Playoffs

[jackmd]

Re: Playoffs

No. SDSU is not a bus ride away from Butler. There is a thread over at AGS about the success of regionalization. 6 of 8 in 1st round, and 9 of 16 possible 2nd round games are bus rides (< 400 miles apart). What area has flights? Big Sky conference in with 4 teams. Jacks were doomed to play the 1st round vs a Big Sky team, no getting around it.

The glaring problem that is being ignored in the regional conversation is the presence of only 2 teams for the best conference in FCS. THIS IS THE PROBLEM PEOPLE. The bias against the midwest teams is pervasive and drives all of these decisions. Tenn St. and Butler shouldn't even be in the playoffs, autobid aside. Butler is not one of the best 24 teams. Big Sky deserved no more than 3 teams. The MVFC could have easily had 5 in and should have had no less than 3.

Regionalization is a fact of FCS life. Once the teams are slotted to be in the playoffs seeding is way more about saving money than being fair. Other than the the top 4 seeds the rest is about cash.

The MVFC powers that be had better start working right now to have greater influence over their peers in the south and on the east coast. End of rant, nothing will change, gotta win more games.

[rabidrabbit]

Re: Playoffs

And that is probably why Butler got a home game, geography is good, and they probably bid more then Tenn St.

The fact of the matter is SDSU didn't have enough fans show up last year to justify spending $ on a bid.

Tenn St did NOT BID. Neither did Samford.

[Nidaros]

Re: Playoffs

The committee work is done, like or not, we have to step up to the plate and hit a home run.

[rabidrabbit]

Re: Playoffs

No. SDSU is not a bus ride away from Butler. There is a thread over at AGS about the success of regionalization. 6 of 8 in 1st round, and 9 of 16 possible 2nd round games are bus rides (< 400 miles apart). What area has flights? Big Sky conference in with 4 teams. Jacks were doomed to play the 1st round vs a Big Sky team, no getting around it.

[joeboo22]

Re: Playoffs

Here's some reasoning behind Butler hosting a playoff game from TSN.

"Butler and the Pioneer Football League must love this playoff thing. Not only is Butler in the field as the first PFL qualifier, but the Butler Bowl will play host to a first-round game even though the Bulldogs' average attendance (2,709) is less than a quarter of Tennessee State's average. TSU, enduring declining attendance at LP Field in Nashville, didn't bid to host a Thanksgiving weekend game even though the stadium had availability."

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/t...spx?id=4642881

So geography helped them. I wonder if SDSU had not played Butler already this year if Butler would not have been the opponent

[YanktonJack7]

Re: Playoffs

But that is exactly the point. You should have to earn your seed and hosting, not buy it or get lucky because of where you happen to play your home games in front of no people. Butler is an example of just how screwed up it is.

Here's some reasoning behind Butler hosting a playoff game from TSN.

"Butler and the Pioneer Football League must love this playoff thing. Not only is Butler in the field as the first PFL qualifier, but the Butler Bowl will play host to a first-round game even though the Bulldogs' average attendance (2,709) is less than a quarter of Tennessee State's average. TSU, enduring declining attendance at LP Field in Nashville, didn't bid to host a Thanksgiving weekend game even though the stadium had availability."

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/t...spx?id=4642881

[sfjacksfan99]

Re: Playoffs

Two things...One, IMO, losing money on one playoff game means very little, but I'm not the one balancing the budget. The athletic department should look at it like this...you want to sell more season tickets (and thus make more guaranteed money every year)...win playoff games...what's the easiest way to win a playoff game...play at home. At this point I think the Jackrabbbits would kick the piss out of any of the non-seeded teams at CAS.

Second thing, and this is a sarcastic shot at the Big Sky, let's get that out of the way now. Maybe the Valley should add some dogsh*t teams to pad the records of the top teams and get more teams in the playoffs and get more seeds. Because of how many teams are in the Big Sky they don't get to play all of the awful teams, but they don't play all of the top teams either. NAU didn't play EWU, but they played 3 of the bottom 4 who have a combined 4 conference wins. Hey, I'd take a second version of Indiana St on Hobo Day versus SIU. Maybe the Jacks would be the #8 seed (or better) then. I would imagine every team in the Valley is begging the Jacks to go for back-to-back wins against the Big Sky to prove this theory right. I know I can't wait/hope to see Montana go to the Fargodome in the quarterfinals.

[Bozemaniac]

Re: Playoffs

One other aspect to the bidding/hosting in the playoffs is that if the athletic department wants to grow our playoff attendance, we need to be hosting playoff games regularly. The team did its part by making it to the playoffs again (and for the 3rd time in 5 seasons). The new stadium will be a huge boost to future playoff appearances/home bids.

[NoVaJack]

Re: Playoffs

[QUOTE=Bozemaniac;240635]I wish they'd seed the whole tournament, and travel costs be damned.[/QUO

I agree totally with this.

[NoVaJack]

Re: Playoffs

I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up Bulter. Nova went off on them in that post, and yeah, their attendance sucks, but them getting a home game has nothing to do with us getting or not getting one.

But that is exactly the point. You should have to earn your seed and hosting, not buy it or get lucky because of where you happen to play your home games in front of no people. Butler is an example of just how screwed up it is.

[NoVaJack]

Re: Playoffs

And that is probably why Butler got a home game, geography is good, and they probably bid more then Tenn St.

The fact of the matter is SDSU didn't have enough fans show up last year to justify spending $ on a bid.

Do you know this for a fact? Otherwise, it's just speculation and is placing the blame at the wrong place to boot.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Playoffs

I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up Bulter. Nova went off on them in that post, and yeah, their attendance sucks, but them getting a home game has nothing to do with us getting or not getting one.

[joeboo22]

Re: Playoffs

And that is probably why Butler got a home game, geography is good, and they probably bid more then Tenn St.

The fact of the matter is SDSU didn't have enough fans show up last year to justify spending $ on a bid.

[YanktonJack7]

Re: Playoffs

Here's what YSU AD Ron Strollo said about picking teams for the home games. He served on the committee before.

"Q. When it comes to bids on home games, what are the things they look at?

A. It starts with seeding the top eight, because the top eight won’t have to play that first week. And we won’t be part of that top eight.

So they take the next 16 and literally try to match them up geographically. And obviously they can’t match up conference schools. So once they have them all matched up, they start trying to place them in brackets, so you look at the likely winner of that [first-round] game, where would they go to play so you can control the cost.

Once the bracket is done, they’ll go through and open the two bids between the two teams. And whoever has the higher bid, as long as the facility is adequate, they’ll more than likely get the home game. So, you could be the 24th team in, but if you bid enough, you can still be at home."

http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/nov/2...ayoff-process/

[TK22867]

Re: Playoffs

If the bids were equal then they can probably pick however they want, likely based on things like expected attendance (ours was not great last year), the Skydome mitigating weather concerns to help boost ticket sales (snowing right now in Flagstaff), or placement in whatever ranking they want to look at (SRS most likely). NAU was not seeded higher than the Jackrabbits. Both teams are unseeded for the purposes of the hosting rules that refer to seeds. Neither is higher or lower than the other.

#7 requires all potential host institutions to at least include the minimum. If both schools do that, how does the home site not get decided fully by #9?

Edit: Or is #9 used strictly for games after the 2nd round that could potentially involve 2 "seeded" teams? Mission accomplished NCAA. My head is spinning.

Edit #2: I am coming around to Bozemaniac's line of thinking. Teams were not "seeded" for round 1. We were most likely outbid.