Here's an opinion on the situation that I found interested. It's long but bare with it. Notice what he said about the SWAC at the end.
The Play-off Selections...
Our Take: pete's
Needless to say, I have received a great deal of comments on our contention, that no one conference should receive four (4) play-off bids. This was actually quite gratifying to know that this many people look at the site enough to care about an opinion. However, this is only 1 man?s (myself) opinion. Unlike other I-AA pundits, I am not egotistical enough to think that my words mean much to anyone else & have little actual impact on I-AA football. This topic is very important to me. Most people directly involved in I-AA (fans and media alike) have habits of seeing ignorance and/or irrelevance as virtues. So, as not to be misconstrued as one of these, I will provide a more deep explanation of my opinion.
I) There seems to be some consensus that I am against the Southern Conference, as I am against four teams being granted a bid from any single conference... so let's get the facts straight... I am NOT against the SoCon receiving a fourth selection ... I AM AGAINST "ANY" CONFERENCE RECEIVING A FOURTH SELECTION. Any other conference fan would say the same thing if it was happening to them.
II) I do not think the upper-portion of the SoCon is a weaker Conference than any other, obviously they have 4 clubs in our top-20. Likewise, I do not feel that the conference, overall, is any more superior than several others. It is not that the SoCon is being punished for being "superior". It is the simple fact that no SoCon team "took charge" of their conference. If you are being punished ... it is YOUR OWN fault ... no one else's. Should you be rewarded for weaker bottom half than many other conferences? It can be seen both ways.
II) Many readers feel that this is a temporary situation and need only occur because this year's I-AA performance is so weak. Well, guess what ... this year is far from unique ... so any decisions of this magnitude will impact the entire division, it's regions and conferences, for years to come. Don't be so blind as to think that the option of taking 4 teams will not surface every year at some point.
III) First and foremost ? I consider the top-16 clubs in Pete?s Power Poll, to be the top-16 clubs in the land and THEY should be the play-off selections. This would include ALL four (4) of the top clubs in the SoCon. However, there are rules in place when making play-off choices; thus we have to follow them with our list. Now other Indexes and/or Polls try to predict the play-off clubs, based on accuracy against the committee?s choices. What purpose does that serve the non-betting man? Furthermore, do we honestly think that I-AA is so popular that we have everyone in Vegas awaiting million$ on selection day? Who is kidding whom? Pete's has it's own poll ? our poll, our choices and who cares about how close they are to the actual NCAA selection committee?s picks? It does not take an incredibly high IQ to figure out the teams that "will" make the play-off ? it is far more difficult to select the teams that "should" be in the play-off and that is what we try to do here at Pete?s. PS: for those of you that wish to know how to be 90% accurate in I-AA play-off selection picks:
1. Traditionally ? the conferences each receive a fairly set # of selections. This is the one rule that all pundits are supposed to hold secret ? the one that make them look brilliant. Here is the breakdown ? it is by region and conference. Here are the base numbers:
a. A-10 = 11 members, 2 selections.
b. Big Sky = 8 members, 2 selections.
c. Gateway = 8 members, 2 selections.
d. MEAC = 9 members, 2 selections.
e. Ohio Valley = 7 members, 2 selections.
f. Patriot = 8 members, 2 selections.
g. Southern = 9 members, 2 selections.
h. Southland = 7 members, 2 selections.
As you can see, everything is perfect. The idea is that a conference winner and runner-up from each conference are in a play-off. You see; if one made their selections from this method, they would be 87.50% correct. You are brilliant!!!! However, the two larger conferences (A-10 & SoCon) argued they have a right to an additional selection. So, the committee has to decide which conferences will lose a selection, in order to allow another ... another. They will always start with what they presume to be the weaker conferences. The A-10 will always take one of the Patriot Leagues selections. The SoCon does not have a set conference pick it can "steal" ? thus the controversy begins.
Let?s look at the entire division we call I-AA. The NCAA divides the country into 4 regions ? East, Central, South and West. This is important, as it determines which teams will play which other teams in the play-off. Now, within these regions, there are also conferences. The East has, automatic bid, play-off 2 conferences within it (the A-10 and the Patriot League). The Central also has 2, automatic bid, play-off conferences within it (the Gateway and the Ohio Valley). The South "technically" has, 2 automatic bid, play-off conferences within it (the SoCon and the MEAC), while the West "technically" has 2, automatic bid, play-off conferences (in the Big Sky and Southland). Why do I say "technically"? Well, the state of Louisiana is considered part of the South region ? yet the two top teams from the Southland are from that state. Just something to think about. The committee will almost always try to have equal representation for all 4 regions, but not necessarily to each conference.
