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

I love FCS football and hope the playoff system remains!! However, I think they're missing a great opportunity to increase enthusiasm, attendance and generate more revenue while they're at it. I would like to see this:

1. First and second rounds remains the same
2. Third round becomes two bowl games giving four teams a shot at winning a bowl championship. It is so incredibly difficult to get to that championship game. A team that does should have something to show for it even if they lose the final game which, in most cases has been decided by an incredibly small margin.
3. The final game is still the national championship game.

This could even be expanded if the second round became the regional bowl games, the third round was an East/West championship game and then the national championship.

I know... some of you are thinking is all about the Title game and everything else is.... ya, ya, ya...

Consider that many teams are suffering serious financial hardship in the playoffs and students are sacrificing a lot to maintain their grades through the playoffs. This system could provide great needed incentives for all. The key is to NOT let Bowl Committees/organizers take control like they did in the BCS

Nobody's talked about it recently, but the quarters are technically regional bowl games. The West Regional Final is the Camellia Bowl, a name that originally came from a bowl in Sacramento. Originally, there were regional bowls that were used to determine the final polls for the small college division. In fact, three times, the Camellia Bowl became the de facto D-II championship game, and once it was the de facto I-AA championship game. Since 1980, the West Regional Final (National QF) has retained the name to honor the heritage of the small college division.

The Boardwalk Bowl (originally in Atlantic City, NJ) is the East Regional Final.
The Pecan Bowl (Originally in Abilene and Arlington, TX) is the Midwest Regional Final.
Interestingly enough, there was no bowl listed in Wiki for the Southeast Regional Final.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camellia_Bowl

SuperHornet wrote:Nobody's talked about it recently, but the quarters are technically regional bowl games. The West Regional Final is the Camellia Bowl, a name that originally came from a bowl in Sacramento. Originally, there were regional bowls that were used to determine the final polls for the small college division. In fact, three times, the Camellia Bowl became the de facto D-II championship game, and once it was the de facto I-AA championship game. Since 1980, the West Regional Final (National QF) has retained the name to honor the heritage of the small college division.

The Boardwalk Bowl (originally in Atlantic City, NJ) is the East Regional Final.
The Pecan Bowl (Originally in Abilene and Arlington, TX) is the Midwest Regional Final.
Interestingly enough, there was no bowl listed in Wiki for the Southeast Regional Final.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camellia_Bowl

Thanks for filling me in on that. In the past five years I don't think I've heard anyone talk about these game in any sense other than 1st round, 2nd round etc. I recall when UCSB played in the Camellia Bowl back in the 60's. I'll be watching a little more closely now for the bowl designations. Perhaps the NCAA and FCS committees need a little reminder?? It would be nice if they publicized that.

Agreed.

I'd particularly like to see what the SE region bowl game is supposed to be called. IMO, there should ALSO be a name associated with the Chipper. I mean, D-III has the Stagg Bowl. Why can't OUR title game be a bowl?

Its a good idea. It would distinguish the games. NDSU has won both the Pecan and Camellia bowls when they were de-facto title games. It added something and made it a bigger deal.

Getting some kind of sponsorship for each of the games would be a way to get more money into it too.

The Mineral Water Bowl was another game like the Camellia and Pecan bowls for the the small college division. It was recently resurrected when the highest ranked schools from the MIAA and NSIC that did not make the playoffs would meet. I dont think they play it any more. It has the tradition and could be the SW bowl game.

bojeta wrote:I love FCS football and hope the playoff system remains!! However, I think they're missing a great opportunity to increase enthusiasm, attendance and generate more revenue while they're at it. I would like to see this:

1. First and second rounds remains the same
2. Third round becomes two bowl games giving four teams a shot at winning a bowl championship. It is so incredibly difficult to get to that championship game. A team that does should have something to show for it even if they lose the final game which, in most cases has been decided by an incredibly small margin.

I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about just having a sponsor for the semifinal games, or are you talking about moving them to a neutral site?

