Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Possible changes to playoffs
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
BDKJMU Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,737
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 47
I Root For: James Madison
Location:
Post: #1
Possible changes to playoffs
"Changes recommended for FCS playoffs

(STATS) - If the FCS playoffs undergo change for next season, the process will start to move that way this week.

Conference commissioners are scheduled to meet Tuesday through Thursday in Naples, Florida, for various reasons, and their discussions will include whether they seek detours so the playoffs can avoid bumps in the road.

There was more outcry than usual after the selection of the 24-team playoff field Nov. 22. Complaints are often reserved publicly for the schools left just shy of an at-large bid as well as the media analyzing a perceived snub, but this past season they extended as high as the conference commissioners.

Patty Viverito from the Missouri Valley Football Conference voiced concern that all five qualifiers from her league were placed on one side (12 teams) of the bracket. That didn't happen to the conferences with the next-most qualifiers, CAA Football with four and the Big Sky Conference with three.

Doug Fullerton from the Big Sky was not pleased after his conference's champion, Southern Utah, did not receive a home game for the first round and then lost on the road to a Sam Houston State program that placed a higher bid for hosting the game. That had never happened before to a Big Sky champion.

The playoffs opened to poor crowds on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, but gained momentum, especially with the two finalists, national champion North Dakota State and Jacksonville State, drawing strong crowds to their three home games. The playoffs set a record with 258,066 fans in 23 games, although it was only the third season under the 24-team format (they went from 16 to 20 teams in 2010 and then 20 to 24 teams in 2013).

Despite the strong finish, which included 21,836 attending North Dakota State's 37-10 win over Jacksonville State in the championship game - the high for the six seasons that Frisco, Texas, has been the host - there is interest over potential change regarding the playoffs.

Among those to suggest changes has been Bill Chaves, athletic director at Eastern Washington, which won the 2010 title in Frisco before North Dakota State's current five-year reign. He emailed recommendations for change to Mark Wilson, the Tennessee Tech athletic director who served as the chair of the playoff selection committee this past season, and Mark Lewis, the NCAA's executive vice president for championships and alliances.

Chaves said his recommendations were made "to better an already tremendous event" and centered on two chief concerns - expanding the seeding process and changing the dates of the playoffs.

The seedings offer the potentially easier change:

- Chaves suggested expanding the seeds from eight to 16. Under the current selection format, a team that is ninth-strongest in the field is treated the same as the 24th team. Chaves cited Southern Utah and South Dakota State from the Missouri Valley as teams that had excellent regular seasons and were deserving of a home game in the first round. Both lost on the road in the first round.

Doubling the number of seeds would likely decrease how the playoff field has become increasingly regionalized in its matchups. Six of the eight second-round games this season had been played in the regular season, including three that matched teams from the same conferences.

To counter the potentially higher travel costs, Chaves suggested a slight raise in the minimum bid to host a playoff game.

The recommendation for changing playoff dates would probably draw less support:


- Chaves wants first-round games moved from Thanksgiving weekend. His reasoning was that student-athletes involved would have the chance to enjoy the holiday and extra time for studies and the first-round hosts would have a better opportunity to sell tickets, with the traveling teams gaining additional time for their preparations.

Such a change, Chaves said, "could potentially avoid dismal crowds that have plagued our tournament during this weekend." He added that an extra week of preparation will reduce charter and travel costs for the NCAA.


"If you have Thanksgiving weekend off, it gives everybody a chance to decompress a little bit and the student-athletes extra time to kind of get their academics in order," Chaves told STATS.

The downside to Chaves' idea is that it could mean the two semifinals - played the weekend before Christmas - would fall between Christmas and New Year's, which would have them competing for exposure among the many FBS bowl games. Also, the Thanksgiving bye week would mean the top eight teams would have a three-week gap from the final weekend of the regular season to the second round of the playoffs, when they would play their first game. That break is currently two weeks.

Brent Colbourne, the director of programming and acquisitions at ESPN, which broadcasts all FCS playoff games, is scheduled to be involved in the commissioners meetings. Changes in playoff dates would impact the network's schedule of postseason games.

Interest in the playoffs has risen as they have expanded in scope both on and off the field. But the desire for different tweaks also has risen.

