooner, Ursus? I just sent my hate letter off to Jim O'Day this afternoon. Can the post office track it down and recall it, like in Outlook? Jim O'Day is going to hate me, and in turn might screw Delaware next year.

Yes, he is quite powerful among the committee members and his whims can be costly. If it's any consolation 93 I bet he will be getting many, many conspiracy theory diatribes in the next week so yours may rank deep enough on the list that it will just get shit canned.

Why do Big Sky folks act like it's unusual for the bracket to be set up so that conference teams meet in the quarters since regionalization? The SoCon had two teams in the playoffs in '06, '07, and '09 and all of those times both SoCon teams were in the same quarter of the bracket. This year GSU and Wofford are in the same quarter of the bracket as well. And in 2001 Furman, App. State, and Georgia Southern were all in the same half of the bracket.

Also, look at the recent history and how the committee favors the CAA. not saying it's justified or not, but that may have something to do with the CAA teams getting the seeds.

The conspiracy theory notion might be a little bit over the the top, and we can joke about it all we want. But the fact remains that these seedings are questionable. And I have yet to see an intelligent response as to why two teams with two FCS losses (one of them with 3 overall losses) should be seeded higher than 2 teams with only 1 FCS loss each. I'm ready to get over it and enjoy the playoffs, but I'm really interested to know why we were snubbed like this. EWU was definitely deserving of a top 4 seed, IMO.

dbackjon wrote:

Silenoz wrote:Can someone explain to me why CAA teams shouldn't get higher seeds over Big Sky teams?

Both UD and W&M have TWO FCS losses. W&M also has an FBS loss.

EWU and MSU only have one FCS loss each. Both should have been seeded higher than the two CAA teams.

Yes, BUT

CAA > Big Sky

It's not a coincidence that the 7-4 teams with a bye are also CAA teams

If it had been EWU who curb-stomped a seed on the road last year (and nearly upset another), or had North Carolina on the ropes this season, they would of gotten the benefit of doubt from the committee

Instead, they're seeing past performances by the two conferences to gauge on how good the teams will be this year. Until the Big Sky does something about that, it ain't changing.

Silenoz wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Both UD and W&M have TWO FCS losses. W&M also has an FBS loss.

EWU and MSU only have one FCS loss each. Both should have been seeded higher than the two CAA teams.

Yes, BUT

CAA > Big Sky

It's not a coincidence that the 7-4 teams with a bye are also CAA teams

If it had been EWU who curb-stomped a seed on the road last year (and nearly upset another), or had North Carolina on the ropes this season, they would of gotten the benefit of doubt from the committee

Instead, they're seeing past performances by the two conferences to gauge on how good the teams will be this year. Until the Big Sky does something about that, it ain't changing.

It's the truth and it is as fair as you can ask for. You normally see a lot of this kind of head scratching from fans that are not used to being in the playoffs. They don't understand how it all works and they fight and bitch about it because they think they have it all figured out.

Try and help, but it doesn't usually convince them until they go through it a few times.

Some of the newer board members from Weber went through this a few years back and then they got the hang of it.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Silenoz wrote: Yes, BUT

CAA > Big Sky

It's not a coincidence that the 7-4 teams with a bye are also CAA teams

If it had been EWU who curb-stomped a seed on the road last year (and nearly upset another), or had North Carolina on the ropes this season, they would of gotten the benefit of doubt from the committee

Instead, they're seeing past performances by the two conferences to gauge on how good the teams will be this year. Until the Big Sky does something about that, it ain't changing.

It's the truth and it is as fair as you can ask for. You normally see a lot of this kind of head scratching from fans that are not used to being in the playoffs. They don't understand how it all works and they fight and bitch about it because they think they have it all figured out.

Try and help, but it doesn't usually convince them until they go through it a few times.

Some of the newer board members from Weber went through this a few years back and then they got the hang of it.

EWU hasn't been a seed before, but we've been there before. And I'd think we get a little more respect as we do have a history of taking out seeds; #1 SIU in 2004, and curb-stomping #2 McNeese in 2007.

