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

With the playoffs soon moving to 24 teams, should the NCAA look at reviewing the AQ process?

Right now basically all a league has to do is have a minimum # of teams & apply. Once the PFL gets their autobid then every league that has asked for one has received one.

I'd suggest that if a league doesn't play to a "competitive standard" than their AQ should be taken back until their level of play reaches a certain level.

How many years in a row does a league need to go "one and done" before the standard of play in that league is questioned?

Thoughts....

There is no "competitive standard" for conference inclusion in NCAA playoffs for any other sport. It won't happen for FCS either. That sounds like a BCS qualifier.

Wouldn't the MEAC, OVC, Patriot, Big South, and NEC NOT have AQs then?

Why not just go all in and have the playoffs be CAA, SoCon, Big Sky, Southland, and MVFC teams only...haves and have-nots

SumItUp wrote:There is no "competitive standard" for conference inclusion in NCAA playoffs for any other sport. It won't happen for FCS either. That sounds like a BCS qualifier.

The NCAA is still in charge at this level...which is why it won't happen. Basically their argument is: "Don't like it...then move up to FBS."

bluehenbillk wrote:With the playoffs soon moving to 24 teams, should the NCAA look at reviewing the AQ process?

Right now basically all a league has to do is have a minimum # of teams & apply. Once the PFL gets their autobid then every league that has asked for one has received one.

I'd suggest that if a league doesn't play to a "competitive standard" than their AQ should be taken back until their level of play reaches a certain level.

How many years in a row does a league need to go "one and done" before the standard of play in that league is questioned?

Thoughts....

Why are you whining? What's the big deal? If you don't think the PFL/BigSouth/MEAC/NEC, etc are playoff worthy, then if Delaware ever plays them in the playoffs, it's an easy win, right?

We are moving towards a 4 conference-64 team level. Then something like like an 8 to 10 conference level that will be a mixture of current non-BCS FBS conferences and the top FCS conferences. The scholarship differential may still exist at this second level as it does now, but the difference between 85 and 63 is much smaller than the 63 and 0 (PFL for example) that we are dealing with at the FCS level. What happens to the lower FCS conferences is up in the air. The NCAA is kicking themselves for letting certain schools become D-I for basketball. They thought that they could force some out by saying that all sports must be D-I, but let them off the hook by allowing non-scholly football at the D-I level. We know the direction Northeastern and Hofstra took. If push came to shove, what direction will schools like Jacksonville, Campbell, Savannah St., Dayton, etc. go?
The question is, what will happen at this second level, Bowls or Playoffs? We have seen the argument for teams outside of the elite 64 (6 BCS conferences) challenge for rights to play in the BCS Championship game. But after the 4 super conferences are galvanized, will that be the case going forward? The talent pool is always getting bigger and spreading talented players down the ladder (we see this in basketball). But the NCAA will likely be forced by the super conferences to exclude the non-super conferences from inclusion in the BCS Championship game.

Yea, you're pretty much right in how it turns out. I just posted it here and on AGS - I love seeing the PL guys on AGS go crazy about it - they're a thin-skinned bunch.

The only standard I would have is the 7 D-I wins. I have no problem giving every conference an AQ, especially if we're going to have a 24 team playoff field. But I do think the conference champion should do better than 6-5 or 6-4 in D-I.

jcmanson wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:With the playoffs soon moving to 24 teams, should the NCAA look at reviewing the AQ process?

Right now basically all a league has to do is have a minimum # of teams & apply. Once the PFL gets their autobid then every league that has asked for one has received one.

I'd suggest that if a league doesn't play to a "competitive standard" than their AQ should be taken back until their level of play reaches a certain level.

How many years in a row does a league need to go "one and done" before the standard of play in that league is questioned?

Thoughts....

Why are you whining? What's the big deal? If you don't think the PFL/BigSouth/MEAC/NEC, etc are playoff worthy, then if Delaware ever plays them in the playoffs, it's an easy win, right?

Yes.

bluehenbillk wrote:I'd suggest that if a league doesn't play to a "competitive standard" than their AQ should be taken back until their level of play reaches a certain level.

How many years in a row does a league need to go "one and done" before the standard of play in that league is questioned?

Thoughts....

Speaking as someone with no future stake in this argument:

First, you're "moving the goal line" on recent AQ applicants if you change the standard.

Second, your suggestion would punish a group of 18 to 22 year olds for the failures of a completely different group of players who were at a completely different college in their conference during a different year.

Third, let's take a step back and look at FCS from a macro view. Without the playoffs, there's an extremely small sample of inter-conference play to draw conclusions from. Teams play an 11 game schedule. 8 are usually conference games, and 1 is usually a FBS game. Delaware added a Division II game on top of that, meaning only one FCS team in the entire nation got a shot at Delaware this year. And that was the last place team in the MEAC. William & Mary did the same thing. The 2 preseason favorites in the CAA played a grand total of 2 inter-conference games against 2 of the weakest teams in their respective conferences without leaving their respective states. Out west, they play even more FBS games and Division II games because the economics of FCS don't justify the cost of flying in a FCS opponent, and nobody is within bus range. And when the Big Sky becomes the "Great Big Sky", they might switch to 9 conference games, eliminating another opportunity for anyone else to play them.

So if you deny these teams access to the playoffs, and you hardly ever play them during the regular season, and you only play the ones within a stone's throw of you, when the hell are these hard-working 18 to 22 year old players supposed to get a chance to prove themselves?? It seems to me that giving the very best of those kids just one chance per year through the AQ is a small gesture to ask. It protects the integrity of FCS from powerful members who might try to win by political maneuvers rather than by taking the field. That's not to say that past performance counts for nothing. If a 10-1 Albany team slips up and doesn't win their AQ, that's when you tell them to pound sand because the NEC has never won anything. They don't get at-large consideration. Until they prove themselves, the AQ is their one chance.

Now, all the above having been said, I do have concerns about a conference needing only 6 members to get an AQ. If all of FCS divided into 6 member conferences, we'd need a 40+ team tournament to accommodate all the AQs and matching at-large spots (the NCAA requires that no more than half the field be AQs). Given that these games cost money to hold, maybe more than 6 football teams should have to partner up to get those AQs. Or maybe they should eat the cost of first round travel. They're owed a fair competition, 11 players vs. 11 players, but the power conferences don't owe them money.