The ball is back in the conference commissioners' hands."
http://www.fcs.football/cfb/story.asp?i=...9374619204
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2016 10:20 PM by BDKJMU.)
01-26-2016 10:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BDKJMU Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,737
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 47
I Root For: James Madison
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
I like the idea of 16 seeds.

Having no playoffs Thanksgiving weekend has the obvious positive of not playing on a weekend where you are going to have by far the worst attendance but think it is outweighed by the 2 negatives mentioned:
-3 weeks off for the 8 bye teams
-having to play the semis between Christmas and New Years when there are 3-4 minor bowl games on every day.
And one not mentioned:
-would be only a 2 week break instead of 3 between the semis and NC game- would mean higher airfare & less planning for the fans. That is the only round where maybe a majority are flying...
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2016 11:42 PM by BDKJMU.)
01-26-2016 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMURocks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,011
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 134
I Root For: James Madison
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
Conflicted ... On one hand seeding seems much more "fair" and we've been on the wrong side of sealed bids before. On the oher, historically schools with larger stadiums and fan bases (see Delaware/Montana/Marshall) have used this to basically guarantee one or two games at home.

Kinda sucks that now we are in a position to outbid others this may go away. Outside of the results, I've been pretty happy with our playoff situation the last couple years.
01-26-2016 10:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMUNation Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,578
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 62
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
We had our shot the last two years and in '08. We did not take advantage of it. We did somewhat in '08 by winning two games but not since then.
01-26-2016 11:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Potomac Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,725
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 59
I Root For: James Madison
Location:
Post: #5
Possible changes to playoffs
(01-26-2016 10:53 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  Conflicted ... On one hand seeding seems much more "fair" and we've been on the wrong side of sealed bids before. On the oher, historically schools with larger stadiums and fan bases (see Delaware/Montana/Marshall) have used this to basically guarantee one or two games at home.

Kinda sucks that now we are in a position to outbid others this may go away. Outside of the results, I've been pretty happy with our playoff situation the last couple years.

You know Charlie King and Jeff Bourne love this idea. It means we'll be more likely to avoid liberty and the large bid they bring. With ccu out of the big south, Liberty will be getting in almost every year.
Seeding most or the entire field is the fairest way to approach it.
01-26-2016 11:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NH/JMU Saxkow Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,759
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 93
I Root For: JMU
Location: New Hampshire
Post: #6
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
Wait....if there are 16 Seeds, then #1-8 would get the Byes like normal....I'm assuming then #9-16 would receive the home games for the 1st round. Wouldn't that eliminate the use of bidding - unless 2 unseeded teams happen to both win their 1st two games and face each other? So then what good would it do if the NCAA raises the minimum bid cost for hosting if basically almost all games would already be decided by the Seeding?
01-26-2016 11:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Potomac Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,725
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 59
I Root For: James Madison
Location:
Post: #7
Possible changes to playoffs
(01-26-2016 11:30 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  Wait....if there are 16 Seeds, then #1-8 would get the Byes like normal....I'm assuming then #9-16 would receive the home games for the 1st round. Wouldn't that eliminate the use of bidding - unless 2 unseeded teams happen to both win their 1st two games and face each other? So then what good would it do if the NCAA raises the minimum bid cost for hosting if basically almost all games would already be decided by the Seeding?

Id imagine that they'd still regionally pair first round games of an unseeded vs a regional 9-16 seed.
01-26-2016 11:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NH/JMU Saxkow Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,759
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 93
I Root For: JMU
Location: New Hampshire
Post: #8
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
(01-26-2016 11:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  
(01-26-2016 11:30 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  Wait....if there are 16 Seeds, then #1-8 would get the Byes like normal....I'm assuming then #9-16 would receive the home games for the 1st round. Wouldn't that eliminate the use of bidding - unless 2 unseeded teams happen to both win their 1st two games and face each other? So then what good would it do if the NCAA raises the minimum bid cost for hosting if basically almost all games would already be decided by the Seeding?

Id imagine that they'd still regionally pair first round games of an unseeded vs a regional 9-16 seed.

