I like 16. All conference champs are in plus 6 at-larges. Everyone else can still play in bowl games. Cut the regular season back to 11 games.

First round in mid-December. Quarters on New Years Day in the traditional major bowls. Semi's and Final later in January. Title game in that dead weekend where they have the Pro Bowl now.

And I'm not on board with the argument for limiting the field to 8 because there aren't 16 teams capable of winning the title. That may be true, however, there certainly aren't 64 (or 68) teams capable of winning the basketball title either...should March Madness therefore be cut down to 8 or 16 invites? (Quick answer: hell no!) The point is for every school to have a fair shot at the title, no matter if it's realistic or not. Everyone should have the opportunity even if it's only on paper.

(11-24-2017 07:41 PM)s2dsayer Wrote:  however, there certainly aren't 64 (or 68) teams capable of winning the basketball title either...

Years ago VCU was team #65-68 in the tournament and reached the final four, I’d say that qualifies as being capable. If your argument is to get rid of auto-bids, then we have a severe difference of opinion and irreconcilable wills.

(11-24-2017 08:07 PM)DevilDawg Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 07:41 PM)s2dsayer Wrote:  however, there certainly aren't 64 (or 68) teams capable of winning the basketball title either...

Years ago VCU was team #65-68 in the tournament and reached the final four, I’d say that qualifies as being capable. If your argument is to get rid of auto-bids, then we have a severe difference of opinion and irreconcilable wills.

No, I would never advocate for eliminating auto-bids...they are precisely what gives every team the "theoretical" chance at winning it all (despite the extremely low probability of that happening for most...)

(11-24-2017 09:18 PM)s2dsayer Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 08:07 PM)DevilDawg Wrote:  

(11-24-2017 07:41 PM)s2dsayer Wrote:  however, there certainly aren't 64 (or 68) teams capable of winning the basketball title either...

Years ago VCU was team #65-68 in the tournament and reached the final four, I’d say that qualifies as being capable. If your argument is to get rid of auto-bids, then we have a severe difference of opinion and irreconcilable wills.

No, I would never advocate for eliminating auto-bids...they are precisely what gives every team the "theoretical" chance at winning it all (despite the extremely low probability of that happening for most...)

The problem is not the auto bids. The problem is the bids going to the 6th or 7th place teams in the P5. I think the same thing would happen if FBS goes to a 16 team playoffs. They are not going to give each G5 conf champ an autobid. It will just be more P5 teams getting at large bids.

Does JMU have anything in common with the teams in the FCS play-offs?

Are these our rivals and peers?

(11-25-2017 11:57 AM)Dukeman2 Wrote:  Does JMU have anything in common with the teams in the FCS play-offs?

Are these our rivals and peers?

Well I know at least one person on here thought Monmouth would be a good addition to the CAA, so we have that to look forward to.

And JMU recently touted being tied with Kennesaw State for "innovation" so we have that as well.

Samford and Elon are both ranked above us in our regional masters-level classification. I'm sure lots of these other schools are regional level as well.

So yeah, I'd say we have plenty in common and we are among our rivals and peers.

Alabama could potentially be left out this year:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...895321001/

Hope they are, that alone would stir up more talk of expanding the field I think.

(11-26-2017 10:27 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  Alabama could potentially be left out this year:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...895321001/

Hope they are, that alone would stir up more talk of expanding the field I think.

It's not a question of "if" they add more teams, but "when". It's inevitable that a team that deserves to be in will be left out. It will have to happen to a degree where they will have to add to 8. I think that's the magic number that everyone wants and I do think it'll happen.
If Bama was left out, I cannot imagine them just saying it isn't fair, but saying that more teams deserve to be in.
If more big money schools start demanding this, the sooner it happens. This may be the year where the talk of expanding is very loud, even if Bama makes it in. Somebody is going to be left out and it isn't going to be pretty.

The old guys running the NCAA move slowly on things like this ... mainly due to the huge, long-term agreements made with TV financing the thing.

The proper plan should be :

Next two years ... expand to a 6 team playoff. Each P5 champ should be guaranteed a spot. The committee selects one at large team. All 6 teams are than ranked (similar to FCS system) and top 2 teams given a bye. Seeds 3 vs. 6. 4 vs. 5. Then, top seed plays 4/5 winner. 2 seed plays 3/6 winner. Two winners play for the national championship.

After two years, expand to 8, with same principle of automatic bids for P5 conference champs and then at large bids selected.

Evaluate and tweak for future years.

(11-26-2017 11:12 AM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 10:27 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  Alabama could potentially be left out this year:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...895321001/

Hope they are, that alone would stir up more talk of expanding the field I think.

