East Region Fan Poll

[Charles]

Invite 56 teams and start 1 week earlier, eliminate the early games (scrimmages), play an unbalanced schedule if need be and maybe most schools would be happy. That may also help with the regionalization theory by giving byes to the top 2 seeds in each region.

[Bombers798891]

If you did not win your conference, you have not "earned" the right to compete for the national championship, no matter what your excuse is (our QB was hurt, we lost in overtime on the road, etcet).  Yes, occasionally this will omit a VERY GOOD team from the playoffs, but how is that any better than arbitrarily deciding that a weak-conference champion isn't good enough just because we said so?

Solid post. I have one question though:

We arbitrarily decide teams aren't good enough for the playoffs all the time—that's how at-large bids work. If it's good enough for Pool C teams, why can't it be good enough for possible Pool A teams? What's so sacred about winning the conference that puts it above a second look?

[jknezek]

Invite 56 teams and start 1 week earlier, eliminate the early games (scrimmages), play an unbalanced schedule if need be and maybe most schools would be happy. That may also help with the regionalization theory by giving byes to the top 2 seeds in each region.

We start 8 weeks earlier and 240 teams are included. It's called conference games. Think of conferences as small regions. The winners of the conferences progress after a round-robin opening round. That's why it's important for conference winners to make the tournament. I would do away with Pool C before I started arbitrarily deciding which weak conferences don't deserve an A. I've always believed you need to win your conference before you can win the national title. It's why I don't like wildcards (generally at the pro level completely for monetary purposes. MLB you massive sellout...). How ridiculous to have a team hoisting a national title banner and having an empty space where the conference title should have been...

[ExTartanPlayer]

We arbitrarily decide teams aren't good enough for the playoffs all the time—that's how at-large bids work. If it's good enough for Pool C teams, why can't it be good enough for possible Pool A teams? What's so sacred about winning the conference that puts it above a second look?

Fair point.

My counter to that argument is that the Pool C teams already had their chance to get into the playoffs - they could have won their own conference's Pool A bid.

If you leave, say, the NEFC/ECFC conference champion out of the field just because they play in a weak conference, you've now essentially told them that (once the season started and the schedule was fixed*) there was NOTHING they could have done to earn a playoff berth.  They had no access whatsoever.  That's very different than the case of a Pool C team, which theoretically DID have access to a playoff berth.

*I'm discounting arguments like "they could have played a harder schedule!" or "they could have joined a harder conference!" because those would be off-season, long-term moves.  I'm talking strictly about what happens from the first snap in September to the last snap in November.

To me, again, that's the great thing about the NCAA basketball tournament.  When the conference tournaments tip off, EVERY TEAM has a path to get into the national title game.  Just win the games in front of you.  Taking away AQ's removes that, and puts us completely into the land of the hypothetical; there will be teams that no longer have guaranteed access.

Since football is a once-a-week game, a conference tournament is impractical; thus, the regular-season conference schedule acts as your "conference tournament."  Win them all and you should be in.

[Bombers798891]

Fair point.

If you leave, say, the NEFC/ECFC conference champion out of the field just because they play in a weak conference, you've now essentially told them that (once the season started and the schedule was fixed*) there was NOTHING they could have done to earn a playoff berth.  They had no access whatsoever.  That's very different than the case of a Pool C team, which theoretically DID have access to a playoff berth.

*I'm discounting arguments like "they could have played a harder schedule!" or "they could have joined a harder conference!" because those would be off-season, long-term moves.  I'm talking strictly about what happens from the first snap in September to the last snap in November.

To me, again, that's the great thing about the NCAA basketball tournament.  When the conference tournaments tip off, EVERY TEAM has a path to get into the national title game.  Just win the games in front of you.  Taking away AQ's removes that, and puts us completely into the land of the hypothetical; there will be teams that no longer have guaranteed access.

Since football is a once-a-week game, a conference tournament is impractical; thus, the regular-season conference schedule acts as your "conference tournament."  Win them all and you should be in.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the value of winning them all vs. playing a tougher schedule. I understand your point, but I think we have a fundamental difference in how we view things. It's cool. Good debate.

