Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
Author Message
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,300
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 188
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #1
FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
Big Sky 4:Weber State, Montana, Montana State and Sacramento State
Big South 2:Monmouth and Kennesaw State
CAA 3:James Madison, Albany, Villanova
MVFC 4:NDSU, N. Iowa, Illinois State, South Dakota State
NEC 1:Central Connecticut State
OVC 2:Austin Peay and SE Missouri State
Patriot 1:Holy Cross
Pioneer 1:San Diego
SoCon 2:Wofford and Furman
Southland 3:Nicholls, Central Arkansas and SE Louisiana
Independent 1:North Dakota

Did not made it.
Eastern Washington
Towson
Southern Illinois
Robert Morris
Sacred Heart
TN-Martin
Eastern Kentucky
Dayton 8-3
Davidson 8-4
Stetson 7-4
Sam Houston State
McNeese State

The ones that have no win/loss numbers are 7-5.
11-25-2019 06:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Hammersmith Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 81
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 18
I Root For: NDSU
Location:
Post: #2
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
It will be interesting to see if NDSU can finish the season off to become the first DI program to end at 16-0. That would also be an FCS record 37 game winning streak. The other big streak is if our RFr QB(Trey Lance) can continue his streak of never throwing an interception. His career stats are currently at 220 attempts with 0 interceptions.

Trey Lance career stats over 14 games(2 games in 2018, 12 games in 2019):
151/220(68.6%) Comp/Attempts; 2199 yds; 23 TD(passing); 0 INT; 8 Sacks; 189.4 QBR
also
823yds on 114 rushing attempts; 12 TD(rushing)
(This post was last modified: 11-28-2019 01:51 PM by Hammersmith.)
11-28-2019 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TDenverFan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,911
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 13
I Root For: William & Mary
Location: Northern VA
Post: #3
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(11-25-2019 06:23 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Big Sky 4:Weber State, Montana, Montana State and Sacramento State
Big South 2:Monmouth and Kennesaw State
CAA 3:James Madison, Albany, Villanova
MVFC 4:NDSU, N. Iowa, Illinois State, South Dakota State
NEC 1:Central Connecticut State
OVC 2:Austin Peay and SE Missouri State
Patriot 1:Holy Cross
Pioneer 1:San Diego
SoCon 2:Wofford and Furman
Southland 3:Nicholls, Central Arkansas and SE Louisiana
Independent 1:North Dakota

Did not made it.
Eastern Washington
Towson
Southern Illinois
Robert Morris
Sacred Heart
TN-Martin
Eastern Kentucky
Dayton 8-3
Davidson 8-4
Stetson 7-4

Sam Houston State
McNeese State

The ones that have no win/loss numbers are 7-5.

PFL teams aren't really gonna ever get an at large. Davidson's and Stetson's records are also inflated by playing multiple non D1 teams.
11-28-2019 02:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,565
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 81
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #4
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
Eastern Washington really fell off the map this season after being the runner-up last year and having many great recent seasons.
11-28-2019 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,300
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 188
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #5
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(11-28-2019 02:09 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Eastern Washington really fell off the map this season after being the runner-up last year and having many great recent seasons.

They finished tied for 3rd in the conference at 7-5. What is new is that Big South got a second team in when they were only one bid and an independent got in. Both the CAA and MVFC were down this year.
11-28-2019 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 32,503
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 813
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #6
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
The history of the FCS playoffs shows that elaborate 16 and 24 team playoffs are overrated as a means of getting more 'worthy' teams in, because the same teams seem to win over and over again:

1) NDSU has won 7 of the past 8 years. No FBS team has ever won 7 titles in 8 years, not in the past 100 years of college football.

2) In the mid-200s, App State won it 3 years in a row. If NDSU wins again this year, that will make 3 times in the past 15 years that a school has won the FCS title 3 years in a row. No team in FBS has ever won the national title - Coaches or AP or BCS or CFP - 3 years in a row, in at least the past 100 years. Maybe it happened in the 1880s when Yale, Princeton, and Harvard were the only teams playing football, but not in the past 100 years.

3) Between 1985 and 2000, Georgia Southern won it 6 times.