Oh - so the 9-16 seeds would not be guaranteed a home game...just that they would not be paired off against each other?
01-26-2016 11:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CISDuke2014 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,503
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 14
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Lynchburg
Post: #9
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
(01-26-2016 11:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  
(01-26-2016 11:30 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  Wait....if there are 16 Seeds, then #1-8 would get the Byes like normal....I'm assuming then #9-16 would receive the home games for the 1st round. Wouldn't that eliminate the use of bidding - unless 2 unseeded teams happen to both win their 1st two games and face each other? So then what good would it do if the NCAA raises the minimum bid cost for hosting if basically almost all games would already be decided by the Seeding?

Id imagine that they'd still regionally pair first round games of an unseeded vs a regional 9-16 seed.

Yes but the seed would get the privilege of hosting so where does the bid come into play? There's no need for a bid if you know who's hosting.
01-26-2016 11:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CISDuke2014 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,503
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 14
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Lynchburg
Post: #10
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
(01-26-2016 11:52 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  
(01-26-2016 11:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  
(01-26-2016 11:30 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  Wait....if there are 16 Seeds, then #1-8 would get the Byes like normal....I'm assuming then #9-16 would receive the home games for the 1st round. Wouldn't that eliminate the use of bidding - unless 2 unseeded teams happen to both win their 1st two games and face each other? So then what good would it do if the NCAA raises the minimum bid cost for hosting if basically almost all games would already be decided by the Seeding?

Id imagine that they'd still regionally pair first round games of an unseeded vs a regional 9-16 seed.

Oh - so the 9-16 seeds would not be guaranteed a home game...just that they would not be paired off against each other?

That would be ridiculous. In EVERY sport in the world the better team gets the benefit of hosting. If the NCAA seeds 1-16 and then didn't allow the seed to host they would be exposed for the money grabbing profiteering organization they really are (as if it's not obvious enough) . Idk if they'd allow that.
01-26-2016 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMURocks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,011
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 134
I Root For: James Madison
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
(01-26-2016 11:58 PM)CISDuke2014 Wrote:  
(01-26-2016 11:52 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  
(01-26-2016 11:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  
(01-26-2016 11:30 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  Wait....if there are 16 Seeds, then #1-8 would get the Byes like normal....I'm assuming then #9-16 would receive the home games for the 1st round. Wouldn't that eliminate the use of bidding - unless 2 unseeded teams happen to both win their 1st two games and face each other? So then what good would it do if the NCAA raises the minimum bid cost for hosting if basically almost all games would already be decided by the Seeding?

Id imagine that they'd still regionally pair first round games of an unseeded vs a regional 9-16 seed.

Oh - so the 9-16 seeds would not be guaranteed a home game...just that they would not be paired off against each other?

That would be ridiculous. In EVERY sport in the world the better team gets the benefit of hosting. If the NCAA seeds 1-16 and then didn't allow the seed to host they would be exposed for the money grabbing profiteering organization they really are (as if it's not obvious enough) . Idk if they'd allow that.

It might be the only way this can be passed. As best I recall, FCS playoffs lose money and they are under an NCAA mandate to minimize those losses. Thats part of the reason bids and "regionalization" exist rather than full seeding now.
01-27-2016 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


CISDuke2014 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,503
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 14
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Lynchburg
Post: #12
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
I can understand that but Asa sports guy I can't wrap my head around a seed traveling. If that's the case then leave it the way it is. You can't have it both ways, the way I read it, the purpose of seeing is to give your conference champs an advantage instead of being on the road (see Southern Utah). If you not going to give the seed a home game then what's the point?
01-27-2016 12:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMURocks Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,011
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 134
I Root For: James Madison
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
(01-27-2016 12:12 AM)CISDuke2014 Wrote:  I can understand that but Asa sports guy I can't wrap my head around a seed traveling. If that's the case then leave it the way it is. You can't have it both ways, the way I read it, the purpose of seeing is to give your conference champs an advantage instead of being on the road (see Southern Utah). If you not going to give the seed a home game then what's the point?