It's not a question of "if" they add more teams, but "when". It's inevitable that a team that deserves to be in will be left out. It will have to happen to a degree where they will have to add to 8. I think that's the magic number that everyone wants and I do think it'll happen.
If Bama was left out, I cannot imagine them just saying it isn't fair, but saying that more teams deserve to be in.
If more big money schools start demanding this, the sooner it happens. This may be the year where the talk of expanding is very loud, even if Bama makes it in. Somebody is going to be left out and it isn't going to be pretty.

Nothing on Earth would speed up this process quicker than a one-loss Alabama missing the playoffs. If Clemson, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma win their conferences there's no way more than one SEC team should get in. I have a feeling though one of them are going to lose so Bama can win another championship and trailer parks across the nation can rejoice.

I like a larger field as opposed to a smaller field. I would prefer 32 teams. No bye in Week 1 for anyone. Only 16 teams to me leaves a lot of quality teams out and reduces the excitement. I don't like only the elite being rewarded for a good season.

Also, 32 teams means more money for the schools and conferences, as well as the NCAA, and a lot of fans from less-than-elite schools get to participate in the fun. Win-win! My opinion.

(11-26-2017 09:13 PM)Purple Wrote:  I like a larger field as opposed to a smaller field. I would prefer 32 teams. No bye in Week 1 for anyone. Only 16 teams to me leaves a lot of quality teams out and reduces the excitement. I don't like only the elite being rewarded for a good season.

Also, 32 teams means more money for the schools and conferences, as well as the NCAA, and a lot of fans from less-than-elite schools get to participate in the fun. Win-win! My opinion.

Don’t think the NCAA gets a slice of revenue from the CFP / FBS playoffs?

For FCS, we have too many already. No 7-4 team has a real shot at the title, and average attendance for first round was under 5,000. Under 40,000 attendance total for all FCS first round games. FCS playoffs lose money for the NCAA, they just try to minimize that loss. A few schools (JMU should) see some positive revenue from it.

Go back and look at the FCS brackets when it was a 16 team playoff. All those schools were legit contenders. Majority of the first round games this year were a snooze fest.

(11-26-2017 09:25 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:13 PM)Purple Wrote:  I like a larger field as opposed to a smaller field. I would prefer 32 teams. No bye in Week 1 for anyone. Only 16 teams to me leaves a lot of quality teams out and reduces the excitement. I don't like only the elite being rewarded for a good season.

Also, 32 teams means more money for the schools and conferences, as well as the NCAA, and a lot of fans from less-than-elite schools get to participate in the fun. Win-win! My opinion.

Don’t think the NCAA gets a slice of revenue from the CFP / FBS playoffs?

For FCS, we have too many already. No 7-4 team has a real shot at the title, and average attendance for first round was under 5,000. Under 40,000 attendance total for all FCS first round games. FCS playoffs lose money for the NCAA, they just try to minimize that loss. A few schools (JMU should) see some positive revenue from it.

Go back and look at the FCS brackets when it was a 16 team playoff. All those schools were legit contenders. Majority of the first round games this year were a snooze fest.

Agree.

Attendance killing Thanksgiving weekend. Plus the reported attendance was lowballed by schools if they’re smart. The lower the reported attendance the less the NCAA gets paid.

(11-26-2017 09:25 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:13 PM)Purple Wrote:  I like a larger field as opposed to a smaller field. I would prefer 32 teams. No bye in Week 1 for anyone. Only 16 teams to me leaves a lot of quality teams out and reduces the excitement. I don't like only the elite being rewarded for a good season.

Also, 32 teams means more money for the schools and conferences, as well as the NCAA, and a lot of fans from less-than-elite schools get to participate in the fun. Win-win! My opinion.

Don’t think the NCAA gets a slice of revenue from the CFP / FBS playoffs?

For FCS, we have too many already. No 7-4 team has a real shot at the title, and average attendance for first round was under 5,000. Under 40,000 attendance total for all FCS first round games. FCS playoffs lose money for the NCAA, they just try to minimize that loss. A few schools (JMU should) see some positive revenue from it.

Go back and look at the FCS brackets when it was a 16 team playoff. All those schools were legit contenders. Majority of the first round games this year were a snooze fest.

You are absolutely right! The NCAA does not participate in the windfall of the CFP, like they do the other division playoff systems. How did they let that one get past them?

Interesting article on that, including something else I didn't know - $2.34 million dollars of the take goes to "some" FCS conferences. Link....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpa...0f4ab24e1a

(11-26-2017 09:59 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:25 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:13 PM)Purple Wrote:  I like a larger field as opposed to a smaller field. I would prefer 32 teams. No bye in Week 1 for anyone. Only 16 teams to me leaves a lot of quality teams out and reduces the excitement. I don't like only the elite being rewarded for a good season.

