Playoff Hosting

[Mr_Tibbs]

They're talking about this on the national board, but I thought I'd bring it up here. In reading this article, it sounds to me like the 8 bid sites for first round playoff games may not necessarily be at host institutions? Am I reading this right. It's also odd that they are taking bids from 16 teams on April 6, as opposed to bids from a larger number since playoffs haven't been set.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...ds-fcs-playoff

If I'm understanding it right and host stadiums are selected based on bid and covid readiness, I wonder how this impacts the actual games themselves. Or is it that they are taking bids from neutral stadiums only? As in, 8 sites deemed to be geographically spread out across the country, similar to how ncaa basketball normally does it.

Maybe it's the same as always and I'm just not understanding it correctly, but it seems different.

[jakejc795]

They're talking about this on the national board, but I thought I'd bring it up here. In reading this article, it sounds to me like the 8 bid sites for first round playoff games may not necessarily be at host institutions? Am I reading this right. It's also odd that they are taking bids from 16 teams on April 6, as opposed to bids from a larger number since playoffs haven't been set.

https://www.ncaa.org/about/resources...ds-fcs-playoff

If I'm understanding it right and host stadiums are selected based on bid and covid readiness, I wonder how this impacts the actual games themselves. Or is it that they are taking bids from neutral stadiums only? As in, 8 sites deemed to be geographically spread out across the country, similar to how ncaa basketball normally does it.

Maybe it's the same as always and I'm just not understanding it correctly, but it seems different.

A couple minor points, bids must be received by April 5 (not April 6 as you'd posted -- the 6th is the day sites will be identified), and "team evaluation" will apparently be one factor, to reduce the risk of a host site not fielding a team in the playoffs.

This could be especially interesting in the Valley because 3-4 teams may bid but only two to three make the playoffs, and the committee won't have probative evaluation metrics because none will play before the materials will be received or sites identified the following day

[Mr_Tibbs]

In reading that link, it sounds like they for sure will try to select sites based on teams likely to be in the field, but there may be scenarios where a host institution doesn't have a team playing. This brings up a few interesting points.

First, teams likely to be in the field will have extra incentive to put in a bid, while bubble teams won't, since they could be stuck hosting a game in which their school isn't participating.

Second, how much does Regionalism impact all this? If a state is limiting fan attendance more than another, but still under the NCAA 25% cap, will they put in an aggressive bid? For example, SDSU can place a bid based on an allowed 25% capacity. But if, say, Delaware is under restrictions for a maximum of 10%, will they be outbid? With likely host sites in ND, SD, Texas, and Utah, I can see the east coast teams having harder time getting a bid since many of their states are under harsher fan restrictions.

Third, is it all about the nest 8 bids and covid readiness? Will domes have harder time due to indoor environments? As I mentioned above, if it comes down to just the money, that probably gives a distinct advantage to southern and western teams hosting.

On the flip side, how much emphasis will be placed on regional balance, so that teams aren't flying across the country? In the example above, would Delaware receive the bid over SDSU since UND and NDSU put in bids as well and the committe doesn't want half the games hosted in the Dakotas?

Finally, (and I don't think this is likely), SDSU could be "hosting" games in a stadium other than DJD, or even in South Dakota. Will South Dakota's less than great covid reputation harm them when putting in a bid?

[mnjackrbt]

If COVID safety truly is the NCAA's priority, then wouldn't you avoid neutral sites? Seems a lot safer to have only 1 team travel and be on planes, buses, hotels, restaurants, etc. than 2 teams to a neutral site. I understand the NCAA basketball tournament, being that you can play multiple games a week unlike football.

[jakejc795]

If COVID safety truly is the NCAA's priority, then wouldn't you avoid neutral sites? Seems a lot safer to have only 1 team travel and be on planes, buses, hotels, restaurants, etc. than 2 teams to a neutral site. I understand the NCAA basketball tournament, being that you can play multiple games a week unlike football.

Another perspective is that neutral sites would allow more control over both teams' testing/tracing regimens, and they could make travel more equitable (e.g., both teams would be subject to transmission risks associated with travel).

[jakejc795]

In reading that link, it sounds like they for sure will try to select sites based on teams likely to be in the field, but there may be scenarios where a host institution doesn't have a team playing. This brings up a few interesting points.

First, teams likely to be in the field will have extra incentive to put in a bid, while bubble teams won't, since they could be stuck hosting a game in which their school isn't participating.

Second, how much does Regionalism impact all this? If a state is limiting fan attendance more than another, but still under the NCAA 25% cap, will they put in an aggressive bid? For example, SDSU can place a bid based on an allowed 25% capacity. But if, say, Delaware is under restrictions for a maximum of 10%, will they be outbid? With likely host sites in ND, SD, Texas, and Utah, I can see the east coast teams having harder time getting a bid since many of their states are under harsher fan restrictions.

Third, is it all about the nest 8 bids and covid readiness? Will domes have harder time due to indoor environments? As I mentioned above, if it comes down to just the money, that probably gives a distinct advantage to southern and western teams hosting.

On the flip side, how much emphasis will be placed on regional balance, so that teams aren't flying across the country? In the example above, would Delaware receive the bid over SDSU since UND and NDSU put in bids as well and the committe doesn't want half the games hosted in the Dakotas?

Finally, (and I don't think this is likely), SDSU could be "hosting" games in a stadium other than DJD, or even in South Dakota. Will South Dakota's less than great covid reputation harm them when putting in a bid?