Just a guess, but the seeding push might be more about second round matchups than first round. MVC schools were really upset they all ended up on same side of the bracket this year.
01-27-2016 12:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CISDuke2014 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,503
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 14
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Lynchburg
Post: #14
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
True and I can see that as a problem. But you also have the Big Sky and I believe one other conference mad cause their conference champs went on the road due to bidding. Seeding helps both out but doesn't necessarily solve either one, mvfc could be seeded right to cause then all to be one one side (not likely true).
01-27-2016 12:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BleedingPurple Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,329
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 90
I Root For: JMU
Location: Amherst County, VA
Post: #15
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
(01-27-2016 12:12 AM)CISDuke2014 Wrote:  I can understand that but Asa sports guy I can't wrap my head around a seed traveling. If that's the case then leave it the way it is. You can't have it both ways, the way I read it, the purpose of seeing is to give your conference champs an advantage instead of being on the road (see Southern Utah). If you not going to give the seed a home game then what's the point?

2014, LU was the BS Conference champion and they went on the road and the BS Conference At-Large, Coastal, got a seed and got to play at home for the second round.
01-27-2016 05:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Longhorn Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,307
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 100
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
(01-26-2016 11:38 PM)Potomac Wrote:  
(01-26-2016 11:30 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  Wait....if there are 16 Seeds, then #1-8 would get the Byes like normal....I'm assuming then #9-16 would receive the home games for the 1st round. Wouldn't that eliminate the use of bidding - unless 2 unseeded teams happen to both win their 1st two games and face each other? So then what good would it do if the NCAA raises the minimum bid cost for hosting if basically almost all games would already be decided by the Seeding?

Id imagine that they'd still regionally pair first round games of an unseeded vs a regional 9-16 seed.

Sax is right, and you are most likely right too, but Sax's point remains. All seeds 9-16 would no longer be bidding for first round games.

Second round games would also be played at the higher seeded team's home. The only time bids would come into play is if there were a pair of upsets in the second round where two unseeded teams beat a 1-8 seed, leaving a potential third-round matchup between two unseeded teams.

While unseeded teams winning out to make the third-round semis is unlikely, it is possible, so it would require that unseeded teams (but only unseeded teams) submit bids in the unlikely event they made it all the way to the round of semi-finals, AND (based on regional matchup decisions) the unseeded team could not be matched against a remaining seeded team. All-in-all, not much of a revenue stream.

Seeding 1-16 would fix the vast majority of FCS playoff woes.
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2016 06:26 AM by Longhorn.)
01-27-2016 06:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Duke Dawg Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,195
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 130
I Root For: James Madison
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
Easy solution. Dont have a 24 team playoff. It's too many anyway. Put it back to 16 or 20. Make it a true playoff to determine a champion. Not an everyone gets a participation trophy tournament.

Putting a barely .500 6-5 team in a playoff to determine a champion is an embarrassment to all championship playoff everywhere.

You want to play for a title? Don't lose 5 of 11 gsmes you play
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2016 09:25 AM by Duke Dawg.)
01-27-2016 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JMU_Rocks! Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 871
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 18
I Root For: JMU
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
Bingo. Too many teams in the tournament (24) and too few seeded teams. Start there and figure a way to have the Thanksgiving weekend game go away.

Maybe have the top 4 teams get a bye and reseed after the first round.
01-27-2016 09:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
capn kitt Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 339
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2
I Root For: JMU
Location: Virginia Beach
Post: #19
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
(01-27-2016 09:23 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  Easy solution. Dont have a 24 team playoff. It's too many anyway. Put it back to 16 or 20. Make it a true playoff to determine a champion. Not an everyone gets a participation trophy tournament.

Putting a barely .500 6-5 team in a playoff to determine a champion is an embarrassment to all championship playoff everywhere.

You want to play for a title? Don't lose 5 of 11 gsmes you play

16 is too few and 20 makes for an awkward bracket (only four first round games with 12 teams getting first rounds "byes"). If revenue is their concern, do you think they will ever go back (i.e. lower the # of teams)? Or are travel costs so significant that they are actually lowering revenue?
01-27-2016 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
capn kitt Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 339
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 2
I Root For: JMU
Location: Virginia Beach
Post: #20
RE: Possible changes to playoffs
I guess the argument comes down to revenue vs. product exposure. The third factor should be impact to student-athletes but we all know that is not a major concern for the NCAA.
(This post was last modified: 01-27-2016 10:28 AM by capn kitt.)
01-27-2016 10:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.