Even since 2010, when we've had the Alabama and then Clemson dynasties and everyone complains about the 'same teams' winning all the time, five different schools have won the national title in FBS (Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, FSU, and Ohio State). Only three have in FCS.

Overall, it seems like these big 16 and 24 team playoffs don't seem to mean much, as the same teams win all the time.
(This post was last modified: 11-28-2019 06:41 PM by quo vadis.)
11-28-2019 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,300
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 188
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #7
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
1st round winners.
Monmouth
Albany
Austin Peay
Illinois State
N. Iowa
Nicholls State
SE. La.
Kennesaw Saw

2nd round match ups.
Monmouth vs James Madison
N. Iowa vs South Dakota State
Illinois State vs UCA
SE La. vs Montana
Albany vs Montana State
Kennesaw State vs Weber State
Nicholls State vs NDSU
Austin Peay State vs Sacramento State
12-01-2019 08:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 32,503
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 813
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #8
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
What is the point of having an elaborate 24 team playoff when the same team wins every year?
12-02-2019 06:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,300
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 188
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #9
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
Yesterday's winners.

Austin Peay
James Madison
N. Iowa
Illinois State
Montana State
Weber State
Montana
North Dakota State

quarter finals.
N. Iowa Vs James Madison
Austin Peay Vs Montana State
Montana Vs Weber State
Illinois State vs North Dakota State
12-08-2019 05:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hammersmith Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 81
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 18
I Root For: NDSU
Location:
Post: #10
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
Only one real upset, and that was Austin Peay over (4)Sacramento State. Two other seeded teams fell, but neither of those were shocking. Northern Iowa defeated conference-mate (7)South Dakota State. Honestly, UNI probably should have gotten the seed in the first place because of key late season injuries to SDSU. The other 'upset' was Illinois State over (8)Central Arkansas. Most believed UCA didn't even come close to deserving a seed, so them getting knocked off didn't surprise anyone.

What this weekend did do was cement the west as the current dominant force in FCS. Six of the eight quarter-finalists come from western conferences; three each from the MVFC and Big Sky. If Sac State hadn't crapped the bed, it would have been seven of eight. The only other two conferences represented are the CAA(James Madison) and the OVC(Austin Peay). The semifinals will probably be two Big Sky, one MVFC, and one CAA; mostly because two of the four games will be conference match-ups. NDSU, JMU, & Montana St should cruise to easy wins, but the Montana/Weber St game is a toss-up.
12-10-2019 02:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColumbusCard Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 107
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation: 8
I Root For: U of L
Location:
Post: #11
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-02-2019 06:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the point of having an elaborate 24 team playoff when the same team wins every year?

What an odd question.

The point of a playoff is to determine a champion entirely based on on field/court/ice results, as opposed to the beauty pageant that is college football.

Never seen someone question larger playoff tourney's based solely on results.

Why have a 12 team playoff if the Pats always win?

Why have a 16 team playoff when Golden State and Cleveland were sonning everyone for 4 straight years?

Why have a 68 team bball tourney when Duke,UNC, Kansas, and UK are going to make the FF/win championships more often than other teams?


Actually proving it on the field is the reason. Dont know why the desire to prove things on the field rather than by a closed door committee/biased coaches/sportswriters rankles and confuses so many CFB fans
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2019 09:47 AM by ColumbusCard.)
12-10-2019 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 32,503
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 813
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #12
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-10-2019 09:36 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 06:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the point of having an elaborate 24 team playoff when the same team wins every year?

What an odd question.

The point of a playoff is to determine a champion entirely based on on field/court/ice results, as opposed to the beauty pageant that is college football.

Never seen someone question larger playoff tourney's based solely on results.

Why have a 12 team playoff if the Pats always win?

Why have a 16 team playoff when Golden State and Cleveland were sonning everyone for 4 straight years?

Why have a 68 team bball tourney when Duke,UNC, Kansas, and UK are going to make the FF/win championships more often than other teams?


Actually proving it on the field is the reason. Dont know why the desire to prove things on the field rather than by a closed door committee/biased coaches/sportswriters rankles and confuses so many CFB fans

But you could accomplish the same thing with a 4-team playoff. The 24-team playoff is a ruse if the same team is just going to mow through it again and again and again.

