Author Topic: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off  (Read 7659 times)

Offline IAA Fan

  • Administrator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
  • Bring Coke back to YSU!!
    • View Profile
    • ysupenguins.com
Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« on: September 30, 2011, 12:34:21 PM »
Automatic Qualification Criteria/Process
The Division I Football Championship Committee will annually make the determination
of which eligible conferences will receive automatic qualification.
The following criteria
are used when determining which conferences shall receive annual automatic qualification
for the NCAA Division I Football Championship:
1. Non-conference records;
2. Strength of non-conference opponents;
3. Recent postseason history; and
4. Competition against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents.
The Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet policy stipulates that for the
Division I Football Championship at least 50 percent of the bracket shall be reserved for at-large
selections, and no more than 50 percent of the bracket shall be available for automatic
qualification of eligible conferences.


For those conferences that qualify for automatic qualification but do not receive it,
a guaranteed at-large position shall be awarded in any year in which its conference
champion team meets all of the following conditions:
a. Team wins a minimum of eight Division I games during the season;
b. Team wins a minimum of two non-conference games against Division I teams
representing a conference that has earned an automatic qualification in that year;
and
c. Team finishes the season ranked 20 or higher in an average of the last regular-season
media, coaches and/or computer polls (which will be determined by
the committee on an annual basis
). For 2011, the media poll will be the Sports
Network Poll, the coaches poll will be the FCS Coaches poll and the computer
poll using the following computer rankings: The Massey Ratings, Wolfe Rankings, Ashburn Rankings,
Self Rankings and the Laz Index.


So for those of you complaining about playing two Non-Scholarship teams ...the above is why. Which is also why you will see the Pioneer with an automatic berth soon. When this happens, only the schedules will keep the conferences in contention for an automatic berth. Also, the media people are so east-coast biased, all of the votes are going to continue to go to the Colonial. Then when they break back into 2 again ...they will just dominate the participants. Another good reason to look at any IA conference that will have us.

Offline Wick250

  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2011, 01:27:29 PM »
IAA Fan,

Why are you upset?  There is nothing new here; these are the rules that were in operation last year.  These rules make it virtually impossible for a Pioneer League team to make the playoffs since they would have to schedule and defeat two teams from automatic qualifier conferences AND finish in the top 20.  Not going to happen.  The only way the Pioneer League gets a spot is if the playoffs expand to 24. 

The CAA is shrinking, not breaking back into two parts.  Massachusetts is gone, Villanova might follow, James Madison is seriously thinking about leaving, and newcomers Old Dominion and Georgia State have openly stated that the CAA is a stepping-stone.  The CAA is going to need quality newcomers just to retain status as a single 8/9 team FCS league.  That, hopefully, will be our opening and allow us to escape from the ever-western expanding MVFC.

With the arrival of the four super conferences on the horizon, moving to a IA conference now is sheer folly.  After the super conferences form, the MAC and Sunbelts of the world will be coming down to us, especially when the super conferences start paying their players.

Offline ysuindy

  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4306
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2011, 03:39:20 PM »
IAA Fan - not sure what your concern with voting and the Colonial is?   The more teams the Colonial gets in the Top 20, the less likely it is that any team from a conference that does not get an auto bid.

I read the second set of criteria that you posted to apply only to the conference champion of a league that is eligible for an automatic bid (number of teams, years together, etc) but doesn't get one.

It doesn't say that any team in the Top 20 gets a bid - the number of votes that Colonial teams get doesn't matter.  All that does is make it harder for  a Pioneer League team to beat the worst two teams in the NEC or MEAC and get a guaranteed spot.

Yeah there is a lot about the Colonial set up that bothers me - but this isn't one of them.  And of course the Colonial is going to get a lot more pub and a lot more bids than the MVFC as long as the Colonial keeps winning post-season games and getting to championship games while the MVFC keeps laying eggs in December.

Offline IAA Fan

  • Administrator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
  • Bring Coke back to YSU!!
    • View Profile
    • ysupenguins.com
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2011, 10:31:50 PM »
I agree with the super conferences in IA, but I do not like the idea that automatic qualifier conferences are now no longer "automatic". Makes recruiting far more difficult. Also make have a true representation of the entire country less likely. Not that we have this now. i have always believed in an equal number of schools from each region and conference in the post-season.

Offline YSUfan21

  • Royal Penguin
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2011, 08:41:32 PM »
Automatic Qualification Criteria/Process
The Division I Football Championship Committee will annually make the determination
of which eligible conferences will receive automatic qualification.
The following criteria
are used when determining which conferences shall receive annual automatic qualification
for the NCAA Division I Football Championship:
1. Non-conference records;
2. Strength of non-conference opponents;
3. Recent postseason history; and
4. Competition against Football Bowl Subdivision opponents.
The Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet policy stipulates that for the
Division I Football Championship at least 50 percent of the bracket shall be reserved for at-large
selections, and no more than 50 percent of the bracket shall be available for automatic
qualification of eligible conferences.