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:curb-stomping #2 McNeese in 2007.

I always wondered why so many people on that team were missing teeth.

No. The Montana AD is not the problem.

There is waaaay too much whining on all these threads. Let's talk about the upcoming games.

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

Silenoz wrote: Yes, BUT

CAA > Big Sky

It's not a coincidence that the 7-4 teams with a bye are also CAA teams

If it had been EWU who curb-stomped a seed on the road last year (and nearly upset another), or had North Carolina on the ropes this season, they would of gotten the benefit of doubt from the committee

Instead, they're seeing past performances by the two conferences to gauge on how good the teams will be this year. Until the Big Sky does something about that, it ain't changing.

It's the truth and it is as fair as you can ask for. You normally see a lot of this kind of head scratching from fans that are not used to being in the playoffs. They don't understand how it all works and they fight and bitch about it because they think they have it all figured out.

Try and help, but it doesn't usually convince them until they go through it a few times.

Some of the newer board members from Weber went through this a few years back and then they got the hang of it.

Nice of you to say so, Brother Bear.

The Eags have been there before, too, although some of them don't act like it.

Dude,

We were 9-2 last year with a win over a FBS, and did not get a seed. We took Weber at home, and then had to go on the road and took out a seeded team quite nicely. If you guys can pull that off this year then perhaps things will change.......

Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: It's the truth and it is as fair as you can ask for. You normally see a lot of this kind of head scratching from fans that are not used to being in the playoffs. They don't understand how it all works and they fight and bitch about it because they think they have it all figured out.

Try and help, but it doesn't usually convince them until they go through it a few times.

Some of the newer board members from Weber went through this a few years back and then they got the hang of it.

EWU hasn't been a seed before, but we've been there before. And I'd think we get a little more respect as we do have a history of taking out seeds; #1 SIU in 2004, and curb-stomping #2 McNeese in 2007.

I ain't saying there isn't a little bit of a track record for EWU but with MSU winning the conference and the Big Sky getting two in the seeds I don't know what you could be looking for? The argument can't be made against MSU or App in my mind but it could be made with W&M and to a lesser extent Delaware but it would be a fairly thin argument if we are taking the Strength of who they've played, how they've done when in the playoffs and so on and so forth.

You'd be arguing for one spot better at most and I've said it many times in the past when people say that the NCAA should go back seeding the whole field the NCAA will seed based on whatever incurs them the least amount of travel in a region so that's what happened here. It has happened throughout the history of the playoffs.

It's easy to make an argument for and AGAINST why a team should be one place higher or lower so they don't need to worry about any loss of integrity with placing teams where they like in this system.

One spot better would put EWU and MSU in different brackets.

native wrote:

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: It's the truth and it is as fair as you can ask for. You normally see a lot of this kind of head scratching from fans that are not used to being in the playoffs. They don't understand how it all works and they fight and bitch about it because they think they have it all figured out.

Try and help, but it doesn't usually convince them until they go through it a few times.

Some of the newer board members from Weber went through this a few years back and then they got the hang of it.

Nice of you to say so, Brother Bear.

The Eags have been there before, too, although some of them don't act like it.

I was actually referring to WeberWildcat and WildcatRyan and not you Native.

Those two guys were a house a fire about what's fair and so forth a couple years ago but both of them are great guys and were quick on the uptake on what it is all about.

Hell Montana has been there many times but the thing of it is if they don't watch what is going on when the playoffs roll around and have no idea about what other teams are doing around the country then they are fucking clueless. They live in a vacuum and think that even with a loss to the Cats last weekend we were getting in. I can't tell you hom many myopic dullards I had to argue with about our team sitting home for the playoffs on Saturday night.

If you want to have a wider view you NEED TO BE on the national boards and discussing with fans around the nation to see whether the argument you are making even has an ounce of integrity.

I mean after all we've had every fucking argument that can be made on here so it's like shooting fish in a barrel when a knew guy just joins the board (or hasn't been in the playoff arguments much) and is making an argument that he doesn't even know is full of holes...much like the fans that I bitch slapped into reality on Saturday night.