Also, do you really think a team is going to advertise themselves as the "Mr Peanut Bowl" champion instead of National Runner-up? I think you're seriously mistaken if that's the case.

JBB wrote:Its a good idea. It would distinguish the games. NDSU has won both the Pecan and Camellia bowls when they were de-facto title games. It added something and made it a bigger deal.

Getting some kind of sponsorship for each of the games would be a way to get more money into it too.

The Mineral Water Bowl was another game like the Camellia and Pecan bowls for the the small college division. It was recently resurrected when the highest ranked schools from the MIAA and NSIC that did not make the playoffs would meet. I dont think they play it any more. It has the tradition and could be the SW bowl game.

I noticed that on the Camellia list. I wasn't too thrilled with that idea, but at least it's something for YOU to get minorly excited about.

bojeta wrote:I love FCS football and hope the playoff system remains!! However, I think they're missing a great opportunity to increase enthusiasm, attendance and generate more revenue while they're at it. I would like to see this:

1. First and second rounds remains the same
2. Third round becomes two bowl games giving four teams a shot at winning a bowl championship. It is so incredibly difficult to get to that championship game. A team that does should have something to show for it even if they lose the final game which, in most cases has been decided by an incredibly small margin.
3. The final game is still the national championship game.

This could even be expanded if the second round became the regional bowl games, the third round was an East/West championship game and then the national championship.

I know... some of you are thinking is all about the Title game and everything else is.... ya, ya, ya...

Consider that many teams are suffering serious financial hardship in the playoffs and students are sacrificing a lot to maintain their grades through the playoffs. This system could provide great needed incentives for all. The key is to NOT let Bowl Committees/organizers take control like they did in the BCS

I see what you're trying to say, but this might be getting too close to what the FBS is. If you make the semis or quarterfinal games into "bowl games", we might lose the importance of the PLAYOFFS. Which is what the FCS is all about.

Thundering Herd wrote:

bojeta wrote:I love FCS football and hope the playoff system remains!! However, I think they're missing a great opportunity to increase enthusiasm, attendance and generate more revenue while they're at it. I would like to see this:

1. First and second rounds remains the same
2. Third round becomes two bowl games giving four teams a shot at winning a bowl championship. It is so incredibly difficult to get to that championship game. A team that does should have something to show for it even if they lose the final game which, in most cases has been decided by an incredibly small margin.
3. The final game is still the national championship game.

This could even be expanded if the second round became the regional bowl games, the third round was an East/West championship game and then the national championship.

I know... some of you are thinking is all about the Title game and everything else is.... ya, ya, ya...

Consider that many teams are suffering serious financial hardship in the playoffs and students are sacrificing a lot to maintain their grades through the playoffs. This system could provide great needed incentives for all. The key is to NOT let Bowl Committees/organizers take control like they did in the BCS

I see what you're trying to say, but this might be getting too close to what the FBS is. If you make the semis or quarterfinal games into "bowl games", we might lose the importance of the PLAYOFFS. Which is what the FCS is all about.

There's something to be said for that, but championship games SHOULD be bowls, with all the hoopla thereunto pertaining. At least the Chipper should be accorded that level of attention. Using some of the hype for the regional championships could generate some badly needed FCS revenue by drawing attention to the playoff format itself.

SuperHornet wrote:

Thundering Herd wrote:
I see what you're trying to say, but this might be getting too close to what the FBS is. If you make the semis or quarterfinal games into "bowl games", we might lose the importance of the PLAYOFFS. Which is what the FCS is all about.

There's something to be said for that, but championship games SHOULD be bowls, with all the hoopla thereunto pertaining. At least the Chipper should be accorded that level of attention. Using some of the hype for the regional championships could generate some badly needed FCS revenue by drawing attention to the playoff format itself.

Championship game > bowl game. No need to put window dressing on it. Next thing you know people will be calling for a half time show.

kalm wrote:Championship game > bowl game. No need to put window dressing on it.

