Playoffs should include the best teams

[boyblue]

After the dust in the GSC settles next week there will likely be a good team with three losses on the outside of the PO looking in. This could be West Florida which is currently, statistically the third best team in D2, or West Alabama the tenth best. Every conference in our region will have at least one legitimate team in the PO, so I'm not suggesting we snub a conference rep. Our issue is we have a couple conferences that will have some 2 loss teams that are clearly not as good as a 3 loss West Florida or West Alabama.

I suggest that a deficiency in our PO system allows weaker teams to slip into those 5 to 7 slots. There has to be a way to get the best remaining teams in the region, into those three slots. If there are any 1 loss teams left, they should be given a remaining slot first, after that whether it's 1 slot or 4, the best remaining teams should get in.

My issue is with the 2's & 3's. once a team loses a second game they should fall into the performance indicator matrix. It will be clearly evident once you run the numbers that a 3 loss team could be much better than a 2 loss team.

I propose:

• The current formulation be used to select the best team from each conference if they are in the region's top 10
• All undefeated and one loss teams should also be given a slot
• After that the remaining slots be given based on performance indicators.

You might think as a two seed, that you've earned that easy 7 seed game at home, but I'm telling you, you're better served getting a solid game to prepare you for even tougher games to come.

[RedFromMI]

[NWFanatic]

[d2-football-fan]

After the dust in the GSC settles next week there will likely be a good team with three losses on the outside of the PO looking in. This could be West Florida which is currently, statistically the third best team in D2, or West Alabama the tenth best. Every conference in our region will have at least one legitimate team in the PO, so I'm not suggesting we snub a conference rep. Our issue is we have a couple conferences that will have some 2 loss teams that are clearly not as good as a 3 loss West Florida or West Alabama.

I suggest that a deficiency in our PO system allows weaker teams to slip into those 5 to 7 slots. There has to be a way to get the best remaining teams in the region, into those three slots. If there are any 1 loss teams left, they should be given a remaining slot first, after that whether it's 1 slot or 4, the best remaining teams should get in.

My issue is with the 2's & 3's. once a team loses a second game they should fall into the performance indicator matrix. It will be clearly evident once you run the numbers that a 3 loss team could be much better than a 2 loss team.

I propose:

• The current formulation be used to select the best team from each conference if they are in the region's top 10
• All undefeated and one loss teams should also be given a slot
• After that the remaining slots be given based on performance indicators.

You might think as a two seed, that you've earned that easy 7 seed game at home, but I'm telling you, you're better served getting a solid game to prepare you for even tougher games to come.

In theory, I agree with you. In my heart, I think that Mississippi College is a better than average football team. If you could drop them in any other of 6-8 conferences they'd be tearing it up. But, they live in the GSC and may not finish above .500. That's just the nature of the beast. But, until the NCAA is ready to have 20 of 32 playoff teams come from 3-4 conferences (I'm making number up here people), then it's just not going to happen. These good teams have the same opportunities as every other team, go 1-0 this week. They have control of that. I agree that some mediocre teams make the playoffs and go home after losing 55-3 in the first round. But, they won in the regular season against the teams they needed to. The teams that get left out have that same opportunity, even if they are lining up against VSU, W Georgia, W Florida, or whoever.

[Runnin' Cat]

In DII it is difficult to sort it out since there is such a regional bias in that teams rarely play across regions.

Let's look at the last ten years; GSC teams have won the NC three times, and played in it another three times. Out of a possible twenty times in they NC game, they were in six slots.

NSIC had half of that total, GLIAC had two. MIAA had four.

Do these numbers paint the GSC as some super power conference that means there should be more teams from that conference in?

I think DII does fine with the current format, similar to DIII. DIII has auto entries for conference champs, which is regionality. Same with FCS.

[CALUPA69]

Ahh, now we're really post pandemic when the best teams discussion begins again !! Cool !!

[Inkblot]

In DII it is difficult to sort it out since there is such a regional bias in that teams rarely play across regions.

Let's look at the last ten years; GSC teams have won the NC three times, and played in it another three times. Out of a possible twenty times in they NC game, they were in six slots.

NSIC had half of that total, GLIAC had two. MIAA had four.

Do these numbers paint the GSC as some super power conference that means there should be more teams from that conference in?

I think DII does fine with the current format, similar to DIII. DIII has auto entries for conference champs, which is regionality. Same with FCS.

The GSC has only had a chance at 10 title game spots and gotten six out of ten.

[Brandon]

In my view, there are two ways to measure this.

#1: Give a conference a point for first round playoff wins, two points for second round playoff wins, etc.

#2: Look at how conferences do compared to seed. I did this a year or so ago. It only applies to each region.

The results of #2....


GMAC: +1.0
IND: +.6000
MIAA: +.4000
PSAC: +.1521
GSC: +.1463
GLIAC: +.1388
NCC: +.0909
LSC: +.0294

SIAC: -.0666
GAC: -.0909
CIAA: -.1176
NSIC: -.1428
NE10: -.1500
SAC: -.2173
RMAC: -.2272
MEC: -.3333
GNAC: -.5000
GLVC: -.6666

[boyblue]

As good as Valdosta has been over the years, their Achilles heel has been playoff rematches with GSC teams [basically the GSC as a whole]. Of the six times we have beaten a conference foe in the regular season and played them in the playoffs, we've lost 4 times.

Not including the 2002 NC game loss to GV, the Blazers have lost 12 playoff games. 8 of those losses have been to GSC teams.

All that to say, when a 5 seed (UWF) beats a 1 seed (VSU), it's not a shock, it actually happens more often than not, but most of the time, it's not other conferences doing it. We do it to ourselves.

[Runnin' Cat]

The GSC has only had a chance at 10 title game spots and gotten six out of ten.

I was going by each year a GSC team has a chance to be in the title game.

[Turbonium]

Or as long as teams play conference only schedules.

[BSUDad]

I guess there's two ways to look at this. Completely understand as my son's team is going through it now how badly these kids just want to make the playoffs. However the other way to look at it is the objective is to crown a true champion. In my opinion there is zero chance the best team in the nation will be eliminated from playoffs under current system. A simple thing though to help would be going to 32 teams and eliminate first round byes for 1 seeds. You will never have the best 28 or 32 teams in the playoffs. But you're going to more than likely crown a true champion at the end. I guess that's what matters most.

[Runnin' Cat]

Bottom line to me is why should a three loss team have a chance to play in the playoffs if they are not even one of the seven best in their region? Strong losses are still just that; a loss.

Was their a year in which the champion was not one of the best teams in the country?

[Ram Tough]

Bottom line to me is why should a three loss team have a chance to play in the playoffs if they are not even one of the seven best in their region? Strong losses are still just that; a loss.

Was their a year in which the champion was not one of the best teams in the country?

If a three loss team legitimately finds itself in the top seven of region, it is what it is, but I hate a team with a superior resume being left out due to Earned Access.

[BSURover31]

If a three loss team legitimately finds itself in the top seven of region, it is what it is, but I hate a team with a superior resume being left out due to Earned Access.

Who are the teams likely to get in by the Earned Access you are referencing?