Sure, that's their ideal, but there's no way they'll know what teams or even how many from the Valley, or the CAA for that matter, will be eligible/likely in five days. Honestly, one could say that 3/4 of the Valley teams could be "on the bubble" by 4/17, but they won't even know that until late 4/10

It'd be great if regional NFL teams would host this and make it a combined playoff/mock combine for scouts. This could also allow NFL personnel to assist with testing and tracing

Lastly, SDSU wouldn't be a "host" per se at a location other than DJD, they'd be the designated home team at a neutral site. The reason this is germane is because it means SDSU wouldn't absorb any of the added "host" costs (e.g., the bid) -- assuming the NCAA still covers travel.

[Mr_Tibbs]

I don't really understand how they can make this work while still trying to reward schools playing in the playoffs. Either accept bids from every school like a normal year and go by bid, or select 8 random sites based on covid readiness, with 8 backups depending on bracket travel or local restrictions. Seems like they are doing both, which makes it more confusing than it should be. And if it ends up that the top 4 teams aren't all playing home games, it officially makes no sense to even seed teams this year. They can claim that the seeded teams will have benefits in the matchbox for the bracket, but we all know that regionalization matters more than the teams relative strength.

[bigticket1]

Neutral sites won't draw flies right when spring is fully kicking in, and people with no connections to teams playing will be playing golf, doing yard, garden and field work, going to their kids spring sports etc.... It will likely even cut into crowds at host sites where a home team is playing.

[bigticket1]

The way things are developing, this may end up being a " never mind " thread.

[Mr_Tibbs]

The way things are developing, this may end up being a " never mind " thread.

Agreed. Based on everything Sam Herder has said and all the NCAA reaffirmments, it seems like playoffs still happen. But damn, it doesn't feel likely right now. And if they do happen, what percentage of teams are going to advance each round due to a no contest from a positive the week before, etc. The way things are going, there could be teams advancing deep into the semis by their bracket quadrant testing positive in consecutive weeks.

And for the record, I'm all in on the spring season and want it to happen. Just isn't a positive situation out there right now,, pun intended...

[jakejc795]

The way things are developing, this may end up being a " never mind " thread.

Ironically, the early bid solicitation could be a litmus test to assess genuine interest/investment in the playoffs. If bids are prohibitively low and/or there isn't interest, the NCAA could use that to support ending the season by 4/10 or 4/17.

[jakejc795]

Agreed. Based on everything Sam Herder has said and all the NCAA reaffirmments, it seems like playoffs still happen. But damn, it doesn't feel likely right now. And if they do happen, what percentage of teams are going to advance each round due to a no contest from a positive the week before, etc. The way things are going, there could be teams advancing deep into the semis by their bracket quadrant testing positive in consecutive weeks.

And for the record, I'm all in on the spring season and want it to happen. Just isn't a positive situation out there right now,, pun intended...

Selfishly, I've enjoyed being able to watch the Jacks, but I'd be in favor of nixing the playoffs to prevent another Gibbs-esque injury that severely impacts Fall competitiveness and depth and recognizes that conferences like the CAA can qualify having played fewer games.

The FCS could use an NHL-style points system for seeding/playoff host selection during the Fall. For instance, award Spring conference winners a certain number of points (e.g., three), teams who would've qualified for spring playoffs a slightly lower number (one or two), and then, if/when seeds, pairings, and sites are selected in Fall, those points could be use to break ties. The rubric could also award bonus points for playing greater than a certain number of games (e.g., five or six).

That way, the Spring season isn't a total "waste," teams who have played can earn rewards, and "Fall-only" teams won't reap a total advantage of reduced roster attrition in Fall.

[Mr_Tibbs]

Selfishly, I've enjoyed being able to watch the Jacks, but I'd be in favor of nixing the playoffs to prevent another Gibbs-esque injury that severely impacts Fall competitiveness and depth and recognizes that conferences like the CAA can qualify having played fewer games.

The FCS could use an NHL-style points system for seeding/playoff host selection during the Fall. For instance, award Spring conference winners a certain number of points (e.g., three), teams who would've qualified for spring playoffs a slightly lower number (one or two), and then, if/when seeds, pairings, and sites are selected in Fall, those points could be use to break ties. The rubric could also award bonus points for playing greater than a certain number of games (e.g., five or six).

That way, the Spring season isn't a total "waste," teams who have played can earn rewards, and "Fall-only" teams won't reap a total advantage of reduced roster attrition in Fall.

Yeah, no. Until the playoffs are officially cancelled, there is no way we should be pulling out or hoping for the playoffs to be nixed. We are on the cusp of a seed and a good run at a championship. The FCS is as wide open as its ever been, and despite all the crap and mess that is the spring season, pulling out now or hoping playoffs get canceled would be a major disservice to all the effort already put in and the commitment everyone made. I wish the FCS would have just played in the fall, but leaving the chance at a title on the table this spring is not okay.

[jakejc795]

Yeah, no. Until the playoffs are officially cancelled, there is no way we should be pulling out or hoping for the playoffs to be nixed. We are on the cusp of a seed and a good run at a championship. The FCS is as wide open as its ever been, and despite all the crap and mess that is the spring season, pulling out now or hoping playoffs get canceled would be a major disservice to all the effort already put in and the commitment everyone made. I wish we would have just played in the fall, but leaving the chance at a title on the table this spring is not okay.

So how many playoff disruptions, which would inevitably prolong the playoffs, is acceptable then?

It'd be one thing if cancellations were decreasing, but the opposite is occurring

[bigticket1]

So how many playoff disruptions, which would inevitably prolong the playoffs, is acceptable then?

It'd be one thing if cancellations were decreasing, but the opposite is occurring

If there was a consensus top 4 teams in the country, it would make sense to just go right to semi'final games and then a championship. But thing are so jumbled up with everyone playing differing numbers of games, I don't think that people would be happy with that.