[Frank Rossi]

Ralph, nothing you've said, or anyone else for that matter, has addressed the problem with raising the Pool A minimum to nine-team conferences.  There are several conferences utilizing "football-only members" to achieve seven.  Why not raise the threshold and perhaps cause other "NEFC" formats by two weaker conferences nervous about the prospect of no Pool B or C bids joining and adding a championship game of their own?  It's still fair access, but it ensures sufficient at-large slots that would allow the 2010 Rowans of this world (which was more a #15/16 team last year, I believe) to get in.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Ralph, nothing you've said, or anyone else for that matter, has addressed the problem with raising the Pool A minimum to nine-team conferences.  There are several conferences utilizing "football-only members" to achieve seven. 

If that occurs, won't you guys just keep whining about how conferences like ECFC/UMAC can just grab a new football-playing school and waltz into a Pool A bid?  Suppose that Gallaudet and St. Vincent joined the ECFC to get them up to nine.  Will that really change how you feel?

I'm not entirely opposed to raising the limit, but I think it's difficult from a practicality standpoint; there aren't that many "free radicals" floating around that will turn seven-team conferences into nine-team ones.

If that is accomplished, and weak conferences do the NEFC dance and join up to stage a conference title game...aren't we just forcing those teams to start the playoffs a week early?

[lewdogg11]

The NEFC has 16 teams fighting for a Playoff spot in which they get an automatic 1.  I'm ok with this.  BUT, why doesn't the NCAA take advantage of this model, and take some crappy conferences, or even struggling conferences, and pit them up against each other to put the winner of each conference in 'play-in' game.  Like before the season, the NCAA picks the LL and the ECFC, who had poor playoff results last year, and say they need to play each other for the Pool A.  This eliminates a few Pool A teams, and opens up a few spots for Pool B and C.  And the format changes yearly of who plays who based on past season results.

[Frank Rossi]

Raising the conference minimum would likely accomplish that, LD.

[lewdogg11]

Raising the conference minimum would likely accomplish that, LD.

Raising the conference minimum sucks though because it cuts out OOC games and creates NEFC type of 'inbred' issues.   I'd rather see a 6-7 game in conference schedule and 2-4 OOC matchups.

[Frank Rossi]

Raising the conference minimum would likely accomplish that, LD.

Raising the conference minimum sucks though because it cuts out OOC games and creates NEFC type of 'inbred' issues.   I'd rather see a 6-7 game in conference schedule and 2-4 OOC matchups.

That's an equation for 4- and 5-loss teams winning AQs, though.

[lewdogg11]

Raising the conference minimum would likely accomplish that, LD.

Raising the conference minimum sucks though because it cuts out OOC games and creates NEFC type of 'inbred' issues.   I'd rather see a 6-7 game in conference schedule and 2-4 OOC matchups.

That's an equation for 4- and 5-loss teams winning AQs, though.

Yeah vs. the equation for SUNY-Maritime's of the world getting top seeds.

[Frank Rossi]

Raising the conference minimum would likely accomplish that, LD.

Raising the conference minimum sucks though because it cuts out OOC games and creates NEFC type of 'inbred' issues.   I'd rather see a 6-7 game in conference schedule and 2-4 OOC matchups.

That's an equation for 4- and 5-loss teams winning AQs, though.

Yeah vs. the equation for SUNY-Maritime's of the world getting top seeds.

That's a whole separate question -- Committee inability to differentiate relative conference strength.

[lewdogg11]

Raising the conference minimum would likely accomplish that, LD.

Raising the conference minimum sucks though because it cuts out OOC games and creates NEFC type of 'inbred' issues.   I'd rather see a 6-7 game in conference schedule and 2-4 OOC matchups.

That's an equation for 4- and 5-loss teams winning AQs, though.

Yeah vs. the equation for SUNY-Maritime's of the world getting top seeds.

That's a whole separate question -- Committee inability to differentiate relative conference strength.

How can you when they only play each other?

[Bombers798891]

Raising the conference minimum would likely accomplish that, LD.

Raising the conference minimum sucks though because it cuts out OOC games and creates NEFC type of 'inbred' issues.   I'd rather see a 6-7 game in conference schedule and 2-4 OOC matchups.

That's an equation for 4- and 5-loss teams winning AQs, though.

Yeah vs. the equation for SUNY-Maritime's of the world getting top seeds.

But, truthfully, the Maritime example is an extreme one because of the specifics of that conference makeup. There were, frankly speaking, eight really bad teams in that conference. Most conferences would have at least a few above-average members, so you wouldn't have a 10-0 team that wasn't really any good.