16 Conferences

[grlafxr]

With 16 football conferences, why not take top 2 teams from each to the playoffs? Let the NCAA configure the bracket to minimize flights in the 2nd and 3rd round for cost control. Gotta beat the best if you wanna be the best. If you end up with GV and Ferris, Pitt and NW, or Pueblo and Mines in the championship game they earned it

[canadarican]

1. There isn't 16 D2 football conferences.
2. Not every conference has one team worth a playoff spot. Much less 2 most years. And some leagues with have 3 or 4 or heck maybe 5 worthy.
3. 32 teams is too many. We already see plenty of blowouts.

[grlafxr]

1. There isn't 16 D2 football conferences.
2. Not every conference has one team worth a playoff spot. Much less 2 most years. And some leagues with have 3 or 4 or heck maybe 5 worthy.
3. 32 teams is too many. We already see plenty of blowouts.

1. How many are there? This site lists 16, counting independents.
2. There are already teams getting "earned access" that resemble your statement.
3. 32 doesn't add any rounds and actually gets participation into the 19% range we see in other sports.

[CalifOKRA]

1. How many are there? This site lists 16, counting independents.
2. There are already teams getting "earned access" that resemble your statement.
3. 32 doesn't add any rounds and actually gets participation into the 19% range we see in other sports.

There are 15. You counted the Independents. Independents have no conference affiliation. They are not a conference.

Your idea wouldn’t be good. Like Canadarican said, some of the conferences don’t deserve any teams, let alone two. If you want to make the argument each conference gets one guaranteed bid and the rest of the field are at-large, I’d listen. But two from each conference would still see significant blowouts in round one.

plus, in your scenario, both independents get in with losing records?

[canadarican]

There are 15. You counted the Independents.

Your idea wouldn’t be good. Like Canadarican said, some of the conferences don’t deserve any teams, let alone two. If you want to make the argument each conference gets one guaranteed bid and the rest of the field are at-large, I’d listen. But two from each conference would still see significant blowouts in round one.

You summed up exactly what I'd say. 32 is in no way shape or form the answer or better.

[Argonut]

Conference champion with rest of field of 32 determined by strength of schedule and playoff eligibility requirement of 1-3 out of conference games, which means silos only get conference champion and more spots go to teams that play challenging schedules.

A OOC rule would break the silo logjam, open up scheduling for everyone and make for more accurate strength of schedule determinations. Start with OOC requirement of 1 to get their attention and increase as scheduling becomes more open.

[grlafxr]

Thanks for the input. I started this thread, somewhat tongue in cheek. A lot of posters are against expanding. I'm personally against byes. I feel it interrupts the rhythm of the season for some. I get there are benefits (rest and recovery). I've seen several comments about this team or that team getting the shaft. Bottom line, in a silo conference, every week is a playoff game. You gotta be 9-2 and that's not gonna guarantee you a spot (unless you're NW). MIAA had a 5-way co-champ tie several years ago. Someone's going to get butt hurt and draw a bowl...maybe. I stated earlier, to be the National Champions, you gotta beat the best to be the best, and at least D2 isn't restricting the opportunity to 4 teams.

[Inkblot]

I will add that some conferences are more than twice the size of others.

[Thelakerman]

Conference champion with rest of field of 32 determined by strength of schedule and playoff eligibility requirement of 1-3 out of conference games, which means silos only get conference champion and more spots go to teams that play challenging schedules.

A OOC rule would break the silo logjam, open up scheduling for everyone and make for more accurate strength of schedule determinations. Start with OOC requirement of 1 to get their attention and increase as scheduling becomes more open.

Now that’s an idea worth talking about. I’ve seen comments on this forum recently and in the past accusing GV and FSU of scheduling cream puffs for OOC games. Apparently some consider Mines and Pueblo easy money. Here’s the truth…..Silo conferences limit the number of teams open to playing GV or FSU. And let’s be honest here…..Who wants to start there season with an almost guaranteed loss. GV will take on all comers as I’m sure Ferris will too. Ferris had an open date this year and GV had to schedule Lincoln to fill a slot….Why?…..because of silo conferences and programs unwilling to play the best teams. GV even offers to pay ALL expenses for teams to travel to Allendale. Still, not many takers.

Argo, you’re on to something here. If a silo conference wants more than one team in the playoffs, they must schedule some non conference games. I hope the powers that be consider this solution.

[Predatory Primates]

I would love for the MIAA to get an external push to end the silo crap.

Scheduling is hard for good teams. It's also hard for small town teams who rely on local business donations, many of whom rely on getting x number of home games to earn their donation money back.

Even with all that, noncons are worth it, if for no other reason than it's boring to watch the same teams year after year.


Not a fan of 2 teams from each conf. Some conferences are completely terrible, and would have no reason to even try to get better with that loophole.

Noncons do give you some comparative results. They don't fix everything. The current criteria does not encourage top power conf. Teams to play each other.

For example. A NW vs. GV game wouldn't be nearly as desirable for GV as a GV vs Truman or Indy game where they get the same stat boost with much less risk of losing. (To clarify, I'm not saying GV wouldn't welcome either game, just that the system is set up to make the less competitive game more desirable tactically.)

[Brandon]

and would have no reason to even try to get better with that loophole.

That was my first thought.

[Brandon]

Even with all that, noncons are worth it, if for no other reason than it's boring to watch the same teams year after year.

I totally agree with that.

[Brandon]

Noncons do give you some comparative results. They don't fix everything. The current criteria does not encourage top power conf. Teams to play each other.

For example. A NW vs. GV game wouldn't be nearly as desirable for GV as a GV vs Truman or Indy game where they get the same stat boost with much less risk of losing. (To clarify, I'm not saying GV wouldn't welcome either game, just that the system is set up to make the less competitive game more desirable tactically.)

Yes. Good analysis. Playing elite teams should be rewarded. Beating Fort Lewis isn't the same as beating Grand Valley. I haven't thought of a foolproof way to quantify that through rules or criteria.

[Argonut]

Yes. Good analysis. Playing elite teams should be rewarded. Beating Fort Lewis isn't the same as beating Grand Valley. I haven't thought of a foolproof way to quantify that through rules or criteria.

I’m sure the coaches of every top tier team in every conference will make a risk-reward analysis of whether to schedule a middle tier or top tier OOC team for purposes of playoff rankings.

If all teams are required to play OOC games to qualify for playoffs it can only open the schedules up for all kinds of interesting OOC matchups that fans would love to see and it might take years for coaches to figure out every permutation of who to schedule or not. In the meantime the fans get to watch the teams play new opponents as the coaches try to figure it out.

[Brandon]

I’m sure the coaches of every top tier team in every conference will make a risk-reward analysis of whether to schedule a middle tier or top tier OOC team for purposes of playoff rankings.

If all teams are required to play OOC games to qualify for playoffs it can only open the schedules up for all kinds of interesting OOC matchups that fans would love to see and it might take years for coaches to figure out every permutation of who to schedule or not. In the meantime the fans get to watch the teams play new opponents as the coaches try to figure it out.

Of course on the first point.

My previous thoughts were more along the lines of not knowing how to adjust criteria/weight criteria/etc. to encourage playing the best teams possible.

Last week, Assumption was 8-1 and UWF was 8-1. I doubt you think Assumption is equal to West Florida. My concern is finding a better way to differentiate the two. I don't think it's currently accomplished using the OWP x 2/3 + OOWP x 1/3 equation.