For those conferences that qualify for automatic qualification but do not receive it,
a guaranteed at-large position shall be awarded in any year in which its conference
champion team meets all of the following conditions:
a. Team wins a minimum of eight Division I games during the season;
b. Team wins a minimum of two non-conference games against Division I teams
representing a conference that has earned an automatic qualification in that year;
and
c. Team finishes the season ranked 20 or higher in an average of the last regular-season
media, coaches and/or computer polls (which will be determined by
the committee on an annual basis
). For 2011, the media poll will be the Sports
Network Poll, the coaches poll will be the FCS Coaches poll and the computer
poll using the following computer rankings: The Massey Ratings, Wolfe Rankings, Ashburn Rankings,
Self Rankings and the Laz Index.


So for those of you complaining about playing two Non-Scholarship teams ...the above is why. Which is also why you will see the Pioneer with an automatic berth soon. When this happens, only the schedules will keep the conferences in contention for an automatic berth. Also, the media people are so east-coast biased, all of the votes are going to continue to go to the Colonial. Then when they break back into 2 again ...they will just dominate the participants. Another good reason to look at any IA conference that will have us.




so we should jump to 1-A while we are rebuilding and get our ass handed to us insted of working on contending for confrence and national championships again first?

if we were going to move to 1-A it should have been 1997 (after our last NC win and 3rd of the decade, and 3rd in the last 6 years) not durring a rebuilding mode

Offline IAA Fan

  • Administrator
  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12032
  • Bring Coke back to YSU!!
    • View Profile
    • ysupenguins.com
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2011, 07:25:48 AM »
so we should jump to 1-A while we are rebuilding and get our a$$ handed to us insted of working on contending for confrence and national championships again first?

if we were going to move to 1-A it should have been 1997 (after our last NC win and 3rd of the decade, and 3rd in the last 6 years) not durring a rebuilding mode

Actually we should have moved in the early 90's when we planned to do so. For that matter we should have done it in 1978 or 1982 when we also planned to. Well, I like where we are now. However, different conferences require different styles of ball. ISU used to run the option and gave everyone in the GFC troubles with it. So did we as an independent. Look how much Tressel changed YSU after we joined the GFC. Look at the 1999 title game because of this. Look at the APP State game? We were lost against the read option and Heacock started the process of change. If we are going to another conference, we will need to rebuild if we want to compete. We are supposedly rebuilding already.  Besides, if we build ourselves into an FCS power, why would we want to leave at all?

I am in favor of serious change in FCS as a whole.

Offline YSUfan21

  • Royal Penguin
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2011, 07:30:07 AM »
so we should jump to 1-A while we are rebuilding and get our a$$ handed to us insted of working on contending for confrence and national championships again first?

if we were going to move to 1-A it should have been 1997 (after our last NC win and 3rd of the decade, and 3rd in the last 6 years) not durring a rebuilding mode

Actually we should have moved in the early 90's when we planned to do so. For that matter we should have done it in 1978 or 1982 when we also planned to. Well, I like where we are now. However, different conferences require different styles of ball. ISU used to run the option and gave everyone in the GFC troubles with it. So did we as an independent. Look how much Tressel changed YSU after we joined the GFC. Look at the 1999 title game because of this. Look at the APP State game? We were lost against the read option and Heacock started the process of change. If we are going to another conference, we will need to rebuild if we want to compete. We are supposedly rebuilding already.  Besides, if we build ourselves into an FCS power, why would we want to leave at all?

I am in favor of serious change in FCS as a whole.


but if your rebuilding in the FCS, your just twice as far away in the FBS and taking much longer to start up in FBS

i dont believe any school should move from FCS to FBS untill they compete for NC on a regular basis in FCS, thats when you know your at the top of your profession and need more challenges

Offline ysuguins4

  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 1003
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2011, 08:07:08 AM »
I wonder if they would ever enforce this, and take away an automatic bid?  Since 2000 the MEAC is winless in 13 playoff games, and the OVC winless in 15.

Offline ysubigred

  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4111
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2011, 10:30:38 AM »
I wonder if they would ever enforce this, and take away an automatic bid?  Since 2000 the MEAC is winless in 13 playoff games, and the OVC winless in 15.

Here's something crazy to consider:  Right now the CAA has 9 teams ranked in the top 25!! 

Offline penguinpower

  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 2864
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2011, 12:08:12 PM »


and it takes them 8 teams to get someone to the NC game too.  They haven't done it with 3

Offline ysubigred

  • Emperor Penguin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4111
    • View Profile
Re: Interesting Changes for this Years Play-Off
« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2011, 01:23:00 PM »


and it takes them 8 teams to get someone to the NC game too.  They haven't done it with 3
I agree  ;D