Above you see what traditionally happens when a particular conference receives a third bid. If the A-10 receives a 3rd bid, it is almost always taken from the Patriot League. This is why the PL will almost never receive more than a single bid. The same occurs in the South region, as the SoCon (when given a third bid) will almost always take it from the MEAC. Let us take this one step further, by giving the SoCon a fourth bid. Are we going to deny the MEAC a bid? No, that is why each of these conferences has guaranteed selections, so the MEAC has to have at least one. So, where does the selection committee take the 4th bid? It cannot be the A-10 ? and it cannot be the final bid from the PL, as they also have a single guaranteed bid. It will have to come from the OVC, GFC, SFC or BSC. They could deny the A-10 a third invitation and the PL a second, then give it to the SoCon. Now add one additional important factor. The NCAA Division I-AA play-off is divided in half ? theoretically Eastern US vs. Western US. Well, guess what? The West only has 2 (realistically 1.5 conferences). This is why they will almost never take from the Southland and Big Sky. As it is now, many Eastern US schools travel westward to fill the brackets ... so the more SFC & BSC teams they can select, eliminate travel and increase regional interest. In all fairness, many are saying that because Northwestern St. is from the state of LA ... it is a natural choice to drop them. Well?? The only argument the top-4 teams in the SoCon have for going "4-deep" is performance ... individual and conference. Let's look at that.
Points ... Wofford fell to VMI & won a "close one", 7-6, to S. Carolina St. ... a team that is now 6-5 and in 5th place in the MEAC. Yes, that same conference that you feel is too week to have more than 1 bid to the play-off. Delaware (6-5 with no play-off hope) beat GSU and then lost, the next week, to 2-9 SoCon member ...the Citadel. The lower portion of the SoCon beat no one (outside of the conference & DII's) while the Gateway lower half took IA E. Michigan into OT, defeated Hampton, defeated Stephen F. Austin, defeated Murray St (two different clubs), lost to IA Ball St & Eastern Illinois by less than 10-points combined. All of this, despite having losing records and hailing from a conference that clearly deserves only 2 bids and many are saying that they should lose one of these to help give the SoCon a fourth? Sorry, makes no sense at all and borders on ridiculous. Another of the weaker conference members that you want to steal a bid from (the PL) Holy Cross, took Harvard "down to the wire" and defeated Army, this despite being in the lower half of the Patriot. Say, since the Citadel and VMI both beat Wofford ... let's take them as well!
What is a possible solution? Try this.
1) Make the play-off truly regional and require 4 clubs from each region, in addition to existing conference guarantees.
2) Use the conference rankings in selecting the Automatic bids only. Seeds and "at-large" bids should only come from over-all records and existing standards.
3) In conjunction with #1 ... ALL play-off selections from a single conference, that are above a quantity of 2 ... MUST reduce the other conference (in that region) "at-large" selection quantity.
4) All independent clubs will be assigned to a region in as equal a quantity as possible. This may mean that a school has regional representation outside of their area.
5) Beyond the above ... Consider adding 8 more teams to the play-off. The #1 seed in each region will receive a "by week" and then meet the lowest seed remaining club in week 2 in a guaranteed home game. This will help to encourage maximum performance and allow for 5 clubs from each region. The purpose of this extra bid is to encourage the selection of Mid-Major candidates and assure top-seeds will advance at least 1 level and most likely two levels in the play-off. However, it will add an additional week to the play-off.
Pete?s is a place to come for ALL play-off conferences and I intend to keep it that way. I hold no animosity against any conference; this includes the Southern (SoCon). However, this does not mean I am an idiot & think the conference has anywhere near the depth of other conferences. This is why they are down in fifth in Pete?s Conference poll ? the lower clubs detract from the upper. Seems simple enough to me. Seldom, in recent times, has any team (outside of the "big-3") been even "mildly" competitive ? now when one of these "big-3" fail to take control and a 4th party (Wofford) catches up ... are we to just take them all? Take a look at something. When did the SFC become so competitive? A: when Troy St. left. When was the SoCon anything but Marshall & GSU (usually not at the same time)? A: When Marshall left. Why did the SoCon become so closely matched this year? Because GSU had a rough first few weeks ? not because the other three clubs are ?that good? that they brought themselves up to GSU's level, but rather, they took advantage of a few "off weeks" for the Eagles at the beginning of the season. Once GSU brought themselves "up-to-speed", they easily handled ASU & Furman. If they would have done this a week earlier, they would have defeated Wofford as well and the SoCon would probably not even have a third pick, let alone 4. This year ? why was the GFC so well-balanced? Because YSU & UNI fell apart. Why is it that Idaho St. and Montana St. have suddenly become so competitive in the Big Sky? Because, EWU and N. Arizona are not as strong as usual. This will always happen, when conferences and teams compete, so this is NOT an "unusual" year. Why was UNI, WKU & YSU so tightly "bunched" last year? Because WIU had a poor year. Should we keep going back 1 year at a time, or have I made my point? Want to throw a real issue into the mix? In 1990, YSU was an independent, with a record and schedule strength high enough to make the play-off. Did they deserve it? You know the answer to that one, or at least the members of the SoCon should. Will more issues occur in the future? Well, you will not recognize the OVC, GFC and BSC in a few years. We already had 1 conference drop out of the play-off and split the conference. The SWAC now has a championship that has larger game attendance and a larger TV audience than the I-AA final. How many more conferences that are "jilted" by the system will do the same? Want a hint? The A-10 splits next year into two regions ... what do you think is their next logical step? Just because I think of I-AA in it's entirety ... does not mean I hate the SoCon...or any other conference. Regionalism is crucial, as HS players need to know that they can go to any of a number of I-AA conferences and be recognized in a potential play-off situation ... and saying "I'm better than you", so I deserve more ... is a pretty poor excuse to destroy the play-off system.
