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

sounds like it may be at that....

Old article from late Jan. Thought was posted here, but can't find it.
http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i ... 9374619204

Going to 16 seeds would have been nice, but looks like the only change is the emphasis on less regionalization..

Bout time

Not sure I see regionalization as such a bad thing and I'm sure all you guys would say of course you aren't because you get to play NEC/PL/MEAC... in the first round. But IMO the chance to see a more local team at home or for a fan base to easily make the trip to an opponent are great things. CSU at EWU in a first round game...

Good!

89Hen wrote:Not sure I see regionalization as such a bad thing and I'm sure all you guys would say of course you aren't because you get to play NEC/PL/MEAC... in the first round. But IMO the chance to see a more local team at home or for a fan base to easily make the trip to an opponent are great things. CSU at EWU in a first round game...

Flip side: All your conference mates that make the tournament end up in the same side of the bracket as you, typically. OK, not ALL...but you get my drift. So you get to see the same old teams. I'd rather have a first round game against CSU, JMU, Furman, etc., than against a MFVC team and then EWU, or SUU, or MSU (ok, I laughed a little at that. EVERYBODY knows they never make it to the 2nd round).

AZGrizFan wrote:Flip side: All your conference mates that make the tournament end up in the same side of the bracket as you, typically. OK, not ALL...but you get my drift.

I'd have to look at last two years, but I'm pretty sure the conferences are actually split most years. Yes, some conference mates will meet early, but IIRC the Big Sky has had teams on both sides of the bracket every year, even when there are only three teams.

89Hen wrote:Not sure I see regionalization as such a bad thing and I'm sure all you guys would say of course you aren't because you get to play NEC/PL/MEAC... in the first round. But IMO the chance to see a more local team at home or for a fan base to easily make the trip to an opponent are great things. CSU at EWU in a first round game...

Well, you USED to get to play the NEC/PL/MEAC in the first round...

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote:Not sure I see regionalization as such a bad thing and I'm sure all you guys would say of course you aren't because you get to play NEC/PL/MEAC... in the first round. But IMO the chance to see a more local team at home or for a fan base to easily make the trip to an opponent are great things. CSU at EWU in a first round game...

Well, you USED to get to play the NEC/PL/MEAC in the first round...

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Flip side: All your conference mates that make the tournament end up in the same side of the bracket as you, typically. OK, not ALL...but you get my drift.

I'd have to look at last two years, but I'm pretty sure the conferences are actually split most years. Yes, some conference mates will meet early, but IIRC the Big Sky has had teams on both sides of the bracket every year, even when there are only three teams.

Ermm...

this past season






It's not that far fetched that the MVFC would/could have had all 5 of the 8 second round spots, all of the quarters spots on one side of the bracket, and both semifinalists - it already had 3 of 4 quarters and one of the semi finalists.

Oh, and in the final regular season AGS poll NDSU, Illinois State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa were all in the top 10-12


NDSU was real close to having to go through South Dakota State, Northern Iowa and Illinois State to get to the title game...


Yeah, that's way better than seeing James Madison, Colgate, The Citadel, Fordham, etc... sprinkled in over that.

clenz wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'd have to look at last two years, but I'm pretty sure the conferences are actually split most years. Yes, some conference mates will meet early, but IIRC the Big Sky has had teams on both sides of the bracket every year, even when there are only three teams.

Ermm...

this past season

You're stalking me lately.

If youre going to have a tournament then do it correctly. Teams shouldnt be playing conference foes unless the seeding dictates it. Geography shouldnt have a say in a true playoff.

BDKJMU wrote:Old article from late Jan. Thought was posted here, but can't find it.
http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i ... 9374619204

Going to 16 seeds would have been nice, but looks like the only change is the emphasis on less regionalization..

At least its a start. Plus Im glad that they actually realized that there process was absurd.

Bisonoline wrote:If youre going to have a tournament then do it correctly. Teams shouldnt be playing conference foes unless the seeding dictates it. Geography shouldnt have a say in a true playoff.

Is there another NCAA tourney where single rounds are played one location at a time without regionalization? Legit question, I don't really know the answer.

Basketball plays 2 rounds of games at each location. Baseball and softball have regionals and super regionals. Ice hockey does regionalization somewhat, so does soccer from what I can tell.

89Hen wrote:

Bisonoline wrote:If youre going to have a tournament then do it correctly. Teams shouldnt be playing conference foes unless the seeding dictates it. Geography shouldnt have a say in a true playoff.

Is there another NCAA tourney where single rounds are played one location at a time without regionalization? Legit question, I don't really know the answer.