And that's what FCS history shows.
12-10-2019 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 405
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 39
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #13
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-10-2019 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 09:36 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 06:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the point of having an elaborate 24 team playoff when the same team wins every year?

What an odd question.

The point of a playoff is to determine a champion entirely based on on field/court/ice results, as opposed to the beauty pageant that is college football.

Never seen someone question larger playoff tourney's based solely on results.

Why have a 12 team playoff if the Pats always win?

Why have a 16 team playoff when Golden State and Cleveland were sonning everyone for 4 straight years?

Why have a 68 team bball tourney when Duke,UNC, Kansas, and UK are going to make the FF/win championships more often than other teams?


Actually proving it on the field is the reason. Dont know why the desire to prove things on the field rather than by a closed door committee/biased coaches/sportswriters rankles and confuses so many CFB fans

But you could accomplish the same thing with a 4-team playoff. The 24-team playoff is a ruse if the same team is just going to mow through it again and again and again.

And that's what FCS history shows.

The 2017 playoff involved an unseeded Youngstown State playing against the 4 seed. Youngstown would not have been able to play in the championship game without it being 24 seed (they likely wouldn't have even made it at 16 seeds).

2015 was the 2 seed vs. the 5 seed. 4 wouldn't have allowed for that.

2014 was the 1 seed vs. the 7 seed.

2013 was the 1 seed vs. an unseeded team.

2011 was 3 vs. 5


Those are the instances, since the expansion from 16 teams, where the championship game wasn't played by two top 4 teams going in. That's exactly half of the games.


Did any of the underdogs win? 2011 had the 5 seed win (impossible in your 4 seed method). 2015 was only a 2 point loss, so a great game that couldn't have happened without a larger playoff.

The FCS history shows something quite different to what you are saying it does. You're just ignoring most of the facts.

The end result being that the top seeded teams are normally represented in the championship games and normally win doesn't mean the playoffs shouldn't happen. It just means that they happen to be the best teams from start to finish on the year. The results that have someone from outside the top 4 making it (and in one case, winning) show why playoffs are important: it gives hope to more teams and fans. It allows for teams that would normally be shut out from post seasons and potential championship runs to get that history under their belt, with more prestige. It allows the players to prove themselves more against top competition to potentially give them an edge over others for future drafts. It allows for more football to be played and for it to be proven on the field.
12-10-2019 10:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 32,503
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 813
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #14
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-10-2019 10:45 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 09:36 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 06:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the point of having an elaborate 24 team playoff when the same team wins every year?

What an odd question.

The point of a playoff is to determine a champion entirely based on on field/court/ice results, as opposed to the beauty pageant that is college football.

Never seen someone question larger playoff tourney's based solely on results.

Why have a 12 team playoff if the Pats always win?

Why have a 16 team playoff when Golden State and Cleveland were sonning everyone for 4 straight years?

Why have a 68 team bball tourney when Duke,UNC, Kansas, and UK are going to make the FF/win championships more often than other teams?


Actually proving it on the field is the reason. Dont know why the desire to prove things on the field rather than by a closed door committee/biased coaches/sportswriters rankles and confuses so many CFB fans

But you could accomplish the same thing with a 4-team playoff. The 24-team playoff is a ruse if the same team is just going to mow through it again and again and again.

And that's what FCS history shows.

The 2017 playoff involved an unseeded Youngstown State playing against the 4 seed. Youngstown would not have been able to play in the championship game without it being 24 seed (they likely wouldn't have even made it at 16 seeds).

2015 was the 2 seed vs. the 5 seed. 4 wouldn't have allowed for that.

2014 was the 1 seed vs. the 7 seed.

2013 was the 1 seed vs. an unseeded team.

2011 was 3 vs. 5


Those are the instances, since the expansion from 16 teams, where the championship game wasn't played by two top 4 teams going in. That's exactly half of the games.


Did any of the underdogs win? 2011 had the 5 seed win (impossible in your 4 seed method). 2015 was only a 2 point loss, so a great game that couldn't have happened without a larger playoff.

The FCS history shows something quite different to what you are saying it does. You're just ignoring most of the facts.

