Hero sports article -Toughest schedules FCS 2019

[YSUGO]

I think 6 Missouri Valley Conference teams were chosen..

https://herosports.com/fcs/football-2019-toughest-schedules-bzbz

[ucfpengbuck]

Western Carolina plays Alabama and NC State.   

[IAA Fan]

I never will understand this. If you are in a "currently" tougher conference, then you will always be ranked high because you play predominantly conference teams. The fact is, many conferences are just as tough as the MVFC, to other teams in that same conference. That is really what is relevant. This is the reason we should have a play-off more similar to D-II, that takes the same positions each time ...not the same teams like we have in the FCS play-off.

If you start ignoring the current lesser conferences then these conference will never improve, which just defeats the purpose of collegiate sports.

If you take 24-teams (which I am completely against) All teams that win a conference should be in the post-season. That would be 12-teams (or 10). The remaining 12 teams should be made up of #2 teams in conferences, other half of split conferences and independents that are truly worthy. The split for the remaining 12-teams should be 3-teams from each the 4 NCAA regions.

[go guins]

I never will understand this. If you are in a "currently" tougher conference, then you will always be ranked high because you play predominantly conference teams. The fact is, many conferences are just as tough as the MVFC, to other teams in that same conference. That is really what is relevant. This is the reason we should have a play-off more similar to D-II, that takes the same positions each time ...not the same teams like we have in the FCS play-off.

If you start ignoring the current lesser conferences then these conference will never improve, which just defeats the purpose of collegiate sports.

If you take 24-teams (which I am completely against) All teams that win a conference should be in the post-season. That would be 12-teams (or 10). The remaining 12 teams should be made up of #2 teams in conferences, other half of split conferences and independents that are truly worthy. The split for the remaining 12-teams should be 3-teams from each the 4 NCAA regions.

Your formula makes nice reading, but doesn't make any sense.  You pick the best teams, regardless of region or conference.  Anything else would be a sham.

[guinpen]

I never will understand this. If you are in a "currently" tougher conference, then you will always be ranked high because you play predominantly conference teams. The fact is, many conferences are just as tough as the MVFC, to other teams in that same conference. That is really what is relevant. This is the reason we should have a play-off more similar to D-II, that takes the same positions each time ...not the same teams like we have in the FCS play-off.

If you start ignoring the current lesser conferences then these conference will never improve, which just defeats the purpose of collegiate sports.

If you take 24-teams (which I am completely against) All teams that win a conference should be in the post-season. That would be 12-teams (or 10). The remaining 12 teams should be made up of #2 teams in conferences, other half of split conferences and independents that are truly worthy. The split for the remaining 12-teams should be 3-teams from each the 4 NCAA regions.

Your formula makes nice reading, but doesn't make any sense.  You pick the best teams, regardless of region or conference.  Anything else would be a sham.

I agree that only the best teams should get in, no auto bids at all. Trick is how to determine the best teams in a given year without previous reputation coming into the mix.

[YSU1]

I agree take the best if not give trophies to everybody.

[penguinpower]

I never will understand this. If you are in a "currently" tougher conference, then you will always be ranked high because you play predominantly conference teams. The fact is, many conferences are just as tough as the MVFC, to other teams in that same conference. That is really what is relevant. This is the reason we should have a play-off more similar to D-II, that takes the same positions each time ...not the same teams like we have in the FCS play-off.

If you start ignoring the current lesser conferences then these conference will never improve, which just defeats the purpose of collegiate sports.

If you take 24-teams (which I am completely against) All teams that win a conference should be in the post-season. That would be 12-teams (or 10). The remaining 12 teams should be made up of #2 teams in conferences, other half of split conferences and independents that are truly worthy. The split for the remaining 12-teams should be 3-teams from each the 4 NCAA regions.

I don't care about other conferences because it doesn't matter unless involves playoff selections, which are intrinsically biased.  You have to play the best to beat the best, a saying that Tressel used for many years.  All that matters is getting to the dance and unfortunately for YSU there has been a bias that has existed for many years.  Were we the worthy many of those years?  Yes but we never got the chance, which is unfortunate.  How many times have we entered the playoffs as a low seed only to win it all or lose the NC game?  I can count many times.  I don't give a sh** about perceived schedule strength but when you avoid the best you can't say that you know how you will perform against the best.  I say play competitive games because it increases fan interest and gives you a better chance.  Because we play pansy schedules most years we lose the chance to compete in the playoffs since it seems that we must play perfectly to get a playoff spot, while un-deserving teams get in by winning their conference......only to bow out early.  Playing difficult teams makes the team better and we need to show that every year.  Memories are short and last years performance matters somehow.  Play the best, beat the best and get into the dance.  The playoffs are a new season.

[IAA Fan]

I cannot agree, as "go guins" said, who makes the play-off determination? When we were in the OVC, it was the toughest conference; then everyone left for IA ball. People used to say the SWAC was the toughest because of all the NFL players spawned ...we now know that most of those teams are nobody beyond their "Air McNair's".

The A-10 was toughest for a few years, then died and resurfaced (CAA) and is arguably as tough as the MVFC. The NCAA cannot be playing favorites. They need to pick equally. As they do in D-II. Position, not teams.

There is also additional benefits as it adds more importance to conference crowns. Additionally, it would be nice to have 4-regional champions each year.

[guinpen]

I do not recall every team we played in the JT run and I am not going to look them up. Some MAC schools, Cincy a couple of times but that was before they stepped it up. I do recall that we played quite a few D2 schools, by today's standard it would have been more like a Twinkle schedule.

But what happened, a pretty decent title run.

Those schedules allowed us to grow as the season went along and peak at the right time. Did not have to worry about that automatic loss ( well Pitt ). You can argue that a "tough" schedule gets you ready for the play-offs, you can also argue that that a tough schedule wears you down and beats you up. Not to mention that one down week and losing to a team you should not have lost to will ruin everything.

Sure the Big game is great for the money so that may be a given for ever. I believe that JT understood what he had in talent, how to grow through the season and built a schedule to get to the playoffs just when the team peaked.

I guess that I will never understand that a YSU fan would have their game interest based on who the other team is. In my mind it should not matter who the other team is, heck YSU is playing.