Also, 32 teams means more money for the schools and conferences, as well as the NCAA, and a lot of fans from less-than-elite schools get to participate in the fun. Win-win! My opinion.

Don’t think the NCAA gets a slice of revenue from the CFP / FBS playoffs?

For FCS, we have too many already. No 7-4 team has a real shot at the title, and average attendance for first round was under 5,000. Under 40,000 attendance total for all FCS first round games. FCS playoffs lose money for the NCAA, they just try to minimize that loss. A few schools (JMU should) see some positive revenue from it.

Go back and look at the FCS brackets when it was a 16 team playoff. All those schools were legit contenders. Majority of the first round games this year were a snooze fest.

You are absolutely right! The NCAA does not participate in the windfall of the CFP, like they do the other division playoff systems. How did they let that one get past them?

Interesting article on that, including something else I didn't know - $2.34 million dollars of the take goes to "some" FCS conferences. Link....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpa...0f4ab24e1a

That is a well written article. The FCS share is put in a pool and split among all the FCS fully funded scholarship programs (9 conferences). SWAC, SLC get as much as CAA and MVFC do (per school I assume). There was a similar pool for the BCS system, I assume it was a compromise that allowed FBS to largely keep/control those revenues outside the NCAA.

Doesn’t seem like it would be very much once split, maybe $25k per school?

(11-26-2017 11:05 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:59 PM)Purple Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:25 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:13 PM)Purple Wrote:  I like a larger field as opposed to a smaller field. I would prefer 32 teams. No bye in Week 1 for anyone. Only 16 teams to me leaves a lot of quality teams out and reduces the excitement. I don't like only the elite being rewarded for a good season.

Also, 32 teams means more money for the schools and conferences, as well as the NCAA, and a lot of fans from less-than-elite schools get to participate in the fun. Win-win! My opinion.

Don’t think the NCAA gets a slice of revenue from the CFP / FBS playoffs?

For FCS, we have too many already. No 7-4 team has a real shot at the title, and average attendance for first round was under 5,000. Under 40,000 attendance total for all FCS first round games. FCS playoffs lose money for the NCAA, they just try to minimize that loss. A few schools (JMU should) see some positive revenue from it.

Go back and look at the FCS brackets when it was a 16 team playoff. All those schools were legit contenders. Majority of the first round games this year were a snooze fest.

You are absolutely right! The NCAA does not participate in the windfall of the CFP, like they do the other division playoff systems. How did they let that one get past them?

Interesting article on that, including something else I didn't know - $2.34 million dollars of the take goes to "some" FCS conferences. Link....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpa...0f4ab24e1a

That is a well written article. The FCS share is put in a pool and split among all the FCS fully funded scholarship programs (9 conferences). SWAC, SLC get as much as CAA and MVFC do (per school I assume). There was a similar pool for the BCS system, I assume it was a compromise that allowed FBS to largely keep/control those revenues outside the NCAA.

Doesn’t seem like it would be very much once split, maybe $25k per school?

Yeah, I love the author's last sentence at the end of that paragraph.... "Scraps anyone?"

(11-26-2017 09:25 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  No 7-4 team has a real shot at the title.....

Three loss teams have won the title a multiple times in the past. Is it that much of a leap of faith to believe that a four loss team is capable of winning it, even as there is greater opportunity?

(11-27-2017 12:30 PM)DevilDawg Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:25 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  No 7-4 team has a real shot at the title.....

Three loss teams have won the title a multiple times in the past. Is it that much of a leap of faith to believe that a four loss team is capable of winning it, even as there is greater opportunity?

It’s a leap, but let’s rephrase for simplicity: no 4 loss team deserves to be in the playoffs.

Why don’t we just invite ALL teams to the playoffs? Too many games? Easy solution - make the “playoffs” start in the regular season, and you have to win to advance. If you win your conference title you continue on.

I’d be ok with a playoff system that only invited the conference winners, and would take that over multiple 7-4 teams. There was talk of inviting a 6-5 team, which is absurd. 16 teams would be about right for FCS.

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.

(11-27-2017 12:30 PM)DevilDawg Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 09:25 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  No 7-4 team has a real shot at the title.....

Three loss teams have won the title a multiple times in the past. Is it that much of a leap of faith to believe that a four loss team is capable of winning it, even as there is greater opportunity?

considering a 7-4 team is always playing in round 1, that means winning 5 straight playoff games. it's never happened before since the playoffs expanded, and i believe (although i'm not looking it up) that YSU last year was the first team to even make it to the national title game in such a scenario and they needed a miracle play at EWU to even get there. it's possible but your odds are obviously worse.