The end result being that the top seeded teams are normally represented in the championship games and normally win doesn't mean the playoffs shouldn't happen. It just means that they happen to be the best teams from start to finish on the year. The results that have someone from outside the top 4 making it (and in one case, winning) show why playoffs are important: it gives hope to more teams and fans. It allows for teams that would normally be shut out from post seasons and potential championship runs to get that history under their belt, with more prestige. It allows the players to prove themselves more against top competition to potentially give them an edge over others for future drafts. It allows for more football to be played and for it to be proven on the field.

Good work digging this up. Kudos.

But .... in one case, nine long years ago, a team ranked outside the top 4 won the FCS playoff? In how many overall years?

And actually maybe not even that. Because the "#5 seed" that won the 2010 championship (not 2011), Eastern Washington, was actually the #1 team in the FCS media poll. So somehow the seedings didn't reflect that.

I am not impressed by that. As I stated, the history of the FCS shows far more dominance by dynasties than does the CFP or BCS, despite the notion that in the CFP and BCS "the same schools win all the time", with expanded playoffs being proposed as an antidote to that.

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2019 11:02 AM by quo vadis.)
12-10-2019 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ColumbusCard Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 107
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation: 8
I Root For: U of L
Location:
Post: #15
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-10-2019 10:45 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 09:36 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 06:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the point of having an elaborate 24 team playoff when the same team wins every year?

What an odd question.

The point of a playoff is to determine a champion entirely based on on field/court/ice results, as opposed to the beauty pageant that is college football.

Never seen someone question larger playoff tourney's based solely on results.

Why have a 12 team playoff if the Pats always win?

Why have a 16 team playoff when Golden State and Cleveland were sonning everyone for 4 straight years?

Why have a 68 team bball tourney when Duke,UNC, Kansas, and UK are going to make the FF/win championships more often than other teams?


Actually proving it on the field is the reason. Dont know why the desire to prove things on the field rather than by a closed door committee/biased coaches/sportswriters rankles and confuses so many CFB fans

But you could accomplish the same thing with a 4-team playoff. The 24-team playoff is a ruse if the same team is just going to mow through it again and again and again.

And that's what FCS history shows.

The 2017 playoff involved an unseeded Youngstown State playing against the 4 seed. Youngstown would not have been able to play in the championship game without it being 24 seed (they likely wouldn't have even made it at 16 seeds).

2015 was the 2 seed vs. the 5 seed. 4 wouldn't have allowed for that.

2014 was the 1 seed vs. the 7 seed.

2013 was the 1 seed vs. an unseeded team.

2011 was 3 vs. 5


Those are the instances, since the expansion from 16 teams, where the championship game wasn't played by two top 4 teams going in. That's exactly half of the games.


Did any of the underdogs win? 2011 had the 5 seed win (impossible in your 4 seed method). 2015 was only a 2 point loss, so a great game that couldn't have happened without a larger playoff.

The FCS history shows something quite different to what you are saying it does. You're just ignoring most of the facts.

The end result being that the top seeded teams are normally represented in the championship games and normally win doesn't mean the playoffs shouldn't happen. It just means that they happen to be the best teams from start to finish on the year. The results that have someone from outside the top 4 making it (and in one case, winning) show why playoffs are important: it gives hope to more teams and fans. It allows for teams that would normally be shut out from post seasons and potential championship runs to get that history under their belt, with more prestige. It allows the players to prove themselves more against top competition to potentially give them an edge over others for future drafts. It allows for more football to be played and for it to be proven on the field.

(12-10-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 10:45 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 09:36 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 06:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the point of having an elaborate 24 team playoff when the same team wins every year?

What an odd question.

The point of a playoff is to determine a champion entirely based on on field/court/ice results, as opposed to the beauty pageant that is college football.

Never seen someone question larger playoff tourney's based solely on results.

Why have a 12 team playoff if the Pats always win?

Why have a 16 team playoff when Golden State and Cleveland were sonning everyone for 4 straight years?

Why have a 68 team bball tourney when Duke,UNC, Kansas, and UK are going to make the FF/win championships more often than other teams?