You guys do know that the DIII championship is called the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl, don't you?

kalm wrote: Championship game > bowl game. No need to put window dressing on it. Next thing you know people will be calling for a half time show.

When GSU played Furman in the 1985 title game in BFE, Idaho it was called the "Diamond Bowl."

When the game was played at Marshall in the 1990's it was called the "toilet bowl."

blueballs wrote:When GSU played Furman in the 1985 title game in BFE, Idaho it was called the "Diamond Bowl."

When the game was played at Marshall in the 1990's it was called the "toilet bowl."

Wrong.

Toilet is way too fancy for them parts. It was the Outhouse Bowl

It seems to me you have to keep the home field as we have it now and the bowls would be regional. Im not sure how that might affect potential sponsors. After all, a playoff game at Montana is more valuable to a sponsor than a playoff game at EWU.

JBB wrote:It seems to me you have to keep the home field as we have it now and the bowls would be regional. Im not sure how that might affect potential sponsors. After all, a playoff game at Montana is more valuable to a sponsor than a playoff game at EWU.

I think the home field up to the championship works great for FCS. Wherever the game is, if it is sponsored, attendance is likely to improve and it is more likely to get major television coverage. With TV coverage, the sponsors don't care if it's Montana or EWU... they reach their target market either way.

One change that I would like to see to the playoffs is automatic first round byes for the auto-bid's.

DJH wrote:One change that I would like to see to the playoffs is automatic first round byes for the auto-bid's.

Every auto-bid? So like Robert Morris would have gotten a first round bye last year? Not trying to hate on them, just clarifying.

DJH wrote:One change that I would like to see to the playoffs is automatic first round byes for the auto-bid's.

Eh. There's such a thing as too many byes. Plus, to make it work right, you'd have to have TWICE that number of at-larges. There are some here who think we ALREADY have too many playoff teams as it is. I just can't see this working. Play-in games whomp.

How about a rule that says that only schools that average the same attendance in the playoffs as they do for their home regular season are eligible for playoff bids. Oh wait, that would eliminate virtually all of us ;(

SuperHornet wrote:

DJH wrote:One change that I would like to see to the playoffs is automatic first round byes for the auto-bid's.

Eh. There's such a thing as too many byes. Plus, to make it work right, you'd have to have TWICE that number of at-larges. There are some here who think we ALREADY have too many playoff teams as it is. I just can't see this working. Play-in games whomp.

I don't mean creating more byes. I just mean that conference champs shouldn't have to play in the opening round.

DJH wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Eh. There's such a thing as too many byes. Plus, to make it work right, you'd have to have TWICE that number of at-larges. There are some here who think we ALREADY have too many playoff teams as it is. I just can't see this working. Play-in games whomp.

I don't mean creating more byes. I just mean that conference champs shouldn't have to play in the opening round.

If there weren't such a disparity between the conferences you might have a case. Do you really think a 6-5 Coastal deserved a bye last year?

89Hen wrote:

DJH wrote:
I don't mean creating more byes. I just mean that conference champs shouldn't have to play in the opening round.

If there weren't such a disparity between the conferences you might have a case. Do you really think a 6-5 Coastal deserved a bye last year?

At the risk of you and I agreeing twice in one thread...

+1.

DJH wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Eh. There's such a thing as too many byes. Plus, to make it work right, you'd have to have TWICE that number of at-larges. There are some here who think we ALREADY have too many playoff teams as it is. I just can't see this working. Play-in games whomp.

I don't mean creating more byes. I just mean that conference champs shouldn't have to play in the opening round.

Which would mean a bunch of play-in games like the NCAA hoops tournament before they went to 64 in the mid-'80s. Ugly bracket, which is precisely what I was arguing against. Make EVERYONE play in the first round. Play-in games are STUPID.

CAA, BSC, SoCon, MFVC, maybe the southland---automatic first round byes.