(11-27-2017 04:02 PM)JMUSteeler Wrote:  16 wouldn't work anymore, not with 10 autobids. You'd have 6 at-large spots left for the power conferences, assuming each got 1 (which would still leave the weakest out) which CAA teams would you have left out this year? UNH and 8-3 Elon, leaving Stony Brook in because they didn't have to play us? How about those years where we were the 3rd or 4th place team? 2004 may never happen again, because in this scenario one of those CAA schools would have been left at home and it possibly could have been us. Not a chance the NCAA tells a conference they can't have an autobid now, and you better hope the SWAC, MEAC and Ivies don't decide they're in because then the field probably does go to 32.

It could work.

CAA would get JMU and Stony Brook. Elon and UNH were really not that impressive, and I think UD would have been better, but blew their chances with a Nova loss.

MVFC would get NDSU, SDSU, and maybe a third team.

That leaves 3 more at larges, which I really think is plenty given how many SLC teams were in this year.

Would 2004 JMU get left out? Unlikely, they only lost to FBS WVU and W&M by 3 points. That is a playoff worthy resume, not 4 or 5 losses.

Do I think this will ever happen? No, but I think it would be better. More high quality games that matter. What’s the point of having 4 and 5 teams from the same two conferences play again in the post season? I’m not a big fan of rubber matches.

If I read that Forbes article correctly then when the FBS playoffs expand there will be an even larger gap between G5 and FCS revenue sharing.

Using their 2014/15 numbers:

65 G5 schools sharing ~$23mm = $354k per school.

Not sure how many FCS team share the "$2.32mm" but even if half that's like 10% of what G5 is getting (which in itself gets about 33% of what the P5 gets).

If they do expand the playoffs to 8 teams (or especially 16) that gives the G5 conferences the opportunity to generate even more playoff revenue (both because the additional games generate more money overall, and because playoff participants earn money for their conferences).

As little as the "mid-major" MBB conferences get from the NCAAs, the boon from expanded football playoffs will cut out the FCS little guys even more.

"The College Football Playoff proceeds are not even equitably shared among all FBS members. The sixty- five Power Five conference members take home 75 percent of the proceeds, and the remaining 25 percent is distributed to the sixty remaining institutions via other FBS conferences, such as the Mid-American Conference and the Sun Belt, except for an allocation of $2.34 million that is distributed to some Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) conferences."

(11-27-2017 04:12 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 04:02 PM)JMUSteeler Wrote:  16 wouldn't work anymore, not with 10 autobids. You'd have 6 at-large spots left for the power conferences, assuming each got 1 (which would still leave the weakest out) which CAA teams would you have left out this year? UNH and 8-3 Elon, leaving Stony Brook in because they didn't have to play us? How about those years where we were the 3rd or 4th place team? 2004 may never happen again, because in this scenario one of those CAA schools would have been left at home and it possibly could have been us. Not a chance the NCAA tells a conference they can't have an autobid now, and you better hope the SWAC, MEAC and Ivies don't decide they're in because then the field probably does go to 32.

It could work.

CAA would get JMU and Stony Brook. Elon and UNH were really not that impressive, and I think UD would have been better, but blew their chances with a Nova loss.

MVFC would get NDSU, SDSU, and maybe a third team.

That leaves 3 more at larges, which I really think is plenty given how many SLC teams were in this year.

Would 2004 JMU get left out? Unlikely, they only lost to FBS WVU and W&M by 3 points. That is a playoff worthy resume, not 4 or 5 losses.

Do I think this will ever happen? No, but I think it would be better. More high quality games that matter. What’s the point of having 4 and 5 teams from the same two conferences play again in the post season? I’m not a big fan of rubber matches.

Yep, 16 would work if there wasn't the rule that have to have at least as many at large as AQ. Here would have been the 16 team field:

MVFC:
NDSU (10-1/7-1) AQ
SDSU (9-2/6-2) At large
WIU (8-3/5-3) At Large

CAA:
JMU (11-0) AQ
SBU (9-2/7-1) At large
Elon (8-3/6-2) At Large

Big Sky:
SUU (9-2/7-1) AQ
Weber St (9-2/7-1) At Large

Southland:
UCA (10-1/9-0) AQ
SHSU (10-1/8-1) At Large

So Con:
Wofford (9-2/7-1) AQ

OVC:
JSU (10-1/8-0) AQ

Big South:
Kennesaw St (10-1/5-0) AQ

NEC:
CCSU (8-3/6-0) AQ

Patriot:
Lehigh (5-6/5-1) AQ

Pioneer:
San Diego (9-2/8-0) AQ

1st out: Samford (8-3/6-2) (7-3 vs Div I)

Likely bracket with the old field of 16, top 4 seeded, no 1st round rematches, most geographically compact:

Lehigh (5-6) @ #1 JMU (11-0) (271 miles)
CCSU (8-3) @ SBU (9-2) (71 miles)

WIU (8-3) @ #4 UCA (10-1)
SHSU (10-1) @ SUU (9-2)

San Diego (9-2) @ #2 NDSU (10-1)
Weber St (9-2) @ SDSU (9-2)

Kennesaw St (10-1) @ #3 JSU (10-1) (88 miles)
Elon (8-3) @ Wofford (9-2) (180 miles)