Actually proving it on the field is the reason. Dont know why the desire to prove things on the field rather than by a closed door committee/biased coaches/sportswriters rankles and confuses so many CFB fans

But you could accomplish the same thing with a 4-team playoff. The 24-team playoff is a ruse if the same team is just going to mow through it again and again and again.

And that's what FCS history shows.

The 2017 playoff involved an unseeded Youngstown State playing against the 4 seed. Youngstown would not have been able to play in the championship game without it being 24 seed (they likely wouldn't have even made it at 16 seeds).

2015 was the 2 seed vs. the 5 seed. 4 wouldn't have allowed for that.

2014 was the 1 seed vs. the 7 seed.

2013 was the 1 seed vs. an unseeded team.

2011 was 3 vs. 5


Those are the instances, since the expansion from 16 teams, where the championship game wasn't played by two top 4 teams going in. That's exactly half of the games.


Did any of the underdogs win? 2011 had the 5 seed win (impossible in your 4 seed method). 2015 was only a 2 point loss, so a great game that couldn't have happened without a larger playoff.

The FCS history shows something quite different to what you are saying it does. You're just ignoring most of the facts.

The end result being that the top seeded teams are normally represented in the championship games and normally win doesn't mean the playoffs shouldn't happen. It just means that they happen to be the best teams from start to finish on the year. The results that have someone from outside the top 4 making it (and in one case, winning) show why playoffs are important: it gives hope to more teams and fans. It allows for teams that would normally be shut out from post seasons and potential championship runs to get that history under their belt, with more prestige. It allows the players to prove themselves more against top competition to potentially give them an edge over others for future drafts. It allows for more football to be played and for it to be proven on the field.

Good work digging this up. Kudos.

But .... in one case, nine long years ago, a team ranked outside the top 4 won the FCS playoff? In how many overall years?

And actually maybe not even that. Because the "#5 seed" that won the 2010 championship (not 2011), Eastern Washington, was actually the #1 team in the FCS media poll. So somehow the seedings didn't reflect that.

I am not impressed by that. As I stated, the history of the FCS shows far more dominance by dynasties than does the CFP or BCS, despite the notion that in the CFP and BCS "the same schools win all the time", with expanded playoffs being proposed as an antidote to that.

07-coffee3

No one complained about that in the BCS, they complained mainly about lack of inclusion.

People complain about the same teams making the playoff field.

Heres the thing though, actually settling it on the field removes the right to/validity of complaints.

But hey, you seem to want to go back to the days of old where polls determined a champion based off of essentially nothing. Many others dont. Your opinion still wont be changed, coffee emoji, next topic please
12-10-2019 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 32,503
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 813
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #16
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-10-2019 11:18 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 10:45 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 09:36 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  
(12-02-2019 06:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is the point of having an elaborate 24 team playoff when the same team wins every year?

What an odd question.

The point of a playoff is to determine a champion entirely based on on field/court/ice results, as opposed to the beauty pageant that is college football.

Never seen someone question larger playoff tourney's based solely on results.

Why have a 12 team playoff if the Pats always win?

Why have a 16 team playoff when Golden State and Cleveland were sonning everyone for 4 straight years?

Why have a 68 team bball tourney when Duke,UNC, Kansas, and UK are going to make the FF/win championships more often than other teams?


Actually proving it on the field is the reason. Dont know why the desire to prove things on the field rather than by a closed door committee/biased coaches/sportswriters rankles and confuses so many CFB fans

But you could accomplish the same thing with a 4-team playoff. The 24-team playoff is a ruse if the same team is just going to mow through it again and again and again.

And that's what FCS history shows.

The 2017 playoff involved an unseeded Youngstown State playing against the 4 seed. Youngstown would not have been able to play in the championship game without it being 24 seed (they likely wouldn't have even made it at 16 seeds).

2015 was the 2 seed vs. the 5 seed. 4 wouldn't have allowed for that.

2014 was the 1 seed vs. the 7 seed.

2013 was the 1 seed vs. an unseeded team.

2011 was 3 vs. 5


Those are the instances, since the expansion from 16 teams, where the championship game wasn't played by two top 4 teams going in. That's exactly half of the games.