Basketball plays 2 rounds of games at each location. Baseball and softball have regionals and super regionals. Ice hockey does regionalization somewhat, so does soccer from what I can tell.

NIT, CIT, etc., etc. all play single rounds at one location, with future locations TBD...I believe.

AZGrizFan wrote:

89Hen wrote: Is there another NCAA tourney where single rounds are played one location at a time without regionalization? Legit question, I don't really know the answer.

Basketball plays 2 rounds of games at each location. Baseball and softball have regionals and super regionals. Ice hockey does regionalization somewhat, so does soccer from what I can tell.

NIT, CIT, etc., etc. all play single rounds at one location, with future locations TBD...I believe.

He's going to call you on the technicality that the NIT and CIT aren't "NCAA events"...because that's who he is.

You're not wrong though

clenz wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
NIT, CIT, etc., etc. all play single rounds at one location, with future locations TBD...I believe.

He's going to call you on the technicality that the NIT and CIT aren't "NCAA events"...because that's who he is.

You're not wrong though

Well, "technically", he'd be correct, since he did specify NCAA tourneys....

AZGrizFan wrote:

clenz wrote: He's going to call you on the technicality that the NIT and CIT aren't "NCAA events"...because that's who he is.

You're not wrong though

Well, "technically", he'd be correct, since he did specify NCAA tourneys....

It wasn't by accident. The issue Bisononline brought up was that it wasn't a true tournament. Bringing up a couple of exhibition tourneys doesn't change that no other NCAA championship is done that way.

And shit, I just looked at the NIT bracket from last year...

South Carolina vs High Point
Ohio St vs Akron
Washington vs Long Beach State
Florida vs North Florida
Georgia vs Belmont
Monmouth vs Bucknell

And CIT...

Jackson St vs Sam Houston St
Coastal vs Mercer
UNH vs Fairfield
NJIT vs Army
UL Lafayette vs ATM Corpus Chrisi


They're regionalized guys.

89Hen wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, "technically", he'd be correct, since he did specify NCAA tourneys....

It wasn't by accident. The issue Bisononline brought up was that it wasn't a true tournament. Bringing up a couple of exhibition tourneys doesn't change that no other NCAA championship is done that way.

We have a winner. Thank you.

AZGrizFan wrote:

clenz wrote: He's going to call you on the technicality that the NIT and CIT aren't "NCAA events"...because that's who he is.

You're not wrong though

Well, "technically", he'd be correct, since he did specify NCAA tourneys....

Doesn't the NCAA own the NIT?

UNI88 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, "technically", he'd be correct, since he did specify NCAA tourneys....

Doesn't the NCAA own the NIT?

NCAA takes control




"""In 2005, the NCAA purchased 10-year rights to the NIT from the MIBA for $56.5 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit, which had gone to trial and was being argued until very shortly before the settlement was announced. The MIBA alleged that compelling teams to accept invitations to the NCAA tournament even if they preferred to play in the NIT was an illegal use of the NCAA's powers. In addition, it argued that the NCAA's expansion of its tournament to 65 teams (68 since 2011) was designed specifically to bankrupt the NIT. Faced with the very real possibility of being found in violation of federal antitrust law for the third time in its history, the NCAA chose to settle. (The first two violations were related to restrictions on televising college football and capping assistant coach salaries.) As part of the purchase of the NIT by the NCAA, the MIBA disbanded."""'

Bisonoline wrote:

89Hen wrote: It wasn't by accident. The issue Bisononline brought up was that it wasn't a true tournament. Bringing up a couple of exhibition tourneys doesn't change that no other NCAA championship is done that way.

We have a winner. Thank you.

You do know I was disagreeing with you, yes?

Bisonoline wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
Doesn't the NCAA own the NIT?

NCAA takes control

In 2005, the NCAA purchased 10-year rights to the NIT from the MIBA for $56.5 million to settle an antitrust lawsuit, which had gone to trial and was being argued until very shortly before the settlement was announced. The MIBA alleged that compelling teams to accept invitations to the NCAA tournament even if they preferred to play in the NIT was an illegal use of the NCAA's powers. In addition, it argued that the NCAA's expansion of its tournament to 65 teams (68 since 2011) was designed specifically to bankrupt the NIT. Faced with the very real possibility of being found in violation of federal antitrust law for the third time in its history, the NCAA chose to settle. (The first two violations were related to restrictions on televising college football and capping assistant coach salaries.) As part of the purchase of the NIT by the NCAA, the MIBA disbanded.

I love it when I'm right by accident.