So how did the committee do?

[Horror Child]

With regard to the last part. Yes, Lindenwood did prove people wrong by beating OBU, but at the same time I think it is very fair to use that as an example of the system doesn't work. OBU looked like a great team because they were 11-0. The problem is there was no comparison between the GAC an any other conference because the GAC plays an 11 game conference schedule. When you don't play outside the conference you can look better than you may be in reality because of the competition you face.

I really think this is one of the biggest problems in D2 football right now. We can't determine how good the teams are because too many conferences play no outside competition until the post-season.

The GAC simply becomes this years example as two top ten ranked teams lost to lower ranked teams in the opening round (granted 1 was NWMSU).

I'm not trying to get on the GAC for their format, but it is a problem across D2. When you -play so many conference games it makes it nearly impossible to accurately select the best teams, thus the computer based system (WP, OWP, OOWP) is so important. Unfortunately that doesn't tell how good a team really is.

Let's not forget half the region's conferences don't see teams outside the conference during the season. The only conference vs conference games were between the GLIAC and the GLVC. Is it fair to see those two conferences beat each other up while the other two don't get any comparison?

The GLIAC managed to get a slight edge over the GLVC by virtue of a 5-3 non-conference game record this season, but that still isn't the same as not playing a non-conference game.

One of the other reasons I think the current system (regional/super regional needs to go) happened up in SR1. 5 schools from one conference get in while one conference doesn't get a team in and the others get 1 each.

Let's look at the PSAC for a minute after they get 5 teams in.

1) SRU - Went undefeated and obviously deserves to get in. (Beat the GLIAC runner up non-conference)

2) Shepherd - 9-2 season. The two losses were a non-conference loss to ODU and a conference loss to Kutztown.

3) IUP 10-1 season. One loss was to SRU.

4) Kutztown - 10-1 season, one loss to SRU.

5) West Chester 9-2, loss to Shepherd and Kutztown

Why did this happen? In my opinion is was due to volume. You have 16 teams, each of whom plays 10 games against PSAC opponents. Keeping the schedule in house can do one of two things. It can allow the cream to rise to the top, as it did this season in the PSAC, or it can beat a conference up (the NE10 is an example). What it isn't is fair to the other conferences who have to play them.

How good was the GMAC this season in comparison to the PSAC? Based on the on field regular season games, they were equal. They split the two games. ODU beat Shepherd and Lake Erie beat Mercyhurst.

When teams compared for post-season positioning can't be compared on the field, there is an issue.

I can tell you a much better comparison between the GLIAC and the GMAC, (GLIAC 5-2) but that doesn't do anyone any good because of the regional system.


Something needs to change to the system so we can actually compare the teams and get the best teams into the post-season. We need a committee that actually looks at the teams and determined who should be the at-large teams rather than the current system which doesn't get the best teams into the post-season in my opinion.

Can you elaborate on why it's not "fair"?

It's interesting that you cite a sample size of two games between the GMAC and the PSAC, but overlook that the NE10 went 1-6 against the PSAC. And some of those games weren't throw away contests like Lake Erie vs Mercyhurst. If New Haven beat IUP, they would have been in the playoffs. If Bentley had beaten West Chester, West Chester certainly would not have been in the playoffs. And Pace, 7-3 in 2018 and 6-4 in 2019, was one of just two wins for Millersville this season.

The PSAC has the best approach to scheduling under the current circumstances. The NCAA requires a minimum of ten games to qualify for the playoffs and the PSAC ensures all if its teams fulfill that requirement, while still providing one open date for schools to compete against non-conference opponents. This is unlike conferences whose members struggle to meet the minimum games required (NE10, GMAC) or have no non-conference opponents (NSIC).

Finally, just due to the fact that the NCAA uses a regional model, shows that their objective isn't to get the best teams into the post season.

[EastStroud13]

How good was the GMAC this season in comparison to the PSAC? Based on the on field regular season games, they were equal. They split the two games. ODU beat Shepherd and Lake Erie beat Mercyhurst.

When teams compared for post-season positioning can't be compared on the field, there is an issue.

I know it was your intent, but Mercyhurst beat Lake Erie.

ODU was doomed by only playing 9 games. If they had finished 9-2 like Shepherd or WCU, I would expect that they would have gotten in over WCU. All other teams had 4 or more losses, and 4-loss teams just aren't making the playoffs.

All things equal, the GMAC is similar to the PSAC on a team-by-team basis. But the GMAC has 8 teams and the PSAC has 16, so naturally you would expect the PSAC to get more teams in. If ODU had actually played a full schedule and gotten in, there would be 2 GMAC teams and 4 PSAC teams, which is the exact ratio of conference size, and the point is moot.