Did any of the underdogs win? 2011 had the 5 seed win (impossible in your 4 seed method). 2015 was only a 2 point loss, so a great game that couldn't have happened without a larger playoff.

The FCS history shows something quite different to what you are saying it does. You're just ignoring most of the facts.

The end result being that the top seeded teams are normally represented in the championship games and normally win doesn't mean the playoffs shouldn't happen. It just means that they happen to be the best teams from start to finish on the year. The results that have someone from outside the top 4 making it (and in one case, winning) show why playoffs are important: it gives hope to more teams and fans. It allows for teams that would normally be shut out from post seasons and potential championship runs to get that history under their belt, with more prestige. It allows the players to prove themselves more against top competition to potentially give them an edge over others for future drafts. It allows for more football to be played and for it to be proven on the field.

(12-10-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 10:45 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 09:36 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote:  What an odd question.

The point of a playoff is to determine a champion entirely based on on field/court/ice results, as opposed to the beauty pageant that is college football.

Never seen someone question larger playoff tourney's based solely on results.

Why have a 12 team playoff if the Pats always win?

Why have a 16 team playoff when Golden State and Cleveland were sonning everyone for 4 straight years?

Why have a 68 team bball tourney when Duke,UNC, Kansas, and UK are going to make the FF/win championships more often than other teams?


Actually proving it on the field is the reason. Dont know why the desire to prove things on the field rather than by a closed door committee/biased coaches/sportswriters rankles and confuses so many CFB fans

But you could accomplish the same thing with a 4-team playoff. The 24-team playoff is a ruse if the same team is just going to mow through it again and again and again.

And that's what FCS history shows.

The 2017 playoff involved an unseeded Youngstown State playing against the 4 seed. Youngstown would not have been able to play in the championship game without it being 24 seed (they likely wouldn't have even made it at 16 seeds).

2015 was the 2 seed vs. the 5 seed. 4 wouldn't have allowed for that.

2014 was the 1 seed vs. the 7 seed.

2013 was the 1 seed vs. an unseeded team.

2011 was 3 vs. 5


Those are the instances, since the expansion from 16 teams, where the championship game wasn't played by two top 4 teams going in. That's exactly half of the games.


Did any of the underdogs win? 2011 had the 5 seed win (impossible in your 4 seed method). 2015 was only a 2 point loss, so a great game that couldn't have happened without a larger playoff.

The FCS history shows something quite different to what you are saying it does. You're just ignoring most of the facts.

The end result being that the top seeded teams are normally represented in the championship games and normally win doesn't mean the playoffs shouldn't happen. It just means that they happen to be the best teams from start to finish on the year. The results that have someone from outside the top 4 making it (and in one case, winning) show why playoffs are important: it gives hope to more teams and fans. It allows for teams that would normally be shut out from post seasons and potential championship runs to get that history under their belt, with more prestige. It allows the players to prove themselves more against top competition to potentially give them an edge over others for future drafts. It allows for more football to be played and for it to be proven on the field.

Good work digging this up. Kudos.

But .... in one case, nine long years ago, a team ranked outside the top 4 won the FCS playoff? In how many overall years?

And actually maybe not even that. Because the "#5 seed" that won the 2010 championship (not 2011), Eastern Washington, was actually the #1 team in the FCS media poll. So somehow the seedings didn't reflect that.

I am not impressed by that. As I stated, the history of the FCS shows far more dominance by dynasties than does the CFP or BCS, despite the notion that in the CFP and BCS "the same schools win all the time", with expanded playoffs being proposed as an antidote to that.

07-coffee3

No one complained about that in the BCS, they complained mainly about lack of inclusion.

People complain about the same teams making the playoff field.

Heres the thing though, actually settling it on the field removes the right to/validity of complaints.

But hey, you seem to want to go back to the days of old where polls determined a champion based off of essentially nothing. Many others dont. Your opinion still wont be changed, coffee emoji, next topic please

"Lack of inclusion" only makes sense as a complaint if you think left-out teams were really the best and would have won. The FCS has a big expanded playoffs and yet North Dakota State wins 7 out of 8 years, something that has never come close to happening in FBS under any system.

I don't want to go back to the old poll system, I liked the BCS and like the CFP just fine. And you claim "many others" want something else, well as of now what I want prevails, LOL, so good luck with changing it.

07-coffee3
12-10-2019 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

ColumbusCard Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 107
Joined: Oct 2018
Reputation: 8
I Root For: U of L
Location:
Post: #17
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
For the time being it prevails. The push for expansion is getting stronger and stronger though.

Coffee emoji
12-10-2019 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 405
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 39
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #18
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-10-2019 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Lack of inclusion" only makes sense as a complaint if you think left-out teams were really the best and would have won. The FCS has a big expanded playoffs and yet North Dakota State wins 7 out of 8 years, something that has never come close to happening in FBS under any system.

I don't want to go back to the old poll system, I liked the BCS and like the CFP just fine. And you claim "many others" want something else, well as of now what I want prevails, LOL, so good luck with changing it.

07-coffee3

You're completely ignoring the fact that just being included is a massive victory for the university and the students. It doesn't matter who won. There were teams and players that made some noise that could help improve their trajectory moving forward.

A team that has never made a playoff, or a run in a playoff, won't be able to use it as a recruiting chip. Conversely, if an unseeded team makes it to a championship then it can be used in the future as "they underestimated us once, you can help us make sure they won't underestimate us again."

If a player is borderline to be drafted and then has no playoffs to go to, that's it. If there's a playoff to go to, and potentially make some noise in, they can improved their standings and potentially make their way into a future in the sport they love.


You keep skipping directly to the end results and completely bypass everything that comes with getting to them.
12-10-2019 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
e-parade Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 405
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 39
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #19
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-10-2019 11:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Good work digging this up. Kudos.

But .... in one case, nine long years ago, a team ranked outside the top 4 won the FCS playoff? In how many overall years?

And actually maybe not even that. Because the "#5 seed" that won the 2010 championship (not 2011), Eastern Washington, was actually the #1 team in the FCS media poll. So somehow the seedings didn't reflect that.

I am not impressed by that. As I stated, the history of the FCS shows far more dominance by dynasties than does the CFP or BCS, despite the notion that in the CFP and BCS "the same schools win all the time", with expanded playoffs being proposed as an antidote to that.

07-coffee3

If you want to use the polls instead of the seeds, then the 2017 championship game (2016 season) was between #13 and #5, with #5 winning.

There you go, both representatives from outside the top 4 (going into the playoffs).
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2019 11:59 AM by e-parade.)
12-10-2019 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 32,503
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 813
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #20
RE: FCS Teams Break Down For Playoffs
(12-10-2019 11:52 AM)e-parade Wrote:  
(12-10-2019 11:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Lack of inclusion" only makes sense as a complaint if you think left-out teams were really the best and would have won. The FCS has a big expanded playoffs and yet North Dakota State wins 7 out of 8 years, something that has never come close to happening in FBS under any system.

I don't want to go back to the old poll system, I liked the BCS and like the CFP just fine. And you claim "many others" want something else, well as of now what I want prevails, LOL, so good luck with changing it.

07-coffee3

You're completely ignoring the fact that just being included is a massive victory for the university and the students. It doesn't matter who won. There were teams and players that made some noise that could help improve their trajectory moving forward.

A team that has never made a playoff, or a run in a playoff, won't be able to use it as a recruiting chip. Conversely, if an unseeded team makes it to a championship then it can be used in the future as "they underestimated us once, you can help us make sure they won't underestimate us again."

If a player is borderline to be drafted and then has no playoffs to go to, that's it. If there's a playoff to go to, and potentially make some noise in, they can improved their standings and potentially make their way into a future in the sport they love.


You keep skipping directly to the end results and completely bypass everything that comes with getting to them.

I've skipped that part because I didn't think anyone was serious about it, but since you insist: So ... you like your local end of year Little League awards picnic having a table crowded with participation trophies for everyone, right?

OK, that's probably an exaggeration, but you get the point: Playoffs shouldn't be designed so that more schools have "Feel Good" moments or whatever, they should be designed to crown a worthy champion. Occam's Razor should apply.

And we already have than now anyway - 40 bowl games where even 3-5 MAC teams get to go.
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2019 12:00 PM by quo vadis.)
12-10-2019 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.